Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/78.26

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

78.26[edit]

Final (154/1/0); Closed as successful by Maxim(talk) at 15:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination[edit]

78.26 (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, please allow me to present 78.26! 78.26 is a hard working editor who's been around a while, focussed primarily in the article space, working away to make our broader music articles better. He has over a hundred music articles, which from a spot check appear to be well written. On top of that, 78.26 spends time helping out at Articles for Creation, leading to a healthy looking CSD log, and good work at AIV and UAA. As I'm sure you know, we can always do with more help in places like that!

More importantly, I believe his interactions show him to have the right temperament to be an admin. He doesn't get hot under the collar, is willing to discuss and collaborate. He's helpful to new users and talks a lot of sense when he's in the meta areas of the encyclopedia. Really, that's what I want to see in an administrator, and I'm proud to nominate him to be an administrator. WormTT(talk) 12:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Mr. Stradivarius[edit]

It gives me great pleasure to present to you the second numerical RfA candidate this week: 78.26. I have seen 78.26 in many places around the project, and I had always assumed that his username was the start of an IP address. But on checking his user page, I find that it is actually a reference to the speed of phonograph records. Who knew?

78.26 is no stranger to writing content, and can often be seen contributing to articles on music and musicians. He got Elmo Tanner to GA status, and he has created an impressive 133 articles, 37 of which have been featured at DYK. (He has 44 DYKs in total.) As seems to be a trend with recent candidates, he is also a frequent participant at AfC, with 2,403 edits using the AfC tool.

As he says on his user page, 78.26 takes part in a wide variety of wiki-tasks. He is a recent-changes patroller of the old school, doing all his work with Twinkle (he has amassed 8,672 edits using the tool). Perhaps as a result, his edit summaries are often more informative than those who patrol with Huggle and other similar tools. He has a very respectable CSD log; it has 254 entries, despite only stretching back to February. And while he says below that he won't be closing AfD discussions as an admin, he has participated in 224 of them, and his AfD comments show that he knows the notability guidelines well and that he is good at explaining his decisions. I wouldn't have any concerns at all about him branching out into this area should he choose to.

When I have seen him 78.26's comments around Wikipedia I have always found him to be knowledgeable and considerate. This impression has been strengthened after looking through his talk page archives. I see an editor who is willing to go the extra mile to help new editors and to explain his actions when people have questions. I think this will stand him in very good stead should he be given the admin tools. I have every confidence that 78.26 will make a great admin, and I hope that other editors will agree. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I was bored in primary school. What I did with my free time was read the encyclopedia, all volumes, cover to cover. Mind you, this was a 26-volume encyclopedia for beginning readers, but then I moved on to World Book. No, I didn't read it cover-to-cover, but I read a lot of interesting articles and learned enough that I barely had to study up through the end of high-school. (College, however, was a reality check!...) Volunteering at Wikipedia has been a joy and a blessing. I get to feed the inner information junkie, and actually research and write things that (some) people actually read. Plus sometimes I get to work with other interesting, diverse individuals whose experiences are often vastly different than my own, who often are smarter and wiser than I will ever be. I'd like to state a few things not found in the standard three questions, but which are almost certainly pertinent. I have never edited at Wikipedia under any account other than this one. Yes, I made a handful (fewer than 20) of edits as an IP before I fell in love with this place. They were not vandalism. Yes, I have made a few accidental edits while logged out, but I did not request them to be revdeleted. No, I don't think I could point anyone to them even if I tried. Yes, I realize my user name is a bit... unusual. Yes, I realize it might not be optimal to a new user I'm trying to help. Yes, I also realize it could be disruptive to the broader community to change it at this late date. If the community comes to a consensus that I should change my user name if I become an admin, I will abide by that consensus without reservation. I am grateful to my nominators for the trust placed in me, and those who encouraged me to run. I am therefore humbly asking that this community, based on my tenure and edit history, likewise place trust that I won't break the place, and grant me extra tools that I may serve it better. I accept the nomination. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 am asking for the ability to block those editors who are intentionally and repeatedly disrupting the encyclopedia. My work in this regard would take two forms: those I notice while on watchlist and recent-changes patrol, and also to help out at WP:AIV. Usually at AIV requests are handled in a timely manner, but there is the rare occasion when there doesn't seem to be anybody at the wheel, and I have spent 10 minutes, 20 minutes, an hour reverting the same persistent vandal. I am requesting the ability to handle it myself, so I can move on to more "productive" tasks in these instances. I believe I would also be an asset revdeleting personal attacks and gross BLP violations. I think I could assist with WP:UAA and WP:RPP. Regarding XfD, I plan on continuing to nominate and letting others delete regarding notability, hoaxes, copyright and most forms of promotion. I do plan on deleting those I find at new page patrol that are attack pages or blatant advertising. I'm also willing to delete pages that others have nominated, if I concur with the findings. Although I'm not currently qualified to do this, I would like to learn how to properly merge articles. Places where I don't plan on helping is at drama-boards such as WP:ANI, nor particularly closing AfD debates (I'd rather place a !vote). I'll be of no help at WP:SPI, sorry.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I tend to write articles about obscure musical topics which don't lend themselves to FAs or even GAs. I've had the most fun rescuing the Chapel Records article. It is of particular interest to me, and had long been on my watchlist. The AfD nomination was a good one, the article was in sad shape. I had been planning on re-writing it for some time, and when the AfD caused me to get off my duff and actually do the work, I ended learning several things about the topic that I had been wondering about for some time. Collaborating with others to bring Elmo Tanner to GA status was also incredibly rewarding. Another instance was reaching out to an editor at WP:AfC whose article was disapproved. It was in a topic on which I had some expertise, and we worked together to bring it to the mainspace. Now he is a more productive editor than I am, and has written numerous fantastic articles.
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: As much as I care about this encyclopedia, it is still an unpaid hobby, so I don't think I'm going to let this raise my blood pressure much. I have been mildly annoyed, perhaps. As stated previously, I tend to work in obscure areas which don't lend themselves to drama, and I choose to not participate at the drama-boards. This does not mean I am unaware of them. I do read them on occasion to keep myself informed with current issues, and I have even picked up ideas that have made me a better editor.
I am not bothered by those who disagree with me. If I only associate with those who think exactly as I do, how will I learn, or see new perspectives? I believe strongly in WP:AGF, on this site and in life-in-general. What has caused me the most stress? Probably my own careless mistakes. Like creating an article about a band that already existed, because I didn't pay enough attention to the band's name.
So far I haven't provided any diff's or links, which is what several of you are probably looking for, so you can see how I react. The one situation where I was heavily involved is the following, which involved issues of COI, block evasion, and intentional misleading, if not outright lies. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocket Records, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cheiron_Records.
Additional question from Ritchie333
4. An IP adds an infobox to Buckingham Palace as their first edit. Two minutes later, an established editor with 5 confirmed contributions to WP:FAC reverts this edit with a summary "no consensus". The IP adds the infobox back with the edit summary "looks better". The established editor reverts "no consensus, go away". The IP re-reverts with a summary "pls leave my edits alone you bully", which is reverted by the same editor with the summary "you wouldn't know a FA if it came up and gave you a haircut, now piss off". Immediately after this, you stumble on the article history - what do you do?
A: Is crawling into a closet, closing the door, and quietly weeping an acceptable course of action? First, I would check the article's talkpage to see if consensus regarding infoboxes has been reached for this article. Since Buckingham Palace is an FA already, it seems highly likely that a consensus has already been reached regarding an infobox for this article. Indeed it has. So the established editor is correct in his position. But what are my goals here. First, the last thing I want to happen is to see anyone blocked over this, because both editors are trying to improve the encyclopedia. My goals are to make the IP editor feel welcome, and to make the established editor feel appreciated, while ending disruption. So then I check to see if the IP editor is truly new. Using a template is not particularly indicative of a brand-new user. If the IP appears to be truly new, I would point the new user to Wikipedia:Consensus, invite them to create an account and offer my assistance in trying to explain difficult concepts. Then I would ask the established user to tone it down, and maybe ask the established editor to assist with helping the IP understand the reasons behind the consensus. (I wouldn't hold my breath, frankly). Then see what happens. If the IP editor seems to have been around awhile, I would check to see if they and the established editor have "history," if only to try to gain some context regarding the unsavory edit summaries. I would then remind both editors that they are approaching 3RR, and ask that a civil discussion resume on the BP talk page. If the edit warring were to continue, I would try to dump it in Ritchie333's lap as punishment for asking me an infobox question at my RfA. If he were not available, and I were the last admin left on earth, I would temporarily full-protect the article and again request it be resolved on the talk page. Many scenarios could play out from there, but I hope I've given insight as to my thought process. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Reyk
5 Suppose that one day you decide to run for adminship. An editor asks a completely inane question. How do you respond?
A: Yagga foob mog. Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork. Chumble spuzz. Seriously, usually the editor will have a good reason for asking a question, and I'll try to discern what they are trying to ask, or directly request clarification. If I think it is a dumb question, I'll do my best to give the best answer I can while not revealing my personal opinion regarding the question. If I think it is a question intended to trip me up, I will likewise do my best, while admitting my limitations. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Rubbish computer
6. You go onto AIV. There are 7 reports there, all from different users. How would you respond to each of these?

