Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mark Arsten

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

Mark Arsten

Final: 122/0/0. Closed as successful. WilliamH (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination from Ched Davis

Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) – Ladies and Gentlemen, for those of you unfamiliar with this editor I'd like to introduce you to User:Mark Arsten. I noticed Mark a while back, and after watching and becoming acquainted with him, I found him to be a calm, rational, and mature editor who thinks things through before hitting the save button. His edits are geared mostly toward content, and on rare occasions deescalating dramah rather than enflaming it. He's done some great work in regards to Peer Review style of article work. He started his "wiki-life" as User:Qrsdogg, and after learning the ropes, and changing locations - became the editor I/we present to you today. In short:

• Over 1.5 years tenure
• Over 30,000 edits
• Over 65% of his work dedicated to articles.
• Thoughtful and considerate work at WP:PR, WP:GA and WP:FA related areas.
• Great work at fighting vandalism.

Some article work examples:

• Alexis Bachelot, William S. Sadler, and Bloody Biil, William T. Anderson
• But I may be most impressed with the difficult and sensitive nature surrounding the FA: Lynching of Jesse Washington article. See the FAC at: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lynching of Jesse Washington/archive1.

I hope you'll give due and proper consideration to this nomination. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  21:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Crisco 1492

• I've known Mark on-wiki since November 2011 and have found myself impressed by his even-handedness and calmness. I've seen him respond to personal attacks with a simple "Thank you". He has done hundreds, if not thousands, of anti-vandal reverts while still finding time to write about some of the most difficult subjects available. I can't imagine anyone else writing about a KKK grand wizard, a man who considered black people gods, an eccentric Jewish advisor to the king of Hawaii, a movement supporting human extinction, and the founder of Heaven's Gate while staying completely NPOV; Mark has written eight FAs, including two of the above; the other three are GAs.

In short, I think Mark could get a lot of use out of the tools to continue his anti-vandal work and I'm sure he will continue to write quality content. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Thine Antique Pen

I came across Mark earlier this year, and all I have seen is good. Mark has eight FAs and six GAs and is a good content worker. As stated by Crisco above, this user always keeps a neutral point of view and their attitude to Wikipedia is positive. With over 28,000 edits, 18,133 (65.69%) of them to the article namespace, this is another reason why Mark is ready for the tools. This user also does some work at FAC, which is all positive. This user is also a Rollbacker and has made thousands of good reverts. ⇒TAP 18:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm honored to accept this nomination, and I thank my nominators for putting their trust in me. I've been editing Wikipedia for about two and a half years now (a year and a half as Qrsdogg and the past year on this account), and I realize that it is very important for the project to have trustworthy admins. If given the chance to be an admin, I'll do my best to serve the community with the tools. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:18, 23 July 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: I intend to take part in administrative work that occurs in areas that I've been active as a non-admin. I'm most interested in helping with AIV, and I'd also like to help out at RFPP, AFD and PROD. I've been relatively active patrolling recent changes with huggle since December, and I think that I've shown that I know the difference between good-faith users and vandals/spammers/etc. I haven't been too active at AFD lately, but I've been fairly active there in the past and I think I could judge consensus in most discussions. I've been only moderately active at RFPP and with PRODs, but I think I could manage to contribute in those areas reasonably well.

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

A: In terms of best contributions to articles, I'd have to say William T. Anderson, William S. Sadler, and the Lynching of Jesse Washington (warning: graphic content) are probably examples of my best work. It's hard to say what my best contributions have been in terms of counter-vandalism and deletion work, but I think my work in those areas is generally of reasonable quality. I also think that some of the best things I've done on Wikipedia have come at times when I decided not to hit "Save page" after typing in a sarcastic remark, doing so has prevented needless drama on a number of occasions.

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 generally try to avoid conflicts and drama--I think I'd burn out pretty quickly if I had to deal with conflict all the time. The most significant editing conflict that I've been involved in occurred after I rewrote and expanded our article on the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. I hadn't expected my rewrite to be controversial, but an editor who had worked on the page in the past was very unhappy with my version. I tried to be patient and talk out our disagreements, but eventually had to open an ANI thread about the other editor's behavior. He was blocked and the article was promoted to featured status a month or two later. I learned from this conflict (most of which is viewable on this archive) that the best way to handle an editing dispute is to try your best to calmly talk the situation out, but to escalate to a noticeboard if another party refuses to edit constructively.

