Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AlexiusHoratius

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

Final (74/2/0); Ended 20:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC) – closed as successful by —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AlexiusHoratius (talk · contribs) – Hello all, I'd like to present AlexiusHoratius for consideration for adminship. Alexius is a graduate of the University of Minnesota, has had his account since September 2006, and has been active since August/September 2007. In that time, he's collected a staggering 25000 edits, with over 15000 of those in the mainspace. Most impressively, these are all non-automated; Alexius has never used Huggle, Twinkle, or any other automated script. He was one of the first rollbackers, having had the tool since it was first implemented in January 2008. He's a stellar vandal fighter, with 220 reports to AIV, and can also be seen offering aid and advice at the Help Desk and Reference Desks. Further, he's done a great deal of article work, most notably on South Dakota and Geography of South Dakota, as well as several others. He's a helpful member of the South Dakota WikiProject, having just recently assessed a slew of articles and proposed improvements to the assessment process. His talk page archives are full of barnstars from people thanking him for reverting vandalism on user pages as well as outstanding maintenance work on articles like California Gold Rush, South Dakota (to which he has over 450 edits), and Iowa. On top of everything, Alexius has a pristine block log and also takes photos and creates maps and other illustrations for Wikipedia.

Alexius was asked to run nearly a year ago, last May, by another user; however, he declined the nomination to hone his skills and build experience, which I feel was a great sign of maturity. However, his time has now come; he's one of the few editors with more edits than me still not an admin, a transgression that needs to be rectified immediately! Let's award this fantastic editor a mop to help us clean up! GlassCobra 23:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with thanks to GC for the kind nomination. AlexiusHoratius 20:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A: I will be working at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP, the "admin" areas I have been most involved with. I've made over 200 AIV reports and 39 RFPP requests, so I feel that I am experienced enough in these areas to work here. Out of those total 240 or so reports and requests, only three have been rejected to my knowledge (I almost always check back to see what happened to my reports). I also feel that with my experience with vandalism patrol and the rollback feature, I will be able to work at WP:Requests for permissions, granting rollback to responsible users who request it.

I realize that some may take issue with the fact that I have very little deletion experience - only two !votes and no tagging. The reason for this is that I simply am not very interested in deletion, I haven't worked on it much in the past, and I won't be working on it in an administrative capacity in the future. Last May, when a user asked if I would be interested in adminship, I decided not to run, one of the reasons being my lack of experience in deletion. Well, almost a year later, not much has changed - I guess it just isn't my thing. I realize deletion is an important aspect of administrative duties on Wikipedia, but I'm not going to force myself to work in an area I don't want to work in just to improve my chances of passing an RfA.

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

A: The contribution I am proudest of has to be the South Dakota article. I did the great majority of the work taking it from this to its present state; it's only a GA, but I've put a great deal of time and effort into it. Although I don't live there anymore, it's where I grew up, and I'm proud of the fact that it's now one of the better US state articles. Other than that, much of my work is in the area of vandalism patrol, and I take pride in the fact that I try to be as careful and courteous as I can when doing this, mindful of WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL. Accurate vandalism patrol is a big deal to me, as an incorrect warning or block may drive off a new good faith editor.

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: Nothing major, no ANI thread-producing stuff, to my knowledge. However, many of the articles I edit have to do with large cities, states, provinces, and countries, and I have been involved in some disagreements as far as what belongs in these articles and what doesn't; most of these involve my attempts to adhere to WP:Summary style. These articles cover a wide range of information, and they will simply become too large if cuts aren't made at times. I try to deal with this issue in various ways. Sometimes it involves simply explaining to a new editor that their additions are too specific for that particular article (seen here), sometimes I'll create a daughter article to move more specific stuff too (seen here, for example), and sometimes I figure that it really isn't worth fighting over and I'll just drop it, as I did here.

Also, this is quite snippy, I suppose I should mention this as it was probably the most uncivil post I've made. It was back in 2007, and I have tried hard to remain as polite as possible since then. (The situation behind that one is that I had spent three hours trying to take a skyline photo for a city that doesn't really have a skyline, for an article that had no skyline picture of any kind before, and I was annoyed that the immediate response was "take a better picture". Still, that doesn't excuse my post, the picture in question was a bit gloomy, and the other editor was simply making an improvement suggestion.)

Additional questions from Letsdrinktea

4.a. A newly registered user goes to an article and starts removing sources from it, and degrading the article content, and then nominates the article for deletion. How would you handle this?