User:4Funn5 – Vandalized an article.

User:SomeUser44 – Vandalism after final warning. (8 mins ago)

IP:1.23456789.12 – Called me an idiot on my user talk and told me to shut up.

User:U wot m88884 – Vandalism after final warning. (9 hours ago)

User:$$£$YEPP – Admits to editing with a conflict of interest for cash.

User:Hi98 – Edit warring.

User:Rubbish computer Industries, Inc. – Blatant violation of the username policy. (Has not edited yet) --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 17:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A:
  • User:4Funn5: I would look at the vandalism. If the vandalism appeared to be a test, or of the "look what I can do on Wikipedia, tee hee" type, I would thank the reporting editor for their diligence, state that 4Funn5 has not received the requisite level of warnings, and take no further actions. If the 4Funn5 intended to cause serious disruption (attacking BLP, etc) I would take mostly the same course of action, make sure a 4im level warning was in place, and keep a close watch on future contributions.
  • SomeUser44: If the only edits by this user have been vandalism, a block as a vandalism-only account would be in order. If previous contributions have been productive, a temporary block would be in order, and a query regarding a compromised account probably be best.
  • IP:1.23456789.1: Not really vandalism. I would warn the IP regarding personal attacks, and offer to revdelete the offending comment on the talk page if the reporting editor felt strongly about it.
  • User:U wot m88884. I need more information. Might be a vandalism-only account. Block indefinitely with standard offer. If productive edits occurred after final warning, perhaps a message to 88884 would be in order, stating that further disruption could result in an immediate block. In this scenario, a template warning doesn't really fit.
  • User:$$£$YEP. This is not an AIV issue. Admitting to paid editing isn't against the rules. In fact, it is a far preferable behavior as opposed to not admitting it! I think the user should be encouraged to read WP:COI and then encouraged to contribute at AfC or the talk page of the article, if it is established. If $$£$YEP's edits continue to be promotional, or if they subsequently attempt to hide their COI, WP:COIN is probably the best venue.
  • User:Hi98. Not an AIV issue, a WP:ANEW isssue.
  • User:Rubbish computer Industries, Inc. Again, not an issue for AIV, but for UAA. Since I've offered to help at UAA, it would be appropriate to place {{uw-username}} on their user page, and monitor the account for promotional editing. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Rubbish computer
7. You go onto RPP and notice the following page protection requests. How would you respond to each of these?

A town, somewhere – Full protection - Vandalized 128 times in the last hour.

Joe Bloggs, Sr. - Semi protection - Persistent edit warring between 14 users, most of them substantially experienced.

Greenish (color) - Semi protection - Got vandalized by 2 different IPs on the same day.

Crayons, Inc. - Creation protection - Unambiguous advertising speedy deleted 4 times in the past week, also no indication of notability.

Internet vandalism - Move protection - Has been moved without consensus.

Vfggfsaygtshbykags - Creation protection: why create this random string of letters? (Has never been created.)

Foo - Move protection - Persistent move warring between autoconfirmed users.

