Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/28bytes 2

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

28bytes

Final (128/1/1); Closed as successful by Maxim_(talk) at 14:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

28bytes (talk · contribs) – My fellow Wikipedians, I offer you 28bytes as a candidate for adminship.

I became aware of 28bytes in December of last year when he first ran for adminship. He withdrew the request early, as it was clear he was not going to succeed at the time, but he had a significant amount of support, and from what I read during the RfA it was clear to me that he would make a great admin in the future with some more experience. Well, I feel he now has that experience.

Ever since that RfA I have kept an eye on 28bytes, and I believe he has met my expectations: in the time I’ve known him, I’ve found him to be a helpful, polite, hardworking, and knowledgeable editor. For starters, he is productive in the mainspace, with his work there consisting of adding content and sources, creating new pages, removing vandalism, and generally keeping articles presentable. 28bytes is a good person to interact with, and he seems to be willing to help people out, regardless of the other person’s level of experience: in addition, he is reasonable and listens when people raise concerns on his talk page. He has also not been in any hurry to re-run for adminship, with him being willing to delay the nomination.

28bytes is active at CSD, and in my review of his work there, I found very few mistakes. Finally, he has five userrights: abusefilter, autoreviewer, filemover, reviewer, and rollbacker: with him having abusefilter, which requires quite a bit of trust in itself to be allowed to have (link to the request), he appears to be among the few non-admins with this userright.

I am convinced that 28bytes will make a fine admin if this request succeeds: I hope the community will share the opinions of my fellow nominators and I. Acalamari 16:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Pedro (talk · contribs) I'm delighted to be joining my fellow nominators in supporting this request for a long term user who over the last year has become very engaged in Wikipedia. I first interacted with 28bytes when he wrote the long overdue essay WP:NOTNOTNOW as a useful caution. Despite this forray into WP essays 28bytes is a major content creator - gems such as this referenced, notable and nicely written start class article for example. This is supported with nearly 50% main space edits. On the project side his AIV reports result in blocks, and his speedy deletion requests (around 350) are accurate. 28bytes clearly follows process when it comes to managing poor content. Some other brief bullets / housekeeping;

• Clean block log
• 10 months active editing and even longer overall tenure
• Sensible signature
• Sensible user page

Clearly 28bytes would both use the extra tool set, and will not misuse any extra rights granted - which is fundamentally what it comes down to. Pedro :  Chat  09:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Co-nomination from HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs): I'm not sure there's much I can add that Acalamari and Pedro haven't already covered, So I'll try to keep this brief. I reluctantly opposed last time, but 28bytes has truly distinguished himself in the last 6 months. He is one of only a dozen or so non-admins ever to be trusted with edit filter management (several of whom have since become highly regarded admins), which requires a good bit of technical knowledge and plenty of clue. His content work is impeccable, his project space edits are spot on and he is of the utmost good character. TL;DR? I trust him, and he'd make a damn good admin! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you very much Acalamari, Pedro and HJ; I accept. 28bytes (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I would like to help keep the CSD and AIV backlogs low, close deletion discussions, clean up cut-and-paste moves and help perform history merges when needed. I'd also like to help out at UAA and the refund desk. I've needed admin assistance in the past and have turned to the admins on AN/I and AN for help; I'd like to return the favor and help out other editors who need similar admin assistance in those forums. Earlier in my wiki career I was very active at DYK (31 main page appearances so far); lately I've not been as active there as I used to be, but I am familiar with the processes there and I can help out there in a pinch if needed. Those are the main areas I'm interested in helping with, but I'd be happy to lend a hand in other admin areas as needed too.

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

A: My main areas of interest are retro video games and pop music, and I've created or significantly expanded just under a hundred or so articles on those topics. The recent article creation I'm most proud of is Move Like This, the latest album by The Cars. I've spent a fair amount of time digging up references and helping maintain that article's solid sourcing against the onslaught of enthusiastic fans and well-meaning new editors unfamiliar with our WP:V and WP:NOR policies. Some other article creations I'm proud of include "Funtime (Iggy Pop song)" and "The Little Black Egg"; they're short but well-referenced articles about two highly-covered rock tunes. On the project side, I'm active at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports, where I welcome and help good-faith users whose legitimate edits were stopped by the edit filters, and warn or report to AIV the not-so-good-faith users.

