Jump to content

User:MBisanz/Qs/RfACandidate14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Candidate14

[edit]

Voice your opinion (talk page) (300/83/17); Scheduled to end 05:11, 5 December 2099 (UTC)

Nomination by Nominator1

Candidate14 (talk · contribs), or Candidate14, has been on Wikimedia since August 15, 2006—approaching two years now. On reflection, there can be no doubt that there have been ups and downs during this period. I ask not that you fixate yourself on the very distant past, but rather consider the most important question: has the development of this user since their last RfA, and in recent periods generally, demonstrated that this user has a sufficient level of understanding, experience, and cluefullness, to be a good administrator?

I would like to give this statement some depth, because of how critical I feel it is. Excluding his first RfA when he was very new, Candidate14's last three RfA's have all been unsuccessful due to concerns other than inexperience. It may surprise you to learn that I was neutral leaning oppose in two of these. I do not think Candidate14 would have made a good administrator a year-or-so ago. I do not think he would have made a good administrator seven months. However, this is not the most important factor in participation in this discussion. We all make mistakes. Some of us learn from our mistakes; some don't. The former are given a chance at RfA, the latter aren't. Many Wikipedians do some questionable things when they're new here; some never stop, but some mature before our eyes and turn out to be fantastic Wikipedians. I certainly did my fair share of silly things, but I hope that I came out the other end of the pipe in reasonable shape. The reason why juvenile criminal records are sealed (in the real world) is because people new to society make mistakes, and we don't want to ruin their lives; I cannot understand why such a principle would not extend onto Wikipedia, albeit in the most general of forms.

Formerly Candidate14, now Candidate14, I have followed Candidate14's development on Wikipedia with great interest. He is a surprisingly-well rounded contributor, who has demonstrated experience in many areas of Wikipedia. He has been a substantial contributor to 10 Featured Articles, 25 Good Articles, 4 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Portal, 2 Featured Topics, and 11 DYK's. He maintains a list of his contributions at User:Candidate14/Articles, which may be of interest. That's not a half-bad effort by any standard. What's more important, though, is in the creation of these articles, lists and portals, Candidate14 frequently collaborated and interacted with others (myself included). He addressed concerns about the articles, sought input on improving them, and then proceeded to articulate his viewpoints in traversing the featured article process—not an easy thing to do—and has come out as successful ten times. His very positive Good Article reviews are only an extension of this skill he has developed.

"So what? He writes articles", you say. "That doesn't make him qualified for adminship by itself". True—although administrators should have experience in mainspace to be able to deal with content disputes effectively (I saw a good analogy to how a department manager is often a former department employee, simply because they understand how that department works)—they also need to be well-versed in policy, have a positive history of interaction with Wikipedians outside of a content environment, and have overall good judgement and experience. Candidate14 has all three, as any cursory check of his contributions will show you. He is friendly, welcoming, happy to assist new users with questions, and best of all, he does everything with a laugh and isn’t overly-serious about anything, yet knows the time and place for being respectful and reserved. The latter has been the most stark improvement—there were certainly concerns about his judgement and questionable acts of non-seriousness earlier in his time at Wikipedia, but I'm confident that Candidate14 has learnt from what was said about them by others, has taken the criticism to heart, and is a better Wikipedian for it.

So, what experience does Candidate14 have in such tasks? Well, probably most impressive is the fact that he is an administrator and bureaucrat at the Wikimedia Commons. His userpage can be seen here; he is one of only nine total bureaucrats, of whom seven are active (both at the time of writing). He is also a recently-appointed member of the Bots Approval Group, and has in many respects been offering a "non-bot-operator" opinion that was so craved by the community. He has, to date, performed both his Commons and BAG roles with distinction, and I see no reason why both that won't continue, and why he wouldn't do similarily well with English Wikipedia adminship. He has had rollback rights since January 10, and has not once been approached due to misuse of it—not something which is very common these days. Furthermore, Candidate14 was a driving member of the narrowly-unsuccessful Brisbane 2009 Wikimania bid, and I was honoured to be his proxy vote in his absence at the recent Wikimedia Australia meeting.

To quickly summarise: 10 FA's, 25 GA's, 11 DYK's, various other content contributions, helpful, calm, intelligent, bureaucrat at Wikimedia Commons, Bot Approvals Group, flawless use of rollback. Over 22,500 edits, around 600 semi-automated, 5,500 (~30%) mainspace, 5,000 (~25%) projectspace, 5,000 (~25%) usertalkspace. Candidate14 will be, in my very humble opinion, a fantastic administrator. His assistance in areas such as image deletion, updating Did You Know, deletion discussions, and general maintenance, will be a clear benefit to Wikipedia. So, I respectfully ask that you reflect on the question I posed to you, the reader, at the top of this RfA, and on the following statement by Denis Waitley: Mistakes are painful when they happen, but years later a collection of mistakes is what is called experience. Please, dwell not on the distant past, but reflect on the intermediate time period, and the relative improvement. There is no doubt in my mind that Candidate14, based on my observations over a period of around a year and a half, has improved to a point where he will be a fantastic administrator, and someone who I feel I can trust with the extra tools to do a good job. I truly hope you agree.

Best of luck, Candidate14. Nominator1 (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2099 (UTC)

Conom by Nominator2 Admin Coaching is more than just learning about policies and procedures, if that were all there was to it, then there is no way that H20 should ever have been my coachee. H20 knows more about policies and guidelines than I ever will. He is instrumental in so many areas that most already think he is an admin and those who don't are wondering why go through coaching? Why would Nominator2, who opposes the notion of using coaching to "polish off resumes" accept H20 as a coachee? Because I saw a need that I thought I could help with. H2O's previous nominations failed due to several intangibles. This, IMHO, is a harder to address than lacking article contributions articles or unfamiliarity with policies and procedures. To work on his image here, I asked H20 to live by the mantra, Civility, Responsibility, and Maturity and treated H20's coaching as an extended editorial review. On a regular basis I have provided him with direct and immediate feedback on how his action have/have not lived up the mantra I've preached. Throughout his coaching I was impressed with how he grew in these three areas.

H2O is committed to this project. He only wants to see it succeed and has it's best interest at heart. He is a solid contributor with more FA/GA's than I have fingers. He knows policy and guidelines better than almost anybody I've ever met. H20 has proven himself to be worthy of the trust demanded to receive the tools.Nominator2 (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2099 (UTC)

Co-nom Modified: Nominator3 asked me some great questions here that got me thinking. Now, I know this may not mean much to some, but it is important to me: The thing that was tearing me up, and bubbled over tonight inappropriately was that I felt that people were making judgements on half a picture... a picture that I didn't complete. H2O has made some boneheaded posts on his blog---one of which lead to a user temporarily leaving the project. Now I know they are off-wiki, but they do show a continuation of a pattern that killed his last RfA and since he references real users and links to them, IMHO he makes his blog fair game. I am highly critical of these posts and I've told him so. We also originally had an agreement to wait until August---but that was largely to overcome the objections that hurt his last RfA of running 4 times in a year. To prove that he didn't need the tools, but he wanted to run now at the urging of others.
Do I think H20, deserves to be an Admin? YES. Do I believe he has the skills? YES. He knows more about wikipedia that 95% of the people who have !voted here. To answer the question Lara asked, did I lie in my nom? No. But I did fail to paint the whole picture---which is what was eating me up. I did so because I believe he deserves the tools, despite my personal qualms with his blog posts. My comments from earlier today were more my frustrations at myself, for not painting the complete picture, than they were on H2O. Lara got me to thinking, my nom is still valid---I just needed to complete the picture.---Nominator2 PoppaBalloon 08:21, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Co-nom from Lara❤Love

I was a strong supporter of Candidate14 from his second RFA on. I dropped my support during the third over the GA review issue—an issue with caused me to lose a lot of trust in him. Since then, he has more than regained my trust. Not only have I watched him mature, but I've been impressed with the great effort he has put into article writing. His skills have consistently improved and I truly view him as a great asset to the project. He has a solid grasp on policy, is knowledgeable in administrative areas and is already familiar with the tools (having been an administrator on Commons for several months now). His success on Commons (having recently been unanimously promoted to Bureaucrat) gives me further confidence in his abilities. His knowledge in the area of image use is, in my opinion, valuable for adminship, as image backlogs at CAT:CSD can get, and currently are, terrible. He has become a thoughtful and courteous editor who clearly keeps the goals of the project in mind. So, for all of those reasons, it is my honor to co-nominate Candidate14 for adminship. Lara❤Love 04:45, 29 May 2099 (UTC)

Updated statement from Nominator3
After I dropped my support and eventually switched to oppose on Candidate14's third RFA, I had serious doubts about whether or not he would regain my trust. His editing following that RFA impressed me. In one-on-one discussions with him since then, I've seen a change in maturity. When I wrote my nom, I had no doubts in him and, even in reading over the opposes during this process, although I have read some legitimate concerns, I believe they are either irrelevant to adminship or of no concern for me because of my personal interactions with him. I have for some time now been in the belief that RFA is about one simple question: Can the candidate be trusted not to abuse the tools? And to that question, even now with the revalation of new information, I believe with no doubt that Yes, Candidate14 can be trusted with the tools. RFA is about discussion and weight of arguments. Opposers are often given the burden of proof. It is expected that they provide evidence to support their arguments. This is not a burden placed on supports, because how does one prove that someone will not abuse the tools? Generally you can't, thus the support section is the default AGF position. In this case, however, in that Candidate14 has earned the support of the community on Commons to be promoted to Bureaucrat, that seems to be proof that he will not abuse the tools.
With that said, I have come to realize that there is another question that we must ask ourselves: Can the candidate be trusted with the sensitive information that admins are privy to? And to that question, in light of the information posted by east718, I am left with serious doubts. Regardless, I do believe that decisions should be made on facts, and that Candidate14 should be given the opportunity to make a statement. He will most likely be offline for several more hours and then the same will be said for me. I will review the information when I return, and I hope that others would give the same consideration. Lara❤Love 16:55, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm not perfect, but I try to be my best. Worst comes to worst, this fails and I go write some more articles. With that in mind, I accept. Candidate14 (H2O) 05:06, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
Please see my recall criteria at User:Candidate14/Recall. Candidate14 (H2O) 02:58, 1 December 2099 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

[edit]
1-10
[edit]

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Most of my time is not spent participating in admin-stuff, though there are times when the tools would come in handy. As part of my work on Commons (admin and 'crat; RfA, RfB), I sometimes come across cases where being able to see deleted image content here would be very useful. The ability to undelete here would also be useful in cases where fair use images are deleted off Commons, as would the ability to delete when images are transferred from here to there (see the backlogs at Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons, which I'd like to help out with). I also come across speedies occasionally, and I have a good knowledge of the CSD, so I could help out with that. I have also helped out at DYK in an administrative capacity (updating T:DYK/N) on occasion, and have closed/participated in XfDs, so there are other areas in which I could lend a hand. The tools would also be useful as part of my work as a bot approvals group member—adding bots on trial to the AWB approvals list, for instance, is an admin-only task that sometimes delays BRFAs, and so the admin tools would make the process here run a bit smoother.
Primarily, though, I will remain an article editor and reviewer. It's what I do best.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions are probably those listed at User:Candidate14/Articles. Of these, I am especially proud of a few things—of my 10 featured articles and 2 featured topics, for instance. I have also done large amounts of content review, and have received the "GAN reviewer of the month barnstar" multiple times.
I am proud of the work I have done in improving articles, and helping others to do so.
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: Having been an active editor for over a year, I have inevitably come into conflict with others before, though I don't actively go out to seek it. It is easy when considering adminship to shut up for 3 months—to hide from tense situations so as to not have disagreements, and not garner potential opposition. (This is partially a fault of the overly political RfA process, but also a fault of candidates.) I didn't intend to be such a candidate, and have continue to give my honest opinions on multiple issues across the project, commenting actively at AN, ANI, and on several requests for arbitration. While doing so, I have done my best to remain calm and civil throughout—staying out of the way of conflict is not commendable, but being a dick isn't either, and I have done my best to fall into neither of these categories.
Some people with longer memories will recall this incident, raised by Bishonen in one of my prior RfAs. This was quite a blow against the GA process and me, and I have striven since then to regain the respect and trust of those whose reputation, by association with GA, was dented. I will stress again that Digwuren and me did not agree to pass each other's articles or anything like that, and I endorse his year long ban. I apologise again to those whose faith in the GA process was harmed by this incident, it is one of my biggest regrets in my time here.
Optional Question by D.M.N.
4. If you did happen to make a wrong decision, which many good faith users critizised, would you put yourself open to recall? D.M.N. (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
I do intend to be open to recall. I have not developed an exact process yet, but mine will be highly similar to SirFozzie's.
Update; I whipped some up, see User:Candidate14/Recall. Candidate14 (H2O) 02:58, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Optional Questions by Dweller
5a. Rather than Nominator2's comments (below), how would you briefly characterise the reasons for previous, failed RfAs? --Dweller (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
Thanks for the question, I was kinda expecting something like this. I don't think I could go through every reason for opposition in past RfAs; they are generally valid and worthy of consideration, but there are many, regrettably. So to briefly characterise, there have been many issues concerning maturity, concerning my making snap judgments or decisions, sometimes on the spur of the moment, and sometimes coming to regret them later. These have come up in a few circumstances; there was the GA issue raised by Bishonen 9 months ago, there have been occasional random bouts of incivility, there was that editor review, etc. I'm happy to go into more detail on a more specific issue, I just don't want to break the tl;dr barrier!
5b. More importantly, what did you learn from each? --Dweller (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
Again, I can't comment on every incident, but to be brief, it has been a slow learning journey. Many would argue the journey is still ongoing... while I disagree, I'm probably a bit biased on that. But what I have generally learned is that the preview button is really helpful, and that Wikipedia really isn't that important. As JamieS93 pointed out in his support, this RfA failing isn't the end of the world. I think I could help the project more with the tools, but I'm cool with it either way.
6. Re Moreschi's comments below: rather than responding to an oppose, which can appear aggressive (and prompt further opposes), would you like the opportunity to explain the circumstances up here, instead? --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
I don't think there is a great deal to say that hasn't already been said, either in the initial blog post or in my other commentary on the situation. I think the_undertow could have done things in a better way than a rogue unblock, but at the same time, I don't think the critique he received, including the allegations of racism (contradicted by our own encyclopedia articles), were justified. I don't go around seeing cabals, but in this case I do feel there was some serious behind-the-scenes stuff taking place. Some would argue it's somewhat similar to the GA project (though, since the Digwuren incident, I have never done such a thing, and am still disappointed by those who attack GA solely because of that incident).
Note, you said to respond to Moreschi, but as others have opposed per him and added some other commentary on that, I have also responded somewhat to their concerns. Hope you don't mind.
Optional question from Filll
7. Please answer two of the eight AGF Challenge 2 exercises found here. Directions are here. Post a link to your answers here so that people can peruse them.
I have answered all of the AGF 2 challenge exercises, using the multiple choice option. Answers here.

Optional questions from MBisanz

8. Over here I have a list of some of the lesser known admin tools. Which, if any are you unfamiliar with on either a technical or policy basis?
I have looked at this list before, so I am at least aware of all of them. I have also used the majority of the tools on Commons. Not all the tools have a specific related policy, and in such cases, using common sense and my best judgement, and asking for a second opinion where needed, would be my plan of action.
9. What is your opinion on {{User recovery}}?
I'm not sure what specifically you're asking. Yes, I would be happy to pass on deleted content to non-admins, if they ask and if it falls under the criteria noted on the template.

Optional questions from  Marlith (Talk)  02:12, 30 May 2099 (UTC)

10. How have you changed since your last RfA?  Marlith (Talk)  02:11, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
A lot. I think I've matured a great deal, and so the immature, poor-judgementish behaviour has cut down. I still give my frank opinions, but I don’t make random childish rants, for instance. I think the comments below (in all three sections) answer this question as well as I ever could.
11-20
[edit]

