🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/R%27n%27B
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/R'n'B

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

R'n'B

[edit]

Nomination

[edit]

Final (80/2/1); Ended Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:23 (UTC)

R'n'B (talk · contribs) – I am proud to nominate User:R'n'B for adminship. He has been an active contributor for well over two years, having over twenty-thousand quality edits to his name. He has been quick to revert vandalism to both low- and high-profile articles (Supreme Court of the United States, Napoleon I of France, and Library of Congress, for example). When it comes to generating usable information for projects his Wiki-fu is sublime to the point that he is my go-to person with requests for assistance. It is no understatement to say that without his help, the entire Wikipedia:Templates with red links project would be dead in the water.

R'n'B is also a master disambiguater, a particularly useful undertaking given the vast number of thoughtlessly added links to disambiguation pages. This makes his potential adminship of particular value, as he is active in moving misplaced disambiguation pages - a task which sometimes calls for the ability to delete redirects or merge edit histories.

He is also, I should mention, the maintainer of RussBot, an authorized Bot which is responsible for over fifty-thousand more little improvements to the encyclopedia. In sum, this is a trusted user who knows his way around the 'pedia, and who will benefit us even more if given access to the tools. bd2412 T 02:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept your nomination for next administrator of this great encyclopedia. And, just to correct the record, I've actually been editing almost four years; I started in 2005 using my real name as my username, but opened a new account in October 2006 after experiencing some creepiness from another editor. (And, at the same time, I announced my intention to significantly scale back my preoccupation with Wikipedia, a goal that I still haven't actually been able to achieve....) --Russ (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I expect that I will do administrative work that is closely related to the maintenance projects that I already participate in and that RussBot works on: links to disambiguation pages, double redirects, category redirects, and new pages/recent changes patrolling. In the course of this work I come across pages that require admin assistance; for example, malplaced disambiguation pages, double-redirects that are move-protected, categories that need to be deleted or undeleted, and so forth. My major motivation for asking for the tools at this time is that I have been feeling guilty about creating more work for the existing admins because I can't fix these issues myself.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In terms of article content, I am proud of my contributions to Napoleon I of France, the first half of which I largely rewrote including adding citations to multiple sources, and the "History" section of Burke, Virginia which is largely my work. (I made these contributions under a different user name, several years ago, you won't find them in my contributions now....) I think, though, that my many smaller efforts in terms of article cleanup, vandalism fighting, spell checking, and general maintenance have made a substantial contribution to the encyclopedia in the aggregate.
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: Yes, of course I have. I can't imagine anyone being involved in editing Wikipedia over a significant period of time and not getting into conflicts with other users. And I'll admit that I haven't always handled these conflicts perfectly, although I do think I'm getting better as I get older more experienced. In my view, the appropriate steps to take when stressed out over another user's actions are (1) take a deep breath or count to ten, (2) think about whether the issue is really important, and (3) if it is, try to get a neutral party to take a look at the issue. A lot of the time, I don't get past step 2.

Optional question from Keepscases

4. Do you believe it causes confusion that your signature and username do not match? Why or why not?
A: As a matter of fact, I got a comment on my User talk page a couple of months ago from someone who expressed confusion over just that issue, so therefore I suppose the answer has to be "yes." However, I don't believe it is a serious issue. User:Russ is an inactive account, so I'm not going to be confused with him; and it's really not all that unusual for users' signatures not to match their usernames. If you don't believe me, ask Andy or Ed 17, among others.

