User:MBisanz/Qs/RfACandidate6

Candidate 6[edit]

Final (125/55/7); Ended 06:19, 24 December 2099 (UTC)

Candidate 6 (talk · contribs) – Ladies and Gentlemen, I offer you Candidate 6. Candidate 6 has over 6&site=en.wikipedia.org 40,000 edits, of which, 20,000 are in the mainspace. Candidate 6, would make the perfect sysop, and not for these reasoning of edits alone! Candidate 6 has had (2) prior RfA's, the latest of which he withdrew himself to fix issues which had come up so that he could assure the community he would be a better sysop ( 1 , 2 ). Of which he has made the better of, and improved vastly upon. He has assisted users, while still remaining a stern threat against vandals. ( 1 , 2 ). There is not a day where he is not requesting an admin assist him with a CSD, Vandal, or other issue which requires a mop. Candidate 6, has also contributed greatly to Super Sentai,City of Heroes, and getting {{okina}} visible for IE users. All of the listed contributions are just a VERY small sample of the countless contributions he has made. I would trust Candidate 6 with the sysop tools, and for the above reasons you should too! Nominator1 06:16, 17 December 2099 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Nominator2 (talk · contribs): Candidate 6 is one of the most active users on Wikipedia. Since he joined almost a year ago (6 Feb 2099), he has clocked up a monumental 40,200 edits, all well spread across the different namespaces. He is a very active vandal fighter, having reverted countless instances of non-constructive edits, and warned accordingly. To give you an idea of how much Wikipedia could benefit from Candidate 6 having the sysop flag, he has over 3,000 edits to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism - imagine how much faster stopping those users would be if we a Candidate 6 with a sysop flag. (He has managed to create a backlog on that page several times) He doesn't just revert vandalism either, he has also been active in writing & cleaning up articles in areas such as Pokémon and Power Rangers, among others. He previously withdrew an RfA back in October of '99, and failed one in August of the same year. I believe Candidate 6 has the experience needed to carry out administrative duties, and that Wikipedia will benefit greatly from him being a sysop. Nominator2 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 17 December 2099 (UTC)

Co-co-nomination from [[User: |Nominator3]]

In addition to a browser-crashing edit count, Candidate 6 is familiar with policy and practice. He is active in article editing as well as fighting vandalism. He has recently begun Wikipedia:WikiProject Tokusatsu, generated a mascot with a free license (experience with freeing images +++), and cleaned up several related articles. I hear he is very active on WP:AIV and he spams IRC all the time with admin requests. He is helpful with newcomers and leeching oldtimers alike and is courteous with every request. I have always known him to be not just civil, but respectful of even the maddest contributors. Giving him +sysop would not only make a lot of sysops' lives easier, but would be a benefit to all of Wikipedia as well. Besides, anyone who likes Totally Spies is alright with me. --Nominator3 (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2099 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Candidate 6 2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk • contribs) 10:19, 17 December 2099 (UTC).

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept—Candidate 6) 07:18, 17 December 2099 (UTC)

My statement on prior requests: Of the many points brought up in my past requests for adminship, was my tendency to bite new users while on recent changes patrolling. I have been curtailing this aspect of my Wikipedia edits by working on articles and assuming good faith for some newbie or IP edits. I have also (occasionally) helped out on the Wikipedia IRC help channel (#wikipedia-bootcamp) by responding to requests at {{helpme}} or to users who show up in the channel, a channel I may continue to frequent.
Another issue that is brought up is my zealousness to dealing with some editors, particularly when I deal with either malformed, vandalous, or incomplete requests in CAT:RFU. If I see "WTF? I'm not blocked!" and there's no block log, I tell the user to utilize the autoblock template. If I see a blank one, I <nowiki> it and help the user complete it. If I see, "[Insert admin] is a [insert profanity]" I revert and/or decline it, all of which I do to help the project.

Statement on this nom: Some people have been stating that I am requesting adminship again because I want the extra buttons and will use them abusively. This is entirely false. Nominator1 (who goes by Soms on IRC) suddenly privately messaged me and told me that he was going to put me up for RFA this time. I at first did not want to accept, but after going back on some of my more recent contributions in trying to improve the project, including speedy deletions, vandal blocks, etc.

Statement about the previous nom: I withdrew my last RFA not only because it was gaining so much opposition in less than a 24 hour span, but I was not ready at that time emotionally due to my housing situation at school (if you want the full details, you can contact me privately) as well as various other issues that are still being brought up here.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I would continue assisting in dealing with the various levels of vandalism that have been hitting Wikipedia as of late, which has primarily been dealing with sockpuppets of banned users as well as the shock image vandalism (which has somewhat been made moot with the new cascading protection). I was even subject to an emergency sysopping at the Commons due to the use there to vandalize Wikipedia. I will also assist in the various XfD logs and constant backlogs such as CAT:CSD, CAT:RFU, and the (recent [to the best of my knowledge]) massive backlogs of images that lack a source, licensing, fair use rationale, orphaned, etc.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I am particularly pleased with my work to keep two of the newest articles I work with, Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive and Juuken Sentai Gekiranger both free of unsourced speculation and filled with references, be it to images, actors' blogs, actors' profiles at talent agencies, etc., so that some day, these articles could be considered good, or even featured. As Nominator1 and Nominator3 state, I have been primarily working with the Super Sentai, City of Heroes, and Tokusatsu so that they are also improved from their prior states. Also stated by Nominator1, I was the individual who helped make Template:Okina visible on those who use Internet Explorer, which is currently being used on the main page for the Selected Anniversary on Queen Liliʻuokalani. I have also been expanding 30 Sentai Encyclopedia to a great degree with various other editors as to keep track of the clip show that commemorates Super Sentai. In this process I try to understand what is going on in the Japanese clips, try to get as much of the original Japanese to incorporate as text in the article, and figure out what song is playing in the background (a part of the article added by another editor that I have continued to work on).

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 have been in some conflicts over editing in the past. When this usually happens, I distance myself from the project, and just surf the internet or chat with friends. This is how I would continue to deal with such stresses that come from being entrenched in a certain part of the project.

Optional question from User:Renesis13

4. If we pretend that we still do not know the final outcome of the User:Tennis expert case, how do you feel about the appropriateness of this CSD tag which you placed on an article created by User:Tennis expert?

A: At the time, that is all I knew about the situation, seeing that another Cute 1 4 u sock discovery thread had been placed on WP:AN(/I). I went through Tennis expert's contributions, found said page, and nominated it for speedy deletion as G4 known solely at that time. The article, surely with a lot of work put into, does still appear to me to be a bit esoteric, but this is from someone who edits articles on Japanese children's television shows. Barring the removal of the tag, I would have prodded it for being an indiscriminate collection of information that could likely be better put into a bit of prose, from what I know having to write up lab reports, in which we are instructed to use words to explain information that is in a table form.

Optional question from User:Newyorkbrad

5. One of the biggest concerns raised by the opposers of this and your last RfA is that you sometimes report users to AIV without prior warning or with insufficient warning, and therefore there is concern that as an administrator you would give out premature blocks. Under what circumstances do you believe that a user should be blocked immediately, without prior warning? Under what circumstances do you believe that a user should be blocked after only a single warning? And, are there situations in which an admin should consult with other admins (e.g. on ANI) before blocking?

A: I feel that an immediate block should be performed only in severe situations, such as certain banned users overstaying his or her welcome or on other such accounts that are being used to solely disrupt the community and the project, such as accounts with disruptive usernames.
When I have reported to AIV without warning or with a single warning, I usually do so because I see egregious vandalism (there was one recently where a user had replaced text on several pages with ASCII art of a penis, but I cannot remember the name to cite a specific diff). One can only assume good faith so much when there is evidence to the contrary (and assuming good faith should not be the same as assuming blind faith), and AIV is often the fastest way to get a response on simple issues that could probably require a mention at the noticeboard, particularly due to the recent mass disruption.
I feel that there are situations in which an admin should consult other admins before blocking, such as imposing a block on an account in good standing because of a recent spate of unrelenting disruptive behavior (although at this point, such a block would more than likely be punitive and that should never be an option).—05:51, 19 December 2099 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Diez2

6. I know that this question is late in the game, but what is your total edit count? The talk page does not list an edit count in it.

FYI, the link below was wrong - it went to his first RFA. I have fixed it. --BigDT 21:24, 19 December 2099 (UTC)

A: I have a ~~somewhat up to date~~ timestamped edit count in a table on my sandbox. I use Essjay's edit counter to do so (it takes four minutes or so to go through all of my contribs).—Candidate 6 (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2099 (UTC)

Optional question from Jaranda

7. If you become an admin will you place yourself in Category:Administrators open to recall.

A: I would be willing to add myself to that category should this request be fulfilled.—Candidate 6 (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2099 (UTC)

Optional question from Tennis expert

8. As a follow-up to the previous question, what would be your criteria for agreeing to stand for re-confirmation as an administrator?