Optional question from InDeBiz1

11. Do you believe that it is possible for a user that has been blocked for reasons other than 3RR - making an allowance for the fact that it is possible for two or more editors to experience moments of extreme stubbornness, believing that their edit(s) is/are correct - to ever be completely trusted again? Or, do you believe in the line of thinking, "Once blocked, always watched?" If you believe that it is possible for complete trust to be regained, what is a "reasonable threshold" of time - whether it be specifically time or a number of successful edits - for that trust to be regained? What about a user that has previously been banned but perhaps was able to convince administrators to reinstate their account?
I assume you ask in the context of adminship. If so, than yes, an editor can be trusted after a past block, in my opinion. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shalom, for instance, where I nominated a user who had vandalised in the past. A reasonable amount of time—I prefer not to use an arbitrary measure. If they can be trusted, it doesn't matter if it's been a week or a year since last time.
Questions from Matthew
12. In your own words please: what is an administrator?
A. An administrator is a user who is trusted to assist the site in a maintenance role. They are also expected to uphold high levels of conduct, to be welcoming and helpful to/with new users, and to help move the encyclopedia forwards.
13. A block is a ___ ___?
A. A block is a technical measure by which an account is made unable to edit for a set period of time, in accordance with the Blocking policy.
Or, the alternative two word answer originally requested...:
A block is a preventative measure.
14. When is it inappropriate to ban a user?
A. It is appropriate to ban a person when they have exhausted the community's patience, to the point where the community is no longer to deal with the user. A user is de-facto banned if no administrator is willing to unblock, or to propose an unblock. Users can also be banned by the ArbCom, Jimbo, or the WMF.
Sorry, misread this as when is it appropriate. It would be inappropriate in situations where a person has not yet exhausted the community's patience, where administrators would be willing to unblock, or to propose an unblock, and where progress can be made on the encyclopedia with the help of the person in question.
Optional Question from Steve Crossin
15. In what circumstances would you protect a page?
A. I don't feel that stock questions should be asked in requests for adminship. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cheatsheet and User:Candidate14/Fishing. I am happy to comment on a specific situation if you wish.
Question from HiDrNick
16. In what circumstances, if any, would you block a contributor with over, say, a thousand edits without seeking a demonstration of community consensus first?
Putting aside the comment to Steve's question 15, the most likely reason for a block of a more experienced editor would be a 3RR violation. Again, a more specific situation would be good.
Sorry, I'll be more explicit: would you be willing to block a contributor like User:MONGO or User:Giano II of your own volition, without a discussion to demonstrate consensus to do so beforehand? ➪HiDrNick! 23:24, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. :) To answer your question...
No. I have expressed support for both of these users in the passed (MONGO in the Tango arbitration case, where my statement argued for Tango's desysopping, and Giano on numerous occasions), so I would consider myself fairly biased on the case.
Putting aside bias and looking from a neutral point of view, no, as blocks of these users (and many other established users) without prior discussion often create unnecessary drama. At the very least, I think someone considering to block them (or someone in a similar boat) should get a few second, third, and fourth opinions at AN first.
Candidate14 (H2O) 23:32, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
Question from Efe
17. Hi DM. I saw your comment on The Wiggles's talk page during its FAC. That issue was the revamped lead. Im not comfortable with your reply on this, especially when you emphasized a word there. Good luck with your candidacy man. =) --Efe (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
The essence of my comment there was that if I had made a mistake, or inadvertently introduced incorrect info, as a result of my copyedit, then I was happy to revert myself. I deliberately linked to WP:OWN to point that no, it wasn't literally Figureskatingfan's article, but since (s)he probably knew more about it than me I would defer to his/her judgement.
Why do you have to put quotation marks: "your" article.? --Efe (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
If I had said It's your article so you can do what you like. it would have contradicted WP:OWN. The "your" was kinda like when you say !vote in RfAs; it's not actually his article, I'm just deferring to him (same as it's not actually a vote, we just treat it like one sometimes). Candidate14 (H2O) 08:35, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
Ok. No worries. But it could have been better if you did not put that part there. --Efe (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
Question from Irpen
18. Editors Do you plan to involve yourself in decisions that would significantly affect content editors, particularly in the discretionary rather than direct action? For example, do you plan to institute blocks for general edit warring (discretion blocks, not 3RR ones), incivility, tendentious editing or other disruption that is clearly made by an opinionated rather than vandalizing editor? Also, do you plan to enforce WP:AE? WP:3RR?
A: As noted above in response to HiDrNick's question, I have in the past defended MONGO and Giano and so wouldn't be blocking them. This could be expanded more to other experienced, and opinionated, editors—I'm of the mindset that blocking them for minor incivility creates more drama than overlooking it will do, especially if this incivility is taking place in a discussion with other well established and thick skinned editors (as opposed to with a newbie). Discussion is almost always more productive than an incivility block, especially in these cases.
I don't plan to hang around AE or AN3 because these places don't interest me.
I certainly did not mean blocks of such editors as Giano or Mongo for their posts outside of the article space. Those have their own dedicated team of watchers looking for an excuse to block for any reason and they will do without your help. I meant more like edits of the generally uncooperative or rude editor who edits unconstructively while not violating 3RR and does not resort to the horrific insults that deserve an instant block. I do think that sometimes blocks for general discuption are warranted. My question is whether you will be prepared to make them. --Irpen 07:37, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Aaah, thanks for clarifying. Yes, I would be. That doesn't mean I'll go out looking for incivility block for, but yes, I would be willing to make blocks in the situation described. Candidate14 (H2O) 08:06, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
19. Inventiveness Do you plan to invent and enforce extra-policy restrictions on editors?
A: I really don't like the way that was done, so no. If this is, say, an ArbCom remedy, then yes I would enforce it if I came across it, but I don't think it a good idea in the majority of cases—certainly not without a community mandate.
20. IRC What's your opinion of IRC? Do you plan to continue using it? If yes, do you plan to join #admins and what do you think about this channel's past, present and, perhaps, future? WHat about other channels (or mailing lists) that are secret, private or both. What in your opinion would constitute the proper and improper use of the IRC channel. Please be explain in as much detail as possible.
A: I use IRC, yes. A disclaimer of my usage is available at User:Candidate14/Contact. I do intend to join #wikipedia-en-admins, as I think it can be used as a useful tool for its intended purpose. This does not mean I support what has been done in the channel in the past—indeed, I am and have been highly critical of block shopping and the like taking place in there. There's a big difference between saying "127.0.0.1 is at AIV; can I get a second opinion on an appropriate block length?" and saying "Johnny Jones just called me fat. Can someone block him?" (not suggesting or pointing fingers at anyone with the examples; they're just examples). I think this answers your question as to proper/inproper channel use—if not I'm happy to clarify.
I am not currently subscribed to any secret mailing lists (I get Wikien-l, Commons-l, and Wikimediaau-l, sometimes posting on them... see the above wikilink), nor do I intend to join any. IRC is sometimes useful for real time collaboration—secret mailing lists don't have this benefit, so I don't see what good they do.
Please feel free to ask for further information or commentary on specific cases.
First specific question. What makes IRC more fitting to ask for a "second opinion on an appropriate block length" type thing than the wiki-space? --Irpen 07:38, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Perhaps not the most appropriate, but the quickest. When dealing with an IP address that's at AIV and still vandalising, it's quicker to ask on IRC and have someone confirm that, say, 24 hours is a good idea, than to post at AN and have to wait a while for any response. Candidate14 (H2O) 08:06, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
21-30
[edit]
Questions from Irpen (cont.)
21. Other off-site. Blogs, external sites, etc. I hear you are all over the places deemed fashionable now. Blogs, external sites, IM (that is in addition to IRC.) Why blog about wikipedia off-wikipedia? Would not it be better to make a post solely related to Wikipedia into a userspace or a project space (or a notice board or a VP)? Same on external sites. Should we be able to clean our house from within? If there are reasons why we should not try to address these reasons rather than chat at the external fora saying things banned on-wiki?
A: I was asked something somewhat similar about blogging, and replied here.
I have not posted anything on offwiki sites that I wouldn't be willing to say onwiki—it's all available publicly in any case, and anyone is welcome to reply to it. Thus, I don't look at it as "cleaning out the house from within" because it's not hidden from anyone—it's out in the open for anyone to read and remark upon.
I don't want to go on forever considering the long reply linked to, but I'm happy to expand if you like.
Perhaps I was not clear due to my en-3. I think "cleaning our house from within" is a good thing that we should strive to achieve and if some try to make rules that prevent us from doing that we should modify the rules. This pressure often forces our best editors concerned over the project's well-being to blow the whistle at WR rather than at ANI as those who do it at ANI are threatened by blocks. So, why not post stuff onwiki? Why go elsewhere? And if this is because of policies, why not address them instead? --Irpen 07:37, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
No, it's not your en-3, it's my en-reading-0. I misread that. You're right, the best place to clean the house from is within. The thing is that as you say onwiki criticism can sometimes be taken the wrong way. Some would say there's a chilling effect there—"you tell us we've screwed up too bluntly, and you're gone". I'm not saying it happens often, or indeed, that it happens, but there's the perception of a closed house to criticism. Meanwhile, sites like WR, or blogs, don't enforce things the same way, so those pissed off with stuff around here might find themselves more welcomed there. I know I've felt at times that it's difficult to be critical of a WP matter onwiki compared to WR—the different audience and the different attitude towards critique makes discussion different.
That's not to say that I think all discussion should be on WR. Nor am I saying WR is a wonderful place. There's some really bad stuff that happens there; we all know that. But often, it's a few bad eggs that spoil it... I guess the same could be said, at times, for onwiki critique—there are some who'd rather not hear it. It's sometimes just part of life.
Candidate14 (H2O) 08:06, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
22. Adminship mill. I coined this term just today, but it seems that this phenomenon is several months old, while currently in the process of being defeated. I believe you have an idea of what it is. Why do you think it became possible? What is to be done to eliminate its recurrence?
A: Quoting from your oppose below, "I will save my comments on the setup of this RfAdm and the adminship mill organized by Tier-2_IRC for another time". I read over this a few times and wasn't sure what to make of it... I think you're referring to IRC folks trying to push each other through RfA (and issue that has been raised in the past) when the candidate doesn't actually "qualify". If I'm on the wrong track, please clarify.
Why did it become possible? Simply because of the popularity of IRC. IRC users are able to talk to a lot of other people, and the topic of RfA could easily come up. My RfA has come up numerous times on IRC in the last few days—it's strange to check the IRC window and find people discussing your progress on WP:100, but it's part of the medium. Since this discussion was considered "on topic", there isn't much I can do about it...
What can be done to eliminate its recurrence? It's difficult. In any community this large there will always be allegations of cabalism and offwiki influence and the like, IRC or not. I think the best thing to do about it is to be honest with ourselves; as the banner at the top of this RfA says (which I think can be removed since Filll has admitted to what happened), if you come to the discussion as a result of IRC, be honest and open about it. The other thing we can do is try and bolster participation from non-IRC folk, to balance things out if you will. But that only addresses the IRC problem—it's not the only place RfAs are discussed (I'm sure this one is being spoken about in other places too). It's a difficult issue with no clear solution.
Again, feel free to ask for more if I've gone off on the wrong track on any of the questions.
I will clarify my comments elsewhere and we return to this question at a later time. --Irpen
I look forward to that. :) Candidate14 (H2O) 08:06, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Question from Undeath
23. Are you willing, if you become an admin, to show deleted content? And if so, would you ever refuse to show it. (explain the latter) Undeath (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Upon a reasonable request, I'd be happy to abide by what's noted here. So I would refuse to show blatant BLP violations, personal information, copyvios, libel, and the like.
Optional questions from Geometry guy
24. (I think this needs to be asked, so it might as well be by me.) In the light of subsequent events, do you stand by your judgement to seek adminship now when you previously agreed with your admin coach not to stand until August? Geometry guy 16:44, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Perhaps. It's a tough call and it's all the more difficult without a crystal ball.
On the one hand, I get the feeling much of the opposition here would have come in another two/three months anyway. The infamous GA incident, and probably some immaturity related comments, will probably stick around for a while—I saw someone say I won't live down the GA incident for years, and while I hope that isn't the case, I wouldn't be surprised if someone says "look, he's that guy who passed a GA over IRC" in 2010. That's my fault for doing what I did, and I acknowledge that.
On the other hand, I think that there are some recent things which, given another few months to settle down, could have been looked back on in a different light. Does that make them more or less valid? I'm not in the best position to answer that now, nor do I think I'll be for a while.
RfA is always a tricky beast in this regards. One thing that would be the same regardless of when I ran would be the key question of "do I trust CANDIDATE14?". I know what my answer to that question is, but it's not my call, it's the community's, and it would be regardless of when the RfA ran.
I agree that hindsight is 20-20 (and this is also an issue in q. 25), but my questions were not primarily about past or recent incidents, but about whether you think that patience and judgement can help to reduce Wikidrama. I won't comment here beyond this, but I'm making the issues more explicit to give you the opportunity to reply further if you wish. Geometry guy 02:34, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
I see your point. Patience and judgement... yeah, by Wikidrama's nature they can help reduce it. In that sense it could be argued that leaving this later would have resulted in less of the drama below. That said, I never expected anything like what's happened in the last few days, nor would I wish an RfA like this on anyone. At the same time, I think, as I said above, that due to past events it probably would have ended up somewhat similar in August too. I dunno. I guess we're all waiting for the close with anticipation—I know I am. Candidate14 (H2O) 02:46, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
CANDIDATE14. As I've said, I'm favourably disposed towards you, and would like to support. But your response to Gguy's question here, and to the very similar one from Ling.Nut below, I find very disappointing. The question, it seems to me, is the extent to which you are able to stick to agreements and prior commitments. Here you write them off as "random arbitrary measures." I'm not impressed by that. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:05, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
The let's-wait-until-August thing had become, in my eyes, somewhat arbitrary. The admin coaching process wasn't achieving the goals we had set out. In that sense, continuing would have caused no gain, and if I could/deserved to pass RfA at the time, then it seemed there was no harm in running.
It would be difficult for me to say that I can stick to agreements and prior commitments when answering a question about the August thing without sounding overly hypocritical. I don't look at every agreement or commitment as something randomly arbitrary—that would be silly. In this case, though, I did. I've been trying to think of way to show that it doesn't hold true to every case, and I don't know. I suppose it's up to you to take my word, or not, or ask another question, or do as you see fit.
Candidate14 (H2O) 07:30, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
25. In view of the this discussion at the Village Pump, do you have any comments on your action to approve a bot whose apparent intention was to create over a million new stubs? Geometry guy 16:44, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
I stand by my BRFA approval, which was made from a technical perspective only. In that sense, I think it's been agreed that there isn't an issue. I should have asked for more community discussion prior to the approval—not doing so is a mistake I acknowledge, and I'm glad Mr.Z-man did so. But in terms of my action, it was fine from a technical perspective and the discussion there showed no outstanding issues. I will ensure in future BRFAs for such issues that more community discussion has taken place where necessary.
Can I just clarify here (since I suspect CANDIDATE14 is somewhat busy...) - This approval process considers the bot purely from a technical angle ("Will it edit the wrong pages", "Will it crash" etc), not whether the bot actions are desirable. — iridescent 02:45, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
No it does not - the approval process is also meant to assess whether the bot is desirable and has community consensus. If BAG members are not doing so, they really need to flag up to bureaucrats that the approval is technical only when asking for a bot to be flagged. WjBscribe 07:13, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
WJB, in my work with the BAG, and in my dealings with various Bots, it has always been my understanding that BAG only views technical soundness, and that the issue of task-propriety is handled by user comments from any user to the Discussion section of each BRFA. I see nothing in the discussion that indicates a consensus against the propriety of the bot task, and it proved its technical merit. MBisanz talk 07:29, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
This is getting a little off-topic. I quite accept that a BAG member may conclude from the lack of concerns expressed and their own judgment that a task is desirable and was not commenting on this specific instance. What I wanted to address was Iridescent's comment that the approval process is designed only to approve a bot from a technical perspective - if a BAG member believes a bot to be technically sound but has concerns about the desirability of the task, they should not approve the bot. WjBscribe 07:37, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
That's correct. At the time, and based on the discussion that had taken place in the BRFA, there were no technical or non-technical concerns because there hadn't been enough community discussion. That's where I could have done better; in asking for more community discussion instead of approving. Candidate14 (H2O) 07:41, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
(←) I deliberately phrased this question in a way that allowed CANDIDATE14 to decide whether his judgement was poor or good in this case, without bringing WP:Bot policy into it. However, in view of the discussion generated by the inappropriate intervention of iridescent, I feel obliged to state my view. The policy states very explicitly that "The decision to approve a request should take into account the requirements above, relevant policies and guidelines, and discussion of the request." The "requirements above" include: "performs only tasks for which there is consensus".
Approvals based only on technical issues and issues raised in the discussion do not suffice, unless one is invoking WP:IAR for some good reason. I don't find the responses by two administrators and a bureaucrat entirely compelling in this respect: at the very least there is a serious communications problem here. On the other hand CANDIDATE14 has honestly admitted that he approved the bot prematurely because he failed to establish that there was consensus for this potentially huge task (up to 2 million new stubs!). This is a much better answer, even though it shows a lapse of judgement, as it concurs with what the policy actually says. It seems that he is not alone in making mistakes like this: he might even consider encouraging better practice in applying WP:Bot policy to bot approvals. Geometry guy 23:50, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
Optional questions from User:Ling.Nut
26. Would you please define "maturity", in your own words?
Maturity. The ability for one to act rationally in a variety of situations.
I'm not great with definitions, especially in my own words, so feel free to ask for anything more specific.
Specifically, then: How does maturity relate to
  1. integrity. Doing what's right.
  2. taking your responsibility to the encyclopedia more seriously than the whims of others.
  3. treating adminship like a responsibility rather than a clubbish game.
  4. the ability to process issues through the proper channels rather than careening off on pointy drama exercises.
  5. the ability to shun drama, period.
  6. the ability to consider the impact of your actions on others.
  7. the ability to resist the urge to impulsively side with one's friends ("clique") and consider the true merit and greater scope of an issue, and the impact on the encyclopedia.
  8. above all, to think of the community before you think of yourself. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
(ec, more comments below)(Sorry to butt in ahead Lara, but it'd look weird otherwise.) Ling, I think you've answered your question in several of these cases. Maturity is doing what's right even when it's the more difficult option (integrity). It's putting the encyclopedia first even when trying to please others is easier. It's recognising your responsibilities and acting according to them. It's solving problems without creating new ones in the process. You're right; its the ability to shun drama, full stop. It is mature to consider the impacts of your actions on others, to say no to cliques, and to put the community first. Maturity is all these things, and you're 100% correct. Candidate14 (H2O) 08:05, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
Ling, some of these seems rather weighted. Lara❤Love 07:52, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
The questions are optional. If the tone or content of them reflects badly on me in anyone's mind, then so be it. I am not at all against a little lighthearted frivolity among admins, but I am against admins who take the consequences of their actions as admins lightly. That is at the heart of the matter that my questions are trying to address. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
I do not, and will not, take the consequences of my actions lightly. You have this from me now. Candidate14 (H2O) 08:05, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
I think that will be appreciated by many - thanks. My interpretation of maturity is - conducting oneself with dignity and representing policy and authority in an appropriate and fair manner; ability to put community concerns over self-centred ones; ability to stand back and evaluate, and ability to discuss and negotiate (or abstain if this is impossible) even when one has strongly held views on a topic. While obviously acting in line with undisclosed sectional interests would not be a good thing, I don't think the question dwelling on this aspect is helpful. Orderinchaos 07:15, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
27. Would you furthermore be willing to evaluate your own actions in the light of the GA Pass trade scandal on IRC (which is old news), the White Pride incident (which was recent) and your recent blog posts, and any other incidents which others have mentioned as being a source of concern?
The GA incident: I screwed up. I shouldn't have passed the GA with minimal review, I shouldn't have discussed it (agreeing to pass or not isn't completely relevant) on IRC. I shouldn't have tried to do in exchange for a review for me. I shouldn't have raged at Irpen when he did the right thing. In short, I had a really big lapse of judgement. Since then, I've been trying to redeem myself through my ongoing work in the GA process. I've tried to regain the trust of the GA project.
The White Pride incident: It's somewhat difficult to comment on this, because it's a difficult issue for a lot of people. I should have done more background reading on the issues before throwing my unrequested opinion. At the same time, I still defend the spirit, if not the wording, of what I said—of how the_undertow copped it deservingly, and of how Moulton has been treated unfairly. That's not fully relevant to my RfA. The issues of "white pride", "white supremacy", and "racism" are somewhat, and I didn't mean to, or want to, hurt anyone by misreading the meanings of those words. I'm not racist.
Blogging: I suppose the above, as well as my answer to Irpen somewhere else, cover that.
28. Would you explain, in detail (you might be willing to include names of any other parties involved or consulted, if any) the thought process which led you to break your promise to your admin coach about waiting 'til August?
As I said here, I had totally forgotten. Nominator2 started that section after Anonymous Dissident asked when it was gonna happen. I suppose as I said there, the August thing was raised to give somewhat of a set timeframe for the coaching process. Thing is, the coaching process wasn't really working... I felt that it was slowly moving towards the stereotyped coaching process I've criticised. At that stage, I felt I was ready, and I felt the timeframe wasn't really doing any good—I'm not a fan of random arbitrary measures.
Optional questions from User:Gnangarra
29 Since a major concern is that editors dont trust you with the tools, I know that you are a crat on Commons, checking your actions (User:Candidate14, at around pos 23 on the list) there I see that you have performed just over 1300 actions which include 69 blocks and 1100 odd deletions. How many of those actions have been reversed by the community? Gnangarra 12:32, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
Not many. I don't know of an exact number and it'd take an inordinate amount of time to check every deletion, etc., but going by talk page messages I'd guess somewhere around 20. Most of them would have been reversed by me; if an error is raised I'll fix it with apologies as soon as possible.
Optional questions from Slrubenstein | Talk
30. I am deeply concerned by your response to User:Filll's AGF challenge 2:2.6. This is clearly a ridiculous idea and so any articles about this should be written from a mainstream Western POV ... I know it is multiple choice, but there was an "other" option yet you chose this one and added, "Sort of. The ridiculousness of the theory and the obvious conflict of interest of Islamic sources makes them pretty unreliable, so caution should be taken to make sure the article is actually neutral" I'd appreciate your developing your answer to respond to some specific points:
(1) Do you find acceptable to claim that Wikipedia articles should be written from a "Western POV?"
I find it more unacceptable that we should promote a clearly ridiculous fringe theory supported only by a very obviously biased Islamic press.
(2) When you use the word "unreliable," are you saying the media sources are unreliable sources, or the theories are unreliable?
The Islamic sources are unreliable by virtue of promoting this clearly bogus theory.
(3) What do you mean by "obvious conflict of interest of Islamic sources" making them unreliable? I ask this because it is quite common that a person, group, or organization will take a point of view because it further's their interests, and reject the point of view of a person, group, or organization it is in conflict with in part or largely because it is in conflict. Why does this make a view any less notable or reliable?
Yes, I agree with you that it's common. That's why we should use some degree of editorial judgement—in some situations it's OK to use these sources even if the publisher has a conflict of interest. When the source is promoting a crazy theory supported only by its publisher, though, we should use our judgement and realise that this theory shouldn't be given undue weight, even if otherwise OK sources are talking about it.
(4) I would propose that the media in Islamic countries are not reliable sources of information concerning extraterrestrial life, but are reliable sources about views help by people living in Islamic countries. What if an editor argued that the view should be included, not because it is a notable view about extraterrestrial life but because it is a notable view about how people in one country feel about another country?
That is a perfectly valid argument. First of all, I agree with your initial proposition.
If an editor wanted to include this, it could be included in a relevant article... something along the lines of "a view held in by the populous of some Islamic countries is that the US is collaborating with space aliens" is valid. That's pretty different to saying that they actually are, just that some people think they are.
(5) Now, leaving the Islamic media sources aside, you also claim that "The ridiculousness of the theory ... makes them pretty unreliable." I find this hard to square with our NPOV policy. The whole point of NPOV is that something I take very seriously will be considered ridiculous by someone else, so we need other criteria for inclusion and exclusion. Or do you disagree with my interpretation of NPOV? if so, why?
It's not that I think it's ridiculous... it's that the entire world press, with the exception of some Islamic media (which, for whatever reason, may have a reason to want to make the US look bad in the eyes of Islam people), is not taking the seriously. It's somewhat like intelligent design (somewhat)—the fact that some have published serious works supporting it doesn't overlook the fact that the vast majority of scientific press considers it bollocks. Hence we shouldn't give the fringe theory undue weight.
I agree with your interpretation of NPOV; what I'm saying is that there's a difference between "I think John Doe is straight, but editor X thinks he's gay, thus I should ignore editor X's view" and "Every newspaper in the world except for X News (run by John Doe's biggest rival) has called John Doe straight."
(6) What exactly do you mean when you say that the article should actually be neutral? If you mean it should comply with NPOV, isn't this true of all articles? If this is what you meant, it just sounds like a non-answer, at best vague. Or do you mean that the article should not provide any viewpoint - that is it should provide neither the viewpoint of the US Government nor that of Islamic countries? I thought NPOV meant including multiple, even conflicting points of view; I did not think it meant articles should have no point of view. Do you think I am misinterpreting NPOV? If so, how and why?
Yes, articles should present all relevant points of view in accordance with the NPOV policy. In that sense, the article should give more weight/credibility to the "Western POV", and less to that of the Islamic press. "...to make sure the article is actually neutral" was poor phrasing—my point was that we should take care when discussing the Islam POV to ensure that we don't give it undue weight.
(7) If we agree about our interpretation of NPOV, can you provide more of an answer than the assertion that a Wikipedia article should be neutral? The question is, how would NPOV be achieved given the facts of this case.
Just to summarise what's said above... we should give the theory a minor mention, and we should treat it as a fringe theory, so we shouldn't give it undue weight. The "Western POV" implies we should give prominence to the overwhelming world view that no, the US aren't collaborating with aliens.

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Candidate14 before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
  • Note: The following question was posted under Nominator2's nom. I moved it here. hmwithτ 07:18, 29 May 2099 (UTC)

Question: What happened? You were the first nominator Nominator2, only a few hours ago here? Much pertinent information that needs to be considered regarding this user's past (reformed or not) is now missing such as this: ..."To know the answer you have to look at H20's history. H20 has had four failed RfA's:

♫ Cricket02 (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2099 (UTC)

Cricket02, this was removed by Nominator2 here. I don't want to speak for him, so I'll leave him a note asking him to clarify. Hmwith, thanks, this is probably a better place for it. Candidate14 (H2O) 07:21, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
I originally wrote my nom as the primary nom. Which included a brief summary of the first four noms. When I saw the size of Nominator1's nom and how well written it was, I decided to take a secondary role with the nom. I moved Nominator1 to the top and shortened mine in accordance with my belief that secondary noms should be kept short and to the point. This is particularly true when I think the first nom is too big---as is being testified below with people saying they ain't reading all that.Nominator2 (talk) 07:36, 29 May 2099 (UTC)

My God! WP:100 in 11 hours? Is that a record? <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:49, 29 May 2099 (UTC)

It might be. It certainly is for the fifth Rfa in less than a year by one person. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:47, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
If you are going to make veiled attacks, at least have some discretion. We are all aware of how many times he has been through this. But your pointing that out is probably the only time I would have to say that I actually see why you were hiveminded. You are simply bitter, man. Go play. the_undertow talk 09:29, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
Bitter is ironical, right? In any case you managed to violate WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS and ascribing motives in one swell foop. Nice. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 15:52, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
It is - Phaedriel, the second-fastest WP:100-hitter, received her 100th support 13 hours after acceptance. CANDIDATE14 is highly likely to hit WP:200. Valtoras (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
And I would not be surprised if the opposes get up to 50 or so...Nominator2 (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2099 (UTC)

What is the record for WP:200... I think we might break that before I wake up! G'nite allNominator2 (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2099 (UTC)

It looks like that the shortest time is roughly 3 days. I've seen nothing 2 days or shorter. Should WP:300 go ahead and be made? <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:30, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
I do appreciate all the support, but the number is relatively immaterial and not really a big deal. It's the consensus that counts, not how high up WP:100 I get... Candidate14 (H2O) 08:23, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
Speak for yourself bud... oh you are ;-) Nominator2 (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2099 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I think that this RFA broke the 200 Record for RFAs, this one was done in less than 2 days <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 23:36, 30 May 2099 (UTC)

I did want to add a comment about the Bishonen evidence related to GA corruption. We've seen several opposes based upon that isolated incident and we've seen several supports who still hold it out to be a concern. I would be lying if I said I wasn't somewhat bothered by it myself. What alieviated my fears was H2O's comments during coaching about how he learned from this and has redoubled his efforts to try to redeem himself in the GA community. The fact that Nominator3, a person who all but lives in GA, is one of his co-noms speaks volumes for how he has repaired the damage done with that community. Yes, he blew---nobody is denying that. But that being said, I think the people in that group who work with him on a regular basis have grown to trust and value his input despite a major knock against his reputation.Nominator2 (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2099 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think anyone contends that wasn't a bad move, although it was sufficiently long ago that the question has to be asked "did the behaviour continue?" The answer appears to be no. While opposes are still possible on other grounds, this one doesn't appear to have legs. Orderinchaos 15:37, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
Actually, if it wasn't for his continued working in the area, it would not be long enough ago. I would normally hold it against him for at least a year. But when he messed up, rather than quit that area of the project, he learned from it and made a concerted effort to redeem himself in that community. That shows a great deal of responsibility/maturity. He has become a valued member of that project---he didn't leave it to time, he made an active effort to redeem himself.---Nominator2 PoppaBalloon 18:19, 31 May 2099 (UTC)

I would like to clarify my support. I wasn't invited here, but have interacted with CANDIDATE14 in the past, and have had serious disagreements with him on content, but not really on policy (interpretations). When I saw the dicussion on one of the AN boards, I decided to investigate, and believe his use of the mop would be of value to the project. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2099 (UTC)

