Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Acather96

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

Acather96

Final (74/9/1); ended 22:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC) - successful Maxim_(talk) 22:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Acather96 (talk · contribs) – Hello all - allow me to introduce myself. My name is Acather96 (talk · contribs), and you've probably never heard of me! I've had the privilege and pleasure of contributing to Wikipedia since late 2009, but my area of work has always been a mix of 'behind-the-scenes' gnomish work or obscure topics, so I'll try and give a summary and potted history of my time here. My first edit here was almost exactly four years ago to Garrow's Law, and I've been pretty much hooked ever since. When I first started, I worked primarily with semi-automated tools such as Twinkle and Huggle with the aim of fixing vandalism and patrolling new pages. In mid 2010, I branched out into copyright cleanup, doing most of my work at WP:SCV. I kept on top of the work at SCV for months and months along with VernoWhitney, gaining a sound understanding of the often complicated copyright policies that Wikipedia (and, incidentally, Wikimedia Commons) operate under, and a practical application of how editors deal with copyright concerns and communicating these policies to (especially new) users. This continued until mid 2011, when my main shift of work changed again, this time to the file namespace. I patrolled new files and actively searched for unfree media hosted on this project, making tons of nominations at WP:FFD and WP:PUF as well as file renaming and MTC's. This continued alongside sporadic content creation until I took a long, unofficial Wikibreak only to return earlier this year, around September time. Now I've re-specialised again, this time in editing plant related articles, expanding stubs and creating new pages. I wasn't planning on running for adminship up until a week or two ago, when I started to notice the massive backlogs at FFD and PUF, running into the hundreds and hundreds, which are getting bigger day by day. It's at this point I thought 'I could help with that' - and here I am today! Acather96 (click here to contact me) 20:28, 21 December 2013 (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: Mainly WP:FFD, WP:PUF, WP:CP and Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons are all areas that I think I have a good understanding of through my years of involvement with, and I would feel comfortable working there. I'd imagine I would check WP:AIV and WP:RFPERM, the former being often understaffed and the latter being an excellent opportunity to interact with a wide variety of new users, and hopefully offering good advice if not a user-right! My work on Wikipedia has always been very uncontroversial, so I doubt I will be frequenting drama-prone boards such as WP:ANI or the suchlike; while I understand they are an important part of community and our infrastructure, it just isn't what I'd feel comfortable using the tools for. I've shown myself to have quite a high tolerance level for mundane tasks over the years, so I more than happy working in areas that others consider 'dull'.

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

A: If you'd have asked me last year, it would have been easy: my behind-the-scenes work. Over the years, I've fixed thousands of incidences of vandalism, cleaned up hundreds of copyright violations, welcomed and helped tons of new users, and the same with files, CSD's etc. However, I've recently caught the 'biology bug' in real life, and for the last month or two, and have been working on lots of plant articles, and I'm really proud of those. Going from 75% maintenance and 25% content creation to the reverse was quite a challenge, but I think I've pulled it off reasonably well. My favourite articles would probably be National Housing and Planning Advice Unit, Luzula nivalis, Luzula sylvatica and Silaum silaus. I've really enjoyed editing those and fully intend to continue editing plant articles regardless of the outcome of this RFA; I think a combination of content creation and a protracted history of maintenance tasks would be the work I'm proudest to do for the 'pedia.

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: Besides the odd vandal abuse or mistakes, not that I can recall. My area of work has always been very uncontroversial, and I always make a big effort to not just stay civil, but actively be friendly and approachable in my discourse. I've never let myself get stressed by any on-wiki activity, when I shut the laptop lid I leave any concerns I have shut inside their. So how would I deal with potential conflict in the future?- I think a combination of assuming good faith, behaving constructively and civilly is good, but overall just remembering that behind each username I ever interact with on here lies a thinking, emotional and unpredictable human being, who I would do best to treat with respect. If this doesn't work and the conflict cannot be resolved through normal/informal means, I'd defer to the guidance at WP:DR and start going through the motions (e.g. WP:RFC, WP:3O, WP:DRN etc.).

Additional question from Glrx

4. Comment on the copyright license status of the image File:Illustration Silaum silaus0.jpg used in one of your favourite articles?

A: Heh, this is a little embarrassing. Whilst I did not upload the file myself, I did create the article it was used in, and should have reviewed the copyright status more fully. Currently, the file is tagged as {{GFDL}}, but sourced to an 1885 work (Prof. Dr. Otto Wilhelm Thomé Flora von Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz 1885, Gera, Germany) and www.biolib.de. The uploader state he has obtained permission from Kurt Stueber to release this image under the GDFL; Kurt Stueber appears to be the webmaster of [1], the source given on the file page. However, if Mr Stueber's website is merely uploading scanned images from the 1885 work, then this would fall under {{PD-art}}. How can I tell this? Several websites, such as this [2], indicate that the image is in question is simply a scan in from the 1885 work. The 1885 work would be in the public domain as far as Wikipedia is concerned per {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} (as it was published outside the US, we add seventy years onto the death date of Prof. Dr. Thomé, 1925+70=1995). Tl;dr - current file page misattributes source, Mr Stueber has no permission to re-license under GFDL as this is merely a scan of an out-of-copyright-work, which does not meet the threshold of originality. Correct tag is {{PD-art}} and a note about how the 1885 work is out of copyright. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 22:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Glrx

