Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ling.Nut

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

Ling.Nut

Final: (113/63/7); closed by bibliomaniac15 on 03:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

As should be expected for such a colorful RFA, a rationale will appear shortly on the talk page. bibliomaniac15 03:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Ling.Nut (talk · contribs) – The blurb atop RfA says, "The community grants administrator status to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy." I see the words "trust" and "trustworthy” prominently there. I am breaking all conventional wisdom by presenting myself to the community in an RfA in an unconventional manner: I'm self-nomming, without mentorship, and with a number of knocks on me that I myself will detail and discuss. I am doing this, simply placing myself forward and stating that I will do everything in power to earn and/or deepen the community's trust in me. I apologize for TLDR; the price I pay for self-nom... My user name is Ling.Nut; I have been a Wikipedia editor for over four years. I have always been a mainspace editor. My name can be found at WP:WBFAN, though those are all collaborations with editors who were indispensable to the nom's successes. I have at least one GA that I can remember (and a nom stewing in the GAN queue). At one time or another I have been involved in nearly every aspect of content contribution, content review, and content editing. To the best of my knowledge, I have the following knocks against me: the Ling.Nut.Dark/Ling.Nut.Nice dichotomy (see Talk:Quid pro quo for the former); the multiple retirements, and the near-complete lack of adminly experience. As for the first, I solemnly affirm that whether or not I pass the RfA, I am forever retiring Ling.Nut.Dark (though I retain the right to be polite but firm, see Talk:Foster care). I sincerely hope that everyone who knows me knows that I would rather do <insert onerous thing here> than abuse any administrator privileges I might have to win/influence an argument. As for the multiple retirements, they are artefacts of real-life challenges and stress. I won't discuss my real-life; I will affirm that although I don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL, to the best of my knowledge, the real-life crises and stresses have now played themselves out. As for the lack of adminly experience: My goal is to help the community, not become an Adminly Voice or get something shiny for my user page. I will do everything I can to seek out mentors who will teach me how to learn how to help the community with administrator's privileges. I love the mainspace, I love the content; I will find ways to help the content flourish. I will say finally what I will not be doing: I will certainly never participate in XfD, and will defer all questions on that topic. I will not actively use my blocking button, nor seek out vandals or debates where its use is likely. I will never be a vandal-whacker. In time, I may ease more into the other uses for blocking, but that will be a long time from now, if ever. Thank you for your patience in reading this TLDR self-nom. • Ling.Nut 02:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: My answer will seem lame, unless you believe that I mean what I say. I plan to seek out a series of mentors, and move through various administrative areas, learning how best to help the encyclopedia as I go. I strongly desire to help users (particularly new ones), so areas in which I can do that are welcome. I hope my commitment to mainspace is established; I am very willing to help in various gnomish backlogs, etc. All suggestions are warmly welcomed.

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

A: Ummm. Everything, except my Ling.Nut.Dark moments. Even in those, in most cases the problem was not my positions per se (in most cases), but my colorful language in supporting those positions. I am very proud of participating in various FA collaborations. Believe it or not, I'm happy about the two-plus sentences I added to WP:DICK.

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: Many. The most stressful recent one was Six-Day War, in which I killed myself to jump through multiple hoops of burning fire, brow-beaten at every step, to get WP:CONSENSUS for a lead that was a vast improvement over the existing one, and then was subjected to late-to-the-party editors who insulted the results mercilessly. My response was to lose almost all AGF for almost everyone involved, and to take a long hiatus from editing that one. This was a formative experience; I learned that AGF is an impersonal, conscious practice rather than an expression of personal trust, like, etc. Somewhat less recently, I showed up at the Anthropogenic global warming circus with a partisan position. That was also a formative experience. I walked away from it all rather quickly, coming to the twin realizations that a) I was an idiot for believing that being a blowhard for a partisan position in any debate was actually helping the encyclopedia, and b) the encyclopedia would eventually heal itself of the wounds inflicted by both sides. As I stated earlier, I will conduct all interactions warmly as a first recourse, firmly if necessary, and never in a way that could be construed as browbeating or abusive.

• As explored on my User Talk page here, the crux of my experience in the global warming debate was this decision: "I will never again argue from a partisan position on-wiki about off-wiki topics. No abortion. No global warming. No Obama. No Palin. No education. No Arab-Israeli conflict. And so on." • Ling.Nut (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Optional question from Townlake

4. Your signature doesn't link to your talk page. Why not?

A. I always thought that two-part names in which one half links to the user page and the second part links to Talk could be confusing to newbies. Duh, I should have thought of the option I just now made; how's this: • Ling.Nut (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from NuclearWarfare

5. Clearly, no one can doubt your dedication to the encyclopedia. While I would usually support a content contributor like yourself without question, the "Ling.Nut.Dark" personality worries me some. I know you said you will try to retire that persona, which I think is excellent, but you also (seem to) admit that you will be doing little admin work. From a risk-benefit analysis standpoint, that is a bit iffy. I'm sort of in the neutral column right now, and I'm looking for reasons to shift out of it. Could you do your best to convince me?

A: Two reasons. First, I have a tremendous respect for authority. That may strike some as odd, since I have occasionally brushed back admins. In every case, I was concerned about the appearance that the admin was abusing the authority, and that concern led me to speak firmly. For better or for worse, being an admin imbues one with the aura of being an authority on Wikipedia, and I have no desire to abuse that authority, or to bring discredit on the encyclopedia. Second, I value people. I also value the encyclopedia. I have often felt it necessary in the past to value the content more than the contributor (thus Ling.Nut.Dark, in every case). I have also made a few mistakes by valuing the contributor more than the content. As an admin, though I may need at times to value the content more than the "contributor" (when the "contributor" is being destructive), I will always strive to avoid any appearance of hostility, etc. As an admin I speak for the encyclopedia (for better or for worse), and I will protect not only its content, but its users, in a manner that is not abusive. Long answer.

Additional optional question from Beeblebrox

6. I'll be blunt: Your answer to question 1 is terribly vague and lacking in detail, as well as failing to show a need for the tools. I'm not saying I don't believe what you have said, but I do indeed find your answer to be "lame." You openly admit in your nom that you are lacking in admin-area work. I will say I admire your honesty. However, while many users feel that content work is important and you certainly have that base covered, there is a strong precedent for admin candidates having some work in admin areas in order to give us some idea how you might handle having the tools. Could you possibly be more specific about what you would do with the admin toolset? Helping new users and doing gnome work can be done without them.

A: I'm interested in anything and everything that helps the encyclopedia but does NOT involve blocking users (this may help potential !voters offset some concerns e.g. that Guetterda mentions below, but honestly, I find the idea of preventing people from editing "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" a bit distasteful in all but the most clear-cut cases, and wish to defer that task for long time), and XfD. I suppose that would include WP:SPI, WP:CHU, etc. [See question 7 below for the reason why I won't be involved in XfD, although until this moment I had never really consciously sorted it out].

7 1) How do you feel about Notability/AfD/Consensus and how they interact to determine what articles we allow? 2) What do you think about WP:V, with citing every sentence vs. citing only disputable statements (obviously a grey area with many caveats). For me, an off the hip 4-5 sentence answer to both questions is all I want. Don't go crazy with effort. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

A: Ah, I used to have an essay about V, but I deleted it. In short, I am very pro-cite. I know sneaky vandalism can be masked by following it with a legitimate-looking cite, but the presence of a cite makes it much easier to verify the questionable assertion(s). I have no desire to particpate in XfD. In general, four years ago I was a super-strong deletionist. Over the years, I have gradually mellowed to the extent that I am now... not an inclusionist, but very benevolently respectful of that position, and very tolerant of things that I would not have tolerated four years ago. Mmm, I just said "That's about it", but indeed there is more. Why oh why am I not interested in participating in XfD? Precisely because of the battle between my gut and my mind. Please let's not start an inclusionist/deletionist debate here, but in general, my heart says "delete", and my mind says, "You know, there does exist the distinct possibility that you may in fact be wrong on this issue." Therefore I do not go to a place where I do not believe my presence is constructive... Does that make sense?

Additional optional question from Mkativerata

8. Wind back the clock to yesterday and assume you are an administrator at the time. A new editor who you have welcomed has asked for your help on your talk page: here. The new editor is complaining about very recent (within the last few minutes) bullying and edit-warring by an administrator, Mkativerata, at this article. (Assume that the article is real and in the mainspace). After reviewing the article history and talk page, please (a) respond to the new editor (doing so on your talk page); and (b) describe below what, if any, action you are going to take in respect of the article and the editors concerned.

A: For the purposes of this discussion, I'm gonna totally ignore KMalaysia's "disclosing alternate account" notice on his user page. Unless this is an Inception-like two-layered questioned designed to get at WP:SOCK issues, that notice would mean the user is either pulling a prank, or dealing with some serious identity problems. Skipping all that, proceeding...

• I attempted to disarm the new user by placing him/her in a position of authority above me – by making him the expert on Malaysia and Islam (legitimately, I might add). I attempted to find common ground by stressing the importance of KMalaysia's concerns. I have no idea how stringently everyone opposes back-channeling, but I assure you I would have immediately emailed the admin in question and said "hey, this guy is complaining on my Talk; he's a n00b; can we slow things down and work them out?" in almost those exact words. I tried to find a go-between and guides by mentioning a WikiProject. I would not have blocked anyone, though both seem to have 3rr'd. I would not have blocked the admin because he's right. I would not block the n00b because he's a n00b, and I didn't see any warnings at all on his talk page (warnings in edit summaries don't count). I would try oh try to work things out... • Ling.Nut (talk) 07:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Cardamon

9. You wrote that "CONSENSUS is wholly and completely a farce on Wikipedia" Can you explain this opinion? If you were to become an adminstrator, how would it affect your adminning? Cardamon (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

A: This kind of statement is not at all inaccurate if you look at a snapshot of controversial Wikipedia articles. Some of them are (at some particular given moment) worthless garbage that would be deleted if we were excruciatingly strict about every detail at every moment, and perhaps those articles have been in that state for quite a while. They were put in that state because Consensus regarding that article at that snapshot in time is ruled by POV warriors. Consensus can only have value after healthy discussion and/or debate by a fair sampling of voices; if a topic is ruled by a gaggle of POV warriors challenged only by a pitiful one or two dissenting voices, the whole point of Consensus breaks down. But see above my remarks: "... Anthropogenic global warming circus ... was also a formative experience... coming to the realization that... the encyclopedia would eventually heal itself of the wounds inflicted by both sides." In the long run, those same articles will probably be nudged toward some reflection of reality as the Wikipedia wheels continue to slowly turn. As for how it would affect adminning – why would it? Each event is a new event. Each article is a new article and each complaint and complainant is new too (setting aside the case in which, you know, it's the same darn person many times). My point is, when stuff comes up and we have deal with it as admins, one of the most common mistakes that admins make is that they don't forget the past and the greater context. They should, if the past context leads them to prejudge the situation. The only context is the narrow context; what Kmalaysia may say or do should have no impact on me when I deal with a new user HappyMalaysia (or whatever). Am I explaining this clearly? In cases in which i have dealt with the same crap from the same group of people, if I was too bitter to proceed, I would look for someone to hand things over to. But I would try to avoid doing this, out of a sense of responsibility... • Ling.Nut (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Optional question from Elen of the Roads

