Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/History2007

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

History2007

Final (37/27/2); ended 19:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC) - Withdrawn by the candidate →TSU ^tp* 19:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC) [1]

Nomination

History2007 (talk · contribs) – It is an honor to be able to present History2007 as a nominee for adminship. He has performed remarkable work in the fields of science and religion, having gained 32 DYKs in the process as can be seen here. He has been a wikipedian since 2007 and to date has a total of over 62,000 edits with autopatroller, rollbacker, and reviewer rights. He has displayed a serious commitment to our verifiability, in such places as Wikipedia:Verifiability and recently also at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia reliability, where he has recently created a program to search wikipedia for the often problematic self-published sources. And, in all that time, he has yet to be blocked once. He has displayed a true passion for helping wikipedia try to reach its goals of being a quality encyclopedia available to everyone. There are few people I believe have more thoroughly proven their commitment to the project and their ability as editors, and I believe he will likely be as successful and beneficial to the project as an administrator as he has been as a regular editor. John Carter (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Accepted. History2007 (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Let us end this party. I have had heard enough... withdrawing the application. History2007 (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: As a start, looking at sock puppetry and WP:COI, mostly in technical articles. I think the response time for these should be better and there is a need for admins who feel comfortable in the technical/scientific fields. And given that I have over 1,500 pages on my watchlist and am on here most of the day, every day, I can deal with the items on the vandalism noticeboard with no extra effort.

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

A: If/when the Wikipedia reliability project really takes off, that will be it. If we get that really moving, it will have more impact than all the articles I have written.

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

A: I do not generally get stressed by discussions in real life or on Wikipedia. Discussions come and go, and a month later they are all but forgotten. Encyclopedic content persists.

Additional question from Cyberpower678

4. Is WP:SPI the only thing you are going to contribute to? It seems you have a like to WP:AFD as well.

A: Yes, I also do Afds. I do move around.

5. Do you prefer fruits or vegetables?

A: Fruits.

Additional question from Lord Roem

6. You say in your answer to Q2 that "if we get [this new project] really moving, it will have more impact than all the articles I have written". Could you please elaborate on what your role will be once it gets off the ground? What specifically will the project do to advance the goal of making all articles "fully referenced"?

A: What I hope is that enough other people will join that project (e.g. you) so we can handle the multiple facets it can have, and I do not have to be a standard bearer. Having all articles referenced is the ultimate goal, of course, just as the goal of medical science is to make everyone healthy. There are many different aspects to improving reliability, and user suggestions can drive those too, e.g. a model for "article degradation" and how to deal with it, Wikipedia mirrors/republishers, a better graphic system for interactively viewing summary statistics, etc. We do need more people there, but people have been signing up in the past few months.

Additional questions from GabeMc

7. Five years and over 60,000 edits is impressive, but what examples of content work are you most proud of?

A: It is hard to pick one out of 600 articles, I have even forgotten many of them. But that and your next question do relate and I will address them together. The key is to edit for fun, and not for pride, for pride is a factor that can contribute to debate. So the best way is to edit for fun, remember the good and forget the rest. But anyway, since you asked the recent item in my mind is the last series I did - I find article series to be fun. About a year ago I started cleaning up the supercomputing articles, and ended up writing 20-30 peripheral articles to do it right, and just finished the last one a few days ago. That was fun.

8. Will you please provide a few examples of your involvement with content disputes, and your approach to dealing with them?

A: Please see the question just above.

Additional questions from Seraphimblade

9. Can you please explain your reasoning behind this argument? [2]

A: Yes, as I said there, the article meets WP:NOTE, and a deletion would not be justified. In fact after my comment, a number of people suggested "speedy keep". However, as I said there, I think once other systems in that class become commonplace, an overall article that deals with the topic, and includes a section on each will be best, and can provide a general perspective. Hence keep, then merge.

10. You seem to not very often use edit summaries. Is there any particular reason for this?

A: Yes, I should really do that more often. But in key cases, I generally try to provide them.

11. One of the most important duties of an administrator is to interpret the consensus following discussions of various types. Could you please describe the process you would use in evaluating consensus in such a discussion, if the outcome were not immediately obvious?

A: If the outcome is not clear, WP:CON already has a case for "no consensus". That has to be done on a case by case basis, by following WP:CON.

Could you please elaborate, maybe by providing an example of a recent AfD you've been in and how you would make the determination in closing it? -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from TruPepitoM

12. Do you believe "administrator hopefuls" (those who want to be an admin) should be required to reach legal age in order to be one? TruPepitoM (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

A: I am not even sure how one can determine user ages, unless admins are identified- it has been discussed but is not a requirement. In general, edit and contribution histories will provide enough information anyway.

Additional questions from DeltaQuad

13. You mention that a primary reason you would like to work in with your tools is sockpuppets. I see you have contributed to about 5 SPI cases over the past 3/4 of a year. Have you ever considered becoming an SPI clerk to help supplement the use of the tools if you receive them?

A: I would do SPI cases that are more technical, because that is where I see the need. And yes, it would be good to fill in some of that gap.

14. I'll try and keep this as much about the tools as I can, but what is a sockpuppet (and sockmaster) and a meatpuppet, and when would you block each of them?

A: I think WP:MEAT is clear on the distinction, in that they need to be different people in that case. A WP:SPI case has to conclude that an account is either a sock or a meat puppet. Once that has happened the sockpuppet needs to be indef blocked.

15. How would you use the toolset to deal with conflict of interest as you mentioned in question 1?

A: I would use it as any other admin, except that I think it will help if the admins in a case are somewhat comfortable with the technical topic/area as they review cases.

Additional question from Cyberpower678

16. Do you want to be an admin?

A: Yes, I do want to an admin. But I am not going to be nervous. As I said above, the way not to get stressed out by Wikipedia is not to get nervous. I edit Wikipedia for fun, and for the love of the concept of high quality knowledge. Nothing else. History2007 (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

17. Why are you not taking this nomination seriously?

A: I am taking it seriously, but not nervously. If I did not want to do it, I would not have applied. History2007 (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Rotorcowboy

18. About two weeks ago, you mentioned here that you did not have time to handle any new tasks. However, adminship is all about taking on new tasks, not to mention learning how to do them can be a chore in itself. Is what you said to Orschtaffer true, or were you looking for an excuse out of assisting him/her? (This is my first RfA question, so if you have any guidance or advice, I'd love to hear from you.)