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: My editing experience here has mostly been smooth, but there have been a few stressful situations. In April, a new editor attempted to add an allegation of homophobia, sourced to a forum post, to an article I edit occasionally. I undid the insertion with an explanatory edit summary; the editor readded it without explanation; I removed it again and left a message on the editor's talk page with a link to our reliable source policy. The editor was, I believe, acting in good faith and clearly believed their insertion was well-sourced, so I started a conversation at the BLP noticeboard where I laid out my case. In general, that's how I like to approach conflicts: clearly explain my position, try to understand where the other person is coming from, and if we can't come to an understanding, request outside help. I always keep in mind the possibility that I might be the one in the wrong.

Additional question from Ryan Vesey

4. Out of all of your contributions to Wikipedia, which contribution have you been most proud about?

A: Probably Atari 2600 homebrew, which I created last year. Looking at it again now, I see problems that need to be fixed (the prose is a little clunky, the references could be more diverse) but overall I'm pretty proud of creating that, and of finding an assortment of CC-BY-SA and public domain video game screenshot images to include. It was my first appearance on the mainpage, in the Did You Know section, so I'm a little nostalgic about that, too. My eventual goal is to get the article to GA or FA status, but I admit I have a lot more work to do first. 28bytes (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional questions from Hobit

5. Say there are a handful of reliable sources claiming that a sports team may be moving to a new city (let's say the Foos moving to Chicago). Those sources all cite sources that the reporter believes are reliable but have asked to remain anonymous. Editor A then creates an article on the "Chicago Foos", which covers the information about this potential move. Editor B nominates the article for deletion on the basis of WP:CRYSTAL and while acknowledging the sources are reliable (say the Chicago Sun Times and Tribune as well as WGN), argues that either this event will happen and then be notable or it won't and when then be a WP:NOTNEWS violation. What would be your comment/!vote in such a discussion?

A: Assuming the sources check out, the question then becomes, does this merit a standalone article, or would it be better as part of the existing team's article? Even major sports teams with a rich history don't always get a standalone article, (e.g. Houston Oilers redirects to History of the Tennessee Titans), so I would probably lean towards merging the information to the current team article (keeping the nominated page as a redirect to the appropriate section of the target article). 28bytes (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

6. Say there is a newspaper article on a local plumber in a medium-sized town (100,000 folks). The article describes the plumbers contributions to local non-profits and work with Habitat for Humanity as well as being a role-model for local female tradespeople. A (short) Wikipedia article is written on this person using the article as the sole source without copyright violations etc.). A user has tagged the article as a speedy candidate with WP:CSD#A7. As an admin, what action do you take when you see this?

A: I think this is a good example of an article that "credibly asserts importance" (in this case, a sourced claim that the subject is a significant local figure) but probably does not meet the general notability guidelines. So I would decline the A7 and suggest to the tagger that they take the article to AfD so a wider audience could assess the article's suitability for inclusion. 28bytes (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

6b. Say we have the same article as in 6, but the news (and Wikipedia) article mentions she was once jailed for a few weeks on prostitution charges. Now it's tagged as G10. As an admin, what action do you take when you see this?

A: If the article is essentially the same as the one described in question 6 (a neutral article about a businessperson accurately sourced to a newspaper profile), I don't believe a G10 would be appropriate, so I would decline that as well. However, I would, as an editor, remove the mention of the jail time as a violation of WP:UNDUE, unless there was a really strong argument for keeping it in. WP:BLP offers the guidance to "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to [a person's] notability", and based on the details from the questions I think the presumption has to be that the jail time is not relevant to their notability, so it should stay out, despite having a source to support it. 28bytes (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Hydroxonium

7. Thank you for offering to help with the admin tasks here at Wikipedia. The WMF has said The decline in new contributor growth is the single most serious challenge facing the Wikimedia movement in the year 2011. There was a report in March and another in May that mentioned we are driving away new editors. The talk pages of these reports (talk March, talk May) are filled with comments from editors concerned about these problems. I was just curious to know if you have been following these discussions and/or reports. Thanks.