10. What's your take on civility on Wikipedia. Do our existing policies work? Do they achieve the desired effect? Do they stifle the ability to say what one means? Could they do with modification? Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

A. Hoo boy. That's the question of the day, isn't it? In one hand we hold the little baby bunny of "content", and in the other we hold the fuzzy baby chick of "contributor". I.. am not sure.. there's a binary answer. I need to think about this one. I'll get back to you... I know you're wanting a swift reply, but the problem is that this question requires an entire essay with at least a few significant subsections, and it is one of the few questions that I have never really thought about at length. The problem really and truly does have layers (like an onion), and sorting out the layers could take days or weeks... The first layer is this: aside from being sorely hurt in one instance four years ago in which someone said I had "the soul of a bureaucrat" (I was a n00b, and over-sensitive to criticism), I have never spent any real time worrying about insults (unless that person is someone I perceive myself as being close to, which is a separate issue). I mean, I stew for a while, then in my mind I think "F*ck them anyhow", and I get on with my life. But honestly, as I go through my day, if I happen to think of the way POV warriors systematically degrade the quality and accuracy of the encyclopedia, and do so in a civil manner, it makes my world a little dimmer and my shoulders a bit more stooped. That is true content destruction; as potty words are not. But wait, am I discounting civility? More layers. If you read the various WP:CIVILTY policies etc., they all sound rather reasonable etc. What causes them to go awry? It is quite possible that the problems do not lie within our policies themselves, but within the people (i.e., admins) administering them. No no no, I'm not gearing up to launch an anti-admin screed; see User:Ling.Nut/Siege. But...we select our admins as a leap of faith that they have a well-developed radar to separate the wheat from the chaff, despite the fact that all we have to rely on as evidence is a fairly restricted set of editing behaviors (content contribution, vandal whacking, whatever). Then we realease those admins into the wild and sometimes they stand up, but sometimes they they fall down. Neither whacking vandals nor writing articles is actually the same as blocking WP:DICKs. There is no training other than on-the-job-training. Wisdom comes from experience; experience comes from mistakes; but the people making the mistakes are Voices of Authority and thus have the ability to inflict harm through their mistakes. To counteract this lack of training, admins almost instinctively rely on the experiences they have "on the job", but the experiences themselves are faulty, like learning a language from someone who doesn't speak it well. Thus a whole set of counterproductive ways of thinking and reacting are propagated. Admins tend to enter situations in an authoritative (but polite, usually) Horse stance rather than starting out by disarming folks (as I tried to do in a previous question). Admins try to sort out who to block and not to block based on preconceptions rather than starting anew and looking only at facts. Admins lick their thumbs, poke it into the wind and guess what the prevailing currents are before acting. I dunno, the whole thing is screwed, but I do not attribute it to malevolence in their habitual thoughts, or any character flaw other than not having been shown how to make constructive decisions in complicated situations. What to do? Raising issues such as these usually creates an impulse for new wave of WP:BUREAUcracy, which would probably again be a mistake. And wait, am I blaming everything on admins? No, not really. Dickery is real, as are dicks, and dickishness is a harmful thing, in many cases. It isn't always the admins' fault, but it is always their responsibility. What to do? Should admins open monthly RfCs on themselves, and dally in ritual self-examination? Lol, teh dramaz. Should admins have their own private space where they can examine each other's adminstrative actions without teh dramaz? Sounds nice, but "private spaces" don't exist on Wikipedia (well, except for Esperanza, and we see what happened), and even if they did, admins are a very mixed lot and would frequently bicker therein. What to do? The only thing we can arm ourselves with is education/wisdom shared among the community, but how to go about it? I have absolutely no freaking idea. Nothing I can think of seems workable. Long answer. No answer. I will continue to think; maybe inspiration will strike. • Ling.Nut (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Optional question from Polargeo 2

11. In your answer to question 3 you hint that you got involved in Anthropogenic global warming but then quickly walked away. It may not be a positive attribute for an admin to get involved and then walk away because something is difficult. Can you highlight in what ways you were involved and why this caused you to walk away? Polargeo 2 (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

A. To be honest, I thought I answered that quite very clearly... but perhaps my answer was lost amongst all the other TLDR stuff I said. To reply: I suddenly realized, "Hey nimwit! You're a complete idiot for flapping your gums in the wind here! This debate is already sufficiently stocked with blowhards. You are accomplishing nothing constructive (and perhaps doing some harm). Moreover, as time goes on, the situation will sort itself out." I walked away because it was the correct thing to do. I was not an admin acting in any adminly capacity; I was a peanut in the peanut gallery.

Optional question from Special Cases

12. Do you want or have taken part in anti-vandal stuff? Special Cases ^{LOOK, A TALK PAGE!!!!} 17:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

A. I very, very regularly revert vandals manually, template them, and forget about them. I do not use Huggle or other anti-vandal software, and will not. I will not be a vandal whacker as a chosen pursuit (though I will continue to help correct incidents I happen to come across).

Question from Sven Manguard

13. Considering your history, would you be willing to be open to recall. If so, what guidelines would you set for yourself (i.e. number of editors in good standing that request your resignation before you step down, how long each request would remain active, ect.) Sven Manguard _Talk 20:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

A."Recall" is an honor system, and honor is apparently not standard equipment for life. Yes, I personally would be willing to spend a week or so thinking of standards by which I would be open to recall (in consultation with others), and post them and adhere to them. However, as a general rule, Recall is a farce. I have often said that RfA is a farce, and to some extent it is (PLEASE no insult meant to anyone here! This is a philosophical conversation, I do so swear). But changing RfA, I have recently come to believe is not only useless, but is also useless. [Wait, did I say that right...?]. The ONLY help for this problem is an easier way to unilaterally desysop people (note I said "easier", not necessarily "easy")..

Optional question from Ling.Nut

14. How would you respond to the many folks who have Opposed due to concerns of drama mongering?

A. I'm talking to myself in this slot because if I put my comments in amongst the Opposes below, there is a nontrivial possibility that folks will feel badgered and that is a Bad Thing. If I put them elsewhere (talk, appended to self-nom statement), they're likely to get lost. I really should have said this in the nom, but forgot.. My first response would be that I have based my solemn assertion that I will retire all over-colorful language on my desire to uphold the reputation of the encyclopedia. That is a strong motivation, I believe. My second answer would be "Please read the red links": Ling.Nut (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi). Why is my block log clean (except for an honest mistake from NawlinWiki)? Why is my name never called at RfC or ANI or (Goodness forbid) in front of Arbs? There are only two possible broad categories of reasons: legitimate ones and illegitimate ones. The only illegitimate reasons (that don't involve magic, anyhow) are a) I am the all-powerful master of gaming the system, or b) I have oh so many Friends in High Places. If you actually sit down and reason out both those possibilities and compare them to the reality of what happens among the cluster of editors who are frequent contributors, you'll see that they are not possible. What are the legitimate reasons, then...? I will leave those for you to consider. • Ling.Nut (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Optional question from Ling.Nut

15. How would you respond to the folks who have Opposed due to concerns of TLDR?

A.Once again, I'm really, really trying to avoid responding directly to the individuals making comments, because RfA is a tense atmosphere even at the best of times, and folks tend to feel badgered when other folks respond to their comments (sometimes they are badgered). But I am TLDR only when I feel there's much that needs to be teased apart; that is, usually only for complicated issues. Some folks have noted that my answer to question #10 is TLDR. Please, find me a more difficult question to answer! Every binary answer to this question is unfairly simplistic. Moreover, believe it or not, I have often found that long replies in tense situations have a calming effect. That's partially because, very early on in the text, I usually cede either part of my interlocutor's point or at least the reasonableness of their feelings. Moreover, long answers often show that I am taking my interlocutor's thoughts and position seriously. Thanks for your patience. • Ling.Nut (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Optional question from Ling.Nut

16. How would you respond to the folks who say that your answer to Question #1 blows goat chunks? Why do you wanna be an admin now, anyhow, after four years of resisting the shiny buttons?

A. Did you ever get a feeling, deep in your bones, that it was time to move on, from one good thing to another? For one thing, I have referred to real-life issues in the comments regarding retirements. They are forks in the road that have changed who I am, or how I feel about myself. I sorta kinda don't wanna go into more detail than that, and I apologize. Moreover (and believe it or not, this is really significant) I have lost all my access to all academic databases. Alas, I can see people gearing up to say "Pooh! That's a trivial motivator!". But far from it. I feel blind and crippled. Tie these together with my also-oft-mentioned genuine commitment to Wikipedia, and the answer pops out: I wanna find new ways to help the encyclopedia. I wanna move on, in a highly constructive shift from one phase of my wiki-life to the next. How can I help the encyclopedia? What role can I play? I think I can open doors for new service this way. And if I pass, I will. That's all. • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Opportunistic Question from WereSpielChequers

17 Your answer to question 1 requested suggestions as to where you might use the tools. We have a backlog of over 16,000 at Category:Articles to be merged, many going back to 2008, and lots of frequently vandalised BLPs that would benefit from semi-Protection. Would you be willing to help out in either or both of those areas?

A. In fact, that sounds absolutely perfect. I would be willing to chip away at those two for months or as long as it takes. I would like to add: I do in fact plan to move into much deeper adminly responsibilities. [That does include handling edit wars, problem editors, etc.] I am not saying I will not do anything; I am saying that I take the job so seriously that I want to train under various mentors for a long time first. I think many of the Opposes below clearly state "I actually trust Ling not to abuse the tools"; but for me "not abusing the tools" is not enough. I want to use them well. [See also "The reason I was so general about" in the text, far below].