5. I'm happy with the result of Q4, but not with some of the argument. Do you see any problems with your argument?

A: I can't see any glaring problems in my argument, no. It's quite possible I explained it badly, so let me try and my argument a bit clearer. First lets concentrate on the source document - the book was published in 1885 in Germany, so we have two things to consider, it's copyright status in the United States of America where Wikimedia's servers are and also the copyright status in it's country of publication. Work published outside the United States prior to 1923 is considered in the United States to be public domain ({{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. In Germany, we can see that we need to add seventy years to the death date of the author as the work is not anonymous, so 1925+70=1995. This shows us that the work is not copyrighted in Germany either, so can go on Commons. However, we now have to establish if the actual image of the work is free - many photographs of public domain works may not be, such as a 3D object (including some coins) or one that includes sufficient artistic composition to pass the threshold of originality (or the Mindestmaß an persönlicher geistiger Leistung, minimum threshold of intellectual merit in Germany); this time around (see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Other countries). Bridgeman vs. Corel determined that a scan or photograph of the work does not meet the threshold of originality which would afford copyright protection, so it is still in the public domain in the US. Hence we can conclude that the image is indeed in the public domain, as it is a faithful representation of an out-of-copyright 2D work which is free both in the US and it's source country. The exact tag could be {{PD-art}}, the Commons PD-scan one or possibly another more specific one that I can't think of (there are hundreds of different tags on Commons), but the important thing is is that we know the image is free and can demonstrably show it. I hope this satisfies your concerns, if not, ask away. :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 16:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Since the image was copied from, or sourced to, a website, how do we know that the book was indeed published in 1885, that the author (i.e the writer or publisher) of the book is the original image copyright holder (i.e. the artist who made the images), and that the image published on the website is a faithful reproduction (i.e. without changes, and thus free of copyright, as you explained). So far we have only the word of Kurt Stueber for it. Would the say-so of a site's webmaster be enough to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policies? Kraxler (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I doubt the basic assumption that Otto Wilhelm Thomé is the author and the illustrator, so I don't care whether or not Thomé died in 1925 and PD'd 1996. His WP article suggests he's the illustrator (sans ref), but WP is not a reliable source. This website (vol 3, plate 46?) says the image is from 1885 and implies it came from Thomé's series Flora von Deutschland: Österreich und der Schweiz in Wort und Bild für Schule und Haus. Volume 1 of that series says it was published in 1886 rather than 1885; the last volume may have come out in 1889.[3] I haven't crawled through the four volumes to find the silaum silaus plate. (There are also several later volumes in that series by Walter Migula if we believe WP.) The title page of Thomé's volume 1 states "Mit 160 Tafeln in Farbendruck nach Originalzeichnungen von Walter Mueller in Gera" ("With 160 color plates according to original drawings by Walter Mueller in Gera"). I don't know, but that suggests the likely illustrator for the color plates is Mueller (at least for volume 1; the publisher is also located in Gera); finding the actual volume and page for the illustration would help sort out who the illustrator is. I don't know when Mueller of Gera Reuss died. Glrx (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Response I've been searching for a long time now, and have reached a dead end. I can't identify the exact illustrator of this image, besides a few more sites that simply repeat the citation I relied on earlier (this is why I did not doubt this assumption myself earlier). Even if the illustrator could be identified, we would not know if he retained the copyright or transferred it to the Professor Dr.; a date of death cannot be found for Mr Mueller either , though we can verify his existence. The safest thing to do here would be to acknowledge the confusion on the file page; due to it's age (c. 1885) the work would still be in the public domain as per my statements above. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 12:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Epicgenius

6. DId you take the Wikipediaholic test? If so, what's your score?

A: No I haven't, as I feel the score would just depress me. But they do say the first stage of addiction is denial though! :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 16:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Question from Leaky

7. Thinking about AIV, an IP is reported. They have made numerous edits which the reporting editor has assessed as non-BLP vandalism, let's say messing with non-controversial, historic sports results in a table. The IP has been given a level 2 and a final. They have no block record and started their spree only recently with no previous editing history. The vandalism continued between the level 2 and final warning and is ongoing. What Admin. action, if any, do you take? Leaky Caldron 16:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

A: @Leaky caldron: Okay, well I'd check some things first before going in 'guns a' blazing'. First of all, was it actually vandalism? - it may be clear, e.g. they are changing the historic sports results table to a picture of a cat or inserting ridiculous numbers, however if they are changing say one score from '3' to '4', this is not as clear. If it was vandalism and the IP was ignoring repeated warnings to stop, as long as I was an uninvolved admin, I would issue a preventative 24-hour block on the IP along with a talk-page message explaining why; even though they haven't had the ideal progression of level one to level four, "warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking." as WP:BLOCK says, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, they are continuing despite warnings. If the latter were true and it wasn't blatant vandalism, I'd try and check the sources to see which value was correct, and determine if it really was vandalism or a content dispute. If the information they were changing was unsourced, and I couldn't find any info on it, then I'd leave both editors (i.e. the IP and the reverter) a message re. WP:3RR, as this becomes an WP:EDITWARring problem rather than vandalism, a content dispute which should follow bold, revert, discuss rather than bold, revert, revert, revert, revert etc.. If the reversions did not stop, then I'd issue a 12hr block with talkpage message for violation of 3RR. Blocks are short as the IP has no previous history of unconstructive edits. I'd also watchlist the page to check for potential re-occurring problems. Through my current understanding of policy, this would be the correct way forward, however I would be extremely careful w/regards to high-impact activites such as blocking if I were an admin, especially for my first few months. :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 12:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

7B. In the situation described in your answer, at what stage are you issuing WP:3RR warnings? Leaky Caldron 13:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

A: @Leaky caldron: In the event that I had established that the changes the reporting user was complaining about was actually a content dispute and not vandalism, and that a 'revert-war' was ongoing, I would place a {{Uw-3rr}} on the IP's talkpage and a {{Uw-3rr}} with an explanatory message as to why their AIV request was declined on the reporting user's talkpage. This would be done as soon as I had been made aware of the problem. If the warnings are heeded, no blocks are needed as issuing a block that it's purely retributive/punitive are pointless and counteract policy; only if the reversions continued would a 12-hour block be justified as a preventative measure. I hope this clarifies my answer. :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 17:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

