Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ErrantX

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

Final (85/2/4); Closed as successful by –xeno^talk at 13:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ErrantX (talk · contribs) – I've been back with Wikipedia for a solid 9 months now, and am here for the long haul. I'm nominating myself because the admin tools would be useful to me during day-to-day activities. My personal opinion is that I could now be trusted not to blow anything up with these tools. I took the liberty of writing an extended statement below Errant ^(chat!) 11:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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: Cliched answer: everything. I hang out on WP:AN/I so, obviously, hope to bring some level headed administrative actions there. I also keep an eye on the various backlogs at WP:RFPP and WP:AIV so those too would be avenues for work (whilst I probably have minimal edits to those pages I don't think that precludes my ability to work there, I do keep an eye on the activities and will be happy to answer questions about the process). I come across the need for all sorts of admin functions on a day to day basis; moving pages, deleting history (BLP), protected edits, edit wars etc. and would be able to make use of the tools in those situations. In time I would probably be happy to close AFDs, right now I am confident I can judge consensus but admit that deletion criteria is one area I still need to solidfy my understanding (I think it is about 90% there). I realise people dislike vague commitments like this, but I really see the admin tools as a useful supplement to my editing and a net benefit to the wiki. However; I do make the commitment to endeavour to clear out at least one month of Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons every fortnight, it being an apparently lengthy and under attended backlog (call it throwing a bone :)).

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

A: My long standing "best" contribution is actually from 2006 and not related to article work. At the time I helped a user who had been a bit hounded and left in a "blaze of glory"; I managed to convince him back to the Wiki via email, and I believe User:Daniel has made far greater contribution to the project over the years than I ever have. I take no credit for the work he subsequently did; but the act of encouraging his return left a lasting impression with me r.e. how we interact together. I was also a founding member of WikiProject Wikify, a project that I am still active in today (though only a bit part, the WKFY guys are really doing an awesome job!).

During my recent chunk of editing obviously the contribution I am most proud of is my work on Digital forensics, which I wrote from scratch and have gotten to GA status - with aims for FA at some point in the future. I continue work on the sub-articles in the field and long term hope to get it to a featured topic. I also contributed to another GA, Death of Linda Norgrove, which turned from a bit of a mess into a nice piece of work thanks to a really good team of collaborative editors. Finally I am pleased with my work in the BLP area, sorting out various violations and, hopefully, bringing some level headed objectivity to articles like Julian Assange. I try to keep my article space edit percentage to about 60% and have pretty much achieved that for the whole 9 months.

Although it is not Wikipedia per se I am also active on Wikibooks ([1]) where I am writing Introduction to Digital Forensics and have previously been active on Wikinews (which was also fun).

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: There is always dispute on Wikipedia; from the friendly to the acidic. I defy anyone who claims not to have been in some form of dispute. But to the best of my recollection I have not made any enemies or left any bad feeling in my wake. And have never really ended up and a serious dispute with bad feeling on both sides. I have occasionally snapped at people, it should be admitted - but never nastily and I have always apologised and learned from the experience. You will find me mostly a relaxed editor, often willing to stick up for the "little guy". I make my points quite strongly, but am always open to be convinced of another view (and have been several times). On the article History of Paraguay I spent some time wikifying it - only for other editors to come in and remove a lot of the links. After a fairly strong discussion I came to see their comments/ideas on overlinking, and even to agree. Whilst I was a little upset at my work being rejected (who wouldn't be) I am pleased it did not cloud my judgement and stop me from seeing the important point being made, ultimately leaving me a better editor. At the conclusion of the discussion User:Greg L commented: You, Errant, understand the premise, disagree with the premise, but (unlike many editors on Wikipedia) understand the need to follow the consensus. That takes a big man.[2] A reaction which I am pleased to have invoked. I hope that is a good example to demonstrate my reaction to "stress" :)

Additional optional questions from Epeefleche

4. You point to the article Death of Linda Norgrove. During the AfD of that article, you unilaterally removed the rescue tag. Can you explain further why you thought that appropriate?

A: It seemed reasonable, given the fact that there were a number of active editors, not to add to the ARS workload. It is my understanding that the template is an informal request for more people to come in and help on the article and no really big deal. Having taken another read of the ARS instructions I see it does recommend not removing the template (an in a {{facepalm}} moment mentions it on the template too); but I don't believe it affected the article unduely or discouraged people from working :) It's not something I'd do again lightly now I see that note. In short; it didn't seem a big deal, even though I admit to being mistaken in the removal. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. On the Norgrove article talkpage, you commented at length[3][4] regarding your removal of citations from the article. The removals were disputed primarily and at length by User:Fæ. Does you approach to removing references from articles remain the same?

Good question. I am of the opinion that citations are primarily for the editors and a smaller sub-set of readers who wish to delved further (although really that is what we use WP:EL's for) and that our main aim should be to get a readable article. Bazillions of inline references in one go is a problem. Policy is quite clear in that there is no actual requirement to cite everything inline, and my personal preference is to de-clutter the text as much as humanly possible. The article in question at one point had 5 citations to support a single non-controversial sentence; I dispute that that is at all needed or even useful. :) In an article I try to look for a fine balance between a neat looking article and easily accessible sourcing for verification of possibly disputed material.

In your first link we discuss a specific removal. In this case the source was not especially brilliant for that specific content, and did not add anything substantial over the other two references (which were much better). I wasn't aware it had just been added, but was going through condensing the referencing at the time - in the edit I removed what seemed a weak reference and used the second solid ref to provide a nice quote to extend the content.