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats on the talk page.  7  03:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not too sure about the stuff at Talk:Quid pro quo, which was only just over a week ago, in which they said, "inflicting this myspace/facebook/geocities sh*t", "so all your facebook friends can click the ZOMG kool "I Like This" link, and give you all the attention", "your sh*t is graffiti", and an edit summary that said "No. mindless, drooling pablum for drooling idiots." And then a long TL;DR rant that didn't help the discussion, followed by a string of edit summaries consisting of the word "No". An admin had to warn them for making personal attacks, though they did calm down after a bit, and the dispute was over a bit of unsourced, valueless trivia, later removed. Still, this raises concerns over temperament and civility. Christopher Connor (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Everyone's got different standards for that sort of thing; I personally don't see anything so far over the top as to be a problem. I'm capable of incredible strings of profanity myself (I can run with the best at Yankee Stadium, though I always keep it off-wiki), and looking at that discussion I can totally understand the frustration. People sometimes lose their tempers; as long as they acknowledge it later, I don't hold it against them. If that's the worst of it, I don't think there's too much to worry about. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no evidence Ling Nut has changed. Imagine one of his ... harsh ... interactions, with him as admin! The user on the other end of it might never come back.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It could just be that I'm weird (which is a fact, on multiple levels); however, if that was my first interaction with him, my first step would probably be to try to rectify the situation instead of running away or attempting to force my way through. Even when I was new, I was still an intelligent person, and I wouldn't have seen that as more than frustration. As long as he wouldn't use admin tools in a dispute like that, I wouldn't be concerned— and I don't see evidence that he would. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Re. Question 3: There are many pages at Anthropogenic Global Warming talk. Ling.Nut - could you provide a link to those page(s) (or even the talk page number) with those pertinent contribution(s) that you mention in Q3? Ta. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Trustworthy and experienced. Ucucha 02:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
2. All seems fine. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 02:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
3. Support. Veteran editor of considerable accomplishment; sane, competent, conscientious, trustworthy. Everything's right here. Antandrus (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
4. Support. 'nuff said. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
5. There's only one Ling.Nut; they broke the mold when they made him. He is exactly what he says he is, knows most corners of Wiki, is a straight shooter, is trustworthy, and won't abuse of the tools-- it's just not in his nature. Understandable real life stresses that led to some retirements have passed. Whatever he takes on, he'll do it right. He might not know how to work the buttons yet, but he knows policy. He doesn't do things the conventional way, including ask me to nom him !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
6. Yes—I've been wondering when this would appear. I encountered their username long ago and decided to take a look at their userpage, contributions, etc., and am confident they will be more than able to wield the mop well. Airplaneman ✈ 03:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
7. An unorthodox nom for a highly unorthodox candidate- but one well worth supporting. sonia♫ 03:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
8. Support What she said. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

   Definitely. Convinced by the self-nom statement that there's no real reason not to take the opportunity to give him the mop. StrPby (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

9. Strong support YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
10. Ran across talk when somebody was trying to convince you to run. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
11. Support Surprised but pleased to see this. Yes, Ling doesn't have the "adminly" experience that some RfA !voters may look for, but through his content work demonstrates the vital skills (understanding of content policy, communication, judgement) that are important for adminship, and he has the common sense and intelligence to learn to perform admin tasks effectively. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
12. Thought he was already? :/. Excellent user. Helpful and experienced. YES--TalkToMe_c^intelati 04:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
13. Support Seems good to me. Inka888^ContribsTalk 04:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
14. Your answer to Q1 isn't lame at all. It shows a great deal of maturity which is occasionally lacking in Rfa's. Support VictorianMutant^(Talk) 04:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
15. Support Has been around since Aug 2006 and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
16. An honest and excellent self nomination from someone who would have had an easy support from me to begin with. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
17. As his former admin coach, I have to support. While I will be surprised if this passes, I think he'd be a nice change of pace in the admin corps. Oh, BTW, your nom is a little inaccurate---you did have mentorship... but that was a year an a half ago or so ;-) And like Sandy, I too would have been willing to nom him!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
18. Support. Per Casliber (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 07:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
19. Answer to my question showed an abundance of common sense. One minor quibble: Kmalaysia hasn't broken 3RR (his first of the 4 edits wasn't a revert) but technicalities are much less important than common sense, and there was so much of the latter in that response. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
20. Support, despite his confession he has a 'tremendous respect for authority'. Yet what I've seen of his work, esp. towards NPOV and rewriting of pages according to quality standards, indicates a strong respect for textually authoritative article-creating and revision on wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
21. Support (but please don't allow Ling.Nut.Dark to write warnings or other administrative message. And don't show .Dark how to use the block button). ---Sluzzelin talk 11:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

    Addendum prompted by the "Optional question by Ling.Nut": There is a big difference between being outspoken and drama-mongering. I see some of the former, but none of the latter in the glimpse I caught of Ling.Nut's editorial history. My comment on .Dark was meant to point out that administrators, by sheer force of being able to block, unlike most of us, are advised to access their skills of empathy and sometimes diplomacy when communicating. Nevertheless, I can live optimally with outspoken administrators, as long as they don't abuse their buttons or throw around their administrative weight. I honestly don't see a chance of Ling.Nut doing that. Drama-mongering among admin-candidates and worse, among equipped admins, is far more problematic, but won't be an issue with this candidate as far as I can tell (and I've read all the opposes and corresponding diffs). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

22. Support - capable of good stuff...Modernist (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
23. Support. Great contributor, so why not? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 12:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
24. Oh yes, I take account of the civilty concerns but he is clearly a dedicated, no nonsense, article writer. Secret ^account 13:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
25. The lack of experience in admin-type areas is a bit concerning as are the civility issues - but the honesty is nice to see, and sometimes someone needs to put things plainly (even at the risk of being slightly crude) in order to make a message heard. I see no reason to believe that Ling.Nut will misuse the tools, so why not? PGWG (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
26. Support. Following answer to Q10 and Q8. OK, so we've agreed he comes over like Basil Fawlty sometimes, but I'm not seeing bad faith accusations and sniping. His aim to help newbies is admirable, and the answer to Q10 is excellent. "Read all the way to the bottom before you give an answer" and "do not merely set out to justify the position of the organisation" is advice I've been drumming into complaints officers for years.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
27. I never thought I'd see this here. Malleus Fatuorum 15:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

    Last minute comment before closing: I think a support !vote from Malleus is worth ten of anyone else's, and negates at least 20 opposes!--Kudpung (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

28. Support. now this is a rfA, this user seems much more experienced than I was when I rfAed, the request is also well written, next time when I'm ready I'll take note when writting my rfA unless someone nominates me, also the basil fawlty comparison from Elen is amusing, i'd say I'm more like Manuel in comparision a bit compared to this editor, he diserves the mop--Lerdthenerd (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

    Where did I mention Basil Fawlty? Malleus Fatuorum 15:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

29. Support. Ling.Nut is a thoughtful and valuable contributor, someone whose posts I always learn from. He'll be an asset as an admin, just as he is as an editor. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
30. Support - honest and trustworthy editor, likely to be a net positive as an admin. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
31. Support - based on extensive record and responses to questions (I was especially impressed with the response to question 9 regarding "consensus") I see no reason to not inflict adminship on an editor who is already an asset to the project, and likely to be MORE of an asset as an admin as time passes. Let me also say that my eyes didn't glaze over while I read the responses to the questions. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
32. Support per above. I'm sure Ling.Nut will use the mop well. ~NerdyScienceDude 16:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

    #Support Hmmmm. Looks clean to me. This user loks experienced enough. Special Cases ^{LOOK, A TALK PAGE!!!!} 16:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

    Submission of this comment was in evasion of a block. Skomorokh 12:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

    Oh come on. Do ya have to kick me when I'm down? Please don't checkuser all my !votes; I promise Malleus is not my Good Hand sock... :-P • Ling.Nut (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

33. Support. Contributions. Lambanog (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
34. Support (from neutral). After reading your disarming "Siege" essay, I am compelled to support. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
35. Support --Harthacnut (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
36. Support AniMate 19:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
37. Support. Several experienced editors have indicated above that they would have been willing nominators for this RfA, and I would have too, but welcome the self-nom because no one could have presented Ling.Nut's case to the community quite like Ling himself. I've known him since he singlehandedly diffused a conflict over Georg Cantor between the GA and Mathematics projects in 2007. How? By getting sources from the library and rewriting the article so that everyone was happy. What a fantastic response that was! In everything he's done since, I've seen his dedication to the goals of the encyclopedia, and respected and admired his contributions. His colorful style masks yet in some ways also softens the seriousness, maturity and self-awareness with which he contributes, making him human and approachable. We need more admins like this. Maybe reading and commenting on his excellent answer to the civility question should be a future RfA requirement. Geometry guy 20:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
38. Support Colonel Warden (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
39. Support - Ling may decide to retire again, but I have no concerns he'd become block happy or anything like that. His aim is always to add content to the encyclopedia, content that is well-sourced and NPOV. Isn't that what admins are supposed to support? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
40. Support without hesitation. I've had many interactions with Ling and everything single time I believe he was acting in the best interests of the project. I have no doubt that he will use the tools carefully and with reason. I've always known Ling to research everything thoroughly, and that can only be a positive when dealing with administrative issues. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
41. Understands what needs to be done. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
42. Support. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
43. Support. Don't see why not! Smiley4541 (push to talk) 23:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
44. Support, per Geometry Guy and Sandy Georgia. Carcharoth (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
45. Support, good user. So he'll get huffy if he doesn't get his way? Seems like a normal admin trait to me! ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
46. Support. Oppose votes aren't convincing enough, and some (i.e. Elcobola's) actually speak in favor of the candidate. East of Borschov 01:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
47. Support – Trusted with the mop. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
48. Support. Ling.Nut is clearly dedicated to Wikipedia, has very high standards, always helping others, especially newbies. Just looking at some of the stuff he's done, as I have on occasions when our paths happened to intersect, leads me to say that his very presence here makes me proud to be a Wikipedian. Does he get emotional sometimes? Sure, he's human like the rest of us. But never, ever have I seen any occasion where, sensing that he might be about to cross some line, he has not reined himself in and tried to do the right thing—and often I think it's the most sensible thing anyone could have done under those circumstances. --Alan W (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
49. Support. The answers to Questions 8, 9, and 10 show a remarkable perspective: the idea that there aren't context independent answers to administrative questions, and that each situation may require a different approach to be handled properly. The notion of talking in an intentionally nonstandard by effective way (as in #8, and in User:Ling.Nut/Siege), that still falls within broad policy guidelines, seems promising. And the fact that the notorious (and, I believe, sincere) critic of adminship, Malleus Fatuorum, has approved this candidate, makes me think the Ling.Nut will treat the post with the respect it (im)properly does(n't) deserve(s). That is, though I may not agree with everything MF says, his standards on admins are quite demanding and clear, and a candidate who meets them must be a remarkable person. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
50. Support per Sandy Georgia and Elen. --John (talk) 05:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
51. There's a difference between "occasionally grumpy" and "obnoxious to the point at which it becomes disruptive". I find the opposes utterly unconvincing. – iridescent 11:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
52. Support. It is about time Ling.nut is granted the mop. He is a tireless content editor, he takes great responsibility in many areas of the pedia and he is a nice guy. His thoroughness and efforts invested as a pivotal participant in the review process also speaks volumes about his dedication to the project. Being emotionally invested in ones work is not a detriment as long as it doesn't lead to uncivil or disruptive behaviour - something that no one has been able to show from Ling.nut and which I have never even experienced hints at myself during several years of regular interaction. Addition: I really think that around 25-30 of the oppose voters should change their minds. Ling.nut is not just a good editor - he is going to be one of the most valuable additions to the admin corpse that we could hope of getting. I even would go so far that if it could change anyone's vote at all I will vouch for him and say that if he ever abuses the tools or gets reprimanded for civilty violations at an RfC after receiving the tools I will step down as an admin myself. That is how much I believe that any civilty concerns are unfounded. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

    I am sure you didn't mean to say "admin corpse". It's not as bad as that is it? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC).

