Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/J04n 2

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

J04n

Final (63/0/1); Closed by Rlevse at 02:05, 09 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

J04n (talk · contribs) – Fellow Wikipedians I present to you J04n as in my view a worthy candidate for adminship. J04n has the tenure, temperament and contributions to not only to meet my RFA standards, but more importantly I now believe that J04n has the experience to meet the rather stricter standards required to achieve consensus of support at RFA. This is J04n's second run, the first was last September, and though there was substantial support, at the time there was not a consensus for promotion. However much of the opposition then was because of concerns about experience, I think that J04n has clearly progressed since then, which is why I now submit this candidate for the communities reconsideration.

J04n has a diversity of contributions that indicates a broad understanding of the pedia, and with a clean block log after 48,000 edits I think we have enough of a sample to show that J04n can be a very active but low drama Wikipedian.

A good example of J04n's recent work has been at Wiki project Metal unreferenced BLPS. J04n has referenced many of that projects unreferenced BLPS, and AFDed some others. I think that is the sort of activity indicative of an editor who quietly resolves problems on the pedia, which is why I think J04n would be a useful drama free admin. ϢereSpielChequers 15:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. J04n(talk page) 02:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: For starters I'll stick to what I know. Administratively, I am most active at WP:AfD, if given the tools I would start by closing AfDs. I am also fairly active at WP:DRV, being able to see deleted pages is a plus in this area.

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

A: I am quite proud of Eddie Bayers, not because it is of Good or Feature Article quality, because it's not, but because I saw a red link on someone's userpage and decided to write an article for it. He is a country musician, I know nothing about country but I found sources wrote it up, it was featured on DYK? and it hasn't needed to be significantly altered by other editors. I'm also proud that I got Canasta (band) to graduate from incubation. Any time that my scut work when assessing an AfD influences other editors (such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simonida Rajčević) I get a great feeling of accomplishment. Since the last AfD, I helped Ramones get GA status and Wicked Lester regain GA status, I want to be upfront in that much of the work was done on these articles before I started working on them.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I edit Wikipedia to relieve the stresses of real life, I don't get stressed over Wikipedia. I really haven't even had any conflicts with other editors, I think I approach things rationally, try to be kind, and am will to compromise. Approaching situations in this manner diffuse conflicts before they begin. I did mention a conflict in my first RFA, feel free to look it over but it is quite minor.

Additional optional questions from Coldplay Expert

4. What is your opinion on the Ignore all rules policy?

A: Ignore all rules is one of the pillars on which Wikipedia stands. It's a wonderful concept in that one should not let a rule prevent one from improving the encyclopedia. I think of it as a 'spirit of the law' vs. 'letter of the law' concept. However, it should not be misinterpreted to mean 'ignore consensus'.

5. What are your views on the Petition against IAR abuse?

A: I'm not a petition kind of guy. I've followed the situation closely, it has affected my editing in that I've spent a lot of time having deleted articles restored so I can source them and sourcing other unsourced BLPs. I have also worked to organize others to source articles. I believe my actions have more of a voice than signing my name but that's just me. I respect the folks that have voiced their opinions, everyone has to react to circumstances in their own way. I think the final sentence of my previous answer sums up my opinion of the sentiment of the petition.

6. As an admin, would you or would you not use the WP:IAR policy as an explination for any administrator-related decisions (blocking, deletion, ect...)?

A: If the consensus of the community on a specific decision was to ignore a rule I would ignore it. I could imagine a hypothetical AfD where an editor argued keep or delete citing WP:IAR with a compelling rationale. Then, if enough other editors agreed to the point that it was the consensus decision, I would rule in their favor and ignore the rule (unless of course it was a damaging BLP or copyright violation). I would not invoke WP:IAR as an admin without community consensus.

Additional questions from FASTILY

7. Can a non-free image of a living person be used in an article when a free alternative does not exist? Explain.

A. No with one caveat, a non-free image can only be used if there is no free equivalent, or no free equivalent could be created. In the case of a living person a picture can be taken thus creating a free equivalent. The caveat to this would be if notability rests on the person's earlier visual appearance, such as if the circumstances that the person achieved notability was during childhood and now he or she is elderly.

8. A user crops an image of a turtle from a copyrighted album cover for usage in the article, Sea turtle. When is this allowed (if ever) and how is it potentially a problem?

A: It is not allowed, copyrighted cover art is allowed to be used as non-free content only for identification of that item, in this case the album.

9. An editor goes to and takes an photo of a copyrighted statue with their own camera. The editor then uploads the image of that copyrighted statue to Wikipedia, claiming it under a free license, because after all, the photo was taken by the editor. Detail how you would react, if at all.