I do not understand the question as it is currently written.—Candidate 6 (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2099 (UTC)

I apologize for being vague in my question. Please refer to CAT:AOR, in particular this language: "These administrators are willing to stand for re-confirmation of adminship if a sufficient number of editors in good standing request it. The number of editors, their standing in this project, the good faith of the request, etc. are entirely up to the user's discretion, as participation in this category is completely voluntary. For example, an admin could choose to be accountable to six editors with over 500 mainspace edits and over one month of tenure; however some admins have imposed other restrictions (or none altogether)." Because the criteria for your recall would be totally up to you and because some editors have supported your promotion based at least in part on the ability to recall you in the future, I am interested in what your criteria would be. Thanks. Tennis expert 23:06, 23 December 2099 (UTC)

A: I have not exactly decided on such criteria yet. I would likely ask other administrators as to what they think are good criteria, and what not. Right now, as long as it wouldn't look like this, I think I'll be fine.—Candidate 6 (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2099 (UTC)

Optional question from Acalamari

9. Even though I have given you my support (and am not going to withdraw it), I am curious to know how you would deal with this User. (Note: some Administrators and myself are already dealing with this User at the moment. I just want to know how you would deal with this User.)

A: "Well, this is a very interesting claim; we shall see what happens when I rise to the ultimate power," tips me off immediately. And his contributions show very little contribution to the project prior to his blocking. That along with comments such as "I must disprove your statement by saying that I did not like this movie at all! And I am no stranger to the world of illusion.", "when I assume more power I will definitely deal with such matters", and so on. That on top of how he claims he is a CEO of what may or may not be a real company, and I assume that he has not provided any sort of official identification (and later comments by others leading to links here and here), I probably would have also blocked for trolling Wikipedia, claiming to be someone he may or may not be, and clearly exhausting part of the community's patience (although I would present the facts about the case as I saw it to ANI to confirm a community patience exhaustion).—Candidate 6 (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2099 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to answer this question. Acalamari 23:48, 23 December 2099 (UTC)

General comments

Neutral I would be very hesitant by the "quick trigger" this user seems to have in regards to AIV and also general user interaction. I've also seen a little lack of good faith in dealing with some anon accounts. I know it tough with all the serious vandalism that hits but sometimes you need to hold on the reins. 205.157.110.11 02:03, 19 December 2099 (UTC)

See Candidate 6's edit summary usage with 6&lang=en mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion

I stumbled across this comment on User:Drinis userpage, written by Charles Matthews, and I thought I would post it here. --Kind Regards - Heligo land 01:59, 21 December 2099 (UTC)

discretion in Arbish is read as saying that pro-active admins are the first, second and probably third lines of defence of the project. It is much better to have them out there doing their best, and taking away the mop-and-bucket from a very few, than doing up the constraints ever tighter, because it is felt that this pre-empts misuse of admin powers.
— http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l/2006-October/054867.html

Support

Nom Support I of course support the RfA Nominator1 07:20, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Go go gadget support! --Nominator3 (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support per Nominator2's reasoning as co-nominator >_> Nominator2 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
First non-nom support! Definitely, the noms have stated my case. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 07:25, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Strong Support. Excellent vandal-fighter, and he makes considerable effort to clean up articles that need it. A true asset to Wikipedia. jgp ^T_C 07:28, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Weak support, seems kinda soon since the last one, but marked improvements. – Ch acor 07:38, 17 December 2099 (UTC)