In the second example, I don't really remember the exact sequence of events. But there was some dispute over the use of a reference in a caption. The claimed rationale was that it was disputed, but the source was provided in detail on the image page and that seemed satisfactory. It was probably a silly thing to dispute about, but the article was under heavy editing at the time so it was just part of the cut and thrust. My main issue, I think, was that it was never in dispute the ___location of the image - but there was still insistence on use of the reference. I still think there is no compelling argument to cite the image ___location inline.

As I said in those discussions; referencing and verification is not a binary problem and the main aim should always be to ensure that the article is readable with adequate citations to support the content.

I'd also like to add, in general regarding this article, there was a lot of work by about 6 editors in a very short space of time. It obviously lead to dispute that probably got more involved than it would have on a less active article. I was aiming for readability, others were fixing referencing errors - we got in the way of each other a bit. But, ultimately, we had a good editing experience (I think, I did anyway) and no real fall outs occurred! --Errant ^(chat!) 13:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I discussed my answer to this question with 28bytes on his talk[5], my answer there might be a useful addendum to this one :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from 28bytes

6. You mentioned you "hang out at WP:AN/I" so I looked through your contribs there and this one caught my attention. What is your opinion on civility blocks? When would you block an editor who has behaved uncivilly?

A: Civility blocks are a really big pressure point at the moment here, so it was inevitable this would come up in some form. I'm pleased because it's not something I've had chance to talk about at length. In this specific case that's not intended as a threat of action (if that makes sense); if you follow up the thread other admins are saying they will be keeping an eye on things and that the editor is skating a fine line. My comment was intended just as a vague summary of that - with the real intention being to make the subsequent two points. Bottom line is; the editor was being nasty in edit summaries, and that is unlikely to make admins look leniently on other violations (hence; harsh lesson).

However! On the general topic of civility; I don't think civility blocks in general are a good idea - or, rather, a policy/precedent on regularly blocking for incivility. But I also think it requires sensible judgement - if someone is being consistently nasty to people and is ignoring requests to be more civil then I think short blocks might be warranted; say up to 24 hours. To get their attention more than anything else. Beyond that persistent nastiness is for WP:RFC/U and (a long way down the road) WP:ARBCOM to sanction; blocks for persistent incivility should be brought out of consensus in the community that an editor is causing too much strife with their attitude to continue to be allowed to edit.

Ultimately I think it is understandable that some people might be abrupt, or snappy or occasionally a little rude. But continued nastiness, abuse, rudeness and an inability to work cohesively should result in sanctions, anything to increase the overall collegiality of the community is a bonus.

If accepted as an admin I don't think civility blocks would be something I would employ - certainly not for one off comments (or a short set of comments), where instead I would prefer to talk the editor into seeing their actions weren't helpful. In cases where there is a recent history of lots of nastiness (perhaps the editor has recently "snapped" into wide ranging incivility) I might consider a short block of a few hours to calm them down (assuming they were still actively editing at the time). --Errant ^(chat!) 13:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from /ƒETCHCOMMS/

7. No admin ends up working everywhere. What areas of work do you enjoy the most, or are interested in the most?

A: As I say, I tend to flit around. One common thing I do is hit the "Random article" a few times till something I can work on appears. What do I enjoy? BLP stuff is pretty interesting, and I usually end up being most active there. Lots of admin action of relevance on BLP articles, particularly page protection. I keep tabs on AN/I as a general clearing house for the "happenings", and so probably would be heavily involved in admin actions off of that. Also, I have committed to helping with the commons image cats.

8. When, if ever, should one block a user who has not yet been warned or given the "appropriate" number of warnings? Do you ever imagine invoking IAR to block a user?

A: Yes; obvious (or confirmed) socks of banned users and compromised accounts. IAR... I don't really know how best to answer this; IAR is not really a hypothetical thing, it is just applied when the only sensible option. What sort of situation are we talking about? A long AN/I discussion is very different from a lone extreme vandal etc.

Treating it hypothetically; I generally come down in favour of not blocking people if we can help it, so it is unlikely you'd see me in a position of applying IAR to invoke a block - if anything probably the reverse. I am sure that in the history of Wikipedia there has been situations where someone IAR blocks a user and everyone gets on with things. But given the drama often invoked by (such) blocks it is highly unlikely to be a common situation. Short answer; personally, no, I'm unlikely to use IAR in this way - too much danger of drama ensuing. (this was a tough question :)).

Additional optional questions from Armbrust

9. If there was one thing you could change about Wikipedia (a new policy, or a new guideline, or something else entirely, for instance), what would it be, and why?

A: My gut reaction to this question was; "to clarify BLP policy". Ideas like WP:BLPCAT are important but are open to misrepresentation/mis-interpretation. There is a lot of precedent to show our preferred approach to these policies, it just needs drawing together into a more cohesive format (currently the relevant material is spread amongst BLP specific pages, notability and specific parts of the general policies). This would be hugely beneficial because currently there are a lot of BLP editors, all editing in great faith and together, with very differing viewpoints. While I'm always wary of instruction creep I think BLP is an area that could benefit from some more detail on what is allowed and what is not.

I kinda realised though that this is more an answer to "what policy really needs working on next".

A more thoughtful answer is possibly this; the thing I would change would be to have all our core topics gotten up to at least GA class. For various reasons these articles get very little TLC (some are truely dire); a combination of having huge scope, being high profile vandalism/POV targets and lacking in interested editors. It is hard to edit such articles; and we of course all prefer our pet subjects. But they are pretty fundamental articles - think "seeing the wood for the trees". I recently began working on an essay with my thoughts on this problem. It's entirely understandable that such a problem exists; but I think it should be a major priority to fix it. :)

which is why, incidentally, that I have begun planning an approach to computer for after I finish digital forensics

10. Write a convincing oppose rationale against yourself for this RfA, and then write a convincing rebuttal on how you have addressed the concerns in your oppose.