53. Some of the cited incidences give me pause, and I wouldn't be surprised if temperament were to get the better of Ling.nut on occasion in future, but perfection is not a prerequisite for adminship. Ling.nut shows serious levels of honesty, understanding of and dedication to the project. "Idiosyncratic" administrators of this calibre add to the diversity, wisdom and capability of the corps. Skomorokh 13:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
54. Support. I think Ling.Nut achieves a fair balance of insistence and humor. It is possible to be passionate and yet not be rude, or "uncivil" in some interpretations of the word. In particular, I think the exchanges at [1] are on point and not unreasonable. I can see Elcobbola's point that passion might get the better of Ling, but I personally don't think Ling would fall into "block first and ask questions later" behaviour. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

    For what it's worth, I fully share the belief that Ling would not block first and ask questions later. My concern ultimately lies with conduct related content. Too often, disputes are won by those who shout loudest. Dramatic, TLDR comments - to which Ling is quite prone - are exhausting, distract from reasoned debate and discourage participation. My concern, again, lies with Ling's demonstrated difficulty with putting emotion aside and addressing the real issues, and, thus, how that difficulty may again manifest itself through use of the tools - to say nothing of the additional influence of the position (admin) to which many (wrongly) look to as an example for behavior and policy-related judgment. Эlcobbola _talk 14:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

    For TLDR, see answer to question 10.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

55. 'Support - Need more people calling a spade a spade. Skinny87 (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
56. Support Trusted, experienced user, so of course. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
57. Support per Sandy Georgia & others. A really solid content contributor, with occasional barking rather than biting issues. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
58. Support Cordial, self-aware, experienced while still eager to learn. A real pleasure to work with and a person whose well-meaning intentions I would never doubt. _dk (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
59. Support per Sandy, etc. Appears not to take himself too seriously -- a very big plus. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
60. Support per answer to my question. I've changed in the same way, although starting at inclusionist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
61. Support - I have the utmost faith in this editor and believe he (or she) would make a fine and trustworthy admin. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
62. Support -Though the user's smuggish behavior appears to be in a way haughty and arrogant (perhaps infantile and aloof at times)...the user has shown their dedication to the project. Provided that they don't get excessively involved in contentious issues, the user's dedication should allow them to be a successful admin.Smallman12q (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
63. Anyone who contributed to our article review processes gets my support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
64. Useful, trusted, experienced. Swarm^Talk 01:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
65. Support Unorthodox and I like it.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
66. Support Rather refreshing; although I'd try to be a bit more circumspect about civility, there's nothing so far over the top to merit too much concern. Let's go. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
67. Support. Some of the diffs shown in the Oppose section raise concerns. However, I've never experienced any problems with Ling.Nut and find him to be a helpful, sophisticated contributor. I trust him with sysop responsibilities. Majoreditor (talk) 03:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
68. Support. There are a lot of positives. The questions then are 1) is he going to misuse the tools, block people wrongly or that sort of thing? No, he's not. There's no evidence that he will. 2) Is he going to have the appropriate demeanor? Yes, probably. He says he will. The diffs shown by the Oppose commentors just don't seem that bad. He appears to have intelligence and character, and those are helpful things to have. I expect he'll be fine. Herostratus (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
69. Support. Temperament issues were raised, but I don't think it is a reservation as far as I am concerned. Having a bit of ardor is not a bad thing for an administrator as long as he can rein it in in the role as an admin, and I think he can. --Nlu (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
70. Nervous support Great editor, and I'm confident that Ling Nut would not abuse the tools. I'm nervous because of the concerns raised by many in the oppose section, but sufficiently reassured by the candidate and by the clean blocklog that I believe if we give Ling Nut the mop dark Ling Nut won't go biting newbies and non-admins. Challenging other admins perhaps, but sometimes that is something we need done. ϢereSpielChequers 12:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
71. Support per the excellent and creative questions 14 to 16. Also, seems like someone who "tells it like it is" and, in my opinion, we could use more people like that in the admin corps. Jenks24 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
72. Support as a worthy contributor who will be an effective addition as an admin. Alansohn (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
73. Support In spite of his tendency to TLDR, and his rather subtle use of borderline incivility, I am quite familiar with his work and have every confidence that he will use the tools with the greatest discretion.--Kudpung (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
74. Yes please. --JN466 18:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
75. Warm support I appreciate the concerns of my friends who have opposed Ling's RfA, and he has not handled some situations as I would have. But I am convinced that Ling will be one of our best administrators. My faith is based partly on his honesty, intelligence, and devotion to our encyclopedic goals, which everyone recognizes from his years of work here. But I also know from personal experience that he has the maturity and inner tranquility to work productively with other people, and that the responsibility of being an admin will bring out the best in him. I believe we Wikipedians will be thankful for making him an admin. Willow (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
76. Support—I haven't been that active in the last two years, but I'm pretty sure the number one priority when it comes to administrators is that they won't abuse the tools. I don't think Ling.Nut will do this. Unconventional thought and practice is good as long as it doesn't obstruct an administrator's basic functions. As for retirements...who cares? It's volunteer work. If someone is offering to work at the soup kitchen, why deny them only because they don't come down every four days? — Deckiller 00:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
77. Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
78. Support; honest, straight-spoken person, we have a desperate need of more people like that, especially as admins. Wonderful answer to question 8, too. C628 (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
79. Support - I don't think your answers are TLDR at all. I think they show you've thought your positions through and answered honestly. A laudable position indeed. Contributions look excellent and a clean block-history. Good luck! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
80. Support Quite a clueful user. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 12:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
81. Support I admit I haven't always seen eye to eye with Ling.Nut but his heart is definitely in the right place. He's a very conscientious editor who's here to improve Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
82. Support I trust that Ling.Nut will not abuse admin priveleges. A solid contributor who is ready for new responsibilities here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
83. Support --Jab843 (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
84. Support. A great editor. I certainly don't see what's wrong with wanting to help with "gnomish backlogs" or with showing a little emotion once in a while. Grandmasterka 23:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
85. Support Nev1 (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
86. Support Has the knowledge and expertise to do the job Jack1956 (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
87. Support Refreshing to see such honesty, and someone with such an honest view on WP:CIV Parrot of Doom 16:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
88. Strong Support Great editor. Perseus!-Talk to me 17:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
89. Support I agree with most of what's above, but a good deal of what's below as well. I agree you sometimes come across as self-important, faux-erudite, or simply incomprehensible. Rarely are our insights so wonderful that they can only be expressed in convoluted Joycean whirls. --JayHenry (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
90. Support. Only a handful of editors I've come across care about quality of content as much as Ling.Nut. I won't say much more, because Willow's appraisal of this editor can't be bettered: Ling.Nut's honesty will be a boon to the admin pool, and the responsibility of the position will bring out the best in him. Win-win. Steve ^T • C 23:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
91. Support. This is a highly experienced editor who has grown in wisdom without becoming wishy-washy. Answers to questions clearly show a cautious approach to using the administrator tools, and hesitance to block. In the end, what I look for in an administrator is maturity, wisdom, and a deep concern about this project. I see those things in Ling.Nut. It is obvious that Ling.Nut's self-nomination grew out of a desire to help, rather than simply a desire for admin privileges. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
92. Support - The "civility oppose" reasoning is utterly lacking from the sample I looked at in the opposes below. The supports above provide enough reason to like, and if the oppose reasons are based on phrases that people don't like, then that's not enough to change my mind. Shadowjams (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
93. Support - weighing both supporters' and opposers' arguments I find myself in this column: Candidate shows clue and experience, and will therefore probably act on the advice given here. --Pgallert (talk) 09:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
94. Support While i acknowledge the opposers views, I do feel Ling has the heart in the right place. Merely starting a discussion (as has been done with DYK), as ling has done, at what someone views as a potential problem on wiki is not something to fault for as has been done in the opposition. We need to encourage discussion and collaboration, that to me is a sign of a viligant editor. Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
95. Support. What iridescent said. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
96. Support. Dana boomer (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
97. Support I've thought a bit about this because the Nut is a first class contributor and reviewer of substance, and all round good egg. I have considered his more colourful side (particularly his language) but believe that whilst it is in his nature to express himself in somewhat extreme terms on occasions, it is not in his nature to abuse power. It is in his nature to be thorough, sincere, insightful and helpful. (I don't think it matters if he ends up not using the tools much as we are not going to run out). Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
98. Support Reasonable guy who will not abuse the tools.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
99. Support No evidence provided by anyone that he would be likely to abuse the tools. It is good to have a variety of backgrounds for administrators. The idea of admins as a separate, priestly caste - with admittance only to those who pass some ill-defined test - is wrongheaded in my opinion. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
100. Support Was initially suspicious of the user name and the opposes below but it's clear Ling.Nut is not your average editor. I find him an intelligent and well intended with some outspoken views. If not an admin then an addition to the Wikipedia's who can think outside the box would be appropriate. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
101. Support Focussed on content, with intelligence and experience. Not a conventional candidate, but I'm happy to support an editor whom I believe won't abuse the tools, even if they possibly won't use them much. --RexxS (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
102. Support A thoroughly genuine, humorous, flexible guy with extensive experience and abilities as a content editor. This project is being torn apart by dysfunctional administrators on destructive missions to try and force the best content editors away from Wikipedia. It seems even a matter of gratification amongst them, chalking up their trophies. The focus is radically confused. We desperately needs administrators that competent content editors can trust and view with pride. Ling would be such an administrator. Like any editor who has made major contributions to Wikipedia, detractors emerge from those who are jealous and resentful of his abilities. That he might not succeed in this RfA is utterly damming to Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
103. Support - (moved from neutral) the answers to questions 14 through 16 – especially q16 – have completely overridden my previous concerns. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
104. Support While the opposes note some points, in the end I feel Ling. Nut will use the tools well. Derild4921☼ 16:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
105. Support' I trust you. —Soap— 22:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
106. Support This comment from SandyGeorgia makes sense to me. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
107. Support Trust this user also. Ceoil (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
108. Support I trust this user. Ronk01 talk 02:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
109. Support Generally intelligent, has a sense of humor, and seems to have the genuine ability to read a situation. And quite honestly, when someone is full of shit or doing stupid things and hasn't listened to anyone telling them more gently, they probably need to be told so without any sugarcoating. Knowing when it's time to do that is part of what admins should be doing. As to the "TLDR" crap, not everything can be said in ten words or less. Demanding people put everything into bite-sized chunks so you're not inconvenienced by having to read everything they have to say is ridiculous and arrogant. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
110. Support Been pondering this one all week. All things considered, likely a net positive. Courcelles 02:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
111. Support Seems ok to me, based on interactions at FAC. Amerique^dialectics 02:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
112. Support – There are some valid concerns in the "oppose" section, but this candidate would, on the whole, be a net positive I think. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
113. Support, wholeheartedly. A first-rate contributor, thoughtfully diligent & helpful reviewer. Ling.Nut is one of the most competent, engaging, honest, generous, and clued-up wikipedians it's been a pleasure to collaborate with over the years. Ling's someone whose dedication, interest in & care for the project and its aims have been evident from the get-go. No issues at all in trusting Ling.Nut to use the tools appropriately. Contrary to some of the 'incivility/drama' scenarios imagined below, actual experience has shown Ling.Nut to be flexible, sensible, and capable of de-escalating conflict situations without pig-headed pursuit, and have no doubt he'd be an asset as an admin. I suppose folks are entitled to either like or not like his expressiveness or style as suits their own tastes, but that has little to do with prospective competence as an admin. Thus far there have been no actual hard outcomes --blocks, arb, etc -- that would give adequate reason to be worried. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose - While, granted, my experience with this editor is limited, I have found him to be repeatedly rude, abrasive, condescending, and prone to run off in a huff. We have far too many admins prone to that sort of drama. We don't need one more. Especially when that person shows such a limited understanding of WP:BLP that they are willing to make utterly unsupported accusations of fraud against identifiable, living people, as he did here. In addition, my experience with him on that article suggests to me that he has little hesitation when it comes to substituting his own opinions for reliably sourced content. Judging by the comments above, I assume that this isn't always the case. But really, that makes his behaviour even more worrying, since it suggests a willingness to disregard BLP and WP:V despite the fact that he knows better. Either way, a very poor candidate. Guettarda (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
2. (ec with the above) Per Talk:Quid pro quo/Archives/2012#not myspace. Not geocities. (permalink), the "Ling.Nut.Dark" moment of a few days ago that the nominee alludes to. The same temperament issues are also apparent in e.g. this edit of two days ago. While I agree entirely with the position Ling.Nut takes with respect to trivia at the "quid pro quo" talk page, administrators should set an example in how to get their point across (i.e., not by swearing at those who disagree with them). I should be able to support Ling.Nut's candidacy after an extended time of active editing in which no such problems manifest themselves, i.e., after it becomes clear that Ling.Nut has succeeded in retiring that "dark" personality. In addition, it is not really clear to me (especially from Q1) what Ling.Nut actually needs the tools for.  Sandstein  06:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Talk:Quid pro quo/Archives/2012#not myspace. Not geocities. does not demonstrate the temperament expected of administrators. Another concern (but not a serious one) is Q1 - a clearer indication of what you actually want to do with the bit would be nice. Rami R 08:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose Guettarda sums up the actions I saw on recent edits well, "rude, abrasive, condescending". I can't see an administrator mediating and helping two groups on a talk page by calling edits "idiotic crap" and questioning whether they are an editor or not. The user has improved the encyclopedia no doubt but being an admin requires good communication skills and assumption of good faith. Slip-ups happen and sometimes you have to call it like it is but those recent edits are absurd and unbecoming of a potential administrator.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