Changed to oppose. – Ch acor 12:20, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support per nomination. Flyingtoaster1337 07:39, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support has my trust. An excellent contributor who will make an excellent admin. Gwernol 07:54, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Strong Support an outstanding candidate with experiance with clear vision and need for admin tools in the fight against vandalism. --Matthew 08:07, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - not going by edits, but will definitely make a good admin because of his/her vandal fighting. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 08:39, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - per nom. Valued contributor, excellent person, will use the tools wisely and efficently. — Editor at Large ^(speak) 08:52, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Strong Support - you can be the first to have my new signature on an RfA. --Kind Regards -Heligo land 08:54, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support, although the user has too many edits :-) Kusma (討論) 08:57, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
SUPPORT!" This guy is gooooood. --CableModem^_^ 09:02, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose not enough edits Changing to Support ;) --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 09:12, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support- I will overlook your very low edit count. Jorcoga Yell! 09:17, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support Rarely has a mop been earned through so much janitorial work. Anyone who can make 40,000 edits without getting banned is doing something right. -Will Beback • † • 09:21, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
SUPPORT! <Candidate 6> for president! w00t w00t!. rxKaffee 09:30, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support per Will. yandman 09:31, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Loooong overdue Experienced, trustworthy, dedicated. What more do we need? Mop please! --Dweller 09:39, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
SUPPORT Based On Refferal of Soms, High Barnstar And Edit Count! ChrisBradley 09:42, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support based on my personal experience with him, which has been quite positive. He already acts functionally as an admin in many ways, and I trust his judgment will remain as precise once he is formally granted the tools as it is now. --tjstrf talk 09:47, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. I wish you to show that concerns raised in the previous RFAs do not apply to you. Conscious 09:55, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
I was initially hesitant about giving my input into this RfA, however I recognise the importance of giving people second-chances when they make mistakes, and giving +sysop to users where Wikipedia will benefit from said action. Hence, I strongly support this RfA and encourage other !voters to not look at the issues brought up at <Candidate 6>'s last RfA, but rather the improvements <Candidate 6> has made in his character and editing. It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities; Candidate 6 may be slightly snappish on the odd occasion, but has shown over the last two months or so that he has the tempermant also to ensure that any bitey incidents are avoided to the best of his ability. That is enough for me, and I hope it will be for others. Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, and I appeal to all those who may be considering opposing Candidate 6 for actions prior to his last RfA withhold their opposal, and rather evaulate the substantial changes he has made in his personality, conversing style and general editing practices. He who cannot forgive breaks the bridge over which he himself must pass. Think of the benefits to Wikipedia, in conjunction with Candidate 6's improvement, and not any percieved opposal based on occasional misdeeds an age (in Wikitime) ago. We all make mistakes - even the best of us, and I could reference one highly-regarded user whom basically everyone on Wikipedia respects (and no, not Jimbo) - but a blanket statement will suffice, and this blanket statement includes this nomination. Good luck Candidate 6. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T • C ]} 10:05, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Daniel, that statement greatly concerns me. This has nothing to do with grudges and second chances and I don't know why you think otherwise. This is purely about the suitability of the candidate for Adminship. Your statement that we should "not look at the issues brought up at <Candidate 6>'s last RfA" is, frankly, bizarre. There were genuine concerns raised at the last RfA which was only two months ago. The same issues were raised at Candidate 6's first RfA. They weren't resolved by his second and I think it is completely valid to consider whether they have been resolved by his third. If they haven't been, we wouldn't be doing him any favours by giving him the admin bit. Sarah 16:18, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Grudges was probably a bad word...presumtions is more like it. What I mean is don't simply consider the face-value of the opposes in the first and second (because there were some very valid opposes brought up), bur rather judge the improvement, or lack thereof if you believe so, since the second RfA. It appears we misunderstood each other, probably through poor selection of words on my part. The second-last sentence by you - it is completely valid to consider whether they have been resolved by his third - was the point of my little bit of prose; don't judge him on long-ago mistakes (ie. before RfA II), but rather what has happened since. I suspect some people had made up their minds in RfA's I and II to oppose Candidate 6 no matter what for his indiscretions since before RfA II, and this is totally the wrong attitude, and what I want to discourage. Again, sorry for the misunderstanding. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T • C ]} 08:35, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
This could have been stronger, but meh. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:17, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Lame not enough edits joke — Werdna talk 10:23, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - Great experience working with the editor, and although a bit over-zealous sometimes, theres nothing holding me back from support. — Floria L 10:54, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support: I've seen him around in a lot of domains, and he comes across as a very determined, hardworking but fair editor, who could make great use of the admin tools (especially vandal fighting). Fram 10:58, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
This should've came earlier, but there was an edit conflict. Very Large Shivan Support aka. Ultra-Extreme Support; oh yes, he's been very helpful indeed. When Torchic was the Featured Article of the Day, he was almost always the first to respond to vandalism...like how AntiVandalBot would've responded if it wasn't a scripted bot. He's very helpful, civil and follows Wikipedia rules. As I write this comment, I'm checking his Contributions; it is very unnerving to see how many reverts and edits he can make within the space of a minute. Keep this up, good sir! Surely you deserve the mop! You've certainly got the Wikipediholism for it. -- Alt iris Exeunt 11:17, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support fine editor who is always up for helping other people RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:45, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:47, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support looks like he is going to be a great admin and a helpful new member in the admin forces. I'm impressed with his diligence and help in AIV. Changed to Neutral ← ANAS ^Talk? 12:02, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support Terence Ong 12:24, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support per nominators. S .D. ¿п? § 12:38, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - one of those genuine "thought they were already" ones --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:04, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support It would take a load off WP:AIV. Agathoclea 14:24, 17 December 2099 (UTC)changed to oppose Agathoclea 22:49, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
Support -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:39, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cylonhunter (talk • contribs)
User's 17th edit, second edit to an RFA. – Ch acor 14:58, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support Has tons of experience, has proven himself to be dedicated, and seems to know what he wants to do with the tools he will soon be givin. Great work. Gan fon 15:00, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. I opposed the last RfA based on his sometimes-inaccurate reports to AIV. I still don't feel totally comfortable with some reports (UsernameBlocked, for example), but I am letting his other activities overshadow this issue. Nishkid 64 15:24, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Yes, yes, yes a million times over. Candidate 6 is an enormous asset to the project. I wish I had the discipline to do half the amount of work he does. --Slowking Man 15:58, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Weak Support - looking through contributions, I see multiple instances of javascript reversions of things other than simple vandalism. Even if it takes a bit longer, it's a good idea to use edit summaries for anything other than simple vandalism. Engaging someone who is potentially acting in good faith is usually a good idea. Still, though, Candidate 6 is an amazing editor who contributes to administrative tasks and has an obvious use for the tools. Thus, I support. --BigDT 16:02, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Weak Support - heart's in the right place, but watch the newbie biting. ++Lar: t/c 16:18, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
But please be careful — we don't need any overzealous blocks, especially when it comes to new usernames. --Cyde Weys 16:53, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 18:13, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support looks good. Rama's arrow (3:16) 18:34, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Mainly because then he can do his own blocks and stop bugging me--Doc^g 18:50, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Strong Support Candidate 6 incredibly active fighting vandals on and off wiki. I see no good reason to again deny him this promotion. alphachimp 19:53, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support as a quiet observer of good work and two co-nom's can't be all bad. So we've all made mistakes, no-one's perfect. Could always consider being open to recall if it would appease some other opinions? The Rambling Man 19:58, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - This was an easy support, he will use the tools, I trust him not to abuse them on purpose. A few mistakes out of 40,000 edits, so what? We are are all human. :P Candidate 6 has at least 2 times as many edits as I do, I think he has demonstrated his good faith, and lack of malice towards wikipedia. Also, lets not forget these famous words... "Adminship is not a big deal". —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 20:09, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support Kari Hazzard (T | C) 20:39, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support per noms. Yuser31415 21:01, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
dvd rw 21:29, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - per noms, AIV will take a load off. VegaDark 21:42, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Strong support An outstanding, experienced user with very good knowledge of WP's policies.--Hús ö nd 22:14, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Weak support - this user does have some small issues with talk page removal (which I've mentioned to him), and some occasional bite issues. But for gosh sake, no admin candidate will be absolutely perfect, and I'm sure he's learned from the past, and will certainly not try to abuse the tools. Patstuart^talk|edits 22:37, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. SynergeticMaggot 22:44, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support per nom kaiti-sicle 23:04, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support- Excellent edit count with slight problems but "nobody's perfect"! --The preceding comment was signed by Us e r:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 23:19, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Weakish Support I was very neutral, very on-the-fence, very undecided in the last RfA, but there seems to be some real attempts at correcting the errors brought up at that point. I would have liked to see even more improvement, but I can trust this user with the admin tools at this point. AuburnPilot^talk 23:31, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support He'll be a good admin. FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 23:48, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - he's ready now. Khoi khoi 23:56, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Reluctant Support Although he is far from the perfect Wikipedian (he has a sort of Jack Bauer style of dealing with vandalism, which, although effective, is really in violation of WP:BITE), Candidate 6 has done an incredible job with fighting vandalism. His job would be easier if he had admin tools. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:30, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. Besids a rediculous number of edits, he's an asset to vandalfighting. Loses his cool on occasion, but also helps out when needed. I'm willing to look over the once in a while problems because his pluses are far greater.--Wizardman 01:43, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Support I don't think you can really question Candidate 6's good faith and dedication to the project, which are the most important things for me in making a decision at RfA. Certainly some valid concerns have been raised, but beyond lack of rolling out the red carpet for vandals with 4 warnings (which is not an entitlement, contrary to popular belief), I don't see that much to worry about. He's made 40,000+ edits and I'm sure any non-robot would have made a few mistakes, rubbed a few people the wrong way in that time. I see nothing that really makes me think he'd hurt the project as an admin. --W.marsh 02:46, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Oh, if it's obscene vandalism, I just bv them, and other people normally get two...and sometimes three if it was "soft", but I think one is necessary. I don't think anybody is saying he's not acting in good faith, there's nothing wrong about increasing productivity with a few mistakes in the way - we can always undelete etc, and we can unblock if wrong input is put into the block, such as a misdirected block, but this is more that his impatience with vandals, which seems to engender a type of zeal for blocking people. This may spill over into some borderline and wobbly-based blocks on good faith and established editors when things get a bit tense, and usually cause more drama. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:56, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
You make a good point... but I don't believe that being quick to block vandals means someone will make bad blocks of non-vandals. Maybe there's a correlation maybe not, but it just strikes me as an unfair analogy to make. Anyway as you well know we have a proven method of dealing with admins whose blocks do become problematic, I am just saying that I would give Candidate 6 a chance here. Greanted I am not on Arbcom and do not have to deal with the fallout if there is anything (which I do not expect, obviously). --W.marsh 03:07, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Support per above comments. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 03:01, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Strong Support He's well fit for the tools.--KonstableSock 03:07, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Support He'll make a great admin. --Tohru Honda13^{Talk•Sign here} 03:25, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. Michael 03:42, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Turnip Georgewilliamherbert 07:50, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. Long overdue. --Calton | Talk 08:09, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. — CharlotteWebb 08:59, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Strong support. Having an impersonator on several wikipedias (cf. Bobabobabo) means he's cool enough to troll. User:Candidate 6/Impostor list ~Crazytales (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Support WP needs more admins, and he'll be fine. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:35, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Support Diligent and capable. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:17, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. I understand (and to an extent share) opposers' concerns. I hope Candidate 6 will draw his own conclusions (and learn from them). Still, I think he's ripe, and his dedication is definitely an asset to the project. Duja► 21:51, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Support Been looking at this for a couple of days now. There is no doubt Candidate 6 is an excellent vandal fighter. In every instance that I noticed, Candidate 6 posted AIV IP's and editors who definitely needed to be blocked. I prefer to see more mainspace contributions, but I'm not going to fault you for that or for a few minor situations (out of 40,000!) in which you may have not been 100% correct. It's a law of averages, the more one does, the more chance they have of making a rare mistake, and no one should ever expect that an admin will be perfect (though we strive for that of course).--MONGO 22:29, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Support Excellent vandal-fighter, trustworthy, good enough to have the occasional biting (which has improved) overlooked. With 40,000 edits, some amount of mistakes were inevitable. Quendus 22:52, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Strong support: with the understanding that a mop isn't just a stick with a fuzzy end. Candidate 6 knows what it's like to be an editor in need of an admin action, and I believe that he won't forget his non-sysop roots for those that need help. In my opinion, Candidate 6 shows that he can think like an admin, even though he does commit sporadic mistakes (which will hopefully abate), so one last thing: may angry vandal mastadons not let him lose appreciation of how latently important new users are. Gracenotes ^T § 23:20, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Support: So he'll stop bugging the rest of us. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 02:59, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Support Nothing major against that a normal admin doesn't go through in dealing with other people. Candidate 6 would make a fine additional admin. --MECU≈talk 03:11, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Support sure, Candidate 6 would be an asset in weeding out vandalism. I think he's earned our trust, and I trust he won't be too block heavy to start -- Samir धर्म 03:24, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Support as per his work on helping counter the MascotGuy vandal. Although MascotGuy indeed makes good faith edits, it's impossible to communicate with him which makes him a problem. Very few admins only see WP:AGF and refuse to clean up after him or block his sockpuppets, and Candidate 6 will make a welcome addition. Also, it is quite obvious from this and previous nominations that he communicates with other admins. Tuxide 03:41, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Support per good work done, thought with request for a little more caution to be implemented on some occasions. Tyrenius 14:47, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Strong support Candidate 6 reverted my User Page once, and gave some help with an awkward User as well. I was surpised to find out that Candidate 6 wasn't an Administrator. I have seen many of Candidate 6's edits and I believe she/he should be one. Acalamari 19:22, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Support I'm a big fan. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:31, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - I've always found this user reasonable when questioned and willing to discuss his actions. pschemp | talk 00:22, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
Opposes are based almost exclusively on old mistakes and behavioural patterns since changed. Even despite those past mistakes, he's a sterling user and his contributions to Wikipedia are without equal. He will not only be a capable adminstrator, he will be an excellent one. --SB | T 00:43, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
The behavior I am talking about happened in early December 2006. I do not consider that "old" behavior. Tennis expert 05:30, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
As is mentioned higher up, I did what I solely knew about at the time. Checkuser blocks are definitive, and I am sorry that I mistook you for the other editor.—Candidate 6 (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
Given what happened to me, your continuing belief that "Checkuser blocks are definitive" is a very disturbing statement for a user who is seeking to be elevated to administrator. And the apology is long overdue and of questionable timing (unless you have provided one already and I somehow missed it). Tennis expert 06:19, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
As per [1], being civil is the difference between trying to understand what the heck was going on back then (and why checkuser blocks are definitive), versus continuing on about it weeks after the thing. I am only saying this because I am convinced that you still don't understand what happened. Tuxide 07:06, 20 December 2099 (UTC)

