Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Law

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

Law[edit]

Nomination[edit]

Final (101/23/4); Originally scheduled to end 22:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 23:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Law (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gents, I'd like to present Law for consideration for adminship. Since joining in September 2008, he's racked up over five thousand edits, nearly half of which are in the mainspace. He's a proficient vandal fighter, always making sure to leave warnings, and has over 60 reports to AIV. Law is most frequently seen at DYK, verifying hooks and making sure that entered articles are up to every standard. He himself has six DYKs, all from articles that he created and wrote by himself, as well as several articles that he's saved from being deleted or otherwise improved. Furthermore, he is skilled at taking high quality pictures, and has contributed a good number to our articles, the latest of which can be seen at chocolate-covered bacon. He has expressed a very strong interest in helping the DYK process run more smoothly, continuing his work there and helping to update the template on time. Finally, Law has a fantastic temperament and sense of humor, with experienced and new users alike. This is a highly trustworthy user, who would undoubtedly be a positive force with the mop. GlassCobra 08:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I do accept. Law shoot! 08:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC) The candidate may make an optional statement here.[reply]

I also want to make it completely transparent that I took over this username. I was XF Law before I was just Law. Also, my edit count, early on, was inflated by using Huggle. I found my watchlist to be so fascinating because I kept seeing edits made with (HG) and (TW). I came from another wiki, so had never seen these tools, and in turn, I asked for "rollback", in order to use Huggle. I was denied, but because I didn't have any experience in Recent Changes. That is simply not a concept I had seen. Eventually, I was trusted with it, and Huggled quite alot from the get go. A few months in, like another wiki-buddy I have, I delved into article creation and then DYK. (I'd name the editor, but it could be seen as canvassing him specifically, so I should best leave that out!) Law shoot! 08:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: DYK. We are all volunteers and I love working at DYK. One thing I like about it is how dynamic it is. Changing rapidly, I feel it gets new editors and readers alike, interested in something that may have never been available to them. I would also be willing to help at AIV, but to be honest, my primary work would be at DYK. I know a lot of candidates say they can clear up backlogs, but as adept as I may be with policy, I'm just loving my work at DYK. I know the "mop" would allow me further access to DYK, as I would love to participate in the queues, as well as minor tweaks. Usernames that are not suitable, as well as ANI do spark my interest, as well.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best? Local talent. I love the fact that this wiki allows me to take pictures, create articles. and show others that I'm not just a taxation-lover, but I do think, Dick's Last Resort and Tilted Kilt are important. In all honesty I took [1] this from PROD to a viable article. I'm just sentimental that way, as these are places I actually visit. My article creation is my best contribution, because I am excited to see how, in months, or years, they evolve as articles. Notability is a funny thing because it is predicated on reliable sources. One would think I would mention the Supreme Court cases I've written, but to me, every article that passes WP:N has its place here. My best contributions are those that I have created, expanded, or saved because notability is forever. I would not put this much time into a hobby if I thought they wouldn't be expanded, re-written, and more importantly, they will evolve. I am excited to see what my children have to look forward to.
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: Once a user used an edit summary that downed me. That prompted me to inquire as to why. We settled it. As far as stress, I think that if it isn't physical, I have no excuse to be stressed. I like it here. Stress is something I can handle, but wiki-stress should be taken with a grain of salt. Yes, it's important, but stress? No. Get consensus and move on. That's not to say that WP couldn't cause me stress - it has. It probably always will. But I try my best to keep things in perspective, and if I feel stress coming on, here on WP, I will simply ask for another pair of eyes to see if my reaction to that stress was realistic. If not, I welcome all input because we all have different buttons that can be pushed. It's not realistic to say that I have zero stress here, because people will, and do have differences of opinion. As far as conflict -- I would rather get things out in the open, and settled as quickly and effectively as possible. I have no willingness to prolong any conflict. If we are all here for the same reason, then I find that almost all editors are willing to come to a happy medium.
Optional questions from S Marshall
4a. How strong's your password?
A My password is the same strength as my WPA encryption. DYK I have my MSCE certs as well? Lol. It's 61 characters to be exact. Have fun with that one! Law shoot! 15:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4b. You're closing an AfD. IThe article under discussion's about a subject you're not personally familiar with—say, for example, Rites of passage among aboriginal australians—and the AfD's a mess. There are twenty-six contributions. Fourteen of them are from IP addresses tagged as single-purpose accounts; of these, twelve say "delete per nom", one says "delete" without giving a rationale, and one says "delete because none of the information in the article is verifiable from reliable sources". Of the remaining twelve, nine successive !votes are from relatively new editors (between 10 and 200 edits each) saying some variation of "Keep, because it would be racist to delete this". Beneath that is a remark from an administrator chiding one of these editors for canvassing (and he provides diffs to show that the first of these nine canvassed all his on-wiki friends on their talk pages). Beneath that is that same administrator's !vote ("delete for lack of reliable sources"), and then a !vote from an established editor widely-regarded as inclusionist saying "Keep: it would be possible to write a reliably-sourced, encyclopaedic article with this title", and finally, a !vote from an established editor widely-regarded as a deletionist saying "Delete this original research".

Please provide your assessment of this debate and state how you would close it.

A I do admit that I don't plan to close an AfD, and as this is not linear (which makes it harder for me to grasp), I suppose that I should be able to grasp the concept of consensus. To me, consensus is not numbers, but viability in the strength of one side of a debate. In this case, it is a pickle. In fact, the 'deletes per nom' are hard to assess because there is no nom rationale provided. Assuming the nom was part of the canvassing (not sure), I still can't give any more weight to the deletionist, the admin, nor the inclusionist. To be quite honest, all I see are 2 valid !votes here. One says the article can be sourced (although that is most likely on the burden of the participant) and one that cries OR. In this case, I would close as no consensus, seeing as the 2 strongest arguments are pitted against one another. As of right now, it is my understanding that no consensus is equal to a non-deletion. In this case, I would not delete. Law shoot! 15:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4c. A new editor called Fluffy1339 has written an article about a corporation. The article is promotional, and is tagged for speedy deletion. The editor removed the tag, the article went to AfD, and was deleted after due process. The editor then went on to request that it be userfied so she could fix it, and another administrator did that. The restoring administrator has subsequently retired.

A few weeks later, you receive a note on your talk page from another editor, saying that Fluffy1339 has restored the article into mainspace in several different places, with titles that were slightly different to the title that was deleted at AfD. You verify that this is correct and remove the articles in question. Then Fluffy1339 leaves an insulting message on your talk page saying you're harrassing her.

As her next action, she proceeds to write a new article using slightly different wording about the same company. What do you do now?