7C. @Acather96: We've ended up at a tangent. I deal with vandals. On the articles I know well on my Watchlist I can smell vandalism a mile away. I also clear up any collateral damage perpetrated by IPs. Typically I give an L2 followed by a final before reporting. The "ideal progression" as you describe it of level one to level four requires a minimum of 5 vandalising edits to be detected before a minimal block is performed. Do you think I am in error to take a more strict view than you? Should I stop working on blatant vandalism because I do not follow the 4 warning steps? Do you believe that IP vandals can be redeemed? What are your thoughts on the suggestion in this current discussion? Wikipedia:AN#Vandal_reconciliation_template_with_a_personal_touch? Leaky Caldron 17:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

A: @Leaky caldron: While I disagree with your exact method of user warnings, I wouldn't go so far as to say you are wrong. I think that, ideally, vandals should be given four warnings before being blocked, but this is very much context depending. The very existence of templates such as {{Uw-vandalism4im}} goes to show that in some situations ( in cases of 'severe or grotesque vandalism') it would be counter-intuitive to spend time waiting for an obviously disruptive user who has no intention of stopping to be given an exact number of specific templates before being blocked, this would seem to violate WP:BURO. However, I would personally stick to the idea that for most 'normal' vandalism, users should be warned for each instance of vandalism - in line with the enwp policy on vandalism. Do I think IP vandals can be redeemed? Yes - a quick look at this proves my point nicely. I think given the situation we are currently in with rapidly declining participation levels (despite having only wrote four million out of an estimated 96,000,000), the oh-shit graph must be reversed, and the only feasible way to do that is through new editor engagement and retention. I strongly believe that we should do the best we can to try and show new users who aren't behaving in a constructive manner why the project exists, who edits it, what it depends on; enwp needs all the help it can get. Henceforth, I would support the introduction of a new, more informative level 1 template for vandalism (whilst keep the successive ones slightly more stern). Acather96 (click here to contact me) 11:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Trevj

8. Are you aware of any files you've cleared for licensing since October 2010 which have been subsequently deleted for licensing reasons? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 05:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

A: @Trevj: It's a little hard to tell, as when a user nominates a file for deletion (or deletes it), they tend to only notifying the uploading user, and not any subsequent editors. I'm sure their are some, and for those I can only apologise. I know some files I uploaded in Christmas cards two years ago were deleted due to licensing concerns, and a couple of images that were originally NFCC compliant have been deleted due to a better image being found. If there is a way of checking I would be more than happy to answer, but at the moment I can't think of any way of checking. Regards, :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 11:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Alex

9. Thank you for offering to do the admin job. If I consider your introduction, edits and answers to the questions, I'm not sure how familiar you are with the AfD process. Can you tell me how would you close a controversial discussion with divided stands and !votes of various users?

A: @Aleksa Lukic: With regards to AFD, whilst I have nominated quite a few articles it's true that I haven't participated in too many AFD discussions; AFD isn't an area I can see myself getting heavily involved in. However, if granted those extra few buttons, I really want to work on the FFD and PUF backlogs, which all involve consensus judging. So how would I close a 'controversial discussion' - before I'd even start to look at the various arguments, if the subject is controversial I'd have a look at the user's involved. We've all seen it before - an article about a contentious subject gets nominated for deletion, or a major change is proposed on the talkpage, and suddenly sock accounts start springing up left, right and centre. So I'd first of all check suspicious accounts (i.e. ones that had only ever edited this discussion, or seemed to be a single-issue account), and take this into account when weighing up the various arguments. enwp stands by the idea that discussions are closed based on the idea of consensus rather than a head-count, and some guidance is provided to administrators - WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS sums it up well: "Administrators must use their best judgment, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible". I'd look at the arguments for and against, and see which were policy or guidelines based (rather than endless WP:IDONTLIKEITs), and also see if they had been refuted or not. It makes sense that if the nominator's sole concern was notability, and throrugh the late in the AfD an editor had found multiple, third-party reliable sources which showed notability and clearly met the relevant guideline, !votes for deletion based on notability before this happened and that remain unammended should not be considered; their concern has been dealt with. These are the kind of things I'd be looking for, and hopefully through this kind of discernment a consensus could be judged and the nomination closed (along with an explanatory closing note). It may be though that despite an examination of the arguments and support for them, no consensus emerges, in which the debate should be either relisted if there is a hope of actually settling the 'debate' or closed as 'no consensus' if a stalemate seems to have resulted (which defaults to keep). Of course, if I was to be given sysop rights, I'd be extra careful when closing XfD's, especially in the first few months. :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 12:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

10. Do you think that in some cases users should be blocked without warning? If yes, in which cases and why?

A: @Aleksa Lukic: Yes, there are surprisingly quite a few cases where this is justified. Obvious vandalbots or spambots can be blocked without warning, as should any bot which is operating without BRFA approvl. Editors who violate WP:Child protection would be (sensitively and without discussing the rationale on-wiki) blocked without warning, and an e-mail sent to ArbCom. A compromised account (especially an admin's/rouge admins) should be blocked without warning; our vandalism policy does state that "accounts whose main or only use is obvious vandalism or other forbidden activity may be blocked even without warning.". WP:BADNAME provides guidance with regards to inappropriate usernames - only if they are flagrant, serious and blatant violations of username policy should they be blocked without warning, less serious or less blatant 'violations' should be discussed first. The only other examples I can think of would be unretracted legal threats or an open proxy. However, it's important to note that these would probably only constitute a small number of a sysop's overall block's, and are only used in these limited extreme circumstances above. Furthermore, whilst they have been blocked without warning, the blocking admin should of course explain why they have been blocked providing evidence if necessary and explain the avenues for appeal or how the block could be lifted - the only exception this is child protection blocks for which all necessary communication should be done by e-mail and strictly off-wiki. I hope this answers your question - these are the only ones I could think of now but there very well may be a few more! :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 12:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment – that is satisfactory. I could only add life-treating pseudo advises and revealing business/state/judicial/official secrets as additional examples. Alex ^{discussion ★} 17:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional questions from Hasteur