A: Anyway, I looked and that was on June 2nd. I guess I did not have time then, because according to the DYK date, I started that last article on June 5th, so I was probably busy doing that, and by June 11th I had finished the program that reports self-publishers. So I was busy. And no, I did not need to have an excuse for him. I was upfront about it. History2007 (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional Question from Keystoneridin

19. You said earlier that you would like to work more in sock-puppetry (paraphrase). Could you please elaborate on this more? I ask that in your elaboration, that you take specific note of my particular circumstances which I will outline below:

I used to have an account by the name of Keystoneboardin (keystone because of the ski resort Keystone in Colorado and Boardin because I like to snowboard). Unfortunately I left it open at the end of work and did not realize that my computer and wiki account had been left open in my 3 days away from my desk. I had fellow co workers who got onto my account and maliciously attacked pages using my user name. They did things such as blank pages, put in false information, and elicit rumors among other things. By definition, my current account is a sock puppet account. It has now been 4 years since then with this account and I have made over 1,000 constructive edits. What do you plan on doing to encourage people for "second chances", or will it be your policy just to kick them off? Thanks!keystoneridin! (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I am certainly for second chances. But why would even need a second chance if the edits made by the impersonators were totally "out of character"? Anyway, is this what you mean? The talk page for that account has been deleted, so I can not see what went on there, but that behavior did seen strange. History2007 (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for History2007: History2007 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for History2007 can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Could you opt in to the various edit counter counts. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 22:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

How does one actually do that? — GabeMc (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Create User:Example/EditCounterOptIn.js but replace Example with your user name. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• I never endorsed the use of that edit counter item, and so by opting in I would in effect endorse it. And I am not going to endorse it. History2007 (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Why?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Can I ask what the reason is that you do not "endorse" it? Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• You are free to ask him of course, but his use or endorsement of any tool of convenience isn't required. Personally, I give him credit for having the moxie to say "no thank you" here, and find it more revealing than any tool. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• What do you think it reveals, Dennis?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

To make a long story short, my views on opt-in/not in "real life" would take a while to explain. But generally speaking, based on the opt-in discussions on several social networking sites in the news, the use of marketing calls and emails, etc. my approach to all opts-in choices has been a no. If there is an opt, just say no unless it is required for everyone. I have not even opted-in to email at Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe that email is required of all admins, but I have no doubt you will comply with that as it applies equally. As to my friend Bbb23, you already know I like independent candidates, and those that don't blindly comply just to get the bit, so the question seems a bit rhetorical. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If it is required, then I will add it when the time comes. History2007 (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand why this is a big deal. The tool is a handy way of examining an editor's contributions, particularly for someone who has never seen you before. One hopes to see an admin candidate who wants to make it easy for !voters and this just makes it harder. (Unless there is some other easy way to look at your contributions and you're willing to share that.) To be honest, it seems a bit weird to have these sorts of self-regulatory rules. --regentspark (comment) 19:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I think one can still check an editor's contribution using Top Namespace tool and WikiChecker tool. --SMS ^Talk 20:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually a link to a categorized list of my contributions has been on my user page for long. History2007 (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. My bad then. I usually use the RfA talk page as a starting point for scanning editor contributions and have never had to look elsewhere. Am still curious about the dogmatic point involved but that's your call. --regentspark (comment) 02:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

General comments

I looked on here again to see what people have discussed and to see if it even makes sense for me to continue this. The two points that are repeated seem to be: "answers were short" and "he thinks this not a big deal". As I said, I did not set out to write a dissertation on those, but for good reason, as explained below. And as I said, I think editing should be fun, not stressing. Being an admin or not will not make much difference to my life. I will not stress over it. You guys need to lighten up too.

Now, we must remember that any job interview is a two way street: the candidate also interviews the company to see if they want to join it. So I will ask a few questions of my own here. To be upfront I am having serious doubts if Wikipedia will ever (really ever) have high quality scientific content. After what I have seen here, I am beginning to doubt that. And if it is never going to have high quality science, then why worry about being an admin to protect scientific content?

So my questions are:

• Why do you ask someone who has written 20 articles on supercomputers and over 100 articles on advanced scientific topics to explain what a meat puppet is? Is that question really necessary? Would the question: "how do you see puppetry affecting technical Wikipedia articles, and what are instances you have been involved in?" not been better? Would it not have been more relevant to ask about the perceived problem in scientific articles?

• Why do you ask someone "provide a few examples of your involvement with content disputes"? Anyone answering that could of course, of course, pick examples that will make them look good. Would it not be better to look on WP:AN or ANI, etc. and see what conflicts they have had? That would give a "real" view of their past behavior, not based on a dispute the candidate "hand-picked" and presented. I did not even bother to present one for that reason. Very little can achieved by analyzing an example handpicked by a candidate. Right?

• Why do you spend so much time discussing an answer to question 12 about age? How does anyone determine a person's age? Is that not usually done by looking at a driver license they have presented, by looking at their face, or looking at their behavior? Given that the two first cases are not going to apply here, is past behavior not the only way to determine that? And what is the point in many paragraphs discussing the use of "it" in that question. Is it not easier to ask "what did you mean by 'it'?"

• Now, a key question: how many people who voted have carefully read the candidate's user page? If people have read it, why is the candidate's warning on his user page that "in three years it will be just impossible to unscramble the egg and remove all the COI and self-promotional changes that position small time researchers as the leading figures in technical articles." not addressed here? Would that not be a better question, and indeed the central question given the clearly declared motivation for this Rfa? Has the boat not been missed here?

Anyway, responses to these questions will be interesting. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Just, wow. I think you made the points for everyone:

• Don't tell us to "lighten up" - becoming an admin has become a big deal, and you're not treating it like it is - plus you won't change the process on your own
• You might have also proven why you should continue focusing on content, rather than becoming an admin.
• Indeed, it actually SOUNDS like your intent is to use your admin tools (should you get them) to gain the upper hand in articles you work on!