A: This would be acceptable, a new copyright is normally generated when a photograph is taken of a 3-dimensional object. This would not be the case with a 2-dimensional object such as a painting.

10. A user uses their digital camera and takes a picture of a copyrighted Disney character, for instance, Ariel from The Little Mermaid and WALL-E from WALL-E as well as other such characters. The user then creates a collage from the images and uploads the collage to Wikipedia with the license tag {{PD-self}} (public domain). Specifically, what is the problem with the situation and why is that an issue?

A: These pictures would retain their original copyrights because they are of 2-dimensional subjects and could only be used under non-free criteria not public domain. Appropriate use of non-free content is restricted to commentary of that item only, so the picture of Ariel can be used in an article about the character or the film but combining the different characters would serve no appropriate rationale. There may be some Disney characters that were created prior to 1923 that are in the public domain, but that's another issue.

Additional question from Tan | 39

11. What have you learned since your previous RfA? Can you be specific about which opposes held merit, in your eyes, and what you have done to alleviate the concerns?

A: I am a very different contributor to Wikipedia than I was at the time of my first RfA. At the time I had a very large edit count but very little diversity in editing and no experience in admin-related areas. So to answer your first question I learned about the behind the scenes stuff that goes on and more importantly the policies and guidelines that keep this project going. If you look at the whole RfA you will be surprised by my answer to the next question, but Alan16's oppose (and some similar ones) held the most merit. He pointed out that I didn't need the tools to do what I did and intended to do and he suggested areas to gain experience. To alleviate the concerns, I broadened my horizons, read up on policies and put those policies into practice.

Additional optional questions from Lambanog

12. How many articles have you created from scratch? How many pages for articles, templates, redirects, etc. that you've significantly worked on have been nominated for deletion? Could you link to a couple?

A: I created eleven articles from scratch, they are at User:J04n/Articles created. You will see that there are twelve articles there, I can't take full credit for Born Again Tour 1983 because a significant portion of that article was taken from Born Again (Black Sabbath album). The 'discussion' (I proposed the change, no one responded) about the split is here: Talk:Born Again (Black Sabbath album)#Seperate page for tour. The first article that I wrote The Music Never Stopped: Roots of the Grateful Dead was tagged for speedy deletion eleven minutes after its creation, I was fortunate that a helpful editor assisted me in establishing its notability and it still exists today. I can't think of anything else that was nominated for deletion, I have worked on many articles after they were nominated (I enjoy doing that). I'll try to think of another example or two but I'm coming up blank.

13. Please evaluate this RfD discussion and close [1]

A: I like this example, if I was participating in the RfD I would have !voted keep, but if I was the closing admin I would have closed as delete. I'll explain: If I were participating in the discussion I would have argued that using WP:CROSS as the argument to delete is flawed in that the essay permits the use of pseudo-namespace redirects which T: is (see Wikipedia:Namespace#Pseudo-namespaces) and the chances of 'T:cite news' being used as a possible future article name is exceedingly remote, plus it is a useful redirect. The argument that only one person is using the redirect is minor since the redirect is newly created so you could assume that few others are aware of it. However, as a closing admin my job isn't to impose my opinion of the situation or my interpretation of a policy (or in this case an essay) it is to assess consensus based on the discussion, so I would have closed it as delete. My reasoning is that the 'delete' !voters refuted the 'keep' voter's argument more effectively than the the other way around. One could argue that it should have been relisted since there were only 3 participants but RfDs are often discussed by this small a number.

Additional question from Leaky Caldron

14. What are your thoughts on Wikipedia Review? What influence do you think it has on some of the more controversial Wikipedia policies? Do you participate there? Leaky Caldron 15:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A: I never heard of the site before reading your question, spent some time today going through some of the strings. My first impression was in regards to the relatively stringent registration process, this to me seemed to be a deliberate contrast to Wikipedia's open registration process, and not a bad thing (although I was annoyed that I couldn't register with a gmail address). The greater emphasis on limiting the access of the site by minors was another facet that looks like it was put in place to distinguish it from Wikipedia, again, not a bad thing. I suppose there are sites like this that exist to critique just about everything, but despite my time on this site I'm actually kind of naive to the web and was very surprised that such an extensive site would exist with the sole purpose of critiquing another website. I found a thread discussing the deletion of unreferenced BLPs, apparently the plan was discussed on Wikipedia Review prior to the deletions so I suppose its presence can influence Wikipedia. Whether or not it influences policy I can't say but if you put a gun to my head and made me answer 'yes' or 'no' I would say 'no'. I saw one post that encouraged all blocked Wikipedia users to participate in Wikipedia Review, so it's no secret that it strives to maintain an anti-WP stance. So, in a nutshell my thoughts are if you want to chat (or just complain) about the goings on of Wikipedia this is the place to go, but if you want to really affect the direction of WP as a whole or just one article at a time, stick to the relevant talk pages here.