11. Under what conditions would you stand for WP:RECALL?

A: @Hasteur: If six or more completely uninvolved editors with over 1000 edits each petitioned for recall, I would submit a new RfA, to be closed in the usual way with the usual threshold applied, and leave my fate in the hands of the community. This seems simple enough to me! :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 14:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

12. To what level do you consider invocation of IAR necessary for day to day operations of the encyclopedia?

A: @Hasteur: Despite having literally hundreds of disparate policies and guidelines, it is impossible to have a clear answer to every query or quorum that could possibly arise from 6,826,310 articles! Hence, IAR is a vital 'tool' which allows us to prevent our consensus-based policies and guidelines hindering rather than helping us, it is a pratical way of ensuring that we do not fail WP:BURO. As to what level do I consider necessary for day to day operation?- not very. I think, by and large, our policies and guidelines serve us well and exist for good reason, to go against them, to ignore a 'rule', should be relatively rare. Not extraordinary, but uncommon. Of course, it is context dependent and there are some scenarios where IAR will probably never be appropriate - e.g. in a deletion debate which centers around an articles notability, asking to ignore say the notability guideline because the article is nice, or it looks encyclopedic is inappropriate (WP:ILIKEIT). I strongly hope IAR would never be never invoked against WP:Child protection - that is one rule we should never, ever ignore. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 22:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

13. What is your interpertation of WP:ADMINACCT?

A: @Hasteur: I'm not really sure, with respect, if I understand the question. WP:ADMINACCT is a section of our policy on administrators which outlines what is expected of administrators and states that those who fail to meet these very reasonable expectations may face community sanctions or possible desysopping. I'm not really sure what to say to it - I agree with it, it seems good policy, I struggle to see who would disagree with it. I'm sorry if this wasn't the answer you were looking for as I am not trying to be evasive, I just have nothing to disagree with here! :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 22:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Carrite

14. After a period of great activity I notice that you had less than 100 edits for 14 months combined, a drought ending a few months ago with a return to WP activity. I'm dying to know the cause of these two abrupt shifts of behavior. Did you edit Wikipedia under any other user name during the "dry" year — and if so, what user name or names were these? If not, what made you leave and what made you come back?

A. @Carrite: First of all let me just apologise for the late answer to this question - honestly I've only just noticed it now so will do my best to respond before this closes. The lapse in activity was down to a bit of a burnout and real-life commitments, which I'd prefer not to go into to too much detail on. I never edited under another username, ever, I may have sometimes made one or two IP edits from my local library or even home IP if I forgot to log in, but these would have been minor typo fixes. I would disclose these if I could but I don't keep a record. What made me come back- I got fascinated with biology and saw the poor, stubby state of most of our species articles, and then I remembered why I enjoyed editing in the first place. A break is helpful sometimes - it reminded me of the purpose of the site, and provided some perspective. I know enwp is seeing a big decline in activity, so I feel I can at least do my bit by contributing and editing in areas that interest me and by performing the maintenance tasks which I used to do and already understand. Wikipedia is probably the best use of human labour on one single project that our species has ever undertaken, making the sum of all human knowledge available for everybody, for free. Why would anyone not participate!? :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 20:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

General comments

If this RFA does pass, I would of course be open for recall. Apologies if I've messed something up on the nom page, understandably this isn't something I've done before! Acather96 (click here to contact me) 20:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Links for Acather96: Acather96 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Acather96 can be found here.
• Stats on talk page. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 21:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support Good editor --JamesMoose (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Has the guts to answer an oppose. Seems like a good combination of being averse to conflict but still being able to take a stand. Recent content creation as listed in the nomination statement is also a plus. James^x12345 23:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Despite it being a self-nomination, it is very strong and nice answers to the questions and also responded quite well to the oppose (Oppose 1) below very well. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Strong support - One of the best potential copyright violation reviewers. Having him active as an admin in that area will be a very good thing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
5. Per above. LlamaAl (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
6. The user wants to use the tools, and I do not think they would abuse them. No harm here, and it will surely help the project. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Clearly has a clue and lots of experience in an area where more admins are needed. Pichpich (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
8. Support. Clueful, cordial, good recent work. – SJ + 06:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
9. Support The only concern is the period of absence, but people have lives and anyone here may have to leave for various reasons that are not under their control. I see no reason to be concerned in this case. I am One of Many (talk) 07:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
10. Support. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 08:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
11. Weak support Always been a fan of his work with vandalism and copyright violations. The only thing that made me second-guess myself was the short three months of editing coming out of the break. I'd normally be hesitant to support, as it takes time to get re-accustomed to Wikipedia, and any changes that have occurred here since. However, Acather's an exceptional editor. Q1's answer shows that he'll edit where he's confident, and looking at recent edits, I'm sure the tools will be in good hands, so I won't let that get in the way of my support. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
12. Weak support I think SuperHamster said it best, with the brevity of recent editing history being my only real complaint. The lack of mainspace edits also doesn't help, but overall I think he's well suited in the areas he outlined in Q1. — MusikAnimal ^talk 09:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
13. Support. I've gone through contributions and interactions and got a very positive feel about Acather96. Appears thoughtful, intelligent, reasonable, helpful, willing, cooperative, collaborative, and supportive of the project. Learns from mistakes. In general I'm seeing evidence of the personal qualities that make for a good admin. These examples from Acather96's talkpage give a flavour of their character: [4], [5],[6]. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
14. Clean block log, nice mix of contributions, ample experience. Three months is plenty of time to have returned from a wikibreak before running an RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 10:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
15. Support Clean block log, definitely will net positive. buffbills7701 13:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
16. Support Though a clean block log is not the most important quality about an adminship candidate, the user seems pretty experienced and helpful enough. Epicgenius (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
17. Support. Good contributions. Mediocre quantity of content creation, but good enough. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
18. Support as net positive and per Reaper Eternal above. Level-headed candidate has the experience to help with some of our most-problematic backlogs. Miniapolis 16:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