A: Self-criticism is hard, but here goes an answer.

oppose; candidate has been quite forceful in talk page interactions and that could be problematic combined with admin tools

rebuttal; back in July/August 2010 there were some moments when I was probably a little too forceful in my interactions, particularly with clueless new editors. That was mostly to do with normalising to the level of discussion on Wikipedia (outside of WP I contribute to an intellectual discussion forum where to survive you have to propose your views and then be prepped to defend them). Now, I think, I have gotten my discussion to a good level. I will still be forceful, if, for example, it is important (BLP violations). Or when it matches the contribution from the "opposing" editor. But I look on this more as conviction that bloody mindedness. Over the last couple of months I've made a concious effort to avoid phrasing that seems to be dismissive - I hate it myself when my comments are simply ignored as irrelevant. Rather than dismiss bad rhetoric I have tried to explain why it is not a good argument. With new editors I try and avoid templating those that are not obvious vandals, and instead leave personal messages which I feel are more specific and helpful. One editor I interacted with over his edits to his own biography taught me the value of patience; quite a few of us tried to help his specific grievance but, ultimately, I don't think he found a happy solution. Early on we snapped at him a bit, dismissing his concerns without considering how he felt in the real world (the problems were related to real world grievances he felt). Now I look on editors as much as I can as individuals, and try not to make statements that you wouldn't say to them in real life.

I'll be forceful with established editors, sure, particularly if it matches their own style. And I continue to have conviction in my opinions about policy/content. But I have definitely worked on a more measured approach to new/newbie editors.

Additional question from Strikerforce

11. This is not a policy question, so I apologize in advance if it may have been better suited for the candidate's talk page. Could you please explain what you mean by "and am here for the long haul" in your self-nomination statement? I understand that it may be a reference to your previous extended break from the project, but I am somewhat curious as to why you felt the need to include it?

A: Hmm, I wouldn't read too much into it. The comment is a slight reference to my extended "break"; I realised it might prove a troublesome issue for some and I have been trying to indicate that leaving in 2006 was part of a whole lot of other stuff that happened at the time - I basically disengaged with everything due to RL stuff (if anyone wants to hear the story I don't mind telling it, something of a cautionary tale really) - and not likely to happen again. It's also a commitment to the project - which I think is important. It annoys me in real life when people step up/volunteer to help out and then peter out after a couple of weeks.

Additional optional question from WikiCopter

12. In your statement, you mentioned that "the admin tools would be useful to me during day-to-day activities." What kind of day-to-day activites are you referring to? WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 02:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A: Often I find myself doing something or commenting and realising that I can't contribute completely because it needs an admin bit. There are two main areas; first is obviously AN/I. I am about regularly through the UK working day and we do tend to have a lull of active admins at certain points; so in that respect I feel more hands to the pump would be beneficial. Secondly I flit around BLP articles and there is always plenty of things to do there; tweaking page protection is a common one, occasionally blocking really bad BLP vandals, deleting attack pages. Revdel is a common need as well (though I am a little more cautious over this one for obvious reasons). Finally, though to a lesser degree, I usually spend a couple of moments each day clicking "random article" and fixing things that appear in front of me (it's great; I recommend it!) and there are often quite a few admin actions (mostly moves to existing pages) that would be useful to do. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Statement

I originally joined Wikipedia back in 2006, but stopped editing after only a couple of months. I should disclose that during that time I ran for adminship, a somewhat misguided (but good faith) idea that rightly failed. Despite being a bit naive I think I did some good work. 4 years later, with better spuelling and a little more adult/experienced I returned; ostensibly to work on Digital forensics topics. Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately for my family and friends...) I got dragged back into the fray proper and have been actively editing for the last nine months. My work here tends to flit between article work proper, BLP work, hanging out on AN/I and wikignoming (mostly wikification). For a while now I have felt that having access to the admin tools would be beneficial, but that I still needed a little more time. Now I am personally happy that my knowledge of policy is back up to speed and that I could use such tools without blowing anything up.

I consider adminship very much to be no big deal, and ideally loads of us would have the tools to keep the wiki clean, healthy and accurate. Hopefully the community will agree the tools would be useful to me. If not, then this should be a good process to highlight any weak areas I can work on. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Account disclosures:

• User:Autoerrant (for automated edits)
• User:Listbot (when I get a free moment from my personal projects this will be an account to list maintenance/monitoring - some of which suffer from severe problems)
• User:Errantx (doppleganger to avoid abuse)
• User:Tmorton166 (old username, I renamed the account and obviously still have access to the old name)

All above accounts are used/disclosed properly (indeed only Autoerrant is active) per our socking policy.