Graphic graphs- Semi protection - Vandalized by several IP-hopping vandals over the past month (but the two main contributors are IPs, who have reverted most of the vandalism before anyone else.) --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 17:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A:
  • A town, somewhere: Hard to tell based on the description. If the vandalism is from a single IP, it seems logical to block the IP temporarily. If the vandalism is from disparate IP addresses, semi-protection is the route to go. If the vandalism is from registered users who are just over the auto-confirmed threshold, in an apparent coordinated attack, full protection indeed would be correct. If the 128 vandalisms are coming from all my Wikipedia friends, it is time that I say a friendly hello to those nice gentlemen in white coming through the door.
  • Joe Bloggs, Sr: Semi-protection would be useless preventing disruptions from experienced users (provided they're not socking.) Only temporary full protection would work.
  • Greenish (color): If it were only vandalized twice, once by each IP, protection of any level is probably overkill. If both IP addresses are vandalizing multiple times, perhaps temporary semi-protection would be a good idea, as it seems likely they will switch addresses and continue the disruption.
  • Crayons, Inc.: creation protection seems reasonable, but I wouldn't make this my first admin action, I think I'd like to consult one of my betters first.
  • Internet vandalism: I would decline, a single move doesn't warrant move protection.
  • Foo: Move protection seems warranted until consensus can be reached. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from 103.6.159.90
8. A new user has just moved his user talk page which consisted of some warnings into the article namespace, and replaced its contents with an article about his own non-notable band, with no claim of significance. It is promptly tagged for A7 deletion, and a CSD notice is posted onto his user talk page. As an admin, what do you do?
A: Thank you for the question, 103.6.159.90. Is there any chance I could convince you to register an account? Most importantly Speedy A7 does not apply, because that is for articles, and this is not in the article space. It would appear that the CSD notice and the pseudo-article appear on the same page. I think the best course of action would be to move the "article" to the draft space, where it can be worked on as an Article for Creation. Then explain the move to the new user, and let him know I've declined the speedy deletion. If the user communicates that he wants the verbiage restored to his user talk page, that would create another set of issues because Wikipedia is not a web-hosting service. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the question carefully. ... has just moved his user talk page ... into the article namespace implies that the page is now in article space. Also, the CSD notice posted to the user talk page overrides the redirect that was left over from page move. 103.6.159.86 (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the second chance. An A7 deletion is appropriate, with {{Db-band}}, because there is no claim of significance. That said, I would do an online check for possible sources before deleting, just because an author hasn't added them doesn't mean they don't exist. If the user requested undeletion, I wouldn't move it to their talk page, but it would be appropriate to restore to the draft space (my preference) or to the user's sandbox space, provided that WP:G11 is not applicable. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Ottawahitech
9. Under what circumstances are ADMINs allowed to delete content that has not been tagged for deletion? If you see evidence that a fellow ADMIN deleted content in a manner not conforming to the first part — what would you do?
A: According the deletion policy, and admin may delete any article meeting the speedy deletion criteria. I would not do this myself except for G7 (author requests deletion), G10 (attack pages), and the most blatant advertising ("For the best foo, visit foo.com! We are better than all our foo-ish competitors!") Regarding fellow admin actions, I would perhaps ask him to explain his rationale. It is possible that the speedy deletion requirements are being met in a manner not readily apparent to me. If it becomes obvious that the actions are completely out of policy, I would probably ask a highly respected editor to contact the offending admin, and if he is also concerned, I would prefer to jointly state our concerns and then perhaps work together to undo the problem edits. Further disruptive actions would require further action. Did I mention I really dislike participating at the drama-boards? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Spartaz
10. I see you have been active at DYK so I presume you are aware of the concerns held by some users about DYK. Do you think these concerns are valid and would you agree or disagree with the view that DYK should be depreceated and not appear on the front page. Extra points awarded the more detailed and answer you give
A: Thank you for phrasing this as a "do you think" question, which is a beautiful get-out-of-jail free card. The following is my personal opinion, nothing more, and should in no way be taken as an interpretation of policy. Yes, I am aware of some of the concerns regarding DYK. I share some of them, probably the concern I agree with the most is that some QPQ reviews are poorly done, by disinterested editors who only wish to see their content on the main page with the least amount of effort on their part. The DYK criteria are quite reasonable, and they should be checked against so that the information contained therein is verifiable. Do I think all the articles that appear at DYK should at least to good article status? No, I do not. I love exploring that area. When I first started visiting Wikipedia as a reader, pre-editing days, this was always my favorite part because of the odd and often quirky information that could be found there. I like that newly-promoted GAs are eligible, because these invariable present new information recently added to this encyclopedia, but I'll admit I kinda miss the effort that went into creating "hooky" hooks. In fact, the "department of fun" as a whole seems rather moribund, and that is a loss. Eventually attracting eyeballs became more important than presenting factual information, for some, so I suppose the change was inevitable, as we are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. I would be greatly saddened if DYK were to be eliminated. I think it encourages content creation, and shows new editors that content doesn't have to be a doctoral dissertation to be valued, it just needs to meet some standards to be encyclopedic. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Nyttend
11. If the 128 vandalisms are coming from all my Wikipedia friends, it is time that I say a friendly hello to those nice gentlemen in white coming through the door. Do you mean that They're Coming to Take Me Away, Ha-Haaa!, or something else?
A: I'd say you're on the right track, but the right track is found on the "B" side, "!aaaH-aH ,yawA eM ekaT oT gnimoC er'yehT". Yeah, I've got that record. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've got "tciP a htiw gnivoorG dna evaC a ni rehtegoT derehtaG slaminA yrruF llamS fo seicepS lareveS", but that's a home-made bootleg recording using Audacity so it probably doesn't count - still, there aren't many recordings that sound equally, er "interesting" forwards and backwards. (CTU) 5102 rebmeceD 71 ,54:11 (tnoc) (klat) 333eihctiR
Additional questions from 78.26
12. Would you address the question asked by Andrew D. on the talk page of of this RFA?
A: Yes.
13. OK, smarty-pants, Why have you created more than 100 articles? Of those, why are there so many DYKs, yet you have only brought one of them to GA status?
A: I’m not just an editor at Wikipedia, I’m also a reader. Even though it is not a reliable source, Wikipedia is still the go-to website when seeking information about ANY topic. We all share a part in that, and I am proud to say I contribute here. Despite the fact that we have over 5-million articles, there are still millions of notable, encyclopedic topics that have no articles, for which a reader seeking information will go away disappointed. I create articles in one of two ways. The first is a bit odd in that I have a rotating topic list (albums, composers, record labels, etc.) where I find a missing, notable topic, and then write an article. The second results from general intellectual curiosity, butter grading, for instance, where I was in the grocery store and wondered “what does Grade AA mean, and how does it differ from Grade A?” So I went to Wikipedia, and lo-and-behold, there was no information to be found! Inconceivable! So I decided to write the article.
As I reference in the answer to question 2, my research tends to be in obscure topic areas. When I select a topic to write an article about, I try to find every reliable source I can. Usually several hours of research go into this, including google searches, searching other online archives, and a visit to my local library. Sometimes this results in fairly decent articles, such as Maurice Rocco, Charles D'Almaine, Dana Records, Bobby Byrne (musician), or Bohumir Kryl. Other times I can’t get it past stub level, such as François Chauvon. Most of the articles I have created fall somewhere in-between. Only very rarely do I commit drive-by article creation (My Adobe Hacienda, where I needed to return my main source to the library, but it was just too good not to at least create something from it while I had it), (Photodisruption, where I did not feel I was qualified to write further.) If the resulting article is long enough, I submit it to DYK. Getting DYK credit is kinda fun, but my main motivation in submitting is to gain exposure for the topic, not to bring attention to my edits.
Of all the articles I have created, very few will ever reach GA status, in my opinion only Kryl and Rocco have potential. I have researched them all I could, and they’re probably not really long enough to be eligible for GA. I also do not consider myself a great writer of prose, we have many other editors who are much better at that than I am. My single GA (Elmo Tanner) was a collaboration with another editor who truly brought the polish to it. I did work on Frank Sinatra, initially to try to get it to FA, and when time ran out, to get it to GA, but almost all of my work on that article has been removed because it needed to be ruthlessly trimmed.
The condensed version: I plan on creating many more articles, but I don’t plan on trying to write a number of GA or FA-class articles in the future. We should all contribute in the way that fits our talents and interests, and if my fellow editors feel that to be an administrator, one must contribute to articles of the very highest quality as evidenced by numerous GA and FA recognitions, then that is ok by me. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Berean Hunter
14. In your answer to #1, you state that you will be of no help at SPI. I see that you have participated in two cases previously. Would you please elaborate more on why you don't intend to participate there? Also, is this your only account? Have you previously edited under any other accounts?
A: Regarding SPI, I suppose I should say that I will be of no help at SPI in an administrative capacity. On the first case, I went to defend an account that did not seem related to the Morning277 fiasco, but I can't remember how I came to be there. The second case shows my limitations in the area. If I see obvious quacking, I'm not saying I will never report.
As stated in my acceptance, this is my only account, and I have never edited under any other accounts. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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