    Support I see no issues. The wikibreak doesn't worry me at all. Good reason for stepping forward. --Stfg (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC) Moved to oppose on discovery of close paraphrase. --Stfg (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

19. Support DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
20. Support Maturity demonstrated, clearly comfortable around a mop. A net positive for the project. -- Scray (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
21. Support My only caveat: Don't take another break for at least a year, please :) — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 17:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
22. Support Seen them around with no problems. I'm not worried about a high talk page count. Some of us do spend a lot of time on our own and other people's talk pages, explaining things and giving tips. I'm sure they won't go rushing into areas they're not totally familiar with, but will study them first. Peridon (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
23. Support - used the tools we've given hir before correctly. No reason to believe that the editor can't be trusted with the mop. Achowat (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
24. Secret ^account 21:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
25. Support per the response to my inquiry below. Technical 13 (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
26. Support Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
27. Support - I started out neutral due to some concerns about lack of content creation and editor interaction. But after examining diffs and examples provided by the applicant, I now feel comfortable that they have a well rounded WP history and are even handed when in tense situations with other editors. I'm mostly impressed with the demeanor of the applicant which is one of the most important qualities for a good Admin.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
28. Support. Appears to have a good handle on things. Gamaliel (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
29. Support - Seen Acather96 around quite a bit, seems solid, no qualms. Good luck, Mlpearc (open channel) 03:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
30. Support - Net positive to the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
31. Support Like User:Keithbob, I had some concerns: long break just recently ended, short on content creation and interactions; and like him I am impressed by the applicant's demeanor, answers, energy and history in many areas of WP. Net positive to the project. A tip of the hat to Keithbob as well for his examination and prompting to the applicant to supply some good examples. Donner60 (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
32. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
33. Support (from neutral) - Enough editors whom I trust, particularly one or two experienced in copyright, have supported that I now feel comfortable doing so, per my positive impression of the candidate from this page as well as a cursory interaction review. Go Phightins! 04:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
34. Support - Had some concerns as listed by others above, but the answers to the questions, especially 2, 4, and 5 convinced me this is a balanced editor with a lot of enthusiasm and the ability to think things trough. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
35. Support Gad, a WikiGryph willing to help where help is needed, personable and skilled enough to do what needs doing well? Willing to learn new things well enough to do them well? Take time off when needed. I'll welcome you back to attack the next backlog. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 05:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
36. Support Desires the mop only for mopping purposes. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 10:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
37. Support Happy to support! --Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 10:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
38. Support After reading answers to questions and especially his reply to Technical13. Mkdw^talk 18:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
39. Support solid candidate, and I don't see periods of relatively sprse participation as reasons to oppose especially when everything else looks good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
40. Support candidate looks as if they know what they are doing, not masses of content creation, but gnomish admins are needed. Everyone has a specialist area on wiki, and Acather96's seems to be solid gnomish work, and increasing biological articles. Matty.007 20:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

    Support as netpos benmoore 20:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

41. Support - sure there are some minor quibbles but WP:NETPOSITIVE applies here. GiantSnowman 20:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
42. Support - Someone with a good grip of copyright violations gets my !vote  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
43. Support I like this guy's willingness to show his work when he's called out on an error (i.e., licensing in Q4/5, which I'll note is a harmless error in that particular instance). I respectfully disagree with the argument in opposition that we need a WP:RS-quality source to say for our purposes that the file is PD or who the author is. I don't know how low this editor's content creation levels are anyway; I see some creation, just not FAs and GAs. While some of those would be nice as better proof of understanding what sort of activity admins are there to support, I really don't see a problem with what's he's done. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
44. Support And I like the work he did no the copyright questions ... stronger reasoning than some, I suspect. Collect (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
45. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 01:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
46. Support - probable WP:NETPOSITIVE. Comes across as honest rather than boilerplate answers Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
47. Support Candidate is both willing and able. Gets my support. -- Marek.69 ^talk 10:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
48. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
49. —Kusma (t·c) 11:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
50. Support - per demonstrated policy knowledge, and history of civility. Absolutely a net positive. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
51. Support No sockpuppets and vandalism. I'm on here to me. (What? | Changes to you.) 14:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
52. Support A WP:NETPOSITIVE as well as per the reasoning of ϢereSpielChequers and Technical 13. Please don't take another wikibreak too soon. - tucoxn\^talk 18:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
53. Support Looks good, solid candidate. Spencer^T♦C 19:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
54. support for his careful reasoning on the copyright, among other things. If the work was publish in the 1880s, it doesn't matter which year--it's still PD. And it remains PD if someone reproduced it later--reproducing it on a website does not give one copyright to it. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
55. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
56. Support - A return of three months is quite adequate in view of their previous experience. Doesn't quite check all my boxes though, but on the balance I'm sure Acather will make a good admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
57. Support WP:NETPOSITIVE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
58. Support Solid candidate. Serious and mature answers to the questions. I'd have liked to see the answer to Q14, though. --Randykitty (talk) 10:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
59. We could always use some extra help dealing with images, and Acather96 seems to have both the expertise and experience needed for the job. I trust him with the sysop flag. Kurtis ^(talk) 12:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
60. Support. Looking forward to seeing some good work from you. The backlogs are waiting! -- œ^™ 17:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
61. Support. I don't see any glaring concerns that would lead me to oppose this request. Welcome back from your break. I think Acather96 will be an asset to the admin team. Now get to work! ;) Best regards, Cindy(talk) 17:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
62. Support. Although I would like to see more to say in answer to Q3, I otherwise find the answers to questions clueful and friendly. Looking at the content work along with the style of discussion, I see plenty of evidence that the candidate can navigate what admins need to deal with. There is a very real need for backlog clearing at FFD, so the proposed work is clearly filling an unmet need. I've parsed the answers to Q4 and Q5 very carefully (noting also that it's an image file at Commons, not here), and I'm satisfied that the candidate understands the intricacies of file policy. Putting it all together, I'm very happy to support. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