Additional question from Lord Roem

4. Hi Mark, I'm interested in your last comment on Question 3. You explain that you've learned from the conflict over the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement article, and eventually got it to featured status. Could you please elaborate on what things you learned from this conflict that you think will be useful to you as an admin?

A: Well, I think what will be useful is the knowledge that it is very important to respond to complaints with patience and civil discussion. While I felt that the complaints about my expansion were unfounded, it was still important to assume good faith on the part of the complainant. While my article contributions sparked the dispute that I mentioned in Q3, I think the same lessons would apply if someone disputed my admin actions. It is important for admins to be able to patiently and civilly explain why they blocked a user/deleted a page/etc. Admins are, or should be, held to a higher standard than non-admins, so it is important that they use best practices when handling disputes.

Additional question from Callanecc

5. This scenario, I believe, is something which you may encounter as an admin. Please read the following and answer the questions.

An IP user completely changes a large section of a non-BLP article from being unreferenced to completely referenced. However on the talk page, the community has a consensus to use the unreferenced information. Acting with this consensus, an experienced registered user manually uses rollback (with default edit summary) to revert the change and issues a level {{uw-vandalism4im}} warning (just the template by itself) to the IP user (the IP user has made 10 edits on 6 different pages all of which were good edits). The IP user asks the rollbacker (on the rollbacker's talk page) to explain why they reverted the referenced edits.

Following the rollback & warning and request for the rollbacker to explain their actions (which, after an hour of the rollbacker being active on Wikipedia hadn't yet been answered), the IP user undid the revert and added the referenced information back. The same registered user rollbacks again, and leaves a duplicate 4im warning and IP asks the rollbacker to explain their actions again. After another hour of the rollbacker not responding to the IP (during this time the rollbacker is still active on Wikipedia), the IP adds the information in again. The rollbacker uses rollback again then reports the IP to WP:AIV.

You see the request at AIV; outline all the steps you would take, and the policy basis for those actions.

I suggest that you structure your answer into the following format (but it's completely up to you): (a) request at AIV (decline/accept, any other actions & why); (b) the revert including use of rollback, warning, unanswered message on rollbacker's talk page, possible 3RR vio (for all - implications, your actions and policy basis); (c) change to the article (your actions (and possible actions) and policy basis).

A: Well, this is an unusual situation--I can't recall seeing a situation in which the community has come to a consensus to remove sourced content for unsourced content.

(a) Because the IP's edits were not vandalism, I would decline the AIV report, noting that AIV is not for settling content disputes, but for quickly dealing with blatant vandals and spammers.
(b) I'm more concerned about the experienced user in this scenario. I would explain to him that the IP's edits are not vandalism, and encourage him to familiarize himself with the difference between vandalism (deliberate attempts to harm the project) and good-faith edits. He appears to be edit warring, and I would warn him that continual reverts will likely lead to a block. I'd inform him that content disputes should be solved with talk-page discussion, rather than continual reverting. (There are a few exceptions to 3RR, but based on your description this does not appear to be one of them.) Also, rollback should not be used in a content dispute, and I would emphasize that fact to the user, warning him that his rollback privilege will be revoked if it is misused again. In addition, I'd mention that user warnings should start at level one, not level four, and that it's a bad idea to ignore direct messages on one's talk page. As to the IP: I'd welcome him to the project and explain that the user has broken several rules in their interactions. I would try to explain to him that he should attempt to discuss the dispute on the article's talk page, and that while understandable, reverting in this case is not ideal. I would also encourage him to register an account.
(c) I wouldn't directly change the article in this situation, since we're not dealing with anything urgent like BLP issues or copyright violations. I'd probably leave a note on the talk page about the importance of not edit warring but discussing changes to articles. Also, I'd mention that referenced content is much better than non-referenced content.

Additional question from Sparklism

6. Hi Mark. You racked up quite an impressive edit history with your previous account, User:Qrsdogg. Why did you decide to start afresh with a new account, rather than WP:CHU? (If you would "rather not say" for personal reasons, then please don't feel obliged to tell us).