A: That would really depend on what type of article it was. If it was a simple case of vandalism blanking/text removal, for instance, if someone blanks Canada and sticks a delete template on it, that is obviously nonsense and should be treated as vandalism. However, sometimes pages are blanked in cases of controversial articles and issues, such as, say, the issues surrounding the pictures on the Muhammad article, or perhaps a user removes a picture or blanks an article that they find obscene, something with nudity, for instance. There is a good chance that the new user simply doesn't understand our policies. In this case, while the editor is clearly acting against policy, I would explain very clearly to them that Wikipedia isn't censored, deletions of that type need to be discussed first on the talk page, etc. If the blanking continued after a clear explanation, I would then consider that to be vandalism as well. Finally, and I don't know that I've ever run into this personally, a page may be being blanked by the article's subject, and while this too is against policy in some ways (WP:COI), there may also be WP:BLP concerns at play here. If it looked like this may be the case, I would investigate the matter in greater detail, checking sources and starting a thread either on the article's talk page or the BLP noticeboard for more eyes. All that said probably 95% of page blankings are simple vandalism as in my first example. The second and third examples are much rarer, but should be dealt with in a somewhat different manner.

4.b. In response to what you did, the user denies what you accused them of. What would you do then?

A If it were a registered user, as you described, I would probably simply show them a diff on their talk page as proof of what they are claiming they didn't do, perhaps explaining again what the problem was if their confusion sounded legitimate.

5 A new user goes around vandalizing pages by blanking out sections and adding nonsense. They vandalize again after their final warning and you block them as a vandalism only account. The user then requests to be unblocked, saying that they know what they did was wrong and promising to make productive contributions. What would you do (would you grant or deny the request)?

A You know, if it were only a case of short term vandalism followed by a sincere-sounding response, I would probably consider unblocking in the spirit of WP:AGF. I would explain clearly that such behavior isn't acceptable, and I would keep a very close eye on their further contributions. If the disruptive behavior began again, I would just report them to WP:AIV with an explanation of the situation; at this point I would probably feel too involved with the user to be the one who blocked them a second time.

[Added about 14 hours later] It occurred to me last night that I sort of ignored the other part of your question, and that might give people the wrong impression. Just to clarify, although I would consider unblocking, I would never decline an unblock request from a user I had blocked. I might unblock, I might leave it to an uninvolved admin to decide, but I wouldn't be the one to reject the unblock request in the case you described.

Optional question from Jeandré

6. What do you think of April fools edits like [1] on the Main page: de-admin, block, undo, nothing, leave a barnstar, other?

A That one is taking the joke a bit too far, in my opinion, so no barnstars from me. Just as the joke went a bit far, a de-sysop or block in that case is too much as well. I don't know what a block what have accomplished, really, and it seems every April Fools' day has stuff like this, isolated incidents where people get a bit carried away. Had I seen it last night, I would have certainly considered undoing/re-wording it, with an explanation as to why I was doing so.

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

7a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

A: Purely hypothetical answer, please see the second paragraph on my answer to Q1 - I have no plans to work in deletion While the article could be deleted as having no content (a web address doesn't count), the situation suggests that a new user is incorrectly trying their hand at article creation. Rather than swiftly deleting it, it may be a better option to hold off for a bit, explaining to the editor the basics of article creation, and let them know that unless more is done with the article, it will eventually be deleted.

7b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template?

A: Purely hypothetical answer, please see the second paragraph on my answer to Q1 - I have no plans to work in deletion This seems like a clearer case for the article to be deleted immediately, again as having no content. However, in this case as well as the one in 7a, it would be a good idea to explain the basics of article creation etc. to the new user, telling them that an article needs to be more than simply an 'Under Construction' template. In both of these situations, I think a helpful approach would also be to explain the concept of user sandboxes, and how they can be used to work on future articles before they are ready to actually be created.

7c. Editor1 adds relevant properly sourced, but controversial, material to an article and Editor2 removes it; Editor1 readds it; and Editor2 removes it again, would a re-add by Editor1 be a 3RR violation? If Editor2 removes it again, would Editor2 be in violation of 3RR? Is anything different if one of the deletes was made by Editor3?

A: Technically, they are not in breach of WP:3RR; an editor needs to go over three reverts for 3RR to apply, and in this situation it doesn't appear as though either of them have. 3RR warnings are also an important factor in determining 3RR violations, and your description says nothing about warnings having been given out.