Support[edit]
  1. Support let me be first to wholeheartedly support this candidate. 78.26 has been a hardworking editor who has shown a real need for the tools for some time -- samtar whisper 14:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support It's time! Liz Read! Talk! 15:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I haven't had too many interactions with 78.26, but I've seen them around. For all other matters, I don't have any concerns at this time. Mkdwtalk 15:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Obvious support as nominator. WormTT(talk) 15:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Another excellent candidate. The nominators have spelled out 78.26's qualifications well. I have also been impressed by their calm and courtesy in interactions with other editors, and their obvious love of Wikipedia. They clearly understand what admin tasks they are ready to do right away and where they need more experience. I trust them with the tools and think they will be a good addition to the admin corps. BTW, since they asked, I have no problem with their user name. --MelanieN (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support a most generous candidate who gave me an opera house, a precious one in 2013 already! I liked every encounter with the recognizable user name, - please don't change! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jianhui67 T★C 15:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Prolific, kind andhas shown ability to help out with the less savoury stuff without loosing their cool. BTW, I like the user name. It is clearly the wrong format for an IP and if you occasionnally get mistaken for one, so much the better. It will help you relate to them. Also, I find username changes dreadfully confusing. Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, obviously. sst✈(discuss) 16:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Another very good candidate. --Stfg (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support as co-nominator. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Seems fine from here. Collect (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Based on the nominating statements and the analysis at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll/Archive_1#78.26 I am happy to support this candidate. HighInBC 17:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Appears thoroughly suitable in key areas. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 17:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I've seen this editor's good work on quite a few page histories. Also has done good work at noticeboards. BlAcKhAt9(9 (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I see no issues. When the co-nominator is Mr. Stradivarius and the nominator is WTT, I need not to do any "research", I trust the candidate almost blindly. Jim Carter 17:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Long-term contributor with solid content contributions & helpful demeanour; no red flags I could see. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support. Good all-rounder, has worked with established writers without fuss, over 85% of AfDs called correctly yet giving a good argument on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tempa when things didn't quite go his way, excellent answer to Q4, knows what a "78" is and likes Calvin and Hobbes. I don't think I could ask for anything more. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. I have often run into 78.26's reviews and comments at AfC and have found them to be clear, civil and helpful. Their other Wikipedia work evinces those same qualities. /wia🎄/tlk 18:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Q1 is good, but I'd expect more AIV reports given the history. Thanks for the links in the (contradictory) Q3; I'd like to see more experience with conflict, but candidate comes across as calm. Will investigate the Calvin and Hobbes issue later. Glrx (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support: the candidate has clue, good contributions, strong nominators and a sensible attitude. I have no concerns and I believe 78.26 will do a good job with the tools. BethNaught (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Having looked through the candidate's talk page archives, he has a great attitude when dealing with new editors and draft authors. Solid contributions elsewhere, including at AfD. APerson (talk!) 19:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Gerplinket bamomble denning splart. What? You're supposed to support in your own words too, right? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Seems like an excellent candidate. Good self-knowledge, good attitude and all around helpful. Aparslet (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Absolutely. No concerns with this user having the tools whatsoever. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26. —Kusma (t·c) 21:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support a great contributor. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support appears to have the necessary amount of clue, no reason not to trust them with the tools. Also, no big deal. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, do not see any problems--Ymblanter (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, no problems. Eteethan(talk)🎄 22:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - Well it's good to know I'm not the only person who thought the name originated from an old/random IP!, Anyway Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010Talk 23:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support as there is no evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 23:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Qualified candidate, with a sense of humor to boot. Miniapolis 23:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, this is coming way too late. Kharkiv07 (T) 23:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, an absolute pleasure to support this candidate. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support with great enthusiasm. Fantastic work. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Looking through all the comments and supports, this user has the rights to the tools. I would have a full pleasure supporting this user. I have noticed him around and he has done some excellent contributions --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 01:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Per Worm That Turned.User has 34k Edits and has created 132 articles and has been editing regularly since July 2010.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support A kindred encyclopedia-reading child, and it's about freaking time we saw you here. Mop wisely. :-) Katietalk 03:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support I have seen 78.26's work over the years and have been impressed with the candidate's contributions in various areas, clear expression and calm demeanor. Definitely trustworthy and should be a very helpful administrator. Donner60 (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Always have been a fan of 78.26. Not sure about the phonographs, though. That kind of speed gives you what, a single song!? How are you going to fit American Pie on there? Or to take it to the extreme, Echoes? Sorry, 33⅓ all the way. Seriously though, I think the username is fine, and at the very least should not be a deal-breaker for this fully qualified candidate — MusikAnimal talk 04:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Yes. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support – Great candidate, impressive article creation work, and a good grasp anti-vandalism edits. I have no issues. —MelbourneStar☆talk 06:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support good answer to the DYK question shows the right measured and thoughtful thinking process so I like that. Candidate clearly edits with a good sense of humour but should be aware that not everyone gets humour on the internet if they are dealing with someone aggrieved by an admin action. Spartaz Humbug! 06:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Spartaz, that is an excellent point. I usually am able to confine my humor to my edit summaries, often when starting an article and I get bored with "added content". I am well aware that for many editors, English is a second language, and humor does not translate well, particularly in print where other contextual clues such as facial expressions and body language are missing. In a past life I used to moderate a lively internet discussion group. (remember those?) There was more than one huge brouhaha where someone was trying to be funny, and someone else took great offense where none was intended. I hope that it is abundantly clear that my attempts to lighten up what can be an overly-serious part of Wikipedia have never been directed towards another individual, which is where most mis-understandings occur. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Wait, they're not an admin already? I like all the answers to the questions, and a sense of humor is a healthy thing here (although I would echo Spartaz' comment about some not getting it). I also would like to see a link to your talk page in your signature, as John Cline mentions below, but that is not a significant enough concern to put me elsewhere. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Having recently upgraded my home sound system with a new record player that plays this and the two more modern speeds, and more importantly having had the pleasure of checking a whole bunch of the candidate's edits, I am happy to support this RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 09:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support based on the answer to Ritchie333's question. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - Good experience both in writing and AFD. I see no reason to object. Taketa (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - Looks great over-all. :) --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  50. I've worked with 78.26 in the past, and have no concerns supporting this. --kelapstick(on the run) 10:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, obvious. Graham87 11:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - absolutely, another great editor I hoped would put their name forward! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - Excellent work, well done :) Orphan Wiki 13:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Seen plenty of good work, and no problems. I've no objections to the name, or the use of humour when appropriate. Peridon (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Needs the tools and track record shows no issues. Valenciano (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Good contributor, will at least a reasonable and probably a good admin. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  57. Support, good edit history, job on the questions, and sense of humor. Eman235/talk 14:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Excellent candidate - good luck! — sparklism hey! 15:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, sensible, well-rounded candidate. What's the catch? Harrias talk 15:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - For a moment I thought this was an RFA for an IP. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Per no big deal! Cheers!!! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 15:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Happy to see you running for the gauntlet, my friend. → Call me Hahc21 16:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support -- I see a history of level-headed responses, a good sense of humor and an avoidance of drama. They should be fine as an administrator. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - I have seen 78.26 here and there and I have to say they do an excellent work. --TL22 (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - This would be a welcome addition to the admin team. Great work that I have seen throughout the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - This user is calm and thoughtful and has a good knowledge of policy and what is appropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - Good answers to the questions, and from what I've seen of this user they seem to have plenty of clue. Altamel (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Very happy to pile on with this one.  — Scott • talk 18:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - Great editor, great participation, I wholeheartedly approve of creating obscure but notable music articles, and wonderful sense of humor. Here's your mop. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Enjoyed reading the talk page of this friendly editor. His focus is all on content - adding to it, maintaining it, and constructively discussing it. Certain we're in safe hands here: Noyster (talk), 18:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - nobody who loves vinyl could be evil! Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - After reviewing the answers to the questions above, nothing convinces me that the editor is unqualified to pick up the mop, nor do I have any reason to believe that the editor would misuse the tools. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  20:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support, from every indication I've seen, will make a fine admin. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. For some reason, it has gotten very easy recently to decide what to think of RfA candidates. I've seen this candidate around, and I knew right away that I would support with high enthusiasm. And I really like the tone and style of the RfA acceptance and the answers to questions (and yes, the substance of the answers is good too). Would that we had more administrators with such a good attitude. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. I think this candidate will make a fine admin. Friendly, knowledgeable, experienced, with excellent communication skills, good attitude, and a sense of humour. Begoon talk 02:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support: I see an editor who has earned the respect of the community and is willing to do the work of an an administrator. Keep up the good work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Looks good. --I am One of Many (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Have enjoyed this editor's contributions and insights. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Nice username. And great work! epicgenius (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Yes. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - I see this editor a lot around in the community. Also, his amount of DYK articles are impressive. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 06:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support No issues. Philg88 ♦talk 06:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - This candidate has a proven track record of acting sensibly. Good answers to the questions, including my silly one. Nothing in the oppose section besides attention-seeking bullshit trolling. Absolutely no concerns here. Reyk YO! 08:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support - Carrite (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support I've not come across this editor before but he seems to be a fine fellow. I too read through an encyclopedia as a child and so recognise the trait. His content work such as butter grading is promising and I see him digging up sources at AFD in cases that need help such as Twentieth Century Zoo. I'm not liking the all-digit account name as it might be confusing or cause parsing trouble in some cases but it seems mostly harmless. Andrew D. (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Trusted & experienced editor. Merry Xmas & Happy New Year to him and the rest of 78.26/16. INeverCry 10:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  87. yup --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  88. He will obviously be a good candidate for admin.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 14:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Oppose Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your efforts to help the encyclopedia, but please note that administrator privileges are only available to users who are logged in. Why not create an account? It conceals your IP address, plus allows you to set your own preferences, customize your view of the site with JS and CSS, and lots lots more! Just kidding! Prolific, excellent editor, and the only oppose and neutral !votes, as of this writing, are unconvincing. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support No reason not to. —BorgHunter (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 19:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Rcsprinter123 (chat) 19:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Strong support Support per Ritchie333. Will move to 'strong support' if the candidate can guess which number I'm thinking of between one and seven hundred billion. --Hillbillyholiday talk 20:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    gimme a hint? Is it a whole number? If not, is it a rational number? Yes, I'm angling for better odds. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I can tell you that it's neither eleven nor six million and four... --Hillbillyholiday talk 22:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's 42. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Close, but no shergar. The answer was 53,177,187,714 --Hillbillyholiday talk 00:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Widr (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support per the nominators. This is an excellent and well qualified candidate. I've seen plenty of their work. - tucoxn\talk 22:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Excellent candidate for admin. clpo13(talk) 22:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support From reading his answers - we need a hundred of him. SlightSmile 23:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support Why not? I don't see any major concerns. DatbubblegumdoeMerryChristmas! 00:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support - I did say I was not averse to supporting a well qualified candidate even while extenuating a mild reservation. That being true, and 78.26 being one of the most well qualified candidates I've seen at RFA to date, require me to either become a liar or move my sentiments here; where they most appropriately belong. I am glad to support this RFA and very thankful that 78.26 has volunteered to further serve Wikipedia.--John Cline (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  101. I have been looking forward to this one for a while. Happy to see it's finally happening. No concerns. — Earwig talk 01:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support - I always like seeing 78 around, being reasonable and helpful and intelligent and whatnot. From what I've seen, when he shows up, he's usually worth listening to, and he's definitely the kind of person I want becoming an admin. Swarm ♠ 02:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Suppport An excellent candidate. Thank you for your willingness to serve the encyclopedia in a new role. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support: excellent, made a lot of articles and good edits. 333-blue 08:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Pile-on support; i was leaning heavily that way, reading [d]id I mention I really dislike participating at the drama-boards? above tipped me firmly (with no offense to any admins who perform well at them); cheers, LindsayHello 13:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support because Wikipedia needs more active admins, and they are clearly a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 14:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support - Easy, no-brainer support. Good luck with the mop! (Just what the man who has everything needs for Christmas.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support - clean block log, nice record on AfD, nice activity. Always appears courteous in the interactions I've seen. Really like their sense of humor (always a nice thing). Onel5969 TT me 20:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support- An impressive nomination. Well-qualified candidate. Good answers to the questions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support largely based on previous observations of the editor's work. (Edited to add: I think the username is fine, and delightful.) --joe deckertalk 01:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support Has my trust, well-rounded. SpencerT♦C 01:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 03:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support - With this many positive contributions over a long period of time, this should be an easy support and it is. 78.26 is level-headed, shows good judgment and understanding of the policies. I have no doubt that they will be a great admin. Yash! 04:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support Seems unlikely to misuse tools, based on history and answers to questions. BusterD (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Looks like they will make a good admin. They have always seemed sensible when I've seen their comments around the place and this RfA hasn't brought up any red flags. Jenks24 (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support good contributions, good judgment, no concerns at all, likely to make an excellent admin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support, based on review; good content editor. Kierzek (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support,No doubt.--Grind24 (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support — Sorry I missed this, but better late than never, right? 78.26 should have been made an administrator a long time ago. Kurtis (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support – No-brainer in my book and happy to add my support to this virtually spotless RfA. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support – no problems. Kevin (aka L235  · t  · c  · ping in reply) 20:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support Well-respected, level-headed user. A well-qualified candidate. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support I have come across many of this record speed/half-IP/User's edits, always appears appropriate during interactions with others.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support: seems a sound candidate who will be a useful admin. PamD 22:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support I've seen them around the project and am happy to support. Cloudbound (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support- No problems with this candidate, so should make a good admin. Class455fan1 (talk to me) 23:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support for a future fellow admin who is more interested in pressing buttons than participating in drama-boards. I look forward to seeing you around at RfP, and hope CfD and RfD will interest you too. Deryck C. 23:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support - as per all the above. - theWOLFchild 03:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support strongly for his excellent answers to the questions posed, topical range of articles, and balance of namespace contributions throughout the project. Any confusion caused by his alias couldn't be worse than that caused by users such as Orange Suede Sofa, BD2412, TenPoundHammer, I dream of horses, or Plastikspork. —EncMstr (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support: - Per all the above... particularly for his excellent answers to the questions. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support - solid experience, didn't spot any problems.--Staberinde (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support No concerns with this user. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support. Looks fine to me. Biblioworm 20:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support – Well-qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support. Looks good, especially the prioritization on creating content and the attitude toward new users. I am a bit worried about the stated intention of using the tools primarily to protect and block watchlist vandals, as that edges close to WP:INVOLVED, but I'm confident that 78.26 can stay on the correct side of that policy. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support - If for nothing else, then to oppose the "not enough article content" vote. Good content people shouldn't be wasting time on admin activities! Eeekster (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support Excellent candidate. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support. A sensible editor making positive contributions.—Anne Delong (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support, we did some content work together and 78 is very easy to work with. I think more admins should understand content creation. I see no reason that he would misuse the tools, and I don't see a problem with his username. Valfontis (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support. Welcome aboard. :) -- œ™ 04:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support The answers to the questions were spot on! Prcc27 (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support Concise, crisp, no bullshit answers. Can I be 2nd co-nom plweaze? --QEDK (T ❄ C) 08:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support No concerns, this user will not abuse the mop. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 16:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support. Trusted user. Good answers to the questions. utcursch | talk 17:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support. Good addition to the admin corps.