Additional optional questions from Coffee

15. In lieu of a recently passed ArbCom motion, that said the burden of proof in BLP deletion rests with the editors who want the article kept, merits an interesting new question. If you were to close an AFD, on an unsourced or badly sourced BLP, where there is no easily determined consensus, how would you close it, and how do you think your view conflicts or agrees with the motion?

A. As of today the policy is to close 'no consensus' as 'keep'. How these are handled may well change as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people but until policy changes my job as closing admin (should this RfA pass) is to the best of my ability determine consensus and if I determine that no consensus is met it's a keep. The ArbCom decision was on the mass deletion and its participants not the policy, policy should be determined by the entire community. Whatever the policy ends up as I will adhere when closing these discussions. I can't say that this view either conflicts or agrees with the motion because the motion was in regards to the deleting of material not interpreting the role of a closing admin. Had the ArbCom expanded their motion to include 'no consensus' closes I suspect that it would default to delete, in which case my view would conflict but that is my speculation.

16. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?

A. I'll start with the second part of your question. I edit BLPs regularly, the vast majority of the pages that I edit are music related, a lot of album pages but also bands and individual musicians most of which are living. Many of these musicians have histories of drug/alcohol abuse, spousal abuse and infidelity, and other contentious behavior. If not presented in a neutral manner I edit it to make it neutral, if not properly sourced I source or immediately delete it. I'm a frequent participant at AfD, if an unsourced or poorly sourced BLP is up for deletion and I feel it is notable, I source it, if I don't have the time or interest I !vote to userfy or incubate (obviously if I don't feel it is notable I !vote delete). Since the mass deletions I have spent a good deal of time and effort sourcing and in some cases stubifying BLPs, and sent a few to AfD. I also requested that some of the deleted pages be userfied to me so that I could source them, others were undeleted at my request for sourcing. My opinion on the current policy is that it is sound, contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced is supposed to be sourced or removed, I fully agree with that. The problem is that these articles sat around unsourced for far too long. I am in favor of organized efforts to get these pages sourced and if sources can't be found after a good faith effort contentious material should be immediately removed. If no sources exist for the bulk of a page then it isn't notable enough to remain and the proper steps (CSD, prod, AfD) should be taken (after the contentious material is removed) for it to be deleted.

17. What measures do you think Wikipedia should take to protect personally identifiable information about editors that are under the age of majority, and how will you deal with such cases as an admin?

A. Wikipedia should vigilantly remove all personally identifiable information of underage editors. Should I come across or be made aware of any I would delete first and ask questions later. After the information is deleted I would email Wikipedia:Requests for oversight to have the material suppressed. After doing this I would leave a message on the minor's talkpage explaining what I did and why I did it. I would also refer them to WP:GFYA and encourage them to use Wikipedia safely. I would bookmark the userpage and regularly monitor it for a return of the information, I would give a stern warning for a second offense and block for a third (provided there was a stern warning by me or someone else from a previous offense).

Optional Questions by /MWOAP|Notify Me\

Q: Explain the following Criteria for Speedy Deletion criteria.

G11

A: Any page, in any namespace, that is exclusively and unambiguously spam would be covered under G11.

G12

A: Any page, in any namespace, that is unambiguously a copyright violation without any credible claim to be anything but a copyright violation. There would have to be nothing on the page or its history that wasn't a copyright violation to be eligible for G12.

A1

A: Any article, i.e. in the main namespace, that lacks any context would be eligible for A1. An example would be if the entire article read "He makes stuff at the place".

A3

A: Any article, i.e. in the main namespace, that lacks any content would be eligible for A3. An article that only contains categories, pictures, external links, template tags (without added information), questions, or chat would eligible for deletion under A3.

Important question from Cool three

18. Do you have a strong password? If your request is successful will you pledge to change that password periodically? Have you considered adding a committed identity to your user page to protect your account in the even that it should be compromised?

A. After reading your post on the talk page, I now have a strong password and I do pledge to change it periodically. I have also just received a committed identity that can be found on my user page.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/J04n
• Requests for adminship/J04n 2

• Links for J04n: J04n (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for J04n can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/J04n before commenting.