    I've come back to reaffirm my support, and to express my disappointment with the reasoning behind some of the opposes and neutrals. Some of the complaints about being a day slow to answer some questions over a holiday, about parsing image file licenses, and about paraphrasing a botanical source (I looked at the content and the source, and it's far from a close paraphrase), strike me as unreasonable complaints, and it reflects well on the candidate that he has reacted to all of it with good cheer and composure. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

    @Tryptofish: I'm clear that you disagree with the claim of close paraphrasing, but do you consider close paraphrasing (if proven) to be an "unreasonable complaint" in an RfA oppose? If so, we totally disagree, but if the only point at issue is whether this case is or isn't a close paraphrase, well, I've tabulated the source and the (old version of the) article on the talk page, and everyone can decide for themselves. --Stfg (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

    I did not intend to say that close paraphrasing is never, in principle, a reasonable reason to oppose an RfA. It comes down to how much it really is close paraphrasing, and to what extent we can ascertain that the candidate has learned from a past mistake and won't make the mistake again, or still had not learned as of the start of the RfA. In this case, I think that the discussion on the RfA talk page shows that my view that it's pretty far from a close paraphrase is shared by other editors, so that's where my concern here resides. But if I saw a candidate who was really cutting it too close, and doing it repeatedly and recently, I'd be opposing, please rest assured. And I wasn't focusing my concern on your oppose, please remember, but just expressing concern about multiple instances of what I see as setting overly high expectations. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

    OK, thanks. --Stfg (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

63. Weak support I'm not fully impressed by the copyright muddle in the questions above, but you learn to do such things better. I am not familiar with the candidate, but as they seem competent and to have a sense of humor about things, I'm minded to tentatively support.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
64. Support. Can't see any obvious problems. Deb (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
65. Support More reasons to support than to oppose. Widr (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
66. Support solid answers. Alex ^{discussion ★} 17:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
67. Support No concerns -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
68. Support. Based on review. Kierzek (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
69. Support Based on the answers, they appear to be a sensible and level-headed candidate. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
70. Support Per TheOriginalSoni --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 03:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
71. Support I encourage our new administrator-to-be to take to heart the constructive aspects of the critical comments made by the opposing editors. I don't think anything said is serious enough to oppose granting the tool kit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
72. Support. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
73. Support Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
74. Support (moved from neutral) per WP:DEAL. Interactions indicate likely net positive. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 09:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. What's the rush?. There's clearly a lot of good here, but you've stopped me in my tracks. From just edit counts, you're fine. I'm not happy with the content distribution, but I won't complain too much. The history shows you've been inactive for quite some time, and have been back in force only three months. Q1 is OK, and the AIV is matched with hundreds of reports. Avoiding drama is a quasi-plus. Q2 mentions CSD, but only 8 CSDs in the last year. Q3 states no conflict, and that comment really slows me down. Admins should have some experience in conflict, and with thousands of article edits you should have some conflict stories to link in Q3. I want reports of either good behavior in difficult situations or misadventures that are now understood. You don't mention AfD, so it doesn't really count, but there are only 5 reports. Consequently, I don't have anything recent material for what I want to look at. Given you've only been back 3 months, I'll wait. Glrx (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

   I know it's considered by some bad form to answer oppose votes, but you raise two key points that I really should have cleared up in my 'opening statement'. 1) Activity. You're right in saying that I've only been editing regularly for the last three months, but have had ~ 2 years experience with maintenance tasks before hand. The low activity before this three months was entirely due to regrettable circumstances beyond my control, but I understand that there is no way of me actually verifying this here. As to why I rushed - I saw the massive backlogs at FFD + PUF and was irritated, as I knew I had the ability, experience and time to deal with it but just not the right buttons to push; I genuinely believe in WP:NOBIGDEAL so thought it was worth a shot. 2) Conflict - With respect, I can't really help it if I haven't come into conflict with people. I've done a cursory search of my usertalk and found this which was recent, I'm sure there are more buried away in the archive somewhere, I will have a search tomorrow. As to an exchange I'm not proud of and have learnt from - User talk:Acather96/Archive 2#On Michael Hester sticks in my mind. I cringe when I read it now, it was a trainwreck of an interaction that was my fault due to a lack of AGF'ing and a kind of hypersensitivity that was probably induced by the anti-vandal work I was doing at the time. Thankfully that was three years ago and I've learnt a lot since then. Sorry for the verbosity, I just wanted to clear this up. :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 22:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

   It's not bad form to answer an oppose; it's only bad form to badger the opposers. The backlog was mentioned before, and that was a good position. Thanks for the conflict examples and answering my Q4; I will reconsider. My compliments to Jamesx12345 for restarting this affair; I don't want to be a wet towel. Glrx (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

   I'm conflicted. There's a lot to commend. Acather96 is not afraid, he's clearly doing research, and those are excellent qualities. Initially, I saw enough to oppose; later, as more came out, I was willing to reconsider. I posed Q4 and expected to switch to the support column: an 1885 work still in copyright should raise obvious questions. Q4's answer hit the points I wanted to see, and it gave solid links for its argument, but it also derailed with the author=illustrator assumption (and some minor errors). That stopped me again because the illustrator issue seems pretty basic. Two steps forward but one step backward. I'm not a copyright wonk, so I don't know how much weight to give the illustrator issue; that's what I wanted to see in the second-chance Q5. I struggled with posing Q5 (I don't like that Q5 was so vague, but more specific versions had other problems). Acather96 still didn't see the illustrator issue. Consequently, I wonder whether I'm demanding too much, but I've been very impressed with the insight, precision and range in copyright arguments from other WP volunteers. On the plus side, I don't expect Acather96 to repeat the mistake down the road, and a mistake isn't necessarily fatal. I appreciate Acather96's Q5 response to the Q5 comments; recognizing what needs to be known is an important skill. At the same time, Acather96 states, "Even if the illustrator could be identified, we would not know if he retained the copyright or transferred it to the Professor". That's another step backward; I don't see how transferring a copyright would affect its expiration date; that would allow gamesmanship. So I'm confronted with a candidate who is getting a lot of stuff right, but who confuses some significant issues. I want to see careful and deliberate. I don't like being in this column with such a strong candidate, but I'm too confused/nervous to go elsewhere. Glrx (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