However, the three editors are edit warring, and should probably be spoken to, even though 3RR has not technically been breached. The history of the situation should also be investigated. (Is this the first edit war between these editors over this subject? Are these new editors who don't understand our policies, or are they experienced editors who should probably know better? etc.)

7d. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?

A: I wouldn't say that 'majority rule' (and yes, I know strength of arguments needs to play a role as well in both types of debates) is necessarily more applicable in article writing debates. Although there will often be an informal poll or vote taken, these are often seen as strictly unofficial. Additionally, content disputes can sometimes become extremely complex (see, for example, this beast of a debate); determining consensus in situations like these can be a much more difficult process than simply using 'majority rule'.

Optional question from Jennavecia

8a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: Yes, I do believe that there is a problem. As it currently stands, it is in many cases no more difficult to add a Seigenthaler-esque lie to a BLP than it is to add 'i like pie' to an article about a river. I think this is a problem. Wherever someone stands on the general issues surrounding BLP, I'm sure that we can agree that there is a fundamental difference between the potential affects of an article about a living human and one about a river. BLP accuracy is of utmost importance because false information inserted into articles can have a real-life affect on people. Severe BLP vandalism can damage reputations, families, and professions; it can also potentially lead to lawsuits.

I also believe the problem to be significant. In my experiences with anti-vandalism patrol I know that while many instances of vandalism are quickly erased, some are not. Furthermore, I have seen cases of oversighters complaining or even quiting due to the workload and begging us to do something to bring the situation under control. Both of these, in my opinion, point to the fact that our current methods of BLP enforcement are not adequate. Although we are a wiki, which I believe to be a strength of this encyclopedia, we also have a responsibility to BLP subjects to do our best to insure that the information we are giving is correct.

8b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A: 1 & 2 I would support either of these options on BLPs (but not on others). I have heard many if not most of the arguments against these options, and I simply believe that the benefit of better BLP quality control outweighs the costs. I also disagree with those who believe this will be the death of open editing. We already have semi-protection, full protection, and the ability to block users and all are examples of limits already in place on open editing. Between the two, I would say that although I am not yet an expert on the technical details, Flagged protection and patrolled revisions seems to allow for a few more options and, in my opinion, a better chance to protect BLPs.

3. As far as liberal use of semi-protection, I would say that all else being equal, (say, four instances of anon vandalism in the last hour) I would be more likely to semi-protect the BLP than the non-BLP, due in large part to some of the BLP concerns I expressed in answer 8a. However, that is as "liberal" as my protections would get. Although admins have a certain amount of independence in what they protect and what they don't, it is the primary job of an administrator to uphold current Wikipedia policies. In other words, I wouldn't go running around semi-protecting BLPs that did not look like they needed it, as that isn't what the current policy calls for. As to the second part of the question, I believe that semi-protecting all BLPs is going too far. If the topics of questions 8b 1 or 2 would prove successful, taking a policy leap like this one would hopefully not be necessary.

Added around an hour later I was thinking on this a bit later, and that example in the first sentence may give the wrong impression. If it read "last few hours", it would be closer to what I meant. (4 anon vandalism edits from different IPs within the last hour would almost always get a semi-protection from me, BLP or non-BLP alike, now that I think about it)

8c. You're patrolling recent changes and you come upon a BLP that has just seen the addition of an unsourced, mildly controversial change regarding the subject's career. While reviewing the edit, you see that the article is wholly unsourced. There are no other controversial claims, and the subject appears to a notable sports figure, but again, there's no source to establish notability. You then remember you have an appointment you need to get going to. What do you do with the article?

A:I would likely rv the latest edit (mildly controversial changes are still controversial changes, I suppose, and these should be sourced) and leave a message (in this case, an 'unsor1' or 'unsor2' will usually suffice if they are new, a less patronizing equivelant if they are experienced) on the editor's talk page. After the appointment, the addition of an 'unreferenced' template would be called for, as well as a bit of further research as to the subject's basic notability. (The research shouldn't be too hard, as sports statistics aren't in short supply on the internet.)

Optional question from Nja247

9. If a user makes positive contributions to the project after being banned, eg by use of a sockpuppet, can/should those contributions be kept?

