Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Malcolmxl5

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

Malcolmxl5

Final (58/4/1); Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 14:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Malcolmxl5 (talk · contribs) - Malcolmxl5 is a user who I began to see a lot of as I have been closing AFDs more and more frequently. His discussion in each AFD was thoughtful and wasn't just spitting out policies, he explained well why something should be kept or deleted. As a result, I began looking through his contributions further, and liked what I saw. While I don't know exactly how many articles he's contributed to (the lack of a count of them to me shows he's editing here for the right reasons), he has made some good articles. Lomana LuaLua is a really well-written article he's made that maybe should be put up at WP:GA, and Celtic F.C. season 2000-01 is another nice article that he pretty much did himself. He also helps in matters of discussion, such as at Talk:Freddy Eastwood, another article he's contributed a lot to.

He of course contributes a lot to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, and I do see him contribute a lot in that area. I don't know much about association football, but with 150+ edits to its talk page, I would believe that he is really dedicated to the project. While his contributions outside the project may not be vast, his 16,000 edits strewn where they are show that he would do well with the tools. Closing AFDs woudn't be a problem for him, and I have no reason to think anything else would, either. Wizardman 18:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I thank Wizardman for his nomination, which I accept. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Should my candidacy be successful, I would continue with what I have been doing as an editor, such as dealing with vandals that crop up on my watchlist or on new pages patrol or who I otherwise spot, warning and blocking as needed. I also keep a eye on pages that have been blanked, which are listed by SQLBot. Often these pages are blanked by the author, sometimes in response to a speedy tag placed on the page, and I would deal with these directly rather than tagging them to be dealt with by another admin. From time to time, I close non-controversial Afds as a non-admin, where the article has been speedy deleted or the nomination withdrawn, and I would take this a bit further and look to close some where the consensus is to delete. Afd is an area that sometimes gets backlogged so I would add my efforts to the workload. From time to time, backlogs in other areas are reported on WP:AN or WP:ANI and I anticipate helping out with these and also keep an eye on WP:AIV, WP:RM, WP:RPP, requests for speedy deletion and proposed deletions. As a newbie admin, I would pace myself and deal with non-controversial administrative tasks until I gain more experience and confidence as an admin. I plan to continue to be an editor, writing and improving articles.

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

A: As Wizardman says, I work mostly on improving footballing biographies, including lower league footballers such as Sacha Opinel, which I improved from this to this; subsequently Friejose has added a rather good picture to make it what it is now. I also work on articles about more notable footballers, Wizardman mentions Lomana LuaLua and most recently I have done much work on Scott Carson, taking it to B class and hopefully to peer review soon and then onto GA class. Although my main interest has been in footballing biographies, I also dabble in other areas and have created articles, for example, on Harry Campion, a British statistician, Bill McLennan, an Australian statistician, Helen Ghosh, a British civil servant, James Leasor, a British author, Sigrid Rausing, a Swedish philanthropist, D. J. Finney, a former President of the Royal Statistical Society, and improved articles such as Din Din Aviv, an Israeli pop singer, William Lawrence Balls, a British botanist, Wöbbelin, a municipality in Germany and Marché ouvert, a medieval English legal concept. I am pleased with all of these as my aim is to improve the encyclopedia and I hope that these are examples of how I work to do so.

I also keep an eye open for vandalism, dealing with these when I see them, and consider these to be important contributions too, for example, recently I stubbed an attack page about a school in Georgia, USA[1].

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

A: I do not think I have been involved in any major controversy either in mainspace or Wikipedia space. My user page has been vandalised a few times but that seems to be par for the course when dealing with vandals and is not a big deal as far as I'm concerned.

I remember an Afd discussion for a non-notable musician, Neal Century, to which the author (and probably the subject) took exception and was disrupting the discussion. I politely asked him to stop[2]. However, he continued to disrupt the discussion and when I saw that he faked a post as if it was from other user, I warned him and suggested that he took a break[3]. While I was doing that, he faked a second post so I warned him again[4] and made a report on WP:ANI[5]. The user was subsequently blocked. Although there were a few more comments from SPAs, this action and a cleanup of the discussion by Iridescent seemed to take the sting out of the disruption and the article was duly deleted.

How will I deal with conflicts or stress in the future? I anticipate dealing with conflicts calmly, level-headedly, thoughtfully, politely. As far as stress is concerned, I'm a fairly laid back person (I have mellowed as I have got older!) but if I felt that I was getting stressed on Wikipedia, my answer would be to take a wikibreak, step away from the keyboard for a little while, do something else that I enjoy doing and come back relaxed.

Optional question from Skomorokh

4. How would you close an AfD in which 40% of the responses were to delete, 30% to merge and 30% to keep, where you felt each outcome was equally well-argued for but personally favoured deletion?

A: Thank you. When closing an Afd discussion, an admin is expected to be impartial so I would put my personal feelings to one side. Should I feel very strongly that the article should be deleted to the extent that my feelings might mar my judgment, I would recuse from closing the discussion and leave this for another admin to close.

On the bald facts presented above - and being impartial - it seems to me that there is no single dominant view and so I would close this as 'no consensus'.

4a How would it affect your decision if the article in question concerned living people, fictional entities, or very recent events?

A: Regardless of the subject, I would put my personal feelings to one side and act impartially or recuse myself if I felt very strongly that the article should be deleted.