A: I have been following those discussions. One of the comments that struck me was regarding the delicate balance between recruiting new editors and retaining long-term, experienced editors. It's vital that new editors be integrated into the project, but retaining the expertise and knowledge of established editors is also vital. It's not a zero-sum game, of course; there are ways we can make the project more welcoming to newcomers without negatively affecting the experience of established editors. One of the obvious things that drives away newcomers, mentioned by many people in the talk page discussions, is the inevitably unpleasant experience of writing an article and seeing it get deleted. Obviously the solution isn't to stop deleting articles; we can't just toss the notability guidelines because deletion is unpleasant. But one of the ideas that I saw and found appealing was a greater emphasis on "speedy userfying." If the CSD criteria are so complex (and they are) that many long-term, established editors still struggle with them, how is a newcomer who has not read any policy expected to know whether their great idea for an article will survive? I think adjusting the NPP process to support userfying of good-faith article attempts (disallowing things like attack pages and copyright violations, of course) might have a significant positive impact on new editors who want to do things the right way, but just aren't there yet in terms of understanding core policies and guidelines like WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:N. Being able to play around with their newly created article in userspace without the immediate time pressure to immediately source it and prove its importance may be just the kind of thing to help a newcomer ease into an understanding of the way things are done here rather than being forced to read and comprehend all our policies right off the bat. There are other good ideas I've seen, particularly in terms of making the MediaWiki interface itself friendlier, that could also help lower the barrier of entry to people who might be knowledgeable in a certain encyclopedic field, but not especially computer-savvy. For example, does moving a PD image to Commons really have to involve as many steps as it does? I could go on, but I kind of already have, so I'll close with that. 28bytes (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Malleus Fatuorum

8. What's your view on WP:Civility? Do you, like many others, think that it only applies to those you don't like?

A: First off, I don't believe in civility blocks, for two reasons. First, WP:Civility#Blocking for incivility clearly says "Editors are generally not blocked for minor incivility." Well, editors are blocked for minor incivility, of course, so I take this sentence to mean that the civility policy says editors shouldn't be. It's entirely possible to agree with the idea that we should be civil to one another (as I do) and think civility blocks are a bad idea (as I also do.) Second, as you are no doubt aware, a civility block is seldom productive, even if it were mandated by policy, which it isn't. Frankly, the best response to an uncivil comment, in my opinion, is to ignore the uncivil aspect and focus on the content of the comment. Or, in the case of comments that are uncivil and don't have any particularly useful content, ignore them entirely. (Which, of course, is one of the things the much-debated civility policy actually recommends: "Consider too the option of ignoring isolated examples of incivility, and simply moving forward with the content issue.") I stand by the statement I made a while back in response to an AN/I complaint someone lodged against you for using naughty language: "Not every f-bomb has to have its own AN/I thread." Indeed, not every f-bomb needs any attention paid to it whatsoever. Now, personal attacks are another matter, and if someone calls another editor a racial slur or a sexist epithet or a fucking idiot, then we've moved into WP:NPA territory, and I've got no problem whatsoever with an NPA block. But all that aside, I try to live by this principle. I don't always succeed, but I think if everyone (myself included) tried a little harder to follow it, things would go much more smoothly for everyone. 28bytes (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Keepscases

9. Please click on Random Article, then come back and explain how the subject of that article has most influenced your life.

A: First click of Random Article gives me 2009 in sumo. I can say, with all honesty, that if any of the wrestlers listed on that page have influenced my life in some way, I am unaware of it. Ditto the second click. Actually, ten clicks into it and I haven't found any conscious influences. There's probably a lesson in there someplace. 28bytes (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Σ

10. What is your opinion on this user's block?

A: Different admins have different approaches on how to deal with vandalism-only accounts. Indeffing after one edit is obviously one extreme; on the other extreme, I've seen AIV reports declined for VOAs that have received first, second and third – but not fourth/"final" – warnings. Unless there are other aggravating circumstances (for example, the account is obviously a sock or part of a coordinated attack making the same sorts of edits, or the username itself makes it clear the intent is only to vandalize, etc.), I would typically warn before blocking. However, if it's clear the warnings aren't being heeded and the account is only being used to vandalize, I don't think it's necessary to step through all four levels. The guidance offered by Wikipedia:Vandalism-only account is quite sensible, in my opinion. 28bytes (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/28bytes
• Requests for adminship/28bytes 2