Should I switch my !vote to "strong oppose" now or later? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I am also re-evaluating if I will continue to do much content, given that I am not happy about the comments I have seen here. But you are dead wrong, dead wrong, that I would have used admin tools improperly. I am a very ethical person. And you can switch your vote as you wish. History2007 (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• History2007, I think you're making a fundamental error here. Your basic assumption is that your contributions are plentiful and excellent and that they should speak for themselves. However, that's not how the world works. An RfA is like an interview and, in any interview, it is up to the candidate to put his or her best foot forward and to highlight his or her own strengths. It is not for nothing that people ask obvious questions like "What is your biggest strength?" in an interview when, obviously, everyone will focus on stuff that makes them look good. A good interviewer is more interested in how the candidate responds - what he or she focuses on and how the strength (or weakness if that was the question) is presented. However strong the resume may be, a candidate whose responses are dismissive will be unlikely to get the job. Your failing here is of the dismissive nature and the opposes are largely because of that. It is also not a good idea to assume that people will do all the research that is necessary to evaluate you as an editor, most of us don't have the time (I, for example, never bother looking at a user page because I think they're mostly full of fluff). It is fairly easy to see that your support !votes are mostly from people who have some prior interaction with you and don't really need to search through your contributions. Anyway (!), that's my opinion for what it's worth. --regentspark (comment) 13:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You are right of course. I did start this based on the assumption that after 600 articles, it would just be a formality. And in fact if I had thought it had been a big deal would not have applied, and indeed avoid it for a while after it was suggested. My main motivation came from Bell's Theorem's problems, as I said. But I think you know what I mean. History2007 (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

How could anyone seriously believe that being granted the ability to block other editors with whom one disagrees is "no big deal"? Malleus Fatuorum 13:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocking is not based on disagreement, it is based on policy. And the system is self-correcting. Admins whose blocks get overturned a few times will adjust their behavior. It is straightforward. History2007 (talk)

Of course it's based on disagreement, or as it's more commonly known here "disruption" Malleus Fatuorum 14:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, I can not agree with that. The system is self-adjusting, as I said. Admin behavior adjusts as their blocks are reviewed. That process actually works pretty well from what I have seen. History2007 (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether you agree or not is not the issue, but surely you can see that pissing off an editor by blocking them inappropriately is by no means addressed by simply reversing the block and allowing the administrator to go merrily on his way to piss off another editor ... and another ... While I accept that the lack of an effective recall process is none of your making, it is unfortunately the reality here. Malleus Fatuorum 14:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

How often do admins get overturned and continue that way? I think getting overturned multiple times probably puts enough of dent in an admin's ego that it will adjust their behavior. History2007 (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• History, I think your analysis of the RfA process generally and this particular RfA is misguided. You compare this to a job interview. You're interviewing us at the same time as we're interviewing you. Even if that's an apt analogy, generally in a job interview the employer has the upper hand. True, an applicant can always turn down the job, even if it's offered, but mostly the applicant is hungrier than the employer. More important, this is more like a request for a promotion than an interview with a new employer. You've already been "working" here for a long time. Normally, one wouldn't want to be promoted unless one, uh, wanted to be promoted. And you're acting almost as if the "interview" doesn't go well, you're going to quit. That's a bit more like asking for a raise and if no one recognizes your worth, you'll leave. Actually, the whole thing smacks of arrogance.

Moving on to the next point about how we should judge you on your record and some of our questions suck. Did you review any RfAs before coming here? Are you at all famiiliar with the process? There are those who think the process is "broken", but even if parts of it could be improved, why does all of this come as such a surprise to you? It doesn't look like you did your homework before accepting your nomination.

Finally, although I think BWilkins is a bit strong in their comments, it does appear that you're looking at how your becoming an admin can help you in this subworld you've created for yourself at Wikipedia. That makes no sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You are right that I never looked at any past Rfas. Dougweller suggested it, but I said that I will deliberately go in unprepared, in order to be upfront, and if people did not like my responses, I would just walk. And yes, I am still evaluating if I should become an admin, or even to remain an active editor. So it is really a two way street.

But your suggestion about my intention for the Rfa helping me in "my subworld" is absolutely incorrect, and indeed insulting as was that of BWilkins. Apologies would be in order in both cases. If I wanted to play games, I would have reviewed past Rfas, put on an act here, then played differently afterwards. No, I have been upfront. And that is not being appreciated. History2007 (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

History2007, I'll agree you're shooting straight, and that's great. Unfortunately, while honesty is a great thing, it's not the only thing. If you're going to be blunt in a situation like this, you should be prepared for the possibility of a blunt "No" being the answer. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would have no problem with a blunt No as an answer, as I had said even before I filled in the Rfa. Did I mention that I think it is no big deal either way? And thank you for being upfront about it. History2007 (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

History, I can't speak for BWilkins, but I was not accusing you of being unethical. You yourself said that you thought more admins were needed in this area. I am "accusing" you of being too narrow in terms of your future administrative responsibilities. I have zero basis for accusing you of anything nefarious - didn't even occur to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, if you did not mean that, it is fine. But upfront, I had no intention of acting on Charlie Sheen's page. My goal was the scientific mess that persists. And I have only occasionally had conflicts there and generally had to walk and leave pages in a mess, like this one where I was "cautioned" not to add sources. History2007 (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, I just noticed that someone twisted my words badly. I clearly stated that "it SOUNDS like" - which is based exactly on what you typed. I never accused anyone of unethical behaviour, but I advised you of your phrasing and how it sounds to others.

I'm disturbed that you "came to the interview" so unprepared - RFA is a nasty nasty endeavour - and that's even in the guide to running for RFA. Your worst words will be singled out, and you'll be called to reply to everything you ever did. Usually, the quality of those replies is how you actually succeed.

Even more disturbing is that "I don't like what I hear, so I might just leave" - if you were not open to critique (even harsh critique) then why put yourself through the meat grinder that is RFA? That is why you should have read previous ones - to be prepared not only how to reply to questions, but how nasty they can be.

The goal here is DEFINITELY not to make you leave. Indeed, how many of us have said "awesome contributor - we don't want to lose that" - indeed, I said it myself. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I would not have done it any other way - I was not going to prepare for it. I have never touched up my resume in real life, and was not going to do it here: if you enter into something it "needs to be a fit". Preparing for it would not have achieved that effect. It had to be upfront. And yes, I have not liked various comments here, and I do object to what you call a nasty, nasty endeavour of a Rfa. Nasty behavior for possible colleagues is neither needed, nor proper. It creates unpleasant feelings. This process has to be cooperative, not nasty. I do not need to face unpleasant comments so I can spend more hours on my computer. I had actually expected a pleasant welcome. None was received. History2007 (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