A: Well, at the time I considered CHU, but decided that I wanted a clean start. As to why, I guess what happened was that I said to myself, "I wish I could start over as a new user, knowing what I know now about the site", and then figured, "Hey, I actually can do that". Around the same time, some users I interacted a lot were blocked, so I didn't think many people would miss me. And I had just moved to a new state around the same time, so I was starting over in real life too. I eventually decided to be open about the past account, since I really didn't have anything to hide. Also, thanks for the compliment about Qrsdogg's edits. I worked on some fun projects with that account.

Additional question from Cntras

7. Editor retention is something that remains a salient concern. Briefly describe the measure(s) that you would take to address this problem.

A: To put it simply, I'd try not to be someone who drives good editors away. I think that the best way to improve the retention of valuable editors is to be the type of editor that they want to work with--that's something that everyone can do, admin or not. To address your question in more detail, I think that the community will have to effectively deal with POV pushers, trolls, and general time-sink users to improve editor retention. Having to continually butt heads with obstinate or disruptive users is no fun--Hell is other people. So we need to sanction these types of counter-productive users, or we will lose productive users. The flip side is that we need to be careful not to bite good-faith users, whether they're newcomers or experienced users. I think that blocks often cause editors to reconsider their participation here, so it is very important that admins be cautious about blocking productive editors.

Additional question from Jorgath

8. Please state your interpretation of WP:ADMINACCT and WP:WHEEL. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

A: I interpret ADMINACCT to mean that administrators have an obligation to respond to inquiries about their actions. Responding to questions about and criticisms of one's actions is not optional for administrators--failure to do so can result in blocks, de-admining, or a site ban in extreme cases.
I believe that Wheel Warring is basically edit warring with admin tools. If admin A blocks a user, who is then unblocked by admin B, admin C will be wheel warring if he reblocks the user. It is very important for admins to discuss admin actions before reverting them, particularly so if there has already been a revert. Even if an admin uses their tools in a way that seems to be a bad idea, other admins should wait for a consensus to develop before reverting. (Except in extreme cases.) Wheel warring often results in an Arbcom case, which in turn usually involves the removal of admin permissions. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mark Arsten is currently a red link, and I will do my best to keep it that way!

Additional question from Hahc21

9. You said you would like to help out at RPP. So, let's pretend you are the first admin to spot some sort of edit warring (or any difficult situation) at a BLP article, say Ricardo Arjona, over some content that could be controversial. If any of the users haven't clearly violated 3RR and both have legitimate purposes for their behavior, how would you proceed?

A: Well, if the content that was being added was in violation of the BLP policy, the first thing I'd do would be to remove the violation from the page. Other than that, the first step I would take would be to leave a message for each user to instruct them to discuss the matter and warn that continual reverts could result in a block for edit warring. Hopefully they will stop reverting at that point in favor of talking things over. However, if they continue their revert war, I would either fully protect the page or resort to an edit-warring block, depending on the situation. I think I would be more inclined to block if they were adding BLP violations (i.e. Ricardo is a mountebank.) and more inclined to protect if it were a WP:LAME edit war (i.e. something like Ricardo vs Rícardo).