    • Comment: I urge those who have recently been voting support to seriously reconsider whether they are doing so mainly because they dislike the methods or reasons put forth by some few of those opposing him. The way those people have been doing it can & should be considered elsewhere--the question here, is whether CANDIDATE14 should get the buttons at this time. DGG (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
      • I hope that regardless of support or oppisition that those expressing such are not basing their expression simply on the manner in which others have stated their expression. This is not to say that you should not contemplate the reasoning of opposition, you should. Beam 23:19, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
      • I'm confused DGG. Are you saying that people shouldn't support this candidate? The rational/methods/argumentation of the opposes alwasys ALWAYS carries weight for supporters. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
I am saying that in the course of this discussion a considerable number of different objections were raised, some in the oppose section, others in various places. Some of these arguments, and some of the actions taken to support them, can reasonably be thought of as divisive and inappropriate, and clearly a number of people are taking them in just this way. It is understandable reaction when confronted by such things, to support the candidate in the presence of what appears to be poorly motivated or supported opposition and unwarranted hostility--I make no bones about saying that this was my initial reaction upon coming to this RfA: I like the candidate and I wanted to support him if I thought I could do so. But I am suggesting that those whom may have voted on this basis, whether to show their dislike for some of the opposition, or because of personal liking for the candidate, might want to rethink on the basis of some of the arguments raised by some of our responsible editors. This reexamination may well support their original conclusion. But checking back on a RfA that takes a course such as this is often a good idea. I know that I intend to do so before the discussion actually closes to see if my own view remains warranted. DGG (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  • Well, I was initially coming to support, if flippantly: I was frustrated by what I initially regarded as some unreasonable opposes, and thought that CANDIDATE14 would be a great candidate. Despite the local time (it's late), I decided to try reading through (almost) all of the RfA before commenting (I even read through most of the supports!). I must say, I am quite confused now! Some of the opposes (but not very many) indeed are frustrating; others are quite sensible. Same with the supports. Hmmm.....
  • I think, as Gracenotes, said, a net gain is projected; as Bryan said, CANDIDATE14 has not done anything inappropriate at Commons and would be of great benefit to Wikipedia. You'd think that those two qualities would be enough to pass an RfA! But such is life on the English Wikipedia. >_>
  • Still, though, I agree with Irpen, which surprises me, because I've often found myself in disagreement with them! First (and others commented on this too), the number of RfAs in a short while is concerning. I guess it shouldn't be, but I still find it concerning. But I really find myself agreeing with Irpen's 02:23, 1 December 2099 (UTC) comment; CANDIDATE14 seems to want adminship a lot. I guess I don't see that as a reason to oppose, at least not this case. But I don't really see it as a reason to support either.
  • There are a lot of other comments I would comment on - not because I feel need to let people know I've read the RfA ;), but out of my quixotic desire for RfA to be more of a discussion than a vote - quixotic because I wish it would be, but am somewhat resigned to it being a vote (the sheer massiveness of this particular RfA is, I think, a testament to that).
  • Eh, anyways, I would echo Riana and Husond - if you pass this RfA, CANDIDATE14 (and I hope you do - despite not actually listing my handle in the "support" column), please take it slow! And perhaps consider not spending so much time on Wikipedia! Yes, I know that's heresy >_>, but there is so much life to live! Eh, I am totally editorialising now. *sigh* Anyways, that was my rambling comment. Move along now. --Iamunknown 06:16, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  • Consensus not numbers: I've agonised over this for a few days. On the face of it he's a candidate who shows signs of improving, despite some trenchant opposition to his candidacy. On the other hand (and this is something I regard as decisive) unless the candidate can give a satisfactory explanation of the incident described here I believe he is clearly unsuited to adminship at this time. I suggest that he takes the criticism on the chin and works on improving his involvement (which is already in many ways admirable). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:07, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    Regarding that diff you supplied, I think it would be best to wait until the candidate has had the chance to give his side of the story. As I said below, and in agreement with your statement, this could be very decisive not only on the part of an individual taking part in this RFA, but an issue that may ultimately decide the fate of the RFA itself. We still have just over two days (if I have this right) before the RFA is scheduled to close. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:20, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
Support
[edit]
  1. Yes, yes! I am assured that he will be a big help to the project with the tools. Singularity 05:14, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  2. . Support. (edit conflict) Let's get this party started then...sure, 'pedia building. We'll hit him repeatedly with a wifflebat or trout if he mucks up in future....Cheers, Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:15, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Support (ec). I think the nominators put it better than I could but, very briefly, I've reviewed the last two failed RFAs (before I even knew this one was coming) and have measured the comments there against the contributor I've interacted with here. That process has made me completely comfortable with this support. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    I hate to break WP:300 (I'm sure only temporarily), but I'm indenting pending CANDIDATE14's explanation of the events resulting in East718's oppose, after which I fully expect and hope to unindent. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  3. (ec) Fine, yes. WODUP 05:17, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  4. (ec x2) I have been thoroughly impressed with the way Candidate14 has handled things, and also impressed at all the good work he has done FOR the project. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:18, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Might change depending on response to east evidence below. :( <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 16:47, 3 December 2099 (UTC)`
    Support MBisanz talk Moved to neutral.MBisanz talk 03:39, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Support - Per the noms from the trusted users above and per my own personal interactions with CANDIDATE14 after he reviewed Neil Peart as a good article candidate for me. Wisdom89 (T C) 05:24, 29 May 2099 (UTC) Abstaining. I can no longer offer my support and have no further wish to be apart of this. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:39, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  5. Good god yes. SQLQuery me! 05:30, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  6. I only just discovered he wasn't an admin while attempting to get aid in getting some images moved to commons, which was surprising to say the least. –– Lid(Talk) 05:32, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  7. Support. Seems to be a tireless worker. I think he has moved on since the opposes last time around. Kevin (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  8. Support Clearly a positive addition to the admin corps, his growth over the past year has shown he is clearly ready for it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:37, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  9. Support - Dureo (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  10. Support. Candidate14 has really matured here on-wiki, and has shown his great dedication to the project - he would be a great asset as an administrator. krimpet✽ 05:54, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  11. Support Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:57, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Decent candidate, has reasonable clue, accepts Monopoly money. east.718 at 06:01, May 29, 2099
  12. Yes! --jonny-mt 06:03, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  13. Support - Helz yes. Tiptoety talk 06:04, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  14. Oh my God. Again you forget to tell me about it, and again I had to look through RfA to find it. Nominator1 and you are the most miserable bastards I've ever seen... :p—Dark talk 06:06, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  15. Strong Support. Candidate14 has been a great friend to me from the beginning when I met him. We have communicated through many methods including real-life (another meetup must be planned soon!) and through IRC. I do not believe there is any problems looking through the contributions and he has just become a Commons bureaucrat so he is known to be trusted. Good luck Candidate14. — E ↗TCB 06:11, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  16. Support rootology (T) 06:12, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  17. Big Support - CANDIDATE14 is a valuable contributor and a major asset to Wikipedia, and will only be more so with a mop in hand. – ClockworkSoul 06:14, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  18. This editor should be an admin. Darkspots (talk) 06:15, 29 May 2099 (UTC). Followup: I've been keeping an eye on the opposes and omg drama, and I still trust CANDIDATE14 to do the right thing. These things take on a life of their own, but at the end of the day, he's a solid editor who won't misuse the tools. Darkspots (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  19. Support I've always had positive experiences with CANDIDATE14. Given past experience and Q1, I know he's a man of my own interests, and that's primarily being an editor. Good luck mate. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:15, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  20. Support. For sure. Candidate14 is ready for the role, 100%. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:16, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  21. Support - it's beyond time. I've seen Candidate14 work on other projects and he's great! Yes, he got off to a bit of a shaky start but an awful lot has happened in the last 6 months. No problems whatsoever here - Alison ❤ 06:19, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  22. God yes ViridaeTalk 06:23, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  23. + Much matured. Keegantalk 06:26, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  24. Support - my most recent interaction with him was when he turned down a GA nomination that I'd edited on - his comments were fair and very helpful, and I was (once again) impressed with his approach. From all that I've seen in the last few months, I don't have a problem supporting the nomination. - Bilby (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  25. Mos def I think Candidate14 is now ready, and I have no doubt that he will be an excellent, trustworthy admin. -- Kicking222, not signed in. (If a b'crat doubts I am me, feel free to use the email on my userpage.) 06:36, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, you have to be signed in to !vote. Please sign in.Nominator2 (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    For the record, I have emailed Mike (Kicking222) with a note that his vote has been indented. As he had previously expressed support of (one of) my RfAs, I don't consider this canvassing. Candidate14 (H2O) 06:55, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    It's not... for scores of reasons.Nominator2 (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Identity confirmed by email. WjBscribe 21:17, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  26. Support, but can someone summarise Dan's nomination for me, tl;dr ;) --Stephen 06:38, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Yes, what dan said is: he's great, support himNominator2 (talk)
    "Dan" or Danny as he likes to be called (*flees*) talks rubbish and hopes people will support Candidate14 based on the the size of the statement itself... To summarize, support or he'll fill you up with ice. —Dark talk 07:36, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  27. Support, looks like he has everything needed to be a proper admin. SirFozzie (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  28. Exceptionally strong support - I grew excited the moment I saw this RfA from the top of the page. Water (that's what Candidate14 is) is among the most active editors on the project. Well rounded and well versed in policy, his outstanding contributions span from a massive number of good article contributions, anti-vandalism efforts, and assistance at administrative noticeboards such as ANI. He is always civil and helpful in discussions, and is always focused on improving the encyclopedia. Giving him the mop and bucket won't just be giving us another editor with access to extra technical powers; I truly believe sysopping this editor will make Wikipedia as a whole a better place. And adding the nominations from editors whose judgement I fully trust and the fact that I sincerely believed for a while that he was already an administrator, there is absolutely no reason not to support this RfA. Valtoras (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  29. Strong support (edit conflict)x2 I've had nothing but positive interactions with Candidate14 from day one. He is certainly mature enough to handle the tools. In fact, in my honest opinion, Candidate14 is more knowledge and trustworthy than many seasoned admins. It's time to let him use his fullest potential to help Wikipedia. hmwithτ 06:54, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  30. Based on strong previous personal interaction. I have in the past found myself unable to support CANDIDATE14. I believe he now as the relevant experience. Yes there are concerns. But will he abuse or misuse the buttons? I don't believe so. Comment from 29 May 2099 totally refactored in light of the strength of feeling this RFA is producing. Previous firvolous comment removed and useful statement inserted Pedro :  Chat  07:13, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  31. Tarragon $upport. I like your idea's and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Dfrg_msc 07:14, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  32. That's hot. One of my favorite contributors. Mike H. Fierce! 07:17, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  33. Absolutely 110% overwhelming support! Best of luck! --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 07:20, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  34. Strong support - superb editor, diligent, tireless, dedicated, and with some of the most impressive content contributions I've seen. Every interaction I've ever had or seen with this user has been very positive. Will be an excellent administrator. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:26, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Support Will make a great admin. nancy (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2099 (UTC) The removal of my !vote is not a comment on H2O but on the process which I believe has been dragged through the mud and then some. Sorry, but I cannot be part of such an unedifiying spectacle. nancy (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  35. Support I know you, Nominator2 vouches for you, and between the two of you I feel there is enough trust to support. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:38, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  36. Support, again. MrPrada (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  37. Support - one of the most dedicated article builders I know of. Committed to developing concensus in order to move the project forward. Couldn't say more. Gazimoff WriteRead 07:53, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  38. Support. Dedicated editor and participant who has also contributed quality article content. Cla68 (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  39. Yeah, per that huge heap of text way up the top there :) Nominator1 (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  40. Support for the same reason as last time. Hopefully the extra buttons won't be too much of a distraction from your great article work and GA reviews. Spellcast (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  41. Support - Certainly now a more mature person than we saw at previous RfAs, an excellent content contributor/reviwer, has a clue... oh, and fantastic username! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 08:16, May 29, 2099 (UTC)
  42. Support. Well, I'd put something witty in here, but I'm afraid its too early in the morning to think of such things. Great user. Qst (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  43. Support. If I was made an admin, he could be on the board. Good luck Candidate14. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:21, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  44. Support I think H2O is a thoughtful, smart editor who will do well as an admin. Privatemusings (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  45. Support- Duh! Mellie ♥ 08:40, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  46. Support I've seen CANDIDATE14 everywhere. A hard-working, civil and trustworthy candidate who has my full support. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  47. Support - No problems I can see. ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  48. Strong support - The opposes don't worry me at all. We are all human, we all make mistakes, but I do not think that having an opinion about a block is one of them. He has said he will follow consensus and if that is not good enough for you, then it is most certainly good enough for me. Supported per WP:WTHN.  Asenine  08:47, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  49. Über support, per this. --Kakofonous (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  50. Support - I've worked with CANDIDATE14 here and at Commons and he's come along in leaps and bounds, he's honed his judgement and is an excellent contributor of quality content. I'm now completely certain that the promotion of CANDIDATE14 would be a considerable benefit to the project. The nom's not bad either, I suppose. ;-) Nick (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  51. No problems with this one - he knows his stuff, and tells it how it is. Good candidate. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:41, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  52. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:54, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  53. Claro que si SpencerT♦C 10:56, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  54. VERY Strong super duper Support: Perfect ! He is humourous and intelligent ( Nothing more to say ).... First Time , I dont even have to do a single research before deciding to press the button -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 10:58, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  55. Support. I've traditionally opposed CANDIDATE14 in the past, but this time I even offered to nominate. Good work Candidate14. :) • AndonicO Engage. 11:02, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  56. Support - You can't be any worse than the current lot! --Chris 11:03, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  57. Support - I believe this candidate will make a good admin from what I have seen of the candidate contrib. in my time here. Good luck. KTC (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  58. (multiple edit conflicts) Nearly strong support - I usually don't give my strong support to many candidates, but my first thought in mind when I saw this nomination at the RfA page was, "it would be very hard for me to oppose him". Candidate14 has done a lot of exceptional article-writing work, with a high involvement in article-building areas such as GA reviewing. I really think his focus is in the right place; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that's our top priority. From all that I've seen, I believe that he has the maturity for administrator decision making - for one, the areas he mentioned in Q1 are all things that he's had some experience in, not overstepping into somewhat unfamiliar ground, which I like seeing. Just recently, I had been noticing him and wondering when he'd run for adminship. He seems to know his stuff and policies. And finally, I was honestly impressed with his simple, NBD nom acceptance statement – "Worst comes to worst, this fails and I go write some more articles." Good luck with your adminship, you have my support, JamieS93 11:05, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  59. Strong and unqualified support. Having worked with Candidate14 on Commons, I have no hesitation about trusting him here. DurovaCharge! 11:07, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  60. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:10, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Suporthas learned from past mistakes, knows why we are here, writes articles, friendly to newcomers, not elitist etc--Phoenix-wiki 11:13, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    omg i couldnt be first to support? :( this is the only rfa ive ever actually added to my watchlist pre-emptively. naerii - talk 11:16, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    p.s. the noms are way. too. freaking. long. i am not reading all that :/ naerii - talk 11:17, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Hey! Mine is only one paragraph! You can read it. :D Lara❤Love 12:40, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  61. Strong Support. This is one of the users I have strong respect for. AVandtalkcontribs 11:27, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  62. Support I've seen this guy everywhere and he'll make a great admin. --CapitalR (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Support - I thought CANDIDATE14 was already admin. I'm definitely sure CANDIDATE14 will not abuse admin tools. D.M.N. (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    As much as CANDIDATE14 is a good user, as much as I think he should be an admin, quite frankly, this RFA is joke, this makes the RFA process on the whole look a shambles, and it reflects on others badly. If there is canvassing, then I personally think this RFA should be emergency closed as it does not reflect on the true feelings of this community. The actions of one of the nominations, is quite frankly, shocking. TBH, if I was CANDIDATE14, I would expect a full apologise for the betrayl from that individual. I will, if CANDIDATE14 goes for it in the future, Support CANDIDATE14 as he is undoubtedly a great, superb future, and I wish him the best of luck in the future. D.M.N. (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  63. Support - A duh support. Sunderland06 (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  64. Support - I'd put something witty here, but all the good stuff's already been said. ffm 11:40, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  65. Strong Support. Of course. Malinaccier P. (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  66. Support - 'nuff said. -- Agathoclea (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  67. Support, definitely.  Frank  |  talk  12:03, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  68. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:14, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  69. EC Support you're a great guy :-) CWii 2(Talk|Contribs) 12:15, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  70. Is the line for "Indiana Jones"? Oh, wrong line. In any event, Support! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  71. Possibly the latest nom support in history :D Lara❤Love 12:31, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Nope... Since I think "beat the nom support" is a sign of truly strong candidates, I don't !vote on my noms until they break 100 !votes or until the last day of their candidacy... that way every !vote can be a beat the nom support ;-) Nominator2 (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  72. Didn't beat the nom support. --Kbdank71 12:41, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  73. Goodness gracious I really can't believe you aren't an admin already Support -- Brilliant user, no problems at all! --Cameron (T|C) 13:30, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  74. Just be careful with the tools. Use them wisely and sparingly. I sincerely hope the administrator tools do not affect your ability to write articles. And if you send me thank you spam, this support will be rescinded. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:31, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  75. Support I've never witnessed an instance that could make me doubt the benefit this candidate would have to this project as an administrator. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  76. Support hang on, since when have you not been an admin? :D Happy‑melon 13:36, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  77. Strong support Per everbody above. One of the best candidates I've seen in a long time. I see him everywhere, especially GA and GAN, and I have no doubts he will make an excellent admin. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:41, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  78. Support I like his username. However I will be very disappointed if he does not thank me for this ;) 81.149.250.228 (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2099 (UTC)Note: Domain of lighting has identified himself as the author of this support below.
    Sorry my good man, IPs can't comment like this, so I've indented you. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:50, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Why not? Every edit made by this IP, even the bad ones, has been me 81.149.250.228 (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Sorry, thems the rules. See WP:RFA for more info. You must have a registered account to comment on RFA's. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:51, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    I have this account (IP and I are one and the same) so I've dedented the vote if that's ok? Domain of lighting (talk) 06:49, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  79. Support You're not an admin? Pff... Qb | your 2 cents 13:48, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  80. Dammit. I went offline, come back online, and missed my chance to nominate. SOAB. CANDIDATE14 is one of the strongest, most clueful, most daring, and most capable administrators we have. He should have the tools to go along with that. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:11, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  81. Support No sense he would abuse the tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    weak support I've disagreed with him sometimes and agreed with him sometimes. His recent behavior with the Moulton situation especially gives me pause. That said, overall I think that giving him the tools will benefit the project as long as he doesn't engage in controversial uses of the unblocking tools. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2099 (UTC) Switching to oppose. Too many concerns. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  82. Support I wanted to nominate him earlier to because he completely fills all of my requirements. He has a deep understanding of the relevant policies and he definitely meets all of the other requirements. Razorflame 14:52, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  83. Support I'm a little concerned by the links given by the opposition, not so much that they prove that Candidate14 is wrong on this or that issue, but just that the recent blog post suggests that he currently has "issues". Sometimes, that makes me go neutral or oppose, on the theory of giving the candidate time to blow off some steam, so that neither they nor anyone else gets hurt. But in this case...OMG support. Let's keep up the drumbeat: we're building an encyclopedia, and nothing else matters as much as that; anyone who is essential to getting that done needs to be supported in every possible way, and Candidate14 is absolutely critical to the proper functioning of WP:GAN. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:54, 29 May 2099 (UTC) Update- note that I got my vote in before the drama, and that I'm not involved, for which I am deeply grateful. Neither my position nor my reasoning have changed. I hope people will take another look at how Wikipedia is and isn't successful at flattening heirarchy; as Einstein might say, it should be as flat as possible, but no flatter. That is, if the first step up that requires community acknowledgement and support is a step that might or might not be available to someone as important to Wikipedia as Candidate14, then you're pretty much guaranteeing explosive battles. Humans generally require some kind of appropriate acknowledgement of "belonging" without having to pass so many tests. But this is just food for thought, and not a comment on this RfA. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:41, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  84. Über Support User is totally 1337. In other words, have interacted with H2O, he is a good user who won't abuse the tools. RC-0722 361.0/1 14:55, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  85. Support. I opposed for good reasons on the previous occasions, but I see no reason to oppose this time. The GA process is so broken that any alleged abuse of it really doesn't matter. And opposes based on comments he's made on other sites are frankly odd. — iridescent 15:10, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  86. Support, though I would far rather see him sticking with article writing and reviewing than getting sucked further into all the drama. J Milburn (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  87. Support a leader in Commons and Wikimedia. Vishnava talk 15:35, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  88. Support. He's come a long way since his earlier RFAs but I've seen and appreciated his various contributions. He's not perfect (but, hey, who is?) and he has my trust. --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:55, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  89. Support Switch to strong support, based on dignity and aplomb with which has handled the most contentious RFA I've been involved with and in the way he has answered questions and responded to criticism. Opposers have fairly called into question his maturity. His handling of this RfA shows he has come further than I would have thought possible. Despite being perplexed by the link from Guettarda's oppose, I believe CANDIDATE14 certainly can be trusted with the block/unblock, protect/unprotect, and delete/undelete buttons. I don't want to get into the can of worms involved there. This is in the past. There comes a time to leave the past in the past. CANDIDATE14 seems deeply into Wiki-politicking and still has a flair for the dramatic. Oh well. If he were perfect, he would be up for sainthood, not adminship. He is a very bright young man who is passionate about this project. His contributions are astounding. He has more than adequate understanding of policy to have the buttons. If I were political, I would probably disagree with him thoroughly on many things. Political differences aside, to say his adminship is a net positive is a vast understatement. Dlohcierekim 15:56, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Comment Bishonen's support goes a long way to allay any residual concerns I had. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:07, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  90. Support - Resistance is futile, Lol. Your deeply needed, I see you everywhere and to be honest I already thought you were an Admin. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 16:04, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  91. About fucking time. dorftrottel (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    CANDIDATE14 is not Danny, so this RfA looks like the typical crat, chat, fail candidate. Abandon all hope, soon they will be lording it over here and that settles that. dorftrottel (talk) 09:00, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  92. Geez, I go 24 hours without peeking and there's a new RFA with 100+ comments already, and my comment is already superfluous? Although there are a couple of diffs in the oppose section that seem to indicate that CANDIDATE14 might not be perfect, and as tempted as I am to vote against (and seek recall for) everyone that is not perfect, (1) we would only have 2 admins left; and (2) my own glass house couldn't take that kind of scutiny. At some point you forgive excesses in the past. The "net benefit" arguement makes this a no brainer for me. (Actually, I see I could have made this shorter. The short version is: per Dlohcierekim.) --barneca (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  93. Support 101 =[ I have to support you for what you have done! •Add§hore• Talk/Cont 16:16, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  94. Strongly: ever since I met Candidate14 back in May 2007, I have constantly been impressed with him. I have had continually good interactions with him, and I don't believe he'll do any damage. He's trusted on other projects, so I don't see why he'd go berserk here. I co-nominated him back in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Candidate14, as I believed he was ready then, and I believe he's ready now. Oh, and Nominator1 should pat himself on the back for one hell of a nomination statement. :) Acalamari 16:20, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  95. Support. No issues here. Every encounter with CANDIDATE14 has been positive. None of the oppose diffs worry me at all. Tan | 39 16:22, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  96. Support. →Christian.И 16:31, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  97. Strong Support I have been waiting for this RFA since February. I have actually considered starting this RFA without telling him I did it just to see how many people would support even if he hadn't indicated his acceptance. J.delanoygabsanalyse 16:32, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  98. Support - Indeed, maturity is a wonderful thing. Sean William @ 16:32, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  99. Support Been waiting a long time for this one. No reservations whatsoever. Thingg⊕⊗ 16:41, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  100. Support After looking at the links for opposes, and the comments in support, I think there are enough reasons to believe CANDIDATE14 is ready for the tools. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 16:47, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    (note - witholding my support until the privacy concerns brought up by East are answered) Yes, please. Ironically I was kicking around the idea of asking if he'd be interested in being nominated for adminship. I see that I'm not the only one (besides the noms) who had been thinking about it. This one is long overdue. Arkyan 16:52, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  101. If it were any other editor, flags would go up with all the RfAs, but I have had nothing but good experiences with this dedicated editor. Maybe he might have some occasional bad judgement, but no worse than I have in my tenure as admin; besides, as per Q#1 he's undertaking minor but helpful tasks which can be aided by the tools, so I see nothing wrong here. Excelsior! --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  102. Weak Support due to reflections on talk page.Nominator2 (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  103. Support I think that he will do a good job..Modernist (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  104. Support Not persuaded by opposes, believe he will be an asset with the tools. Davewild (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  105. Support per my esteemed colleagues, above. I'll highlight Barneca and Dlohcierekim's supports as good statements of my reasoning; If drama there was, it's in the past. I may disagree with an editor, or even an admin, but disagreeing is a far cry from believing that that admin will abuse his tools. CANDIDATE14 is a good editor, and will indeed be a net positive as an admin. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:34, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  106. Support Antonio Lopez (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  107. Support Yes, please! I've been waiting for this opportunity for a while, and I'm glad it's finally arrived. There is a lesson for all of us: if you behave like a kid, you get treated like a kid. If you behave like an adult, you get treated like an adult. Candidate14/H2O has matured since I did an editor review on him last year: that was before he wrote all those beautiful GAs and FAs. Good luck to him. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:39, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  108. support —DerHexer (Talk) 17:42, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  109. Support (EC x116). What's left to say? Hiberniantears (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  110. Support - It's about time. -FrankTobia (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  111. Obviously- Yes please! Give him the the mop already.Perfect Proposal Speak Out! 17:52, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    What an interesting candidate! Candidate14 has done some fantastic article work and he is a great credit to the encyclopædia. He usually acts in a mature fashion and can communicate effectively, but I do worry about some of his remarks made off-wiki. Nevertheless, he has shown at Commons that he can be an effective administrator and I believe that he will act professionally in that capacity here in English Wikipedia. He appears to have a strong sense of justice and equality; he is willing to stand up and be counted, even if it will garner him opposes from certain editors. Will there be drama? Maybe, but I honestly believe he will do what is right with the tools. The best of luck, EJF (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2099 (UTC) I must withdraw at this time from this immoral farce. Perhaps with some reflection I can come back and support. Sorry, EJF (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  112. Support DM3 is one of those editors where I always believed he already was an admin. No concerns from me. – sgeureka t•c 18:08, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  113. Strong Support I opposed Candidate14 in his last two RfAs because of immaturity and civility issues. I think he's learned from his mistakes, and has shown an improved demeanor on Wikipedia. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:14, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Support Nothing but good interactions with him. Honestly thought he was an admin already. Tool2Die4 (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2099 (UTC) While I wholeheartedly support the user, I cannot support the joke that this RfA has become, so I'm removing my vote. Tool2Die4 (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2099 (UTC) Moving to Oppose
  114. Strong Support: I normally don't have much to say in RfAs. Hell, I've never even talked to Candidate14, but whenever I read projects, read talk pages, there always seems to be a comment from him and it always seems to be insightful. The man is a machine with the amount of mainspace edits, and I think it would be a disservice if he wasn't sysoped. Looking at his work at Commons, I see no reason to object to this. -- Nomader (Talk) 18:40, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  115. Support - has been the most helpful to me at Bot Requests for approval, and I've seen him around recently helping out the GA's as well. --T-rex 18:51, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  116. Maxim(talk) 19:07, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  117. Support - Seen this user around and believe him to be very helpful. Skinny87 (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  118. Support - Worthy user who will not abuse the tools. Zenlax T C S 19:18, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  119. Support - About time, too. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 19:52, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  120. Support —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:19, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  121. King Size Support - I've been waiting for this to open a while now. Most definitely ready. iMatthew T.C. 20:49, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  122. Support. I think I've played some part in shooting down several of H2O's previous RFAs (see for instance Oppose 10/his answer to Question 3 above), but I've been truly impressed by his development since those. Are you sure you're the same person, Candidate14..? Bishonen | talk 21:12, 29 May 2099 (UTC).