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

---

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

• Edit stats posted on talk page. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Why do you want to be an admin?? User:ty551Moved from "Neutral" section Airplaneman ✈ 23:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support - I was not at all familiar with ErrantX before this RfA but a review satisfies me that this is a good candidate. I reviewed deleted contributions and they look good. I see this fix of page-move vandalism, three AFD nominations that looked fine to me, and reasonable, calm comments at AN/I. That last was in January, but other work I looked at in-depth went well back to mid-2010, and early work from 2006 looks great too. I give more weight to longer-term contributions rather than "polishing" in preparation for RfA. Looks like the real deal to me.  Frank  |  talk  13:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support - I am supporting this 100% as I have had the opportunity to work along with ErrantX. He is a really good candidate.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support A review indicates nothing concerning. The long pause in editing is a non issue, but thanks for explaining it. Also a quick flick of the Autoerrant (talk · contribs) account contributions indicates all is well. Good answers to the questions. Pedro :  Chat  14:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support One of those people I assumed was already an administrator from the calm, rational approach he has. I've run into him a number of times, have no issue with trusting him and am confident he will make good use of the tools. Worm^TT 14:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. Based on the contributions I've looked at and the answers to the questions so far, ErrantX seems a reasonable and level-headed editor who's unlikely to misuse the tools. 28bytes (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support I have no concerns. --Perseus8235 15:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. I've seen ErrantX around the place quite a lot, and he just struck me as one of those editors who's been contributing for years - so it was a surprise to learn he's only been back for about 9 months after a lengthy gap. The quality of his work, his clear understanding, his open and collegial attitude, and answers to the questions, all make this an easy support for me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Seems well versed in policy from the answers above. Account(s) have plenty of time to judge character on. No apparent issues that would make me question the integrity of the candidate.--v/r - TP 15:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support I really like the candidate's answers, and in particular #3. I'm sure the "gap" betweeen 2006 and 2010 will be the subject of much conversation during the pendency of this RfA, but for me is no big deal.--Hokeman (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support. I trust this candidate. ~NerdyScienceDude 20:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Per all the wonderful people above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support He helped out with the Murder of Joanna Yeates article. Clearly a trusted contributor. Minimac (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Seen him around. Knows arse from elbow. --John (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Despite the fact that you're responsible for bringing back one of the most notorious fancrufters that has ever befouled Wikipedia. Now if only you could repeat the charm and get that bum to come back from his semi retirement. —Dark 22:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Tried a couple of times. But sadly nothing :( Burn sucks. Will keep trying now and again :) --Errant ^(chat!) 23:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Busyness sucks, although a fractured hand should give me some free time over the next few weeks. Moving house doesn't help though! Daniel (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Did that one at the end of last year (moving house), v. stressful. good luck! --Errant ^(chat!) 00:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

16. Daniel (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. looks good. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 00:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support - Good answers to questions. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 11:49am • 00:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Well done sir. - With only nine active months, my standards are higher than if you had run after a full year. Your numbers are not bad, but don't blow me away. Your content contributions are good, but still don't push me over the edge. In the end, the thing that caused me to come in favor of support was your attitude. In question 4 what you essentially say is "I goofed up, I admit I goofed up, I now recognize how I goofed up, and I will make sure that I do not goof up in that way again." That is, more than a clean block record or seventeen-and-a-half FAs, an indication that you have the mindset of an editor who can be trusted. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. Level-headed and knows his policy well. I had the pleasure of working with him on solving a problem that developed at Talk:All Day late last year and he proved that he's more than capable of taking on the role of an admin. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 02:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. Hmm. Usually clueful and calm. Have fun with BLPs and images-already-on-Commons categories. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support - No reason why not. Ajraddatz (Talk) 05:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23. T. Canens (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support. Good contributions. Trustworthy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. Seen him a few times. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support We do change alot over 4 years, So i can believe your a different editor. I do however naturally have reservations with editors who have such long breaks, But ill assume the best. There is disclosure above, and i find you to be a net benefit, plus Im supporting due to a keen interest in the help desk, I hope youll continue involvement there if your adminship is successful Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
27. Usually I'm very sceptical of candidates who have spent a lot of time on ANI. But a review of contributions shows to me that this candidate is sensible and proficient in relevant policies and norms. --Mkativerata (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support Won't delete the main page. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 13:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. Tiderolls 14:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
30. Secret ^account 15:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
31. A person who can accusaly produce content and post on the drama board seems good. Also, your answer to question 6 makes me lean this way. People who know that blocking others is a last resort get my !vote. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
32. RfA as lovely as ever, I see. Nick (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support. Simply great candidate, with a lot of experience and the general trust of this community, I say. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 18:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. Good for you for going to clear Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons. It's the most overlooked, least controversial of all yet also the least amount of admin works on this part. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. Having seen quite a few of the candidate's contributions at AN/I, there is a clear impression they are there to contribute, not just to comment to no purpose. Candidate has positive content work, thoughtful opinions on policy, and no worrying issues. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support - Confident, experienced and knowledgable. Orphan Wiki 01:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support per Fastily. —DoRD (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support—knows what he's doing. Airplaneman ✈ 08:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support per everyone above. Wait- you actually failed an RfA in 2006? I didn't think that was possible. Swarm ^X 09:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support adminship is no big deal. User clearly trustworthy :) Egg Centric (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support - A careful review of the candidate's contributions to ANI revealed nothing more than a couple comments that did nothing. Also, per Pedro, who I know feels about ANI about the same way I do, and per Mkativerata. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support There is no reason not to support. Perfect answers for the questions. I think he will be a net positive admin. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support - good candidate, great answers=net positive. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 14:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support No issues here. WayneSlam 16:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support after further review of contributions and answers to Q10 and Q12. --Strikerforce (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Adminship is no big deal and you looks to be trustworthy. Basket of Puppies 02:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
47. Can't see a good reason why not.  狐 FOX  02:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Seems plenty trustworthy. Steven Walling 02:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support - Thought you were already. At any rate, I have checked talk page contributions and am satisfied that you are generally even headed and play well with others. I was particularly impressed with your intervention at Holodomor. Your brusqueness, while it shocked me on rollover, seemed to be exactly what the situation warranted. Your previous period of inactivity are not at all concerning. I should hope that you understand that you will be expected to serve your seven years if given the mop though. :) --Danger (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I forgot about that one... there was a similar issue over on Libertarianism where a lot of people were clashing over a contentious issue; keeping out of the discussion whilst coming down hard on "unfocused" conversation worked well there. Not something for use in every situation, but sometimes it's useful to walk into a room and smack the spade onto the floor :) --Errant ^(chat!) 09:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