Optional questions from Mattisse

5 - When I was a new user three years ago, it caused me endless confusion and got me in trouble because I did not understand that a certain "mediator" had different talk pages, depending on what part of his signature you clicked on. Do you think that it is important to be transparent and "user friendly" to new users who often have trouble learning the basics of Wikipedia?
A: Yes, I do think it's important to be "user friendly" to newer users. A lot of Wikipedia's processes and policies can be confusing to newcomers. I take it, though, that the thrust of this question goes to my signature. I guess I'm surprised by the interest in this topic, since I've come across a fair number of other users with sigs that don't match their usernames, and wasn't aware that it had ever been a concern. I haven't seen any actual cases of users who had difficulty finding me when they wanted to; if it does become a real problem, though, I'm certainly willing to make changes. And if there is a consensus or policy concerning user sigs that I should be aware of, please bring it to my attention.
6 - A newly elected arbitrator was requested to remove the "Cheers" from his signature by the arbcom. What is your understanding of why such a signature may not be appropriate in certain situations, such as in arbcom statements?
A: I'm not aware of the case to which you refer. By analogy, however, it certainly makes sense that one would present oneself differently in particular contexts; I would not address a judge in court the same way I would if I met her in a restaurant, for example.

Optional questions from Philcha:

7 After how many acts of vandalism in what period would you block a proven vandal?
A: This question does not seem to me to be susceptible to a definite answer. So much depends on the circumstances, including the user's pattern of edits, the warnings the user has received, and the likelihood of repetition. In the case of obviously malicious vandalism where there is no evidence of any mistake or any attempt to comply with policies, and where the user has persisted after being warned repeatedly, I would think that even one act after the final warning would justify a block.
8 For how long should previous acts of vandalism be taken into account when deciding what to do with the most recent?
A: Again, it depends on the circumstances. If a particular account has a history of persistent vandalism with no good-faith editing at all, I would take it all into account no matter how old it was. If the account had been used for good-faith editing, however, I would give less weight to old incidents and would probe more deeply into the nature of the more recent actions.
9 For how long would you block vandals (registered or IP) on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th offences?
A: Policy says 24 hours for a first block, although I notice a lot of admins applying 31-hour blocks instead. I've also noticed a lot of cases of indefinite blocks on the first offense for registered accounts that have been used purely for vandalism. If I were looking at a repeat offender, I would investigate how other admins have handled similar situations.
10 Would you give shared IP addresses that have been used for vandalism more lenient treatment than is given to other vandals?
A: Yes, per Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses#Block lengths.

Optional question from Tan:

11 There is no mention of AfD, AIV, RFPP, blocks vs. bans, or any of the usual stuff - yet you're running at about 95% support. Clearly people are taking you at your word - an extreme rarity in RfA, I might add - that you will not be using your admin tools in deletion, protection, or vandal-fighting efforts. As having a delete button, and in my opinion, the even more powerful protection button are tools of trust, can you comment on this? With little to no evidence on how you will handle these tools, I find it hard to grant them to you without a some sort of statement. See Ottava's oppose below for more of how I feel.
A: There seems to be a misunderstanding. I have never said I would refrain from using any of the admin tools. It is true that I don't expect to participate much in AfD or page protection (which, incidentally, I really dislike as a user, and think should be reserved for the most extreme cases); but I do engage in recent change patrol, reverting vandalism and warning vandals, and so I may from time to time be confronted with a vandal who needs to be blocked. I think I've addressed this in the answers to the earlier questions. As for deletion, if I see an article that meets the speedy-delete criteria, I may well delete it, although I've learned through experience that these criteria need to be interpreted very strictly.
You also seem to be asking whether I can be trusted. I can only point to my record of constructive contributions to Wikipedia over a long period. I have had the 'rollback' right for a while now, and no one has ever suggested that I've misused it. I've made a few mistakes in my day, and probably will make more, but I've always tried to correct those when they have been brought to my attention. All I can promise is that, if given admin powers, I will try to use them as responsibly as I have used my editing privileges so far.