• Links for 28bytes: 28bytes (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for 28bytes can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Stats on talk. —GFOLEY FOUR— 14:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. As co-nominator. Pedro :  Chat  14:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
2. Pedro lays out the facts well, and I largely agree with him. While it doesn't nowadays, it should come down to having use for the tools, and being a net positive with the tools. Everything looks good to me. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 14:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
3. Support no problems here, success! TBloemink (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
4. Support Certainly. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
5. (edit conflict) Support Per last time. Regards SoWhy 14:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
6. Support, per solid reports at AIV and professional response to his last RFA. Seems to be a good contributor who is measured in his approach and responsive to feedback. Kuru (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
7. Support. Very easy decision. Opposes from last time were pretty much down to lack of experience based on relatively short recent tenure (though I was going to support based on the quality of work, but I was too late). Now, six months on, 28bytes has got a lot of very good experience, with high quality work in a number of areas - including helping with newcomers, which I think can be very difficult but is very much needed here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
8. Support He is an editor with the knowledge and experience required of an administrator. He clearly shows a knowledge of Wikipedia policy and a desire to improve Wikipedia. This can be seen in his created and improved articles and also in his track record of CSD's. Ryan Vesey (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
9. Support, I have no concerns.--Atlan (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
10. Support. I was looking at 28Bytes just a couple of days ago with the intention of asking him if he would like to run again. I found that not only one, but three nominators had beaten me to it! There's not much more that I can add to those, except that I fully endorse them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
11. Support - From what I've seen of his contributions, I have to agree that he'll make an excellent admin. —DoRD (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
12. Support. Has a tonne of clue; will use the mop well. Jenks24 (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
13. Support Best of luck to you in your future role as admin.—Soap— 15:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
14. Happy to add my support here. While agreeing with what the noms have already said, I would add that 28bytes has the valuable skill of being able to reduce drama levels when entering into a contentious discussion, bringing more "light" than "heat", as they say. 28bytes will make a fine admin. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
15. Your input at WP:AN/I and similar venues seems sensible, reasonably mature, and aimed at resolving rather than escalating conflict. Those qualities are increasingly in short supply, so I'm happy to support. I also trust HJMitchell's judgment, and the fact that he swung from opposing your previous RfA to nominating you this time around makes me more confident about this. I think you'll be a credit to the project as an admin. Make us proud. :) MastCell ^Talk 16:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
16. Support: As my mentor, 28bytes always knows the right thing to do.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

    Once said that "we non-admins tend to get in the way" - I wonder how he plans to change that when he is sysopped tommorow.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

17. Support Long overdue, should have passed last time. AD 16:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
18. Support  Frank  |  talk  16:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
19. Support With that set of nominators, is there any real question? Add to that the work done on the edit filter alone, and we get an outstanding level of gorm. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
20. Support. High praise indeed, looking at both your nomination and your nominators. I see nothing to indicate that you'd be anything other than a fine admin. Good luck. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
21. Support Looks like a great candidate, see no reason why not. Monty₈₄₅ 17:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
22. Support From answers to questions above, a brief contributions review, and (rapidly-declining) memory, appears clueful. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
23. Support Proven asset with many great attributes, as mentioned above. Calmer Waters 17:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
24. HJ, Pedro and Acalamari. wow. There is little that could be said to persuade me that 28bites would not be a net positive as an admin --Guerillero | My Talk 17:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
25. Well-rounded and trusted candidate. 28bytes is a quick learner and a clueful individual. His numerous DYK submissions are generally well-written and the decision to give him abusefilter rights several months ago only indicates that 28bytes is considered an asset to the project. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
26. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
27. (edit conflict) Support – I've noticed some of 28bytes' work around here, and it has been exemplary. There is no reason why he shouldn't gain the mop. —mc10 (t/c) 17:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
28. Support. Easy one this. Catfish Jim (ex-soapdish) 17:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

    Yes, please. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC) moved to oppose

