Cool3 (talk·contribs) – I am proud to nominate Cool3 for adminship. He started editing Wikipedia in 2005, took a wikibreak in late 2006, and returned in early 2009. Since 2005, he amassed more than 6,800 edits across the project including a number of DYKs, GAs, and a few featured articles. Cool3 has focused both on the maintenance side of the project through vandalism intervention and other chores, and the content side through article improvement. In my opinion, because of this dual focus he is an invaluable asset to Wikipedia. As Cool3's admin coach I am confident he is ready for the tools and will use them with great care. KnightLago (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I hereby accept. Also, for anyone interested, my admin coaching page can be found here. Cool3 (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
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'd certainly like to help out at AfD. While the backlogs aren't what they once were (back in the days before WP:PROD), there's certainly a need for more people to help close. I've participated in quite a few AfDs myself, and I think I could be of great use in this area. I'd also help out more in the War on Vandalism (Global Struggle against Radical Unconstructive Editing), and I think the block button would be helpful here. AIV often gets backlogged, and I'd help clear it. I'd also join in at DYK (when an admin is needed) and anywhere that the backlogs get out of control. Finally, I imagine there are some other routine maintenance tasks I might become involved in as necessary.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As KnightLago mentioned, I've been involved in a few FAs. I wrote Michael Woodruff from scratch and built Hastings Ismay from this (both of course with the help of many others including the excellent regulars at FAC, GAN, and the MILHIST A-Class process). I'm also working my way (hopefully) to a MILHIST A-Class medal, assuming that Operation Sky Monitor's candidacy is successful. I've written a number of DYK articles, which are displayed on my userpage. Finally, although it's hardly an FA much less a GA, I'm quite proud of the work I did on Kosovan–Malaysian relations. It was a tiny stub on AfD when I found, and I managed to save it and turn it into what I consider perhaps the best article in the world on the subject (though that may not be saying much).
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: Well, yes, I've been in a few conflicts over the years, but none of them were particularly nasty. I've occasionally found myself a bit stressed by the way an AfD goes or some such, but I try to just focus on explaining my views in terms of policy, or finding sources, or showing that there are no sources to be found. On the whole, I find that a contentious AfD is better than one with three "Per Noms" and one "Keep. I like it." On the very rare occasions when Wikipedia truly stresses me out, I generally walk the dog if I'm at home or go back to doing what I'm paid for if I'm at work. Then after twenty minutes or half an hour, I come back to the dispute as calmly and rationally as possible.
Wikipedia itself is also heavily influenced by the rights of the First Amendment. Wikipedia has long made claims about the right to the free and open exchange of information, the lack of censorship, and various forms of protected speech. Wikipedians can expect to enjoy these same rights and freedoms within reason as they apply here. Naturally, both in law and on Wikipedia, freedom of speech does not extend to cover hate speech, libel and the like, but Wikipedians do clearly have the right to express themselves in the proper venues. This, of course, does not include writing your own unsourced personal opinion into articles or attacking others, but freedom of expression is the basis of a free society. Wikipedians also have the right to expect that they will not be victims of discrimination based on race, gender, sexual-orientation, or age.
Protecting rights is not the job for one Caped Crusader, though. It is an issue for the entire community, but I will try to do my part. In order to protect the rights of Wikipedians and the basic dignity of mankind, I will always take administrative actions in an open and clear fashion and be open to reasonable objections. I will not discriminate; I will take whatever actions I can to protect the privacy of editors (deleting material as needed (or helping users request oversighting when necessary) and taking action against those who seek to "out" others). I will not block or delete without cause. None of this means that I will be tolerant of those who are here to destroy our encyclopedia, attack BLPs, or just cause trouble. It does mean, though, that I will be fair; I will believe in second chances; and I will in the words of John F. Kennedy, "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of" what we are trying to accomplish here. ("Ask not what Wikipedia can do for you, but what you can do for Wikipedia")
For the tl;dr folks. Yes, Wikipedians have rights and I will do my best to uphold them in all that I do.