51. Support Good overall record and perfect measured response to Keepscases' oppose below. Pichpich (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support. Looks like a classic, clueful editor. I like the evolutionary arc. --Quartermaster (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support I've seen this editor about Wikipedia, He answered the questions very well, and is clearly knowledgeable enough in policy areas. Mostly importantly though, seems to have the right attitude. Pol430 talk to me 11:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support Plenty of clue, good answers to the questions, only positive interactions in the past. I was considering dropping you an email to see if you'd ever considered running for adminship, so was pleasantly surprised to see you here. SmartSE (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry to pre-empt you on that :) --Errant ^(chat!) 22:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

55. Support. I won't lie, I'm hoping you'll go rogue and I'll be able to tell tales about the day Errant turned errant. Jokes, of course. Solid editing, great grasp of policy, friendly and patient. What's not to like? I'll be sure to pass off as many administrative tasks on to you as I can. All the best, m.o.p 16:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I used to go by "mugserrant" on other websites, plenty of fun with that nick too :) --Errant ^(chat!) 22:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

56. Support. It appears from his comments and feedback from people familiar with him that he would be a good addition to the adminship of Wikipedia. Even reading his imaginary counter-argument to his appointment/election as an admin, he seems to have a reasonable assessment of himself and the temperament to facilitate the continuing success of Wikipedia and further contributions. I don't believe I have ever come across him in my Wikipedia-travels although I have worked on some of the same articles, but then again I did not check my Talk Page for potential exchange. As he has prior experience in combination with the experience gathered in his fairly recent return, it appears that he certainly has the experience to be a contributing administrator. Further, attitude and perspective seem to be much more important attributes than policy knowledge. One can always look up policy knowledge, it really is of greater importance that the potential-admin can manage their encounters and confrontations without losing their head and near-term temperament. While several administrators have a history of impulsive behavior it does not appear that this person, while (as he acknowledges) has strong opinions that he has displayed on Talk Pages, it seems that his ability to contain his impulses, and simply express those impulses as arguments on Talk Pages, makes him a viable addition to the "Wikipedia Ruling Class." I vote support. Stevenmitchell (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support On review, no issues found to cause trust concerns. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support Yes! Baseball Watcher 21:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
59. I fully agree for Errant to be an administrator. Thats my vote. Eglinton2 (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I moved your !vote to the right section. Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for the support. for everyone else, this appears to be the users second edit! --Errant ^(chat!) 23:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

60. Support - User has sufficient experience to use the tools productively and with a minimum of mistakes; I can find no evidence of the user having a notable temper or engaging in POV pushing such as to make him likely to deliberately misuse the tools; user appears open to self-improvement and constructive criticism; and user is engaged in work which could be done more efficiently and effectively with access to the tools. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support indeed. –SJ+ 04:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support While I'm not personally familair with the candidate, his answers to the questions posed strike me as reasonable and demonstrate a level-headed approach. Not worried about the 4 year break as he's been active since he's been back. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 10:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support – I can see a good admin in this user. He has experience with AfD, has contributed to discussions at ANI, and seems to have a good knowledge of Wikipedia rules. – Novice7 (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support I have no concerns that ErrantX will be anything but a helpful and clueful admin. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support without a doubt -- Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 14:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support -- No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support No concerns. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support. No red flags have come up in this RfA so far. I've gone back and looked at your early MedCab work, and at a selection of your comments, both early and recent, at other users' talk pages, and everything looks to me like someone who works hard, who can navigate tricky situations with a calm demeanor, and who is very well suited to being an administrator. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, MedCab, that takes me back :) --Errant ^(chat!) 07:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I tried to be thorough :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

70. Support a very tustworthy editor. Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me! 23:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
71. The userbox says: "This user is a Secular Humanist who thinks that religious belief is fine, but that religions can be harmful". The question for me is whether editors will imagine that this candidate is on some kind of anti-religious campaign; I don't think they will. - Dank (push to talk) 01:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support - Good luck. --Monterey Bay (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support I thought he already was one. I don't think the userbox disqualifies him.--Chaser (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support. ErrantX is experienced and level-headed; I trust him with the tools. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support - trustworthy editor with more than sufficient experience. In regard to the oppose, I consider the current version of the userbox to be perfectly okay. PhilKnight (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support His measured and kind response to Keepcases oppose merits my support, and I can see no reasons to oppose. As for the oppose itself, are we going to start asking Christian admin candidates to remove their userboxes because they might advance some religious agenda or offend atheists? No. So why do we tolerate and enable this garbage? For goodness sake, we have to grow a spine and take a stand for freedom of conscience on Wikipedia that includes atheist admin candidates, once and for all. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If only you had the conscience to not distort and misrepresent my positions every time you show up. There is nothing wrong with being an atheist. Keepscases (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