I would note that Tennis expert was on the same IP as Cute 1 4 u, as determined by checkuser. It was an administrative error, not a checkuser one, and continuing to baselessly attack the technical feature is harmful to Wikipedia's ability to defend itself from common vandals and trolls. Dmcdevit•t 03:41, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
Yeah, me and probably thousands of others in my area use the same Internet provider, which illustrates the problem with "how Checkuser is used." I don't think anyone claims that the "numbers" Checkuser spits out are inaccurate. The problem is how those numbers are interpreted, and my case illustrates the potential problems with the interpretations and the procedures that are followed. When I said that I am disturbed about the statement "Checkuser blocks are definitive," I was talking about these problems. And one other thing. My concern about Candidate 6 is not directly related to the blocking error you made and for which you apologized, Dmcdevit. I am unable to support his administrator candidacy because of the actions he took "after" I was blocked. I am going to set forth the timeline on the discussion page in the hope that people will not be confused about his role. Tennis expert 08:00, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
He's talking about IP, as in IP address. You're referring to ISP. Hbdragon88 09:46, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
Not necessarily, two users on the same ISP can be assigned the same dynamic IPs, it's not impossible... – Chacor 09:54, 21 December 2099 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad this particular question is finally cleared up because I tried and tried and tried to figure out what Dmcdevit meant when my blocking case was still going on, without success. [2] Tennis expert 10:05, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose with regret per Sarah. I really like Candidate 6 and believe he means well, but there are too many WP:BITE concerns in this case. I would be happy to reconsider after a few months showing a more temperate hand in dealing with alleged vandals who may just be untrained newbies. Change to neutral. I believe Candidate 6 is showing a good temperament in his responses here, but I still have some reservations about offering support to this RfA. Support. After reading Cyde's comments on the talk page, I've decided to change to Support. I believe that Candidate 6 can be trusted to not abuse the extra bit. Everyone makes mistakes, and Candidate 6 has shown significant improvement lately. I believe that he will continue to improve and have fewer and fewer issues with the concerns I expressed before. •••日本穣^{? • Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:31, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. Normally I don't do edit counts, but I reserve the right to ignore my own rule if it's to improve wikipedia. Let's say Candidate 6 is a saint, and only makes 1 mistake per 1000 edits. If people were to point out 40 major, awful mistakes here, I would still be able to support while honestly saying "this dude is a saint". Well... guess what? I don't see 40 mistakes ;-) Also answered my questions about m:Foundations issues and Policy trifecta well. This user is probably not the greatest mediator yet, but he has some good nominatiors. If (s)he hangs out with them and listens to them in that area, Candidate 6 will do fine. --Kim Bruning 07:12, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. Let's not cut our nose off to spite our face, or however the saying goes. —freak(talk) 07:33, Jan. 20, 2099 (UTC)
Strong support. Screw diffs. Everyone has their good and bad days, and Rylong definately has a lot of good days, and good judgement. Stuff like the below is why RFA sucks and needs to be changed. IMO. Jon Harald Søby 10:40, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - I think his net effect is positive. Just take care of the newbie biting — Lost^(talk) 12:45, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
Weak Support The overall contribution of this user has been positive. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:51, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
Strong Support Wow. I've seen Candidate 6 all over Wikipedia, either contributing to AfDs, helping with incidents, helping new users, or contributing to articles (40,000+ edits in 11 months says it all) - •The RSJ• Talk | Sign Here 19:09, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 20:26, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. G.H e 22:39, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:08, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
Support Whole heartedly for his tireless improvements to articles and reverting of vandalism. --BlueSquadronRaven 00:21, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
Support, period. . Tom e r ^talk 01:33, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
Support – A vigorous opponent of vandalism and experienced contributor. Give him the mop. Give him several: he will wear them out, and not through misuse! — mholland 05:03, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - I want to say I believe in Candidate 6's abilities as an editor and that he'd be a boon to Wikipedia, but the reality is I hate him and want to burden him with extra responsibility. Muhahahaha! :) JuJube 05:53, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - can't believe this, I thought he'd been here for years. Deb 11:07, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
Support I encountered the candidate during a dispute. While his statements are not always covered with sugar, he pushes for a fair and expeditious solution. His decisiveness will be an asset as an admin. Alan.ca 19:21, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - I always thought you were an admin already?! Would make a good admin.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:34, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
Strong support, would clearly be a useful admin. --Rory096 19:47, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. It's cliche, but I thought he already was one. Does a lot of great work for the community. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:16, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
Support, I think. I had to think long and hard about this - Candidate 6, you are going to need to accept some of the criticisms here about forming snap judgements and then not being open to change (ha! sez me!) but in the end I am persuaded that the risk is low and outweighed by the benefit of adding an energetic and committed individual to the admin posse. I invoke the No Big Deal clause. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
Strong Turnip per George William Herbert. ST47Talk 21:29, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
This is an important !vote and one that I've agonized about for days. On the one hand, this candidate is clearly dedicated to Wikipedia in general and dealing with vandalism in particular. Given the sheer volume of his vandal-fighting efforts and his intention to concentrate on that area, lack of experience in some other areas, while not optimal, is insufficient to dissuade me from supporting. The more troubling concern is about the risk of BITE problems and blocks with insufficient warning; there is evidence that since his last RfA, the candidate has improved in this area, but not to the level where virtually any of the voters/commenters would want him to be. So one looks for evidence as to whether the candidate now sees what the problem is, and one finds a mixed record. On the one hand, I found the answer he gave to the optional question I added above very satisfactory. On the other hand, yesterday on ANI, there was a report of a new editor who had disambiguated the names of some TV show episodes; Candidate 6 had reported the editor, first to AIV and then to ANI, for blocking because the move was in violation of consensus as found by an ArbCom case decided that day; but the editor in question was new, was not a party to the ArbCom case, had not been warned, and as it turned out had never heard of the consensus discussion or the case; when advised of them, he apologized and said he would study up on policy; had Candidate 6 been an administrator, I am afraid he would have blocked this editor without warning, which would have been a terribly unjust block that could have cost us either a drama or an editor. So an oppose here would be quite easy to justify and the concerns raised below are serious ones. And yet, after all, Candidate 6's vandal-fighting record is a distinguished one, and although it's perhaps not of any long-term significance, I did appreciate his taking the time to give evidence in the Konstable arbitration case, helping to save the committee from issuing a decision that would have contained a palpably false finding of fact. I am going to go out on a limb here and hope that Candidate 6, reading these words, if he becomes an administrator, can and will promise and remember to please, please pause before blocking; remember to assume good faith until the assumption is no longer viable; to consult with others when that is appropriate; and above all, to remember that most editors are here to contribute to the encyclopedia and that the world should not rightly be looked at through vandal-colored glasses. I wish I could !vote for the candidate with fewer reservations, and I hope I don't come to regret this, but ... support. Newyorkbrad 00:38, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
I concur. When the ArbCom was busy not reading a word I said, writing some simply pathetic WP:POST notes about me deciding to leave Wikipedia in a wave of vandalism, and proposing that I be banned for a year, partly because I was allegedly stalking, harassing and even impersonating Candidate 6; Candidate 6 cared enough to drop by a couple of times and point out that they are talking nonsense. And look, the ArbCom made no rulings against me, a large part of that thanks to Candidate 6. While Candidate 6, the alleged target of my "abuse", was sticking up for me, some other established unrelated editors were busy hysterically calling me a troll. He would make a much better admin than most, he makes mistakes, but he is not disregarding them as many admins do, and he is much more civil and responsible than half of the people I had to deal with in the Arbitration incident.--KonstableSock 05:32, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
Support --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 07:18, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
Support -DE SU 11:29, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
Support as like his last RfA Must ^TC 12:07, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
Despite some concerns below, Wikipedia will benefit from Candidate 6 having mop. MaxSem 17:06, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
Support I thought about it more and think he should be admin. Anomo 18:03, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
Support- I thought he already was an admin--SUIT⁴² 19:22, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
Support--Hu12 05:38, 23 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - I've spoken to Candidate 6 about some of the concerns below (particularly reports to AIV with insufficent warnings) and I believe he has dramatically improved in this regard. One thing that I'd like to point out, is that (from personal experience especially) when one has the actual ability to block, one does think about it a lot more. I know prior to my becoming an administrator, I would report vandals to AIV with a lot less thought than I would block them, as you assume the blocking admin will look at their edits closely before blocking (and they/we do). As such, I believe Candidate 6 will be far more restrained in his blocking than he is in his reporting. Regardless, Candidate 6 do you plan to be open to recall? Confirming this may help eliminate some of the opposers' concerns :) Good luck! Glen 05:53, December 23, 2099 (UTC)
I did answer Jaranda's question affirmatively.—Candidate 6 (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2099 (UTC)
Support I feel that Candidate 6 has addressed and improved on the issues raised since his last nomination. I wish that opposers citing the Tennis expert debacle would read Newyorkbrad's statement regarding that. I think that Candidate 6 would make a good admin, although I can't help but wonder if he's hidden a few dead hookers in that massive pile of edits. :)—WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:29, 23 December 2099 (UTC)
OMGWTFBBQSUPPORT holy crap man, with 40,000 edits you should be going for RfB, and hey sure, we all abuse our anti-vandal tools now and then. Can I have some of your edits? T. Kewl the First 11:26, 23 December 2099 (UTC)
Erm, I beg your pardon but, "hey sure, we all abuse our anti-vandal tools now and then"? Was that intended to be a joke, because its a rather worrying comment at face value? WJBscribe ^{-WJB talk-} 12:33, 23 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - no problems here. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 12:38, 23 December 2099 (UTC)
Switch to weak support per the recall promise. That gives us a measure of assurance that we will be able to effectively combat any excesses. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 13:41, 23 December 2099 (UTC)
Support A good editor who could use the tools. | AndonicO ^{Talk • Sign Here} 15:25, 23 December 2099 (UTC)
Support Some of the "oppose" voters make valid points, but Candidate 6 is definitely more of an asset to this project than a liability. WP:AGF. Forgive the expression, but I don't think "trigger happiness" will be a problem in practice. His "admin for recall" pledge is also a sign of good faith. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 15:31, 23 December 2099 (UTC)
'Support - granted, the opposers bring up many points, but many *not all* are slightly specualtive, and there's no way we can say that he will abuse the blocking tool for sure. As he's willing to join "admins open to recall", then it's easy to reign him in *iif* he goes crazy. :) Mart inp23 18:56, 23 December 2099 (UTC)
It disturbs me that you seem to be suggesting that we should promote people to adminship who seem likely to abuse admin tools. —Cuiviénen 00:47, 24 December 2099 (UTC)
I don't see any suggestion we should promote people to adminship who are likely to abuse the tools; there has been no suggestion that Candidate 6 would be likely to abuse the tools, rather, there's a strong suggestion that Candidate 6 may misuse the tools, blocking too early seems to be the main concern. --Kind Regards - Heligo land 01:05, 24 December 2099 (UTC)
Per recall promice if he abuses the tools, he can be recalled and no more adminship for him, I also promiced to admin tutor him to avoid mistakes if his RFA passes Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:09, 24 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - has a particularly good attitude to tracking and destroying sockpuppets of Boaboaoboaoboaboaoboabo or whatever his name is. That alone got my !vote - David Gerard 01:53, 24 December 2099 (UTC)
Support per, inter al., NYBrad and Valentinian, with the provision that I hope that, should this RfA succeed (which, I readily recognize, appears unlikely), Candidate 6 should be exceedingly circumspect, at least for some non-trivial initial period, in his use of the tools in the several areas about his work in which some have expressed concerns; I expect that the tutelage of Jaranda should serve him well in the latter regard. Joe 06:02, 24 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - I feel Candidate 6 is ready and capable of handling adminship. - Mark 06:15, 24 December 2099 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose with regret A fine editor, but often not emollient enough to be a successful admin.--Brownlee 10:10, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Three words - what the hell? – Ch acor 10:15, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
He thinks Candidate 6 doesn't calm other editors down enough (not that Candidate 6 himself isn't calm enough). yandman 10:20, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Erhm, you're opposing him for not being made of vaseline? Or is this a figurative oppose, claiming that he resembles nitroglycerin more than glycerine itself? If so, I don't think that's his fault so much as the fault of the users he plays opposition to. I've never seen him be incivil to anyone who wasn't a blatant troll. --tjstrf talk 10:21, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Weakish Oppose I just have concerns over judgement. For example, removing User:Tennis expert unblock request (diff) after Tennis expert was erroneously labelled a sock-puppet. Denying unblock requests is a task that should be reserved to admins. There is no evidence of Candidate 6 discussing this matter on-wiki before he removed Tennis expert's request. Candidate 6 also tried to delete articles that Tennis expert had worked on (diff) because he was a "banned user". Catchpole 12:18, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Just to clarify here, that was a CheckUser block. Per the block logs, admins are NOT to unblock those users, they are to notify the blocking CheckUser and let them handle it. The CU (dmcdevitt) had already been notified, so Candidate 6 denied the unblock request so that it wouldn't keep coming up in CAT:UNBLOCK, since there was nothing an administrator could do. Just wanted to clear that up for anyone not understanding the context. —bbatsell ¿? 15:40, 17 December 2099 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Comment: I am going to study this RfA further before !voting, but with respect to the specific issue concerning User:Tennis expert, I followed that dispute at the time and it is important to bear in mind that Candidate 6 was relying on a report from a Checkuser that Tennis expert had been confirmed by the checkuser IP evidence to be another in a long series of accounts associated with a particularly problematic banned user. I do not think that a non-checkuser editor should be unduly criticized for relying on the reported checkuser findings. In this instance, the behavioral evidence reflected such a degree of dissimilarity between Tennis expert's contributions and those of the alleged primary account that the Checkuser reviewed his findings, consulted with another Checkuser, and the checkuser finding was overturned. The admins who pushed for a review of the checkuser result, particularly User:Renesis, are to be commended for their open-mindedness and perseverence in this situation. But this was an atypical and extraordinary situation - in fact I cannot think of any other time that this has ever happened - and while apologies were owed to Tennis expert, I don't think Candidate 6 should be opposed for adminship on this basis. Newyorkbrad 15:48, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
~~Weak~~ oppose, changed from weak support, per Catchpole. I agree that Candidate 6 did not make good judgements regarding Tennis expert, and that was concerning - and not even making an effort to listen to those who argued that Tennis expert couldn't possibly be C14u? Hmm... gives me second thoughts. – Ch acor 12:20, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Firm oppose. Candidate 6, would you please care to explain this? Very uncharacteristically effectively gaming the system regarding 3RR. – Ch acor 12:59, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm just being unbelievably dense and can't see it, but what did Candidate 6 do incorrectly there? All he did was confirm a 3RR report. --BigDT 13:59, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Let me quote the relevant statements:
Completely inappropriate behaviour by Candidate 6, as well – [3], [4], [5], using scripts to revert other users. Use the anti-vandalism tool only for the job they are authorised for. Your actions potray that you were trying to induce the other users into breaching WP:3RR and getting blocked. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:05, 14 December 2099 (UTC)
– Ch acor 14:02, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
You can't induce somebody into violating 3RR. Others, including three administrators, also reverted this individual. Candidate 6 shouldn't have used scripts to do it, but one admin in that thread used the rollback button and in all honesty, there wasn't that much more to be said. A copy-paste fork is not the way to undue a contested move. --BigDT 14:30, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
All I knew about that was that the individual showed up in the recent changes channel filling that page with a lot of text. When I saw the name of the page and the content he wrote over, I reverted thinking he had performed a copy-paste move, but I did not find the other page. I know now that I should not have utilized my javascript to deal with that, but after that, I separated myself completely from that thread, and when I revisited it, it was after arbitrator Jayjg had left his comments throughout the report, after which I had contacted Nearly Headless Nick, which can be seen on his talk page, and I also spoke with him privately on IRC about my actions.—Candidate 6 (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2099 (UTC)