This post is intended constructively, mainly in the hope that you will reconsider some of your positions going forward. I'm sure you include me among those who did not give you a "pleasant welcome", but any welcome comes after your nomination succeeds. You speak as if the RfA was a fait accompli before it got off the ground. All you had to do was show up at the victory party and acknowledge your supporters. I really don't understand why you wanted to be an admin, not just now based on the contentiousness of the process, but before you were even nominated. Maybe there are some admins who think that being an admin is pleasant and fun, but my guess is the majority of them see it as difficult work, particularly at all the administrative boards, some of which makes RfA look like a cakewalk. That isn't to say there aren't substantial rewards for doing good administrative work, but it generally isn't "fun". You say you edit Wikipedia because you enjoy it. That's great, and regardless of your feelings right now, you should continue to do so. Instead of feeling angry or disappointed or annoyed (I apologize for putting words in your mouth) at the process, think of it as having escaped doing something you wouldn't have enjoyed and allowing you to go back to something you did.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, there is no concept of Rfa "victory" for me. It is not a big deal to me. That is the part we differ on. I never considered acceptance a victory, just a confirmation that I could be trusted after my track record. And I really wanted to help improve things. Not because I needed to, but wanted to. On the VP policy board I had been on my soapbox complaining to people such as ϢereSpielChequers several times about how wannabe scientists are touching up their own pages. A recent example was this one on Jimmy Wakes' talk page. And user:CBM was the only admin helping there, and I thought several more were needed. And I was the only who directly defended CBM. There are really 100s more like Hewitt in the woodwork, and most people have no idea. I had said that on the village pump a few times. And there are too few people like CBM who can act on those. That was part of my motivation. I am not angry, just disappointed in that I see very little hope, if any, that Wikipedia can have a wide range of scientific content that is not riddled with COI by 100s of low level researchers. Hewitt was an extreme case, but there just too many others out there. I was hoping to improve that situation. But the "community" is obviously not interested in that given that the issue was never even addressed, and instead we ended up talking about determining people's ages on the internet. That has confirmed my belief that there is little hope for solid science within Wikipedia: too many articles, too few eyes who know the topic. And once belief in the project has dissipated away - the fun begins to go out along with it. Anyway, I think this is enough. So let me stop. History2007 (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Edit stats posted on the talk page. -- Luke (Talk) 00:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. I had pleasant interactions with the candidate and have seen how they handle conflicts. I have at this point no problem giving them admin tools.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
2. He's not an admin yet? PumpkinSky talk 22:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
3. Seems like a good guy. Cheers,
   Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 22:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
4. Good contributions. —HueSatLum 22:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

   Strong Support Well-Established editor, knows what he is doing. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

   I am changing my vote to Oppose because of the candidate's answers to the questions above. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

5. Support User has lots of experience and seems to have contributed a lot to the project as can be seen from his work in DYKs and WikiProject Verifiability. I am sure he will use the admin tools well. Cheers.  TOW  talk  22:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
6. Support Thoughtful, intelligent and respectful editor who is easy to work with. StAnselm (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
7. Has bucketloads of experience and the times I've seen him around he's seemed very level-headed. Can't see a reason to oppose. One thing I would suggest is that he answer the questions in a bit more depth than his first three. I don't see it as a problem, but others might and perceptions matter at RfA. Jenks24 (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
8. Support but I'm a bit disappointed; I was thinking about asking to nominate him myself in a few weeks! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
9. This editor has displayed his competency in all matters, his civility no matter what, and his willingness to pick up the mop and get down to tasks that need doing. I am very glad to see him here at RfA. Elizium23 (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
10. Support - Smart, determined, very independent, trustworthy, civil, dedicated, experienced and focused. There are exactly the qualities I look for in a candidate. Everything else can be worked out over time. I am completely confident he will make an excellent admin in every area he applies himself. Like Blade, had I known he was interested in seeking the admin bit, I might have been persuaded to co-nominate him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
11. Support - I never vote here but I've noticed this guy around and when I saw this on my watchlist, I couldn't resist ;-). --Ceradon ^talk_contribs 03:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
12. →Bmusician 03:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
13. Support - Seems competent and trustworthy. Michael (talk) 05:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
14. Support - A fine editor. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
15. Support Nice editor. He will make a good use of the tools. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 09:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
16. Weak support. Not the most convincing reasons, but good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
17. Support This candidate satisfies my criteria and I believe they will be excellent as an admin.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 12:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
18. Support Torreslfchero (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
19. Strong Support Smart, methodical, fair, and trustworthy. All things an administrator needs to be a good leader for the community. <3 ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 13:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
20. No real reason to oppose as I'm assuming that the answer to Q14 is a brain fart—SPIs can conclude that no puppetry has occurred. The disruptive sockpuppet accusation in the oppose has no substantiation right now, so I am ignoring it unless further evidence turns up. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

    That's not how I read History2007's answer at all - He was answering the question... i.e. In order for a sockpuppet to be blocked, a WP:SPI case would have to to conclude, etc. StAnselm (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

    Actually, you are correct. I misread the question. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

21. Strong support m'encarta (t) 15:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
22. Ja, gut. Rcsprinter (warn) 16:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
23. Reviewing the concerns of the opposition, I find no problem. In particular, the first opposer's suggestion is laughable. AGK [•] 16:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

    Support I have seen you around, but I am very impressed by the answers to your questions. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

    Sorry, but the user's behavior is a tad concerning to me. Moving to oppose. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