Optional question from Ottava Rima:

12 I don't ask questions, nor do I like to do such out of principle. However - As an administrator, how would you deal with conflicts that result from any use of your admin tools? What kind of response would you give the individual? Who would you contact? What noticeboards would you post at? Would you rather go through back channels (faster) or through public channels (more visible) to have issues resulting around your actions dealt with? Do you believe that cussing, negative characterizations, holding grudges, or the rest are appropriate during such a time as you would be trying to resolve the issue? (some links to demonstrate how you respond to criticism would also be helpful)
A: How about if we agree that since you don't like asking questions, and I don't like answering them, we'll just forget the whole thing?  :)
More seriously, I think my answer to question 3 above largely dictates how I answer this one. If another user disputes something I've done using the admin tools, the first step (after taking the deep breath) would be to consider whether I ought to reverse the action myself. Maybe I made a mistake or was too hasty. If so, I would do it. If not, I'd probably explain my reasoning to the user and invite them to seek a review by another admin (depending on the issue, at WP:DRV, WP:ANI, or some other forum. If the user doesn't accept this, I'd take the initiative myself to get a third party to look at the issue.
I'd prefer to go through public channels to resolve issues. I guess there might be an exception if the discussion might invade someone's privacy, but that seems like an unusual situation.
"Do you believe that cussing, negative characterizations, holding grudges, or the rest are appropriate during such a time as you would be trying to resolve the issue?" No, and I'd be unhappy if the user did any of those things. But I'd try not to respond in kind.