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support. I already did a research into this candidate earlier this month and estimated a high probability of a successful RfA. My only regret is that I have not been sufficiently available in the last two weeks to have actually nominated this RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support Civil, sensible, experienced. David in DC (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support I have had passing interactions with this editor and have no issues whatsoever in thinking they will be a net positive for the project if they were given the mop. The opposition from a vandalistic user is absurd and in no way reflects what the community are looking for in admins – who says a GA count is important? Good judgement, sound communication, these are key to adminship, not GAs or gender &c. The sooner those who !vote in this way realise that, the better. 78.26 is an outstanding candidate and I look forward to them helping improve Wikipedia, unlike some of those who just disrupt from the sidelines with little or no clue as to the workings of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support, definitely. The answer to Q13 was beautiful. -- Tavix (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support Great candidate, no concerns. Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Last minute support; nothing concerning found by myself or brought up by others, so may as well support.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support Super. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 13:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support Polite, good-humoured, and knowledgeable editor. Good luck and Happy New Year. Sam Sailor Talk! 14:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Oppose They say the past is etched in stone, but it isn't. It's smoke, trapped in a closed room, swirling, changing, buffeted by the passing of years and wishful thinking. But even though our perception of it changes, one thing remains constant: the past can never be completely erased, it lingers, like the scent of burning wood. Wikipedia is not a caterpillar. It doesn't spin a cocoon and wake up a butterfly. Until editors like 78.26 understand that, no progress can be made in the hope of getting a new and improved group of admins. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:POINT. Esquivalience t 02:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: Exact duplicate of "oppose" vote in BethNaught's RfA. Hopefully the Crats will give both votes all weight they're due – which is none. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose Not enough article content for me, only 1 GA. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/78.26#Joseph2302's oppose — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
<s>Withdrawing neutrality to support candidate</s> I would like to see an unambiguous link to the admin hopeful's talk page. Piping the link through verbiage other than "(talk)" can obfuscate the link from new users, of whom, some will invariably desire communication regarding an admin action or some such. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging to inform 78.26 about the above suggestion. Esquivalience t 01:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a piped link to my talkpage since 2008, yet over 1,000 users have managed to contact me in that time. I think it's a false assumption that someone may have difficulty in working out the link. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The counter equivalent of it being a false assumption that someone may have difficulty working out the destination of a piped link is a guarantee that not one editor could possibly have even the slightest difficulty interpreting the target of a piped link. While it is clear that neither statement is more or less true than the other, it is equally as apparent that the actual truth resides in the middle ground. I think this middle ground equivocates that it is possible, even if unlikely. I personally do not oppose adminship on this criterion alone, though I have seen others that will. Also I do not portend an inability to extend this reservation while supporting a candidate; I more than likely have in the past and almost certainly will do so again in the future. In any regard, I do not accept a notion that this concern is non sequitur, or novel in any way, nor do I mean to imply that I've seen proof of a falling sky. I just try my best to give it my best, while hoping I won't appear like a troll in a better man's eye; for having tried. Cheers--John Cline (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per your criteria, should I resign my admin bit, or at least invite discussion on whether my sig is sufficient? If not, then I misunderstood the criteria. - Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Dank, sir I believe; entirely sensible I know: please tell me how I could have been more clear, in advance of your question, than, for example, where I stated: "I personally do not oppose adminship on this criterion alone". To answer your question directly, seeing that it was asked: No sir; absolutely not! I am beyond sorrowful that my prose can so often, so effectively, convey to its reader a diametrically opposite message than what was hoped or imagined when it was written. I'm not even sure I've answered your question; I am only sure that I tried.--John Cline (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I caused you any grief, your work on Wikipedia has been stellar of course. All I'm saying is that I don't think the intention was as clear as you thought it was, merely because this is RfA ... any objection raised at RfA is going to be interpreted by some (and sometimes by all) as concerning adminship in general. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Dank; I was not aggrieved; but instead, a bit concerned that I had unintentionally expressed my reservation as an imperative, which I did not mean to have done. Now that I better understand your message, I better appreciate its value as well; and agree fully with the tenets it raised. Although I had not, I intend from now on to evaluate RFA reservations in some form of similar tandem consideration. This approach will preclude the kinds of confusion that is born of haphazard application and appearances of double standards. As an aside, I remember a discussion of software changes where all signatures would render themselves as Wikipedia originally intended they should unless the user had opted in to view custom signatures with their modifications displayed. By itself, implementing criteria like this would almost completely mitigate every concern of "new user link obfuscation" a custom signature might engender as the newest users almost certainly would not be opted in at such an early stage in their accounts existence; when they may otherwise be vulnerable. I don't know what came of this change, but it doesn't appear to have come to fruition, and these kind of RFA reservations, which had began to wane are showing a commensurate resurgence as more and more users appeased by the aforementioned are in turn seeing the breech, thought scheduled for repair, remaining instead; well, alive, and evermore comely with each passing day that it remains a fixed part of the status quo. If someone seeing this knows what prevented this prudent change, please advise me of the particulars as I am curiously intrigued to know why. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, I didn't get pinged by the link to my username, although you did everything right ... one paragraph, signed, in one edit. Until the WMF fixes this, I'm going to stop pinging people. - Dank (push to talk) 21:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If everyone were using the navigational popups gadget, this wouldn't be an issue. Frankly, if a user has a hard time finding a talk page then they probably need not leave a comment, anyway. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make life easier for everyone, you need at most two steps to get to a user's talk page. Click on one link in their signature (either user or contribs), then if you end up on "user" page, you click on the "talk" tab at the top. If you land on the contributions page, you click on the "talk" link next to the user and "block log" links. If there are any other links, it could be against policy. epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is at WP:SIGLINK. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
General comments[edit]