   Oppose per above. 173.49.140.141 (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

   IP's can't vote, sorry Secret ^account 14:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

   I agree Guettarda and Nortynort raises a good point, Admins are supposed to be setting examples, we can't have admins yelling at other users when ever they blow a fuse, but I still stick with my support this user is very trustworthy and knows the ropes better than I--Lerdthenerd (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

5. Oppose Wikipedia is in great need of unconventional and outspoken administrators, but such attributes must have foundations in good sense and informed knowledge. I would have been firmly in the support category before Ling’s comments at the Taiwanese aborigines FAR. Comments such as this are, frankly, ignorant and offensive. To claim systematic bias is ludicrous (as en.wiki considers only copyright status in the United States – non-US works are actually given a significant advantage in many cases), and the remainder is patent disregard for WP:V and intellectual laziness. I don’t believe Ling would intentionally misuse the tools, but I no longer have confidence that they would be wielded with sufficient consideration of policy, but, rather, with undue emotion and personal opinion. Эlcobbola _talk 15:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

   Interesting point, but I really didn't read that as Ling.Nut accusing any individuals of systematic bias. What I took from it is an observation that because most of our contributors are English-speaking people in the US and UK and don't have the ability to do research in Japan or China, then systematic bias is an inevitable outcome - systematic bias being bias that comes from the nature of the system. (And the same goes for the idea that all of our contributors are alive, most quite young, and so we'll get inevitable systematic recentism too.) I really don't see it as an accusation of anything deliberate. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

   I don't believe Ling was accusing an individual either; I realise it was a general statement. Ours is a system of collaboration amongst widely (geographically and otherwise) dispersed editors; while there may be a bias in terms of speed and ease with which research may be undertaken for content in non-English countries, that is not necessarily a content bias, which is how Ling framed his comment. There's no time limit here; that the necessary research couldn't be completed quickly is no excuse for such hyperbole. The issue, thus, is the apparent need to blame "the system", instead of fixing the genuine issue. It's poor judgment and overly dramatic. Эlcobbola _talk 16:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

   Elcobbola, while I respect your opposition and doubly respect your work on images, I really do think you misconstrued the comment you cite. I think he is saying that images from English-language sources are far more easily researched and proven because we generally hail from those same countries. If we want to use an image from China or Japan, it might be almost impossible to discover details other than when the work was produced. That does create a systematic bias toward images produced in English-speaking areas. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

   Can't see what's ignorant or offensive myself. The fact that US copyright law gives different terms to published and unpublished works does cause problems, and has a byproduct of leaving editors needing a time machine to use content from many other countries.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

   Have to say I agree with what Andy Walsh and Elen are saying here. I've observed in the past that over-reliance on US and Australian (and other countries as well) PD photographs has the potential to cause systematic bias in the visual record presented by freely licensed encyclopedias (sometimes you have to pay to get a balanced visual record). But that is more a copyright and copyleft issue, and one I address by linking to (legitimate) hosting of copyright content where the reader needs to see the copyrighted pictures to get a full understanding of the topic. I think Ling.Nut was talking about something similar (though not the same), i.e. the potential for lack of documentation of PD status to cause systematic bias in the visual record. Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

   Whether or not there is systematic bias is irrelevant, and I'd thank you all actually to focus on the underlying general concern in my oppose, not the tangential copyright issues specific to this example. Files need variable sources regardless of the country of origin, if that makes files from non-English countries more difficult to source, too bad, so sad. Ling's comments indicated a patent disregard for WP:V and WP:IUP. Instead of dealing with the problem, Ling engaged in a soliloquy about the system. It's dramatic. It's inappropriate. It's most similar to the concerns mentioned by Guettarda. It suggests Ling allows emotion to override logic. That is unacceptable in admins, or any editor, really. Эlcobbola _talk 01:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

   Accusations of systemic bias can never be directed at a person - systemic bias is well...systemic, that is located in the system not in any one person. In this case he is completely right that the rules themselves, by requiring the western standard of copyright information, impose a bias towards western sources - that make adequate illustration of non-western subjects much more difficult than it needed to. I don't see why being emotional is a problem as long as you don't take it out on others, which I don't think he did here - he identified the rules as the problem.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

   I don't see any claim of personal attacks. Feel free to provide a diff or, failing that, strike that nonsense. If you'd bother to read or comprehend the reply immediately preceding your comment, you'd note "Whether or not there is systematic bias is irrelevant". When confronted with a problem, I expect an admin to disengage personal attachment and resolve the policy issues, not engage in dramatic whining. The negative (disruptive) implications are obvious. Believing that the rules are the problem, in this case, is all the more reason to question Ling's ability to judiciously use the tools. Эlcobbola _talk 13:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

   I'm going to have to disagree with elcobbola too. I'm not sure I can support this editor given some of the other issues but this seems minor. The editor merely voiced their frustration about a policy. Not a big deal to me at all. Quadzilla99 (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

6. Oppose For various reasons. 1)The nominee seems to me to be quite insulting here. I would hope that admins (and editors that want to become admins) would express themselves without insulting other editors. 2)The nominee mentions multiple "retirements." Seeing this makes me wonder if the nominee would be able to handle any stress that might come with being an admin. 3)The nominee states "the near-complete lack of adminly experience." The nominee also states "I will certainly never participate in XfD...I will not actively use my blocking button, nor seek out vandals or debates where its use is likely. I will never be a vandal-whacker." Those statements decreased the likelihood of me supporting. For a potential admin to avoid so many different aspects of adminship seems unwise.--Rockfang (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose Keepscases (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

   Can you please elaborate? I don't want him as an administrator, either, but blank oppose votes will not help our case. Vodello (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

   This whole RfA seems insane. Keepscases (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

   Thats not really an answer Keepscase but if you vote oppose thats your opinion--Lerdthenerd (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

8. Oppose Prolific drama monger per diffs provided above. We have enough of these with the tools already. It is pointless to add another. (ec) Vodello (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
9. recent negative interactions with user leave me unable to trust that this user will not abuse the extra tools. -Atmoz (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
10. Oppose per response to Q1. I applaud your honesty, but in my humble opinion, you aren't yet ready for adminship. PhilKnight (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

    Oppose value his work in the featured articles area, but I can't ignore the evidence posited by the other opposes. No doubt he would be a help in taking back the wiki, but alas, not yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Moving to neutral.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