24. Support I respect one or two of the editors opposed, although I do not believe that this candidate is SlimVirgin. But i feel that this candidate will be a good admin. I like his answers to questions, and i like his independent attitude.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
25. Support. I find his honesty and treatment of RfA as "no big deal" refreshing. It really isn't as big of a deal as we make it out to be - so give a good editor the tools. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
26. Support. User:History2007 is an amiable user who is dedicated to improving the project and is a good candidate for becoming a sysop. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
27. Weak Support. Yes, I don't like the lack of depth on the questions. But, I'll take the word of the editors above who have interacted with the candidate that he's trustworthy. I respect and value their opinions, which are a strong indicator to me of the character of History2007. -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
28. Support. I find the user's edit history more important than the short answers to the questions. /Julle (talk) 04:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
29. Support appears trustworthy, calm and clueful. That's enough for me and I'm baffled by some opposers' indignation at shortish answers to optional questions. Let us please return to judging "net positive" rather than ability to jump through arbitrary hoops. Pichpich (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
30. Support - I thought he was an admin already! AndieM (Am I behaving?) 06:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
31. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 07:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
32. Support. Competent, civil and a long-term content contributor. Don't be surprised at short answers to questions if you're going to ask nineteen of them. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
33. Per AGK. At the rate things are going, this RFA will likely fail (if history is an indicator of anything) but it just shows just how broken RFA is. Answer questions with an answer that is too short, and you're opposed for rushing through them. Answer too long, and you're opposed for preparing answers. It's a no-win situation. I'll be delighted if this passes though. Best of luck mate. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 11:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
34. Support. i don't see any problems here. Agreed that the answers to questions are brief, but they do make sense (except for the conflict question - and the excessive use of 'anyway'!). And, the editor's opinions, the ones I've seen, are usually reasonably nuanced. The dogmatism on opt-in is, of course, odd but everyone is entitled to at least one foible (imo). --regentspark (comment) 13:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
35. Support. Strong editing-history, intelligence, academic knowledge, maturity, etc. It is not "disdain for voters" not to "opt-in" to edit counters, since such opting-in is optional, of course. "RfA is no big deal." Apart from his editing and administrative duties, the editor is a needed voice on policy discussions in the community. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
36. Support I don't see any convincing reason to oppose. Answering questions capably if briefly is not a negative, and question 17, "why aren't you taking this seriously?" is along the lines of When did you stop beating your wife? as a question, imo. I certainly hope History's experience here will not deter him from further volunteering to work in Wikipedia. As for this being a "job interview," well, I've taken and given quite a few over the years and I'd say that that is a rather poor analogy for the process we put people through at RFA. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
37. Support - Historically trusted user and quality content creator, no reason to think that after all this time of contributing that they will make any wheels drop off if they get a couple of extra buttons - Youreallycan 18:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I suspect that this account History2007 has been sometimes used at WT:V by the the same person that has formerly used the account SlimVirgin there and who hasn't been posting messages there anymore with the account SlimVirgin. In other words, the account may be used by at least two people. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   • No way. Absolutely not so. Absolutely not so. I really think an apology is in order on that one. History2007 (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   P.S. I left a message at SlimVirgin's talk page.[3] --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   • FYI Bob, I have hardly interacted with SlimVirgin, but from what I saw in those interactions our mindsets are miles (really miles) apart on a few issues. That suggestion even made me chuckle. History2007 (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   Bob, this is a serious accusation, and serious accusations require serious evidence. If you don't have that evidence, then you really shouldn't bring this up at all, let alone at an RfA. I know that things have been tense around the various verifiability debates, but I think the far more likely explanation is that both SlimVirgin and History2007 just happen to share common ground on the verifiability issue. There's a good chance that people could see a claim like this as an attempt at character assassination, so I really strongly advise you to consider how this will look to the wider community before continuing with it. Instead of your current angle, I think it would be much better to proceed in this RfA based on concrete and tangible things that demonstrate History2007's suitability for adminship. (Disclosure: I am currently mediating a MedCab case where Bob is a participant.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   • Rfa aside, there is no justification for that accusation. I am ready to bet Bob $10, hundred to one, that any and all sockpuppet investigations will refute that claim. If it had any basis, a SPI would have been started for it before this. This is the first I have herad of it, and as I said I chuckled when I read that. History2007 (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   I concur with Stradivarius that this is an inappropriate venue to make this kind of claim without substantiation. I strongly suggest you either present your case (along with adequate diffs) to WP:SPI for a full investigation, or you strike the claim. To make this type of claim without backing it up is disruptive to the RfA process, and at the very least, a gross violation of our civility guidelines and WP:AGF. Otherwise, some may consider this disruptive behavior as actionable. As stated, this is FUD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   I have had myself regular dealings, over the years, with both SlimVirgin and History2007. There is no question in my mind that the two have substantially different personal views regarding significant matters of content. I cannot see how they could be the same person. John Carter (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   John Carter - I'm pretty sure that you meant to indent that comment then, since this doesn't sound like an oppose. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   I'm sure he did. I've fixed the indentation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   Yeah, he did. Thanks for fixing the indentation. I really screwed up there. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   Keep in mind that the crats aren't idiots; this vote isn't going to "count" in any meaningful way, and making this thread any longer is probably not going to be productive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   Crats aren't idiots, but the same can't be said about all users all the time. If a few extra lines prevents bandwagon opposition (yes, I do believe some people oppose because they want to see candidates fail) it was worth it. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   I saw this comment by Bob the other day, and felt that it crossed the line of WP:NPA: [4]. Actually, it's something that the candidate might want to point to, in response to the standard question about involvement in disputes. And I have had a lot of interactions with both the candidate and the purported sockmaster, and I am 100% confident that they could not possibly be the same people. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   I had never seen SlimVirgin on that page as far as I can remember, so I do not know what he/she said, but as John Carter also said, my views and SlimVirgin's are generally very far apart, as you noted. I guess we can just let Bob's accusation be forgotten and move on. I will just shrug it off with a chuckle. It can not be taken seriously. History2007 (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose I am one of the users who has not heard this name around much, so please excuse my reservations. The answers I read above, even if it's not being done this way, come across as rushed and not fully answered. Question 8 felt like a writeoff when it should have been answered (part of it wasn't even attempted to be answered). Question 11 was a very basic answer, and far less quality that I would expect from an administrator. Q14 is incomplete, Q15...was just not answered. As the user is applying for tools, it scares me to think what kind of response we'll get when we have an improper block issued (we all have issued an improper block), and especially if were dealing with a new user. Also, with no explanation of the use of tools in COI, an area I am not familiar with on how the tools can be used there, I can only guess how the user could use the tools. Finally, I see no real explanation of how to solve a dispute or an example of a solved dispute. Without any of this, I can't support this user for the tools. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   Well 15 questions is really a lot for an RfA that's less than a day old. That's more than most RfA's get in seven days. I myself can't really blame him if his answers were a bit rushed. ☮Soap☮ 16:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   True, and i'm open to persuasion by full answers later in the RfA, so I'm able to be swayed if there is change. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   I haven't !voted yet because I need to look more in depth at History (I, too, am unfamiliar with them). But, at first glance, I, too, was troubled by the responses to the questions. I also don't think that the fact there were so many so quickly is an excuse for giving rushed answers or answers of low quality. History needs to take the time to address each question carefully and completely. At worst, they can give a preliminary answer and say they will come back shortly with a more complete answer. That would, at least, give us a clue that they're having trouble keeping up but realize the answers are important.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   • But then look it another way: After 600 articles and no blocks, either the community trusts me, or not. So I thought I would let people make their own mind up based on what I have done, instead of writing a long dissertation here. It is better that way. History2007 (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   • I can speak only for myself, but the Q&A, as well as your other responses at RfA (including the response about opting in), are the only chance for some of us to get a more intimate look at what you think and why. There is a difference between a "long dissertation" and inadequate (in my view, at least) responses.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   • I think a candidate should answer the questions as they see fit. I find it refreshing that a candidate will just say it like it is, rather than tell us what we want to hear, to be honest. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   • At the same time though Dennis, there actually does need to be an answer and not a write off. Yes, he has good contribs, (and i'm making this in general, not speaking to this user directly, but the amount of effort that is put in to this RfA, is going to be a reflection in some way, of how administrative duties will be handled. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