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Stats on talk. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Will be listed at WP:100. Thine Antique Pen 16:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Impressive track record, as well as trusted nominators. Pundit|utter 23:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Support Candidate has clearly improved the project. The nomination is supported by some editors I respect. We shouldn't ask for more. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Support as co-nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Support - Mark is a rare breed of amazing Wikipedian: calm, considerate, tirelessly hardworking and yet always willing to lend a hand when asked. I couldn't think of a better person to entrust with ye olde mop & bucket. Accedie^{talk to me} 23:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Surprised at ability to keep NPOV on Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Shows likelyhood to remain neutral in administrative decisions. Mysterytrey talk 23:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Support candidate has all qualities a good admin should have...calm, sound and mature reasoning, helpful, policy knowledeable, etc. PumpkinSky talk 23:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
7. [no comment necessary] Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Support. The candidate is very productive, helpful, experienced and trustworthy. Majoreditor (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
9. What Ed says, or doesn't. Also, I've seen Mark's content and other contributions, and I think they are fine. I don't know if we're really lacking admins in his chosen areas, but adding him wouldn't be a bad idea. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
10. Support per Mysterytrey. —HueSatLum 23:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
11. Support candidate has excellent judgment (but willingly admits error), unfailingly helpful and polite, does much background work for no credit, mature (as PumpkinSky says above), knows the rules and procedures, never rude or sarcastic. (I'll stop now but I could go on!) Oh, and writes great articles. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
12. Support strongly. I like candidates like Mark, whom I would have gladly nom'ed myself. As for chosen areas, it doesn't matter. I've work in places after becoming admin that I never did before. There is no doubt that Mark will find plenty of ways to be useful, as he always has. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 00:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
13. Support .... obviously. — Ched :  ?  00:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
14. Support solid well rounded candidate. No concerns at all. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
15. Support - great attitude and temperament, and outstanding content contributions as well. --RexxS (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
16. Support Solid, well-rounded candidate -- Dianna (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
17. Support. I have seen his contributions for some time which are excellent and his well-thought answers to the above questions lead me to believe that he will do well.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
18. Support – an excellent candidate. No concerns whatsoever. 28bytes (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
19. Support Per excellent track record here. Electric Catfish 00:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
20. Oppose because you are the fourth RfA to run simultaneously and have 100% support along with the others. This has got to stop NOW. <Me ripping out my hair>—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 00:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

    I should say, this belies what the Beeb wrote about RFA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

21. Support Excellent editor with very good knowledge, fair-minded with an even temperament. Will make a fine admin. Dreadstar ☥ 02:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
22. Support Good for me--Morning Sunshine (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
23. Support. I like the answer to my question-- it gives me more insight into how the candidate thinks and how he's grown as an editor. From that, I see a substantial amount of clue. I'm glad to support and wish him the best of luck. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
24. Support ..pretty clear-cut support for someone who should do fine with the mop. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
25. Support Will do great work. Khazar2 (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
26. Support Solid, editor, good at avoiding dramahz. Montanabw^(talk) 03:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
27. Risker (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
28. Support Exceedingly good contributor to the encyclopedia. Mark's collaborative abilities on controversial articles like Voluntary Human Extinction Movement shows a great deal of skill and poise. Steven Walling • talk 04:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

    strong support (moving to support;)  Br'erRabbit  04:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC) ← Street-Legal Sockpuppet. — Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