Oppose tons and tons of talk page comment removing from this user. Anomo 13:22, 17 December 2099 (UTC) changed vote. Anomo 18:05, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per Chacor and Anomo.--Runcorn 13:29, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
I see little familiarity with process and little edits in process space other than with an automation script. Gnoming is good but there's more to adminning than that. >Radiant< 14:13, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Absolutely, but if this user is an exemplery vandal patroller and spends a considerable time of the day (?) reverting vandalism and making reports to WP:AIV, why not give him the tools?. Maybe he could add himself to Category:Administrators open to recall? — Nearly Headless Nick 14:18, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you're linking to Clown here, except that I recall also opposing Clown for lack of experience (and supporting on a later nom, iirc). I don't believe particularly much in requiring nominees to join AOTR, nor, for that matter, in AOTR itself. >Radiant< 14:31, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
- I'd really like to not see people placing requirements for membership in Category:Administrators open to recall if at all possible, please. ++Lar: t/c 16:18, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Radiant, do I understand you right in that you don't see enough edits by this user without a script? He has 40000 edits, and participates in the noticeboards all the time. Even if only 1/5 of this user's contributions were without the script, it would be 8000 edits. Patstuart^talk|edits 22:37, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
No, I don't see enough edits related to process without a script. In other words I do not see evidence that Candidate 6 is sufficiently familiar with that. >Radiant< 17:04, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Radiant, please don't take this the wrong way - I'm not trying to be rude. But Candidate 6 has 5000 Wikispace edits, including many many AFD's, participation on AN, RFAr, and more, all of which aren't with a script. I must compared this with another user who you just nominated: User:CJLL Wright, who has hardly any Wikispace edits outside of Wikiprojects. If you can explain this discrepency, I'm all for it, but right now, I'm a little baffled by this oppose still. Thanks. Patstuart^talk|edits 04:37, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
No problem. It's not a matter of quantity, but of quality. I'm sure <Candidate 6> has 5k wikispace edits, but I stopped looking after the most recent 2k of them, and most of those are automated. >Radiant< 07:48, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
I get your reasoning... But lets just say 1500 of those 2k are automated. Even then, wouldn't 500 wikispace edits manually be enough experience? Although Candidate 6 has a load of automated edits that completely overwhelm his manual wikispace edits, he still has a substantial amount. It just doesn't seem that much after considering his total edit count. But looking at those 500 within the latest 2000, it seems that he understands the process. Floria L 10:39, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose, especially per the diff mentioned by Chacor. Lectonar 15:16, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose. The issues raised by myself and others at his last RfA, only a couple of months ago, still concern me and I don't feel that enough time has passed for us to be sure that they've been adequately resolved. I'm rather surprised by this RfA as it seems quite fast. And the nominators' statements don't alleviate any of my concerns. To say that Candidate 6 "withdrew himself (from the last RfA) to fix issues which had come up so that he could assure the community he would be a better sysop" is a rather curious spin to put on an RfA that was withdrawn at 27/30/8. The second nominator states, "to give you an idea of how much Wikipedia could benefit from Candidate 6 having the sysop flag, he has over 3,000 edits to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism - imagine how much faster stopping those users would be if we a Candidate 6 with a sysop flag. (He has managed to create a backlog on that page several times)." Unfortunately, one of the concerns raised by several administrators at the previous RfA was that Candidate 6 creates AIV backlogs unnecesarily by listing accounts that should not be listed.I should say that the nominator's statements really don't have anything to do with my oppose, but they certainly don't alleviate my concerns. Sarah 16:18, 17 December 2099 (UTC) I just want to add that on a personal level, I genuinely and sincerely like Candidate 6. Opposing RfAs of people you like is difficult and the suggestion above about opposers holding grudges because they're concerned about long term issues is invalid and inappropriate. Sarah 16:31, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Ah, don't worry. It's just an RfA in the end. Whether Candidate 6 becomes an admin or not, he'll still be here, doing what he does best...I hope. In any case, even if this RfA fails, I believe Candidate 6 will eventually become an admin. With his kind of (good) edit count, that seems very possible. -- Alt iris Exeunt 09:08, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose, with regret. I think his heart is in the right place and his intentions are good, but my experience with the vandals whom he has reported at WP:AIV leaves me dubious. There are some recent patrollers whom you learn to trust: you know that their vandals are well-warned before the report, and that there had been vandalism after a final-warning. I hated doing Candidate 6's reports because steps were skipped so often and test4 or bv given so quickly and easily. I don't want to have to go back now to find diffs to substantiate (sorry), but I have big WP:BITE concerns here. Bucketsofg 16:42, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose Per Sarah. From my experience I have seen Candidate 6 post too many odd users to the WP:AIV. Arjun 18:53, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose - see little or no improvement since last RfA. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:57, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per my concerns in the first RFA and Bucketsofg, I still don't trust him with the block tools, sorry Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:36, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose Regarding the concerns that he is too trigger happy with reporting to AIV, and would presumably be the same with the block button. I didn't need to look too far to find this warning (after which the vandal stopped, having made two edits) and this AIV posting - with both the warning and the posting being made at 10:26pm. TigerShark 20:33, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose Some biting issues still IMO. Use of JS rollback-like summaries for things that are clearly not vandalism, which often leads to unnecessary discussion. For instnace, a revert on AIV [6] spawned this discussion, which could have easily been prevented had the unnecessary text just been removed along with an edit summary. I also notice tendencies to be harsher on good-faith anonymous user edits; i.e. this anon's edit was reverted with rollback [7], while a similar edit that I did [8] [9] had an edit summary (the anon did add rank names, but this should have been explained as with the preference to use redirects over real titles). Ah, and who can forget the revert of my good-faith of a cleanup template that I couldn't spell correctly? [10] Hbdragon88 21:44, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose, per answer to 4. Placing {{Template:db-banned|db-banned]]}} on Tennis performance timeline comparison (women) is a huge guilt-by-assocation misapplication of the intent of CSD G5. There is no need to go through banned user's contribs and start placing db-banned on all of the pages started by that user without consideration of the content of the page. It's easy to see that a lot of good work has gone into that page with no mal intent. I'm concerned what these philosophies mean for Candidate 6 as an admin candidate. -- Renesis (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
"Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion."