    No... we worked on that... civility, maturity, and responsibility.Nominator2 (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  123. Support per pretty much everyone else; Candidate14 will make an excellent admin. —paranomiahappy harry's high club 21:24, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  124. Al Tally talk 21:40, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  125. Support - I've watched CANDIDATE14 for quite a while, and I have to agree with Bishonen, he's really not the same fellow who was here a few RfA's ago. I think all of us can have our sillier moments, but he's shown that he can take responsibility seriously by his work on Commons, and his talk page is full of examples of his assisting editors with a wide variety of issues. He's shown he can collaborate with others and has pretty good communication skills. Risker (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Given the extraordinary circumstances of this RfA, I'd been reconsidering whether it was, well, healthy for CANDIDATE14, and if it had the potential to lead him down the wrong path. I see above, though, that given the stunning twists and turns of the past hour, he has taken a step to reassure the community that he's aware of at least some of the concerns expressed in the oppose votes. He has now posted his terms of recall in advance of there being any reason to recall him, and I take that as a good sign he's getting it. Risker (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  126. Support - Candidate14 is a trusted admin on commons, is a quality contributor here, clearly gets what wikipedia is all about and understands what the tools are for/not for. While I appreciate the points raised below I can't see any reason to think he'll use the tools innapropriately - Peripitus (Talk) 21:54, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  127. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:57, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    The opposers have made many valid points, and I feel the need to elaborate on my comment - I'm going to be as honest and frank as possible here; please don't be offended if I criticize your oppose. The most worrying point is the one about hasty comments at FAC by Sandy and Tony. It's the only one I fully agree with, but somehow I don't think it's quite enough to oppose; CANDIDATE14 wouldn't judge consensus in AfDs hastily, I'm sure; he probably just unfortunately gives the act of giving his own opinion less consideration. Next to consider is the blog postings - Ling.Nut called them childish finger pointing, others criticized them as uninformed overreactions, as well as being overly temperamental. Frankly, I agree with the spirit of his "Disgusted" post; in fact, I posted a comment to it that I somewhat regret now, as it was a reaction of my own quick temper. Could CANDIDATE14 have been more tactful? Yes, and he should probably try to curb his emotions, think twice before posting something (as should I!). He probably also should have researched more thoroughly before posting, but the spirit of his post wasn't incorrect, and it most definitely wasn't "childish finger pointing". Also, it should be noted that CANDIDATE14 did not leave following that blog post - there's at least one oppose based on that mistaken conception. Next thing's next - the CWii posting admittedly was childish finger pointing. It brought into question my judgment of him, but the way he handled it after the outburst was excellent; Cwii himself supports this nomination. As I said, CANDIDATE14 needs to stop being impulsive - however, I don't think he would let such outbursts affect the more serious on-wiki issues of judging consensus and blocking users. After the blogging concerns comes that of his involvement with the BRC - "social networking aspects". One oppose remarks that he supports cabals - I'm not sure where they got that idea, frankly. For his excellent and well-thought out views (in my humble opinion), I would read this. Next comes the charge of "corruption" in the GA process - frankly, I unilaterally condemn him on that, and had I been active at the time that he did that, I would have requested he leave the GA project, but he's proved me wrong - "more than redeemed himself" in the words of another supporter. Lastly, there's being too proud of his FAs - this, frankly, I regard as utterly ridiculous for reasons that have been stated by others better than I ever could. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 18:50, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Oh, and I forgot my by far most important point. Adminship, today, is a big deal, as many protest in response to WP:DEAL. But it shouldn't be. Please, try to judge CANDIDATE14 by his virtues and faults as if he were just your run-of-the-mill uncontroversial candidate (by uncontroversial, I mean a candidate which doesn't attract the attention of so many people), and try to keep the drama and incivility out of this RfA. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 18:56, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    I presume you are referring to Rockpocket's oppose with regards to "cabals". He stated that CANDIDATE14 was promoting "the divisive concept of cabals". I believe he was referring to real, POV-pushing, tag-teaming cabals rather than toy Myspace "cabals". I also don't think that he was suggesting that CANDIDATE14 supports cabals in any shape or form, simply that CANDIDATE14 believes and is spreading the idea that POV-pushers are controlling content. Regards, EJF (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Ah, that makesm ore sense. My opinion on that is already in my above comment. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 19:17, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  128. Definite support Especially with two great trustworthy and fair co-nominators adding their bit - but mainly because it's about time now.--VS talk 22:18, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  129. Support - Have seen this user around a fair bit, and have been impressed genearlly. So I support. Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  130. Support. A content monster. I like content monsters. I think they should be given the tools needed to remain content monsters and be content monsters in a highly effective way. JFW | T@lk 22:23, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  131. Support - Very helpful editor, I see no judgment worries otherwise. - Merzbow (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  132. Support Yes, H20 will be an excellent admin. Firm command of policy and an excellent mediator. Bstone (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  133. This should have come a long time ago. As far as I can see, CANDIDATE14 has fixed all the immaturity concerns present in some of his past RFAs, and in my eyes Moulton is a fairly intelligent guy with a COI problem, so I do not agree with Guettarda etc. "Storming off in a huff" doesn't concern me because it helps you cool down one's anger. In general, the opposes do not convince me, so therefore I !vote/vote/decide to Support. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 23:13, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  134. Support Definitely. I have read many of his comments on various talk pages throughout the project. I am impressed by the thoughtfulness, deliberativeness, and intelligence of the points which he's raised. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  135. Support I had my reservations in the past, but I think that enough time has passed. We all make mistakes, and I'm a believer in second chances. CANDIDATE14 is a great editor who will do just fine with the mop. faithless (speak) 00:26, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  136. Support. Should we make DM pay for his mistakes from years back? I say NO. He should've got the mop long time ago.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:57, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  137. Ultra strong support. Sceptre (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  138. Super Strong Support CANDIDATE14 is one of the best editors around here. He does more for the project than dozens of editors combined, and only wants to help the site. The opposing side does have a few somewhat good reasons, but I find that the majority just need to lighten up, and realize that making him an admin is nothing but good. Drama? Pffft. Give me a damn break. You guys want to complain about drama? Try starting at the source... he'll be better than the majority of the 1500+ "admins" we already have, Good Lord. Jmlk17 01:19, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  139. STRONGEST POSSIBLE SUPPORT. Most of the opposite are petty disagreements, and this is one of the most sensible editors on the project. Any issues I had from previous RfAs are long gone. This is overdue. After viewing who exactly is opposing DM, I've weighted my type of support accordingly. Wizardman 01:22, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  140. Support - One of the few things I have to do before I leave. Make me proud, Candidate14... Astral (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  141. Support What is there else to say LegoKontribsTalkM 01:58, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  142. Strong Support - Why didn't you tell me you were up for RFA? I would have co-nommed damn it! :P We have had conflicts and disagreements in the past, but those have helped me to know you better. I strongly believe that you will be a great admin. Good luck with the tools, --Chetblong (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  143. Support The oppose votes fail to shake my confidence in Candidate14, who is a friendly, experienced and helpful editor. I'm sure he will be the same as admin, and the idea that he would abuse the tools is laughable. Frankly, much of the oppose rationales are not only petty (to use Wizardman's apt term), but are plainly unfit for serious consideration by anyone who truly believes in the positive values that are at the heart of this community. VanTucky 02:03, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  144. Support I must admit, this user has had some troubles with AGF in the past. However, I feel that after eight months, this user should have matured enough to remove his previous incivility. I trust Candidate14 with the tools provided that he continues to show newfound maturity.  Marlith (Talk)  02:06, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  145. Support of course. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 02:08, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  146. Support - I've seen DM around for a while and he would be an asset as an admin. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 02:10, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  147. Commons trusts him enough to be a bureaucrat ... I think we can trust him to be an admin. Hard worker, nice guy, unlikely to blow up the wiki... Drama avoidance needs work, yes, but those faulting him for putting things in front of the community to see whether consensus still exists are way wide of the mark. Oh, and why didn't anyone canvass ME? I almost missed this one. support ++Lar: t/c 02:18, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  148. Support Weak Support I do have some reservations about his judgment occasionally, but this is still an overwhelming net positive. The tools have been a long time coming for Candidate14. GlassCobra 02:24, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Even though some of the supporters are dropping out because of the mockery of process that this RfA has become, I would still like to express my support for Candidate14 at this time for handling this by and large with a great deal of dignity. I do not believe that just because he has aroused the wrath of a group of editors that will stoop to any underhanded tactic necessary to see their goals achieved does not mean he should suffer, or be penalized, and not receive the tools that are due to him. While there are certainly some valid opposes here (lingering maturity concerns, etc.) these are put to shame by the clique of people currently attempting to emasculate Candidate14 for his supposed connection with some sort of shadowy "cabal of racists." Aside from being one of the most ludicrous excuses for opposing a candidate that I've ever seen, this sort of desperate accusation has absolutely no basis in fact. I have also seen the evidence that east718 has brought up regarding disclosure of personal information. However, I cannot ignore the fact that this was in retaliation to some of the most voracious canvassing by opposers that the RfA process has ever seen, more than likely. I have discussed it with Wikipedians whom I respect, and I do not believe that it should derail this RfA at this time. However, Candidate14 does of course need to know that this behavior, and any sort like it, has to be absolutely ironed out if he is going to make a decent admin.
    To sum up, I'd like to echo Nousernamesleft, who puts this all exceedingly well. Yes, Candidate14 needs try to curb his emotions and think twice before posting something; but we're all human, and I know that I personally am not one to judge others for quick tempers. He also counters these occasional outbursts with well thought out posts that are both logical and inspiring, like his help in rewording a guideline in the "Myspace cabal" RfC, located here. Candidate14's had a few conflicts with well-known users during his time here, namely Majorly and Bishonen. However, I find it very telling and a testament to Candidate14's good spirit and willingness to let bygones be bygones that the two of them still in the ranks of the supporters at the time of this writing. Adminship should not be a big deal, period. It is a true shame that RfA has become little more than a place to air petty grievances and unsubstantiated rumors at the behest of the good of the project. GlassCobra 16:23, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  149. I wasn't planning on supporting (although I think he'd make a great admin). However, after seeing some of the opposes, I'd just like to counter out some of the more piss poor ones below. Monobi (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  150. Support because I'm eternally grateful :) - Epousesquecido (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    The way CANDIDATE14 has conducted himself during this stressful RFA shows he can handle the responsibilty of having the Admin. tools. - Epousesquecido (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  151. Hells yeah. No one's more deserving. But I understand some opposing concerns and would advise Candidate14 to go really slow at the beginning. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:34, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  152. Definitely. Mr.Z-man 02:37, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  153. Support This H20 is duck-certificated. :-) Seriously now, we all known that Candidate14 made quite a few mistakes before, but I believe that he has greatly improved in the recent past. He is dedicated, experienced and communicative. And, after all this time on Wikipedia, he's still friendly! Good luck mate, I'm looking forward to see this closed successfully (so I can make a long awaited amendment to a certain page you know which). ;-) (note: edit conflicted twice) Húsönd 02:38, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    PS:I second Riana. If promoted, please administer with caution and wisdom. Húsönd 02:45, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  154. Support Excellent editor. Excellent GA reviewer. I have no problems with this RfA. Dr. Cash (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  155. Haemo (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  156. Not much left to say Support. Oh! I forgot to mention this short, but excellent essay. —Travistalk 03:46, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  157. Support. I've seen good things from DM here and on commons. No doubt he'll work well as an admin on this project. - auburnpilot talk 04:00, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  158. Support Will be an asset to the community with a mop. While I understand the concerns raised by those below, I think CANDIDATE14 is communicative enough that if something does go off the rails, it can be set right soon enough. --Bfigura (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  159. Support He is certainly a strong editor and I see no problems. — Wenli (reply here) 04:29, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  160. Support It seems that the issues of maturity raised here are in the past; though some of the issues raised in this RfA have concerned me, per question 4, CANDIDATE14 says he will be open to recall. Given this, I think he can be trusted to be responsible with the tools - if not, they can be removed.CrazyChemGuy (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  161. Support No doubt in my mind that CANDIDATE14 has always and will continue to improve Wikipedia more then most editors, and surely to a greater extent if granted adminship. Drewcifer (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  162. Support You mean he's not an admin already? Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 05:50, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  163. Support Wonderful to see someone grow and improve like this. I think it is time to put him to the test, and I am very impressed with some of the answers here. --John (talk) 06:04, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  164. Support Good interactions with this user, will be a solid administrator. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:17, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  165. Support- And I bet this will be a WP:200. Steve Crossin (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  166. Strong Support Good asset, will be good admin. Unsurprised by the alliances of some of the opposers. Minkythecat (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  167. Support due to candidates reaction to canvassing by the opposers. Jacina (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  168. Support Good asset, I hope a certain cabal is quaking in fear. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:11, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  169. Super Strong Diamond-Encrusted Special Support, I've known CANDIDATE14 for awhile, and I am absolutely convinced that he can be trusted to use the tools in a responsible and professional manner. His conduct elsewhere where given the tools has been exemplary, and his contributions to the Wiki here are incredible, to say the least. If CANDIDATE14 were not promoted, then we would be cheating ourselves out of what I'm convinced will be a really good servant of the Wiki. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:44, 30 May 2099 (UTC).
  170. Support - Seen lots of good contributions from this user in several areas of the encyclopedia VegaDark (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Support -- ahh what hasnt already been said...... what they all said Gnangarra 08:12, 30 May 2099 (UTC)withdrawning from this RfA as its fast becoming a farce, yet I trust and support CANDIDATE14 with the mop. This RfA has passed from being a review of CANDIDATE14 and whether we can trust him to act reasonibly to forumn for people to exercise extremist views. Additionally to many opinions are not necessarily the result of informed opinion but rather the result of email canvassing. This RfA is showing why there are problems with the RfA process, not matter how seriously we tout WP:BLP we cant expect people to believe we actually follow it, while we willing treat members of our own community with such distain. I read below many accusations of corruption, racism yet where are the citations, even respected editors are throw inuendo around telling people trust me just look back in various archives its all there. Gnangarra 12:42, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  171. By the way, thanks for your commitment to the project.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 08:51, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  172. Strong support - Track record of building is strong. As for impartiality etc, the GAC/FAC record compares favourably to a lot of admins. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:08, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  173. Support — I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, you'll certainly make a good administrator. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 10:05, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  174. Support. He will be an excellent admin. Axl (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  175. Support It's time, surely and if Nominator1 is prepared to nominate that pretty much seals the deal. Good luck and all the best, Candidate14. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:24, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  176. Trusted, solid article contributor, competent, experienced, and good nomination statements. You have my support. Anthøny 11:28, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Support on the power of the nomination statements and answers to the questions Fritzpoll (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2099 (UTC) Sorry, but I supported on the basis of the nom statements. Now I'm confused as to where at least one of them stands. Not going to move to another column - just going to withdraw form this process Fritzpoll (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  177. Support: Nobody I think is an admin is! The user can be trusted with the tools, in my opinion...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 11:44, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  178. Support No reason to believe he would be anything other than a great admin. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 12:52, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  179. Support: A tireless worker ... and let's be serious. He's a bureaucrat on Commons. What the heck trumps that in terms of his ability to become an admin here? Yes, I've disagreed with him on a few things, but it's a crying shame how RfA is turning into "If X ever does, says or even thinks anything with which I disagree, it means s/he's unfit."  RGTraynor  13:17, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  180. Support I have historically opposed CANDIDATE14's RfAs, but I think that he has improved and will make a good admin. However, this will likely never cease to worry me. Captain panda 14:25, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Support I supported in your last RfA and can see no good reason not to in this one also. RMHED (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Removing support until the email controversy is cleared up. RMHED (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  181. Support, will not abuse the tools. Also offering moral support due to apparent Oppose canvassing by the ID Wikiproject people. Kelly hi! 15:01, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  182. Support, trusted already with extra tools on commons and the multiple FA's etc show his commitment to the project. -- Marcsin | Talk 15:31, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  183. Support Reliable user. Speed CG Talk 16:08, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  184. Herculean Support This is long since past due. Both an incredible writer and one of the most clueful editors I have ever seen when it comes to the common-sense interpretation of policy. If he wouldn't make an excellent candidate for adminship, then NOBODY would. Trusilver 16:12, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  185. He knows what he's doing, he does it well, and he generally goes around making Wikipedia a better place. I enthusiastically support. Don't let the mop change you, CANDIDATE14. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:32, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  186. Support Although I am not terribly pleased with power accumulating in the hands of specific persons (it seems like everywhere I turn it's the same group of people) I have seen enough of this editor's work to build trust in him or her. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  187. Support Absolutely unreal that oppposers are concerned about Wikipedia cliques when the oppose section reads like a family tree. This candidate is willing to get his hands dirty, and take the heat for it. He's going to be a great admin. the_undertow talk 16:46, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Hmm... a family tree. Can't say it's every day that I see SlimVirgin, SandyGeorgia, Moreschi, Neil, Swatjester, Orangemarlin, and B on the same side of an issue. Though some of their interactions do remind me of elements of my family tree... MastCell Talk 18:33, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Quite the correct observation; I don't usually find myself among that particular "family tree". Further, my concerns are based on hard data anyone can verify by simply viewing the FAC archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Indeed. My last interaction with SlimVirgin was...ah...perhaps the sort of thing you do get in really dysfunctional families (four-letter words, ANI drama, and kickbans from wikien-l). Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:48, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    My intent was not to make a blanket statement, as I must apologize for my cursory review. 7 opposes from affiliates of Wikiproject ID, and 0 supports just made me curious. It's not the accountant in me looking at patterns, it's probably just the paranoia that goes along with my side-job of being a white supremacist. Nothing to see here. the_undertow talk 08:51, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  188. Support A great editor who can be trusted. He's always willing to help out and has lot's of experience. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  189. Support I tried for the 200 mark, but was busy at the time. At least I'm your 201 supporter Candidate14. I've interacted with this guy, and he is amazing he might have a bad history, but he sure have changed from that. I belive 100% he won't abuse the tools. WP:200 --Kanonkas :  Take Contact  17:06, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  190. Epic Support, this editor has a clue and is able to think critically. Two attributes which are definitely needed now more than ever. CANDIDATE14 is articulate, civil, and has a strong understanding of Wikipedia policies and procedures. His article work is outstanding! There is no reason this editor should be denied the tools, in my humble opinion. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  191. Support, no trust issues here. A great editor and will make a great Admin. EyeSerenetalk 18:42, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Revisiting this, I was initially reconsidering my support (based on Nominator2's comments more than anything else). However, this would have been be unfair to CANDIDATE14, as my interactions with him have been invariably positive and he has given me no reason to doubt his trustworthiness. We all make mistakes, and CANDIDATE14 has shown he can learn from them... and of course adminship is no big deal and the tools can always be revoked. The question I ask myself is, will CANDIDATE14 harm Wikipedia - and I believe the answer is emphatically "no". There will be so many suspicious editors watching his every move, if this RfA does pass, that I really don't envy him :P EyeSerenetalk 09:43, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  192. Support - Adding a rationale. This RfA is probably the most stressful event that CANDIDATE14 will encounter in his time on Wikipedia, and I think he has been dealing with it admirably well. I'm sure he has taken on board the constructive criticism (a minority of the total) written in the oppose section. I think some folks, particularly those who do not frequent RfA and only arrive in the midst of great controversy, mistakenly treat this as though we were electing a head of state. We're discussing someone who wants to be an administrator, here, not governor of planet Earth. He may not be perfect, but who among us is? None of the opposers are without flaws, and the administrators among those who are the most harshly critical should take comfort in the likely fact that their own RfAs had far less scrutiny. For those who have not yet experienced an RfA but who may wish to, consider whether even you meet your arbitrary standards. Avruch T 15:37, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  193. Support. He has made a lot of constructive edits at Wikipedia. The Prince (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  194. Support. No issues with trust or doubts about maturity here. Plenty of experience as well.--Dycedarg ж 20:04, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  195. Support Kwsn (Ni!) 20:22, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  196. Support - Of course! SchfiftyThree 20:29, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Support, conscientious editor. Some of the opposes by respected users such as KillerChihuahua and Raymond Arritt are a little worrying, but overall I think the positive outweighs the negative by a large margin. Other opposes make claims that are rather difficult to verify. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    I'll hold off on this until the discussion about the e-mail to east718 is sorted out. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  197. Thoroughly prepared at this point; I'm not sure that all the points which have been raised in opposition are really related to adminship. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  198. Support. Excellent editor; will make a good administrator. Of the opposes, only SandyGeorgia's and Neil's seem to bear any weight. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:25, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  199. Support. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  200. Such a Strong Support that you could probably break down the Great Wall of China with it If I had to pick one person out of all the 6 million or so users here to be an administrator, it'd be Deskana. But, if he wasn't available, CANDIDATE14 would be my first choice. Is Candidate14 trustworthy? I say Yes indeedy!. None of the opposes really worry me enough to sway my opinion on this one. Also, we need more admins with funny user names.--Koji†Dude (C) 21:30, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  201. Support I couldn't possibly say anything that hasn't already been said; and that means a lot. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:32, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  202. Support a great contributor. Polly (Parrot) 21:51, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  203. Support Ziggy Sawdust 21:58, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  204. Support per Crum375. I do suggest you take some of the actual criticism into consideration. OK? I knew you thought that it was OK! Thanks! SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
    Support - Candidate14? Snap. And if you want a real reason, none of the opposes impress me and it'd be tough for 200+ people to be wrong. Candidate14 Muller 22:20, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  205. Support - I see him around all the time. Thought he was an admin already! SBHarris 22:42, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  206. Support. Worked with and around this user as far as I can remember, seen him around etc. and only have seen him as a user who would make a good admin. Just for the record, I feel that since I've been editing closely to him, that if canvassing would happen, I would be one of those who would receive this supposed email, and I didn't. I also have some suggestions for the user: sounding as un-offensive as possible, stay clear of the drama which people are talking about. I'm not saying you do like drama on Wikipedia, but just remember, at the end of the day, it's no big deal and there's no need to get worked up. Good luck. Jack?! 22:49, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  207. Support, a well recognized name :) -- lucasbfr talk 23:46, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  208. Strong support. A consistent contributor who is widely experienced in all aspects of WP. Johnfos (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  209. Support. No concerns. Well-rounded editor who has gone above and beyond to support this project. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  210. Support. I opposed thrice previously, but more recently formed the view that past concerns had been largely resolved. Tony's comment is real by the way, but I'm sure you'll take that on board. Good luck. Moondyne 01:55, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    Per CCG/171. miranda 02:15, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  211. Support. Some people are never satisfied – he is clearly able, has improved in many respects since past requests for adminship, and probably gained all the desiderata ten times over in that time. —Animum (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  212. To spite the opposition. MessedRocker (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    Please don't undermine the candidate and the process by spiting the opposition. That's ridiculous. Not to mention insulting to those who made good faith opposes. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:10, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    "Undermine" does not even begin what I want to do with the Requests for Adminship process. As for CANDIDATE14, I apologize to him and his supporters for undermining him, as well as the people who had legitimate opposition (I'm not going to bother to count that, though I do think there'd be at least one legitimate oppose vote). Ridiculous? I find getting caught up in the politics of a reference website's administration is more worthy of ridicule. MessedRocker (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  213. Support. The "white pride" issue is entirely irrelevant - CANDIDATE14 is one of our most seasoned, mature mainspace editors, and he didn't get that way by POV pushing and using his authority to boss people around - he knows to discuss article changes on the basis of their merit, not the personal viewpoints of the editors suggesting those changes. We would do well to do the same, and evaluate administrators on the basis of their ability to use the tools to contribute effectively. Although I am concerned that CANDIDATE14's explanation of the Moulton affair is oversimplified and personal, this is best read as an isolated emotional reaction to a very unpleasant incident that hurt people he cared about - and the important thing is that this didn't translate into tool abuse or POINT editing (the unblock was independently justifiable). It doesn't matter how much "drama" an admin causes, as long as it doesn't lead to tool abuse. As for those who are prepared to chalk these support votes up to "social networking," I've never met the guy. Dcoetzee 03:23, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  214. Support He works very hard to uphold policy, guidelines and the prevailing thought.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:49, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  215. Support - no reason he shouldn't be.   jj137 (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  216. Strong support Candidate14 a very good editor. I find no reason to oppose him. Good luck! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  217. Support - Shudde talk 05:36, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  218. Support: I see this user around a lot... and have had no issues with him in the past. Plus, I was under the assumption he had the mop long ago! seicer | talk | contribs 05:46, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  219. Support - I have only ever had good dealings with H2O and believe he is fit for the job. PookeyMaster (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  220. Support Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  221. Strongly support, good editor, and I have not seen anything concerning. Everyking (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  222. Absolutely. Candidate14 has always been most kind and helpful and supportive to me every single time we interacted. Certainly a first-rate candidate for adminship. I trust he'll use the tools responsibly and wisely if given them. No reservation at all. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  223. Support. I have not had a problem with this user, and thought he already was an admin. Nominator1 Case (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  224. Strong support Xenus (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  225. Support. A few of the oppose reasons do give me pause, but he's made so many very good contributions to the encyclopedia and the maturity concern raised appears to me to be more of a case of caring about the encyclopedia too much! I can't call that a reason for me to oppose - I trust him to use the tools for the good of Wikipedia. ~ mazca talk 10:30, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  226. Support. I trust this user. Grab a mop! You deserve it.--Sting Buzz Me... 10:38, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  227. Strong support I trust CANDIDATE14 :) -- Cobi(t|c|b) 11:02, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  228. Support: But of course! I was going to insert a picture of a mop - but it wouldn't look too good. Good Luck! The Helpful One (Review) 11:06, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  229. Support Whites have been marginalized on Wikipedia for far too long. Discombobulator (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    Discombobulator: I find this statement unacceptable and divisive and would ask that you remove it. - Epousesquecido (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    Wow, I strongly ask Discombobulator to retract his comments and apologize. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:11, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    Discombobulator, your comment is unacceptable. Please remove your comment. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    Oi! Perhaps the most irrelevant, potentially disruptive/contraproductive, and worst thought out "support" I've ever seen. If this is a "joke" support, then please refactor as it is decidedly unfunny . Not getting into a politcal debate here, but-- dam ye Gads! Dlohcierekim 14:42, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    Unacceptable and ridiculous... yeah it is. But not really any more ridiculous and unacceptable than the opposes who are doing so for no other reason than because the candidate states he is proud of being white. How is refusing to support a qualified candidate who doesn't think, act and share the same beliefs you do any less bigoted than supporting for the same reasons? Trusilver 15:17, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    I seem to have missed the statement made by this candidate where he states he is proud to be white. Is there a cite? - Epousesquecido (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    Sorry, that was a poor statement on my part - oversimplifying that which really shouldn't be oversimplified. The point of contention is on his blog in which he noted that White Pride and White Supremacy are distinctly different things. Trusilver 16:36, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    Yes, thank you, the candidate stated that the terms were "distinct" "according to our (Wikipedia) articles on the two terms". I don't see racism in that statement, but would recommend that the candidate read the articles in more depth and that all editors tread lightly when speaking about this sensitive subject. - Epousesquecido (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  230. Support. I'd say we'd give him a chance... doesn't all his work on the encyclopedia outweigh the rationales to oppose? -- Mentisock 12:10, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  231. Support Specifically, in Nominator3's co-Nom the point that the candidate is a Bureaucrat over at Commons - the most process orientated Wiki of the group. It also indicates that the desire for the tools is a reflection on the desire to use them appropriately, which has been granted elsewhere. The concerns raised by the opposers are not sufficient for me to not entrust the candidate with the mop, as the concerns relate to incidents which have been addressed since then. While it is apparent that some people are incapable of change, it is not in this instance the candidate that falls foul of that inability. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    Commons is absolutely NOT "the most process orientated(sic) Wiki"... Rather, it is the most mellow one of the bunch. Just ask anyone. Please refactor at once or I will be forced to file a 24309/m Mellow insufficiency report (with attachment 24309/j-23: slanderous crosswiki statements, and 24309/saa supporting affidavit detailing your perfidity) on you at Commons. Don't say you weren't warned. ++Lar: t/c 15:02, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    "I'm just crazy about acne... and acne's just crazy 'bout me... They call me Mellow Yellow (quite rightly!)" - Donovan via Jasper Carrot. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    • Re-affirmation I have been following the discussions, and revelations, and pondering my original decision. I still consider my reasons for supporting as valid, since the use of the tools in other places appears fine - and properly detached from personal opinion and bias - and I have only this and the personal opinions of my WP colleagues to go by. I feel that there is still enough good faith prevelant to support the candidate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  232. Support It seems that he has learnt a lot since those incidents, and he won't actually unblock without consensus even if he disagress. Also, it is necessary to have admins that know how to write good articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  233. Support His mainspace contributions are nothing but superb and he has clearly come a long way since the incidents of eight months ago. I feel that he will too learn from recent incidents and they, in turn, will only make him both better editor and a better admin (assuming this Rfa passes of course :)) AngelOfSadness talk 15:07, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  234. Support before the file gets too large for my browser. I've had disagreements with him in the past, but only in content disuptes, not in terms of what he would be doing with the mop. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  235. Totally!-- Barkjon  17:14, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  236. 'Support. Shapiros10 WuzHere  17:35, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  237. Support. I've seen this user about, and never been left with a concern about his ability to wield the mop. Resolute 17:38, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  238. Of course! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:20, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  239. Support. Great article writer and generally seems like a decent guy who would use the admin tools responsibly --Tombomp (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  240. Support have run into him a few time and never had a problem. Give him the mop!!! Zginder 2099-05-31T20:13Z (UTC)