29. Stephen 05:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
30. Support --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
31. Support. Mark Arsten is handsome, and the administrator corps needs more handsome men. Therefore, Mark is needed as an administrator. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
32. Support Mark is an excellent editor, and his reviews of FA nominations are consistently polite and helpful. I'm sure that he'll use the tools well. Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
33. Support everything the nominators said about this awesome Wikipedian, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
34. Support Excellent co—nom! ⇒TAP 10:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
35. Support - seems a strong, able candidate. GiantSnowman 10:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
36. Support logs and deleted content look OK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
37. Support yes please Arcandam (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
38. Support we need more sensible admins. Good candidate to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
39. Support Very good contributions; warm and friendly with a sense of humour; good candidate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
40. Outstanding article reviewer skills, one of the best of the newer reviewers I've seen in a long time. Don't get too excited about your new mop, we need you at A-class and FAC! - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
41. Too many co-noms, but otherwise seems acceptable. Monty₈₄₅ 15:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
42. Support no reason to think this user will abuse the bit. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
43. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
44. Support - met you at VHEMT, where I was very much taken with how calmly and rationally you were able to discuss and work with an editor that had to be blocked for competency concerns soon after. You are extremely level-headed and smart, and I think you will make a great admin. --PresN 15:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
45. Strong support - Mark is one of the editors who I profoundly trust, and whose opinions and ideas I really respect. I have worked with him on articles and he has also provided many appreciated opinions and reviews; I know his attitude is rights. I can't think of many better candidates. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
46. Support User unlikely to block Jimbo Wales. Egg Centric 18:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
47. Support No reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
48. Support While we haven't interacted, I'm aware of Mark's contributions as a valued member of the community. SarahStierch (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
49. Support - Seemingly a content-creator's footprint with some anti-vandalism work. Both usernames have clean block logs and no evidence of assholery. Greatly ample edits and ample time in the harness. No worries. Carrite (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
50. Support per general community trust and lack of opposition. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
51. Support - Mark Arsten is exactly the kind of editor who should be a sysop. He is helpful, patient and knowledgeable. I am very pleased that he should run for adminship and I can support him without any reservations. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
52. Support - Mark has done a great job so far while staying out of trouble. Trust me, in this battlefield called Wikipedia that means a lot. --Lecen (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
53. Support Well rounded editor. Spencer^T♦C 22:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
54. Support and now I am going to go back to reading about the human extinction group. Keepscases (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
55. Support - I've worked with Mark on a couple of articles and I have found him to be knowledgable about Wikipedia, conscientious, and hard working. I absolutely support Mark for admin. Wikipelli ^Talk 22:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
56. Support - Impartiality is proven by skill in creating high-quality works on extremely controversial topics. Toa Nidhiki05 23:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
57. Support - after a review of contributions, AfD participation. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
58. Support - hmm, well this is a welcome development; that after years and years of getting noms of mindless vandal patrollers we are finally getting noms of people who are actually writing an encyclopedia. In addition to the high % count in article space, I like these early edits [1] [2] and the edit summaries. Seems to have a clue.VolunteerMarek 00:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
59. Support - Anyone that gets support !votes on their looks can not be too bad :P Someone needs to order another mop. Mlpearc (powwow)(Review me !) 00:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
60. Support. Candidacy looks good. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
61. Support. Strong page work. I watched this candidate shepherd Bill Anderson from B-class to FA-class. In my view, he did this mostly by asking others for (and then being responsive to) their opinions. His work on Lynching of Jesse Washington represents the best kind of work Wikieditors do in mainspace. I feel some confidence this editor will handle tools responsibly. As I mentioned earlier in another RfA, it's a rare and special pleasure to use four consecutive edits to support four strong candidates for adminship. A good night for all of us, and a good night for the pedia. BusterD (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
62. Support he can have my mop. Rich Farmbrough, 01:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC).
    
63. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
64. Support nice to see such an outstanding mixture of fine content creation and collaborative spirit. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
65. Support -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 04:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
66. Support Although I have very little knowledge of this candidate, an examination of his history, along with his answers to questions, lead me to support him. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 04:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
67. Support 8 featured articles? Unbelievable. He really is a solid contributor. Minima© (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
68. Support Impressive content work, plenty of clue and community-driven spirit, great stuff. — sparklism ^hey! 09:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
69. Support Perfect mixture of content improvement and janitor work. I can't ask for more. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
70. Support. Well experienced, good understanding of policies, communicates well, has the right temperament to deal with admin work. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
71. Support: An extremely well-behaved editor who knows what he is doing. Will make an extremely good admin. Secret of success (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
72. Support, excellent editor. My best, Cavarrone (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
73. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
74. Support. Good contributions. A strong candidate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
75. Support, he's contributed an immense amount to the encyclopedia and there's no reason not to support him. Ducknish (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
76. Support -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
77. Support Good contributions, a good candidate. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
78. Support. A classic example of what we need as admins. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
79. Support. Impressive effort on vandal fighting. Keep it up Mark.--NAHID 23:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
80. Support - Why not. Monterey Bay (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
81. Support I see no problems here. Michael (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
82. Support Per Ched. Wifione ^Message 03:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
83. Support Per answers to questions (particularly the good answer to my question) and the user's record. Mark I hope you serve the community well with your new mop. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 04:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
84. Support. Good Q1-Q3 answers. Clarity all around. Lynching was graphic; reminded me of 1933 lynching of Thurmond and Holmes; civilization is pretty fragile. Solid candidate. Glrx (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
85. Support Good record, trust and answers. Regards. —Hahc21 06:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
86. Support Excellent past record and expectation of future excellence. DocTree (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
87. Support. Will make a good admin. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
88. Support I am especially happy to support a supporter. This user spends time making the experience of other Wikipedia contributors better. His excellent contributions to articles and his ability to even respectfully develop controversial topics demonstrates his merit for becoming an admin, but even more impressively this user contributes to review processes which encourage other users in their engagement of Wikipedia. I appreciate the sensitivity this user shows in conflicts with other users and am glad to support his confirmation as an admin. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
89. Support Absolutely. GedUK  12:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
90. Support – I've seen Mark's work at FAC, both as a nominator and reviewer, and have been impressed by his contributions. He always displays patience, a helpful attitude, and strong attention to detail. All of these qualities are desirable in admins, and I think he will make good use of the tools. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
91. Support – I have had the pleasure of working with Mark a few times now which have included a like for like peer review. He has also offered me some great advice in the past when I have needed it the most and his responses have picked me up when I have been at my lowest ebb. Well deserved! -- Cassianto^Talk 20:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
92. Support. Excellent editor with a cool head for conflict. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