5. You observe a new, but autoconfirmed, editor moving an X-Y Relations page to an inverted version of the same title ("Y-X Relations") using the page move feature, and then copy/pasting the original page back. On looking at the editor's contribution history, you see he has done this several times already for different X-Y Relations articles, and appears to be doing it very rapidly. You suspect he's using an automated tool or script of some kind to do it, and you observe he is unresponsive to messages at the moment.
Please describe how you would react.
A: Well, that's a pretty annoying thing for the user to be doing, but it's not a disaster. It's a GFDL no-no and will have to be fixed, which will take some time and be rather nasty. On the other hand, it's probably a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia (although the use of a script might suggest some one with some experience and perhaps an intent to disrupt). Given that on the whole is probably a well-meant effort (and per WP:AGF, I'd hate to block the user, as that could mean losing a potentially valuable contributor, so I'd search for alternatives.
I'd begin of course by trying a talk page message. You say he's unresponsive, but there's always a chance that he might respond. If "email this user" is enabled, I'd also send an email on the chance that it might get through. Assuming that he doesn't respond, though, only unfortunate options present themselves. If we're looking at a rate of 20 pages per minute or some other extremely high rate, I think there's no choice but to block. The disruption to the encyclopedia needs to be halted. I'd block for a short time and leave a detailed message on the user's talk page with an offer to immediately unblock if he/she stops using the tool, and I'd post on ANI to let other admins know about the circumstances. In some sense, the block would be primarily to get the user's attention and clearly record a warning, which goes somewhat contrary to the blocking policy's injunction "Blocks should not be used solely for the purpose of recording warnings or other negative events in a user's block log." However, the goal here is not solely to record a warning; it's also to stop ongoing disruption to the encyclopedia, and I feel it's the only available course of action.
If the user is proceeding at a slower rate and the threat of disruption is not quite so severe, I would post on ANI first, get some input from others and then act accordingly.
6: A tricky one for you: I am slightly concerned about your view on a Wikipedian's rights. I'm pretty hardcore on my views: Wikipedians have two rights, and two alone: the right to fork, and the right to leave. Specifically, I'm talking about such things such as 'blocking per WP:SPADE' (which denies due process) and the right to free speech, which does not extend past helping the project (you can't, for example, chat about your local soccer team's performance or use WP as a social site - it's unhelpful and would eventually result in a block). Do you think this should be changed? Should there be more than two rights - if so, what would you add? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
A. Well there is absolutely a third right (to which I alluded above); the right to be recognized for your contributions (through attribution as stipulated by the GFDL or CCBY 3.0), perhaps this isn't exactly a right (and I imagine that's not exactly what you had in mind). I think Wikipedians do also have a right to limited free speech and this right is already recognized in policy. When I referred to free speech above, I spoke of "the proper venues" and I'd like to expand on that thought for clarification. I wasn't really talking about expression unrelated to the project (i.e., soccer gossip), I meant that Wikipedians have the right to civilly, politely and clearly state their opinions on project matters without fear of mistreatment, provided that they do so within reason. This means that if you want to put a box on your user page saying "This user is an inclusionist and wants to keep everything" or "This user is a deletionist and wants to get rid of all the cruft," you should be allowed to do so. If you want to oppose an RfA that everyone else is supporting, you should be allowed to do so. If you have a legitimate reason to suggest the recall of an administrator, you should be allowed to do so. Obviously, if you start using these "rights" to become disruptive, you lose them (perhaps in that sense they are not exactly rights). But if everyone just uses a little common sense, I think that "rights" work out just fine.
7. A WP:BLP is up for AfD, whose coverage is rather scant and mainly negative. It's a split, no-consensus decision. Should said no consensus closure default to keep or delete? Why?
A. I think this is a very case by case issue. If, for example, the article is about a notable living criminal, it will tend to largely be "negative". There just aren't very many good things to say about a serial killer. Of course, in all cases, it really comes down to sourcing and the like. If most of the reliable source coverage of someone is more or less negative and our article is more or less negative, there's not much to be done; I think this should default to keep. If, on the other hand, the article is one of those peculiar ones that's more or less neutral (except for some WP:WEIGHT concerns) but ends up casting the subject negatively, as if written by an opponent, I think delete may be the best option to protect the privacy of the individual involved and perhaps protect against legal action depending on just what the issues are.