11. Oppose. Per above. Concerns with temperament and judgement. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
12. Oppose Your answer to my question leads me to believe that your understanding of what an admin does is very poor despite your long tenure at Wikipedia. Latest attempt to answer the simple question of what admin work you would do is even worse and more evasive than the first two attempts. You are expected to have an understanding of the basic concepts involved in admin work before submitting an RFA, the few specifics you have provided show that you have little to no understanding of what administrators do. Upgrading to Strong oppose. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
13. Wish I could support, but there's a niggling feeling in the back of my mind that stops me doing so. Aiken (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
14. Oppose - I don't like your answers, quite frankly, especially to question one. From what's said above you may be a great editor, but I see no need for sysop tools. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
15. Oppose: All reasons mentioned above. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
16. Per Above. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 21:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
17. Per Ajraddatz's reason. Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
18. Oppose Those diffs/links make me think twice about handing you the tools. Go a few months without being involved in major issues like the ones mentioned above and I'd be more than happy to support :) All the best,--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 01:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
19. Oppose I was willing to overlook the colorful language and the arduous history you seem to have, but in Q14, you shot yourself in the foot. "My first response would be that I have based my solemn assertion that I will retire all over-colorful language on my desire to uphold the reputation of the encyclopedia." is all well and good, except you should be saying "I'm retiring my bad behavior because it is disruptive and wrong." Address your past problems as issues for self improvement, rather than self sacrifice. The whole 'for the good of the encyclopedia' thing is off-putting. I also see in your recent comments that you keep promising reform while skirting on the edge of acceptable behavior. Eccentricities are fine, heck they keep the world interesting, but they are only fine when the repercussions are minor. Considering that the probability that any action taken as any admin is going to be major is higher than if that same action was taken by a non-admin, your eccentricities are a tad too much for me. Sorry, but I have to oppose. Since it looks like you might pass anyways (50-20 support-oppose at the time of this comment) I'd like to offer some humble advice. Prove me wrong. Prove that you're a capable and respected admin. Use the tools well. Don't do it for me, do it for the "reputation of the encyclopedia." :) Cheers, Sven Manguard _Talk 02:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
20. Oppose, this clearly shows the wrong temperament for an admin. Opposing trivia in Wikipedia is good; making it a righteous crusade that justifies throwing profanity all around is not, and getting snitty with those who ask for it to be toned down isn't scoring points, either. I'm not a civility policeman, but I'm also not into giving people like this use of the admin tools. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
21. Oppose. Too idiosyncratic for an admin. The best type of administrator is a disinterested sobersides (I'm sure we all know the difference between disinterested and uninterested).Xxanthippe (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC).
22. I'm sorry; I respect the work on content and the dedication to the project. But there's too much temperamental and volatile history here for me to be comfortable. Those are huge red flags, because adminship exacerbates those tendencies. I just can't confidently support this as a good idea. That said, I see some of the names I respect most on this project in the "Support" column, so I hope I'm just wrong or uncharitable, and that if this passes, Ling.Nut will do good work. MastCell ^Talk 04:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
23. Per Sandstein. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 05:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
24. OpposeI agree with the comments regarding civility and demeanor. The editor actually started off OK in our interactions but eventually fell into passive aggressiveness, flat-out rudeness, and assuming the worst in others. To top it off, it was all in a topic area that is subject to sanctions through the arbitration process so an admin would need to show that they have the patience to handle it. Not my finest moments but I'm not going for admin: [2]. Has some great qualities while interacting but the pendulum repeatedly swings too far the other way.Cptnono (talk) 06:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

    Oppose Answers to questions generally don't show the right temperament to be an admin. Polargeo 2 (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC) moving to neutral. Polargeo 2 (talk) 10:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

25. Oppose. It is with regret that I have to oppose this time. I really like the open and honest "stream of thought" approach to answers, which is clearly not pre-prepared and carefully edited in order to please - and I find myself agreeing with much of the thought that is in those answers. I also see someone who is clearly very smart, and with wide and deep knowledge of Wikipedia stuff. The problem is this Ling.Nut.Dark business, and the "solemn assertion that I will retire all over-colorful language". I'm very much inclined to trust that solemn assertion, but the problem I have is that if I am mistaken, then, in the absence of a sensible desysop process, there is no comeback - giving admin rights is a one-way street. And so I feel I just can't support someone based on what they promise they will do, no matter how much I feel it is a trustworthy promise - I can only base my decision on what people can show they have already done. And the last problematic emotion/drama was only a week ago. Should I see a future RfA following a Dark-free 3-6 month spell, I would very much expect to support it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

    Just as an additional comment, I'm impressed by the cool, calm and constructive way the candidate has responded to comments - and that is something that would strengthen my likelihood of Supporting after an appropriate Dark-free interval -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

26. Oppose – Ling.Nut has neither the temperament nor the experience to be an administrator. My interactions with him, though limited, have led me to the conclusion that his attitude is often one of condescension and arrogance, and that he holds the project and its editors in contempt. (Evidence for the latter point may be found in the various essays Ling.Nut has posted to his userpage, each as self-important and falsely erudite as the last.) —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

    Excluding links to Wikipedia articles, the only essays Ling has linked on his userpage are WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RANDY, WP:RS, WP:UP, WP:V and WP:WIAFA. Which of those are you claiming is "falsely erudite"? – iridescent 08:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

    My user page itself is an essay; there's also User:Ling.Nut/3IAR and User:Ling.Nut/Siege. I actually used to have several others, but have deleted them. Oh wait, there's User:Ling.Nut/cca, but that's just scraps, and I don't really stand by it too strongly (unworkable, probably). However, i don't give a crap if AnonDiss thinks I'm self-important and falsely erudite. It is neither correct nor incorrect; it is an opinion. If he wants to think that, that's OK. I am against blowing my own horn, but this page forces me to: I don't hold grudges. If a thousand editors looked at every screechy moment I'd ever had, I do not believe you would find even one incident where I was a hater of an individual. I simply ignore people who get under my skin, although very few do! Always and everywhere, I went ballistic on a) abuses of the encyclopedia, b) abuses of authority, or c) abuses of other editors (c being the rarest, probably). i mentioned above that folks should consider legitimate reasons why my name is not at ANI; this is one VERY strong reason. I never snipe at people when I come across them – what's done is done, in my mind. I live and let live, with respect to individuals. Let 'em hate, may God bless 'em all. Another strong reason is that my Ling.Nut.Nice posts far outnumber and outweigh the screechy moments. And so on. • Ling.Nut (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

    Why did you choose to delete User:Ling.Nut/V-challenged among others? I thought it was some interesting, insightful writing. -- œ^™ 05:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

    I never considered undeleting it; that might be an idea. I.. believe.. that was my first-ever retirement. That would be due to the DMO thing, IIRC. I actually do not recall clearly, but I think that is the case. • Ling.Nut (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

27. Oppose to avoid future drahmaz. I find the personality to be unsuited for administrative action. This, to me, will probably only end in an arbcom case. Forestall that by letting this editor do something else other than be an administrator. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
28. Oppose I do not trust this user not to abuse tools. Hipocrite (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
29. Strong Oppose this candidate already has severe lack of maturity, even during this RfA right now. I was thinking of recusing it, but when I saw that sensibly worded Q10 I've already pointed out his maturity problems with his excessive boldness in his answer. I have no doubt that he'll soon be yelling out the word "BUTTONS!" if he gets the privilege next week. Minimac (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
30. Oppose per the talk QPQ stuff. Not the temperament expected of an admin. DC T•C 16:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
31. Strong oppose - I don't often weigh in on RfAs, but I feel that I need to express my opinion on this one as it looks like it could be close. The Ling.Nut.Dark and Ling.Nut.Nice personas concern me quite a bit -- although the user promises to retire Ling.Nut.Dark, I can't help but wonder if the added stressors from admin work will pull this persona out of retirement. The diffs of insults that have been provided are especially concerning, and I feel like if this user is given the mop, it's only a matter of time before we see an ArbCom case for desysopping. I have amended my !vote from an oppose to a strong oppose. Claiming that ten days is sufficient time to learn from inappropriate comments shows a lack of evidence of maturity. A large part of my decision to strongly oppose, though, is Ling.Nut's response to JamesBWatson's similar !vote. Saying things such as "I went to all the trouble of doing an extremely unorthodox thing..." seems, frankly, too conceited to me. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 17:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
32. Oppose for now. Too much drama, too much behaviour that looks immature. It's great to hear that this sort of behaviour will be discontinued, and I accept in good faith that LingNuts sincerely intends to stop that. However, only time will tell how successful this is, so we need more time before to see how successful the reform is. There is a lot to like about LingNuts, so I hope that after 6 months of cleaned-up conduct, we'll see another RFA, provided that it gives us some idea of what LingNuts actually wants to do with the tools. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
33. Oppose. For now, per WhiteShadows and BrownHairedGirl, I might be willing to support if more time elapsed between the diffs cited above in this section of !votes and the next RfA. As little as six months might be enough time... Best of luck. Saebvn (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
34. Oppose Sorry ling. That yellow highlighting is just obnoxious. The conversation in those diffs is pretty troubling. Gigs (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
35. Per Sandstein and others, and I'm doing you a favor, Ling. In your current mood, you'd only mop yourself into a corner. Give it a rest, come back when you're feeling better. - Dank (push to talk) 22:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

    Actually, I'm not in anything resembling a bad mood at all, nor will I be in any foreseeable future. But thanks for your input. • Ling.Nut (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

    Don't give yourself away. ;-) Dank said "a mood", not "a bad mood". Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

    Check his edit summary. Then call your local civi... never mind :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

    Ah, I see what you mean: "come back when you're feeling better". I actually opposed Dank's RfA, and I've never regretted it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

    The cruelty that some are imagining in my words is just that, imagined. You referred to your "dark" self, Ling, and it's more than evident in the diffs from a few days ago. That's not the Ling I know, and it suggests that this isn't the right time to start swinging a mop around. I know you've said you're all better now, but that's really asking too much from the voters. - Dank (push to talk) 03:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

    Tks for your comments on my nom. I didn't see cruelty or anything negative at all in them. I just wanted to let you (and others) know that I am not in a bad mood now and was not then. Look at my contribs; after screaming at the trivia guy, I continued cheerfully helping n00bs, e.g. at Talk:Diagnostic Enterprise Method. My nom doesn't say I'll moderate my moods; I don't need to do that. My nom says I'll stop screaming at folks. That's all. Tks.• Ling.Nut (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

    I buy that, everyone gets to decide what works for them, and I don't think I'm in a position to see inside your head or judge you. This is really about what's customary at RFA: there's always been a critical mass of RFA voters, including me, who aren't going to assent until the kind of language we're talking about is firmly in the past. - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

    I'm unsure whether to add my comments here, or above in the Discussion section since adding comments here often can look like "badgering the opposers", so I'm choosing to add them here and see how it goes :) I tend to agree with Ling's approach of responding above, and disagree with the TLDR and unnecessary "passive-aggressive" commentary below, so. I'm not troubled by opposes here-- they are all within their rights. I do stand by my belief that "dark" Ling knows himself, and the colorful language he may use in an article discussion (Quid por quo did have one of the most idiotic collections of trivia I've ever come across) does not represent how he would act as an admin. What does trouble me about RFA is that an editor like Ling-- who knows how to write articles, has been around a long time, and has engaged forcefully to defend the Project-- won't get through RFA while far lesser qualified candidates do simply because they've pushed the right buttons and avoided conflict. That doesn't tell us anything about how they may behave as admins. I notice some of the opposers here supporting such candidates without the same kind of scrutiny that has been applied to Ling, and that is troubling. We need to know if an admin is likely to abuse the tools-- opposers here are in their right, but I wish some of them would apply the same scrutiny to some other candidates who are getting through without us having enough info about them to know if they have any grasp of the fundamentals of Wiki, which Ling does. Default assumption that others won't abuse the tools isn't always shown, simply because they have never even engaged real article writing or dispute. Popping up a bunch of DYKs, engaging at GOCE, and huggling aren't evidence of what kind of admin other candidates would make. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