  241. Support I've seen his work and it is excellent. We need admins who really know how to write good articles.--Bedivere (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  242. Pile-on Support Above all, this user is an article writer. Everybody shouldn't kill such a well meaning user with blasts from the past. We all make mistakes, and let him who is without sin cast the first stone. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 22:34, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  243. Support Hardly needed now, but I give it gladly on the basis of CANDIDATE14's merits, which are considerable. --Rodhullandemu 23:22, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  244. Support Passes my standards. GizzaDiscuss © 01:53, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  245. Support I see no evidence to suggest he will abuse the tools. Making your way to creating WP:300. Candidate14fusco5 02:20, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  246. He's not an admin yet? Let's rectify that. Strong Support. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:30, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  247. Net gain projected. GracenotesT § 02:55, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  248. Support With a name like H20, he's got to be good. But in all seriousness, every time I run across this user I always think, "hmm, I wonder if he's an admin yet?" Good luck, man! L'Aquatique[talk] 03:26, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  249. Support Will be a big help to the project with the tools. --NewbyG (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  250. Support Why isn't he an admin already? --Charitwo talk 04:05, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  251. Support, should be an effective admin who won't misuse or abuse the tools. --Rory096 05:15, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  252. Support, I guess this is my first visit to RfA, but it could hardly be for a better user. CANDIDATE14 has expressed outstanding contributions to the project, especially in regards to his FAs and GAs, which anybody would be proud of. I've always been impressed with his friendly demeanour on Wikipedia, which I feel makes it a better place to edit. Ashnard Talk Contribs 07:38, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  253. Support given his track record in other projects. Hopefully he has learned his lessons from the past. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  254. Support per answer to my question and others. Great candidate. Undeath (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  255. Support wikipediacially still over precocious, still quite naive in parts, and somewhat everywhere there and there - the doubts I'd allow - in view the amount of questions and opposers obviously creating concern - so hopefully sufficient to keep him on the leash when he gets the reigns - and if he does survive the next few days - I would heartily endorse comments by Orderinchaos in the neutral zone below - and feel that in view of issues that have arisen - that iadvice given by experienced editors on both sides must be taken on board in good spirit - yes is not enough - it is with a but. SatuSuro 08:33, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  256. 272nd Support! Somebody changing votes might alter my number, but I was the original 272. So what? That's the one that breaks the record -- that's what. Anyway, I've been waiting to do that because CANDIDATE14 has proven to be one conscientious helpful person whom I sincerely believe will put the tools to good use. Doczilla STOMP! 08:55, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  257. Support! — Athaenara ✉ 10:09, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Support per AGF. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 11:25, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  258. Support per past experiences with this user, I believe he would be a valuable admin. --Michael Billington (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  259. SupportWell balanced user, actually appreciates that BAG members are not over and above the community, this can only bode well for any and all admin decisions (watch him ban me this week). MickMacNee (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  260. Strong Support I am pleased to pile-on my support for CANDIDATE14's RfA. This user is active in producing content and shows maturity and interaction skills that I am certain will result in fair, balanced use of the tools. I wonder if he will leave thank-you messages for everone who participates? If so, we might not see him doing anything else for weeks, hehehee. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:19, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  261. Support - This candidate, who can be called many names including Candidate14/H2O/Water/Candidate14/Candidate14/Candidate14 will I am sure make a good admin on the English Wikipedia. Has good experience, and in my opinion has the right attitude. Has a good record on Commons as far as I can see as an admin, and I am sure will soon have one as a bureaucrat too - his promotion there certainly indicating a strong difference of opinion of him between projects. I have carefully reviewed the thoughts of the opposition and I can conclude that they do not concern me. Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  262. Support. I understand the opposition which some feel due to maturity concerns stemming from the candidate's tendency to become involved in drama. I think this is a legitimate concern and one which the candidate needs to consider. I also think the timing of this nomination could have been a little better. However, I do not see the tools as making this problem any worse, I think in general it would have a calming effect. Considering that, and the fact that everything else indicates the candidate will be an excellent administrator, I see no reason to not support. The mainspace contributions are obvious and palpable, but as others have pointed out the candidate also does a lot of work behind the scenes and is in touch with the community at-large. Best of luck, SorryGuy  Talk  17:27, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  263. Support Tovian (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  264. Support. It is my opinion that CANDIDATE14 is a worthy candidate for adminship. I admit that concerns expressed in the Oppose section regarding maturity have left me with doubts; however, CANDIDATE14 exhibits a clear willingness to both learn from and apologise for his mistakes, and that kind of humility is precisely what is needed in any administrative position. Pythian Habenero (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  265. Strong Support I trust CANDIDATE14 with the mop. PrestonH (t ♦ c) 21:42, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  266. Support Though still a relatively new user i have been impressed with CANDIDATE14's contributions and found his "troubled wiki history" surprising when compared to the user i am familiar with today. I believe admin powers would enable CANDIDATE14 to continue his excellent work on other parts of wikipedia currently unavailable to him. The only thing i fear is that CANDIDATE14 may continue to improve wikipedia to the detriment of his personal life. However, this is hardly a reason to oppose as long as he occasionally takes time off. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  267. Support - Although the concerns of the opposers give me some pause, I have seen this user doing enough good work around here to support him.--Danaman5 (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  268. Support. Fleetflame 00:46, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  269. Support, per Nominator1 (talk · contribs) and some excellent contributions in many varied areas of this project. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  270. Support. Without a doubt: Very intelligent, extremely nice, and totally stable when talking with editors. The only negative side is that he will probably not review GA articles as much as he does now, but don't let that stop anyone from giving him what he truly deserves.--andreasegde (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  271. Support. Why not? Celarnor Talk to me 01:34, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  272. Shocked-you're-not-an-admin-yet Support I see you absolutely everyone, and you have done nothing but great things everywhere you go. It shouldn't have taken this long for you to get the mop. Paragon12321 (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  273. Support Able to ge tthe job done. --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  274. Support - I have come across this user a number of times and each of those encounters was enough to tell me that, yes, this user will be a great admin. Indeed, I thought he already was one! Lradrama 09:37, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  275. Support - a while back (quite a while) I was not sure about this user & did not support his Commons RfA. Afterwards I posted on his talk page stating that I regretted not supporting him after watching his work. I've just supported his RfB there & again watching his behaviour I have no doubts at all that this user can (& should) be trusted with the rights here --Herby talk thyme 11:51, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  276. Support While things like White Pride bother me (all pride is bothersome!) and off-wiki blogging makes me suspect an ulterior motive in becoming an administrator, I've seen this editor around in various places (I lurk!) and feel that, on the balance, he/she is as reasonable a person as any of us are or can be. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 13:03, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  277. Support On the occasions I've had to work with CANDIDATE14, he has been pleasant and very helpful. I feel that he can do well as an admin here. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  278. Strong SupportThis user has contributed a lot to Wikipediia.Do not see any scope for misuse after careful consideration.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  279. Support I don't recall this user ever having inappropriately used the adminship and bureaucrat tools on Commons and think he would be of great benefit to Wikipedia. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 17:30, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  280. Support (ec) Personal interaction over various wikimedia projects with this user leave me comfortable in trusting that this user will neither abuse the tools nor violate consensus notwithstanding personal opinion. Wiki does not need mindless automata; wiki needs people who can think, argue, and debate logically and convincingly, YET simultaneously conform to the final consensus, policy, and guideline where applicable. I may disagree with CANDIDATE14's opinions on various issues, but I trust that he will act appropriately and above reproach as a sysop here, as he does on other projects. -- Avi (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  281. Support, has already established a good record of using the tools appropriately at Commons, I don't anticipate any problems here. --MPerel 17:40, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  282. Strong support - user has been active in admins' areas for a good long while, very helpful and polite as well. Seems to have sound views, ideals and judgement... good luck! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:20, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  283. Support. This user is all over the place, in fact pretty much everywhere. Wait, CANDIDATE14 is not an admin? Wow, I'm shocked! ~AH1(TCU) 22:42, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  284. Support - has continued to improve over the last year, and giving him the extra buttons now will be a net positive. PhilKnight (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  285. Support - What I have seen of this editor's actions in the past have been nothing but positive. Support per WP:WTHN Jsmith86 (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  286. Support - per noms and opposes. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2099 (UTC) full disclosure, i learned of this rfa from the comments of folks at request for arbitration. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  287. Support - seems like he'd make a fine admin. --Toffile (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  288. Support (see my original neutral below for clarification). Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:03, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  289. Support. I think Candidate14 has taken this whole RfA very well, dispite the events that have happened thus far. I'm not sure if this RfA will pass, or what will happen as a result of its closure either way, but I'd like to support this request while not merely assuming he is ready, but with the knowledge of how an admin should act and I believe this discussion itself displays such evidence. Good luck. — MaggotSyn 04:14, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  290. Pile On Support!. Dihy is a great user, very charismatic. He makes you feel welcome, and has no problem dealing with conflict! Good luck to him with this campaign. I think you really do deserve adminship. Drizzt Jamo 04:49, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  291. Support - should make a good admin. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  292. Carefully considered switch from neutral I've been thinking a lot about this one. On the one hand, there are a fair number of concerns raised by the opposers. I was also a little underwhelmed (maybe I was just whelmed) by H20's responses to my questions... and I thought they were gimmes. But I can't help but reflect that I believe in this user's good faith approach and obvious passion for the Project. I have no doubt that while he'll probably make the odd cock up, (Lord knows, I do) he will not misuse his admin tools. And that's really what we're supposed to be assessing. We don't look for perfection in candidates. Which is just as well, as we'd have precious few admins. --Dweller (talk) 07:23, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  293. I've watched this RfA closely over the last few days, and the amount of drama included herein is rather staggering (on both sides). My personal opinion can only be, why the hell not? CANDIDATE14 has handled the concerns addressed here remarkably well, even as both supporters and opposers have drifted into incivility. The maturity concerns are certainly worth looking into; however, I see no problem there. Most of all, I don't believe that CANDIDATE14 will, either accidentally or intentionally, misuse the tools. I therefore see no reason to deprive him of adminship. Ral315 (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  294. Support - how could I live without you? BJTalk 11:05, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  295. Support - h2o with the mop will be an asset to the project. -- Mark Chovain 11:26, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  296. Support. CANDIDATE14 has vastly improved over the past few months. He's been doing admin (and now 'crat) work over at Commons, and I feel that that experience will help him use the tools wisely here. He's obviously dedicated to the project, and, honestly, I think that he will be an asset. Keilana|Parlez ici 12:40, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  297. Support - I don't see anything that concerns me that he will misuse the administrative tools. PGWG (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  298. Support - per WP:AGF. I know it might seem like a weak reason but really, I read the opposes and did my homework and I did not see anything to lead me to believe he would abuse the tools. GtstrickyTalk or C 15:30, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  299. Support - my interaction with him has been uniformly positive, and I believe that his record speaks of a devotion to the goals of the project. Nihiltres{t.l} 21:55, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    Congratulations. NauticaShades 22:08, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Don't trust his judgment; when even Moulton's strongest supporters say "leave him blocked", CANDIDATE14 argues for an unblock. And this is posted after this evidence had been presented. Does not appear to have the maturity to be an admin. Guettarda (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Guettarda, thank your for your comments. I understand the concerns, and will point out that, as an administrator, I would not be willing to unblock Moulton without a clear consensus. Supporting an unban and unblock is where I leave it—it's part of the consensus building process and I don't intend to ignore this and rogue-unblock. Part of the consensus building process is also having differing opinions and being willing to compromise—in that sense I don't see an issue in my disagree with Lar and Kim (I assume you refer to them when you say "his strongest supporters"). Again, thanks for giving your opinion. Cheers, Candidate14 (H2O) 06:55, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  2. Oppose No thanks. I do not trust this candidate's judgement at all. (I'd never trust anybody capable of this [1]). --Folantin (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Would you be able to articlulate your point further, focusing on responding to Q3? Nominator1 (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    If he had really cared about the credibility of the GA process he would have distanced himself from it after that incident. Of course, the GA Project is more about social networking than producing good articles. As Dbachmann put it: " WikiProject Good Articles even has a newsletter now, and an impressive 195 members... How do they manage to deliver such abominably poor work with such resources?". --Folantin (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    I really don't think that the merits of the GA process as a whole are relevant to this discussion, especially when your views have been distinctly rejected by consensus. The fact that Candidate14 now compiles detailed reviews which improve articles is not something which one should be able to oppose over, in my opinion. Or do you dispute that his GA reviews help articles? Nominator1 (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    "your views have been distinctly rejected by consensus". What on earth are you talking about? --Folantin (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    That the GA process is a negative on Wikipedia and should be abolished as it is simply "more about social networking than producing good articles". The fact that it still exists after a handful of other people with a similar minority viewpoint have tried to close it down is a testament to the fact that your opinion on the process does not have consensus support, and to be honest it is not even relevant here. I am confident the people who will be reading this RfA in the coming days will recognise your historical attitude to such a process and conclude that your oppose is of little merit due to it being motivated by such. Nominator1 (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Most people simply don't care about GA. It's held in widespread contempt. It's not really surprising when pieces of dreck like this [2] get passed. That was nominated by a member of the GA team and passed within 24 hours. A month previously the nominator was lecturing us about the new high standards the GA process would impose. I'm still trying to work out how to fix the mess on that page. I don't care if Uncle Tom Cobley and all think GAs are just dandy. The facts tell a different story. --Folantin (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    That one passed GA on January 10, 2007. You did the right thing to delist it, it's nowhere near GA quality. Good work. Candidate14 (H2O) 11:28, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    I waited six weeks to see if GA quality control picked up on it. No such luck. The fact that this was nominated by a GA reviewer and passed remarkably quickly doesn't inspire confidence. As Killer Chihuahua says below: "there are very serious concerns raised about behind-the scenes collusion on GA articles". --Folantin (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Do you realize how long ago that diff was? He should have changed by now.  Marlith (Talk)  02:02, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    I just wanted to say how disrespectful some of the comments above are to all the people who are working hard to bring an article up to Good Article status. And no I didn't realise it was "held in widespread contempt"- (nice one.:) ) So it can't be as widespread as all that.Sticky Parkin 18:34, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  3. I thought this chap had recently retired? Granting adminship after storming off in a huff over something trivial does not seem like a good idea. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:30, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    I was thinking of this. Nor is the blog post especially endearing. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:35, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    So because you misunderstood what he was saying, he's unfit to be an admin? There's clearly nothing in that blog post to indicate that he's "storming off in a huff". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Yes, I mistakenly thought that he was quitting Wikipedia. Hence, the farewell note on his talk. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:43, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Ok, maybe not storming off in a huff, but I still think the blog post is inappropriate and demonstrates poor and hasty judgment. The Digwuren incident also makes me queasy, and so, in particular, does this, which displays singular petulance. Neutralhomer later got banned for sockpuppetry, so the criticism of Maxim was really poor. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:07, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  4. Candidate14 does many good things, no doubt; however I am not comfortable with giving the tools to anyone whose judgment about blocking/unblocking is so very poor. In addition to his "disgust" and quitting mere days ago, mentioned by Moreschi, there is the more pertinent issue of his interpretation of events in the referenced blog post. He seems to have missed the salient point about the undertow's action, and wiki-lawyers on about "banned" vs "not banned", missing completely that the undertow didn't discuss the unblock with anyone; didn't post on ANI for discussion prior to the action (as Durova, considering the same unblock, had done previously, as is correct) or even after his actions - No, he unblocked and promptly went off to WR to tell the party about it. This is very poor judgment for an admin, and Candidate14 blasts, not TU, for his actions, but those who were appalled. No, this is siding with the Clueless. In addition, there are very serious concerns raised about behind-the scenes collusion on GA articles; which combined with the MySpace "friends" vs "non-friends" I have seen recently from some members of the Bathrobe Cabal, worries me exceedingly. I do no, in short, trust that Candidate14 has What is Best for the Encyclopdia in mind. Puppy cannot support. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:36, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    CANDIDATE14 is not a member of the BRC. Lara❤Love 12:46, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    I am not going to trouble myself to dig through the contribs and paste all the diffs which I believe show a close association. You are the founder of TBC; you are a co-nom. The undertow was/is a "best friend" of yours; it is his actions and the reaction of CANDIDATE14/Candidate14 I was discussing. This should be sufficient. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:11, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    I founded the BRC. Before you chime in about siding with the Clueless, I'd advise you to do your own research. the_undertow talk 16:40, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    I stand corrected. Nominator3 hosts and maintains the BRC; I made an assumption, which was wrong of me. Thanks for correcting my error. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:12, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  5. Very Strong Oppose - per Guettarda. ScarianCall me Pat! 13:31, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Additionally, after reading some of the comments below, he's seems like someone who craves drama. He retired 2 weeks ago and then is at RfA. Has serious maturity issues, in my opinion. He needs to control his temper, per the Chetblong incident. ScarianCall me Pat! 08:00, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    After reading East's evidence far below at Oppose 75, he really does NOT deserve the tools. He's revealed personal information and private things before. I am NOT comfortable with him having the ability to have MORE private and deleted information at his disposal with the buttons. He doesn't have the maturity, common sense and wisdom to be an admin. I feel it'd be a wholly unwise decision to give him the mop. I have no regrets about writing this. ScarianCall me Pat! 16:16, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  6. Strong oppose For some off-wiki comments that indicate a complete lack of understanding of racist code words. Also per the other opposes. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:04, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    I think this is rather fallacious. There is a reason that we have two separate articles (White pride and White supremacy). This also has nothing to do with adminship. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    As a supporter, I have to say that I share some of OrangeMarlin's concern on this. However, I'm quite certain that the nominee's not a racist (or, rather, I see no evidence at all that he is a racist), and I don't see misunderstanding the phrase "white pride" as a dealbreaker as far as adminship goes. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    White pride is considered an anti-Semitic and racist term by the Anti-defamation league. I stand by my consistent statements over the past couple of years that naively supporting racist code-words is still racist. And as far as admins go, I had enough of admins supporting racist POV-pushers on this project. And SynergeticMaggot, please redact your personal attack for stating my well-founded opinion is fallacious. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:12, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Why must ones off-wiki opinions judge whether he would be good or bad. From what I can tell, he has never edited a white supremecist article or anything. And he has never pushed a POV to one. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:40, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    OrangeMarlin is another member of the ID cabal, who H20 somehow managed to stir up. He's just here because CANDIDATE14 pissed off his buddies. Monobi (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    "He's just here because CANDIDATE14 pissed off his buddies." Unless you have proof of this, please respectfully, withdraw that accusation. —Dark talk 11:51, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    White Pride is now racism? Seriously? Can I have proof of that please? I don't view being patriotic of anything racist. Jack?! 11:43, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    Roy, Joseph T. (September 14, 1999), "Statement of Joseph T. Roy, Sr. before the Senate Judiciary Committee", U.S. Senate Committee on The Judiciary http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/91499jtr.htm, retrieved 2099-05-22 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help), see White pride for book references. . dave souza, talk 21:42, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    So we are now going to apply a double standard as the basis for deciding whether or not a person is fit to be an administrator? Do we strive to be politically correct at the expense of others? I think some of our priorities need to be rethought here. —  scetoaux (T|C) 00:40, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    There's a legitimate concern as to how an admin deals with racism and other sensitivities, and dismissing sensitivities as "political correctness" while refusing to accept that terms have been co-opted by racists would not meet everyone's idea of admin standards and could lead to difficulties when dealing with racist pov pushing. Which is unfortunately rather too common. If you think that's not a priority, you're entitled to your opinion. . . dave souza, talk 08:24, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    After significant investigation, and quite a few unsolicited emails from his supporters (talk about canvassing), I have come to the conclusion that CANDIDATE14 is not himself a racist, but is just immature and quite ignorant of what constitutes racism. Despite the arguments in these emails from the supporters of White Pride, explaining to me that they have nothing against Jews (ummm, how offensive is that?), White Pride is a racist organization, as defined by just about any neutral source out there, Wikipedia's POV entry on the subject notwithstanding. CANDIDATE14, in his naivete, does not understand that issue in a way that he should. Though he may not be a racist (and clearly, he's not), he lacks the judgement to determine what is and what is not offensive, and has come under the influence of the cabal of racistsa POV that I cannot understand or support, all of which indicates he is not ready to be an admin. This is not a matter of political correctness, it is a matter of lack of knowledge of what is an important and divisive issue everywhere. How many critical articles are there on Wikipedia that could have a different POV, if the White Pride attitude is allowed to reign.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:37, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    A cabal of racists? Do you have any evidence for such a ridiculous claim? GlassCobra 16:09, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    That's a fair point, there's too much nonsense about cabals being put around and I recommend striking that part including the unsupportable statement about "coming under the influence". .. dave souza, talk 17:44, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    The above post should be removed, not struck. It's inaccurate and offensive. I've been over this until I'm blue in the face that OM's views are not universal and that he needs to stop liberally throwing around racist claims. It's becoming pathetic, really, that now it's a "cabal of racists". This has to stop, seriously. Lara❤Love 20:42, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  7. Still appears to be the same dramatic kid we saw in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Candidate14 2. Some more recent questionable actions are pointed out above, also. I don't quite get why so many people appear to believe that you should pass an RFA if you simply do them over and over. Friday (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    To be fair, the views of "so many" people (aside from suggesting that they may have a point!) is irrelevant to CANDIDATE14's adminship. It's not his fault and it doesn't affect him - apologies for any gender errors. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:24, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    Well, yes. My reasons for opposing are concerns about the candidate himself. My other comment was meant to chide the crowd of cheerleaders who showed up to support their buddy. Friday (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per [3]. Wikipedia is not a social club, an MMORPG, or any such thing. I don't know if this was trolling or serious, but assuming that it was serious, Wikidrama is not a good thing and if you becoming an admin is going to create more of it, then that's not something we need. --B (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    There's a third option that you didn't bother to consider. Perhaps it was intended to be humorous? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:59, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. I've thought about this for a while and have decided to oppose. My main concern is the candidate's strong criticism of a supposed "Intelligent Design cabal," in this case meaning editors who oppose ID.[4] First, the tendency to see cabals is divisive except a humorous context (and sometimes even then). Second, the idea that a cabal could form around a view that prevails among the overwhelming majority of experts in a given field is mystifying. We may as well talk about the "approximately spherical earth cabal" or the "Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth cabal." CANDIDATE14 has done some good things and made other comments that I agree with. But the bottom line is "would I trust this person with the tools?" and I'm uneasy enough that -- reluctantly -- my answer has to be "no." (Please note that my concern is with the "ID cabal" worldview and not the particulars of the Moulton case, where I have chosen to remain uninvolved.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Bishonen. That whole episode stunk. I do not trust the user. Neıl 龱 16:42, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  11. Oppose: There are already 100+ supports, many from users for whom I have great respect, so I expect this will pass. Still, my concerns are in line with those of Friday. The single quality most lacking in our admin corps is maturity, and I see repeated and varied concerns about CANDIDATE14's maturity and judgement. I can accept that we disagree about Moulton - plenty of sensible people think his case should be reconsidered. But this reading of the situation is troubling on a few levels. Most importantly, an editor who thinks that the_undertow was unfairly railroaded after a responsible exercise of his administrative powers, and who fails to understand why his actions were inappropriate, should not be an admin. That's exactly the kind of drama-generating approach that we need less of. I'm sorry to sound harsh, and I debated whether to bother here, since CANDIDATE14 has done a lot of good work in articlespace and on Commons and this seems certain to pass, but I feel pretty strongly about that. MastCell Talk 17:10, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Thanks for your comments MastCell. On the "and who fails to understand why his actions were inappropriate", I'd point you to my answer to Dweller's question above... I said there that I do think he could have gone about it better than a rogue unblock. I agree fully with his overall stance, but I don't think being that bold was the best way to do it. Candidate14 (H2O) 01:24, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    To me, the question is straightforward: you believe an editor has been wrongly blocked. Yet that block was the subject of discussion in an RfC, AN/I, and an ArbCom request, not to mention multiple previous unblock requests, email to unblock-en-l, and email to Mike Godwin - all of which explicitly or tactitly supported the block. Do you a) open a discussion about the block, or b) unilaterally unblock the user and pitch a fit when called on it? I'm encouraged that you would choose the first path, based on the thread you initiated on the topic at WP:AN, which was exactly the right way to go about it. But option B is not just "being bold" - it's intentionally taking the path of greatest drama, and right now I think that tendency is the biggest problem on Wikipedia, so I don't want to see it condoned or rationalized. I've generally seen you do very good work; I have great respect for your nominators and supporters here, and I'm impressed that you've swayed quite a few people who previously opposed your candidacies and now support you - that speaks very highly of you. I think this RfA is likely to pass, so I just ask that you give this whatever consideration you think is appropriate going forward. Finally, given recent events, I find it sadly necessary to state for the record that I have not been contacted by anyone, on- or off-wiki, about anything related to you or this RfA. MastCell Talk 16:18, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Oppose I agree with MC. This is essentially a wasted oppose, but I must make it even though I am sure this candidate will pass with so much support. Just a few things about him that give me pause, as above.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:22, 29 May 2099 (UTC) I decline to participate any further. I am tired of the threats and intimidation and I will not participate in these charades any longer. See my talk page for details.--Filll (talk | wpc) 13:34, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    Indented by Gnangarra under the presumption that by striking your comment and declaring that you do not want to participate in the discussion that your intention was to have your opinion completely excluded from any result Gnangarra 15:56, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  12. Oppose—Nice chap, but I'm not impressed with his contributions to the FAC review process, where he all too often declares "Support" without sufficient explication. I don't have solid evidence, but I have suspected his participation on occasion in support for friends without exercising his critical faculties. And I'd like to see a greater focus on leadership—both in administrative terms and writing, since good writing seems to be part of his aim as a WPian. I don't see it at the moment.Tony (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Of the opposs so far, Tony, this one is one of the more painful to me. Yes, I did fall victim occasionally to this practice, often on articles I have reviewed recently, but I can't remember doing so in the last two or three months. In the meantime I have seen you, and agreed with you, criticising this behaviour from others. Without meaning to attack your comments or anything like that, are you sure you're not accidentally mistaking my old and none-too-commons quick-supports with some more common, and more recent ones, from others? Candidate14 (H2O) 01:24, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    No, Tony is not mistaken. I understand your enthusiasm and desire to contribute to the Project, but your frequent premature supports on ill-prepared articles that don't meet criteria is a current, ongoing issue at WP:FAC, and if not for the hard work done by other reviewers who identify significant issues subsequent to your premature supports, your "Support early, Support often" !votes at FAC could be causing a decline in FA standards. I'm sure I've brought this to your attention before; please review the FAC archives to see how often you Support over a long list of questionable sources, or how often subsequent reviewers identify significant deficiencies after you support. Supporting articles over long lists of unresolved sourcing questions ignores our most fundamental WP:V policy. This has been a concern now since February when I began gathering hard data from the FAC archives; I hope you will heed the seriousness of this concern and the effect it has on other reviewers at FAC, who must pick up the slack. As I see your adminship is pending, I sincerely hope that you will be more aware of this issue in the future. This is another example of why I deplore admin coaching: editors either respect and understand our FA standards and the hard work of other reviewers and value excellent content contributions, or not; coaching won't create the kind of excellence we should expect in admins. CANDIDATE14, my greatest concern is that your response to Tony's oppose shows that you still don't acknowledge this issue, even though I'm sure I've raised it with you in the past. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Yeah, we have discussed it in past. I though I had done what I could to work on that in the time since, but I will defer to your better knowledge and keep working at it. Candidate14 (H2O) 03:47, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    I've also noticed CANDIDATE14 acting a little hastily and/or rushing to judgement from time to time at GA, but he is a pretty good and much appreciated reviewer at the GA level. However, can someone explain why this issue makes a good reason to oppose adminship? Surely this issue can most easily be addressed by CANDIDATE14 concentrating on GA reviews rather than FAC. I didn't know that being good at applying the FA criteria was a requirement for adminship. Geometry guy 16:54, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Sure, I'll expand. I've observed what might be an indication of "block voting" at FAC by a group of reviewers on certain types of articles. This isn't "just" a subjective observation; I've kept a spreadsheet so I could award barnstars to FAC reviewers since February, and that spreadsheet generated surprising hard data on how often certain reviewers Support an article that is either subsequently archived with significant deficiencies later pointed out by other reviewers, or where subsequent reviewers have to do double duty to pullllll those articles through to featured status. The premature supports are increasing the workload on other reviewers, and are by editors who don't appear to have a solid understanding of or respect for featured status. CANDIDATE14 is not applying FA criteria; he's leading the list every month of reviewers who don't apply the criteria. This is a maturity concern, but viewed within the context of the earlier quid pro quo issue at GA, and the number of deficient GA articles that appear immediately at FAC, this leads to a bigger concern specifically in regards to the !voting on this RfA and possible gathering of favor via Supporting deficient articles at content review processes. That CANDIDATE14 isn't even aware of this concern at FAC, after this issue has been repeatedly raised and discussed, is a real maturity concern. If he doesn't apply critical faculties at FAC, and if there is a possibility that quid pro quo is being engaged in content review processes, will he apply better judgment in use of the sysop tools? I don't think he has evidenced that. He could garner my support on a future RfA if he does the right thing considering this controversial RfA (if this passes, it will always carry a shadow of Support garned via quid pro quo or in defiance of some of the opposers), and withdraws his nom at this point, and begins to apply critical judgment of articles at FAC and GAN. That would indicate to me that he has heeded the maturity concerns, and would garner my support in a future RfA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Thanks Sandy. I understand your general concerns and your comment clarifies your position a lot, but am still confused about one thing. On the one hand you suggest that CANDIDATE14 is not aware of the fact that his reviewing at FAC is substandard, but on the other hand you make the more serious allegation that there is a quid pro quo element to his reviewing, which would suggest that he is aware of it. Geometry guy 17:26, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    I don't know what he is aware of (I'm not inside his head, and I do AGF); I can speak to what he should be aware of if he has the maturity to warrant sysop tools. The issue has been raised repeatedly, and if he has the maturity to use the tools, he should have noticed how often articles he passes at GAN are found to be deficient at FAC, or how often articles he supports at FAC don't pass, or pass on the work of others. I'm off for the day, so will respond further another day if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Okay. I don't have much to add anyway. For me, it's definitely AGF in this case and I'm not convinced that that the concerns over his reviewing translate into big enough concerns over admin actions - but that's a matter for individual judgement. Geometry guy 17:49, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Sandy, thank you for clarifying. I wasn't aware of the scope of the issues you had seen, especially in relation to GAs I passed (I don't recall us discussing that but I may be wrong). I'm going to work on that. Thanks, Candidate14 (H2O) 02:15, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  13. oppose I was supporting earlier but there are way too many concerns brought up in the oppose section for me to be able to support. Both the Moulton matter and the GA article issue worry me. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  14. strong oppose. Condems me on his blog, calls for my desysopping over a minor incident that many people supported me in , and never even bothered to to inform me of any of this. We don't need another backstabbing cliquish admin that makes outrageous demands. Strong doubts about his judgment. Posting at top cause iPhone can't scroll feel free to move this down. 32.161.221.162 (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2099 (UTC)swatjester identified himself as author below---do not indent
    I'm not sure if you meant to log in, but I've indented this because you've posted as an IP. Please log in and unindent it. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:39, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Plz sign that ip edit as from me. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:45, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Restored. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 18:50, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Many thanks Swat - I just wasn't sure who it was. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:06, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Not a problem. I saw right after I posted that it was logged out and I was thinking "Crap, this is going to take forever to fix, and I'm going to get edit conflicted." Which I did. Thanks also to whoever moved my comments and stuff for me. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:16, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    (deindent) Phil Sandifer also condemned me and called for my desysopping over a minor incident that many people supported me in, yet I still hold him in good grace and buried the hatchet long ago. Perhaps you should have done the same, Swatjester. Sean William @ 16:05, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    iPhone IP vote. Obsess much? Candidate14 is under no obligation to inform you about his off-wiki activity. Just as you were under no obligation to inform me that you have labeled me a white supremacist here (which was about an unblock, not my own POV). Or when you called me a dick here. But hey, it's not about our quips it's about labeling Candidate14 as a 'backstabbing cliquish admin.' With all that law school, you really need to refrain from personal attacks. Aren't you running for something around here? :P the_undertow talk 09:25, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Still do not trust the candidate's ability to avoid drama. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 18:50, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Oppose. I double this contributor's ability to use discretion. Administrators need some semblance of discretion, especially with the remote possibilities to see confidential data (deleted revisions), unblock-en-l, et cetera... This contributer has exhibited that lapses in discretion exist that may be contrary to handling/viewing confidential data he may see during a tour of adminship. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Per Ryan, Swat, joshua, etc. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 22:21, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    I'm not happy about this, because I wanted to support (and I said as much in the last one). However, I cannot. To put it candidly, CANDIDATE14 is very arrogant about his "78910 FAs". He never gives up an opportunity to make note of them; it's almost comical. Here and here are the two examples I can recall quickly. While it's good to add excellent content, and it is something of which we should be proud, constantly making note of "his 10 FAs and all" gives me a very negative feeling, and I worry about how this attitude will translate into being an administrator. This, combined with all the above concerns? This RfA will probably pass, but I cannot support. Sorry. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:08, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    So... I'm a little confused... You're opposing because he's proud of the hard work he puts in here? I know I probably couldn't even get one article to FA... I'd be freakin proud of 10, too. As to the blog, that's really immaterial to here, unless it was copied on-wiki somewhere, in violation of one or more of our policies. Off-wiki opinions and whatnot are just that. SQLQuery me! 00:20, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    I refuse to participate in this RfA, and withdraw my oppose. seresin ( ¡? ) 08:27, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    It's a fair point - not about the achievement but the attitude (thinking or at least conveying the message one feels one is better than others on such a basis is not an attitude one would want to see in an active administrator). Seresin was not wrong to draw attention to it as it was a concern of mine and others too, but I believe CANDIDATE14 has heard us and is addressing it, so I am happy to leave it with him. Orderinchaos 17:16, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  17. Oppose This editor's arrogance pointed out by Seresin and his role in the Moulton/The undertow affair which he followed up with incivil comment and a biased presentation of facts at his blog tells me he lacks the maturity and judgement required for a position of responsibility. Odd nature (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per the relatively recent lapses in judgement mentioned by Guettarda, Folantin, Raymond Arritt, etc. Yilloslime (t) 00:37, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  19. Oppose per Raymond Arritt, MastCell, SWATJester, TONY, OrangeMarlin etc. For me, the most important ability for an admin is good judgement in (often difficult) admin related issues, and there are way too many concerns about this. —Apis (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    I'm surprised to hear about the discussion about white pride for example, that indicate naivety/immaturity at best. Unfortunately I think other concerns mentioned also point in that direction. For me it's important to be sure that an administrator can act maturely and will make sound judgment. One does not need 'the mop' to be a great editor, which I think CANDIDATE14 has already demonstrated, keep up the good work.