A:WP:Ban recommends a balanced approach to this, and I agree with what is said there. I think that generally, good additions made by banned users can in many cases be kept. An example of this are many of the additions of Archtransit/Chergles (et al.?). This user, although being deservedly banned, has also made a number of good content contributions, such as Boeing 747 (and yes, some decent c/e to South Dakota a couple months ago.) Although the disruption, abuse of trust, and ban of this user requires that any further socks he is using be immediately blocked, it probably wouldn't do too much harm to hang on to the good article contributions. That said, most banned users I have encountered are not good article writers. The were usually banned for things like general disruption without any major contibutions, POV-pushing in articles, or massive copyright infringement. In all of these cases, they should be reverted. I'll also note that WP:Ban recommends a "default to revert" approach when it comes to gray areas on what constitutes "good" contributions from a banned user, and additionally recommends that once an editor removes material inserted by a banned user, the removal should in most cases not be reverted. This too sounds like a rational approach to the issue.

Just a note, and I don't know that it is that big of a deal, but it is somewhat related to the question and I'll mention it here if editors are concerned about it. I currently display a barnstar from User:Chergles on my userpage. I had interacted with him a bit before learning his true identity, and I've kept it on there because I don't feel that the barnstar is that serious of an issue. However, if an editor feels that this constitutes some sort of endorsement of what he's done, or feels that it sends a "wrong message" in any other way, please let me know and I'll be happy to permanently remove it.