A First, I think that speedy tags should not be removed by the creator, so it probably should have been deleted from the get go. However, in this example, it made it past PROD and to AFD. The fact that the admin who deleted the article has unfortunately retired doesn't exempt it from DRV, however. The alleged harassment by the author is nothing I would take into account, but it simply boils down to this - if this is an article that was deleted via consensus at AFD, and recreated, it qualifies for speedy deletion. I would, of course, go on to explain to the article creator how AFD is not a prejudicial process and urge them to re-create said article in their userspace with some guidance by stellar editors who encourage the editor to become part of the process, as I don't want to alienate an new user. Law shoot! 15:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Q 4c followup that's not the policy. The policy for G4 is that it only applies " provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." One point of being an admin is that you can see the deleted content before carrying out the deletion. The editor placing the tag is normally having to guess. Second, it';s not the policy that anything from which a speedy tag is removed by the author is automatically deleted. they shouldn't do it, of course, but sometimes they are right about the article , and we consider the article, just as we do if they had properly placed a hangon. My follow up Q is, whether you think you understand the policies concerning the privileges you will be having? I don't think one needs to know everything, there's about half the potential functions I don;t know yet beyond the very basics, but any admin will come across articles that need Speedy deletion, even if working primarily elsewhere--its one of the fundamental areas. DGG (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that in the hypothetical above, the article went to AFD, and was deleted. It was recreated exactly the same, only under different article titles. G4 mentions a copy, by any title. Unless we are getting our signals crossed, I will have to stick by my answer. I also didn't mean to imply that I would delete an article simply because an author removed a tag; I was indicating that the author should not have removed the tag, even when placing 'hangon.' Thanks. Law shoot! 04:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from Stifle
5. You have comparatively few deleted contributions, suggesting that you have little or no experience with deletion tagging. While you haven't mentioned that you intend to work in deletion, can you commit to informing yourself on policies before any future move to that area?
A. That I can. In fact, I find it a bit disheartening when articles are tagged for 'non-assertion of notability' when the 'tagger' misunderstood the tag to mean 'non-notable.' Same would be true for those who tag articles as 'nonsense' when they are not exactly a random sequence of QWERTY strokes. I think those tags are misunderstood by many people on Wikipedia, to be honest.
6. Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a living person be used on Wikipedia?
A. If it is a living person, I wouldn't advise the use of any non-free image. I suppose the exception would be an inactive individual who is known for such an image, and not much else. In short, personally, I would rather be safe and not use any non-free image for any living person, regardless of the image exception. Law shoot! 15:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Do you support the concept of a fused profession?
A. After reading the article I can only support the concept of someone sourcing it :) Law shoot! 15:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Quadell
8. Tell us about a time when consensus didn't go the way you wanted. How did you react?
A. I really don't have much experience in this. One time (at band camp) Rutabaga was going to be moved to Swede (vegetable) against my opinion. But that's how consensus works. How did I react? I still eat rutabega, and would continue to edit the article kindly. Consensus is king here, so as I am a guest on Wikipedia, I abide by it. In my profession, we, as Americans, adhere to international consensus all the time. It's a learning process, and generally a good one. Law shoot! 16:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Looie496
9. Forgive me for being a bit blunt. I see absolutely nothing bad in your record, but I do see that you haven't had time to develop much maturity, and haven't experienced much conflict. Why should we have confidence that when you do experience conflict, you will handle it appropriately?
A. I've been looking over the opposes about conflict resolution, and here is what I can come up with as far as my experience. I have not been involved in serious conflict because I don't let it escalate to that point. I have worked with other editors on article talk pages, and follow consensus. The areas I work in, are not generally prone to conflict, as I can see. For example, former Supreme Court cases are settled; not much room to argue there. Working at DYK and creating articles about pubs is not likely to lead to any conflict. To answer your question, I work (in real life) in an atmosphere that is very charged. If I may be so bold, there reason you see little experience of conflict is because I have become quite capable of working with others in an effort to avoid such conflict. It's my experience that tells me it takes more than one person to engage in a conflict. As in taxation, I abide by policies and rules set forth by the IRS. I have to because this is the profession I chose. With Wikipedia, I also abide by the same, because I'm a guest here. In addition, I suppose one could also surmise that my temperament is that of someone who can prevent a situation from becoming a conflict, and I hardly excitable. I have a very high threshold when it comes interpersonal interaction and I would say that my lack of conflict on this website is part luck, part of the areas in which I work, and part my reactions to situations. I simply don't lose my cool. It's tax season, I'm writing a thesis which will be put up for publication, I'm graduating and have finals soon. Hopefully that is a good indicator that I am extremely calm under fire. Thanks. I know this was long. Law shoot! 03:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Jennavecia
10a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.
A: I think that having an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, can pose a problem for any subject. In addition, it is especially devastating for the living because we need to respect their privacy, be accurate, stay neutral, and certainly we don't want to libel anyone nor damage them. I think there is a problem, and from just fringe interaction on WP, I think it a rather large problem, to be honest. It seems another problem is that the community is split on whether the problem exists, and to what extent.
10b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?
1. Flagged revisions
2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions
3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)
A:Hot water here - especially having seen your userpage several times, Jennavecia. I don't believe that flagged revisions are a good thing. I find that one of the greatest qualities of Wikipedia is that it is dynamic; almost organic and live. Having revisions goes against that and makes the site less fluid. For #2, I'm being honest when I say I don't like the idea of adding a 'reviewer' to the process. I do agree that BLP is a concern; I'm not convinced this is the fix. If consensus is to take this trial run, I'll be there to help. Like I've mentioned, I'm a guest here, and I abide by house rules. Liberal use of semi-protection is my recommendation. The disadvantage is that an IP may get discouraged from editing. The advantage is that an IP may find WP to be serious business enough to register an account and stay for awhile. In addition, I'm not trying to make a blanket statement, as I respect IPs as much as I do any editor. In my experience, the amount of IP vandalism appears to me to be greater than vandalism caused by registered users. I think it's less likely that someone will register an account, wait patiently for days, and vandalize a semi-protected page. However, I've seen it happen.
10c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?
A: I will not be closing any AFDs. I have participated in very few. If I had to, I would abide by the current policy and keep when there is no consensus. However, I am also an individual who believes that no consensus on a BLP should be a delete. I will not invoke IAR if this case arise, I just wanted to make it clear that this is just one policy I don't happen to agree with.
10d. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about vandalism made to the article and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?
A: First, I completed your question using another RFA - hope that is okay. This is such a difficult question. I have heard about this happening and seen accounts where this really serves to polarize editors here. My personal opinion - if it's a marginally notable individual who is being harmed, I have no problems with the deletion of the article if there is no consensus. Emotionally I try to empathize with this person, but the only consideration I can give them is the same consideration I would give to any editor that participates in a deletion debate. This is why I don't plan on closing AFDs, because the policy on BLPs and no consensus is something I would like to change. I would feel hypocritical enforcing a closure that I felt was a result of a policy I would like to help amend. Thanks. Law shoot! 05:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from jc37
In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
  • 11. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
  • A:There are many reasons, I suppose. 3rr vios are not good for anyone. Gross violation of NPA and CIV would be another. General disruption would warrant a block, but none should be a punishment.
  • A: If there was clear evidence that an edit war occurred, or if a BLP was being desecrated by an IP, I would protect a page. However, I feel this would be a last resort in an edit war; I would rather confront the editors than lock down an article.
  • A: Nonsense, attacks, and copyright vios would not be taken lightly. I may work in DYK, but I have experience in this field. The aforementioned examples would merit speedy deletions. However, spam and short articles are things I would rather discuss with the author before such a speedy deletion.
  • A: This policy is a cornerstone, but should not be taken lightly. It was meant to be a caveat to general guidelines. IAR if you feel the rules prevent you from improving what we do here. Like I mentioned above, I would IAR with a marginal BLP that had no consensus at AFD, but that is not a field in which I have any interest. I believe there is no one great example to when IAR should be evoked, but if the occasion should arise, I would do so, and ask for consensus on my action.
  • 12. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.
  • A: I apologize if I am being terse, but I think that consensus transcends each example. I have looked over the link you provided, but I still apply consensus as I would to my own real-life work. If there is a better justification, provided by policy, then that to me, is consensus. It has less to do with numbers, and more to do with the strength of the argument. If an argument is strong, and backed by policy, it could be a dead heat, however I find consensus to be not a count, but the will of those who use policy as justification.
  • 13. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
  • A: I would try and de-escalate the situation first, by asking the editors to take the discussion back to the talk page of the article. I would remind each editor that while I'm happy to mediate, it should be done with transparency and on the article page. I've found that before drastic actions are taken, eg protecting the page, it is much better to look at what has transpired, as far as 3RR, NPOV, and RS are concerned. I am convinced I can help those two users find a resolve before any administrative action need occur. In my experience, if it escalates to such a situation, odds are that one, if not both editors, have broken a policy or a guideline.
  • 14. Why do you wish to be an administrator?
  • A: I feel that I can better serve DYK by having access to facets that I do not have at this moment. Other than that, I could clear a backlog if needed, but again, that's not my reason for accepting this nom. Law shoot! 10:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from User:Geo Swan:
  • 15a Follow-up to 10d -- A few months ago I came across a paper on counter-terrorism. I looked up the author, so I could assess their credentials. I found that they had written other papers, and delivered speeches. They were a professor of law, specializing in counter-terrorism at the Coast Guard Academy -- and remained an active NCIS agent. I thought this was sufficient to justify starting an article on this individual. IIRC it was three or four paragraphs long, and cited half a dozen references. A couple of weeks later I found it had been deleted. I asked the deleting administrator for an explanation, and they told me the subject of the article had asked for its deletion, confirmed through OTRS. This administrator told me the subject of the article did not challenge the accuracy or neutrality of the article -- they just didn't want to be covered here. The administrator, if I understood them, thought that the subject was of marginal notability. And that BLP, when the subject did not want to be covered, authorized the deletion of articles when, in their sole judgment, the subject who complained was of marginal notability. Note: the article did contain an explicit assertion of notability. So, normally, it would have required a {{prod}} or {{afd}}. I asked the administrator in question to userify the article. And they declined -- citing BLP. So -- do you think there should be a loophole, where an adminstrator should be authorized to delete biographical articles that assert notability, on their sole judgment, when the subject has stated they don't want to be covered here? Geo Swan (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear as if there was a loophole here, but moreso an application of IAR. Did you consider a deletion review? I think I'm the one answering the questions ;) No, the specific loophole you mention is nothing that interests me. A unilateral decision like this, which circumvents important deletion procedures ignores consensus, and this project is predicated on community input. One additional problem is that you mentioned 'marginal notability.' In this case, who makes that call? I would, as a member of the community, liked to have been involved in the discussion as to the degree of notability, but there was none. That's a problem. Law shoot! 05:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15b. Related to above -- the deletion policies all recommend that the nominator leave the article creator (and possibly major contributors) a heads-up, on their talk page, of the nomination. One of my concerns is that when administrators exercise their authority to delete, on sight, articles that meet one of the criteria for speedy deletion, the policy doesn't assign anyone the responsibility to inform the person who started the article that it was deleted. My reading of the Administrator's guide to deletion was that it recommended that administrators reserve their power to delete on sight for actual emergency situations, and that, when they think they see an article that meets a CSD criteria, they should tag the article with a speedy deletion tag, just like everyone else, so the article gets seen by two sets of eyes. If you were entrusted with administrator authority, would you delete, on sight, all articles you thought met a CSD? Geo Swan (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Attacks and libel - like someone who has drawn something inappropriate on a classroom chalkboard, for example - should be deleted without having to wait for the tag. However, it is very important that speedy deletions remain this 2-step process in most other instances, so we don't end up with administrators playing the role of the tagger, and the role of the deletor. It defeats checks and balances. If I run across an article that does not assert notability, you can guarantee that I will tag it and wait for due process. Two sets of eyes can only serve to be better than one. Law shoot! 05:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 16. In the oppose section another contributor wrote: "There is already too much disruption caused by editor lawmen who feel they have the authority to interpret copyright law for all of wikipedia." I don't remember ever working on the same page as you, or participating in the same discussion. So, are you a lawyer? I too have had concerns over the compliance of some other wikipedians who were lawyers with WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. There are projects, like the Citizendium, where individuals who are experts in real life are allowed are allowed to make contributions we would consider original research. But, here on the wikipedia, individuals don't establish their real world credentials. That is part of the reason why wikipedians who claim to be experts in real life are generally expected to cite verifiable, authoritative, reliable sources, just like everyone else. Do you think this same standard should apply to wikipedians who claim to be lawyers? Should the rest of us give any more credit to their personal conclusions and assertions on legal matters than we would to the conclusions and assertions of any other wikipedian? Similarly, do you think administrators who are lawyers in real life should base rulings, and make {{afd}} closures, on topics related to the law, based on their real-life interpretation of the law? Geo Swan (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm by no means a lawyer. 'Law' is the name of a character from a video game :) I'm not sure why the editor who opposed me made the assumption that I was interpreting copyright law; the consensus, even from another opposing voice, was that I was correct about that particular policy. I certainly wouldn't believe someone was a lawyer, just because they use that as their WP persona. To answer your questions, there is no profession that should trump another here. I'm in taxation. But should you trust me more? Absolutely not. You cannot be sure I'm telling the truth. And if I'm using apparent expertise to write an article, it's likely I'm taking my information from the same sources that are available to any editor, so there is nothing special about what I do. A lawyer should should not use legal interpretations on any closures, just as I wouldn't use personal experiences as a substitute for policy. We are equal here - profession is simply not an issue, because we are all encyclopedia builders when we login to this site. Law shoot! 05:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from rʨanaɢ talk/contribs
  • 17. You intend to use admin tools to help out at DYK, so I would like to hear what your stance is on several issues that have been controversial there in recent months (not necessarily controversial within the DYK community, but things that have drawn criticism or questions from outside:

no. copying from pd is not a new article. one thing that has been quite a source of contention is the use of public domain at DYK. While PD is quite fine for an existing article, we use DYK to attract new users as editors and readers alike. I would prefer that new information is introduced and exploited for articles at DYK. Public domain, while correct, goes against the train of thought that something new has been brought to light.

  • 17a. Is it ok to feature articles that contain some text from public domain sources? What about articles translated directly from another language version of Wikipedia?

Again, many editors have decided to contribute because DYK is such a great invite for them. FA's are essentially great works, as DYK is an encouragement to help out. I have worked and seen my articles translated into other languages. But one thing, which may divide the community is that DKY and the main page is still en-wiki. If it is a strict translation from another language, or perhaps public domain, it does not lend credence to the fact that we are here at DYK to introduce NEW and interesting articles for the purpose of getting others interested. I think cross-translation is the best; I have a friend who does that from EN to Spanish. It should be not a translated article and something that is new to english speakers, as that is why we are en. Now, the articles may be great ones, but not ready for DYK.

same as above. pd is copy and paste. while it is acceptable for article space, not for dyk.

  • 17b. Are there any topics or subjects that categorically cannot be accepted to put on the main page? Or certain kinds of hooks that are unacceptable?

not censored, but more important, tact. contentious terms, inflammatory pictures, although OK for commons, should stay off main dyk space. Defamatory hooks are out. BLP hooks, should be taken with a sense of caution. And yes, I get that WP is not censored, but that doesn't negate the fact that I feel that tact is imperitive when being on the mainpage of the most popular website in the world. To be honest, can I have a vagina on my userpage? Yep. Would I -- no. NOTCENSORED says nothing about an editor's ability to make a tactful decision. I'm all for freedom in this project. Freedom also comes with responsibility .

  • 17c. How much inline referencing is necessary to pass DYK, beyond the reference used for the hook? Does this change if most of the references are from a single source or author? a contributor should realize that rules at dyk can be easily followed

I learned this lesson the hard way. If you have a hook, do the favor of sourcing it. That's not just a DYK rule, but all information should be adequately sourced.