   @Glrx: Thank-you for both your kind words and your continued constructive criticism. If I could just speak very quickly to the authour/illustrator thing: who has the copyright (the copyright holder) is generally relevant, as if we knew dates of death for both the Professor and the author and we'd worked out which one actually held the copyright, the exact date of expiration would be calculable. If not, then we simply go by the date it was published, as in this case, but I hope this explains why I added the note about the importance of who (if anyone) transferred copyright to whom etc. Thanks, Acather96 (click here to contact me) 09:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

2. Too many edits to User talk + Wikipedia space compared to article space. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

   Again, don't want to appear badgery but if I could just speak very quickly to the user talk percentage. I'd not looked at that pie-chart in years, and was quite surprised when I saw that 37% of my edits were to user-talk: ~90% of this is almost certainly the warnings that Huggle and Twinkle issue, which I used heavily in my vandalism-fixing days/ My more recent bar-charts do thankfully show a much better balance. :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 09:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

   @Acather96: Actually, the fact that you are editing Wikipedia and User talk namespace shows that you are knowledgeable of Wikipedia policies and are willing to lend a helping hand. Keep up the good work. Epicgenius (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

   Acather and Epic: if you guys plan to continue replying, please remember to put # at the beginning of each indent, otherwise it mucks up the numbering. Plutonium27 (talk)

3. The non-answer to Q3; the Q4 and Q5 muddle (this from one who wants to work at WP:CP and claims to have cleared up "hundreds of violations"); the timing; the anodyne, peer-group flavour. Motivation. I'm not convinced that - after 3-4 years of irregular editing tending to concentrate on specific areas before moving on - this discovery of the joys of article writing (a phenonemon seemingly endemic among certain types of RfA candidates) - had nothing to do with a planned RfA run. And so, despite claims of new-found joys in article writing and the earnest assurances that will continue, it appears to me this is a candidate whose time has been spent policing one area after another, changing focus when interest wanes, and who decided several months ago that adminship would make that interesting again. Plutonium27 (talk) 05:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose He has only participated in 5 AFDs, four in 2011, and one in 2013. Need more participation in that to determine if he is a reasonable level headed person to be trusted with these tools or not. Dream Focus 17:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose Although there is no indication the user will go and delete the main page there doesn't appear to be any experience in admin areas. Not enough experience with the for deletion venues, no participation at AN, ANI or the other "drama boards", no experience with editing templates, particularly protected ones, no featured content work. I'm sorry but the user just doesn't appear to have the experience necessary or the need for the tools. Kumioko (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
6. Oppose. You said you plan to work on Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons, yet you only tagged 2 images for speedy deletion this year. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

   Probably because that category is largely a speedy deletion category anyway. Slapping tags on it just makes it more obvious. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

   Weak oppose candidate demonstrates they are reliable and mature for their age, and I have absolutely no complains except for prolonged time of unanswered questions. This could be an issue, especially because these two questions seem important and answering the questions is the best way of proving candidate's readiness and competency for the admin job. As far as I'm concerned, postponement of answering could mean some uncertainty about understanding substantial policies. If I'm wrong (if postponement was due some technical difficulties), I'll be wiling to change my stand to support, but not if questions are still unanswered in some reasonable time. Alex ^{discussion ★} 09:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) My editing has been sporadic yesterday and on Christmas Eve due to the festivities; I've wanted to give careful and considered answers to the questions and not rushed ones. I receivied a new laptop for Christmas yesterday, and hence done a little bit of editing on Christmas Day to test things out (e.g. Huggle). I intended to answer all remaining questions later today, but given your concerns will try and get through them now. Thanks! :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 10:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

7. Oppose Candidate appears to be paying no attention to their RfA. Despite editing consistently and extensively since 23/12, including Christmas Day, questions remain unanswered. Leaky Caldron 10:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
8. Due to lack of experience in admin-related areas. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
9. Oppose because his latest article contains a section that is a close paraphrase of its source. It's not even a particularly good job: for example changing "caespitose" into "in a loosely caespitose fashion". ("Caespitose" means tufted, by the way -- why not use that?) Anyone wanting to be an admin should already understand that you don't just copy-paste a source and surround its bits with verbiage. --Stfg (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

   @Stfg: Sorry, but I have never, ever copy and pasted a source text into Wikipedia and then 'surrounded it with verbiage'. I used the phrase 'loosely caespitose' as it is used in this source here. Luzula wahlenbergii is still a work in progress, having only been created five days ago, and I still have two more sources for the description section to incorporate. In response directly to the close paraphrasing concerns: there is a finite number of ways you can express basic facts about a plants anatomy. If a plant grows 15-30 cm high, there are a limited number of ways that can be phrased. With other sections of plant articles such as 'Taxonomy and naming', 'Distribution and habitat' it's a lot easier to summarize from the source and re-synthesize in your own words, but for an anatomical and scientific description of an organism this is nigh on impossible. Descriptions are laid out logically, hence start off describing the plant as a whole, then the inflorescence and then the seed capsule in the inflorescence - this is the style that all the sources follow, so this is why I put the observations in roughly the same order as the sources. I do try and re-phrase where I can, but for anatomical descriptions this simply isn't possible. I hope this explains my position - thank you. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 18:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