77. Support: When I look at his edits, they show a man of principle and integrity. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - long-time editor, lots of article work and sufficient WP edits, reviewer, rollbacker, etc. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support - No major problems. Krashlandon ^(talk) 22:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support Good Track and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support. Welcome aboard :) -- œ^™ 10:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support. Has the right mindset. Nice, curt, and to-the-point with his comments. Doesn't "beat-around-the-bush" or have conflicts of interest. Bulldog123 19:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support after a review of a selection of (post-interregnum) contributions. --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 04:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support Goddammit, I hate one-line supports. Looks good, responsible, reliable. Please admin.(I seriously did read through and carefully consider this, I just can't think of anything meaningful to add, everything's been summed up well).AerobicFox (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Support We need more admins and you're competent. Swarm ^X 08:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (Indented duplicate.) Swarm, you've already supported. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose "Secular humanist" userbox, which appears to have been designed by the candidate himself, shows poor judgment. There are many ways to describe oneself as a "secular humanist" without needing to state that "religions can be harmful", and the qualifier that "religious belief is fine" is nonsensical in such a context. What are religions without religious belief? Elitism is elitism, sugarcoated or not. An administrator having this confrontational and divisive userbox would make Wikipedia a worse place. Keepscases (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   There is a specific reason for that user box (I don't carry any other opinion boxes on my user page). Whilst one of my areas of expertise is religious history, it is also my biggest area of POV. So I force myself to avoid those areas as best I can. And I advertise that POV openly. It's somewhat off-topic for this forum but it is in no way nonsensical to be OK with religous belief and dislike religious organisations; they are two different things :) Of course; no offfence is intended in the box, and the wording is chosen to be polite and sensitive whilst communicating my point of view matter of factly. No elitism intended :) But if it is an issue I have no problems removing it. --Errant ^(chat!) 02:20, 14 February 2011

   Please explain how it's fine to be a "..." but "...ism" is harmful. Feel free to substitute any well-known religion you like. Keepscases (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

   Will reply on your talk. --Errant ^(chat!) 02:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Don't worry about it, ErrantX. Keepscases regularly opposes any candidate who has a userbox that has anything to do with religion. Such !votes actually represent one of his/her main contributions to Wikipedia. SnottyWong ^gab 17:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Funnily enough, I saw that userbox when I voted in the early hours of this RFA and thought at the time that I'd see just this type of oppose. Whilst in a sense I admire Keepscases even handed approach at RfA (he does regularly support candidates we should note) this is becoming a bit OTT. I think the candidate's candid explanation about holding a POV and thus both admiting it and not editing areas where it may affect his contributions is laudable. Personally, I'm with this chap but it hasn't stopped me supporting (indeed nominating) candidates who are from all ranges of religious belief. Beliefs are not relevant at RfA. The ability to hold a belief (religious, patriotic, value-based - whatever) yet keep your editing seperate is relevant. Here we have that. Pedro :  Chat  18:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I generally have some degree of sympathy for Keepscases issues with anti-religious userboxes on admin candidates (creation of hostile environment by an admin, etc.), but I have to say I don't see a problem with this one especially given the reason provided for said box. Hobit (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks Hobit, that makes me feel happier about it :) FWIW I agree, just "religon sucks" (or really any form of "X sucks") is never really constructive. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm a strong Christian and not offended by the userbox. It doesn't appear to do much more than state that ErrantX (talk · contribs) is an atheist. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I think this might be better as a /Bias_disclosure subpage in your userspace. People have strong feelings about their own religious beliefs and the religious organizations that they take part in. Some people may reasonably take affront to a brief box that they read as criticizing organized religion. That's not to say that you should move this to a subpage, but it would be accommodating to do so.--Chaser (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   This is a sensible suggestion, and I agree it would be accommodating. I plan to do this now. --Errant ^(chat!) 07:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Not that it matters since ErrantX is fine with it, but I don't think the suggestion to remove the userbox for these reasons is any more okay than asking a Christian to remove an "I am a Christian" userbox in order to be accommodating to Wiccans who feel it implicitly criticises their lifestyle. Short of banning userboxes altogether (which has some merits), people have opinions, and sometimes other people are going to object to those opinions, and having and expressing those opinions has nothing to do with being an admin unless it actually results in a violation of one of our behaviour guidelines. But I realise this is a potentially derailing and inflammatory debate - I'm interested in it, but perhaps if I can invite responses to head to my talk page rather than here? - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm very happy with the change I just made, because now the box & sub-page specifically deals with the issue I meant it to, rather than identifying the reason behind the issue (and leaving the rest up to the reader). Less ambiguity is a good thing, although in principle I agree with your comment about opinions and objections to them. --Errant ^(chat!) 07:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, as long as we're not disrupting the RFA, I don't see any reason to split the discussion. The "I am a Christian" comparison would only hold if Errant's box had been "I am a Secular Humanist." I don't think either could reasonably be construed as offensive, but Errant's previous box went further, and might have been (mis-)interpreted that way.