  • 17d. Does DYK have "too many rules"?

no. the rules at dyk are simple and more importantly they are good rules tha have evolved ovr time. <-- bad grammar on my part. but i still think the rules are good.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

For those that prefer them:

~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 12:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editing stats posted at the talk page –Juliancolton | Talk 14:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you know... ...that there must be tons of people not commenting this because they can't come up with a good DYK?  iMatthew :  Chat  15:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general note, I suppose that I understand the opposes regarding not enough conflict experience, though I'd just like to point out that we promote a high number of gnome admins on a regular basis. However, I find it pretty disheartening to see that a solid six or seven months and five thousand edits is now considered "not enough experience" or a long enough term on Wiki. GlassCobra 04:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I absolutely whole-heartily agree. WP:GOLDENTICKET. Keegantalk 04:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my computer did not survive a six story fall. & as my father as gone into heart failure, I am not asking for sympathy. I am using the on screen keyboard to address any issues. i cant in good faith respond to my opposition and i cant a address other questions 4 the duration of rfa. base this on my experience & regardless of the outcome it is ok guys,

I cannot address all the opposers about my free image question (#6) but I would like to offer cut and paste policy v. my answer. I think it could shed more light that any rebuttal I may have:
Policy: Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images.
However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable.
My Answer:
If it is a living person, I wouldn't advise the use of any non-free image. I suppose the exception would be an inactive individual who is known for such an image, and not much else. In short, personally, I would rather be safe and not use any non-free image for any living person, regardless of the image exception, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable.
I hope one can see that my answer was a summary of our policy based on my knowledge, and I can't apologize for my answer because I think it adheres to the goal of the project. Law shoot! 10:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Did you know... ... that Law makes helpful edits, has polite interactions with other users, and would make a good admin? FlyingToaster 10:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Did you know... ... that the highly persuasive and quality nomination from GC, coupled with exceptional answers to the questions, persuaded Pedro to support this request?. Pedro :  Chat  11:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Did you know... ... that this user is extremely trustworthy, and doesn't give off any reason to not support them?  iMatthew :  Chat  11:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Did you know... ... that Law is a clueful user who would be a benefit to Wikipedia as an administrator? Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 11:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Someone had to break the above chain. Seems to combine vandal-fighting with a decent amount of mainspace work and working with articles in the form of DYK. Net positive to the project, why the hell not. —Cyclonenim | Chat  11:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Did you know... ... that Cyclonenim is a combo breaker? — neuro(talk)(review) 11:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    :) Pedro :  Chat  11:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Did you know... ... that Law has a good contribution history, is always courteous when communicating with other users, and can be trusted with the admin tools? --CapitalR (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Did you know... ... that the rule of Law is better than the rule of any individual? And how could anyone dare oppose that? --candle•wicke 13:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Y'all are a bunch of fools. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, you're right. How dare anybody have a little bit of fun. Julian, I think you should get to blocking us all.  iMatthew :  Chat  13:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, alright then. Who wants to go first? –Juliancolton | Talk 13:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this the point where I raise my hand? — neuro(talk)(review) 15:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I smell a WP:EFD nomination? ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 23:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Did you know... that I support this request as the nominator? GlassCobra 13:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Did you know that Law has a clean block log and one of Law's barnstars is for rescuing an article? ϢereSpielChequers 14:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Did you know... that Law is obviously a quiet and competent contributor, can be trusted to wield the mop sanely, and more importantly can be trusted to not use the mop in areas he is not familiar with? //roux   14:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Did you know... that this is getting out of hand. But srsly, Law has been a net positive to the project, and I think we can only benefit from having another set of hands here as an admin. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Did you know... That Law does both article work and countervandalism?--Res2216firestar 15:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Did you know... that Pedro is right? At least in this case. ;) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 15:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Did you know... that I'm happy with the candidate's answers to my questions? (There are things I could quibble--in question 4b, more than two !votes contribute to the strength of the argument, and in question 4c the candidate is arguably no longer an uninvolved administrator so perhaps should not delete himself; but I find the thought processes behind his answers clear and clueful.)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Did you know... that I can't believe I'm continuing this ridiculous trend? Did you also know that I've had nothing but positive experiences with Law, and that I think he'd make an extra administrator due to his maturity and good knowledge of how Wikipedia works? And did you also know that I feel like I'm talking in the Australian Questioning Intonation? ~ mazca t|c 16:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Does good work, and no reason to believe they'd abuse the tools. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. No I did not but hell why not? Go-ahead from me. NVO (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Did you know... that Law has done excellent work on a number of articles about U.S. Supreme Court cases, such as Wisconsin_Department_of_Revenue_v._William_Wrigley,_Jr.,_Co., Golsen_v._Commissioner_of_Internal_Revenue and Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Did you know... that Law participates in the WikiProject: Supreme Court of the United States? miranda 17:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Did you know... that starting their !votes with "Did you know..." was probably the most predictable way people will do it in this RFA?^^ Not that this will stop me from doing it myself. The oppose reasoning does not convince me, people can easily get knowledgeable in 7 months. Hell, I may have been registered for 4 years before my RFA but I did not start getting involved before May 2008. And I passed RFA in October, which is much shorter than Law was really involved here. And I have seen him around often, not once in a negative way. Will make a fine admin. Regards SoWhy 18:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you know...that when I was up for RfA, all it took was a few thousand edits, a few months, and a cluebat to get a mop? Sometimes I like your style, SoWhy :) Keegantalk 20:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Did you know... that Mailer Diablo approves this message? (hand illustration pictured) - 18:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Did you know... that I have no idea what to write? But seriously, though the user has only been active for seven months, I've seen editors applying for RFA who have been around for years who have created huge amounts of drama and chaos. As such, and given that I fail to see any drama-making in Law's edits, I have no hesitation in applying AGF and supporting the user. Skinny87 (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Did you Know I'm still around? And did you know that I cant see anything wrong here and I found the guy very funny :)(not the reason I voted for him I hasten to add :D)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AtheWeatherman (talk • contribs)
    Did you Know ...that you should generally sign your votes at a RFA? Cheers. I'mperator 20:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Did you know... that laws, unlike rules, cannot be ignored? Good find, GlassCobra. Keegantalk 20:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, passes the clue test. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Did you know... that I didn't know he wasn't an admin already? LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 review! 21:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Did you know... that a user doesn't have to be on wikipedia for years to make a good admin. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 22:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Did you know... That law is cool. LAWL. MBisanz talk 22:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support No reason not to support Law. Good luck. America69 (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!! — Jake Wartenberg 23:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Did you know... that I am happy to support Law's bid for adminship? Pastor Theo (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support because there can only be a certain amount of "Did you know..."s before the joke gets old. Tavix |  Talk  01:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. No concerns about "not enough experience" for me. Dwr12 (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Consistently solid talk page correspondence and contributions / collaboration. The dispute resolution abilities exhibited here are reassuring to me. One thing - a major reason WP has administrators is because conflicts come up that require resolution, so I hope you realize what you're signing up for. Good luck. Townlake (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes, I am well aware that I will surely face certain conflict. Like I stated below, I am adept at putting out fires before they start, and I see my lack of conflicts as a positive, and not a weakness. Law shoot! 04:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Answer to question 9 resolved my doubts. Looie496 (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Did you know... ... that I want to start this ball rolling again? Law has proven himself to me not only from the content he has developed, but also from the great answers he's given in the questions above. Obviously has a clue about things, and is willing to help. Killiondude (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. I have no reason to oppose this. However, could we stop with the stupid DYK jokes? It's not funny and could be harming the candidate's chances. It's really pissing me off.  GARDEN  08:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, see Oppose 8 -- apparently the editor actually went looking for a reason to oppose just because of the DYK jokes, though for the life of me I don't understand why. GlassCobra 11:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is absolutely outrageous. We have some incredulous oppose reasons before but I think think takes the biscuit.  GARDEN  12:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - looks fine to me, good answers to questions and a good contribution history. Camw (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Good answers to a particularly demanding set of questions, and a satisfactory degree of experience across the project. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 12:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support on strength of answers and general tone of maturity. This will be a fine Admin. Good luck! / edg ☺ ☭ 12:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Eight months is long enough experience in my opinion, and for what he plans on doing as an administrator, I see no problem with giving Law the mop. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong Support - Candidate understands the BLP problem; gave thoughtful answers to my questions, explaining his views in detail, which I appreciate; and appears to have the temperament and knowledge to be a successful admin. Hopefully taking some time to attempt to change the policy he doesn't agree with. لennavecia 16:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Upgraded to strong considering how well he handled the unnecessary dramatics in being taken to AN/I over his sig being small in IE8, and the fact that he's being opposed over something so epically stupid. لennavecia 22:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. I agree with Black Kite on the image question, Malinaccier on the time issue, and like what DFS454 notes. Law doesn't seem to be a dramamonger/attention whore. No thank you spam, please. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I don't find many of the points brought up in the oppose section very convincing. So why not? - Fastily (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Did you know that a user with 5000+ edits to Wikipedia and no real objections should not be barred from adminship simply because 7 months isn't "enough time" for some people? RayTalk 19:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support while I have deep respect for Dr. Blofeld in the oppose, I think that some admins are content to not use their adminship to try to resolve conflict - there's lots of other work to be done. And given this candidate's choice to not seek out conflicts to solve them, I think we can tolerate the lack of battle-scars or peace prizes. Of course, nothing prevents the candidate once approved from working in those areas, but I will WP:AGF that the first few admin tasks won't be solving the Scientology tangle or Middle East peace. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Did you know... his answer to Q6 demonstrates a good understanding of the Non-free policy? PhilKnight (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, as a fellow member of the Halloween wikiproject, per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards in that candidate has User:Law/Awards and as candidate has never been blocked. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong support Wizardman 20:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Know do you... I like the gnomes, and this clearly isn't someone who's going to cause problems. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, excellent user. Ironholds (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong support Law will make a fine admin. hmwithτ 04:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support -- thanks for answering my questions. Good luck. Geo Swan (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support We can always use another pair of admin eyes at DYK. Experience is no concern for me - Law has 5,000 edits (which is the number I usually like to see) and two more months of eperience than I had when I became an admin. He has room to grow, but there are no glaring concerns here. faithless (speak) 08:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. I was inclined to oppose at first, with an expectation that I'd probably support six months from now, but further reading of Law's responses changed my mind. — Athaenara ✉ 09:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. FGJ – iridescent 15:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support We need more admins. We especially need help with DYK backlogs. Excellent answers. Royalbroil 17:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Strong mature reasonable candidate who will be an excellent admin. Dean B (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support, no evidence this candidate would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  61. I did not know that Chocolate-covered bacon even existed, but the images this user created makes me want go out and eat some and share with the BF. Seriously folks, I support, because we need many more admins adept at law, especially SCOTUS matters, and images; and he fully meets my usual standards. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support, although my personal opinion is that DYK is highly overrated and actually serves to discount Wikipedia's reputation by pointing out trivialities as credible knowledge bits. At any rate, that's not the issue - the issue here is that we have a fine editor who has clue and clearly wants to help the project. Tan | 39 00:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. 7 months is plenty of experience. For goodness sake... Majorly talk 01:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Did you know... That Law would make a great admin? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Did you know... That this is the first RfA of a DYK specialist where I've seen the supporters making a bunch of comical supporting comments prefixing with Did you know... Being serious, I have seen Law around a good deal, and have had a good impression. He seems to have sufficient experience around several areas of the encyclopedia, and I have no doubt he'd be a great admin. The opposers leave me unconvinced that he lacks overall experience. If he's been here since September, then he'd have 7 months under his belt, which to me is plenty enough time to have gotten to know policy. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Good answers to a huge number of questions. Acalamari 15:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. This "Did you know..." Support business is kinda silly, but this user looks fine for me. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 18:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Not the strongest candidate but should be a net positive despite limited experience. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Critical question for me is understanding of recusal and dispute resolution. The rest can be learned, mistakes can be fixed, etc. --Abd (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support – (switched from neutral) candidate seem very knowledgeable with the applicable policies and guidelines. Ensuing adminship would surely be more of an asset to the community as a whole. MuZemike 20:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support: I know that in years past more tenure was desired, but given the current speed of this RfA revolving door, I'll offer this: If I doubled the tenure, doubled the edit counts, I still doubt I'd find a reason to oppose. Law seems to learn quickly, and just because he/she doesn't go searching for drama and confrontation is no reason to doubt his abilities to use admin. tools in the areas he/she is interested in. Net positive? ... yep. — Ched :  ?  22:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support He has enough experience. GT5162 (我的对话页) 11:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support per above. Has been here for over 7 months and has 5000 edits. –BuickCenturyDriver 12:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Did you know... that this editor is fit for admin duties, but this joke is turning into a boring cliché? —Admiral Norton (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Did you know... that if RfA was determining membership to this, the ability to do that, or success in attaining the other, I would have to post below. My thoughts of Law's Sysop potential, are that he has proven himself time and again, the man for the job. Specifically his maturity and calmness under fire continue to be demonstrated as recently as [2]here. --Preceding unsigned comment 14:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Synergy 22:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. Good luck. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Knows policies of the areas he works in well enough... hope this will pass! Ceranllama chat post 11:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Experienced enough and sensible. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. Has good judgment. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Did you know ...that it was Aunty Entity who said: "You think I don't know the Law? Wasn't it me who wrote it?" ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Being a sysop would be a benefit to the project - always good to have people willing to work on DYK. I am very impressed in his ability to deal with the signature issue in a way that killed the drama. Fraud talk to me 00:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Did you know that a lack of conflicts in one's history is a good sign in a would-be administrator? And that's why I'm supporting. Robofish (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Did you know... That im supporting this? - nz26 Talk | Contribs | Email | Editor Review 03:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Did you know... that, unlike the opposes below, I think September 2008–April 2009 is plenty of time to gain enough experience for adminship. It isn't a huge deal. TheAE talk/sign 04:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support for constructively dealing with the nonsense over your signature gracefully, despite the fact that there was no consensus to modify your signature. seicer | talk | contribs 04:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Did you know... that I support this? - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 20, 2009 @ 06:16