—Wikipedia:Banning policy#Enforcement by reverting edits

I don't understand why Candidate 6 should be faulted for acting in accordance with policy. Not that the policy is correct necessarily, but the information he had at the time was that this was a banned user and policy dictates that banned users' edits are reverted and deleted if new pages. Change the policy if you want, but I don't understand why you're opposing someone for knowing our policies and acting in accordance with them. --Nominator3 (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Strong Oppose I am not the most frequent servicer of AIV, but this shows a request for a block without even a token warning. I am sure there are many other things. Combined with the candidate's very high enthusiasm to turn down or remove unblock requests when not an admin, I am not at all comfortable with Candidate 6 having a block button - especially if he gets into a confrontation with an established user and blocks them unilaterally on a grey area. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:41, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
I don't think anybody is saying Candidate 6 is not acting in good faith, there's nothing wrong about increasing productivity with a few mistakes in the way - we can always undelete etc, and we can unblock if wrong input is put into the block, such as a misdirected block, but this is more that his impatience with vandals, which seems to engender a type of zeal for blocking people. This may spill over into some borderline and wobbly-based blocks on good faith and established editors when things get a bit tense, and usually cause more drama. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:56, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Ok, I'll say this. It's standard operating procedure to block those kind of accounts on sight without warning. It's pretty much impossible for someone to be good faith creating an account and going straight to AntiVandalBot's user page and blank it / start calling the bot names. That is one rare care where one just hits Special:Blockip -- Tawker 06:41, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
True, I should have found a better example but only looked at the ones that I remember the most. I still stand by my contention though. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:17, 22 December 2099 (UTC)