29. Support What, not an admin already???? --JaGa^talk 17:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
30. Risker (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
31. Support. Rather limited content creation, but otherwise a good candidate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
32. Support though I disagree in part with answer to 6b. Solid answers, great history and I've seen this editor in many places showing a solid clue. Hobit (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
33. Support Based on personal interactions, I am fully confident with this candidate and agree with the trident nomination. My76Strat ^talk 18:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
34. Support. Experienced editor, with no obvious problems. AGK [•] 18:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
35. Experienced, trustworthy, and a solid candidate. ceranthor 18:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
36. Support The candidate has spent the last 6 months addressing the concerns articulated in the oppose/neutral sections of the December 2010 RfA. He has gained the needed experience; in fact, he has truly distinguished himself in many ways.--Hokeman (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
37. Support - Finally! 28bytes has the patience and knowledge of policy needed to be successful as an administrator. I can't think of a better candidate at this time. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
38. Support - I have every confidence in 28bytes. I've seen his participation in a number of Wikipedia space areas and he has shown good reasoning and knowledge of policy. There has been enough article work that I feel he has competence in that area, and the answers to questions above are superb. -- Atama頭 19:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
39. I would have supported last time. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
40. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
41. Yes, please. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
42. Support. A candidate with whom I'm very familiar, and who is outstandingly well qualified. As a variation on the "what, not one already?" cliché, I have to admit that I came here thinking "what, another reconfirmation RfA?". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

    Support As per all other comments. L'etats C'est Moi (I Am The State) (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC) User has been blocked as a sock. !Vote indented. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 02:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

    That's helpful. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 19:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

    So was that. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

43. Yes of course. I should have supported the first time. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
44. Support. Courteous, clueful editor. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
45. Support. I often see this user's name on my watchlist, working hard and doing sensible things. --Orlady (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
46. Support. I see no problems.James500 (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
47. Weak support - I previously was neutral when I wrote

    I applaud & enjoy the work on the band Yes but I would like this editor to gain more experience writing expository paragraphs rather than stringing together citations and adding blue links. It is prudent that the candidate has not declared an intention to herd content-editors, who spook easy and are prone to stampedes.

    which I hid upon switching to support. However, it was referenced by TCO (next), so now I redisplay it (15:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)). Why my change? I happened upon intelligent, clear, and useful comments by this editor at a few pages, which merit even greater respect. Weak: On the other hand, I find yesterday's gratuitous insult and its foot-dragging redaction disturbing, particularly coming from the candidate at this RfA. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

    I agree, it was gratuitous. I have offered an apology for it. 28bytes (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

48. With advice. I liked the research you did on the fellow who had the 10 un-reffed stubs. I do urge you to continue developing your written work here, as KW advises. It will give you a deeper feel for what the place is about (our readers, not our users). Think about how Wiki compares to your averge newspaper, book, magazine, etc. Not at all expecting you to turn into Malleus Wehwalt, but just keep developing basic writing. This is somethink most people have to have in the work world and in school anyway, so not a strange activity. Also even if moderation/mop activities are more "fun", I think it is good to have some closeness to what the project is really about.TCO (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks TCO, that's good advice. Tools or no tools, writing is what brought me here, and I have no intention of abandoning that side of things. I don't know whether I'll ever develop into an FA-level writer, but I do intend to continue working to improve my writings skills as best I can. 28bytes (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

    Malleus Wehwalt? cf Frankenstein's monster! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

    I thought that RfA was a venue for abusing the candidate and any opposers, not random editors. Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

    Malleus Wehwalt is probably not a random editor. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

    It is nevertheless a random insult. Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

    I withdraw that comment, with an explanation to Malleus that I genuinely find it funny to conflate Malleus with, of all people, Wehwalt, given the things I have seen the two of you saying about one another, with apologies to both Malleus and Wehwalt that my comment could have been construed otherwise, and with apologies to 28bytes for having created a distraction from what should have been going on at this RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

49. Support Thought he was one already, he does a lot of good work around here and I have no doubt he'll do a good job as an admin. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
50. Support Candidate does some fine work and would make a fine admin. With all the admin support so far, what could go wrong?  ;)   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
51. As a nominator! Acalamari 21:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

    Tsk. Late on parade. :) Pedro :  Chat  21:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

    I spent all day trying to think of a great rationale to support 28bytes to agree with what the nominators were saying, but then, I remembered... Acalamari 21:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

    You clown!!! Go and stand in the corner. (it's OK, folks, we are friends)--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