    Support - Why not. Monterey Bay (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

    Indenting duplicate support. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

    Congrats, Monterey Bay! You are the third editor (after GabeMc and AGK) to duplicate !vote in support at a currently open RfA (see #80 above)! The community must be going a little kooky with all the successful RfAs that are going on. David1217 ^{What I've done} 23:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

    The community is quite lucky this week, as there are a number of exceptional candidates. The enthusiasm is rather pleasant. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

93. Support Many people believe that this candidate is ready for adminship. I, too, agree. Good experience, good community approval, he is ready to be an admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedd Raynier (talk • contribs) 09:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
94. Support, solid answers, candidate looks good to me--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
95. Support Excellent co-nom TAP ;) I see no problem in trusting this user. Having 8 FAs is amazing and I always love to see content creators getting admin rights. Also their answers to the questions have been pretty good. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 15:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
96. Support - doesn't make me paranoid. -— Isarra ༆ 16:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
97. Support - Impressive contributor, unlikely to go nuts. Ceoil (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
98. Support - Nothing but positive interactions with this editor. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
99. Support - Experienced user and also great answers to the questions. Torreslfchero (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
100. Support with no concern. KTC (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
101. strong support (per opposes;)  Br'erRabbit  19:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC) ← Street-Legal Sockpuppet. — Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

     If someone cheats to become the 100th support, are they still the 100th support? Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

     The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually. ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

     Thanks Rabbit! LOL KTC (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

102. Support A good candidate. I trust him with the mop. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
103. Support Excellent editor. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
104. Support Always cleaning my mess, I mean typos, etc. Give him the mop.Tamsier (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
105. Support A well rounded user who deserves the mop. Peter.C • talk • contribs 01:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
106. Support for a dependable, mature, intelligent editor. Graham Colm (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

     Support User would be an excellent admin. Perdin my Franch (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

107. Support User has been around since July 2011 and after reviewing track see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
108. Support This editor's ability and willingness to create outstanding NPOV content on highly controversial and even bizarre topics shows a deep understanding of Wikipedia is all about at its best. We need administrators who are solid content creators. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

     Support - Mark is a nice person. Yaplunpe (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

109. Support per nominators. (David1217, I double and triple checked that I haven't already voted!) AGK [•] 16:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
110. Support There's currently 3 RFAs in progress; all three have 100% support. Why is everyone so fantastic? MJ94 (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
111. Support. Someone I've seen around, and someone who knows his way around content, and around content disputes without escalating the drama. All positives, no negatives. By the way, it is becoming clear that RfA is broken, because we just can't seem to recruit any bad candidates. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
112. Support (No rationale) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 08:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
113. Secret ^account 09:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
114. Of course. ;-) The Helpful One 11:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
115. Support Hopefully this will be a successful choice for you...Modernist (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
116. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
117. Support - Has a clue, no issues here. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
118. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
119. Support. Seems like a solid candidate, so why not? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
120. Support Always happy to support potential candidates. Mark has given fine answers to almost every question above. He also has some great contributions and a good grasp and knowledge of many Wikipedia policies and guidelines which can be seen from the answers. Giving Mark Arsten the administrator tools will be a net benefit and a plus point for the Wikipedia community. All the Best Mark! TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
121. Support Joining in the pile on, per my criteria. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
122. Support - I'm particularly impressed with the lynching article mentioned above. The candidate displayed admirable restraint and exceptional judgment in handling that. I have no reason to believe that this would not continue as an administrator. In my capacity as an administrator and volunteer, not as an employee action. -Philippe (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

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.