Discussion

• Edit stats on the talk page.  7  03:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. I've had only positive interactions with J04n at the albums WikiProject, where he's active, and I've seen him a few times at AfD. His work all around looks very good, and I think he'll be a great admin. Timmeh 03:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
2. J04n's calm temperament and level-headed judgment befit an admin. His comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review are always incisive and well-put. I am confident that his addition to the admin corps will be a net positive. Cunard (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
3. What's not to love? A big pile of barnstars from people I respect, 48K edits, no evidence that he causes trouble, great answers to questions. - Dank (push to talk) 04:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
4. OK. Name sounds familiar. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Support I thought you were one already. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
6. Support. Genuinely thought you were one already. Answers to the image questions are a little weak (someone correct me if I'm the one who is wrong here, but question 9 is wrong); however as you don't intend to work in image deletion (a very specialised area) this doesn't bother me. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

   I found the information for question 9 at Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images, perhaps my interpretation was wrong? : ) J04n(talk page) 05:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

   Statues (in the US) should be protected from derivative work by s106 of the Copyright Act (subject to exceptions). A statue would be a "sculptural work" copyrighted by s102. But again, I may be wrong, and I don't see how it should affect your capability to be an admin. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

   Yes - a photograph of a 3D object generally creates a second copyright issue - both the object and the image may have separate copyright issues to deal with. Another example of why image copyright issues are a pain.--Kubigula (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

7. Support per my boredom at vetting this editor (no drama I can find, nothing interesting, entirely collegiate collaboration, content work, and gnoming) and the answer to Q11. Tan | 39 05:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
8. Support. Sounds like a Wikipedian with the right attitude and humility, and surely enough edits to satisfy even the worst case of editcountitis. Boing! said Zebedee 05:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
9. Support Only a recent contributor to DRV but edits show a good grasp of policy and a collegiate manner. I generally support giving the tools to all DRV regulars because of the need to look at deleted contributions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
10. Support - Per above. smithers - talk 06:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
11. Support. A content-generator first, and prolific contributor to the project space second. I'm sure this mentality will continue into adminship. WFCforLife (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
12. Support As nominator. ϢereSpielChequers 08:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
13. Support I see no problems with the candidate. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
14. Support per the answer to my questions.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 12:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
15. Strong Support: An ideal candidate now that he has taken care of the experience issue. He has a wide range of contributions, a broad understanding of the issues, and a clear block log after 48,000 edits. He quietly works to resolve problems and is encouraging to new editors. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
16. Support Great attitude in prior RfA. Candidate is a content builder, and no problems in the editing history. ARS work is a big plus. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
17. Support. A prolific editor whose quality edits I have often run across.--Kubigula (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
18. Support I see sufficient experience and nothing to worry about either. This was going to be a weak support because I do see some weakish arguments and I prefer to see editors more willing to voice their opinions (rather than letting edits talk for themselves). However, I did look through a couple of AfD arguments and I am satisfied that this editor has a really good idea of what wikipedia should be and that this focus on benefit to wikipedia is what is needed in an admin. Polargeo (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
19. Support Good Track and regular Editor with solid contributions.Feel it only be net positive to the Project if the user gets the tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
20. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards as my opinion has not diminished from last time (I cannot wait for tonight's three hour Lost event!). In fact, such sound arguments as this and this have only served to increase my respect for the candidate as the candidate approaches discussions with care and detail backed in policy and logic alike. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
21. Support I swear some of these RfA questions are designed to trip you up, but the answers here are really good. AniMate 17:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
22. Support - I opposed in the previous RfA, but I had stated that if in the future J04n was able to show more policy knowledge that I would support. I see that now, and so I will support. I was then, and am still impressed by contributions to Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 18:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
23. Support. Seems like a sound, competent and knowledgeable candidate to me. As for the image questions- they were tough and the complexity of the system discourages people from uploading images. I'm sure J04n has enough sense to get a second opinion if he's not sure! HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 19:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
24. Support. Experienced editor. --Carioca (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
25. Support - From my encounters with him, mostly at AfD, this candidate always offers well-reasoned arguments in a calm, positive manner. He is a valuable contributor whose judgment I trust.  Gongshow ^Talk 19:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
26. Support per nom. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
27. Support Jujutacular ^T · C 21:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
28. Support. I have seen this editor's name crop up and I associate it with useful and temperate policy-based comments. I couldn't have answered those image questions either and would have immediately referred them to an authority like the person who asked them; admins don't necessarily have to know all the answers, just where to look for the answers. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
29. Support Definitely satisfies all the concerns from the last RfA. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
30. Support; the reasons that caused me to support the previous RfA persist, and J04n has only improved his contributions in other areas. No concerns here, great admin material. Best of luck. ~ mazca ^talk 23:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