   • I also can only speak for myself, and that's why I've parked here until there is reason for me to move. You've asked for the communities opinion, this is mine, one member of the communities opinion. And if were going to put a binary yes or no on number of articles and blocks and try and equate that with community trust...I just can't even bear to picture that. I can think of millions of examples where this could be an issue. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

   I am also troubled by the short answers to the first 3 questions. Q7 and Q8 arise from the incompleteness of those short answers. I get the sense that John Carter spent more time writing the nomination than History2007 spent answering 1-3 (see H2007's talk page). Doing an RfA is asking a hundred or so fellow editors to take some time and effort to look over the candidate's work, and my sense is that History2007 is not taking this RfA seriously. Last night I was tempted to oppose just based on Q1-Q3; Q2 misses the point, and Q3 is a complete dodge. History2007 should have some notion of what he needs to tell us and why we want to know. If he doesn't understand that, then he has no business being an admin. H2007 is not showing that understanding. I will go through more of his edits, I don't want to oppose, but I'm leaning that way. History2007 must take this nomination seriously. Glrx (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   I do no know what the big deal in all of this is really. The Rfa was initially John Carter's idea in any case, many months ago and I said I did not want to do it, for I saw no reason for it, and no advantage to me except more work. But then by chance I saw the brouhaha at Bell's Theorem and how they had been stuck for a long time while someone with direct COI was reverting them to his own self-published proof that Bell's Theorem is incorrect. I eventually built consensus there to stop that (and in fact I think it was Delta Quad who blocked them there at the SPI case). After that my growing realization that Wikipedia is becoming the Craigslist of high technology was confirmed. So I filled in the Rfa because I don't think there are enough admins out there now (at least I have not seen that many) who are comfortable dealing with those technical fields. So anyway, here we are as a result of that. I do not see a big deal here. If I get approved I will do that type of admin activity. Else it is no major issue for me. Hence I do not see any need for over excitement. History2007 (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   I don't see the over excitement, you are writing here questioning the oppose when your asking for community input. I'm glad you think more admins are needed in areas, because it's true, but we can't send experienced admins into tasks that are not showing a clue on use of administrative tools in the questions we ask. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

3. Oppose. The last comment by History (just above) cinched it for me. Apparently, History doesn't really want to be an admin. Xe believes there is an area of Wikipedia ("technical fields") requiring more attention, and it'd be nice to have more admins in that area. Naturally, admins may focus more on some things than on others, but History's idea of an admin's responsibilities is way too narrow. Also, to some extent if xe wants to administer that area of Wikipedia, xe may find xe is stymied by being too involved and would be better off sticking to pure content issues. I also agree with Glrx that History is not taking this seriously and doesn't really care whether xe is successful here - it's "no big deal". Not a great start for a new admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   An alternative view is that this candidate's perspective is delightfully refreshing. AGK [•] 20:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   Okay, I'll bite (), how is it refreshing? I'm open to being convinced I'm "wrong".--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   I'm not AGK (for one, I'm female...) but I think xe's refreshing for sure. I think the community has strayed pretty far from where it was 5 years ago, when RfA was way less of a big deal. I do remember that during my own RfA, I was pretty chill and just answered questions the way they were, without putting a long period of thought and editing into it. I certainly think this slightly more lackadaisical approach to RfA is refreshing, in that the nomination process has become quite the shark fest recently. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   He isn't saddled with a bureaucratic mind set, for starters. He isn't very impressed with being an admin. It is supposed to be "no big deal" anyway, right? His history clearly shows he takes the goals of building the encyclopedia quite serious, just not the bureaucracy. First RfA that has made me smile in a very long time. AGK is spot on in his description. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Keilana, I still don't know what gender History is. It's not important, just saves me from using weird pronouns. I don't have the history (unintended pun) you do, so I can't really comment on what happened 5 years ago. Although certain aspects of RfAs now may be a "shark fest", I don't see my comments or those of others about History's responses to questions as being unduly harsh.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   Bbb, that's not what I'm saying here - I don't think anyone's being particularly harsh. I just feel that the atmosphere has changed to be far less focused on finding and promoting good candidates, and more focused on sussing out every small mistake in a long edit history and harping on it. Again, that's not necessarily true in this RfA (yet), all I really meant by that was that I'm impressed by how relaxed H2007 is about the process. The lack of making it a "big deal" is all I find refreshing. Does that clarify? Pun, though unintended, appreciated. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, Keilana, it clarifies what you were saying very well, thanks. As an aside, I'm not suggesting (this is partly based on History's answers to something else) that History stress out over the RfA or the result of the RfA, but taking something seriously isn't mutually exclusive with keeping things in their proper perspective.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

4. Oppose So much of the answers seem incomplete, and even when prompted for more are still poorly answered. Otherwise contributions themselves look basically ok. That said, the absolute disdain for !voters by choosing to not "opt in" to the standard edit-counter, and the fact that they have not yet enabled e-mail show me that they either a) don't get it, or b) don't really want to be an admin (and based on their contributions, I really don't think their strong point on this project would be admin-type tasks) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
5. Oppose. It is unfortunate that the first oppose in this section is so ludicrous (and despite being in the same section, I strongly urge the crats to ignore it), as I think there are genuine reasons for concern here. I'm not at all impressed by the candidate's answers to the questions—they seem evasive and an attempt to say as little as possible. Clear and detailed communication, not evasion and redirection, are what we should expect from administrators. I'm singularly unimpressed by the answer to my question 11, where the candidate apparently thinks that any debate without an immediately obvious outcome is a no consensus, and no mention whatsoever is made in the answer of carefully reading the discussion and evaluating the arguments, checking for single purpose accounts, or any other normal process when closing a discussion. Also, question 8 (asking the candidate about content disputes) refers the reader back to question 7, but question 7 has nothing in its answer about content disputes, just content writing. This leads me to believe that the candidate is not reading carefully or paying close attention, in effect is shooting from the hip, and that's another cause for significant concern. This is one I could see perhaps being successful at a later date, but not yet. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
6. Oppose. I feel badly about this, because I've had many very good interactions with the candidate (and I'd rather not be in company with the first oppose). But I think that there is a deeper problem going along with the seemingly light answers to questions and the unusual resistance to letting the user contributions tool display. A long time ago, the candidate made a snarky series of edits that included a rather nasty comment to me: [5]. I realize, of course, that this was a long time ago. But I decided to ask about it quietly on the candidate's talk today: [6]. All the candidate had to do was give a simple explanation or the equivalent of a facepalm. Instead, the response was this: [7]. It was basically to blow me off, to act like it wasn't worth the effort of replying seriously. Administrators need to be able to do better than that. I think the answer, above, to the standard question about disputes, is disingenuous in its claim that there have been no disputes worth bringing up. The candidate does have a prickly side. That, by itself, would not make me oppose. But part of being trusted with the tools is knowing one's limitations, and trying to pretend that those limitations don't exist just isn't good enough. Sincerely, I'm sorry. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   No hard feelings my friend. Don't let it bother you. History2007 (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   Nor you. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