    If a candidate demonstrates they're going to discuss issues by burying fellow editors in voluminous responses that discourage efficient communication, that strikes me as a valid concern. And I stand behind my "unnecessary" commentary. Townlake (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

    As I said, I'm not troubled by any particular oppose, and you're within your right. I do think you could have opposed without labeling Ling's approach to responding as "passive-aggressive". Some civility police might label that as a personal attack-- worse than the "idiotic" language at Quid pro quo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

    I agree with a lot of what you're saying there, and it did pain me to Oppose someone so clearly clued-up. I just wish I knew Ling well enough to be confident that the screaming at other people really will stop, but the truth is I don't - I'll certainly support a future RfA if I can see a suitable scream-free period preceding it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

    I endorse Townlake's comment. Can the police come beat down my door, too? Vodello (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

    I doubt they will (double standards and all that). @Boing, my concern is about the default position at RFA. It is very hard for an editor who has fully engaged on Wiki to pass RFA, while it is relatively easy for others who have no understanding of policy, how to write an article, engage contentious areas or newbies, trolls, vandals, whatever to be passed by hiding out at DYK, GOCE, or Huggling while not knowing anything about policy. I've seen that in every RFA I've read this week, with supports for admins who clearly don't even know what they're signing on for. The default at FAC is that an article is not promoted unless consensus shows it meets criteria; the default at RFA seems to be promote unless we can dig up dirt on you. I suggest the admin corp would be more effective if the default were instead: show us you've engaged the project, know policy, and can handle conflict, rather than hiding out somewhere and pushing all the right buttons so we can't find any dirt on you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

    Yep, I understand and agree - and I recognize I've been guilty of that mistake myself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

36. Questions 14-16... creative approach, but it's passive-aggressive, and it amplifies the TLDR concerns. Townlake (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

    I guess I see why you say my responses are passive-aggressive: I guess it's the phrase "blows goat chunks". What you may not know is that that phrase is one I frequently use, and it is not passive-aggression, it is gentle self-mockery. Moreover, the reason I put those comments up there was to help prevent folks from feeling badgered. That's all. • Ling.Nut (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

37. Oppose per BrownHairedGirl. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
38. Oppose: The candidate does not demonstrate the temperament expected of administrators. - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
39. Oppose, per Sandstein. Significant concerns about temperament. Nsk92 (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
40. Oppose First of all, it would take quite exceptional circumstances for me to be persuaded it would be beneficial to give adminship to someone who says, in effect, "I don't have any idea what I will do with my admin tools: I will think about that when I've got the tools". That is further reinforced when the user in question does not seem to currently be doing anything admin related, and when they actually rule out several admin areas (vandal fighting, XfD, blocking) without ruling any in. Secondly, this user is frequently contemptuous and dismissive of those he disagrees with, which is completely unacceptable for an admin. Thirdly, the user is clearly out of sympathy with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in several respects (e.g. "I find the idea of preventing people from editing the encyclopedia anyone can edit a bit distasteful"). That would be fine if I detected a suggestion of "I don't agree with policy X, but I will do my best to uphold it per consensus", but I don't. Instead I see remarks such as "CONSENSUS is wholly and completely a farce on Wikipedia ... Feel free to do the right thing at any time" (i.e. to do what you personally think is "the right thing", irrespective of consensus). The whole manner and tone of many of the editors comments here and elsewhere suggest that this quote is absolutely representative of the editor's approach, and so I fear a use of admin tools to carry out his own wishes, not to serve the community's consensus. There are other reasons for not being happy with this candidate, covered above by other commentators, but those three are the ones that I find most compelling. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

    Please take this "Oppose" as now being "Very strong oppose". We have seen Ling.Nut right here in this RfA make edits that reinforce the reasons for opposing. Since writing the above comment I have seen a plea of "yes, I was wrong, but it was all in the past", only to discover that "in the past" meant "10 days ago". If Ling.Nut genuinely knows does not realise that 10 days is not enough, then he lacks the sort of judgement needed by an administrator, and if he does realise it then saying that is highly dubious. Even more important, though, I have seen Ling.Nut making combative, even abrasive, responses to editors on this page. If that is how he behaves in an RfA in which his abrasive approach to other editors is one of the major criticisms raised, then I think it is fair to conclude that he really cannot see that he is being aggressive, in which case, no matter how good his intentions, he will unintentionally do so in the course of admin work. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

    Hi JamesBWatson. I went to all the trouble of doing an extremely unorthodox thing by asking myself questions in the question section, for the sole reason that I deeply desired to avoid creating the impression in anyone's heart or mind that I was badgering them. As a result I received several Opposes. So I answered folks directly, following tradition. In the process, I spoke firmly but very politely in order to rectify what was a complete mis-characterization of my position in an important debate. So I garnered your Oppose. You see, if i wish to do anything other than regurgitate prefabricated answers designed to pass the RfA, there simply is no way to avoid offending at least one person somewhere on the Internet who is watching this forum. Thank you, however, for caring enough to make your views known... • Ling.Nut (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

41. Oppose - Responding to TLDR concerns by asking yourself three questions at your own RfA doesn't seem like a well thought-out idea. SnottyWong ^babble 16:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

    Can't agree; if Ling had asked someone else to nom him, they would be responding to some of that for him. Instead, he chose an uncoventional route. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

    So you are doing the badgering on his behalf? I'm actually rather enjoying it, it may be the closest we ever get to seeing you act like a RfA candidate. Feeling sorry for Ling.Nut, a bit, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

    I understand it's almost ArbCom season, but jabbing at me all over the Wiki isn't going to produce a reaction :) I've been rather enjoying watching that as well :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

    Don't worry, I won't run on a ban SandyGeorgia platform. I may write about Nixon, but I have some scruples. :) Although a Southern strategy worked for him ... hmmm.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

42. My interactions with him have not been positive. Although I'd doubt he'd abuse the tools, I could see him dramamongering for sure. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 18:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

    If you're referring to the sloppiness at "your" Lazare Ponticelli, or one of your earthquake FACs that were not promoted, perhaps you'd put up some diffs, so others can see what occurred there. We need good reviewers to point out serious problems at FAC and FAR, and it's a shame they get opposes for doing so. Ling.Nut is one of rew FAC and FAR reviewers who will actually go get the sources, uncover plagiarism, read articles in other languages, and take a stand against articles that are copied over from other wikis, and translated on google by editors who don't even have the sources; certainly, stringent FAC and FAR reviewers will earn some enemies, but some FAs would scrape through the system if someone like Ling wasn't willing to invest a lot of time in them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

    Well, that's a comment just calculated to get Editorofthewiki to change his mind! Admittedly this RfA is as dead as Duncan, but do you have to add injury to insult by driving in the nails so hard that people may still be ticked off if Ling.Nut runs again?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

43. Oppose Sorry, from my various interactions with him, I can agree with the temperament/attitude issue. Bejinhan talks 03:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

    I suppose that both you and GorillaWarfare are concerned about this thread, in which I stated that other templates are better than the one in question. [I am supposing that is what you are referring to, since I have had absolutely zero interaction with you other than that thread plus this message in which I tried to help you sort out image issues]. I did speak firmly and clearly, but did not come even within a city's length of incivility. I later edited the template in question ({{USPP welcome}}) to improve its aesthetic appeal, plus created an alternative ({{AmbassadorWelcome}}. I am indeed sorry if my clarity bothered you, as in fact I stated in that thread. Tks. • Ling.Nut (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

    Ah, no actually. Nothing that happened there were insults, at least by my standards, and I would not be upset by a user's "clarity". I'm not sure what leads you to believe I am referring to those in my oppose rationale. The edits I am speaking of are ones such as [3], Talk:Quid pro quo/Archives/2012#not myspace. Not geocities.. They are incivil. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 04:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

    Thank you for clarifying that. I am sorry I jumped to the wrong conclusion. As for the other diffs, I have already explained them. I screwed up. It is past. I can only move forward, after having made public assertions that I spoke too harshly. Tks. • Ling.Nut (talk) 04:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

    I see that, yes. However, the diffs were within the past month. I see others have suggested a wait period, and then trying again at RfA (if you don't pass, naturally). I would agree with this -- 10 days is not enough time to show that you can learn from these mistakes. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 04:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

    Of course I respect your position. Thank you for your reply. • Ling.Nut (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

44. Oppose. This is a bold self-nom and Ling.Nut is a great editor. However the answer to question 1 shows unconvincing reasons for adminship. I am also concerned by the "lack of adminly experience", by which I think he/she means "lack of experience in areas where admins are required". Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
45. Oppose Has undoubtedly made some friends here but the only times I remember seeing this user are from shockingly abrasive comments Jebus989^✰ 13:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
46. Oppose It is difficult to see why this editor, who certainly has extensive experience here, needs the tools. Having said that, his experience does not adequately encompass admin-related areas, ans his attitude, as detailed in various opposes above, gives me cause for concern.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

    Nobody needs the tools, not even you. On the contrary, the way wikipedia is presently "organized" it needs people with the tools. Malleus Fatuorum 16:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

47. Oppose I think Ling.Nut is a great contributor. I've seen him doing awesome work in many places over the years, and I think we're lucky he's a part of Wikipedia. Any contributor who has been prolific is going to have people with grudges against them in some sense, whether for legitimate reasons or bad faith ones. See J.S.'s second law (#120 on the list) for a funny yet true maxim on that. But regardless, the opposition brings up a point that is extremely relevant. Admins need to sometimes be able to stop, take a deep breath, and calm down in the face of rude or frustrating behavior. This comment from about a week and a half ago is not an acceptable reaction in a debate. Not that I'm saying I'm perfect, but that's not the kind of attitude and action that drives away newbies and adds to burnout among old hands. Steven Walling 19:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
48. Oppose per many above: concerns regarding temperament and attitude. I'm sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
49. Oppose - per concerns in relation to the candidate's temperament and general attitude, great contributor but I don't think I can support at this time. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 11:39am • 00:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
50. Oppose - Doesn't seem to have a good idea of why they want the tools or what they would do with them. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