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Beat the nom support. No issues I can find with this candidate. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I see no problems and think he'll make a great admin. LittleMountain5 22:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. My first Beat the Nom! Anyway, since eco has retired I will contiue the queue jokes, even if they are rubbish. :) Anyway, I cant see any problems here so Support. Andy (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I haven't seen a whole lot of page-protection work from him, but I still think he'll do alright. SchfiftyThree (talk!) 23:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Established editor, trusted with a well-used bot. No indications he will misuse admin tools.--NrDg 23:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Epbr123 (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please expand on your reasoning why this person should be an administrator? Giggy (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Late-breaking nom support. bd2412 T 00:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support--Iamawesome800 Talk 00:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please expand on your reasoning why this person should be an administrator? Giggy (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - no red flags in my review and an excellent nom. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support — Seems like a fine candidate for adminship with reasonable answers to the questions and good contributions from a quick browse over them. — RyanCross (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support — Honestly shocked that this user isn't an admin already. Masterful bot operator, does amazing work in a very gnomish area (which makes me feel warm in my funny places), will definitely be a net benefit for this user to have the tools. Mlaffs (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Don't see why not. Also, it seems (from his editing record) that R'n'B has only been aroung for two years. Could he please clear up whether or not he has had previous accounts? This will not affect my vote, I would just like to know. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He explained that in his acceptance - it says there that he started editing in 2005 under his real name, but "opened a new account in October 2006 after experiencing some creepiness from another editor". An understandable situation - I had to change my username some years back after experiencing some unpleasant wikistalking. bd2412 T 03:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. I've always been impressed with his work in the disambig area. either way (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 03:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please expand on your reasoning why this person should be an administrator? Giggy (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Excellent contributions, very trusted, and I think Russ will be a good admin. Xclamation point 04:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Excellent all-round contributor. I`m sure he`ll do great with the Admin tools. :) Versus22 talk 05:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support because this user has no problems that I have seen YET. If someone brings one up, I may change my !vote, but until then, I like ya! K50 Dude ROCKS! 05:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Caden S (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please expand on your reasoning why this person should be an administrator? Giggy (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - Seems like a good contributor, no reason not to trust with the tools, and therefore no reason not to support, as far as I can see. — neuro(talk) 10:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I knew Russ by his original name some 2½ years ago, and I thought he as an admin even then. Hmmph. — CharlotteWebb 23:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Confused by username support Yep, when I read "R'n'B" I was kind of confused who that user might be but seeing how he signs his posts, I understood that this was one of the best WikiGnomes I encountered, so I do not see a single problem with this candidate :-) SoWhy 16:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. support per User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA. While more of the standard "admin path" type of experience might be desirable, the user seems to be reasonable, able to reason and communicate clearly, able to discuss and work toward a meeting of the minds. He has more than enough experience in the project, and seems knowledgeable. His request is related to and will support work he is already doing. Clearly a net positive. I would recommend making the sig clearer, as it could cause confusion. Dlohcierekim 16:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support nothing wrong with user's contributions. —macyes: bot 17:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Though I haven't seen him that often, his contributions speak for themselves, so Why not? Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 17:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Don't see why not. Stifle (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Very Strong Support Willking1979 (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please expand on your reasoning why this person should be an administrator? Giggy (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support User has been around since Oct 2006 and good track and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Yes. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please expand on your reasoning why this person should be an administrator? Giggy (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support MBisanz talk 01:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please expand on your reasoning why this person should be an administrator? Giggy (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad you asked Giggy. In reviewing Russ I've noted he is very active in legal articles. Given that legal articles are frequently BLP problems because of POV-pushers moving their RL disputes onwiki, having an extra set of blocking/deleting buttons roaming that area of pages will be useful to the project. Also, he contributes at a rather steady rate for a long period of time, which gives me faith he will not burn out quickly from the tasks of being an admin. MBisanz talk 01:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Hobartimus (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please expand on your reasoning why this person should be an administrator? Giggy (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong support per my criteria. (My criteria = a good user) Wizardman 04:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please expand on your reasoning why this person should be an administrator? Giggy (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've become very, very admin-inclusionist. But if you want a further rationale, I'm very impressed by his templates with red links work. I did that for a little while and it is pretty time-consuming, but very valuable. He appears sensible as well based on his and the nom's statements. Wizardman 17:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support; RussBot is excellent and I have been impressed by Russ' work in numerous areas. I trust him to use the tools well. Giggy (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Good contributions. Reliable. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Very impressive. I'd write more, but Giggy seems to be hell-bent on haranguing supporters for the lulz, so I think I'll stop here just to spite him. GlassCobra 14:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I feel that this user would make a good admin, and I see no red-flags on anything. Good luck. America69 (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I find nothing that would cause me concern to choose in giving R'n'B the trust to carry out the duties responsibly. Chasingsol(talk) 17:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support No reason not to.—Sandahl (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Before Giggy makes it down this far: "per previous rationales". - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support I haven't found a reason not to. Good contribs, just one thing... you may want to change your signature because it may lead to someone typing in User:Russ and finding out an admin may be an indef blocked sock of User:Artaxiad.  :) - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 19:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have an idea for that - get a 'crat to usurp the existing blocked account, then let R'n'B sign up for the freed account and redirect it to his current account. bd2412 T 20:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A brilliant idea, but it won't work because there is a very active User:Russ on some other Wikimedia projects. So, here's my new signature: R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for getting back to me so soon with a new sig. It looks nice. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 05:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Majorly talk 19:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Excellent editor, excellent contributions. Like the name too. Acalamari 19:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support—no concerns. Many of my interactions with him have been through editprotected requests, where he consistently requests useful, well-thought-out changes and explains them nicely. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 19:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Good editor, good vandal fighter, good article writer, lots of experience—all-around asset to Wikipedia. Graymornings(talk) 22:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Yanksox (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Beginning to feel the issues is a bit snowy. Well established user, obviously hardworking, and no legitimate concerns. Minfo (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support This user is civil, mature and unlikely to abuse the tools. Thanks for all you have done to date and good luck for the future -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - Has a need for the tools and clue to use them wisely. Matt (Talk) 06:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - Knowledgeable and experienced. Exactly what WP needs. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support: Excellent editor. And also it's nice to see someone without any opposes - if nobody could find nothing against you, then you are pretty much the perfect candidate for the mop here, I think :) Chamal talk 11:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Having looked around this morning, I can't find any clear or obvious reason to not trust with the tools. rootology (C)(T) 16:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support per nom. Candidate is a good, helpful user. SpencerT♦C 16:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Great editor, after looking at his contribs, I think he would be a great sysop :). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 00:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. R'n'B isn't an admin already? (Specially for Giggy: I've had nothing but good encounters and seen nothing but positive work from the user, and I have no concerns about the user being an admin.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Samir 04:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Any particular reason for this support? flaminglawyerc 21:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a nomination above. Read it. -- Samir 22:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reluctant support Damn it, I really wanted to oppose this one (I don't know why, I guess he's too gnome-ish?) but I couldn't find a reason for it, and I didn't want to be that guy who doesn't give a reason for votes. He's just too... good. The barnstars he's gotten are great, and he got pretty much the same ones on his old account (which wasn't too hard to find, actually...) and did the same thing, with the same accuracy. flaminglawyerc 21:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to oppose. flaminglawyerc 22:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support per above. TheAE talk/sign 00:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. support Everything seems to be in order. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support See nothing to suggest they will misuse the tools. Davewild (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support I think Russ has made constructive contributions to WP and I think that he'd make a fine admin. Good Luck. —Archon Magnus(Talk | Home) 15:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - I analyzed his edits; there is nothing to worry about. AdjustShift (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support SQLQuery me! 22:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. 2 years, 20,000 edits, no obvious problems. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Shows a need for the tools and the competency to use them responsibly. Good Contributions. No issues. Mww113 (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support for the stuff written above and the lack of an apparent burning desire to use the extra tools to go around blocking people, deleting stuff, and all that. The oppose by the flaming lawyer below prompts this: Of course people have to be blocked and stuff has to be deleted, but I sense that there should be a much larger number of trusted people who become admins to do this incidentally while attending to their regular editing business and perhaps more care about candidates who seem to be waiting for the time when they can say "Make my day." Morenoodles (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Hiberniantears (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support with a note - If you ever feel that your action should be undone in regards to blocking someone, it is best to post at AN, ANI, etc, and state why you blocked and that you feel it should be undone. Don't do it yourself, because others in the community may think that the block should still stand. It would cut down on any possible complications if the individual is reblocked. Cheers and good luck. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support per answer to Q11 and overall feeling of comfort with this user. Tan | 39 20:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - I can not see a reason to not give this user the tools. The opposes are just plain silly, IMHO. ArcAngel (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, I am sure the nominator was quite selective. Prodego talk 20:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - As a protest against the standards at RfA, I am no longer bolding my supports for any candidates. Bureaucrats, please interpret this as exactly what it is. Or something like that. :) ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - Experienced, quality editor (for the win). FlyingToaster 22:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. No problems really. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Pattont/c 23:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - looks excellent, meets my standards, run across him at WP:RFA and WP:LAW. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Looks like a solid candidate to me. DiverseMentality 04:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support, no evidence user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  77. Support- reliable editor with little evidence of being a disruptive influence. Chicken Wing (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support seems to be a good editor and won't abuse the tools. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support, no reason to oppose. Terraxos (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - Does not have any downfalls in any administratorly areas that I can see right off the bat and this user has done great work for this Wikipedia so far. No issues means no reason why not to support. Razorflame 19:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