There's also the question of the notability of the person involved. Let's imagine for a second that until a week ago we had no article on Barack Obama and then someone from the Heritage Foundation showed up and wrote a more or less negative stub. Assuming it was sourced and verifiable, I can't possibly see deleting an article on the President of the United States. While this sounds farfetched, I think it's quite possible that the article on the leader of an African country might look this way. I think the same tends to apply. The libel laws of the United States tend to reflect a distinction like this. The standard for libel against a public figure is much higher. (see New York Times Co. v. Sullivan)
On the other hand, with a person of decidedly marginal notability, it is often best to err on the side of his/her privacy. We could wikilawyer over the details of closing these, but I think WP:AFD is still fairly clear "If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept," so if there is truly no consensus then though you or I might want to delete the article it may not be appropriate to do so (certainly, people are trying to change this). On balance, though you may call me an idealist, I think that no consensus is meaningful. If the BLP concerns were so severe that the article should be deleted, why would a consensus not exist to do so? Personally, if I saw a lack of consensus or a consensus I did not agree with on an AfD that I was considering closing, I would leave my own !vote, hoping to work towards the appropriate consensus (and sidestepping the issue). I don't know if this answers your question, and I know it was long and meandering, but it's the best I can come up with for now, though I may try to clarify later.
7b. A nice answer, though I have a follow-up question on your one point. Should no consensus AfDs always default to keep?
A. Well, IANAWL (I am not a wikilawyer) but as I said above, I think policy is fairly clear on this point: ""If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept." It's important to remember that a no consensus AfD does not default to keep; it defaults to the status quo (which is keep). That may sound like a meaningless distinction, but it really makes a difference. If there's no consensus to change something, then the existing state of affairs prevails. I don't think it's the place of any administrator to change this, as it is a well established norm of the community. There is a definite movement to have no consensus BLP AfDs default to delete, but it has not yet attained the sort of consensus needed to be actionable.
8. Can you discuss your lengthy period of inactivity? I don't mean to pry, but I'm curious as to the reasons for ceasing editing and your return. Don't feel obligated to answer this.
A. It's a question that deserves an answer, so I'll try to say something meaningful. I left for a combination of reasons, but essentially I was at a very busy time in my (real) life. It's like they say, though, you can take the man out of Wikipedia but you can't take Wikipedia out of the man, so I was never completely gone (you'll notice very occasional contributions throughout the period). After I'd been gone a while, my life got less busy but I was "out of the game" so to speak, and there just wasn't a spark to get me back in, so I was really just a lurker (reading the drama boards is a guilty pleasure). I came back for the same reason that a lot of people begin editing in the first place; I saw an article on a subject about which I am very knowledgeable that was just terrible (this), and I decided to fix that problem. After I started editing seriously again, the old addiction came back. Before I knew it, I was reverting vandalism, I was back on AfD, and I was starting to get involved in WP:MILHIST. Things hadn't really changed that much in the time I was gone, and I had followed most of the goings on, so it was almost like I had never been gone. For those concerned that I may just disappear for a couple of years again, I'll be honest. I can't promise that it won't happen, but at the moment my life is (unfortunately?) dull and not very busy, so I'll be here and editing for the foreseeable future.
9. Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a person who is alive be used on Wikipedia?
A. Infrequently. Such an image may almost never be used simply to show what a person looks like as this fails the "no free equivalent available clause."(there are a few exceptions to this floating around that I can't seem to find. The most memorable one is a former porn star who no longer appears publicly and does not allow pictures to be taken. Thus, editors have decided that a non-free image is not replaceable). On the other hand, a non-free image of a living person can be used if it is iconic or historically significant. For example, the classic photo of Phan Thị Kim Phúc covered in napalm is iconic, historically significant and totally non-replaceable. Although she is still living, a picture of her today would not serve in any way as a replacement for "one of the most memorable images of the twentieth century." (Nick Ut)
10. In your admin coaching session (linked above), you didn't answer the coach's follow-up question as to why "cool-down" blocks are no longer used (by policy). Is it because there's an overriding raison-d'etre for blocking that cuts across any "cooling-down" purpose?