   More importantly, I think it's a mistake to believe that something not covered by Wikipedia's formidable body of behavioral guidelines is irrelevant. Lots of good things are not mandated by the rules. Having email enabled gives other contributors a sometimes desirable way to contact an administrator and not doing it will hurt many RFA candidates. Having extraneous stuff in one's signature may not be against the sig guideline, but in my opinion it encourages the perception that WP is a web-forum. Archiving talk page posts, although merely "preferred", helpfully makes them browsable and searchable through MediaWiki search. All of these are debatable, but the point is that "the rules" should not limit our discussion and use of best practices. This is particularly true for the administrators that some contributors look to as models (others would laugh at this last point, but I digress).--Chaser (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I think there is a balance; ultimately someone will be offended about even innocuous things. My ex-girlfriend was a very devout Christian and some of her friends were highly offended when they asked why I didn't go to their church and I explained I was an atheist... which makes no sense at all to me :) If I had to be honest; I don't think what I had could sensibly considered offensive or even disparaging/rude. On the other hand it could sensibly be observed as negative about religion which in turn is not overly tactful. Had the intention been to be communicate something negative about religion the Keepcase has a point. In this case it was intended to communicate something about me I felt was important to note; and the other aspect was an accidental side effect. I think the tweak I employed today is great because it completely removes any chance of that happening again in the future :) I guess the take away I have is similar to your own; there is almost certainly nothing terrible that would have come from me ignoring the advice here. But similarly there is no harm in heeding the advice as it is sensible and removes some ambiguity, plus it shows willing. A general rule that could probably be put up there with IAR :) In terms of your latter stuff.. I think there should be an emphasis on being a higher standard of editor (email on, sensible sig, mature attitude, ability to accommodate others etc etc.) for administrators. No because admins should be higher standard, but because higher standard editors should be admins. I think all of your comments are applicable to every editor, and we should encourage everyone to reasonably embrace them. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Being a religious person the statement "religions can be harmful" gave me pause. However, religious people from Buddha to Gandhi have said pretty much the same thing. Indeed Jesus said it more forcefully than ErrantX. I think what he said must be considered accurate. When I look at his edits, they show a man of principle and integrity - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose. Per concerns outlined in my original "neutral" entry below, which were heightened by candidate's responses there.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong neutral - Almost 400 of your edits are to ANI. It will take me a little time to travel though that drama pool to find out whether your edits were constructive or not. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Switching to support. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm laughing so hard I'm having trouble typing. How can you be "strong" neutral? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually going to say something about this earlier. I guess it is now possible to strongly have no opinion on something. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I had no opinion, I would not vote. As it is, I am trying to determine whether the candidate has helped to defuse drama at ANI or whether he stirred the pot. When I vote neutral, it means I see the potential for damage to the encyclopedia, but I don't see enough to oppose. The "strong" prefix indicates my strong opinions about the candidate. In other words, if I find that the candidate has helped defuse disputes and drama at ANI (remember, it is for incidents requiring adminstrator attention, not random editors floating around), then this will shift to "Strong support". If I find evidence of stirring the pot, it will shift to "Strong oppose". Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A review of my contribution to AN/I would be much appreciated. Always good to know if I'm of use there or just getting in the way. Kinda shocking how many edits though.... :) --Errant ^(chat!) 11:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bit late but yes, it is possible to be strong neutral. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral; Still ConsideringMoving to Oppose, given responses that follow. I have concerns regarding candidate's judgments reflected at the diffs in questions 4 and 5. Where he removed a Rescue notice unilaterally during the pendency of an AfD. And pushed quite vigorously to delete accurate refs which other editors thought appropriate and helpful. I think he is well-intentioned. But even without the mop, perhaps insensitive to other editors and inappropriately aggressive in deleting others' entries, without apparent consensus support. Such behavior -- especially by one w/the mop -- could deflate and drive away well-intentioned constructive editors on the receiving end, who contribute the helpful material in the first place. But I don't want to be hasty in drawing a conclusion, so I am looking further through his/her record, and for the moment I am neutral.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a discussion about removing references but moving them to better places, i.e. clean up. The comment I originally made was a light hearted jibe about a particularly bad example :) The article was being heavily edited and churn had left references in odd places, some innocuous sentences were sourced for four places when one would be sufficient. I think this is a problem to address. Greg L responded with a discussion about requiring as many refs as possible, and asked me to prove otherwise. We had a reasonable discussion, I felt, about the balance between references and readability which got sidetracked onto other material. The image stuff was sort of a continuation of that discussion, we discussed our viewpoints and I don't think that either of us convinced the other :) But aggressive? I don't feel like I was at all - however if something specifically seems aggressive to you then please do point it out, I'd be happy to consider it. I'd also be happy to break down the conversation further (including providing context on how it affected the article as well) if you want, but am off to bed now, so maybe tomorrow? --Errant ^(chat!) 23:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please look again. It seems fairly clear to me that at the outset of the exchange you took the other editor to task for using more than one ref, where in your personal view you felt that one ref would suffice. I have concern about your taking such a heavy-handed (and, I think, questionable) approach in the future when you have the mop. I think you are well-intentioned. But, coupled with your removal of the Rescue tag, I'm concerned by your past approaches and above responses that you may inappropriately chill the interest and enthusiasm of other editors in working at the project. Your response on the Rescue tag removal is of course fine as far as your apology is concerned, but your "In short; it didn't seem a big deal" comment above puts the finger squarely on the issue I'm troubled by. I would hope that when you have the mop, it will seem a big deal to you to un-do another constructive editor's work, simply on the basis of your personal leaning. (If the AfD discussed above had been so clear, btw, you could have closed it as a snow, which you did not do -- so I'm still puzzled by the removal). In any event, I expect you will become one of our sysops momently, and one of our more active ones, so I'm hoping that this discussion can serve to perhaps encourage you to consider moderating your enthusiasm in like circumstances in the future. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I appreciate your analysis of that conversation, and I have taken the criticism to mind. But I unfortunately can't quite agree that I was aggressive or took Fæ to task. We have our two opinions; neither is explicitly dealt with in policy, although I argue that our guidelines ask us to make articles readable. Yes it was spirited, Fæ set a strange standard at the start of the discussion, which probably caused it to sidetrack quite quickly. I think we were talking past each other, Fæ consistently mentioned controversial content, and I talked mostly about non-controversial material. Having analysed the conversation myself, I think the issue was that my initial comment was a little too short and ambiguous, causing the initial confusion. Both of us spirited, yep, but no one seemed put off (well, I stopped editing the article for a spell IIRC). Yes, I see no need (and actually find it damaging) to cram articles with references and to cite simple material multiple times, but we compromised over it. You prompted me to reflect on the collaboration I had on that article, and I think it was generally OK, but do have some takeaways to improve on. As to the rescue tag; no, no harm came of its removal, and no one pointed out the mistake at the time, so it is not a mistake I dwell on :) We all make mistakes, some are huge, some are minor. This was the latter and more a situation of not following the letter of the law than anything else. The article never suffered and there, I think, is the spirit of WP:IAR. Hence; I feel the mistake is "no big deal", and simply something to have learned. Thanks for your comments, I have taken some advice away from it & have things to reflect on :) EDIT: I see your comment focuses on undoing the work of another.. I see what you are saying and, true, such things should and do give me pause for thought. But my thought process for that tag was "tags are there to prompt some form of action, this one is to prompt people to contribute and improve the article generally, we have a lot of people doing so, problem is solved, remove tag" --Errant ^(chat!) 10:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Lean oppose I'm sorry, I see no reason why this user should be an admin so fast after a 4 year break. Tommy! 01:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   What does the break have to do with anything? The candidate has been active since then. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Philosophically speaking, would you have had the same issue if the user only existed as an account for nine months, and didn't have all that blank space? Sven Manguard Wha? 04:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Tommy; it's not really a break. The person who stopped editing 4 years ago is unrecognisable to me today :) I just happen to be using the same account. It would be great if that could be seen not as a break, but simply starting afresh (obviously if you still have concerns over the length of time, that's fine) --Errant ^(chat!) 07:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral pending further review. Candidate has spent time learning applicable policies, sometimes the hard way, which counts as a positive on my scorecard. But a self-nom after just nine months or so of recent activity is just a bit off-putting. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Review complete. Change to Support. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to support