    In Ling.Nut's defence (ignoring any argument about how WP:NONEED isn't considered to be the most effective point to make in an adminship discussion, as it's not that I want to address - although it should be kept in mind), the user does want to work through "various gnomish backlogs", Category:Articles to be merged and BLP semi-protection candidates. However, I do understand that 'gnomish tasks' is a rather general statement, and that the articles to be merged aim was only established after a question was asked. I won't weigh in on the civility issues here, but I just wanted to make that point (notice it's rather neutral - I've stated both sides of the argument, which I'm really glad I was able to do!). Arctic Night 06:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

    I disagree with WP:NONEED, chiefly because what a candidate wants to do and how you can use the tools is central to whether or not I have confidence in that candidate. Question 1 on any RfA asks why a candidate wants the tools; if this was irrelevant then we wouldn't ask the question, much less put it as the first question. If they don't know what you'd do with them, then I don't see why we're even bothering with an RfA; they're not ready. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

    The reason I was so general about "gnomish activities", rather than selecting one as a display example, is this: it doesn't matter what gnomish task I eventually find that I enjoy most. I can certainly do any and all of them, either with no trouble whatsoever, or after a very brief learning period. I have been here four years. I have done templates (such as {{Harvcol}}, {{Harvcolnb}}, {{Harvcoltxt}}, and tons of others.. I usually made them in user space, so they seldom show in my contribs). I have done disambig, both by hand and by CorHomo (does that still exist?). I have done merges. I have done AWB for hours and hours upon end. I have done many other things that I actually don't even remember. I simply thought – obviously, wrongly! – that people would automatically have confidence that I am well qualified and capable of carrying out gnomish tasks. I surely do not believe that was arrogance on my part, nor was it laziness. • Ling.Nut (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

    I didn't talk about content or automated edits. Did you mean to put this comment somewhere else? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

51. Oppose - recent civility issues. Ling.Nut doesn't always seem to interact with other users in the clear and calm way that is expected of an administrator (the WP:TLDR concerns apply here as well, though that's less of an issue). Also, this isn't automatically a reason to oppose, but he doesn't seem too clear about why he wants the tools. Most of the 'gnome work' on Wikipedia doesn't actually require them; merging articles, for instance, can be done by anyone. Robofish (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
52. Oppose. My feeling here is that the appointment of this user would lead to drama and conflict, leading to a net negative for the Wikipedia project as a result of his adminship. I'm not sure that users whom are controversial and involved in conflicts as editors are ever suitable for adminship, actually. Esteffect (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
53. Oppose. Dislike how candidate appears to turn up here with no obvious reason but to pile on against DYK. Not what I expect from a potential admin. StrPby (talk) 08:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry but I have to take issue with what you said there. I don't want drama, and you are very welcome to Oppose. I support your right to Oppose. But I did not show up for no reason or to pile on; I had a very, very clear and definite problem. I will not discuss this issue further, even if you ask questions or reply to this post. I consider it resolved – or more accurately, I am placing my trust in the people involved to make sure that everything is OK. That's all. Thanks, though, for voicing your concerns. • Ling.Nut (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

54. Oppose after going through the various (opposing) arguments here and consulting his user page, not somebody I'd personally be comfortable with as an administrator (see also Esteffect reasoning) --Kmhkmh (talk) 10:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
55. Oppose I appreciate the work that Ling.Nut has done for the project. That said, I have concerns about his ability to be patient and keep his cool when confronted with heated situations. It only takes one bad decision or comment to cause friction as an admin and I can't say with confidence that Ling.Nut will not do that. If Ling.Nut can improve his ability to be civil and calm to others in the future for a good period of time, I may support. For now however, I have my concerns. Regards, --Auger Martel (talk) 08:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

    In addition, the constant retorts to some of the users above by the candidate is also a big no-no for me. Once or twice to clarify an issue or two is fine, but it's now past double digits which is a big turn off for me I'm afraid.--Auger Martel (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

56. Has his way of intimidating and bullying just about anybody. Seems to retire every so often to circumvent criticism. I have no problem supporting people I don't usually "get along" with, but I honestly believe promoting the candidate would create more harm than benefit. Also, FWIW, LN seems to be fond of using condescending clichés in his conversations, which has made me uncomfortable in the past. Juliancolton (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
57. Oppose - sounds like a lot of drama. No now, but maybe later. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
58. Oppose for now out of fear this person will cause more dramas than he/she resolves based on the comments above. I encourage building up a drama-free track record for 6 months, then standing again. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

    Additional comment for closing bureaucrat: A few admins have been promoted with 65% support but I recommend against doing this, even if you think (as over 100 supporting editors think) Ling.Nut would make a good admin. In my experience, admins promoted with such weak mandates immediately start out with a major cloud on their credibility. I don't you'd be doing Ling.Nut a favor to promote him with such a weak mandate. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

59. Oppose. I do not trust this user to abuse the tools only in ways of which I can approve. Hans Adler 22:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

    That's just about the pithiest oppose I've ever seen, even made me smile. I'll have to try and remember that one. Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

    It would make an even more concise support vote: "I trust this user to abuse the tools only in ways that I approve!" Geometry guy 00:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC) (With much respect for Hans Adler's many other valuable contributions.)

    Two for the price of one then. Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

    If I am ever granted the tools, my only abuse of them will be to hit them with a rubber chicken. And only on weekends. I do so solemnly swear. [And only if the chicken is a consenting adult]. • Ling.Nut (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

    There's far too much of this tool abuse going on around here, when what we ought to be concerned about is the endemic abuse of regular editors by administrators. I'm wondering though, does "tool" have all of the same vulgar connotations in the US that it does in other parts of the world? Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

    Yes to the second question; first comment deflected to WT:ADMIN or similar, ;-) • Ling.Nut (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

    Probably not so much actual tool abuse, but certainly some conspicuous incivility, arrogance, intimidation, and garden walling, knowing that they can get away with it. But I don't think Link.Nut will be one of them. --Kudpung (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

60. Oppose, per Q3, Q5, Q8. Referring to one of the more contentious areas of Wikipedia as a "circus" leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Q5 leaves me particularly worried. Neither do we need admins who defer to authority, nor admins who assume that the job does confer authority. We don't call it a mobp for nothing. Finally, I think we have too much back-channel communication already, and in particular we can do without the condescending tone "in almost those exact words" obvious in Q8. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

    A mob? You mean ANI? Ucucha 23:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

    Hey, it's not my native language! You spell "Donaudampfschiffahrtgesellschaftskapitän"! ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

    It isn't mine either. Now how about attending the Hottentottententententoonstelling? :-) Ucucha 23:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

    It seems that there is a slice of the community who believe that it is not my language either... or else, I am merely too much in love with it... Hmmmm... :-) • Ling.Nut (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

61. Oppose. Very worrying, in particular responses to Q5 and Q8. Maybe one day, but a lot would need to change. MurfleMan (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
62. Oppose - Tough call here for me, for a number of reasons. This is a dedicated editor with support from over 100 editors, many of whom I respect highly. And yet... the concerns around "drama" strike me as valid. Perhaps I'm showing my age, but a 'dark' alter ego just strikes me as childish. I want to see less of that sort of thing in the admin corps. With respect, I cannot support at this time. My best wishes to the candidate and thanks for your offer of service. Jusdafax 01:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
63. Weak oppose. Not because of the answer to my question, but becasue, out in the wild as it were, I have encountered only the "Ling.Nut.dark". Cardamon (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral for now. I really can't decide at the moment, but I need this placeholder to note my thoughts so far. On the plus side, I like the open and very honest self-nomination, and we clearly have a passionate Wikipedian here. But on the other hand I see excessive drama tinged with incivility and perhaps even a touch of obsession, with the "drooling idiots" (Quid pro quo) and "idiotic crap" comments being very recent. Candidate says he's put all this kind of stuff behind him, but that was only a week ago. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

On the other other hand, response to Q8 is great, and shows a helpful and respectful approach to new editors. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

After more thought, I have to switch to Oppose this time, but with great hopes for next time - see above shortly -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutral for now. Strong and forthright character, though perhaps a bit aggressive. I may change later, based on how this progresses... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)_{moving to support...}

Neutral for now. First, I'm not sure that you won't find the tools to be a burden, particularly as I'm not really sure what you want 'em for. Second, your quid pro quo rant was so over the top it was practically an hommage to Basil Fawlty; I want to know what your normal approach to interacting with people is like. OTOH, your answer to Q8 was very impressive. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)_{Moving to support}

Woo hoo! I'm a "snobbish, miserly, xenophobic and sexually repressed paranoiac misanthrope who is desperate to belong to a higher social class"! Please stop reading my diary; it is most unbecoming of you to reveal my true nature to an unsuspecting public. :-) • Ling.Nut (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Get on and answer my question :):)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Neutral for now While the candidate's unorthodox and eccentric ways are somewhat charming and refreshing, I'm still in the process of deciding whether this behavior comports with the temperament expected of administrators.--Hokeman (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

   Hard to be objective about this user since xe reminds me of an editor I sparred with early in my WP career, one who'd try to win arguments with repetitive TLDR rants. I appreciate Ling.Nut's action-oriented response to Q4; the candidate in general appears well-meaning and a clear asset to this work. However, I'm concerned about the tendency toward excessive verbosity in discussions like this. We're all volunteers here; an ability to cut to the quick is valuable. Townlake (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC) to oppose

2. Neutral On the fence...supporters and opposers offer reasoned explanations for their positions.--MONGO 01:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
3. On the fence as well, though I write this mainly to state my moral support. Ling.Nut is an excellent content contributor, and I do like an administrator with a sense of humor; a better answer to Q1, and a bit more moderation in their comments (referred to here often enough), would have made me support. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Something doesn't sit right with me.. -- œ^™ 11:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral - great FAC reviewer (I wouldn't mind having him check over mine, as the articles would certainly improve!), but the other issues are troubling. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

   Moved to support after q's 14-16. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

5. Neutral (moved from oppose). His good conduct during a difficult RfA has shaken the strength of my oppose, and I'm moving to neutral. Maybe in a few months?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
6. Neutral (moved from oppose) I cannot assess this candidate to the level I would like to. As with Wehwalt I think his conduct has been reasonable during this RfA, if a little confusing at times. He makes good assurances but there is a reason why good assurances from any particular candidate are not enough. Polargeo 2 (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
7. Neutral. Probably per Wehwalt and Dank - I'd like to see some time elapse re style of interaction issues. Other stuff that's been raised I'm not that concerned about. Ling.nut has been fabulously valuable at places like FAC and FARC, and when Sandy says they broke the mould when they made Ling, I'm one who wishes they hadn't - Ling is an interesting contributor who often makes really thought-provoking contributions. I'd like to see another nom in a few months time... hamiltonstone (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

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