A: The goal of blocking is to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, a cool-down block will not necessarily accomplish this. As the policy now points out, cool down blocks also often have the effect of further aggravating an editor. In essence, though, admins aren't your parents; it's not their job to tell you when to cool down. They're janitors here to maintain the encyclopedia. If you're damaging it, you will be blocked; if you're not, you shouldn't be.
11. In terms of dealing with an experienced editor with a reasonably good behavioural track record who has been rude to another editor (perhaps very rude) in a heated environment, do you take the view that a viable alternative option to blocking may be a firm request to strike through the offending text and apologise to the target? What criteria would be relevant to judging whether to use this strategy?
A: Certainly. I think an apology serves Wikipedia much better than a block. Blocks aren't supposed to be punishment, they are as I said above meant to protect the encyclopedia from ongoing disruption. If an established editor is blocked for a temporary indiscretion, that doesn't help anyone. The editor will come back fuming and red in the face, upset to have been blocked (not to mention the fact that we lose whatever constructive edits they would have made in the time frame). On the other hand, after an apology and strikethrough, we can forgive and forget. Hopefully, an apology will make the target of the rudeness feel better, and it shouldn't make the rude editor any madder; hopefully, (s)he will understand he did something wrong. Of course, sometimes this may not be useful. If the editor expresses no remorse, and simply strikes through comments with an uncivil edit summary and then leaves the message "Cool3 said to tell you that I'm sorry that you thought I was being rude," then this method probably isn't working. Similarly, someone with a lot of civility problems may not be getting the message, but for any first offense with a reasonable editor, this is a much better plan.
12. What is your view of the notion of AdminReview, a community-driven process—still in draft form—for dealing with prima facie reasonable grievances against the use of or threat to use administrator tools in a way a user believes has breached admin policy?
A: I agree that administrators need to be made more accountable, and that there needs to be some form of recourse for those in disputes, but I'm not sure that this proposal is the right way to go. In my opinion, this sounds a lot like a second ArbCom devoted entirely to admin abuse. As such, it may well replicate all of the problems associated with the ArbCom, but without the "teeth". Second, I'm concerned that this perpetuates a confrontational admin vs. user ethos. I understand the reasons for reserving seats based on adminship/regular status, but what if one of the user members becomes an admin? Must he resign? There's no real difference between the two groups of people other than a few buttons, but this seems to imply that it's us vs. them.
A. I've been most active in discussions relating to WP:WTA and WP:BIO, both of which I have edited a few times.
13b. If you had the power to change a policy, which would you choose and what would you change and why?
A. Well that depends on what you mean by "change." Like many editors, I think that it would be best to change our image use policies to allow images licensed for non-commercial use (e.g., CC-BY-NC-SA) or even Wikipedia only use. The amount that this would add to the encyclopedia is absolutely incredible. There are hundreds of thousands of extremely valuable, encyclopedic images that we could use; indeed, I am of the opinion that few copyright holders (even the press agencies such as AFP, Getty, or AP) would not allow Wikipedia only use. Of course, this has been proposed before and shot down on legal grounds (see [Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Allow_non-commercial_licensed_content this]). Other than that I would upgrade WP:COMMON to policy status.
A. Certainly. I can't wow you with a statistic, but an enormous number of AfDs close per WP:SNOW. OUTCOMES and ATA are also commonly cited in AfD. Of course WP:NOTPOLICY does apply here, you shouldn't link to these essays and expect them to carry the day. These essays represent well-thought viewpoints and can be helpful, but they're not be all end alls. One still needs to provide a rational well thought out argument (see also WP:DOSPAGWYA).
13d. Can WikiProject policies widen or narrow community policies or guidelines for articles within the scope (two examples: can WikiProject FooSport determine that any competitor in FooSport at a particular level is notable? that no stubs of FooSport participants be permitted and any stubs must be redirected to team roster lists until something beyond a stub is written)?