7. Oppose. I would like to start by saying that you appear to be a great editor. However, I think it should stay that way. A major part of being an administrator is being able to justify your actions in detail. From the looks of your responses to the questions above, I fear that you will not be able to explain your actions very well to those that object to them, especially blocks. Since the majority of the concerns expressed by those who oppose you are due to your short responses to the questions above, I think it may be worth your while to go back and improve them or re-answer them entirely with more detail. If you did so in the first place, we may not have asked so many. If you improve your responses before this RfA closes, I will be happy to change my !vote. Again, you're a great editor, but given the circumstances, I think that's the way it should stay. Rotorcowboy ^talk
   _contribs 22:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   Hear hear. Great editors rarely make good admins, and once an admin, the great editing often suffers greatly (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   Who said I am going to edit after this? History2007 (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   Maybe others less literal than I understand your comment, but I don't. I don't suppose you'd care to clarify it?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   I hope that History2007 will be editing after this whatever the result. But if History2007 plans not to edit any more depending on what happens here then they should not have risked nominating. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   All I see is History2007 stating that he hasn't made a comment one way or another and it is presumptuous to assume. There is no benefit to reading too much between the lines here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

8. Oppose  The poll at WT:Verifiability/Archive 58#"The Verifiability policy is silent regarding errors in reliable sources". was IMO one of the more dramatic moments in the history of WT:V.  We had been having trouble getting focused in earlier closely related discussions, in no small part due to History2007's contributions.  The poll here explained a part of our difficulty, History2007 was not participating in consensus building.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
9. Oppose - Per: incomplete and/or poor responses to questions, 1-3, 8, 12, 15 and others. Recent snarky interaction with Tryptofish and Unscintillating's comments above. Also the noms comments: "The Rfa was initially John Carter's idea in any case, many months ago and I said I did not want to do it, for I saw no reason for it, and no advantage to me except more work ... I do not see a big deal here. If I get approved I will do that type of admin activity. Else it is no major issue for me" Does not instill confidence they would be proud to be an admin. Also a general attitude that borders on aloof, with badgering of opposes. Also, by choosing to not "opt in" to the standard edit-counter, it sends up a big red flag for me. — GabeMc (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

   Just for the record, the interactions with me that I consider snarky were not recent at all; see my comment above for what was recent. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

   Thanks for clarifing, I've stricken the statement from my rationale. — GabeMc (talk) 04:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

10. Oppose Per the poor answers to the questions above. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
11. Oppose due to evasive, poor, and incomplete answers to the above questions. Apparently History doesn't take this seriously, so why should we? The responses to questions and concerns have come across rather flippant. If xe doesn't care to serve as an admin, I certainly would rather that the nomination fail. As you wish. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 04:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
12. Oppose I've had some good experiences with the editor in the past actually; however, I find the editor's reasons for not opting in as obstinate and difficult. Opting in allows editors an easier method of beginning their search of your edits. It is totally acceptable for you to choose not to do so as an editor, but I'm not going to support at this time. Ryan Vesey Review me! 07:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

    On another note, I am fairly disappointed by his response to question 12. I have no preference as to his answer; however, he didn't answer it. It appears to be "no" but his actual answer gets lost in the runaround route he took. Ryan Vesey Review me! 07:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

    I thought that for Q12 the candidate gave a commendably short and succinct answer. "No" would have been an overly simplistic answer to the question. Not least because it wouldn't differentiate between "No we technically can't do that", "No I don't think we should do that" and "No we can't do that but kids are usually obvious". ϢereSpielChequers 08:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

    I don't think "no" or "yes" would have been acceptable; however, his answer did not address the question in its entirety. What I read was 'It is impossible to determine the age of an admin but it is usually self-identifying how old someone is'. He also stated that "it has been discussed but is not a requirement". The ambiguous it makes it impossible to tell if he is referring to requiring admins to be legal age or requiring admins to identify their age. In either scenario, he hasn't actually engaged the question by responding whether or not he believes that editors should need to reach a legal age. I would have been okay with avoiding giving a personal opinion as a response to the question if he would have given a response that showed sufficient thought and showed insight into policy and/or consensus. Ryan Vesey Review me! 08:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

    Ah yes, I think I'd taken his answer as "meh". "Meh - since we can't be certain this is academic" is a perfectly legitimate position to take. But his answer would also be compatible with either of the common views - ""No we can't do that, but kids are usually obvious and I will oppose them"." or ""No we can't do that but kids are usually obvious and I only support those I consider are under 18 if they seem sufficiently responsible and mature". I take the latter view, but since an admin's !vote at RFA has equal weight to any other editors the question seems odd to me. My view is that questions at RFA should focus on whether the candidate would make a good admin, not on their preference between fruit and veg or their RFA !voting. ϢereSpielChequers 10:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