  88. Support Solid contributions, good knowledge of policy and civil in his interactions. Jmundo 06:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Quiescent, civil and clueful editor. decltype (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support - I analyzed his edits, and there is nothing to worry about. AdjustShift (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support (from Oppose) Though his edits to DYK and other wikispaces are relatively low compared to his peers, his corresponding rationale is very good and persuasive.[3]. His humble and civil attitude to the request for changing his signature is impressive enough for me to change my vote. Personally, I like the candidate's sense of humor User:Law/NOODLE that could de-escalate fierce situations!--Caspian blue 12:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support - Has the temperament and experience we need in administrators. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support I've seen the user around here and there, and he's left me with the impression of an editor who's careful, thoughtful, polite and helpful. All good things to have in an admin. His lack of conflicts only tell me that he will do his best to keep a cool head and encourage that in any disputes he comes across. Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 19:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - I've noticed Law at DYK while browsing and learning about the DYK process. His low conflicts suggest that he is cool-headed and able to deal with others well. Seems like he'd be a great admin. CanadianNine 21:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support - I've read after him a good deal since this RfA, and I see a level-headed editor. Law is a sensible communicator and especially experienced for his amount time on Wikipedia, and I personally have been impressed with his apparent ability to remain composed while under fire; including his comments where he reasons why this would be true. His lack of conflicts I actually see as a positive - fights, and differences of opinion that don't escalate, are separate things. I've taken a good look through oppose section, and nothing hits me as a problem. Jamie☆S93 00:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - Candidate looks fine to me, seems rational and polite. 5,000 edits and 7-8 months is plenty of experience, in my opinion. AlexiusHoratius 01:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support - I see no problems here. On a side note, my RFA passed with 99% after 6 months of activity. Has that much changed in six months? ~ Ameliorate! 06:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support - Good canidate, although he has never been in a conflict he will most likely help wikiipedia and improve it. ⊕Assasin Joe talk 15:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Did you know that Law is one of the most impressive content contributers that I have ever met? Seriously impressive content contributions that improve Wikipedia.  Marlith (Talk)  18:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Did you know that I managed to sneak in a last-minute support? Until It Sleeps 22:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support per many comments above. And also, because the opposes are against the Law. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Sorry to spoil the silliness. Not enough experience. I find it difficult to see how anybody can make a statement that the editor can be highly trusted when he has only been here since September and has not been presented with any real difficult situations to evaluate from. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So, if he carries on doing what he's doing until say, September this year you'd support then? To my mind we disadvantage ourselves by setting arbitary limits of time - surely better to grant the buttons now than wait x months simply because he's not been editing for "long enough". Quality - not quantity, not tenure.Pedro :  Chat  18:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would give it a few months. I'd hardly call this editor experienced. The less time they've been here the less time they've had to be involved in potential conflicts. Somebody could join wikipedia and put their head down and several months later find themselves at RFA. Not saying he doesn't have potential I just think it is too premature to completely judge this editor. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In all honesty, after going on my eight month, this is a good indicator that another eight months is not likely to produce any more conflict or 'bloody' me in some fashion. As a stated above, creating articles about drinking establishments and working at DYK leaves me little chance for conflict. I could tell you that I'll be happy to participate in ANI discussions and other contentious areas that would surely give me 'experience,' but that wouldn't be an honest answer, as this, like other areas, are simply not ones that have interested me in my time here. Thanks. Law shoot! 03:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Per Dr. Blofeld. -download | sign! 18:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Experience concerns. User has been in no real conflicts here. Also per Dr. Blofeld. I'd support another attempt in a few months. Timmeh! 19:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's advisable to avoid conflicts whenever possible... –Juliancolton | Talk 20:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Timmeh, I have been editing as an IP and an account for nearly six years, and I've never been in what I'd describe as a conflict. It's a good thing, IMO. I can see your point though, as to the test of the mettle. Keegantalk 20:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How many discussions have you participated in? Surely, there were editors who had an opposing viewpoint to yours. A conflict is a good experience-getter, for lack of a better word. I have been in a few conflicts, all of which have helped expand my knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines and make me a better editor. Editing conflicts and disagreements are inevitable, and if you can't describe at least one conflict/argument/disagreement you've been in with another editor, you don't have very much experience here, in my opinion. Timmeh! 20:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, it seems we just have different definitions of conflict. I was reading it as a conflict more aggressive then discussion; ie some sort of editorial or personal dispute resolution. Not just plain old fashioned talk page stuff. I've got muddy boots from the trenches :) Happy editing to you. 70.11.237.210 (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's odd, my browser said I was logged in. Ah well, now the world knows that I have an aircard. Keegantalk 22:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My reference for conflict and how to deal with it can be found at My RfA, Q3. Keegantalk 04:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 'Oppose per Blofeld, editor has not IMO been here long enough and for want of a better word bloodied Not enough experience. BigDuncTalk 21:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Just slightly unconvinced as to admin-related experience, would almost certainly support a few months down the line. Non-free image answer was sound. Black Kite 00:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. oppose per question 6: "Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a living person be used on Wikipedia? A. If it is a living person, I wouldn't advise the use of any non-free image." There is already too much disruption caused by editor lawmen who feel they have the authority to interpret copyright law for all of wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NFCC#1 very clearly states that non-free images should not be used when a free alternative could be created or found. What is open to interpretation, exactly? GlassCobra 02:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you don't think I was trying to interpret copyright law - that's nothing I am equipped to do! My answer was based on our policy for unacceptable use which is #12 here. I hope you take that into consideration. Thanks. Law shoot! 05:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He's not interpreting anything; WP:NFCC#1 is very clear on this matter. Unless a free image of a living person would be very difficult or impossible to source (i.e. incarcerated criminals, Osama Bin Laden) then a non-free image is clearly deprecated. That's policy, not interpretation. Black Kite 12:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But I took that answer as "never" which isn't the case (as you note). Hobit (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Dr. Blofeld said well. (guys, the silly repetition of "Did you know?" does not help for the candidate)--Caspian blue 02:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, the repetition has nothing to do with the candidate. GlassCobra 02:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, honestly, I was very irritated by it, so quickly sought for a good reason to land here instead of joining in the march!. (and found)--Caspian blue 03:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Says more about your character than the candidates. I wouldn't be bragging about it. لennavecia 04:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry? So, you plan to help to deny what could well be the best non-admin we have (not saying he is, like) solely because you don't like how people are supporting? This defies logic. And "Per X" is not a "good reason to land here" but you are rather "joining in the march" in a different, blinder place.  GARDEN  12:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Garden and Jennavecia have already said it well, but as the originator of the silly format I felt I had to pipe in and say... seriously? You're going to judge the candidate because of how people supported him? Absolutely unbelievable. FlyingToaster 12:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    GlassCobra, GARDEN, and FlyingToaster, I did not mean to make upset you, because I've highly respected your vigorous contributions in keeping the DYK system running. However, due to my lack of communication skill, you got the impression that I carelessly decided the vote merely by one glance at the both section. DYK related pages have been on my watchlist, and I've frequently visited there but I don't recall his activities unlike you guys and others such as Alansohn, Mattisse, rʨanaɢ, etc. I have had no interaction with him, so I did research on the candidate's contribution for about 40 minutes after finished to read the statement and answers. Still, the image of him was just plain to me except the impression on the user looking very comical per his essays. In that case, I usually tend to weigh in both comments, so make my final decision. If I have no time to read through all, just go to Neutral. But the "Did you know" repetition of the support section was too bothering for me to read their rationales, and concerns raised in Oppose section sounded convincing. In essence, I tried to figure out the validity of his candidacy, so don't be so upset about my decision. Thanks.--Caspian blue 20:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to Support.--Caspian blue 12:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Would like to see a longer term on Wiki, and perhaps more audited article content building. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Q4 and 5, not yet ready with respect to the admin policies and procedures. Unfortunately, we cant give permission just for DYK. DGG (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Would be possible to elaborate on Q4. In the hypothetical scenario, it implies that only the title of the article has been modified since its delete by way of AFD. If the body of the article remains the same, does it not qualify for speedy deletion? Law shoot! 03:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    it does not say so. You made that assumption; skipping an actual check is where admins make errors. But I need to clarify:i am certainly not voting an oppose for a single mistake of that sort, but because on a wide variety of questions, various people here have pointed out errors in understanding. You may be a very good candidate, with some more experience. DGG (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I don't think you have enough experience in XFD related discussions. --DFS454 (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, Law says quite plainly in his answers to 10b and 10c that he doesn't intend on closing any XfDs. GlassCobra 16:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have participated in 45 unique XFD discussions. I'm not sure if that helps or not. Some of the articles I have saved have come from those discussions. In fact Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kinobe this was such an interesting case because I wanted to delete, I was persuaded to keep, and rewrote [4] the article to satisfy guidelines. The nom withdrew and I closed the AFD. I felt that I probably shouldn't have closed it, seeing as I was involved, regardless of the withdrawal, so I brought myself to ANI for administrative review! Thanks.Law shoot! 16:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Not enough experience in my opinion, has only been here since September.WackoJackO 19:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Answers were troubling. Having a user follow the standard 6 month pattern, involved in very little, and keep to "vandal fighting" is also well known pattern given on guides to become an admin. I'm not saying that this user followed them, but in such situations we need to take a closer look. We've had too many people slip by. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Not only lacks experience in terms of time and breadth of area (which aren't killer in my mind), but I feel that many of the answers were superficial and showed a lack of understanding of nuance. Strongly suspect I'll support at a later point. So basically not now. Hobit (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I really don't like his answers to (among others) S. Marshall's questions, and thus I must oppose. Sorry. DS (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to Neutral Regretful oppose right now, and support if you run again in several months. You do good work at DYK, quiet and behind-the-scenes (I've never seen you get involved in drama there) but I feel I still don't know quite enough about you. Also, I am not quite satisfied with your answers to questions 4b (would have liked to see mention of asking a more experienced admin for input, and more discussion of why the "nine successive !votes are from relatively new editors (between 10 and 200 edits each)" are invalid in your opinion), to 10d and 15a (granted, we wouldn't be able to delete Barack Obama if he asked for it...but in the case of marginally notable individuals, the person's rights are more important than the encyclopedia), and to the questions in 11 (specifically about page protection, but in all of them I think your responses were a little general). I know you're a conscientious editor and are good admin material, I just don't think you're ready yet; I would support without hesitation in several months if I see improvement in these areas. Also, I am leaving you a question above; you might be able to move me to neutral :). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope I can persuade you to look at my response, that as from my responses above, I would want that [5] indicates a non consensus AFD, on a marginally notable individual is something that i would like to see deleted.
  15. Oppose Does seem like more experience and more time is required....Modernist (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Weak Oppose Concerned by his answers, esp to #6. I'd be likely to neutral or support in a further RfA, but not yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Q6? What was wrong with it? I'm honestly curious, because that's pretty much what I would have said too. GlassCobra 15:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the circumstances are broader. An incarcerated individual, for example. It was not merely number 6 that caused my oppose, but that is what I fixed on as an example before going to bed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose, concerns about experience and answers to some of the questions. Also, agree with points raised by Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) and DGG (talk · contribs). Without prejudice to consider supporting at a future RfA - candidate indeed has some strong positive contributions to the project in varied capacities. Cirt (talk) 09:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. 'Oppose. Only here since autumn 2008. Response to standard questions show a general approach that looks reasonable, but little actual knowledge of policies. Some of the answers also struck me as both hurried and flippant, and an earlier "oppose" complained about a flippant remark elsewhere. OTOH in 6-12 months Law might be a good candidate for admin, since his off-the-top answers to the standard questions were so reasonable. --Philcha (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note, if the answers you found "flippant" are Law's answers to 17a-d, apparently Law's computer is broken and real-life issues came up and he had to write those answers in a hurry and without a keyboard, so we can't really hold them against him (and that set of questions should probably be ignored until whatever is going on there is settled). If it was other answers that concerned you, then ok. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. I have concerns about the level of eagerness this candidate shows (high) vs. the demonstrated knowledge of policy outside of simple vandal fighting (regrettably low). It shouldn't be this easy to get the bit. Skinwalker (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per Blofeld and DougsTech, and due to lack of community spirit. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 16:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Lack of community spirit for fixing it when he found it was a problem? That seems to me like community spirit at its best. If you look at Law's contribs, it appears that he fixed his sig within 8 hours of his initial response. He played no part in the total drama at ANI, and he was courteous in his two posts about the topic (more specifically here and here). Killiondude (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Weak oppose Not enough experience, and the signature is a problem. AniMatetalk 18:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but what's wrong with the signature? –Juliancolton | Talk 18:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently some editors using Internet Explorer cannot read the signature. The response to complaints is less than satisfactory, IMO. AniMatetalk 18:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it really is unacceptable to respond "..i'll change it. I'll be happy to revert back to the the default. I will truly do so. In fact, it may be a problem, so I will bring it to another forum. I don't want to be obtuse about it," when somebody points out there's a problem. Surely there's fire wielding mob around here somewhere that will set him ablaze for such a 'less than satisfactory' response. We simply can't have such agreeable editors becoming admins. What will the public think? --auburnpilot talk 20:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it actually is inappropriate, especially for someone who wants to be an admin, to push a problem brought to one's attention off on other people, when the solution is simple and totally under one's own control. A more reasonable initial response would have been "I didn't realize it was a problem, I'll fix it." To his credit, Law has done that now, but the initial reaction was still unsatisfactory. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My initial reaction was one of honesty. It is a double-edged sword, so to speak. If I changed my sig on command, I see it as doing what is necessary to pass this RFA. However, I was clear about changing it. I had no idea that it was a source of contention, so I did what I felt was the right thing to do. I think it is very important that one is transparent, and I am no different in real life, as I am here. I appreciate the time taken to dissect my initial reaction. My reaction was one of those who goes with the general consensus. In my own defence, my sig was a problem. Upon realising that, I did what I could to rectify the situation. Not because of this RFA, but because I didn't realise it was a problem. I am certainly not here to stir the pot. There was a genuine concern, I addressed it, and I feel much better knowing that those who wish to contact me can do so, seeing as my sig was not readable to others. Ignorance is no defence. I am happier knowing it was pointed out clearly and with reason. I appreciate those who pointed out that there was a problem, which I wasn't aware. Hopefully, it is fixed. Law (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose, fails my criteria, particularly lack of overall experience and "time served". Less than 10k edits, not even active a full year, and not nearly enough activity in the Wiki namespace beyond the AIVs. Beyond that, really not seeing a true need or desire to be an admin, as only seeming admin desire is to help more at DYK. Needs to learn how discern consensus, get more experience with conflict resolution (maybe by getting involved in WP:30 or Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts), get more comfortable with the concept of deleting/tagging articles, and just, overall, more activity in the Wiki. Also, not entirely satisfied with some of the answers given above, and just not enough evidence would not "abuse" the tools, even if no sign the candidate would. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Weak oppose My OCD-driven love for round numbers, and, more seriously, my general affection for the candidate, my (passive) encounters with whom have been universally positive, disposes me to be the WP:100th support, but even as I find that the candidate's demeanor, temperament, and sense of judgment (on the whole) well equip him for adminship, I am not convinced that his conversance with policy is such that he is unlikely to misuse the tools unintentionally by acting whereof he does not know, and I cannot conclude with sufficient confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive (I should, though, as others who oppose here, be happy to reconsider the issue in the not-too-distant future, when I hope to be able to support). Joe 19:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Law does great work, and I see no indication he would misuse his admin tools. But I don't see enough indication that he wouldn't. For Q3, he didn't provide a link, and I can't find links on how he has dealt with difficult users. He gave a good answer to Q8... but I can't be sure that if consensus went against him, that he would keep a level head. If Law or anyone could provide diffs of him dealing with tough situations that might cause a bad admin to act badly, let me know and I'm open to changing my !vote. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my. Talk:Lipstick_on_a_pig#Article_needs_a_picture. may be the only thing I can find when it comes to an edit war - which was over a picture of a pig. LOL. I lost in the debate, however :P AND, i just realized that Townlake's support above is the example of the editor using an interesting edit summary. It was an edit summary that was condescending, followed by an implication that my writing may be an indication of my ignorant and uneducated nature. I'm sure you can tell that I was not pleased at all, lol, but I remained civil and it worked out. Isn't it better to put out fires before they start? Law shoot! 04:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral (for now) - I have issues with several of the candidate's answers. Though I'm hoping that this is merely a case of "not explained enough". Would they be willing to further clarify. Though all seem at least a bit "terse" (to quote the candidate), and could use some clarification, The ones concerning consensus, and IAR in partucular could use clarifying. That, and "how" they expect having the tools would help them at DYK. And whether they "plan" to be involved in AfD seems immaterial, especially since the candidate also has said they intend to help with the backlog, so an expanded answer to those related questions would also be helpful. And I am not as enamoured with the answer to #9 as others seem to be, indications and the candidate's "tone" leave me with concerns. That said, I think further clarification should hopefully clear this up. - jc37 14:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Several" of my answers? Uh oh :) Hopefully I can shed light on a couple of them. At DYK, there are just simple administrative tasks such as loading and correcting errors in the daily queues. It's not about coming here to be a DYK admin; it's more about being invited to be an administrator, and being honest about where I plan to work. It's true that I don't plan to work at AFD, but it wasn't my intent to come across as if I need not be aware of policy. Having been here for awhile, I have come across policy for many areas, including deletion policy, CSD, and BLP. I see IAR as 'in case of fire, break the glass.' For me, it is a last resort. It is very hard for me to picture a time when my article writing is so hindered by guidelines that I need to ignore rules in order to improve Wikipedia. I was honest in saying that I can't imagine using it. I was serious by saying that if I applied it, I would still ask for another set of eyes. The construct in which I work, has rules and guidelines that I have found useful, and so far, I've no need to ignore them. If an editor with a DYK proposal has an article that is 3 characters short of the 1500 character recommendation, I'm quite comfortable invoking IAR in that case. As far as consensus goes, I truly believe I know it when I see it. If there are five users at AFD that want an article deleted due to the fact that other articles like it have previously been deleted, and I have only three users that want the article kept because the sources clearly demonstrate notability, I would find the consensus to be on the side of the three that cited policy - it is a stronger and more adequate argument. When it comes to article changes, I've seen consensus many times on article talk. In that case, like above (lipstick on a pig), it is not so much about policy but about what should be included in the article. Consensus, in that case, could be predicated on the majority. If 15 editors agree that X does not merit inclusion in the article, and 5 disagree, I'm inclined to say that the general consensus in that case goes along with the majority. If there is anything else, please let me know, and I'll be more than willing to expand any answer. Law shoot! 15:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so essentially, most of my concerns seem to be a result of inexperience (both at Wikipedia, and with the policies/process).
    IAR - Sorry, no. It has almost nothing to do with whether it's the first or last resort. The whole idea is that we often have to deal with situations on a case-by-case basis. And often some aspect of the "rules" doesn't well apply to the given situation at hand. That would be a moment to consider IAR. And you indeed come close to a (possibly appropriate) IAR resolution in your examples about consensus directly above. So it may just be a case of where you don't realise you're already using IAR. Another possible indication of inexperience.
    In addition to that, there is a "tone" in quite a few of your responses above that I don't find to be "engaging" (and indeed, that I find concerning). I was hoping that further discussion would help. But not so far. For another example, in the answers to #13 - "...I am convinced..." - And #9 - "...I don't let it escalate...".
    You seem to be a well-meaning, hard-working editor. But so far, I'm leaning towards opposing. As I said above, I'd like to support, and I'm hoping that further clarification will help. - jc37 16:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What is it, exactly, that you seek further clarification on? He just accurately explained IAR and appropriate times to use it. Also, what do you mean by not liking his "tone"? What tone? It's in text. The tone is in how you read it. You say it's not "engaging", but you're in "discussion" about it. I guess I just don't get it. He's been here for eight months, writes articles and participates in DYK, mostly; but you can see in his contribs that he does other stuff as well; and his policy knowledge is evident from his answers to the questions. Yet you're basing your comments off of the "tone", as you take his words, as evidence that he lacks experience? You don't like that he said he's convinced of something. What should he say? He's the opposite of un-convinced? You don't like that he said he doesn't let things escalate. Do you think he's lying or do you just not like the wording... the tone? Perhaps it's just me, but that makes no sense. لennavecia 16:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I'd like to wait for Law's response (since it's their RfA, among other things), rather than get sidetracked with someone else's question, though I'm more than happy to continue discussing this with you on the talk page.
    That aside, there indeed can be (and is) a "tone" to writing, as any good book on literary analysis or even writing in general, will likely inform you.
    That said, perhaps I was less-than-clear by using the word "engaging". (I honestly was unsure of it's use when I used it.) I was meaning how the user may "engage" other users in the future. Their interactions and so forth. As well as how they "come across" to others. I've already looked over their past, and am trying to get a sense of how (if at all) that may change in the future (as an admin), for good or ill. Especially when one considers how often admins may become involved in potential WP:BITE situations, or in WP:DR. There's more to it than that, but that should convey enough, and hopefully further expansion/clarification by the candidate should hopefully alleviate my concerns. - jc37 16:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When I hear 'engaging' it makes me think of someone who is approachable. Someone who is sincere, and someone who is easy to talk to. I would actually consider myself this type of demeanor. Looking at my article talk contributions you will see that I am rather jovial, very open to others' opinions and would certainly not bite, as I would not appreciate being bitten. I look at things as more of a flow chart. So when I say last resort in regards to IAR, it would be a methodology that I would use. Is there a rule? If there is, how does it apply? Is the application preventing me from making Wikipedia a better place? If so, IAR. In that scenario, it's the last stop on the chart - or what I would consider the 'last resort.' I hope that makes more sense. Perhaps my choice of words (last resort) was a bit dramatic :) I understand that this is cold hard text, so I hope you can sense that I type this with a smile and a nice cup of coffee. When I say that I don't let it escalate I am speaking about my own behavior, meaning that I have self-control enough to keep myself from escalating the situation into a conflict. I hope that sheds some light on the things I have said. I appreciate your questions. Law shoot! 17:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying, I was hoping that with further comment, some of this would be made more clear. (I especially appreciated the clarification concerning your internal flow chart, and also that you were indicating your own behavior.)
    And should this nomination prove successful, you may or may not be in for some surprises in how others' interactions with you may change in certain situations, and at times, not necessarily for the good. So you may find you're not as "in control" of a situation as you might like. There unfortunately can be times where even disengaging may cause more disruption than just continuing the discussion. (WP:AN/I can be a fairly helpful in those situations.)
    I still see quite a bit of inexperience, but that's not necessarily a negative. (In some ways, we're all inexperienced, as Wikipedia is an ever-developing entity.) It's just these are things fairly intrisic to adminship, and fairly common pitfalls.
    I'm no longer leaning towards opposing, but I somewhat think that this may be an example of: "Would support next time, with more experience".
    So remaining neutral at least for now.
    And thank you for all the responses, taking the time (and your subsequent "tone" indeed), was a fair part of dissuading my opposition. - jc37 17:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are quite welcome. Enjoy the weekend! Law shoot! 23:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral for now pending on answers from the other questions. Leaning towards a possible support, however, due to the work at SPI (we always need more admins over there as SPI can, at times, get wicked backlogged) and good contribs to the mainspace and to DYK. MuZemike 18:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure about his WP:SPI contribs? I did not see any in the history. EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I may have commented on the wrong candidate as far as SPI is concerned. However, the answered questions look pretty good, so I will change to support. MuZemike 20:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Per the opposes on experience. You seem to be a good candidate, and I wish you'd gotten a bit more breadth and depth before applying. I don't have any heartburn if you pass, but nor am I willing to support quite yet. Jclemens (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Changed from Oppose. The answers to some of the questions are still a bit vague for my liking, but Law's comment at the talk page is good—while he hasn't reviewed a ton of DYK noms and hasn't participated much at WT:DYK, he does review each nom more carefully, and takes reviewing more seriously, than many of us there (including me); as DYK is increasingly losing respect among Wikipedians and people are having more and more conversations about raising the standards, we will probably need more reviewers like Law. So anyway, while some things still make me think Law is not quite ready, his response about DYK shows good judgment and I can't oppose anymore. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Law&oldid=1144241132"