Temporary Oppose - there is nothing about policy described above, definite reasons why adminship is needed, details on article work, and only a tiny hint at to what areas would be worked on. Perhaps I am missing this? Please, if no one is going to ask about it, at least provide -something- on the subject. Until then, there is nothing to actually support. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to "badger" you (as it seems to be called these days) but your reason to oppose is that he does not really plan to use the tools? Am I understanding that correctly? I am truly confused what your reasoning for this !vote is, so please clarify. Regards SoWhy 08:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I rather thought I'd covered that in the nomination. R'n'B is very active in disambiguation, including fixing misplaced disambiguation pages, and he expressed to me his interest in adminship precisely because of the frequency with which he has had to bother admins to effect page moves and merges in order to get those disambiguation pages where they are supposed to be. He also readily reverts and warns vandals, and so is clearly in a position to block the ones that persist. Cheers! bd2412 T 08:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See below - I require an understanding of how he would deal with other uses of the tools that make up the larger portion of what he will be granted and what he has no actually defined any feelings on. A few sentences about his feelings on the matter, possibly some analysis or philosophy of how the tools should be used, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot ethically support someone without these answers. Administrator position grants someone the power to delete, the power to block, and other such items that require trust. It doesn't matter if he claims to plan on using these powers or not, I still require knowledge of -how- he would use them if he ever had the chance. Adminship is a packaged deal. I would remain neutral, but since there is nothing to really satisfy the trust issue, there is no ability for me to do anything but oppose. However, this is easily remedied (unless he answers in a really bad manner and shows that he can't be trusted). Ottava Rima (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that R'n'B has now provided the answers that you seek. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning to support, but I will wait until my question is answered. Its a softball, so I don't expect anything scary to come out of it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose Now I remember why I wanted to oppose this one so badly. In my opinion, he doesn't really need the tools. He's only stated one thing that he would use the tools for (something about disambiguations?), which really doesn't warrant having the tools. If that's all he needs them for, then he can just ask an admin dude to do it for him. As Ottava said, adminship is a packaged deal. It comes with blocking, deleting, undeleting, and (if you call within the next 10 minutes) we'll include page protection! The ability to correctly place misplaced disambigs doesn't seem to be at the top of the list for admin features. So I must oppose. flaminglawyerc 22:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it cost anything to have an admin that does not use the tools? I know, you said you really wanted a reason to oppose this user above, but, 'Doesn't really need the tools' is really weak IMO. SQLQuery me! 22:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    By that logic, all new admin nominations should be denied, as anyone who wants to be an admin could just as easily ask an existing admin to carry out whatever tasks come up that require the tools. bd2412 T 01:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In principle, that would be optimum. However, sometimes there are areas that are lacking. Not every admin stays in their original area, or keeps to their original promises. We do need specialists, but we also need to know that people can be trusted with the whole package until there is a time that the powers are split. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose For Sparta.--Koji† 23:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak. Just weak. Can't you at least give a reason? A user who is undertaking an RFA would want to know what there fellow editors think they need to improve on. Mww113 (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I wouldn't say weak, it's better than a blank oppose. I mean, at least the 300 reference catches you off guard.--Koji† 02:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You should expand on your rationale..if only for Sparta. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Only Spartan men give birth to Spartan oppose rationales. Are you a Spartan? Ironholds (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This oppose is madness. — neuro(talk) 18:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the closing crat could determine that easily enough. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, please tell me you got the joke. — neuro(talk) 20:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well do you think this vote will actually count in the final closing from the b-cat? It's no big deal if it won't count anyway :-) K50 Dude ROCKS! 04:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No. This... is... RfAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! *kick* EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral Gurch (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral leaning support. In oppose #1, it was said well that there wasn't many adminy areas this user intended to work in, and that is true. I can't oppose for this because I strongly trust the user however I don't think I can support until I get more information. K50 Dude ROCKS! 03:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ...except that you did. See Support #17. :P —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 06:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've indented this !vote; the first one was posted well before this one,[1] though K50 is welcome to leave this and strike his support instead. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to undermine my own nominee (who I think will do fine whether this voter supports or remains neutral), but I would think that the most recent vote would be the one that counts. bd2412 T 07:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I consider the "default" position for an RfA to be "pass" (hence we require users to justify opposing, rather than justify supporting), and the fact that he said he was leaning support, I opted to go with the first; however, I'm more than willing to budge on the matter. I've asked K50 himself to pick which one is valid. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Another view, of course, would be that a person who makes multiple votes should have none of them counted. In which case, both should be indented until the voter chooses which one he intended to have stand. bd2412 T 08:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/R%27n%27B&oldid=1089038896"