52. I actually thought 28Bytes had already been granted adminship, so my initial presumption was that this must be a reconfirmation RfA. In any case, I've seen his name around and I've generally approved of what I saw. Should do fine. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
53. Strong support - Noms said it all. (How on earth did I end up as number 54?) Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
54. Support Absolutely support, particularly given the nominators. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 22:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
55. Support Looks good. Dlohcierekim 23:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
56. Yep :) Airplaneman ✈ 23:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
57. Strong Support. I caught wind of your nomination this past week and spent some time reviewing your editing background and contributions to the project. I honestly don't think I've ever been more confident to support an editor for adminship. Thanks for coming back and throwing your hat in the ring a second time. Cind.amuse 00:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
58. Support, though I'd really like to see the user extend into at least megabytes. 28 is a very low number of bytes to work with. --John (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
59. Support from this random editor. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
60. Support This is headed for 200 yesses SOXROX (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
61. Strong support He will do great with the tools. WayneSlam 01:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
62. Support no concerns. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
63. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
64. Support Absolutely, especially with co-noms from Pedro and HJ.--v/r - TP 01:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
65. Support Definitely! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
66. Good work at DYK; assembling sets is often a thankless task. Shubinator (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
67. Support. MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
68. Support - 28bytes easily qualifies for the admin bit. He conducts himself with dignity and respect, is active in many operational areas of the project and has an excellent understanding of our policies and guidelines. He's also an outstanding content contributor and thoroughly understands our founding pillars and how they relate to article content. In addition, he's familiar with the technical aspects of Wikipedia's operations, understands regular expressions used in the operation of our edit filter and is in fact one of our few edit filter managers. He also runs a bot to clean up accidental edits made in article space. We are lucky to have such an experienced person willing to help with our operations. 28bytes will be a superb addition to our admin corps and I welcome his help in the administrative areas of the project. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 05:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
69. Support Check of last month of talk/project space contribs confirms exactly what I've always known: a scholar and a gentleman! Danger (talk) 06:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
70. Support yes please. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
71. Support I've seen 28bytes around, my interactions with him have been limited but he's always shown competence and he's got the experience and he'd certainly make a good admin. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 6:23pm • 08:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
72. Support Seems like a good candidate for the Mop Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 08:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
73. Support; I'm quite sure that 28bytes is competent, hardworking, and can be trusted with the mop. bobrayner (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
74. Support I've always been impressed. Still has my support - plenty of clue. Royalbroil 11:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
75. Support - answers are highly clueful, attitude great. And, of course, that triple nom...can't beat that! PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 13:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
76. Support Keepscases (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
77. The only areas I have interacted with 28bytes in are the project talk space, and RfA. My impression has been that the user is civil and thoughtful, albeit I have found the user's persistence over-the-top on a few occasions (I freely admit that I'm no better mind!). A couple of the co-noms, while excellent editors themselves, set a relatively low bar for adminship – occasionally too low in my opinion, for a system that makes adminship nigh-on irrevocable. I definitely wouldn't have opposed over either of those things, but both caused me to have a good look. Through a combination of reviewing contributions in mainspace and project space, no concerns over tagging, the intention to work in areas well-suited to the user's editing habits, and in particular the insightful answers to the optional questions, I am in no doubt that 28bytes will be a net positive. —WFC— 18:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

    As no doubt one of the nominators you refer to (and I freely confess I have a fairly low bar to supporting - although less so to nominating I might add...) I appreciate you taking time to do a thorough review before offering your support to the candidate. Pedro :  Chat  21:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

78. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
79. Support Any user who edits 200 + a month is highly active in my book. Full support this time Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
80. Samir 19:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
81. Support The nominators and several editors whom I highly respect (but will refrain from naming) make strong arguments that heavily outweigh anything I've seen in the opposition. <joke> Although I'm weary of bytes that come in quantities not in base 2 </joke> Sven Manguard Wha? 21:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

    Just pretend there's a 1 in front of it. 28bytes (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

    Will do sir. Also, is it too early to congratulate you on a successful RfA? If not, "First!". Sven Manguard Wha? 06:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

    Actually, I congratulated him in private two days ago. So you're "second." Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

    Pics or it didn't happen... :D Sven Manguard Wha? 19:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