Oppose. Sarah Ewart's comments are persuasive, as are Blnguyen's, and so is a look through Candidate 6's user talk contribs. I applaud Candidate 6's energy, but I'm far from confident in his judgement. For reasons already mentioned in the oppose section and in the support one too, the idea of giving Candidate 6 a block button of his very own does not fill me with boundless enthusiasm. And while Doc Glasgow (and the other supporting admins) might have fewer blocks to make, I am concerned that there would be a lot more unblocks for them to do, and all the attendant wikidrama, if Candidate 6 mopped acted like Candidate 6 today. I have to question the wisdom of three RfAs in under a year of editing when essentially the same issues are raised in each, and nothing very much, other than Candidate 6's edit count, seems to change. There's really little point in editors, including supporting ones, offering their views if the candidate simply carries on doing the same unacceptable things. Finally, "administrator status is not a trophy": there is no number of edits, however vast, which can compensate for excessive WP:BITE and the related points raised here and previously. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:03, 18 December 2099 (UTC) switch to no vote. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:36, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
Weak oppose, per the concerns expressed by Bucketsofg and BInguyen. I have great admiration for Candidate 6's hard work and service, but I have concerns about his judgement. Candidate 6 has an admirable work ethic, but he still lets his enthusiasm for vandal-fighting get out of hand too often. Again, an excellent editor, but needs to learn more restraint before being given the mop. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:42, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose I often see him on IRC often poking admins to block this user or that user, which led me to believe he was a bit trigger happy (why wouldn't AIV suffice?). The above evidence unfortunately confirms my suspicions. I'm not comfortable giving him the block button. Gzkn 02:28, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose. You may need the tools, but I just can't support you after User:Tennis expert's incident. I mean, you told him to ask for a review by editing a page when he was blocked! You needed better judgemnt (by going to AN/I). Regardless, one's contributions should not be deleted if they are banned solely becuase of that, they still helped the project. -- Chris is me _(u/c/t) 02:51, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose, per Sarah above, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Candidate 6 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Candidate 6 2. Too happy with the whack-a-mole button for my taste. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:09, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose over concerns with reporting too quickly to WP:AIV and WP:BITE. A couple of recent reports illustrate: [11] reported as "troll account" with no warnings and nothing I see or the removing administrator as trolling [12]. [13] reported for introducing copyvio to article without proper warnings: warned with blank2 and then reported to AIV. While true that copyvio is bad and Candidate 6 removed the report, it concerns me a great deal that Candidate 6 has a block first-type of view. I think that Candidate 6 is a good asset to Wikipedia, but would be very concerned if given the block button. -- Gogo Dodo 09:25, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Regretfully Oppose. I really laud Candidate 6's anti-vandalism efforts, however the diffs provided above give me the impression that he might be a bit over-enthusiastic with the block button and this may lead to, as Blnguyen's says above, "...things getting a bit tense, and usually causing more drama". --Srikeit 10:10, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Reluctant Oppose (switched from support) per diff provided by Chacor and other concerns raised above. I can probably forgive that, but certainly not when it happened four days ago. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 11:49, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose. I opposed last time and haven't seen anything change in his attitude since, particularly in reporting people to WP:AIV that don't need blocking, something where I've been observing Candidate 6's activity over a long period of time. "Imagine how much faster stopping those users would be if we a Candidate 6 with a sysop flag" - that's exactly my fear. I also still see use of speed-reverting tools in content disputes, which even automatically label the reverted, non-vandalistic edit as "vandalism" indelibly in the edit summary (rollback at least uses the neutral "Reverted edits by"). Needs to be more concerned with judgement and less with speed to be trusted with the admin tools. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:30, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose (switched from neutral) per diffs/issues raised by Chacor and Gogo Dodo, and per my previous deep-seated uneasiness about biting, which I now see wasn't just me. Proto::► 14:31, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per Sam Blanning.--Osidge 17:28, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per Sarah Ewart. There remain some valid concerns regarding candidate's judgment. Xoloz 18:13, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Weak Oppose This is one of those noms where you really have to sit back and think. While adminship really is not a big deal (really, it isn't), care still needs to be taken to ensure that any candidate is suited for the extra buttons. This nominee is a very valuable contributor; however, adminship isn't about rewarding good editors. There have simply been too many red (or reddish) flags raised for me to feel comfortable on this one. I also think that if one has failed a second RfA, more than two and a half months is necessary to demonstrate that the concerns raised have been dealt with and that a real change has taken place. Many commentators are concerned that the nominee may not exercise that patience before using the buttons, and rushing to another RfA doesn't dispel those concerns. Agent 86 18:52, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
To be fair, two and a half months is a long time on Wikipedia, though long-term users might not realise it. The mode lifespan is probably one or two edits, and the mean not much higher. My personal 'serial desperate candidate' alarm bells are calibrated to approximately one month between outside nominations (from different people) and three months between self-nominations, and this request has three co-nominators after a two month gap, so my concerns with the nomination lie entirely elsewhere. (Though I do wonder whether co-nomination counts for anything in RfAs, as useful as it was in the Esperanza MfD.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:08, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per Sarah Ewart and others. Recent diffs show continued biting and a block-first reflex. ×Meegs 19:00, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per worries about his comments about images here, and his apparent wish to work with images as an admin. While the user he was talking about was quite off on Wikipedia policy in re. images, Candidate 6's comments (including "Pictures on Wikipedia are not covered by Florida law.", as well as his beliefs about replaceable fair use. Ral315 (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
A bit of context; it was an indecent exposure law that both the user and I were referring to.—Candidate 6 (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Understood. Ral315 (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per history of "cut twice, measure once" above, hoped that after 2nd RfA he'd become more of a "measure twice, cut once" type of person, but I see no evidence of that. Pete.Hurd 22:14, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per Sarah Ewart and Xoloz.--R613vlu 23:01, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose As Agent 86 expressed, this is a sit back and think situation; really what RfA is for. While I've interacted with Candidate 6 quite a bit and defended the user in a couple different situations where he was under attack for upholding policy, I can't support the buttons. Adminship is no big deal, it's just two buttons on the top and Specials: being active. But there is an extra level of responsibility and accountability that go with it that require the utmost courtesy and civility in dealing with problems that come up and an administrator cannot afford impoliteness and brusqueness. Sure, we all have tempers and say things we shouldn't, but as a historical thinker I cannot ignore patterns. I intentionally abstained from the previous 2 RfAs, but I cannot this time. This is the toughest post I've ever made, my only other oppose was Joshbuddy. Teke^(talk) 05:40, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose, with regret. I have to oppose this on the same grounds that I'd oppose my own RFA. Has the best interest of the projects at heart and an amazing vandal fighter but I see too much of my own behaviour patterns in there - too whack-happy in regards to interaction with others, lacking the courtesy and patience required to perform the full range of admin duties. --Larry laptop 12:10, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Strong oppose for the reasons already discussed here about Candidate 6's involvement in the incident concerning my account and the article I authored. Tennis expert 23:30, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose too agressive, has too many edits per day. -Lapinmies 09:53, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
Comment Isn't high edits per day generally considered a good thing for vandal fighters? --tjstrf talk 14:35, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
Good thing for anybody, no? I think there's a fine line between requesting clarification of spurious evaluations like this... and simply feeding trolls. — CharlotteWebb 14:53, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
I just think that performing one edit every 30 seconds during a timespan of 16 hours leaves no time to think about those changes. And if they are mostly made with scripts, then he should start a bot account. -Lapinmies 17:35, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
That may be true, but most of his automated edits are just relating to Vandalism, not actual edits that would require consideration, such as making large changes to an article. He gives it his best to fix articles and put in the correct information. The scripts just make it easier for him to revert edits that are obviously nonsense. Sometimes he uses multiples in a row becuase a certain use went through the random article cycle and vandalism around 50 pages. In turn, Candidate 6 goes back and fixes all of them with a script because fixing 50 cases of plain vandalism would be tedious manually, and doesn't actually require much consideration. Floria L 17:49, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
Comment: I thought it's the quality of the edit and not the quantitiy that matters most. It's better to have 1 edit of adding 100 words than 100 edits of adding a word each time. OhanaUnited 05:37, 24 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose. Newbie biting is a cardinal sin for admins in my view. I'm also bothered by some of his edit summaries, such as calling another editor an idiot [14] or "who the hell wrote this" [15]. Aggressive and confrontational is the wrong approach for admins --JJay 15:42, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
No. I've had only good interactions with Candidate 6 and hope he'll keep up his incredible vandal-whacking effort, but civility problems such as the ones noted by JJay above just kill an RfA as far as I'm concerned. Sandstein 16:30, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per several comments above, especially JJay.--Taxwoman 23:26, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ per the instances of poor judgment. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 02:36, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
Note for closing bureaucrat: at time of voting, user had an account for about 6 days, but approximately 240 edits —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gracenotes (talk • contribs).
Note to whoever wrote this: I also have WMDs - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 21:23, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
Satisfy my curiosity here: what is a WMD in this situation?—Candidate 6 (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose we need prolific contributers like this editor, but I think the admins need to keep cooler than this editor sometimes does. Cool Hand Luke 03:45, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose. My first interaction with Candidate 6 was on IRC, by which I was not impressed. While I understand that IRC is by no means a good indicator of a user's capabilty, it is his attitude that I was suprised by. He seems to take blocking vandals as a joke, and over the last few months I have seen many different cases of this inappropiate behavior and I think civility will be compromised with this attitude. From my understanding of this user, and from the many convincing statements above, the answer is no. --Ali K 07:56, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose changed from #33 support as premature AIV reorting is still an issue. Agathoclea 22:49, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per Blnguyen. Making them feel blindsided just emboldens vandals. 00:14, 22 December 2099 (UTC) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just H (talk • contribs)
Oppose due to demonstrated premature Adminitis and cheering on other sysops after whimsical blocks. A little more AGF is most welcome in an admin. Miltopia 01:08, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose Engaged me and another editor in a very odd revert war the other day out of the blue by repeatedly blanking a page I had been working on ([16] [17] [18]). As that has been my only experience with this editor, I must oppose adminship. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:24, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
Wasn't directly Candidate 6's fault, he was only following another editor. You seemed to have been trying to create an extension of a topic that had already been discussed, and therefore multiple editors were reverting you. Floria L 03:27, 22 December 2099 (UTC)

After looking into the incident, it seems that you were simply trying to create a page that had been merged into another quite a while ago. Although your edition did give more information, it essentially was still part of the topic of Religious antisemitism. The expansions you gave were essentially the same information, just expanded further. That was why multiple editors believed you were disrupting wikipedia by imposing a topic that had already existed. Perhaps you should reconsider this one, as it wasn't exactly Candidate 6's fault. Floria L 03:35, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
There were certainly complexities involved but that's the point; I didn't get the impression that he looked before he leaped. Out of the blue, into the blue, as it were. After I voted I saw that he had already been sheepish about the whole thing and it had already come up — I'm not a regular voter and I honestly just wandered in here and saw his name on the ballot so its bad timing all around. Maybe next time. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:24, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. ~~Yes~~. KazakhPol 04:28, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
Could you please explain which "No" means which sourced objection? Is the stricken "Yes" symbolic of a potential good action performed by this candidate, but one that you reconsidered? Are the "No"s and their appropriate symbolic actions arranged in chronological or order of perceived importance? Have you included any double "No"s (whereby two or more "No"s stand for a single action and thus overlap in purpose), and if so, does this repetition imply emphasis on the specific action, or simply emphasis for show? It is with alacrity that I await for a latent clarification. Gracenotes ^T § 05:36, 22 December 2099 (UTC)

My response to your many queries would have come sooner had you asked me on my talkpage, but now that I have seen your post I will try to answer your questions to the best of my ability. No no has sourced objection because to post the diffs would be a recap of the many previous oppose posts. The stricken yes is symbolic of the idea that I might, in cases of hell freezing over or other significant climate change-events, support this nomination. The nos are listed in chronological order, hence no coming before no and after no. There are no double nos - that would be rude. If you have any more questions for me, I encourage you to post them here or perhaps on a more obscure page, and not on my talkpage, and then get annoyed at a later point when I dont explain. Cheers, KazakhPol 05:25, 23 December 2099 (UTC)
Changed to oppose per Chacor and others. Kncyu38 10:16, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose It's pretty hard to trust an overzealous vandal-fighter with blocking when 6_3&diff=101420031&oldid=101418826 he admits in his RFA that he's misusing JS-rollback and then does it again three days later in a way that actually violates the prod policy. I hope it was because Candidate 6 was unaware of that provision of the policy, rather than that he knowlingly violated it, but neither's good. It's a shame Candidate 6 is so agressive, as I think we could use his help if he were willing to be more conservative in using sysop powers, but history suggests otherwise.--Kchase T 13:58, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
You've got the same link twice. – Chacor 14:07, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
I goofed the copy/paste. Fixed now. Thanks.--Kchase T 15:09, 22 December 2099 (UTC)