A. Eh. I don't really have a position on whether or not they should, but they certainly do. Wikipedia policy is the result of "custom and practice" and "shared norms and values" rather than the result of binding agreements or legislation. If a group of Wikipedians most devoted to a particular subject area have certain customs within that area, those customs will inevitably have an impact, and they generally won't be challenged. So long as such customs follow common sense and do not depart too far from general practice, there is nothing wrong with them. If, however, a given WikiProject becomes vastly out of touch (e.g., by decreeing that all persons ever to pick up a baseball bat are notable), then we have a problem that should be resolved, and will be through AfD. Obviously when there is a conflict between a narrow group and the broader community, the broader community should and will win, but sensible guidelines from a WikiProject need not conflict with the broader community.
Beat-the-Nom Support Has experience with content building, and has experience in an administrative area (AFD). Best of luck! Meetare ShappyCunkelfratz! 16:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Support Excellent user; I believe that Cool3 would be an excellent addition to the admin corps. Triplestop (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Very helpful editor + dedicated content builder + active vandal fighter = support. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Eh I'd like to see more "time served", but the quality and breadth of your work seems to be good. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Support Very dedicated, very coolheaded editor. I'm glad to support. RayTalk 17:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support Definitely! And not just because of the strong nom. I remember Cool3s last RfA, and I was very critical in the oppose section (likely overly so). The grace, maturity, dignity, and integrity with which Cool3 handled the situation impressed me tremendously, and I've quietly watched his dedicated efforts to learn the ropes since that time. Exceptional clue, and I have no doubt that WP would benefit greatly if this editor had a few extra tools to work with. — Ched : ? 17:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Support. As per nominators recommendation, and mature attitude of Cool3 and his willingness to learn, grow. Also respect to his article building. User will be an asset, good nomination. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC))
Support, although the sporadic activity may indicate a potential for concern, looking into the way this user has edited and handled AfDs and such shows to me personally that this user would be able to use the tools. As previously stated, willingness to learn and mature attitude are excellent. The user also has a decent balance of edits across namespace, which further re-assures me of any concern regarding the sporadic activity. Good luck! --Taelus (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Most will, I think, have appreciated my meaning, but I suppose that an explanation should attend my terming an answer (although surely not the candidate himself, whose judgment is, it is clear, sound) "profoundly misguided", which sounds, I guess, harsher than I'd intended. As an anarcho-capitalist and a devoted member of the ACLU since I was an adolescent, I am as great a defender of anyone of the right of free expression (supporting even the total rejection of libel and slander as even civilly colorable and the decriminalization of all speech, including threats and perjury), but I recognize that even as the Foundation's primary mission is to promulgate free content, we value free speech and the like in the project only to the extent that they further our aims, and not as valuable good ends themselves, such that Wikipedians do not enjoy meaningful rights (the usual formulation that one has but two rights, the right to leave/vanish and the right to fork is, though, I think, a bit too simplistic; there does exist, though, a consensus for it). Joe 20:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
"right" to vanish is a bit of a misnomer. It's a courtesy, not a right, and it is only extended to editors in good standing. Enigmamsg 05:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Support as WP:Net Positive. Though I wish the candidate had done a bit of extra work in project space, but if article space is their calling, there is no reason to let project space drag them away. Also, I thought the answer to Wizardman's question was well-done, and I am convinced from that and the other questions and a scan of Cool3's contributions that they know what they are doing and have a clue. NW(Talk) 05:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Support Looks good to me. hmwithτ 06:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Support. An excellent contributor and nothing to indicate potential tool abuse. In fact, I think Cool3 would be a great benefit as an admin. The extended break doesn't bother me. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Support, looks good, though tentative pending answer to my follow-up question. Wizardman 14:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
While I disagree that no consensus closures should always default to keep (I believe there are some instances where no con. defaults to delete and have closed as such), I understand your rationale behind your answer, so my vote stands. Wizardman 20:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Support. No reason not to support. Also, I lol'd at "when Wikipedia truly stresses me out, I [...] go back to doing what I'm paid for if I'm at work. Then after twenty minutes or half an hour, I come back". Jafeluv (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Support. Enough recent activity; I'm satisfied you will do well with the administrative tools. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Support There is a solid understanding of policy's here and growth as an editor. I have no issues with voting support this time around.Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Tentative support. From what I have seen at WT:WTA, Cool3 is a level headed and well intentioned editor (aka, tends to agree with me :) I haven't had time to make a closer evaluation, but we need more admins like that. Geometry guy 05:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