   @Acather96: Adducing WP:LIMITED here is totally unconvincing. You have presented the same facts as the source cited in the article, in the same order, with the same presentation, just surrounding them with some extra words. The way to avoid close paraphrasing, as explained in WP:Close paraphrasing, is to read the source, make notes if you like, internalize it, and write it in your own words (the phrase "own words" is used no less than 8 times there). The source you've identified above explains why the height you give in the article differs from that given in the source you cite in the article ... hmm, why not cite where you actually got it, then? "loosely caespitose" is in the source above, sure, but "in a ... fashion" is mere verbiage (and ungrammatical in that sentence, by the way). Why are you retaining highly technical terms from the source, like caespitose, when the everyday tufted will do? That is a botanical article; this is an encyclopedia. I could go on and on. It's as clear a case of close paraphrasing as I've seen for quite some time. --Stfg (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

   @Stfg: Ah, I can see what went wrong here now. I assumed (wrongly, still being a newbie when it comes to botanical content creation) that we should always use the technical, precise terminology (in the same way that our mathematics articles do, for example); hence I could not/should not rephrase a term like 'sub-acuminate' as it would immediately become less precise. If I was wrong, which it looks like it was, then this immediately becomes easy to rephrase, and I would cease my appeal to WP:LIMITED. I always do physically make notes for content sections and then try and re-write it on screen, but never bothered to for 'Description' sections as they were so specific and precise I thought that rephrasing them would remove the preciseness that the technical terminology gave. With regards to the order, the progression from looking at the whole plant. to the plant's inflorescence to the seed capsule inside that inflorescence is a logical one, but maybe I followed it too closely. I will learn from this mistake and look back at my other 'Description' sections in botanical articles and revise any similar errors; I'll fix L. wahlenbergii tomorrow as I'm quite tired at the moment. As to why I hadn't cited that source for that fact yet: as I said, the article is still very new (five days old) and I intended to add more sources and content in the days to come. I hope this clarifies my actions and position, and thank-you for your continued constructive scrutiny. Regards, Acather96 (click here to contact me) 20:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

   @Acather96: Thank you. If you don't mind, I'd like to do a paraphrase myself tomorrow. You will see the kind of thing that can be done -- especially the difference between writing for subject experts, as the sources do, and in an encyclopedia, which should try to be understandable to intelligent lay persons. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

   @Acather96: Now done and watchlisted. I'm happy to continue discussion either on the article's talk page or on one of ours. --Stfg (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

I agree with Glrx, but there's so much good that I can't oppose. However, with only three months of active editing since your break, I am not comfortable supporting just yet. I might change my mind in the course of the following seven days, though. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 22:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The three months back thing is stopping me from supporting. I attribute a lack of conflict to good social skills and the ability to nip potential content in the bud before it blows up. I would like to see some diffs that support that theory, so I'm asking if you can provide me two or three. Thanks in advance. Technical 13 (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

@Technical 13: As you asked for evidence of conflict resolution/editor interaction, I've gone hunting and found some: 1, 2, 3,4, 5,6, 7, 8 and 9 are hopefully the kind of things you are looking for, as situations where I've either prevented disputes from escalating or learnt from my mistakes through a positive interaction with other editors. I also completely forgot to mention this, but I was involved with WP:Abuse response for a while, which honed my mediation and diplomatic skills through e-mail and corresponding with various ISP's, schools and individuals (though I understand that as the e-mails can't be posted on-wiki you can't verify this). I also did quite a lot of work trying to revive WP:BEDS, that was a lot of content-related collaboration. I hope this is the kind of thing you are looking for. :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 10:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, those were pretty much what I was looking for... Moving my vote up the page... Technical 13 (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I like the candidate and their work. I don't find the prior absence troubling but what gives me pause is the small amount of content creation, collaboration and dispute resolution experience. I'm still on the fence though. If I see some evidence of quality content creation and editor interactions I could be a supporter.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the examples of content creation. Moving my vote to support.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

@Keithbob: - I've given some examples of editor interactions above which I hope you will find pleasing. As you specifically asked for examples of content creation, may I point you towards: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. I do intend to do more content work in the future, I hope these are sufficient to show that I can create content, and that I understand the relevant policies. I hope this is what you were looking for. :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 10:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. Sportsguy17 (talk • contribs • sign) 23:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC) (moved to support)

To be honest I am leaning towards oppose. You have approximately some 2000+ edits in the last 24 months and you took a year off 3 months ago. I am concerned that you are fairly out of touch with the status quo and would generally not accept someone doing an RFA with only 1000+ edits in 12 months. Mkdw^talk 01:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC) moved to support. Mkdw^talk 18:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

While my first inclination is to support, I would like to wait for the analysis of some admins who are skilled and active in copyright issues to comment before I cast my final !vote. Go Phightins! 05:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC) (moved to support - Go Phightins!)

1. Neutral - I'd like to support somebody who has experience and is willing to tackle the backlogs. I'll vote after I see the answer to Q5. Please read carefully the answer to Q4, then, show us that you really know about copyright and how to go about to ascertain it's status in this particular case, and give a definite answer to what would be the correct tag at this file. Kraxler (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

   The answers to Q 4 and 5 show some clue about copyright, but after all, the final answer was not quite correct. On the other side, there might not be any reason to oppose, so, I'll remain here. Merry Christmas! Kraxler (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

   Neutral Moving to neutral from "support". I'm starting to feel a bit uncomfortable with the delay in answering questions, but also the edit history: 2 years of high levels of activity, then a year and a half of hardly any activity an after 3 months of a few hundred edits, an RfA. I think I would like to see some more evidence of continued commitment before handing over the mop. --Randykitty (talk) 10:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

   (moved to support) Neutral, pending answers to outstanding questions. Seems likely to be a net positive, as noted by others. However, I'm unconvinced by comment regarding festivities: timing driven by transclusion date, apparently chosen freely by candidate. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 11:38, 26 December 2013 (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.