82. (ec2)Support seen him around, and liked what I saw. And he has a competent nominator. Will be a good admin. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
83. SupportGreat candidate. —Croisés Majestic ^{(sur nous mars)} 21:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
84. Support. Nominator and co-nominator's statement looks good. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 00:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
85. Support. It's about time. Swarm ^X 02:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
86. Support: Answers to questions are sound. Recent edits look good. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
87. Support-Editing Duran Duran should be a reason to refuse support, but I'll overlook it since some people I trust are in support. Seems to be a good person around drama-central, aka ANI. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
88. Strong support - frequently seen around, confident this user will make an excellent admin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
89. Support. Has clue, good communicator, and will clearly be a net benefit. In fact, all other things being equal, I find an admin candidate with a yearlong burst of significant activity more reassuring when he has a "long thin tail" of contributions for several years beforehand, than if he came from nowhere and leapt into hundreds of edits per month right away. Lessens the likelihood that he's in a huge big hurry to become a Big WikiCheese - and will help him bring a longer-term perspective to the evolution of community expectations than deep involvement in the last 3 WP:AN scandals... Martinp (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
90. Support - absolutely without a doubt! Orphan Wiki 11:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
91. Support has some content work under his belt, which helps. Good chance of being a net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
92. Support No problems here for me. Peridon (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
93. T. Canens (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
94. Good CSD tagging, even some suitably unhasty A3s which are frequently the undoing of RFA candidates. ϢereSpielChequers 13:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
95. Support after a review of contributions, questions. --joe decker^{talk to me} 14:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
96. Support no major concerns Jebus989^✰ 15:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
97. Support per Fastily. Agathoclea (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
98. Support Everything I can see fine. Doh5678 Talk 18:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
99. Support a great admin candidate. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
100. Support my interactions with this editor convince me that he is clueful, level-headed, and an ideal admin candidate. Kansan (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
101. Support. No problems, thought you already had the mop. - JuneGloom Talk 21:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
102. Support Cheers! Feedintm (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
103. Support -- I've seen 28bytes here and there, and I have no doubt that he'll be a net positive to the project. Nolelover^{Talk·Contribs} 22:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
104. Definitely. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
105. Support again.--Chaser (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
106. Support - Too few admins currently. Monterey Bay (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

     Ha, that's not a comment I usually see. Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

     Not since DougsTech was blocked, anyway. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

107. Support 28bytes has always been pleasant to work with and shows a great deal of maturity. The Interior (Talk) 03:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
108. Support great contributions to article space. varied experiences. won't mess up with the janitorial duties. --Visik (Chinwag Podium) 04:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
109. Support competent, dedicated and calm editor. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
110. Support Per nom...Modernist (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
111. Support—polite, level-headed and clueful. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 16:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
112. Support Why not? No red flags that I see.--White Shadows ^{Stuck in square one} 23:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
113. Strong Support I'm thoroughly impressed by your answers to all the questions. Minima© (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
114. Belatedly! I was waiting to be #100, but I see I was beaten to it. 14 times! That's what I get when I take a couple of days off! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
115. Secret ^account 16:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
116. Late to the party I am, he'll be fine. Courcelles 21:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
117. Yes  7  23:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
118. Go for it. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
119. Support Great contributor, qualified editor. No problems here.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
120. Support, questions 8 and 10 had good answers. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 06:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
121. Support Most definitely! Bejinhan talks 06:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
122. Support - Everything looks good to me. GB fan (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
123. Strong support Baseball Watcher 16:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
124. Support 28bytes is a solid candidate, with a broad array of quality contributions to both the article improvement and the project maintenance arenas of Wikipedia. His answers to the questions all seem to be sensible, particularly the answers to Q5, Q6, and Q8. Having so many edits to ANI (over 200) can be suspect. However, 28bytes comments on that noticeboard appear to be generally constructive and helpful; I'm confident that he's not a drama-monger. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
125. Support Normally for a support there is something to be said about previous bad actions by the user, here I can only say support.  Adwiii  Talk  18:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
126. Support. I'm a bit bothered by the answer to question 10, because an indef-block of an IP over a single bit of garden-variety vandalism is usually a very bad idea, but the candidate's general approach is typically well thought out. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

     I'm sorry , this has me a little confised. Q10 doesn't mention IP's at all - just registered accounts. You're clearly right - IP's are never indef-blocked for vandalism - but I can't see where 28bytes says he will do that..? Pedro :  Chat  20:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

     No, I'm the one who's confused. I had a different tab open -- I'd left open the tab for a block notice regarding an IP user I'd filed on yesterday that I was following up on -- and somehow got the two account IDs confused in my head. I screwed that up; sorry about that, particularly to the candidate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