We need more admins who agree with you? –Juliancolton | Talk 06:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Support Can't find anything worth opposing over. ThemFromSpace 05:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Support - I felt odd to be one of the few people supporting your last RfA; but I saw only minor problems then. Now you really do look like a pretty exemplary candidate - a look through recent contributions give me no concerns and reveals many intelligent and useful edits. Good luck. ~ mazcatalk 15:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Weak oppose - while I laud the user for his content building, I'm not sure that experience prior to Feb 2009 provides much background, and the few months since then may not provide quite enough currency with policies/guidelines/norms as presently practiced. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, and I must point out that the majority of Cool's edits are to article space. (This is a good thing, of course!) //roux 17:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I can understand your concern, but I think the 5 months he has been back speak volumes. When writing featured articles (DYKs, GAs, and A class as well) you become intimately involved with policies/guidelines/norms. That is how I learned them myself. I think by actually experiencing them, instead of simply reading them, he in fact has a deeper more meaningful understanding of how Wikipedia works. KnightLago (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Some good content work, but not enough to inspire confidence given the flimsy track record in the project space. Also, considering the sporadic activity, I'd like to see a few more months in several other areas before I can be comfortable supporting. Wisdom89(T / C) 18:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I am confused, but from my understanding he founded WikiProject NATO and has contributed pretty extensively in that area. KnightLago (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
That would seem to be content-related (so you could say it's not really another area). And not admin-related. Although it's commendable that (s)he's created a project. Just my thoughts, I'm not going either way at the moment - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
He. As for the projectspace, I will say that I consider myself quite involved in AfD and that I watchlist several policy pages and regularly participate in the discussions there, but naturally it's up to you to decide what you think of my level of activity there. Cool3 (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose as a 4th nom. Repeated attempts at adminship are prima facie evidence of insufficient judgement, preparation, and/or understanding of Wikipedia consensus. Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, this is only his 3rd—one was declined and deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, just noticed that. Indenting and striking. Jclemens (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
How did you arrive at that arbitrary number? Why is 3 any better than 4? Adityaαß 17:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose:Not enough contributions historically to inspire confidence or trust! South Bay (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I have niggling concerns that this editor is too into Wiki-politics, which has generally proven quite harmful. He's apparently been trying to become an admin all along, which is a minor concern. He was involved in coaching, which is another minor concern. And the answer to the question about rights is truly awful. Friday(talk) 16:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose An admin should be an editor who can make several edits daily over a long period of time. I hate to say it, but with less than 7,000 edits (barely over counting deleted edits), I don't quite know if you are ready. If you came back to RfA later with 10,000 or so edits, my view would probably be different.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 05:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Have we really increased the edit count requirement to ten thousand edits? Don't you think that's a bit excessive? Nakon 17:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Pending dip through contribs. The previous RfA's didn't bring up any worrying issues (not enough experience, not enough recent experience) and I have seen the user's dedication to high quality content first hand. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Like David Fuchs, pending further inspection of contributions. Answer to Q5 may be assuming a little too much good faith for the candidate's own good — using a clearly unauthorised bot to perform page moves is fairly obviously disruptive, and I was looking for something more decisive — but the answer does show good knowledge and a willingness to block if necessary, so I'd be harsh to oppose over that.—S MarshallTalk/Cont 01:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Moved to support.—S MarshallTalk/Cont 02:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Neutral - willingness to answer 12 questions at RFA shows willingness to perpetuate a broken system and to engage in, if not instruction, some form of creep. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Pending response to Q12. Nakon 08:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC) moved to support
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.