    Additionally, this AfD argument, as highlighted by A Nobody, is one of the most exemplary AfD arguments I've run into and deserves individual note. ~ mazca ^talk 23:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

31. Support, more understanding of policy now compared to the last RfA. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
32. Only improved from the last RfA. A wonderful candidate! ceranthor 02:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
33. Support While not a heavy contributor of audited content, the user's efforts towards rescuing, rehabilitating, and promoting worthy articles is commendable. No evidence he would abuse the tools, and he provides satisfactory answers. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
34. Support. Going to go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
35. Support demonstrates knowledge of adminship tasks and has experience in areas of focus.  Marlith (Talk)  05:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
36. Fine with me. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
37. Support - looks like J04n will make a great admin.  7  11:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
38. Support makes clueful comments.  fetchcomms☛ 16:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
39. Support Looks okay to me. Good luck. GlassCobra 16:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
40. Super Support. Great editor, I can't see abuse with the sysop tools from J04n. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
41. Support J04n will make an excellent administrator. In general, his answers to the questions are respectable and indicate solid policy knowledge. The answer to Q9 is indeed wrong, but its subject is relatively obscure; Q10 is one of the hardest questions I've ever seen asked at RfA. The candidate's article work is very respectable, and the elbow grease put in to bring Ramones to GA status was much needed. I enjoyed reading Eddie Bayers, to which the candidate is the primary contributor. Ultimately, however, my decision to support is based on the candidate's superior ability to present thoughtful arguments at AfD and DRV. This is the kind of editor who I trust to judge consensus correctly when closing AfDs. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
42. Certainly. Seems level headed and thorough. GedUK  11:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
43. Support, a good candidate. --Taelus (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
44. Support, good candidate and will be a good admin.--MrRadioGuy P T C E 18:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
45. Eminently sensible candidate.  Skomorokh  21:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
46. Support Interestingly enough, I missed the last RfA but probably would have supported then, too. Good content creators will take the time to learn to apply policy correctly, while the inverse is far less often true. Jclemens (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
47. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - lots of edits including high-quality article work, great Userboxen, lots of barnstars, and rescues articles. Bearian (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
48. Support - to be honest, I thought J04N already was an admin. No concerns here. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
49. Support. My interactions with the user have been nothing but positive, and like Cocytus I had assumed he was an admin already. —what a crazy random happenstance 07:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
50. Support. One of the best. Level-headed, intent upon being helpful both to the Project and other editors. We're lucky J04n has interest in the mop.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
51. Support No concerns. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
52. Support looks good! Great candidate. Airplaneman ^talk 23:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
53. Support Excellent balance between projectspace edits and actual content work. This user is generally drama-free, stays out of politics, and obviously has a clue. That works for me. Trusilver 02:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
54. Support I'm happy with what I have seen. Discusses issues, doesn't make a drama, is not snappy. Works in dull maintenance areas which shows dedication and commitment. Would be helpful to archive the long talkpage though! SilkTork *^YES! 13:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
55. Support. Happy to support, no problems that I can see. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
56. Support. An experienced, knowledgable, dedicated editor who will, in my opinion, make a great administrator. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
57. Support Can't find any problems. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
58. Tim Song (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
59. Support The user seems trustworthy from what I've seen. hmwith☮ 16:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
60. Support no reason to think theyd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
61. Support A very good candidate. Definitely has my trust. I'm sure they'll make an excellent administrator. -- Marek.69 ^talk 20:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
62. Support: Canidate has my support. I would have a continuing list of contribs of good things this user has done. (User:MWOAP/RfA voting) -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
63. Support. See no obvious issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral. per Q9 & Q10, both of which are wrong. I suppose these are both questions I wouldn't expect most editors to know, but the number of times I've seen your name at the upload log gives me the impression you answer better than that. Please do try again. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Moved to support -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Fastily, those were hard questions. Would the average Admin be able to answer them? You have convinced me that I could never never be an Admin! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Q9 is indeed wrong, but from my read of it it seems more because J04n misread the question rather than necessarily having his interpretation wrong. I'm curious as to how Q10 is wrong though - it may not cover all issues involved, but as far as my limited image copyright knowledge goes what he did say isn't all that bad. ~ mazca ^talk 14:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Neutral. Per answer to question 12, support. Per answer to question 13, oppose. Candidate correctly observes that WP:CROSS is flawed as a reason to support deletion, however, that leaves the opinion of two editors against the opinion of one editor supported by WP:Namespace. Insufficient reason to close as consensus. Taking various things into account I will go neutral on this one. Lambanog (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)