1. Have seen him around, but not enough to warrant an opinion. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 02:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   So why bother posting here? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral +--Sokac121 (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   What type of reason is this? WayneSlam 16:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   It's OK for neutrals not to have reasons, Wayne. They don't affect the outcome and it may just mean they haven't decided yet. 28bytes (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry 28bytes, but I disagree. A neutral with no reason and no commentary is utterly valueless. It's an edit. That's it. Not commenting at all would simply be easier. As it happens neutral comments could be the tipping balance in an RfA (not *this* RfA as it looks, but still). Imagine an AfD where someone turns up, comments "neutral" and signs their name. How does that help. A "Bad faith" approach would be that Sokac121 is simply boosting his/her RfA contributions. Good faith is that they lack WP:CLUE but are trying their best. Either outcome is pretty, shall we say, worrying. Pedro :  Chat  21:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Why are you so quick to assume bad faith, Pedro? This is twice in less than 24 hours on two different RfA that I have seen you specifically accuse (or imply an accusation) that somebody is acting in "bad faith". That, sir, is "worrying". --Strikerforce (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm going to take this to your talk page Strikerforce. If anything is worrying around here it's that you can't actually read. 22:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

   That's not exactly civil, now is it? You are more than welcome to bring the discussion to my talk page, but I ask that you maintain civility, sir. Thanks. --Strikerforce (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   "for the record" (terrible idea on a wiki- it's all on the record after all) Clearly I'm not being uncivil, clearly as an editor of 5 odd years I didn't need a blue link, clearly I'm hardly likely to accuse 28bytes of bad faith when I have recently enjoyed highly positive communication with said editor (as evidenced by my contibution history), and clearly I only said that I might be acting in bad faith. Clearly Strikerforce is, well, misguided. None of this is relevant to this RFA and I've responded to Strikerforce on his talk. Pedro :  Chat  22:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   "Clearly" my question of your assumption of bad faith was not in regard to your interaction with 28bytes, but rather in regard to your comment toward the original "neutral" vote, and I quote, "A 'Bad faith' approach would be that Sokac121 is simply boosting his/her RfA contributions." --Strikerforce (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Upon further reflection, I may have been looking at this too mathematically. Everything else being equal, an RfA with no neutrals will have the same support percentage as one with 100 neutrals, but perhaps there are cases in which the volume of the neutrals would affect the crats' decision in borderline cases. I'll concede to both Pedro and Wayne that a rationale would be helpful, both to other participants and to the candidate himself, regardless of whether a neutral without one could or would affect the outcome. 28bytes (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral. You're proudest of having talked User:Daniel back to the Project? While I was dismayed that his hot-headed intransigence chased off (temporarily) one of our very finest editors,[6] he never retracted or apologized, and I remember seeing him do equally unfortunate things elsewhere, although I can't recall where. There must be something else you've done to be most proud of-- I support candidates whose judgment I know well and can trust. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Hmm, well the question asks for best contributions, I wouldn't say it was my best of all, but certainly the longest standing (it might be a product of my grammar that implied it was instead #1). I also deliberately called it "best" to make clear it was a subjective thing, and something hard to explain to others. As mentioned I take no responsibility for his actions after mine, good or bad. You apparently have a bad impression, which is fine, my impression (and remember I was not here for his main editing period) is that the time/effort he contributed to article work, clerking and OTRS is a net positive. But this isn't (and shouldn't be) about Daniel; it is about an incident I happen to still remember vividly and which has stuck with me consistently through the years. It's not about getting Daniel back to the project (or whether he was a good editor to have brought back); it is about the effect that the "human touch" can have in fixing some of the silly dispute and burn out we have amongst editors. If Daniel's career had petered out into obscurity the incident would still be the same for me (but probably make even less sense to you lot). So, yes, it was one of my best moments; because I reached out & learned something :) To answer the second part of your comment; of course, and I detailed them in the answer to question #2. But the most important one? Probably digital forensics, which prior to my involvement was a redirect to a scraped together article on computer forensics. Now, I think I have given us a decent article on a reasonably important topic and have substantially improved related articles (work which is ongoing). Based on my efforts to involve more people in the topic it appears this is something that currently only I could have done. --Errant ^(chat!) 07:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you for the clarification; I can't blame anyone for caring about editors here, having been down that road (and burned) several times myself! Digital forensics seems to be progressing nicely, so while I have no reason to oppose, I don't know you well enough to Support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:10, 16 February 2011 (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.