    —Apis (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Oppose Shot info (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    You do realize that an oppose vote (not !vote in this case, whatever the distinction may be) is very likely to be discarded if there is no rationale? I don't believe that it is appropriate to simply add an oppose without giving reason(s), even if it is "per above". —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:31, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Bullocks - Like the "default position" of support which "It is generally assumed that by supporting they agree with the stated nomination" then oppose is clearly "It is generally assumed that by opposing they don't agree with the stated nomination". Quite simple really. Besides, the vote stacking on the support side is clearly circumspect. Shot info (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Yes, clearly. Because it's just too hard to assume good faith, especially on part of those supporting. You seem to be accusing them of supporting without taking the time to understand the issues at hand. Because, quite frankly, most of the reasons given for opposing this candidate are ridiculous, such as allegations of corruption (over what appears to be a small incident) and allegations of racism, which have absolutely no standing. —  scetoaux (T|C) 00:06, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    Thank you for failing to assume good faith in my actions yourself. I don't support the nomination. I oppose the nomination. I cannot see why you are having a problem with failing to understand? Is this why you think it's ok for you to assume bad faith yourself? Shot info (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    I do not assume bad faith. I view baseless accusations of vote stacking as an example of bad faith. —  scetoaux (T|C) 00:16, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    Try using a dictionary before you go off in the future... Shot info (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    I am putting my dispute with the above user aside to note for the record that his treatment here has been appalling. If this is the lengths supporters will go to to get an oppose indented or struck, then this process has no credibility whatsoever, especially given the complete lack of rationale for most of the supports. Orderinchaos 14:17, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    Having the oppose indented or struck was not my intention. I do not believe anything I have done here was unfair or unethical, but of course you're free to supply your own opinion as to what motivated me and to what end. I simply do not accept the argument that an oppose vote does not require a rationale. Informing a person of such is not "badgering". —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:43, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    I do not believe that I have gone off, as you put it. Accusing supporters of vote stacking is pretty clear cut as far as assumptions of good or bad faith go. I am trying to understand why you believe this, because there is no evidence to suggest that supporters have given any less thought to this RFA than the opposers. Assumption of bad faith on my part would be an accusation that you personally did not want CANDIDATE14 to be an administrator. —  scetoaux (T|C) 00:27, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. Too many concerns. SlimVirgin talk|edits 02:47, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Like what? Please be more specific when posting an oppose vote like this. NHRHS2010|  Talk to me  02:55, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    You'd need to get onto her private and top serkit mailing list if you want to know these supposed concerns. Monobi (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    On that note, Why don't the support voters have to be more specific? ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 03:16, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    Because support is essentially the default AGF position. It's up to the opposers to provide evidence to the contrary. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:21, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    It is generally assumed that by supporting they agree with the stated nomination. Monobi (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    Where is it written that it is generally assumed...'. Bull. And 262 supports as of this time stamp in just a few days by users who don't normally hang out at Rfa suggests canvassing to me. Supporters should provide good reason too. SlimVirgin was not wrong in saying there were too many concerns, because there are. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Like lots of things on Wikipedia, it's not written in stone. But it's apparent you have not participated in the myriad discussions about this at WT:RFA (which is no crime). This is how it is generally seen. You don't agree, and that is fine. However, please don't make accusations of canvassing just because you don't like the cornocopia of supporters. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:06, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  21. Weak oppose per Raymond Aritt. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  02:55, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. Has a record of corruption — an unacceptable trait for anyone here, let alone an admin. Crum375 (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Outside of Hearsay I'm not seeing anything there but accusations. SQLQuery me! 03:58, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    @Crum375: Do you have any actual evidence of this 'corruption' besides the link you gave? In that link, Bishonen is referring to something the GA system asks that people do... spend some time reviewing articles if they nominate some articles. Are you going to allege that working quickly to review articles is a sign of corruption rather than efficiency? Are you going to allege that you yourself have never communicated with other editors to make them aware of matters that interest you, or received such communication? Or are you just going to allege that you don't do such communication on wiki? There is nothing wrong with communicating with other editors about matters of concern. What is wrong is when the system is twisted around to overweight one side's power to win disputes as a result of that communication. Candidate14 doesn't do that. Can you say the same? I'm not sure that your oppose is a supportable position, really, especially given Candidate14's answers to #3 and #5a, and that Bishonen has supported this time, after noting that Candidate14 has had remarkable growth since then. That pretty much undermines you, I'd say, unless you are the sort who thinks that people never change and grudges should be held indefinitely. ++Lar: t/c 10:51, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Lar, the record speaks for itself, and to me it looks like corruption and fraud. I believe that such behavior is unacceptable in anyone, IRL or on wiki, and specifically if we get admins of this caliber, it will further degrade this project. That you are defending such despicable conduct is very worrying. Crum375 (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Tu quoque. Sean William @ 16:15, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Crum375: I see the record and to me it may be somewhat less mature than might be perfect, to call it corruption and fraud is very rich. Speak not of the mote in Candidate14's eye before addressing the plank in your own, my friend. I suggest that you are not the person here with the most moral standing to speak about corruption or fraud or favoritism. Put your own house in order first. ++Lar: t/c 19:27, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Lar, "I suggest that you are not the person here with the most moral standing to speak about corruption or fraud or favoritism." — I suggest you rethink your words here very carefully. If you have something specific to say, which shows that I have ever violated a trust, or ever defrauded anyone, please do so. Otherwise, an apology would be nice. Crum375 (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    Crum375: I always give my words careful consideration. This isn't the place to get into this matter in great detail, (there is a current RfAr, where some folk have been advocating adding you as a party, which no doubt would be better suited for this), but I am sure I am not the only one that perceives an air of "corruption or fraud or favoritism" associated with some of your actions. I consider subverting 3RR far more serious, far more corrupt, far more fraudulent, and far more community trust violating, than helping the project out by doing a few GA reviews, frankly. That incident from yesterday is just one of many times you've been associated with actions that, to many, give the appearance of collusion with others to subvert 3RR, to vote stack, to twist consensus, or to intimidate or harass others. As I said, put your own house in order first. I suggest you reconsider your oppose, or failing that, that you discontinue maligning Candidate14 by characterising the GA incident as "corruption". If speaking plainly gives you offense, I apologise for that, but not for the message itself. ++Lar: t/c 12:10, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    Lar: you say you are always careful with your words, but you don't seem to be here. You make serious accusations, but you have nothing to show for it. I will not descend into counter accusations, but simply remind you that slinging mud, especially when not backed up by facts, will reflect poorly on you. Crum375 (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    One of your observed hallmarks is that you turn around valid points made against you and try to use them against whoever you are in dispute with, without addressing the points raised. I gave a cite to an example (one of many) of a very serious behavior of yours, which you did not address, instead trying to turn things round. Who is slinging mud with unsupported allegations, again? I suggest if you want more cites of problematic behavior, add yourself to the arbcom case and you will be thoroughly obliged. I'm done here though. My point stands and you have not refuted it. You have no moral standing to call others to task, in my personal opinion. I suspect that opinion of you (as not having standing to comment) is far more widely held than your apparent opinion of me. Again, tend to your own house first, sir, and stop disrupting this RfAr. ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    Lar, you continue to sling mud, with no substance. You say I am corrupt and that you have "evidence" of it, yet fail to provide it. You say I have a "hallmark" of turning around points made against me, yet show no such "point", except for general mud slinging. Last time I was involved in such activity was in kindergarten — as a grownup I try to avoid it. I respectfully suggest you consider doing the same. And if you do have some real evidence showing I have misbehaved in any way, or otherwise betrayed the trust the community has given me as an admin, feel free to take any action you see fit. Crum375 (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    Asked and answered. I said I was done, and I meant it. You can have the last word. ++Lar: t/c 17:34, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    Crum375, you have some nerve to show your face now and lecture us about corruption. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Whatever you think about Crum375's past history, it is better in these discussions to focus on the points made and evidence presented, rather than any perceived faults of the person who made the comment. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    These comments about opposers are completely unacceptable; people have to be allowed to support or oppose without being attacked for it. Attacking Crum, who is a good and decent editor, is particularly inappropriate. SlimVirgin talk|edits 20:48, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    I think when a charge as serious as "corruption" is made, it is quite valid to consider the nature of it, as well as the source. Crum is alleging "corruption" over what? An incident in which two editors communicated and agreed to review each other's GAs. Big whoop, really. Crum375 turned up here two opposes, or an hour and 3 minutes, after you. Just like Crum375 does quite often. Is that because he's clairvoyant? Because he's "stalking" you? Or perhaps it is merely because Crum375 and you talk about matters wiki from time to time. There is absolutely nothing wrong with editors communicating with each other, on or off wiki. It is when there is collusion, or stacking, or... perhaps we should call it "fraud" or "corruption", that there is a matter of some concern. I think blowing up a relatively trivial matter, which Candidate14 has expressed contrition about, and which Bishonen has said is firmly in the past, into "corruption and fraud" fits my description of an "attack". Perhaps one by innuendo rather than outright incivility, but an attack nonetheless. That is what you should be criticising, don't you agree? Again I am reminded of motes and planks. ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Lar, you are thoroughly out of order. Crum almost certainly spotted this RfA because he looked at my contribs, which is how I spot RfAs and AfDs I want to vote on myself. You have no right to speak about people like this just because they vote one hour and whatever after someone else. You have gone too far with these comments. I won't be discussing this any further here because this is not the right place, but I'm also not going to let it drop. SlimVirgin talk|edits 20:46, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    You need to review what has been said here more carefully, I think. Crum375 turned up with an unsupported allegation of corruption, got called on it, and has been lashing out ever since. And I certainly haven't been criticising anyone merely for communication. Again, please read the post you are replying to. Mere communication is not evidence of corruption, my examples of communication are intended to show that. ++Lar: t/c 21:39, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    I have to agree with TimVickers. And, really - bringing up Crum's history here makes it sound like his accusations against CANDIDATE14 have merit, is that what you really want to say? --Random832 (contribs) 20:52, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  23. Oppose I don't know this guy, he seems like a nice person and a skilled editor, and while I've seen far worse "corruption" going on around Wikipedia, I have doubts concerning his ability to handle social issues. He is certainly very good at technical aspects of the site, however. Ameriquedialectics 04:31, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  24. Oppose The comments above convince me. We need less appetite for drama and more maturity in the admin corps and it doesn't appear that promoting CANDIDATE14 would help that. Leithp 07:01, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  25. Oppose I don't believe that somebody changes significantly within a matter of months. There's a history of behaviour inappropriate for an admin. His response to the question "What admin work do you intend to take part in?" is basically "there are times when the tools would come in handy." Well, that's true for all editors - but it's not an acceptable answer for someone who aspires to be an admin. Noel S McFerran (talk) 09:29, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    In the case of CANDIDATE14 ( only), this sounds promising to me as He is a better contributor than as an admin and hopefully continues with more wonderful mainspace activities in future also. To be frank , I would have opposed any other wikipedian who came to RFA..with such vague answers -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 09:38, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Mr. McFerran, I did follow up the statement cited with specific examples of areas in which I would actively use the admin tools. Candidate14 (H2O) 09:41, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  26. Oppose Especially per OrangeMarlin , KillerChihuahua , Swatjester, this, and leaving angry and posting this on his blog. I don't think this user has demonstrated the maturity to be an administrator. I know I don't trust him with those tools.— Ѕandahl 14:49, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    I see nothing wrong with the blog post you linked to. Is it shameful for administrative candidates to express some sort of emotion? Sean William @ 16:00, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    I in no way implied it was shameful, but I do think it implied immaturity and a lack of good judgement.— Ѕandahl 16:28, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  27. Oppose - the air of drama hangs thick about this candidate. He appears too much into the social aspect of things here. Still, the McCarthyite "he might have 'racist' thoughts" comments are unsettling. Proven ability to act impartially, not one's personal opinions, should determine whether one is promoted. Biruitorul Talk 16:47, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  28. Oppose per numerous concerns mentioned above. Cardamon (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    I'm also a bit concerned by a recent posting of his [5] on Wikipedia Review, in which he asked, "Speaking of moving the thread, could we have a HAGGER??? forum set up just for lulz?" Cardamon (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  29. Oppose Achievements seem over emphasized, I have never felt the need to post a badge on my user page for taking an article from B class to FA. I am uncomfortable with this editor's judgment. Alan.ca (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Exactly how does being proud of one's editorial contributions on Wikipedia translate into an unfit administrator? Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:41, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Answer: it doesn't. Al Tally talk 21:48, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    It disheartens many editors who haven't contributed as much material, and who feel they'll never be seen as wanted untill they have written 10 FAs...--Serviam (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    Sorry, but what? I've only written a single FA, yet, I don't feel that I'm "not wanted;" I don't feel an incessant urge to compare my mainspace contributions with others'. It seems that if editors have this feeling of envy (let's call it what it is; there's no other name for it), that's their flaw, not CANDIDATE14s. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:58, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  30. Oppose - still too prone to drama, sorry. A good editor, but needs to think twice before hitting "save" on talk pages. Jonathunder (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  31. Oppose - I have previously opposed in this users last Rfa and I was hoping to support this time, but I just don't think now that I will ever trust this user. Not only due to his past and especially his GA controversy, but now also due to concerns raised by two of the most respected Wikipedians involved in the FA process, Tony1 and SandyGeorgia - concerns of frequent premature supports on ill-prepared articles that don't meet criteria, possibly in support for friends without exercising his critical faculties. CANDIDATE14 admits to this, yet argues that he hasn't done this in the last 2-3 months. A time frame of 2-3 months is certainly not enough time to reform and mature. If he has no respect for either of these important process, what respect will he apply to using the tools he so desperately seeks. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  32. Oppose - Wikipedia has too many administrators already who do not have the education/maturity/competence to adequately wield the more drastic features of adminship. I worry that this particular user will block quickly without considering evidence carefully and will be easily misled by POV-pushers. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  33. After reading the blog linked from the userpage. The term/statement is a racist concept without question. Also to me it seems that some of the more experienced en.wikipedians oppose this request too. --Schwalker (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    Quite a few of "the more experienced en.wikipedians" are supporting his request. Reaching WP:200 at WP:RFA is no easy task, I assure you. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 10:11, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    If you're going to base !voting on the number of more experienced editors pulling in one direction, it should be noted that H20 is currently number 3 all time among admins based upon the number of supports (despite off-wiki canvassing by the opposers) He will be number 2 probably by the end of the day, and has a very good chance of being the most supported admin candidate ever (He's only 20 !votes away and still has 4 days to go!)---Nominator2 PoppaBalloon 16:52, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    I'm no very active on en.wikipedia, but on earlier, different occasions have read convincing contributions to talk pages by Orangemarlin, Neil or SlimVirgin , who are all 3 years or longer on the project. Only after just reading the comment above by Raymond Arritt I understand what is meant by "Intelligent Design cabal (ID)" in the blog. A theory of such a "cabal" among wikipedia editors or admins seems to be another considerable misconception by Candidate14 next to the misconception of the racist term/statement mentioned above. --Schwalker (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    I don't want to withdraw my vote. What makes me a bit uneasy is that a permanent-link in a post by Swatjester at 05:48, 15 May 2099 has expired. But this seems to be the source where the "white pride" issue originally came from. So I want to clarify that I don't know if I would agree or not with Candidate14's defence of The undertow. --Schwalker (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    The link didn't expire, it appears to have been oversighted. That should tell you something about the validity of the claim made in it. Lara❤Love 20:04, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  34. Oppose. I strongly agree with Cricket02's comments. I don't think he will be a suitable candidate without undergoing major character changes. First of all, he exerted ownership on one of his portal.[6] (but that's only a minor note) Another incident is that when he ran for RfA on meta (which at the end he withdrew because he received 0 support and 6 oppose votes), he was caught for falsely accusing Majorly for trying to gain checkusership for the sole purpose of trying to find people's personal information.[7][8] I opposed him on RfA, believing that he's not ready at that time and gave my reasoning, yet he still came to my talk page and bugged me to explain my rationale.[9]. And I still have concerns over his approach towards releasing confidential conversations in off-wiki media (such as email, MSN, IRC, etc.). To sum things up, yes, one day he will become an admin, but he needs to be more mature, less drama, and don't pour oil into the fire. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:09, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    Ohana, I'm fairly sure that the first one in which he said "my portal," he was not being very serious, rather, making a joke in relation to WP:OWN. About the claims on his comment about Majorly, the WR thread has apparently been deleted, so could you quote his exact words here? Lastly, to be frank, you were not at all clear with your "plus you caused quite enough internet drama on wikipedia before" oppose !vote on meta, and calling his request for clarification "bugging" seems a bad-faith assumption to me. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:58, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    Additionally, I find it curious that Majorly supported this very RfA, only a little over a week past the checkuser comment. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:02, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    I have said that the ownership issue is only a small issue. The major issue is his maturity and how he handles personal information. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:09, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    I stumbled upon this vote while looking through the RfA and would like to ask the poster if the candidate's comments about him here[10] had any bearing on this !vote? Minimally, I would suggest that given the circumstances surrounding your recent misuse[11] of your own tools, you may want to reconsider questioning another user's maturity. Regards, --SimpleParadox 17:06, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    And the person who started that discussion actually stated that he wants to get blocked.[12] Please consider evidences by both sides instead of filtering out the evidences that don't suit your taste. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:31, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    Your response is a red herring, not to mention that the diff which you have provided does not support the irrelevant statement you made in your response. Regardless, since you are unwilling to acknowledge any wrongdoing, there isn't much use in trying to continue this discussion. The diffs I have provided clearly present all the information necessary to put your !vote into the proper context it deserves. Regards, --SimpleParadox 22:40, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  35. After thinking about it for a while I have to oppose and do so decisively. I have several major concerns that would take a long post to outline, but I'll give it a try. As a preamble, I should say that CANDIDATE14 strikes me as a "good guy" who often sees things in the same light as I do, but that's not a reason to support by itself. See below. --Irpen 20:01, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    1. The first concern goes back to the incident that was brought up before: CANDIDATE14 passing to GA status a piece of pure junk by one of the worst trolls of this project, now banned by arbcom (and this "good article" was deleted through AfD, twice due to a recreation: one, two) After passing Digwuren's "article", CANDIDATE14 asked Digwuren to "review an article for [him]," and, sure enough, that one got passed too. Despite some screams of "hearsay", this whole thing happened at IRC and many, myself included, saw the unredacted log. CANDIDATE14 expressed regret above over this incident, which is a good step, but he refuses to explain clearly in what way he is at fault. It is the latter that I see as the big problem, inability to admit the fault itself, except in the very general terms.
    2. Further, after I, flabbergasted, single-handily removed the GA label from that piece of junk, CANDIDATE14 came to my talk full of rage. Even if he was right (and he was not), this is not the temper I want to see in admins. Again, one can say this was long ago. True, but he never admitted being wrong in those posts at my talk. Again, it is the latter that makes the matter important despite it's being several months old.
    3. More, I see all signs of career mandarinship in this user, the obsession about adminship. Five (!) RfA's within a year would give me a big pause even if this were an editor who had no caveats and only admiration. He is all over the talk:RfAdm. Even his essay, while humorous, and partly on the mark, shows an unhealthy concern with admin status. Sorry, I don't like that either. It may sound awful and ABFfy, but I don't think he is sincere in saying at his talk that he does not care much of the outcome and he would just "go back to write articles". And, speaking of which, I don't think he has done quite as much writing as he boasts (sorry, I know it sounds harsh.) The user is all over meta-issues, all over IRC, blogs, external sites and at every possible IM. That is much more certain than his article writing.
    4. The said incidents, as well as several others, like storming out of WP over an incident (followed by immediate return), refusal to distance himself from the racially charged position of some of his friends, all indicate a profound lack of maturity, which in itself is sufficient to be unfit for the position of official authority.
    5. I will save my comments on the setup of this RfAdm and the adminship mill organized by Tier-2_IRC for another time. I hope CANDIDATE14 will stay around since, as I said, he has a heart at the right place (unlike the set of priorities). Therefore, if this adminship passes, I would not loose my sleep over it but I think the cons outweigh the pros and oppose this candidacy. I also hope that some here other than the candidate reconsider their behavior at RfA. --Irpen 20:01, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    Thank you for making such a well-considered comment Irpen. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    Irpen, my GAR comment to you was (apart from the incident that led up to it) the most stupid I have ever made onwiki. I don't want you to change your stance here; you've made some good points that I'm going to learn from, pass or fail, but I do want to very publicy apologise profoundly for what I said. It was completely unacceptable. Candidate14 (H2O) 02:34, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  36. Oppose, do not trust candidate's judgment. Polotet 21:20, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  37. Very Strong Oppose Irpen said everything. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
  38. Oppose, per his many postings at such central places AN/I and Arbitration pages with opinions with which I do not agree that do not seem to have (to me) the overall good of Wikipedia at heart but rather seem to be geared at garnering someone's favor or just to give a viewpoint for no apparent reason. I realize this is a matter of opinion as I am quite skilled at alienating other editors, so my judgment in this area of commenting on such pages may not be very good. However, the fact that only (approximately) one fourth of his edits are mainspace edits (to me) indicates another possible admin with lots of opinions and hobnobbing behaviors rather than good writing and editing skills, the excercise of which, I believe, forms good judgment (except in my case) and is necessary for a good admin. –Mattisse (Talk) 01:14, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Well, he has 10 featured articles. I'd say that indicates plenty of article writing skills. Captain panda 02:38, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    I am especially concerned about FAC and this statement by SandyGeorgia:[13] and this by Tony:[14] –Mattisse (Talk) 19:45, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    I hate to do this, but I have not liked the way this RfA was going from the start. Do I believe that H20 should be an admin, yes. But I have felt like a hypocrit giving him my support, let alone nom from the start. In private emails I tried to talk him out of it. I ended up noming him because I honestly felt like it would fail. Here is one of the only communications that I've had with him off line,
    I'm going to be honest with you, I'm having trouble writing your Nom right now. I am perfectly willing to do so, but I have to warn you that I expect an RfA at this point to fail. I hate to say it, it would be easier to write an oppose than a support! Let me give you a little synopsis of how an oppose might be worded:
    Oppose. Candidate has shown little improvement since his last RfA where he was criticized for incivility related to Evula's RfB and the Random Editor's editorial review. His comments at that time were so harsh that TRE retired from wikipedia. Since that time, H20 has continued to show signs of incivility. For example, in April on his Blog he made some comments related to Compwhii that had CWII leaving wikipedia in near tears. These comments were so harsh that they were brought to ANI. Later, and just a few weeks ago, again on his blog he continued to show incivility on his blog when his good friend The Undertow was criticized for actions that lead to the Undertow's being desysoped. Then there is the issue of maturity and eagerness to get the tools, at the top of the coaching page there is a clear indication that the nom would occur in or around August but now it's not even December and he's seeking the tools again? At his last RfA, which was only 4 months ago, he was criticized for having four RfA's in less than a year. This is once again H20's fourth nom in less than a year! You would think that somebody who wanted to prove that he wasn't power hungry would be able to wait a little longer than 4 months? Especially after being so roundly criticized at his last RfA for having 4 RfA's so closely together.
    As it was something I wanted kept private, I'm going to chime in here. I was not desysoped. I requested the toolz taken away as I didn't want to watch the further polarization of the community. I also had the luxury of keeping things private, as I simply didn't want to split this place in half. The official decision was The committee feels that, should you decide to return and want a resysop, you shouldn't have to go through a new RFA. Would you like us to make this public, or would you prefer to keep the public announcement brief and to the point? I kept it private, until now. But now everyone can know, I gave up the toolz, I made the call to keep the peace. I didn't get railroaded, nor ended up a martyr. I simply did what I still think was right. Don't let the chatter get to you. If you're not on the cutting edge of something, you're probably taking up space. It's not as bad/good as people think. I simply had to ask for my toolz back. The ID group didn't kill me, and I didn't get away with abuse. It is simply a draw. the_undertow talk 10:45, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    I could go into more details and say more, but you get the idea. And if you think that people won't bring up the above, you are mistaken. You have made enemies---as demonstrated at your last RfA. Your comments on your blogs will only infuse these enemies to oppose. And you've given them material to do so.
    I hate to do this, but in order to maintain my personal integrity, which I feel like I sold out in noming somebody I didn't feel was ready, I have to oppose. I know that he's going to pass---and will probably hate me forever. But I think it is a shame that he agreed to wait until August, but insisted on running now. Have I seen improvement in him, definitely, but if you are looking for maturity, then he would have been willing to wait to run like he originally agreed. I also have problems with his recent blog posts that lacks civility---it is offwiki, but he makes it relevant to wikipedia. Sorry, I have to do this, or loose all sense of personal integrity. I encourage others to reconsider their supports as well---especially if you are supporting based on my nom. I did what I did because I honestly thought this would go down in flames, and would be a good tool to teach with... I thought that I would be able to discuss rash actions with him after the RfA... unfortunately, this is going to pass.---Nominator2 PoppaBalloon 01:54, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    There's too much drama and hoopla here. H2O is no [name redacted] or [name redacted] to get hundreds of votes at his RfA (regardless of what votes.) He certainly lacks that kind of fame (or notoriety.) He is simply a good guy who lacks maturity to have a position of official authority and wanting that position too much. I think he should be let off the hook as this is only a virtual word. This act above is unhelpful act by his "friend" too. Should this RfA pass, H2O should not use tools for a long time and stay away from #admins, which would be a good idea anyway, despite he certainly wants to get there. His friends should not shoot him in the back and his opponents should take it easy on him. He is a nice guy after all. I fail to see why he wants this adminship so badly. This is the saddest part of this. But, again, let's be easy on him whatever happens. --Irpen 02:23, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    This community has the right to expect all editors to act with more foresight and more responsibility, and we particularly expect and ought to expect a higher level of conduct from those we trust as administrators. I've commented on your talkpage, and I'll repeat myself here: I expected more of you, and your behavior on this RfA has been a serious disappointment. Avruch T 02:08, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    (ec)This is unexpected... "I thought that I would be able to discuss rash actions with him after the RfA... unfortunately, this is going to pass." You were expecting him to fail and yet you still nommed? You had queries and major doubts about whether he is suited to adminship, yet you still endorsed him until this point? I have major doubts about your motive with this oppose, Nominator2, and would've thought you knew better... I mean, if you knew you he was going to fail, and now have second thoughts once he is about to pass; this is a betrayal of Candidate14's trust in you and you owe to be ashamed. I don't really care if you had opposed from the start, but to mislead him and to give him false hope is, to say the least, amoral. —Dark talk 02:10, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Ain't gonna argue... bad judgement on my part.---Nominator2 PoppaBalloon 02:15, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    And I said it on my page, but I agree 100%. The longer this RfA went on and the more success H2O had, the worst I felt. I eventually decided that in order to salvage ANY dignity, that I had to say something. Ultimately, I do believe H20 deserves the tools. And would have probably supported him... I just should have refused to nom him. It is in noming him that I feel like I've betrayed myself and the community, which is why I share it now while it can still have an impact!---Nominator2 PoppaBalloon 02:13, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Wow.--Koji†Dude (C) 02:16, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Your comments reveal quite a lot of turmil within your own mentality; "And would have probably supported him... I just should have refused to nom him." So, why are you now opposing, if you say that he would be a good admin, that he should be one, and that you probably "would have" supported? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:16, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Taking this to the talk pages, as this probably will become unweldy for this page.---Nominator2 PoppaBalloon 02:18, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Not a bad idea. I must admit I am lost for words on this BM. Cheers, Casliber (talk • contribs) 02:21, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    I find this event both saddening and disappointing: if you had any doubt in your mind about CANDIDATE14 when co-nominating, you shouldn't have added the co-nomination. To make a statement, and then to strike it out and switch to oppose halfway through is incredibly unfair to CANDIDATE14. Acalamari 02:26, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    For the record - I have no doubts about my decision to nominate CANDIDATE14. I've been offering for a couple of months now because the transformation I've seen in him has been impressive. I'm shocked by the turn of events, and want it known that my support is unwaivering. I have no reservations about trusting Candidate14 with en-wiki admin tools. Lara❤Love 03:32, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    I find it interesting that you say CWii ran off in tears, which ought to mean CWii would oppose RFA, but he supports this RFA. Perhaps you were mistaken about that incident. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  39. Oppose per nom, only because I've always wanted to do that. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 02:19, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Apparently I should know better than to oppose an RfA that's headed for success. Well then I'll explain my reasoning. The user has demonstrated incivility and immaturity though his comments on Wikipedia, elsewhere on the internet, and through other media, and I do not believe that he is capable of exercising the judgment and coolheadedness necessary to act as an administrator. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 03:05, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  40. Oppose. I've thought long and hard about this, but there are certain aspects of this RfA which I am uncomfortable with. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  41. Unfortunately I have to oppose. I've seen H2O around (how could you not) and he seems to be a great editor, but he does not fully meet the two qualities I like to see in an admin,
    1. Evidence that they would not abuse the tools. (I think the GA corruption is counter-evidence)
    2. Always civil. I've read his responses concerning this RfA and I think that he is civil enough. I still have my doubts about 1 though. Jkasd 23:02, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    Whether Candidate14Candidate14 passes or fails for admin, I hope he learns a lot from all the points made. I also hope the closing bureaucrat will remember that RFA is not a vote.