13. Please don't. His disinclination to communicate answers is "refreshing" to some during this RfA, but will it seem so cute in future, as Admin, if asked to explain his actions? (It's like hearing scratching noises, inside an unopened cereal box. Don't say the warning wasn't right there in front of you.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
14. I am concerned over several issues here, especially the curtness of some of the answers. Question number 3 (and the related number 8) look like brushing away the issue. Others basically just point to a three letter code; we should remember that rules are open to interpretation and that one's reasoning is just as important as the truth / accurateness of one's answers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
15. Oppose - the answer are certainly short and sweet, which I have no problem with, but there need to be enough there for a satisfactory answer which to me isn't the case here. Maybe another time. -- KTC (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
16. Oppose per e.g. Seraphimblade, Rotorcowboy. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 12:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
17. Oppose per evasiveness that will be massively frustrating to anyone interacting with him/her in the event of a dispute. This is demonstrated in both the answers here but more clearly in the interactions identified by Unscintillating above. Seems to be unable to give a straight answer but more interested in wasting everyone's time being evasive and arguing about semantics. QU ^TalkQu 12:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
18. Oppose I agree with BWilkins on this one. This candidate does not have email enabled, and failing to opt in shows an unwillingness to cooperate, when in fact no extra information is given away by opting in. There is a right to privacy, but to avoid public notice it is best not to be an admin. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
19. Oppose I dislike opposing RfAs for editors who are experienced enough to handle the tools. Unfortunately, whilst I am not overly concerned with the shortness of the candidates answers to the original questions, I am much more concerned about the way in which they have responded to editors who have opposed or asked for clarification. The responses the candidate has given leave me with the impression they would rather ignore challenges, or resort to filibustering, than attempt to explain their actions in a concise, collegial fashion. Pol430 talk to me 13:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
20. Oppose - Answers to the questions and the way of response to opposes will be my main reason to oppose. The answers have not been completely satisfactory and the response to opposes were not quite good. I have a doubt in my mind that how will they handle disputes properly. Sorry, but I have to oppose. →TSU ^tp* 14:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
21. Oppose. Anyone who seriously believes that being an administrator is "no big deal" is either hopelessly out of touch with reality or hopelessly naive. In addition, the rather perfunctory answers to some of the questions lead me to believe that the candidate may be inclined to use the tools inappropriately in defence of what he considers to be "the truth" about supercomputers or whatever. Malleus Fatuorum 14:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

    You misread the second item. I am in the camp that supports verifiability as superior to anything else. As for no big deal, I stand by that. History2007 (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

    I misread nothing, but clearly we will have to agree to disagree. Malleus Fatuorum 14:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

    I meant that you misread me as one who believes in truth. I am in the opposite camp. And yes, we do not agree. History2007 (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

22. Oppose Although I initially supported, the user's behavior is a bit too concerning to me. I look forward to the next time you run, as I am sure you'll be a great asset at that time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

    No worries. There will be no next time. History2007 (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

    I personally think he's a great asset to the project now (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

23. Great article writing; I loved History of randomness. But the lacklustre answers to questions, poor edit summary use, failure to enable email or opt in to the edit counter and general impression given that they do not want or need the tools, all lead me to oppose. Sorry. --John (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

    Now, that was a reasonable answer. Although I do not think "failure" applies to enabling email, for it is an option, not a requirement and hence can no be a failure, you said what you thought and that is fine. That is how evaluations should have been. And yes, the prospect of spending much less, or no time on Wikipedia does seem liberating in some sense. So it may be for the best. And I am glad you liked that article. I wrote that by chance in fact - really. History2007 (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

    The history-of-randomness article should mention that the propensity theory of probability was due to Charles Sanders Peirce, before Karl Popper. See the article by Susan Haack in the propensity-theory article. Also, more use of Knuth's volume 2 and also mention of Per Martin-Löf would help. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

    Well, feel free to fix that. I will leave that article to you. History2007 (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

24. This RfA contains examples that in isolation would not concern me enough to oppose. However their collective weight and close proximity overwhelmingly require that I oppose this nomination. I do believe that some good editors, like me, are not well suited for the admin bit. I now know this applies also to great editors like you, and MF too. My76Strat (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
25. Oppose The candidate clearly is not willing to address concerns raised by the community against them as seen in the reply to oppose no. 22. As a side note, though the points made by the candidate in the discussions above seem to be good in the ideal case, they fail to realize RFA is not ideal. Suraj T 18:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
26. Sorry, but oppose. If you want to come into RFA blind, bluntly showing us your off-the-cuff self, that's indeed refreshing, and you get points for not putting on a fake mask of perfection - but you must be prepared for the fact that your off-the-cuff self is what's going to be considered, and your off-the-cuff self appears to be someone who doesn't quite understand adminship, its purpose, or its dictates. Responding to questions about how you would act in admin-related topics with sentiments of "Why are you asking me about this rather than my article work? Perhaps I don't want to do any article work anymore, either!" is just completely missing the point of why we're here. We're asking questions because we want you to show us what you can do and what you know, not because we're bored on a weekend afternoon and felt like chatting a bit. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
27. Oppose I am unimpressed by the poor answers to some of the questions, particularly Q2, Q3, Q8, Q15 and perhaps Q14 as well. This editor has been impressive in terms of encyclopaedia work, and I hope that s/he carries on with that but I think it's likely that s/he'll make some bad mistakes if s/he does get the mop. Minima© (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Since I'm still questioning the hopeful, I'll stay to be neutral.TruPepitoM (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   Looks pretty good on the surface, but I'll be waiting for proper vetting before deciding. — GabeMc (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Moved to oppose — GabeMc (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

   Awaiting answers to additional questions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Moved to oppose. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

   Leaning moved to oppose. The answers to questions have me concerned. My76Strat (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

2. It's cases like this where I really question RfA. This user is clearly a good user, no one really disputes that. This user is clearly a trustable user, again, no real disputes. And yet because of a few 'meh' answers, the RfA is going down the tubes. Instead of looking for reasons why users aren't worthy of the tools, we should instead look for users that are good, trustworthy, long term contributors and give them the goddamned tools. Really, what harm could that do (yes, I know a small but vocal subset of users has a response to that). That being said, the whole jumping into SPI admin actions with little SPI experience thing is troubling. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

   I jumped into SPI as a trainee with likely less experience than he has. How am I doing? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

   Probably the candidate can be trusted with tools, but the concern is with the interaction with others. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

   He has answered above, which should help. Actually, his interaction with others didn't worry me as much since he has managed to write so much and so often, 60k contribs, yet avoid being blocked long the way. He is pithy and direct, but I don't think that is a bad thing. This RfA isn't likely the best example, but then again, he had tons of questions dumped on him in a very short period of time. Very unusual to see the questions piled on so rapidly. He does have some technical knowledge that would be extremely helpful in DRN and SPI cases, and if nothing else, I easily trust him with the tools, he isn't going to rack up 60k edits just to go rogue with the tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

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