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

---

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

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• For those that prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • Soxred93's edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Looks fantastic so far. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support for Notre Dame, the Packers, and the Yankees notwithstanding, seems like a quality editor. Doesn't use IRC, doesn't use Huggle or Twinkle. Slightly partial to File:Cook'sThirdVoyage58.png. Will continue researching, but doesn't appear to be an ass-kisser, and seems to have a clue. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Addendum: Actually, the noninterest in deletion makes me happy. Also, note the lack of edits to Drama1 or Drama2. Thank goodness! We need more administrators who don't add to teh dramaz. I don't even recognize your name. That's a good thing. Just don't let adminship get in the way of your content contributions. Also, if you post thank you spam on my page, I will punch your spleen out. :-) Good luck.[reply]
3. Oppose - Supports the Yankees. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support - Supports the Yankees. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support - Who are the Yankees, again? — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support as nominator. GlassCobra 20:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support good range of edits. Nothing adverse recorded. I do not believe I have ever interacted with him, but look forward to doing so. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support per nom (and nominator), edits, answers, and vague recollection of positive impression of this editor in the past.  Frank  |  talk  20:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Per everyone else.--Giants27 ^T/C 21:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Very good editor, would be a benefit to the mop. Best, Versus22 _talk 21:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Red Sox I mean, er Support — Jake Wartenberg 21:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Definitely. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 ^review! 21:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Looks trusted. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 21:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Neutral - Supports the Yankees. :P →Dyl@n620 21:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support No issues.America69 (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Absolutely - Why has this taken so long? Let's snow this thing and put him in the line of fire, I mean put him to work .. ahhh .. allow him to become acquainted with the tools. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 21:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Not enough administrators currently. iMatthew // talk // 22:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support. Fully qualified candidate; no issues or concerns. The opposer's position is shockingly devoid of merit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Strong Support Highly qualitfied. -download | sign! 22:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support  Growth in editors dictates we add qualified, sensible admins. Contribs, knowledge, attitude all line up. --StaniStani  22:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support I do believe I've seen you around plenty of places, working diligently. Trustworthy for sure. Steven Walling (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support despite support for Green Bay Packers. (A very great fault, but slightly outweighed by the excellence of his contributions to Wikipedia, esp. article building.) Kablammo (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Good answers to questions, though for #4 I meant that the user was degrading the article content for the purpose of trying to get it deleted, perhaps I should have been more clear. LetsdrinkTea 23:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, I see what you mean. In the case that it looked like a new user was simply going about the deletion process in an incorrect manner (blanking and so on) a clear explanation of the process would be in order, it may be that their edits are in good faith, they're just going about it in the wrong manner. Also, I suppose the type of article would come into play in this case as well, per my answer to 4a. AlexiusHoratius 23:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24. Support Per Julian. j/k, a fine candidate. -- Avi (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Well-rounded edits, high edit count, no involvement in major conflicts with other users. EscapeByMusic 00:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EscapeByMusic (talk • contribs)
26. Strong support Wizardman :  Chat  00:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Great edit history. An asset to the community.PerfectProposal 00:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support Quality editor. Will make an excellent administrator. Marek.69 ^talk 00:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support Couldn't really ask for a more ideal contributor. Will handle the mop well. Jd027 (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. Not enough administrators currently. Tan | 39 01:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support. Looks good from here. The fact that he is a Yankees fan raises some questions about his judgement though. Cool3 (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support Erik9 (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support; no reason to suggest it would be a bad idea. Ironholds (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. bibliomaniac15 02:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Yes No problems here. J.delanoy :  Chat  02:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Oppose — I view 25k edits over a span of 2 and a half years as prima facie evidence of Wikipediholicism. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Looks Fine! - Fastily (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support, will make excellent admin. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support All of my interactions with AH have been positive, we need more like him. Acroterion _(talk) 02:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support Per noms, per answers to the first three questions, some good content work, and contributions to other areas of the project as well. Thanks for agreeing to help out in this added capacity. Cirt (talk) 04:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support - good 'pedia builder. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support. AlexiusHoratius, you are an excellent mop and bucket candidate, with 25K+ edits, over 2.5 years. You have earned my trust! --Rosiestep (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support I don't think I've ever come across AH, but having looked thorugh contributions and general wikiwork, I can see no reason to oppose, especially if he add WP:CSD to his work list as that can back up horribly. --GedUK  07:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support I've come across AH in my work and have always found him to be levelheaded as well as hard-working and efficient. - Schrandit (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Oppose. I'll come back to you when I have a reason. tfeSil (aktl) 08:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support I couldn't find userboxen to agree with. Minnesota? Sports? 80's music? Hmm. I suppose I'll just have to support because you're an excellent editor or something. FlyingToaster 09:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support – sgeureka ^t•c 09:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Strong support despite poor judgment IRL (being a Yankees fan). :) hmwithτ 14:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support Per nominator. SD5 (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support File under "thought they were already an admin." No qualms. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support: Not enough Administrators currently. South Bay (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support Has been around since September 2006 and track is good and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. A-Roooooid... A-Rooooooid Let's go Boston! That said, opposing over teams isn't a good idea, and nothing else leads me to oppose. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support thoughtful answers to the questions (hypothetical as they were) :-) No reason to suspect that s/he'll misuse the tools. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support Seems a strong candidate. Dean B (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support Whenever I've seen you around, you've been doing good work. I see no reason not to support. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support. No problems except for Notre Dame fandom which is disappointing ;). Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support - User displays some clue in answers to my questions. Some understanding that policy can change through action would have made this a strong support. لennavecia 06:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Seems to be up to the task. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support Why not? Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 20:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support Answered my question, and all the others well and good history overall. I think the barnstar is fine mate. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support. Candidate has clue, looks like a net positive. — Σxplicit 07:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. I've seen Alexius Horatius around, and I think he does a good job. He'll be fine. Acalamari 23:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate is a good article contributor who has received multiple barnstars and has never been blocked. Sincerley, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support - what a name!!!!! --candle•wicke 02:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support: A strong contributor, intelligent, stays away from drama, and will do well with the tools. Maedin\^talk 18:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support: Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support seems like a capable candidate...Modernist (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support Wait, what the hell? He isn't an admin already?! He has the experience in necessary areas and the right attitude for the job and to be a productive admin.  Marlith (Talk)  03:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support. See no issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
72. Pile-on support No concerns to raise.--Res2216firestar 06:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support for non-baiting, mild manner with IP vandals. Now treat everyone that way after you become an administrator and you'll be even more of an asset to en.wiki. --KP Botany (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Not trying to be mean, but are you going to come up with that oppose reason every time? With the amount of users, we definately need as many administrators. :) Versus22 _talk 21:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   All I want at this stage is for all of DougsTech's opposes to be indented and struck. →Dyl@n620 21:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   See the most recent few weeks of discussion on WT:RFA. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   link — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 21:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Let Kurt Doug have his say, even if we disagree with his reasoning. Majoreditor (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Guys, not a single 'crat is taking his !votes into account. Can we just stop commenting every single time he does it so he will stop getting all of the attention that is so desired? Just pretend that every RfA has one less oppose. It's not that difficult. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I second this. The way you get children to stop throwing tantrums is to ignore them when they do. FlyingToaster 09:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose for answer to q6. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-01t14:26z

   Can you elaborate on this? What did you find objectionable, precisely? GlassCobra 22:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I want admins to stop other admins from doing such things again. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-02t20:38z

   Feel free to review the blocking policy at your leisure and inform us how a punitive block for an April Fools' joke you think is off-base (though is supported by broad consensus) would be in any way appropriate. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.