  • Just for clarity (and to prevent the support conga getting cluttered), I don't think a change of username is warranted 78. - in fact, you have one of the easiest usernames to type (apart from maybe User:A) -- samtar whisper 16:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No non-Latin characters in the username that aren't easily typed on a keyboard, in fact it's very convenient per above, so it passes in my book. I can see an argument that it might be mistaken for a IP address cut short, but not really with the wiki-markup applied to it.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no active User:A anymore (the username got moved to User:A~enwiki for the sake of unified login), but User:B and User:7 have both been active under their current usernames. But yes, those names are easier to type than others, such as User:☂ and User:✄. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the second chance, answer to Q8 is disappointing and simply incorrect. Since the article was moved from the user talk page, its history would include the all those warnings that were formerly there. As such, a simple A7 deletion would be quite inappropriate. While users are free to remove warnings from their talk pages, they are definitely not allowed to have the history of their talk pages deleted. 78.26's response amounts to doing that. The proper course of action would be to history-merge the article back into the user talk page. This is done by first deleting the article and restoring the early edits so that the edits that made the article text get removed (rightfully per WP:A7), and then merging the remaining edits to the user talk page either through Special:MergeHistory or by the conventional method - deleting the user talk page to make way for the move, moving the mainspace page to the user talk page, and restoring the previously deleted edits at the user talk page. This procedure isn't so difficult. But if you are still unable to appreciate the subtleties involved, you can just ask the experts. The point is that administrators need to be able to tell when such a repair job is necessary, even if they are unqualified to undertake the repair job themselves. 103.6.159.91 (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting that the situation given wasn't entirely hypothetical. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive907#Talk_page_move_mess. 12:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.6.159.91 (talk)
  • That would be the proper course of action, if we're really that much of a bureaucracy. May I add that the IP is much more familiar with the intricacies of merging and moving and deleting and restoring than most usual editors are, and that merges etc. are tricky even for certified admins. One cannot really expect the candidate to know everything there is to know. In addition, the candidate's solution is unlikely to cause much harm (again, if deleting a few warnings templates is harm at all) since, and I remember this well from a few years ago, new admins are frequently mentored (unofficially) by others, especially in tricky cases. The most likely thing to have happen in such a situation is that the candidate would either ask for some help or be offered some help--and I say this off the record of course, having received much help from many others in my early years as an admin, and still to this day. So Q8, which is tricky and seems to set the candidate up for failure, shouldn't be weighted as heavily as the questions requiring judgment, not just blackletter law. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also add that a far better question to ask would have been "Have you ever encountered the history merge process? Can you think of an example of where one might be necessary, and how you might tackle it?" The referral to "non-notable band" and "A7" (itself a problematic phrase some consider to be an oxymoron) was a complete red herring, and small wonder that 78.26 misunderstood what you were trying to find out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would certainly be a more fair question. Also, as for judgment, dear IP editor and peanut gallery, let me point you to this request. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth, I thought this was a reasonable question (I may be biased, I do work with histmerges, RM, CSD, etc.), though perhaps it should have been worded a bit differently. Ever since the move interface was altered a few years ago to have the namespace as a dropdown I think it has become a more prevalent problem with new users. The process for how to deal with this type situation is largely laid out at WP:HISTSPLIT. I don't think getting the question wrong is anything worth opposing over though, especially when the only area relevant to this question the candidate has expressed an interest in is maybe learning about histmerges. Drmies is correct in that experienced admins will often give advice to newer ones, especially for trickier situations like this – and I'd add that some things like fiddling with histories is one of those things you need to experience before the how-to pages begin to make complete sense. I also think there were multiple right answers to the question. For example, I would use delete-and-move for this type of situation (not MergeHistory) and I think undeleting the newer edit(s) at the user talk page would be a judgment call – often the history will actually make more sense if they are left deleted and a new notification is placed. Jenks24 (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • To 103.6.159.91, congratulations for tripping up an admin hopeful with your contrived hypothetical situation. I think what this question had found out is that 78.26 hasn't figured out the nuances to a set of buttons (those required for deletion and histsplit) that they still don't have access to. Deryck C. 23:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe I should answer this question in a little more straightforward manner than appears on my user page, and I'd like to address @John Cline:'s valid concern as well. I've been collecting phonograph records since about the time I could walk. Not to admit how old I am, but its been a few decades. I collect records of all types and vintages, but my primary interest is the old, breakable kinds of records made out of shellac. I'm afraid not a lot of thought went into the selection of this user name. user:78rpm was already taken, so I thought I'd be clever and use the precise speed that most "78rpm" records in the western hemisphere rotate at. I remember I had to go through extra hoops to get it, but I was new, clueless, and probably barely knew what an administrator was, much less that I would run for one at some point. I eventually figured out that people were mistaking me for an IP editor after a few well-meaning editors reverted my edits immediately without looking at them, so I changed my signature to say "I'm no IP, talk to me!" But frankly, it didn't seem to help as I was still referred to as an IP on occasion, and I hated that signature anyway. So I actually thought about my signature for a couple of months before I came up with this one. I have to admit I like it, and I'm actually a little more reluctant to change it than I am my user name. So what I thought would be a problem and was willing to change hasn't been, and what I didn't think would be a problem and don't want to change, has been. Funny, that. John Cline, I hear your concern. I haven't noticed any change in communication since I made that signature change. You are correct, an administrator should be exemplary in all respects, including ease of access. If I had noticed a drop-off in communication, I would be concerned, but I haven't. Of course, perhaps that is like saying "If you've lost my phone number and can't reach me, give me a call and we'll fix it!" If I find that people are having a regular issue with communicating with me because of my signature, I will change it, no matter how much I like it. (It references my interest, and is slightly self-mocking.) 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@78.26: It's worth noting that 78rpm hasn't edited since 2007. So if you get Admin'ed the "higher ups" might consider a request by you for Usurpation of that username if you want to switch... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if I were to switch user names, and at the moment it doesn't look like consensus is going that direction, I've one I like better than 78rpm. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with IJBall: 78rpm is usurpable (brief burst of edits in 2007, inactive since then), feel free to make a request at WP:USURP. If it helps you make your decision at all, concerns were raised in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Xenocidic about my original pseudonym. I didn't know it has an unfortunate literal translation when I adopted it, and like you, hadn't contemplated I'd one day rise to the role of 'Administrator Of Wikipedia!' (and beyond...). I came to the conclusion that it was best to take a less potentially off-putting name and now I am simply –xenotalk 14:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/78.26&oldid=1142502556"