     No worries, happy to clarify. 28bytes (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

127. Support. Good contributor, see no issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
128. Support. Very trustworthy. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 10:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose, on the basis of the candidate's lack of response to this. That the candidate has shown some willingness to try and write something since the last RfA is commendable, but the lack of respect for those who didn't have to be pushed into contributing content leaves a bad taste. Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Tryptofish was just joking and didn't mean any harm by his comment. If anything, I'd call that a compliment for your work as a tireless content creator. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Was this oppose meant as a joke? I can't find anything wrong with the comment. Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've responded to Malleus on his talk page, and I respectfully request anyone tempted to join in arguing with him refrain from doing so. I respect him as an editor and don't want a huge pile-on here against either him or me, if at all possible. 28bytes (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Stepping away Ryan Vesey (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Oppose - (updated) I've updated this oppose because after review it seems my earlier tone was harsher than I intended it to be. I only object on the grounds of the relatively short active tenure. If you discount the earlier edits that were summarily rejected before, this is largely a 1 year account, asking for adminship. I would like to see more, but this is not based on anything specific to 28bytes. Shadowjams (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

   Comment 28 Bytes has nine consecutive months of active, high quality editing.Of the first 28 successful RfAs from 2011, the median length of active editing is 9 months, with a mean of 12. 28 bytes has a longer active history than 13 of 2011's successful RfAs. Catfish Jim (ex-soapdish) 12:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

   28bytes' edit stats are by no means rare at all for a successful RfA, even in recent times. Fastily !votes on every RfA and he doesn't often get it wrong. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

   It would help if he explained why he was 'right' a bit more often though... —WFC— 18:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

   Presumably the explanation is User:Fastily/RfA_Rationale. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

   Oppose after his actions here. I really don't like Malleus' opposing argument, but I see no reason why the candidate should proceed to go and pester the user about the comment, when it is on his own RfA. His own post boarders on an attack, which is ironic since he mentions Malleus' "daily incivility" in it. I don't particularly like seeing people arguing with opposers in this manner, and since this request is going to pass anyways, I oppose. Adminship is no big deal, but if you can't get along with the people who you don't like, then it just might not be right for you. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

   I like Malleus just fine, and as far as I'm aware that's the only time I've had an argument with him. But you're right, my comment was harsh, and I have apologized to him for it. 28bytes (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) 28bytes clearly says that he has a ton of respect for Malleus, so I'm not sure where you're getting the "if you can't get along with the people who you don't like" part from. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

   I don't have a problem with 28bytes over this episode so I don't see why anyone else should. As a gesture of good faith I'm going to withdraw my oppose, not that it'll make any difference to the result but it may help cool things down. In any event, it wasn't 28bytes who made the triggering comment. Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

   I'm very happy that Malleus decided to withdraw it. As the person who did make the triggering comment, I feel very strongly that it should not be taken to reflect on 28bytes. Let me also point out, because it might not be clear to those who haven't followed the edit history, that 28bytes struck out the part of the comment to which Ajraddatz refers very soon after making it; the rest of the comment was struck later. Also, I think it was quite appropriate for 28bytes to try to discuss the matter at Malleus' talk, rather than ganging up on an oppose !vote within the RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

   God bless us, every one.  :-)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

   Heh. Anyway, Tryptofish, I appreciate the defense, but it's my comment Ajraddatz's taking issue with, and I can't blame him, since he's right. Anyway, it's fine. Malleus and I are good, and I've got no hard feelings towards you, Ajraddatz, Kiefer, or anyone else. I've learned my lesson. 28bytes (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

   I see Tryptofish... so if I go and put a very inflammatory comment on your talk page, then proceed to strike it afterwards, it's all good? And you call it appropriate to go and post a comment which, as I said, was just short of being insulting on an opposer's talk page? Regardless of that, as I replied to 28bytes on my talk page, I only oppose because I feel that it is important that he doesn't do this sort of thing again, which I doubt he will. Good day to you. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

   You are always welcome at my talk page. And what really matters can be seen at Malleus' and Ajraddatz's talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - I don't really know what to think here. 28bytes seems really good, with lots of good DYKs and content creation, his edits seem fine, with vandalism reversals and things, been here since 2006; but I think he would be a great admin if he came back in a bit after doing some broader content work. Rcsprinter (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

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