Although I've already cast my vote, I have to say I'd oppose any candidate who'd recently reverted someone removing a PROD notice using a speed-reverter, even though the entire point of the notice is that anyone can remove them. I'd be okay if Candidate 6 had just violated some obscure process or policy that he had never heard of, but it says clearly "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced". I really don't think Candidate 6 pays enough attention to detail, preferring simply to go as fast as possible, and this is the sort of thing that could be seriously aggravated if the mistake involved admin tools. This mistake is more serious, in my opinion, than the reason I opposed last time. Plus arguably any prospective admin should know how the three deletion processes work. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:45, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
I believe I had seen mass page blanking by the user when he was either merging or splitting or something, which I originally rolled back, but when I saw what he did, I fixed my mistake. That one, I probably just hit "rollback" from the contributions, and never went back to see what I had done (the changes there were much less evident to the set up I have, so I never thought of going back [AFD tags show up in the RC channel as a massive addition, prods do not, so I was not notified by IRC that I had done something to that degree]).—Candidate 6 (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
Candidate 6, I'm sure there's a reason, but ~~the point is that~~ you go too fast and don't look closely enough to assess the situation. A similar thing happened in the deleted history of Cahoots TV. The article had an ongoing AFD when the author blanked the page, was reverted w/o edit summary by another editor, then the author replaced the page with "deleted" and you rolledback with "JS: Reverted vandalism by Mattmonk412 to last version by Matterfoot". That wasn't vandalism; it's actually a common way that WP:CSD#G7 deletions are done. "When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like nails." Sysops have other tools, but you seem to really like that hammer.--Kchase T 10:39, 23 December 2099 (UTC)

In fairness to you, I should have said that the point changed instead of "the point is", but anyway...Your counter-vandalism record is truly impressive. I've seen mixed AIV reports, so my opp is not entirely based on the isolated rollback diffs.--Kchase T 12:02, 23 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose. I've been sat on the fence for a while on this one and I think Newyorkbrad sums up the dilemma extremely clearly. Unfortunately on considering the same evidence, I reach the opposite conclusion. Candidate 6 has contributed tirelessly to Wikipedia and must be commended for that but I see too much evidence that suggests the oppose votes here and in previous RfAs have not been taken onboard. I feel blocking powers will be used too readily as a result of bad faith assumptions. The likely cost in extra unblock reviews and loss of newbies through biting is simply too high. WJBscribe ^{-WJB talk-} 15:22, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose • I've been giving this RFA a lot of thought since I heard that it was occurring, and I've come to the conclusions that while I do not doubt Candidate 6's tenacity or good intentions, I feel that his knee-jerk reactions, incidents of biting newbies, and sometimes flagrant assumptions of bad faith are something that, on net, probably would lead to more harm to the project than good. I'm sorry <Candidate 6>. It's hard to oppose people you respect greatly. However, I just don't think you can be trusted with the block button. Protection and delete? Sure - but 2/3 is not acceptable in an admin. After a couple months I'd look forward to supporting you, if you can put serious thought into addressing these issues, but right now is too recent after your previous RFA. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:44, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out how contradictory that statement was. His previous RFA was a couple of months ago, and yet you're telling him to apply for another within a couple months, while at the same time insisting that this one is too early from the previous? Floria L 23:06, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
I'm not a math major, but I'm pretty sure that another two months would make it four months since that RFA. More than sufficient time for him to change his attitudes to new users if he is genuine about doing so. Also, I see you've been bothering a number of opposition people. Please don't. Everyone that has a legitimate and respectfully stated opinion should be treated with respect. Racketeering is very unwiki (and in fact, I withdrew from my own RFA when this kind of thing started getting sticky on it.) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:17, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
Sorry, I musunderstood you. My bad. But about the response thing, I've only responded to 2 or 3 opposes I think..... I am neither disrespecting someone's vote or going against it, but just putting in my own say. I believe you are taking this a little out of proportion. Floria L 23:26, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
You are doing so with a fairly argumentative tone, however, and you aren't doing Candidate 6 any favours. I would seriously encourage you to stop making argumentative comments and only reply if you have something important to add and then do so without the tone. RfAs have been sunk before by candidate's and/or their supporters' conduct. Sarah 13:42, 23 December 2099 (UTC)
Point taken, my bad. Floria L 19:42, 23 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose most especially newbie biting [19],[20] or for that matter addressing any editor in that fashion. Just don't see the temperment to be an administrator present yet.--Dakota 22:57, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose I find the arguments of the antis more convincing than those of the supports.--Holdenhurst 23:50, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose There are significant concerns here. — MichaelLinnear 01:52, 23 December 2099 (UTC)
Note to bureaucrat: user has had account for 6 days and made 24 edits to mainspace (edit count); decide as you wish Gracenotes ^T § 02:33, 23 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose - I was leaning towards neutral, but I feel I must oppose this RfA as I do not think Candidate 6 is ready for adminship yet. I have seen Candidate 6 adding users to AIV without warning them. I feel that he does react badly to situations which could prove to be bad in case he misuses his tools. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2099 (UTC)
Continued oppose per my reasoning in the first RFA, thiough not necessarily as strong as then. 30 seconds/edit over 16 hours is bot-throttling speed, not administrative discretion and deliberation. I wish that evidence of being hasty and incivility had not continued, as I think the user would benefit from the tools. Unfortunately I am not convinced that the project would benefit from him having them at this time. -- nae'blis 21:22, 23 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose. Too aggressive in suggesting, and therefore likely in dealing out blocks for minor offenses, sometimes without warning or with insufficient warning. Fighting vandalism is one thing, but there's no need for the scorched earth strategy that Candidate 6 seems to advocate. —Cuiviénen 22:24, 23 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose. I have to agree with those who worry about over-aggression in suggesting blocks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:39, 23 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose Very aggresive on edit summary on some article as DakotaKahn said on above. Daniel5127 <Talk> 04:33, 24 December 2099 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral. Something feels off, but I don't know what. Maybe something to do with all the biting and civility issues raised in the last RFA, which was only just over 2 months ago. Nowhere near enough to make me go for oppose, though. Proto::► 11:31, 17 December 2099 (UTC) Switched to oppose.

Neutral based on this edit war just a day ago. It seems that some of the issues of civility and biting haven't been addressed. Metros232 14:48, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
I commented about my actions there at a thread on WP:ANI that went unnoticed. I explained there that I had done so because Linklizard72 had uploaded unsourced images that had been removed/deleted for the same reasons, and was removing an image, from reasons on the talk page by anonymous editors feel that it was too much of a spoiler, when WP:SPOILER clearly states that neutral and verifiable information should not be removed just because it is a spoiler, which the image (that I had to revert to replace/fix the formatting of as the user removed a bracket in the link) involved was connected to. Merope commented on my talk page, but it did not appear (to me) that he understood me.—Candidate 6 (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Neutral per Chacor... too recent an event. --Majorly 16:36, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Netural per Majorly. Carpet9 03:31, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Neutral. Ryūlóng definitely has the editing experience down, it's just that Chacor and the opposing side does raise a few doubts. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:38, 18 December 2099 (UTC)

Changed to support after much tossing and turning. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:08, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
Neutral. Per Sharkface217's pithy reasoning. I want to support - because this guy is dedicated - but concerns over shotgun approach to anti-vandalism keeps me neutral for now. I'm a little concerned over the premature use of high-level test templates that i've seen brought to AIV, and wonder if the tools would be be used in a similar manner? I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Rockpocket 07:48, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Neutral but 'support at a pinch. I'm not fond of people who are rough on newbies but on the other hand, I think warning people who act like dicks time and again is counterproductive and I deprecate the whole warning system, where a process has become an obstacle, not a help, it seems. Give them a day to think about it; if they want to contribute, they'll be itching to after that break! Yes, this requires a bit more judgement from admins, and I don't have a problem with warnings as such (just being too Byzantine about our requirements when someone is obviously here to cause strife). And I tend to favour adminning users who have contributed a fair bit even if they've occasionally gone wrong, rather than dredging up some incident that they might not be particularly proud of and using it to hang them. Grace Note 07:51, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Neutral changed from support. The diffs provided and the oppose comments above by Sarah and Chacor made me regretfully change my vote. Not too comfortable knowing you might abuse the tools, but still not to the extent of opposing your RfA. Sorry. ← ANAS ^Talk? 14:42, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Neutral - I really want to support this user... Hard working, dedicated and is a valuable asset in wikipedia's effort to combat vandalism. But I gotta say, it would be nice to see a little more respect paid to vandals and trolls. I know that sounds like hippy nonsense, but I think it's important for our public image to treat even the worst that come to this site with respect. (respect is not the same as lenience). ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:14, 19 December 2099 (UTC)