    Jkasd 03:18, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  42. Strong Oppose as per WP:Progress toward maturity is not the same as maturity. I just would not give this editor the keys to my car. Has always and everywhere appeared to be desperate to be an admin; let's see a more circumspect attitude. This RfA looks to be headed to acceptance. If so, never forget that the Opposers expect maturity out of you. I was around when the IRC deal broke; I wanted you to quit GA. I've seen your blog recently; it's childish finger-pointing and divisive crap. And what's with this White Power crap? You can wriggle all you want. It's immature, immature, and immature. [[Ling.Nut (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  43. Oppose, sadly. Great contributor, but I can't support for adminship editors that promote the divisive concept of "cabals" on Wikipedia. No single thing creates more drama than that. Rockpocket 03:33, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  44. Oppose although I like CANDIDATE14 , I agree with the views expressed that he does not yet show the consistent good judgment that is necessary. I can only hope he would do well as an admin, but I do not yet have the necessary degree of confidence in it. DGG (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  45. Reluctantly Oppose H20 has made quite a number of good contributions of the project maintenance nature and I would be quite happy to support him. But the Digwuren episode is still making my blood boil. Maybe next time Candidate14 Bakharev (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  46. Oppose I don't trust Candidate14's judgement. Irpen summarizes most of my concerns very well. ~ Eóin (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  47. Oppose The concerns raised wrt the GA corruption make it difficult for me to place trust in this individual currently. I perused through the nominee's blog and was not impressed. He's created a lot of wiki-drama, and I have significant doubts as to whether he should be trusted with the mop. As noted in much of the discussion above, he has divided the community on his nomination, and as such, should not be granted the administrative powers. Fraudy talk 06:30, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Vote indented, users with very, very few edits and infrequent contributions cannot participate in a discussion such as this one, given the circumstances. I suggest that the bureaucrats can consider whether to acknowledge it at the end of the discussion; until then, the candidate should not be hampered by two probably-ineligable !votes, given the nature of this RfA. Nominator1 (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    Any Wikipedian with an account is eligible to express their opinion. We can WP:AGF and consider my analysis. Fraudy talk 04:11, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    Participate does not mean !vote. There's a discussion section up there. Nominator1 (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    Reviewing his contribs he's nothing close to an SPA, and certainly deserves as much of a presence here as anyone else ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 07:33, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    That's debateable. I would argue that most new accounts don't dive into AFD and RFA their first week with prime use of wiki-lingo, and while it's possible that this user has edited various areas of the 'pedia for some time as an IP and picked up on these things, the first edit, made mere days ago, states s/he's new. I would hope a CU would look into this one as well. Lara❤Love 07:43, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    I said he wasn't an SPA. He may be a sockpuppet, but that alone is not reason to indent his vote since there are legitimate reasons for sockpuppet accounts. Consider we've already had one checkuser confirmation that a seeming sockpuppet new account is actually an older account who just wants privacy. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 11:41, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    I find it admirable that Candidate14 has not seen fit to add to the haranguing of oppose voters and blatant assumptions of bad faith as seen above and on a number of other votes, I wish some of the supporters would take his lead. It makes for an unedifying spectacle and discourages scrutiny. Orderinchaos 09:32, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    SWAT, you're correct. I was thinking sock puppet, not single purpose. I would still ope a CU would confirm, as with the other, that it's not a double vote, however. Lara❤Love 14:53, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    A CU investigation is under way, and I prefer to say no more at this point. ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  48. Oppose per nom, Irpen, DGG and others. In any case, he has no difficulty finding useful things to do here, and the need for the tools as he explains it in Q1 does not seem really pressing, whilst the potential downside per some opposes outweighs this to my mind. Generally, a very good editor, but still too much of a risk as an admin. Johnbod (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    {added) I didn't realize that it was he who approved the "two million new articles bot" - see Q25 above and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/FritzpollBot creating up to two million new articles. Whilst I accept his explanation above, and that there is some general confusion over the remit of the bot approvals group, I think in this case any admin should have been wise before rather than after the event. Johnbod (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  49. Oppose Someone above suggested that "support" is the AGF default. I do not agree when we are talking about voting for sysops - administrative decisions are not the same as editorial ones. In this case, I see the vast number of "supports" as really amounting to, "We want this editor involved in Wikipedia." Well, okay, fine by me. Be an editor, and continue doing all the things editors do; use your own judgement whether people agree or disagree with you when editors vote on stuff; keep researching and working on articles. But why be an admin? I haven't heard any compelling reasons. And I am concerned about unconstructive discussion about an ID cabal - my own history of contributions makes it clear that if such a cabal existed, I am definitely not a member of it! - but in all the contentious editing around evolution-related articles I never found cause to start labeling cabals. But for me the bottom line is this editor left Wikipedia a couple of weeks ago. Not that DM took a short Wikibreak, but rather left in disgust. And any editor is free to do this. But to then come back and ask to be an admin? This is too weird for me - it doesn't make sense, it is not appropriate. Why don't you withdraw your request for nomination, not because you would loose which you probably won't, but to show us some maturity, to show that you do not need some kind of title to stick around here. Let's see you continue to edit, display the maturity your supporters think you have, demonstrate some commitment to Wikipedia, and then come up again. I have to say, I wonder, if you were to lose this vote, would you leave Wikipedia again? If not immediately, soon? From all I have read, I think you would. As long as I think that, I can't support this nomination. And my mind can easily be changed: just come up for nomination again a few months, rather than weeks, after having left. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:25, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    A point; The candidate did not ask to become an admin, they agreed when others said they would (co-)nominate. Also, the ultimate question, and the premise by which the tools are supposed to be given, is whether the CANDIDATE14 can be trusted with the buttons. Generally the supporters are saying yes, and a few are giving reasons, but it is fairly difficult to point to a specific example of "trustworthiness" being enacted. The opposers are saying CANDIDATE14 cannot be trusted, and referring to specific examples exemplifying their concerns. The support !vote is the AGF default purely because it is difficult to quantify with diffs (how do you prove that anyone doesn't do bad things). LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Note: Slrubenstein was canvassed by Orangemarlin. EJF (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    EJF, what evidence do you have that my vote was influenced by Orangemarlin? Are you saying my vote does not count? If it does count, what is your point? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:47, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Orangemarlin's comment, suggesting that CANDIDATE14 was giving "succor to racism" and comparing white pride to neo-Nazism, was not exactly neutral—was it his intent to influence your vote? Probably. Did he influence your vote? That is a question that only you yourself can answer honestly. It would be presumptuous for me to suggest how much (or little) weight will be given by the closing bureaucrat to your comment. But be sure that they are aware of the attempts to skew consensus at this RfA. Regards, EJF (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    EJF, this is a silly and bad-faith comment. This is a vote, and it may reach consensus, but it doesn't start with some "consensus" that can be "skewed." Was Orangemarlin's comment neutral? Let others read it and decide for themselves but I read a question and a concern, I did not read Orangemarlin making any kind of judgement. Are you saying it is wrong for an editor to ask another editor a question, or raise a concern about a vote for admin? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:31, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Be that as it may, if he had a non-neutral view, I am sure he would have voted here and explained his vote. Surely, his explanation could have influenced other people's votes. Do you think I was not influenced by CANDIDATE14's statements? Do you think I was not influenced by the various justifications for votes in favor and in opposition? Was I wrong to read other people's comments, and consider them? Is that what you are saying? 12:31, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    As for the actual reason for my vote, I gave it. I took the time to explain it. People (like LessHeard vanU) are free to raise reasonable points. Bt what is your point? It seems to me that your point is to spread bad-faith disruption to this process. You do not speak honestly, you do not say what you mean, you make insinuations, and when I ask for clarification you just make other insinuations. I invite you one more time to explain what you mean. Are you criticizing Orangemarlin? Or are you citicizing me? And if you are not criticizing, what is your point? What effect do you intend your words to have? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:31, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Can we calm this discussion down a bit please? I placed a note on the top of this pages asking, "If someone brought this page to your attention, or you brought this page to others' attention, please make a note of this fact here." You didn't do so when you expressed your opposition - I presume it slipped your mind or you didn't see the notice. EJF then noted it on your behalf. Knowing how representative a sample of Wikipedias have participated in a discussion is an important factor for the person who comes to close it. The fact that a discussion you might otherwise not have participated in was drawn to your attention does not proclude your expressing your view, but guidelines about canvassing do recommend that people are honest when this is what has happened. WjBscribe 12:38, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Thank you WJBscribe for your constructive comment. yes, I did miss the note at top and I regret that. Yes, Orangemarlin did bring to my attention that CANDIDATE14 had been nominated for adminship. No, Orangemarlin did not solicit my vote, let alone a particular vote, and I think the use of the word "canvas" was inappropriate. Nor did Orangemarlin say he was opposed to this nomination (although he did as I have said express a concern). By the way, these votes are never based on a representative sample of Wikipedians - it might be a good idea for everyone who votes (regardless of vote) to canvas others, since the larger the sample the more likely it will be representative. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:00, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    (ec)There is nothing wrong with Orangemarlin influencing other editors' votes on this RfA page—indeed, I encourage him to do that. This is a not a vote, and engaging discussion is something to be prized rather than despised. Many factors can influence the comment of an RfA !voter, and I am sure you have thoughtfully commented taking account of all that has been said by supporters and opposers and also of CANDIDATE14's actions. That is to be encouraged, and your actions in weighing up the pros and cons were appropriate. The way in which you were alerted to the discussion was not however ideal. My point was not to spread more bad-faith disruption, there has been too much of that already—and I am not referring to you or Orangemarlin when I say that. The reason I raised it is to make the closer of the RfA aware of the canvassing. Your opinion is not inherently wrong, but canvassing others to give their opinion is discouraged. I am not criticising, only raising awareness. (On seeing WjB's comment, perhaps moving this thread to talk would be preferable) Best regards, EJF (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    I'm pretty insulted by your lack of good faith towards me, but I really don't care. If you spent a moment studying where slr and I cross paths, its probably on fighting racism in general, anti-semitism, specifically. I think he even called me a "troll" once in some intense discussion about some article or another, so really, anti-semitism is about all that is common between us. slr is one of two or three editors I specifically trust on Wikipedia to give useful advice in determining what is and what is not racism. After what I wrote here in opposition, and after I received such a strong negative response, I went to slr for advice. I would have done it privately, but he doesn't accept emails, and given the poisoned atmosphere around here, I'm glad I couldn't send him an email. To consider what I did canvassing is such an abuse of AGF, it's beyond me to understand what EJF was trying to prove. Is saving this RfA so critical that impugning slr's sterling reputation and my maybe less-sterling reputation (but one where I didn't canvas) is the most important thing to do? You owe slr a real apology. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:52, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    Thank you, I appreciate your clarification. I still think that canvassing - as long as it is done by everyone - is a good idea unless we come up with a mechanism for creating juries by random sample to asses nominations for admin. Be that as it may, Orangemarlin did bring the nomination to my attention, but did not solicit a vote. Thanks again for responding to my concerns. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:00, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  50. Oppose per Tony, Mastcell, and Orderinchaos (the maturity concerns). Excellent contributor, but doesn't seem ready for adminship. -- Avenue (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  51. Oppose. I've encountered him as a good editor and have no personal beef with him whatever. But what's written above suggests that even recently he has been overly impulsive. -- Hoary (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  52. Oppose. There isn't much to add in ways of diffs or anything to what has been said above. I can assure everyone that I've researched CANDIDATE14 intensively and also read the RfA in full, and am also fully aware of the now multiple controversies surrounding it. I'm !voting the opposite of many of my favorite/most respected editors, but I do have my reasons. When looking at all the factors, to be totally honest, I thought it was a clear oppose. This entire RfA comes across as many people thinking that adminship can be deserved or earned, and also arose concers of mine that people are supporting a friend for the sake of friendship, ignoring some of the needed qualities that an admin should have. Slightly before this RfA started, I made this comment regarding RfAs in general on WT:RfA, "Possibly, but I'm starting to think that some people simply established there(sic) place here and made a lot of friends and consequently had 3 out of 4 people support them. In reality, in terms of the temperament and policy understanding, it just wasn't there." Taking out understanding of policy, which CANDIDATE14 certainly has, I feel like this statement sums up how I feel here. One final thing: I'm a little dismayed at the commentary here and elsewhere regarding the finality of this RfAs outcome... many rfas start at 95/5 and fail, or 30/70 oppose and pass. There are several days left, the RfA (obviously) has better than a snowball's chance of passing, but more importantly, better than a snowball's chance of failing. I really wish I could've seen here an RfA where supporters and opposers really evaluated the candidate regardless of prior arguments or agreements with him, but it's quite clear that this RfA is far gone from that. Anyone is welcome to question me here or on my talk page on my comments made in this !vote. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:11, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  53. Oppose, do not have a good feeling about this editor. Nakon 16:36, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  54. Oppose. Too many questions regarding the nominee's judgement and temperament. Nsk92 (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  55. Strong Oppose, per the many, many, many examples that have been provided. Being an editor is alright, but anything beyond that could be detrimental to a good portion of the project. Above that, the social networking aspects that have been observed is quite troublesome. Bigjake (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  56. Oppose I remember too many small things to sum them up nicely. I'm most put off by the May 1518 blog post, particularly in contrast to all Nominator2 has said about judgment and maturity. I'm concerned at the allegations of voting along political lines, and dismayed at the vitriol that has been directed towards those who oppose. I'm depressed that people see "white pride" as being just as acceptable as "black pride" (how about rich pride, or boss pride, or elite pride, or just-so-long-as-I'm-better-than-you pride?) This user makes an excellent editor and contributor with their current toolset. Awarding further tools at this time increases the potential for future drama. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:30, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  57. Oppose User does not appear to have the necessary judgment at this time. IronDuke 21:07, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  58. Very strong oppose I don't really think CANDIDATE14 intends to help wikipedia, more becoming an admin to fulfill some hunger for recognition and power. His many comments in places seem to show thaat he['s only posting to spread his name around, for support during RFA, I can't support him See talk page. My Very strong oppose still stands though, per concerns raised by many opposers here--Phoenix-wiki 21:57, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Which comments are you talking about? I fail to see where he is not contributing to a discussion or anything just to make people look at his RFA. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 22:38, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    What happened, Phoenix? You went from support to "very strong oppose" in a matter of hours, without any observable provocation on anyone else's part. May I be so bold as to ask why you changed your position so suddenly? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:39, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    Which of course is why he is such a prolific article writer, yep that fits. ViridaeTalk 00:41, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    These are pretty serious claims. You might want to review AGF, Phoenix. --Rory096 02:10, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    I don't think intention is really in question for this user - it's obvious he wants to help out. Where the supporters and opposers differ is whether he is able to. I personally believe he is, others may disagree. Orderinchaos 07:27, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  59. Oppose. Previously, I voted neutral (see below), and commented on my observations of the admin coaching process with Nominator2. I should have been more observant. This is clearly a coaching arrangement that has broken down. And without judging what Nominator2 has done, it's obvious that what I called CANDIDATE14's surplus enthusiasm (we could also call that impetuousness) lies at the root of that breakdown. That is not a good sign. I'm interested to see how CANDIDATE14 will respond to Gguy's recent questions above. For now, at least, I feel impelled to oppose the candidacy, albeit with some reluctance. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:24, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Miclick (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Care to share your reasons for opposing this RfA? --Rory096 02:07, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    Vote indented, users with very, very few edits and infrequent contributions cannot participate in a discussion such as this one, given the circumstances. I suggest that the bureaucrats can consider whether to acknowledge it at the end of the discussion; until then, the candidate should not be hampered by two probably-ineligable !votes, given the nature of this RfA. Nominator1 (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    Unindented. Email communication from this user confirms that the user has an established history with another account and is using this account for privacy. Let's leave it to the bureaucrats to asses the weight given. --Stephen 03:42, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    It's been established by community consensus that using a secondary account to oppose an RfA on privacy grounds is not acceptable. I strongly disagree with the unindenting of this. You say lets "leave it to the bureaucrats to asses the weight given", but by reinstating it you are giving it an interim value: 1. Users are influenced by the number of previous supports and opposes, so this sems distinctly unfair on the candidates. Nominator1 (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    information - I have run a quick check and have identified what I believe to be the primary account, with what I consider very high probability (could be wrong but I'd use the  Confirmed tag if this were a normal CU case... it's pretty solid) but at this time the primary account identity does not need disclosing. To the best of my knowledge that account has not commented in this RfA. I will be watching for that, though. I find myself in agreement with Nominator1, community consensus is that this is not an accepted approach. I would encourage this user to strike their remarks and participate as the primary account instead. Failing that I do think this comment should be indented. But of course I am merely a CU, not a 'crat. ++Lar: t/c 04:11, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    I am not happy with the use of alternative accounts to participate in community discussions. If someone has a comment to make, they are expected to do so with their primary account per Principle 3 of the Privatemusings ArbCom case, "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates." If exceptional circumstances require the use of an alternative account to participate in this RfA, feel free to email me and I will listen, but I see no reason to allow covert RfA participation given the cost this would have in terms of accountability. WjBscribe 07:54, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  60. Oppose. As much as I enjoy a good comedy, too much damage can be done with admin tools. HalfShadow 00:20, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    Er, sorry, I'm not sure I scanned that correctly. Are you saying this RFA is a joke? GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 01:26, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    This particular RfA has turned into quite the joke. No two ways about that. Tool2Die4 (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  61. Oppose per Irpen's arguments. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:30, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    Oppose per the GA incident and also this doesn't fill me with confidence. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    No, the GA incident was not confidence inspiring. I opposed for it in the past. However, with all respect, Rambo, that link is from July 2007 and completely out of context. It was in response to == Uh, am I retarded? == I seriously thought you were already an admin. Man, I'm losing my mind in my old age. Oh, and my accent isn't getting any better either ;). Good luck on the Rfa, and you obviously have a support from this guy here. Further, H20's edit summary ends in a ":P". Isn't that like "tongue out, being silly"? In other words, he was speaking in jest? It was not a personal attack; it was a friendly exchange. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 12:54, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    Wait, Dloh. Your interpretation is like— assuming... what's the opposite of 'bad faith' again? dorftrottel (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    Apologies, I especially take back my opposition on the basis of comment mentioned above, I neglected to note the :P. I move to Neutral. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  62. Oppose In short: Immature. Five RfA's in such a short period says alot. Very good contributor, keep that up and sort out everything else. Five Years 12:32, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  63. Serious Oppose I just read this whole page. The whole thing! I am a completely uninvolved editor and only came to this page through a link at the comments regarding the VillagePump Bot. Admins have a profound effect on editors at wikipedia, specifically new editors. With this in mind, I oppose due to reasons such as Irpen states, as well as per nom. And as an aside, I respect baloonman for coming clean. His withdrawal of his nom, and his reasoning for the withdrawal, speaks volumes as to why I can't support wikipedia giving such stature to such an individual as nominated. I had recently lost faith in Wiki due to poor adminship, and regained it due to thorough and proper adminship. I hope that the quality of these opposes goes a long way to balancing the outstanding amount of support shown. That is to say: don't let this through. There should be no rush! An admin has the ability to foster the admirable goal of Wikipedia, or to destroy it. Let him try for a 6th time next year or something. For Wiki's sake. Beam 12:41, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  64. Oppose with regrets. I have seen the nominee make many positive contributions at AfD, and other areas of the Wiki. However, I am concerned about the GA incident, of which I learned of here. CANDIDATE14 has taken significant steps to recover from that misstep, however, sufficient questions have been raised about the maturity of his interaction with other users that I feel obliged to oppose. I do wish he had taken the suggestion to edit productively, without drama, until the August timeframe, that would have gone a long way towards addressing my concern. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:20, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  65. Oppose. His reasons for wishing to become an admin are extremely weak and rather self-serving. Madman (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    Which part of
    • restoring images transferred to and then deleted from the Commons,
    • deleting images once they're transferred to the Commons,
    • reducing the administrative lag in approving bots, and
    • cl;osing XfDs
    is "weak and rather self-serving"? I'm honestly befuddled. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  66. Oppose. I'm sorry DM, but I can't support. You're a great editor, don't get me wrong, but you seem a little too trigger-happy; some of those diffs are worrisome. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 16:53, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  67. Oppose. Because of answers to questions and seems not to have learned from mistakes past. JeanLatore (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  68. Oppose I must say I went back and forth on this for a while now, but the issues raised here above and below me trouble me greatly. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:50, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    same here...I don't understand how so many (300+-) people are NOT troubled. It's scary. Beam 23:06, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    It's not that they're/we're not troubled, it's that we believe the good outweighs the bad. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:26, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    An administrator is such a vital part of Wikipedia. I almost left the project over an admin who, to put it overly kindly, made a series of bad choices. That's the power of an admin. And for someone to literally LUST for the position, going as far as to accept/seek nominations 4 times within one year, unwilling to wait an extra month or two per the advice of his (at the time) most stringent supporters, and with such a checkered history including recent questionable actions.... well that's troubling. I feel that some do not realize the power an admin has. The power to literally destroy the basic premise of the project.
    This isn't a race. There would be NO HARM in waiting 2 more months or 6 more months. In fact it would only strengthen the support and trust of the community in an admin. And this is a freaking circus, excuse my French. As Lara says: no one would look down on him and actually would only praise him to withdraw. But as I say: he won't, because he's so close to his goal. A goal that has been aggressively pursued.
    And again, yes he has handled this RfA well, and to that I say of course he has, this is his 4th or 5th one this year, even an immature maniac (I'm AGF, so this is hypothetical) could appear mature for 10 days if need be. But I don't understand why would an extra month be so bad? It's only bad if a person "just can't wait" to become an admin. That combined with the recent and less recent worrying actions and the "quality" of this particular RfA process REALLY troubles me. Again, I don't see how it doesn't trouble more of the 300 supporters. That's the most troubling thing of all. Beam 23:41, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    I will never understand people that treat adminship like it's a big deal. We aren't talking about giving him the launch codes, we are talking about giving him a few extra tools with so many layers of oversight by other admins and editors that it's hard to get things done as it is. Jimbo felt that neither the the title nor the process of adminship was something to be too concerned with, yet there are an endless number of RfA participants that seem to treat the process like an initiation ritual where we send candidates through hell and attempt to shoot down their RfA for the most unbelievably ridiculous reasons that it lowers my IQ just to read them. I'm not troubled because I find the entire thing hilariously stupid beyond belief. I'm not troubled because being an administrator doesn't confer godlike powers and those with the mop are still answerable not just to other admins, but everyone. I'm not troubled because an administrator doesn't become less accountable than the average editor, he is held more accountable. Trusilver 23:58, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    You may not have read what I said. And if you did, well let me reiterate: an admin has the unique powers to completely ruin the Wikipedia project by removing it's greatest asset. As Reg points out below, Adminship is serious and NOBIGDEAL is a joke in practice. Beam 00:32, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    You make some excellent points, Beam. It is quite clear that WP:NOBIGDEAL is not really the case and an admin has a great deal of power, often implied and sometime by proxy by being a member of the inside group. In this particular RfA, there are several things that are troubling (starting with the the massive support for the nominee :-)). However, I think your concerns are balanced by the openness of the process. There are very few actions that are hidden from the community and that itself acts as a check on admin action even if there is a bias toward admins. And, the best way to counter the bias is to approve more people as admins, not less. Any halfway reasonable person should be acceptable and this nominee is, IMHO, certainly more than half way reasonable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs) 00:08, 3 December 2099
    Regents, that's what worries me. All of that overwhelming support with such questionable conduct. A simple withdrawal and reapplication in 2 months would put most opposes at ease. Yet the need for this admin power is so great for this nominee that won't ever happen. And that's the worst part. Beam 00:37, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    Beam, you're exaggerating the power of an admin a great deal. If the admin performs abusive actions, they can be reversed. Yes, admins can harass and bother you to make you leave the project - so can editors without the sysop bit. I don't see your point. Adminship is nothing special. We make it a big deal, but it shouldn't be. The only reason the WP:DEAL is false is that we force it to be false. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:34, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    Oh boy, you're very mistaken. You've never been the target of an admin who is "mistaken" to put it lightly. I almost left the project. And countless people HAVE left the project over an admin abusing their powers. You completely underestimate the affect an admin can have on a user, especially a new user. Or maybe you underestimate the worth of a contributor. Beam 00:36, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    It only takes one snap judgment, or cruel block summary and Wikipedia loses it's most unique and wonderful asset. And honestly this nominee seems quite capable of inducing such an action. Beam 00:39, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    Why, may I ask, can a normal editor not do the same thing? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:52, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    Of course a normal editor can harshly affect a new user, and a user in general. But a normal editor can't block, or delete in a second of poor judgement. A poor block has the greatest chance of destroying a contributor's will. And this nominee displays questionable behavior. And the fact that waiting any longer to get these powers seems unthinkable to him...well that's worrying as well. Admins hold a unique power eve if you don't want to admit it. And when an admin does do something in this vein.... it's literally devastating. Beam 00:57, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    At risk of adding to unrelated discussion to this RfA, while I agree with you in the main and think you raise some good points, of the four worst long-term editors I've ever dealt with personally, and who between them drove about 20 people off the project, sometimes quite wilfully, none of them had the bit. People either with a barrow to push or a personality disorder, who seem reasonable on the outside but are ruthless on the inside are our greatest threat (even more so than vandals). What I'd be more concerned about is that when users are able to act with admin status, they are seen by newbies (I was one only 2 years ago) as representing Wikipedia itself. So when an admin takes an ill-thought-out or even plainly bad action (even in good faith) or drops a stupid line on them, how are they going to see it and will that response help to resolve or inflame the situation? It doesn't actually matter in this case that admins do not have any special status - it is how we are seen by some, and that in itself gives us responsibility of a sort. Much like the kid at the train station (say aged 4) who's endangering themselves and you as an adult see them and instruct them almost without thinking. Do they get into a philosophical discussion about adulthood not being a big deal as everyone, barring tragedy, reaches it one day? No, you have an implied authority and they'll likely follow your instruction, reducing their risk. Additionally, when I was just a content editor looking after lots of articles, I could afford to ignore conflict. In many cases as an admin I'm responsible for resolving it. My RfA criteria, brief as they are, reflect what I'd like to see in every admin as a basic minimum, and I must say to the credit of Wikipedia, nearly always do see. Orderinchaos 02:00, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    Oh gawd, I just love when the melodramatic hand-wringing starts. I can think of several editors who are not admins who have ran off more promising editors than most administrators could ever hope to. There are plenty of oversights put in place to stop admins from abusing their powers, WP:RFU is one very important one. When I see a block that was wrong I don't hesitate to overturn it, just as I have had blocks that I've been wrong to make been overturned. Trusilver 02:13, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    Not to mention that his adminship on Commons, which is a bundle of the same tools, earned him the community's trust and he was granted Bureaucratship. If one's use of the tools in a sister project is not reliable evidence of their ability to use them appropriately, then I'm not sure what is. Lara❤Love 04:41, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  69. Thought I'd support this at first and wanted to. I tried to overlook the concerns raised, but really sorry Water, the concerns above are just far too serious, especially those of Irpen and Tony (with Sandy). Have to Oppose. Good luck though. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:41, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  70. Weak Oppose. I've been watching everything unfold, thinking about this RFA, as my evidence that I've been around from the beginning, I submit this edit moments after this RFA was transcluded asking why he removed part of his nomination. I actually thought I was going to be supporting this RFA, but after taking everything into account, that was not to be. Now, on to my oppose. First off, there's been a lot of WikiDrama surrounding this particular RFA, but I'm not going to oppose CANDIDATE14 because of that. However, something a little fishy has been going on with this RFA. Many of the supporters are not RFA regulars, some haven't !voted in an RFA in months, yet they suddenly show up for this one. Why? Perhaps CANDIDATE14 is an amazing editor who should be an admin. Perhaps he has a lot of friends. Perhaps there was some canvassing. Perhaps a lot of people are jumping on a bandwagon to reach WP:300. I don't know which, if any, of those is actually the case and I'm not claiming that any one of them is, so don't accuse me of assuming bad faith. But those aren't why I'm opposing either. I'm opposing for some of the same reasons as the 70 people before me. One, five RFAs in the course of a year looks kind of bad. But it has been quite some time since his last RFA, so that doesn't phase me much. My concern is mostly with the social issue of excessive WikiDrama, which should always be avoided, yet often seems to follow CANDIDATE14 around. Also, his temper has been known to flare sometimes. These two items lead me to question his judgement slightly when it comes to admin actions, which are quite often social actions. One bad block could make a valuable contributor disappear. I'm not saying that admins have to be perfect, anyone could make a mistake and block someone who shouldn't have been blocked, but I'm leary of people who might be a little hasty. However, CANDIDATE14 has made serious progress in the last little while, which is why I'm only opposing weakly (as opposed to opposing weekly, sorry just had to say that). Many other concerns brought up by the other opposers are a bit concerning to me, too. You're an excellent article contributor, and I think you'll make a good admin in the future. Sorry for making this !vote so long, but I only get one in this record-setting RFA and I wanted to make it count. Useight (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    Just a general note but WP:300 was just recently created, and I have a suspicion to believe it was created just for this RfA (seeing as how the rest of the article was copied from WP:200). — MaggotSyn 03:08, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    "Many of the supporters are not RFA regulars, some haven't !voted in an RFA in months, yet they suddenly show up for this one" — the opposers are more like this than the supporters (given relative numbers), probably due to the canvassing which occured by certain members of the opposition (notably also members of the Intelligent Design Wikiproject) early in this debate. Nominator1 (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    I knew I was going to take some flak for opposing, and perhaps you have a good point there, I didn't check if any of the opposers were "sudden show-uppers". However, I'd also like to point out that the supporting stopped at 298. Is this because there are people waiting for that 299th to !vote so they can be the 300th? Useight (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    Heh, I hope the support isn't that petty. But 300 supports did appear out of nowhere and fast! It's actually amazing, i've never seen anything like it in the 2+ months i've been here, and I've lurked RfAs! It's pretty awesome, and thank goodness for AGF or it'd be suspicious. Beam 04:04, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    I disagree, and if this RfA continues I think the crats will be able to weigh the supports and opposes fairly. Beam 03:28, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    What gives you the impression that it wouldn't continue until December 5th? — MaggotSyn 03:37, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    I haven't gotten that impression yet, unfortunately. But it hasn't been removed as a possibility. I can hope. 03:41, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    Regarding the comment about regular rfa participation...I have two things to say 1) I don't ivote much, though I do read the rfa's on a regular basis (every couple/three weeks) and 2) having more participation at rfa I think is good for the project generally. insularity is a problem. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    I wasn't insinuating that showing up only on occasion to !vote in an RFA was a bad thing. Wikipedia is a voluntary project and we all participate in different areas. I also wasn't opposing because there were some supports by editors who don't often !vote in RFAs. In fact, the more people who voice their opinions, the better, this is a community discussion seeking consensus. Your !vote isn't worth less because you don't often !vote. I was merely pointing out that there were a surprising number of less active RFA commenters commenting on the RFA. Please don't accuse me of being narrow-minded, I was only pointing out a tidbit of information from a neutral perspective. Useight (talk) 05:26, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  71. Oppose. Way too many concerns here, questionable calls, temperment, etc. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  72. Oppose. Having read most of the above, reading over several talk pages and into the wider ether, I have serious misgivings about both the candidate and the process. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:22, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  73. Regretful Strong oppose. It would be very easy for me to support on the basis of how likeable you are as a person, and on the basis that many wikipedians that I respect are among those 300 people supporting. But it wouldn't be right to vote in that way. There does seem to be a great deal of drama about and I don't know if this is because drama follows you or it's because you're not afraid to get stuck in to the issues that other people won't go near. I just have this niggling feeling about judgement. The blog post...you deliberately linked it from your userpage, so it seems reasonable to deduct that you wanted exposure to it and for everyone to read it. It seems to have ruffled a lot of feathers, just as a blog post previous to that, really hurt the feelings of an editor. I think it's lovely that you want to defend and show your support for your friends, but I think there are ways of doing so that wouldn't create so much drama. Actions done in anger can damage the community; I wouldn't like to see admin tools accidentally used in that way. To your credit, you have mostly dealt with this experience with the utmost grace and poise. I have thought about this carefully, I just can't see this being a net positive. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:43, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    Switched to strong oppose per new information. There are no reasons that CANDIDATE14 could give to justify compromising someone's privacy and abusing their trust. CANDIDATE14 should know full well the consequences of such actions, having made exactly the same mistakes in the past. I'm astounded. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:53, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  74. Switching to strongest possible oppose: during this RFA, Candidate14 sent me a piece of private correspondence unsolicited, with the intent of compromising another user's personal privacy. I spoke with him one-on-one about this, and the conclusion that I divined from the conversation was that he thought that the offense was in that the third person may have been offended, and not that spreading around private correspondence is a terrible idea. I am not comfortable with Candidate14 having deleted material and access to private communities such as unblock-en-l or #-admins available to them anymore. east.718 at 12:06, December 3, 2099
    Wait, what?! This sounds horrible! CANDIDATE14, could you please explain? dorftrottel (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    Rather than assumption or pile-on opposes, East's been asked if he can clarify, give details, and probably also the candidate should comment. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:33, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    I'm going to steal a comment I made here:

    I don't think the release of info was accidental either, and to be honest, I can't even rule out malice. The nitty-gritty of it was that Candidate14 came up to me out of the clear blue and asked "would you like personal information about [person X whom he was pissed off with at the moment]?" I replied with surprise, at which point he emailed me X's real name, as well as a long thread of correspondence that he had with them. I spoke with him about it a couple days after the fact and am convinced that it was just a stupid action which he didn't think through, but the impression I got was that he doesn't understand why it was wrong either.

    I chose my words here quite carefully, and do believe that this was a poorly executed attempt at causing harm. east.718 at 13:00, December 3, 2099
    I've made CANDIDATE14 aware of this particular oppose [15]. I suspect he will be offline for a while longer, and no doubt will head straight to this page when back on, but felt it fair that this be pointed out clearly to him, as the "allegation" (for want of a better word, and that is a poor word) is of a nature that may dramatically alter the outcome of this RfA. Pedro :  Chat  13:10, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    It is currently just coming up on midnight where he's at, so it will be several hours before he responds. Lara❤Love 13:26, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    I would ask (of course, I have no control over this) that people abstain from voting on this basis until the candidate has had a chance to defend their actions. The outcome may decide this RFA. —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:33, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  75. Uber OPPOSE I now have reasonable doubt about this candidates charactor Prom3th3an (talk) 12:26, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    Excuse me? The phrase "Uber OPPOSE" would make anyone look stupid. Why not wait with your pile-on vote until things have been clarified. dorftrottel (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  76. Oppose. I've been thinking long and hard about this, and I am just not comfortable supporting him for adminship at this time. Some of his work is good, but I also see him involved in too much controversy. This edit from just a couple weeks ago, where he blanked his talkpage and linked to an off-wiki "disgusted" blog,[16] implies a negativity and impulsiveness that would not be good traits in an administrator. Then he restored the page the next day, but indicated that he was just doing this, so as not to "give satisfaction" to a commenter at his blog.[17] If this were an older issue from several months ago, I might be willing to overlook it, but since it was just two weeks before an RfA, I do not think that it shows good judgment. Especially because he has already been through the RfA process multiple times, he should have known better than to even accept a nom in the middle of so much controversy. Administrators need to be able to keep their cool in the middle of chaos and attacks. They need to be able to portray a good example of stability and calm, to help defuse tense situations. CANDIDATE14 may be able to do this in the future, but I am not seeing enough of it right now. --Elonka 12:49, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  77. Well adminship is all about trust and there are thousands of information of people on this wiki which were never oversighted but just deleted and if East who is one of the most active admins on this wiki believes what CANDIDATE14 did was wrong, then I don't see any reason why I should support his RfA, and since adminship is all about trust and compromising someone elses information like that really is not what an admin should ever do under any circumstances + he had a Meta RfA which faield and a few days later he had a Commons RfB which succeeded and just a few more days later, an enwiki RfA..I really don't like where this is going :S..sorry...--Cometstyles 13:00, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  78. Oppose based on impulsiveness and overall drama. Keepscases (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  79. Oppose For a long time, I couldn't decide between neutral and support, but there are some things that worry me. And if it were any other candidate, I wouldn't have hesitated to oppose for these reasons. Now, it became clearer, with East718's comment, and I am forced to oppose. With regrets, because I've been impressed by most of his contributions and have found myself in agreement with him on many occasions. My first encounter with Candidate14 was during the cabal incident. He gave me the impression of a thoughtful, reasonable, mature user with good judgment. Then, he came back to my attention with this. After I brought the incident to ANI, he made his best to resolve the situation, successfully. Candidate14 is capable of good judgment, consideration, reflexion on his actions and so on, but the problem is that sometimes, and too many times, he's too impulsive and too quick to make a judgment, or an action. But more importantly, if there's one thing I can not tolerate and makes me oppose notwithstanding anything else, it's the divulgation of personal information, inflamed off-wiki comments on users, etc. We know what kind of terrible consequences this kind of things may have. While I may believe that this was innocent from Candidate14, or due to a brief anger, it may still open a Pandora's box and become a very real nightmare for the persons (not just "users") involved. While I may sound overly dramatic, everyone will agree that this is an important matter, and on this, I cannot trust Candidate14. Some other things concern me, for example the premature approval of FritzpollBot (while discussion was still going on) is an example of an unconsidered speedy action. An administrator with a tendency to overeact, act prematurely or jeopardize the security of an individual is not a positive for Wikipedia and the community. This is a problem of maturity as far as I can tell, and I'll be happy to support in a foreseeable future. I think that it's also in the best interest of Candidate14 to wait for better days. Cenarium (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    A note on this RFA, I've been thinking to abstain from it, because of some violent interactions, off-wiki actions and accusations between supporters and opposers. Maybe this shows a dysfunctionment of the RFA process, though this RFA is exceptional on many aspects. I won't further discuss the issue here. What is certain in my mind is that I and the community (with maybe a few exceptions) think that Candidate14 has made an exceptional work on Wikipedia, and other WMF projects, and we are grateful for this. However, whilst I believe that Candidate14 would be a great administrator in most circumstances, I think that, in view of the previous concerns I commented on, there is a too high probability that he could do grave mistakes. Adminship on commons is not a big deal in comparison with adminship on Wikipedia, Commons is not so drama-gathering and propitious to harsh situations. I'm awaiting more information on the problem raised by East718, as this is one of the reasons for my oppose. Releasing sensitive information obtained with sysop access is an abuse of the tools. Cenarium (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  80. Oppose Good editor, simply too much drama to be a good admin, especially in light of the new information. Tool2Die4 (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  81. Strong oppose, after reading comments made by Neil, MastCell, Irpen, Nominator2, SandyGeorgia, Tony1, and East718. This editor seem to have issues with incivility, impulsiveness, reciprocity, social networking, maturity, judgement, and patience. Add in multiple RFAs within a year (this is the 5th RFA from May 2007 to May 2099...under 3 different usernames [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]) *and* revealing personal information through off-wiki communication. This user does not display the behavior we should expect out of an administrator. Additional warning flags in my eyes: this user is a teenager, uses IRC, keeps a blog about Wikipedia, has changed their username (multiple times), wrote an essay called Passing RfA for fun and profit!, and created an I love Wikidrama userbox as recent as February 2099 and decided to advertise it[23] at ANI. I suppose teenagers can change a lot in 5 months (since RFA #4), but a 16-year-old is still a 16-year-old. Wikipedia doesn't need any more impulsive teenage admins. I could not trust this user to be an admin at this time. And Nominator2 showed extremely poor judgement in co-nomming someone because they thought it would fail. --Pixelface (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    Your other comments are legitimate concerns, but the ageism isn't appreciated. Maturity isn't as much a function of age as you appear to be implying. The fact that this user is 16 years old should not be a factor. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:53, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    When we are talking about adults, age is not a concern. But in the case of a minor it is a valid concern and not ageism. Nsk92 (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    (ec)Eh, I think it's perfectly legitimate to have reservations about appointing a teenager to a position requiring good judgment. A large chunk of the problems we have at Wikipedia can be traced back to immature behavior. Teenagers are overly emotional and have poor impulse control. It would be very foolish to pretend otherwise. Friday (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  82. Been mulling this over for days. I think Candidate14 is a great editor and there doesn't seem to have been any problems with his contributions at comments. I just don't think that they are ready to deal with all the thunder and lightening that admining at en can involve. Commons is a nice sedate place where people generally behave. That's not what we have here and potential admins here need to have absolutely reliable judgement. Therefore a weak regretful Oppose Spartaz Humbug! 21:16, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  83. Oppose. Sorry, too much drama and I'm troubled by many of the things I've read here written by editors whose opinions I respect. Gamaliel (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  84. Oppose per the blog post and especially per east.718. Skinwalker (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  85. Oppose per the first 12 opposers, SandyGeorgia, Irpen, East718 (provisional), Pixelface. Maturity, impulsiveness, way too much social and off-wiki involvement. Franamax (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
Neutral
[edit]
Neutral Pending optional answers to my optional questions. :-) I'll clarify that; if the candidate chooses not to answer them, it does not mean I will automatically leave this as neutral or oppose. Or support. Hope that's clear! --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2099 (UTC)Move to support. --Dweller (talk) 07:17, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
I have a feeling Adminship may make his great article work suffer. I think he'd be so much better as a non-admin editor. Would prefer he stuck to article work rather than trivial admin jobs. Meh. Al Tally talk 13:17, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
Yeah, my article writing has really suffered since becoming an admin...(chuckle..actually could add alot of admins and bureaucrats are right up there on that list too, heck) Cheers, Casliber (talk • contribs) 13:23, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
Fine. I'll switch :) Al Tally talk 21:40, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
  1. Neutral. I've known Candidate14 for a good amount of time, and I'm always impressed by the work and the service he's done for us. I've always been a big supporter of him, but in this RFA, my view of him has been slightly cast into doubt. I think that Candidate14 is fit for adminship, as with many other users who never seem to pass due to the dangerous misconception that GA/FA=OMG great admin. However, I find sometimes that he can be somewhat like...an adolescent. I like fun and games just as much as he does, but I feel sometimes Candidate14 is a tad impetuous. He tends to feel strongly about things, and as a result something bad happens that was not really intended in the first place. I was quite shocked reading his blog and how a few of our editors almost left because of his words. My greatest fear is that Candidate14 will create a big drama scene akin to the Durova affair. That is my worst fear about him, and I address to him: Be cautious! Do not let your feelings cloud your judgment. bibliomaniac15 21:04, 29 May 2099 (UTC)
    Neutral Change to oppose (see above). I would dearly love to support, as I can see that CANDIDATE14 has come on in leaps and bounds. I've watched the way in which he's worked with Nominator2 on the admin training, and have been very impressed by both. CANDIDATE14's clearly trying; perhaps he tries too much, which is the problem: he struggles to hold back his enthusiasm and passions, and the results can be on the ugly side. In a perfect world, I'd vote something like "conditional support," and ask for him to continue in admin training and see how things work out for a probationary period. But this isn't a perfect world. Still, I don't want to oppose. Which is why we have a "neutral" section. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:56, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Thank you I appreciate the vote of confidence. For those critical of coaching, I'd like to point out that Jb told me previously that he didn't like the idea of coaching, but was impressed by the 'professionalism' of what we were trying to do.Nominator2 (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Yup. For what's is worth, I'm happy to say that my gut feeling remains generally against admin coaching. But Nominator2 and CANDIDATE14 show how it can be done, and I have been very impressed (again, with both of them). They certainly have persuaded me against any kneejerk judgements about coached admin candidates. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:11, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Initially I thought the Cwii incident and another incident which privacy policy prohibits me from bringing on-wiki were isolated lapses in judgement, however upon further lengthy reflection on the other matters brought to light in this RFA, I can no longer support this candidate's desire for adminship. MBisanz talk 03:39, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  3. Firmly neutral. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Neutral — I initially had nothing but strong support for this user's RfA but OrangeMarlin's and Guettara's oppose has thrown me off quite significantly. It's going to take a good explanation to make me support but I really don't want to oppose because I do thoroughly trust this user with the tools. Switched to support. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 09:37, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. Arrogant bastard with too many FAs. Also, user is too cute to be an administrator – Gurchzilla (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    Do you mean "cute" as in the slang-term for "conniving" or this? ScarianCall me Pat! 13:03, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    No, definitely that -- Gurchzilla (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    ((Removed some crap about my parents. Seriously, this stuff is available to everyone on the internet. Attack me if you must, but don't draw others into it. Candidate14 (H2O) 01:03, 31 May 2099 (UTC))) --Koji†Dude (C) 21:33, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  5. I so very much don't know. On the support hand, I'm inclined to believe that the past "idiocy" (a term which I'm sure DiHiMo will be the first to agree with) and that particular breed of immaturity is truly in the past. I believe it's a mark of maturity to post his frustrations on a blog, rather than go off into the land of spurious RfCs and Requests for Strong Urging, and this is rather sublime. However, on the oppose hand: 1) There does seem to be a certain sort of "cheerleading" (or, in Ultra Formal CIVIL-ese, "social networking") that surrounds this user, 2) I don't know whether it comes from mis-understanding of scientific theory or some sort of misplaced empathy for "noble savagery", but DiHiMo seems to have a lack of empathy for the struggles of those dedicated to keeping this an encyclopedia of fact, not a blog of pleasant fairy-tales that lots of people really really like, and 3) and I'm sorry, but the failure to connect this with this with this shows a lack of fully-formed perspective on the debate. Decades and centuries of oppression coalesced to form the Black Supremacy movement, and, while "excused" is not really the right word, it adds perspective to the "heart" of the movement. There isn't any long-standing history of racially-motivated white surpression in the countries where White Pride is "trendy" - white-on-white violence, sure, black-on-white violence, undoubtably, but putting caucasians as a whole on a lower peg due solely to the color of their skin (i.e., not this or this) has never been a culturally "hip" thing to do in any of the Western nations I'm familiar with. Hence, the thesis statement of White Pride ("I am proud to be white!") is, at best, a completely idiotic sentiment. Proud to be Jewish, proud to be Catholic, proud to be Muslim or Texan or Californian, sure thing - but the only reason to segregate this pride by skin color and skin color alone is to keep the darkies and mud people out of the party. That's racist. That's a lack of perspective. Wikipedia says something else? Wikipedia's wrong. So - and it's moments like these where I knew how (or "it was possible", take your pick) to have a sensible paragraph break in a numbered list - these last two issues are perhaps isolated, perhaps not. Either way, the isolated nature itself is irrelevant - it would be foolish to suggest that even overwhelming ignorance in one thing means ignorance across the board, or even, perhaps, ignorance to the mere point of incompetency. That said, though, especially in tandem with the first point, this lack of fully-formed perspective is enough to make me hesitant. There's already more than enough half-informed folk of all sorts toiling away - what the project needs, especially in terms of admins, is more of those rare, but existent, fully-informed folk - to extend the oft-used "janitor" metaphor, the sort of janitors you can absolutely trust to clean the computer lab without unplugging the machines. =) I may well reconsider later - and either way, it's probably moot, since as I submit this statement, this RfA seems well on its way to cracking the elusive 200 Club. --Badger Drink (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    On the one hand I agree with you, to take pride in one's skin color is racist. On the other hand, I do have to ask, would you be ofended if he said that he was proud to be black? Or proud to be Asian? Or proud to be hispanic? Or any other racial group? If your answer is no, then we have a problem. Each of those racial groups is allowed, or even encouraged to take pride in their heritage. In the US, May is, by act of the President, Asian-Pacific Month. February is Black History Month. There are annual Asian and Black beauty pageants. Scholarships exist exclusively for people based upon their minority status. It is socially acceptable to say "whitey" or "the Man" in reference to overbearing white guys in suits. But if a caucasian (in the US at least) says something about not being ashamed of his/her race, then he/she is labelled a racist. I am am not the least bit ashamed to be Caucasian. Does that make me a racist? Does it make me a racist not to be ashamed of who I am? Likewise, I'm also proud to have a son that's Asian and a sister-in-law who is black. There is a difference between being proud of who you are and putting others down because you think you are better than them.Nominator2 (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
    When a child - or anyone whose worldview is still actively shaping and developing, for that matter - notices that people who look very much like him have been rounded up in camps, decried by the suits in charge on a near-daily basis, or treated as glorified cattle for about one hundred and fifty years, there's a good chance that his self-esteem may suffer - to say nothing of the seeds of counter-bigotry that this history may well sew. Naturally, not every child or childish person has the same psychology, but a balanced Utilitarian approach would be to take some time to acknowledge, as a main-stream media if nothing else, that there is a positive side to being of these heritages. Maybe this movement is rooted in nothing more than white guilt. Or maybe it's just a product of that well-intentioned but creepy-at-times calculated humanism that was so en vogue in the 1970s. Maybe foo History Months really do make a positive difference in the lives of both children and adults who are deeply disgusted about the way they themselves would be treated fifty years ago. Or maybe foo History Months are too simplistic to possibly make a difference. Either way, retorting with "White History Month" is petty. They're either a solution in search of a problem, or just pissing in the already-polluted pond. And, by extension, the same goes for any retaliatory White ____ concoctions. Solutions in search of problems, flinging handfuls of your shit around because the other kids do it too, or - perhaps closest to the truth - different versions of the same basic dirty, offensive, and surrealistic joke cooked up late one drunken evening to blow off some steam, get a cheap laugh, and be quickly discarded, with absolutely no intention of ever being taken as seriously as it is today. --Badger Drink (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2099 (UTC)
  6. Neutral, leaning support This is my final vote after much consideration - I was originally going to abstain. I really do want to support, and up until 2 weeks ago I was quite ready to do so. This user has come ahead in leaps and bounds since previous endeavours, to the point where he is almost a different person to the child who applied several times before, and I have come to both know him and value his contributions in the time since #4. He is helpful, prolific within his field and is an asset to the encyclopaedia. However, some of his comments at AN/I at times give me pause to consider what he would be like as an admin, and I cannot shake the impression that he could be fairly harsh, perhaps entering judgement before the full facts of a situation are known, or taking factors such as youth and newness to the culture fully into account. His imposition of Filll's questions on somebody's RfA recently amplified this concern for me. However, I believe that merely stating that here, as others have done, will be enough of a caution that in the nearly certain event this RfA succeeds he will take it on board. The other concern is a general maturity one and relates to his attacking of Wikipedia contributors in his blog on two occasions. While I believe he apologised and made up on both occasions, it was extremely avoidable drama and not inspiring of future collaborations with those people. In a related sense, his occasional indications that he sees FAs as a measure of worth (ignoring the fact many users simply don't have the time to spend on them) periodically annoys me. The opposes do not sway me, however - some I find to be utterly ridiculous, while others I can understand the spirit in which they were written but either the incidents were too long ago, or do not reflect a sufficiently bad sense of judgement as to persuade me he would abuse the tools. I believe he will be a thoroughly decent and hardworking admin and I wish him the best of luck, which I doubt he will need, and I genuinely regret that on this occasion I cannot support. Orderinchaos 15:57, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    That is an excellent assessment of this editor and one of the best comments in an RfA I have seen recently. Nice one mate! Tim Vickers (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    I concur. There is much good advice in there for Candidate14, and more generally, for all. Would that every comment could be so thoughtful. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 31 May 2099 (UTC)
    Thanks guys. :) Orderinchaos 17:29, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    I'd just like to add to this: I was unaware when I wrote this of the concerns about FAC raised by SandyGeorgia, a person whom I hold in tremendous respect with respect to anything related to FAs. My first encounter was on one of these types of FACs in a WikiProject I assist (well before CANDIDATE14's time) where most people had supported but it had major problems with referencing, and in the end the two of us had to drag it through kicking and screaming. It gave me a real insight into the thorough and thankless work such volunteers do, and I endorse Sandy's comments on this matter (see replies to O#12). However, as being an admin or not will not affect his input into or standing at FAC, I think of it as a character issue separate from the scope of this RfA. Orderinchaos 17:29, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  7. Neutral per personal policy, moral support otherwise. A person prepared to get it wrong, then set about learning over time, listening to others, often ends up with a greater depth and maturity as a result. Broadly speaking its something I find myself respecting a lot, and that those I respect often have. Comments above suggest it's applicable to this candidate, that indeed he has set about trying to learn from the past to better himself, and it has been noticed by others. It may be that there will be some final refinements after RFA (if successful), so be it. Impressions suggest right now its enough to feel it's okay. That said, posting this under "neutral" since per personal policy unless I have extensive personal experience of a candidate and on their conduct, attitudes, and handling in different situations, I prefer not to support, and without having a clear first hand personal concern I prefer not to oppose. But I have a fair impression tending towards trust, and I hope if successful, it turns out to have been well-placed and his judgement and handling will make the grade. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:46, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    For most admins the RfA is like passing the driving test; you are judged to be sufficiently capable of not causing a major accident and have familiarity with the theory, but you are a long way from being the confident driver. Most of the learning comes when from handling the mop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Indeed, agreed. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:20, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  8. Registering my awareness of the RFA. Some of the opposes look to me like reasons to support the candidate; others look like valid concerns. I don't know the editor all that well, so I may or may not come off the fence later depending on further investigation and impression. GRBerry 03:38, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  9. Giving this serious consideration, the candidate has an impressive record of contributions to articles and community work, but recent actions in an area where I've been editing give me concern. The blog statement[24] misjudges what had happened, and omits the context of earlier off-wiki discussions appearing to give tacit support to divisive ideas[25] based on what to me seems misrepresentation of talk page discussion (which I've reexamined,[26] and is heated but not as described off-wiki) as well as supporting use of that site for "heads-up" proposing edits at Wikipedia,[27] without appreciating that problems arise when off-wiki views are accepted uncritically. From what I've seen, some of the contributors to off-site discussions are making good faith attempts to avoid the gossip getting out of hand, and the candidate's posts there are broadly neutral, but his blog suggests that he holds divisive views and this could lead to further polarisation of the community. . . dave souza, talk 12:09, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  10. Neutral I see improvement, but there are some things that have me unconvinced, including Sandy's concerns about FAC under Tony's vote, among other concerns. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  11. I like CANDIDATE14 and appreciate his enthusiasm for the encyclopedia and the impressive contribution he makes. However he does seem to get caught up in quite a few scrapes. I suspect it may be that his enthusiasm leads him to over-reach himself sometimes. On the other hand, I disagree with many of the opposers and believe that CANDIDATE14 could make a good admin. But this is a complicated RfA which took me several hours to digest, and I want to think over the lingering judgement concerns; for now I'm neutral per Jbmurray. Geometry guy 17:12, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  12. Neutral, leaning toward support. The candidate is generally constructive and industrious. However, I have some lingering concerns. Majoreditor (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  13. Neutral - I was going to Oppose per some of the more sensibly argued Opposes above, but I've no great wish to add my name to some of the nonsense in that section, thanks. Black Kite 20:13, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  14. Neutral: The original issues are resolved, in my view. CANDIDATE14 has demonstrated contrition, in my view. Although there has been no explicit public abasement, the guy has made a 150 degree shift, and that seems absolutely real. He also handled the losses with relative grace (no one handles them very well). At the same time, I'm not oblivious to the rapidity of the applications, and I have my Cincinnatus fixation. I'm also not cold to the concerns others have raised about some shabby company, but I can't quite go with guilt by association. I'm unable and unwilling to oppose, but I'm too chary to support an RFA, even though I support the user. Geogre (talk) 11:55, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  15. Neutral I dislike overbearing wikipolitics, and I totally disagree with the brutality that some proponents and opponents here have exhibited in this RfA. Allegations of racism here are particularly disturbing. This aside, I have liked my dealings with CANDIDATE14, and I would normally support, but it seems at least that suggestions and allegations that this user attracts far too much dramatic attention are somewhat founded. Best of luck, mate. This will be a close one. aliasd•U•T 15:58, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
    Neutral, but probably leaning toward a support. Oppose per many comments made under his alternate name of Candidate14 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tripartite motto, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joint Venture (music), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mentally ill monarchs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars (4th nomination) (he wrote to delete as simply “Who cares?” Well, I don’t know maybe all those arguing to keep or who created an edited the article in good faith), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Garden of Earthly Delights in popular culture, but support per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of the Phoenix (organisation), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wii System Software, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exit Mundi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thong in the news (really good argument here), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video games notable for negative reception (2nd nomination). Oddly enough, even though we disagree at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000s icons, I appreciate that his delete in this case was a reasonable one. I also agree with his delete at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Fancruft. So, there are a few that I disagree with, but maybe more that balance those out and he is on my list of nice wikipedians at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles#Nice comments other contributors said about or in support of me.21. On a totally random side comment, is this the most participation an RfA has ever seen? It’s the most I recall. Anyway, just curious. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:58, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, I renamed away from Candidate14 in September last year, and my deletionist/inclusionst perspective has moved well towards inclusionism since then (when I would have considered myself mildly deletionist). Candidate14 (H2O) 02:01, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    Yeah, that's the impression I had (please indent my post or whatever the format is here to make it no longer a neutral), so as you have been nice to me, I'm willing to go ahead and support, although I am curious if this RfA is indeed the one with the most participation. :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:02, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    I don';t think it's a good idea to support or not support on the basis of inclusionism/deletionism. Either perspective is acceptable, if followed carefully and reasonably. The question here is whether the various comments made by this editor show a sufficiently high degree of care and reasonableness. No one is arguing against this nom on the basis of some particular agenda of his--rather, that he is careless about his judgments to the degree that will alienate users and harm the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
    Heh, the "Who cares?" comment links to WP:OR. I guess that he was making a valid argument that the article was original research based on no reliable sources and that's why he voted to delete, but the meaning got lost because of him trying to make a wise ass comment :D I think that CANDIDATE14 needs to polish more his arguments on AfD Nah, I was looking at old discussions, it appears that he has been improving with time --Enric Naval (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  16. Support, Neutral. You may see my original support here where I mentioned all the relevant merits of Candidate14 against this RfA, in which, at the time, there was only three opposes. I am disappointed that this RfA has 'descended' somewhat into the lowly depths of wiki-drama, meatpuppetry, problems with some of the opposes (some of which are ridiculous, others not so), in my opinion, an RfA is not only an assessment of a candidate nominated to become an administrator on the largest Wikipedia existing. It is also a personal avowal which states that you endorse the candidate in question, after a lengthy evaluation of the editor, in this particular case, Candidate14. There are many concerns which have been flagged up in discussion here, I'll only name a few since you can see the rest by reading this page: a) there seems to be some misunderstanding that an RfA here constitutes as an opportunity to bring up past disputes (most of the time this is particularly relevant, but some here, such as "His many comments in places seem to show that he's only posting to spread his name around, for support during RFA, I can't support him") - I understand that this could be seen if there was evidence of not only mass canvassing, but also a proof that CANDIDATE14 has sought to provide brief assistance in the name of support gathering rather than actually giving a thoughtful opinion, but no evidence was given, and the opposer is established. So are people actually taking this time so they can give opposes which are based more on theory and not evidence, and rather giving opposes in the name of others, because they said so? The only canvassing I've seen here is from some opposers. Troubling stuff. b) other points like 'lack of maturity' and 'I have lack of trust' or 'wants adminship badly' are not all relevant to this case. How can we determine 'power hunger', when nearly all of the past RfAs have been nominations? Grr... — I don't wish for this to look like I am systematically disagreeing with every comment in the oppose section, because some bring up some good points, but others aren't? Instead they are taking advantange this being characterised by at least two sockpuppets who have opposed this section. I am thoroughly annoyed with this conflict. We should be here to, as I say, discuss the points which are positive and negative, the latter being have to be proven. I don't, however, condone that recent blog message and recent East718 email. Rudget (Help?) 15:54, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  17. New Lover etc. sums it up well in the non-"vote" part of the #Discussion section. Candidate14 has definitely matured as a user [28] [29], but I am deeply concerned about the alleged disregard for other users' privacy (see East718's comments), and I hope this is all some huge misunderstanding. If this doesn't pass, just remember that succeeding ten times where most people fail probably outweighs failing five times where most people succeed. Or maybe I've got it all ass-backward. I need help. — CharlotteWebb 17:37, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MBisanz/Qs/RfACandidate14&oldid=1149978744"