In addition to making a judgment on consensus, a closing admin must also consider whether the article violates Wikipedia policy on verifiability, original research, neutral point of view and copyright and whether it is very unlikely that the article can exist without violating policy, in which case policy is respected above consensus. For Afd discussions about living people, the closing admin has also to consider Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. Should the article comply with policy then – being impartial - I would close the discussion as 'no consensus' on the same basis as before.

Standard questions from NuclearWarfare

5. This is usually Xeno's question, but I like it too: As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ or User:NuclearWarfare/Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A: Thank you, NuclearWarfare! I would leave it for an uninvolved admin to review the block. When the uninvolved admin consults me, my view would be to leave the block in place, noting that there is very little evidence that the user intends to play a constructive part in building a high quality encyclopedia and that there is a need to protect the encyclopedia from his persistent vandalism and incivility.

6. Under what circumstances would you voluntarily give up your adminship/run for reconfirmation?

A. If I persistently demonstrated poor judgment in the use of the admin tools then I expect to be sacked from the job, so to speak. I am open to some kind of recall mechanism and will add myself to ‘Administrators open to recall’. I am not quite sure yet what the mechanism will be but it should hinge around whether I have lost the trust of the community.

7. Please define notability in your own words

A. To be notable is to be noteworthy. Sometimes I put it simply like this: “If the subject is notable then people will write about it; if people write about the subject then it is notable.” In the Wikipedia context, notability means having been written about in some depth in multiple sources independent of the subject, which have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy.

Beat-Kurt-Weber-Additional-Question-and-more-fun from Erik the Red 2

8. What is your opinion on cool-down blocks?

A: Greetings, Erik the Red. Cool down block are not permitted under the blocking policy. My view is that the use of cool down blocks would not be wise as they would be likely to antagonise the blocked editor further and perhaps push them toward sockpuppetry or vandalism when the block expires.

9. What is the difference between a block and a ban?

A: In short, a block is a technical function, which is used to protect the encyclopedia by preventing an editor from editing; a ban is the removal of editing privileges from an editor, usually by consensus of the community or issued by arbcom as a remedy in an arbcom case.

10. How would you establish notability in line with deletion?

A: I confess I’m not too sure what the question is but I assume that it about articles that have been put forward for deletion on the basis that the subject is not notable.

In the context of a nomination for speedy deletion under CSD A7, the criteria is not one of notability but one of significance or importance, that is, the article needs to indicate the importance or the significance of the subject. A simple claim, directly or indirectly, that, for example, the subject, a DJ, works for a notable radio station will be sufficient to decline a speedy request.

In the context of an article that has been proposed for deletion per WP:PROD and is uncontested, I would read the article, I would look for reliable sources being cited, I would consider the various notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, I may search Google and the online reference section of my local library for evidence of notability. Some subjects, such as schools and villages, are controversial and are best taken to Afd. As a rule of thumb: if in doubt, don’t delete.

In the context of an Afd, the community will discuss whether the subject meets Wikipedia’s criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia and if I were the closing admin, I would make a judgment on consensus on the basis of my reply to question 4 above.

Now for the story problem: 11. There is a large debate on a talk page about the inclusion of a topic in the article. The article is fully protected because of edit warring. The extreme majority favor the inclusion of one sentence, however, a lone dissenter favors a different sentence, one that is backed up by several reliable sources. The {{editprotected}} template is placed on the page and the majority asks you to insert their sentence, citing WP:CONSENSUS, but the dissenter tells you to put in his sentence instead, citing WP:RS and WP:V. Which sentence do you put in?

A: I infer from the question that the sentence favoured by the majority is not supported by reliable sources or WP:V. If that is the case, well, WP:V is a core Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia policies are non-negotiable and policy trumps consensus. I think what I would do here is explain the policy and encourage everybody to work towards a form of words that both meets policy and enjoys a clear consensus. There is no time limit. Perhaps I might facilitate the discussion, propose a form of words, properly cited, as something to work with and so on. If a form of words that meets policy and enjoys a clear consensus can be achieved, there will, I feel, be less likelihood of edit warring in future.

Optional question from User:Deacon of Pndapetzim

12. Is WP:EW more important to the health of wikipedia than WP:NPOV, WP:SYN WP:UNDUE and WP:VER? Is there a difference between enforcing the last four policies (against opposition) and editing warring?

A. Thank you, Deacon of Pndapetzim.

WP:UNDUE is a part of Wikipedia’s policy on neutral point of view and WP:SYN is a part of the policy on no original research. The difference between ensuring that users adhere to the policies on neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability (WP:VER) and edit warring is that the first three are the three core Wikipedia policies on content while the last, on edit warring, is a Wikipedia policy on user conduct.

There are probably many reasons why people engage in edit warring but the root is that they do not appreciate the concept that Wikipedia is built by collaborative working. It may be necessary to use admin tools to stop edit warring, for example, by protecting the article page. Discussion can then take place, perhaps aided by a facilitator who need not be an admin, to reach a common ground that meets the policies on neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability.

Which is more important to the health of Wikipedia? The policy on edit warring is important to the health of the community; the policies on neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability are important to the health of the content of the encyclopedia. The ideal is that everybody works in a harmonious, collaborative, respectful environment to build a high quality encyclopedia. Could we achieve this if we did not have the policy on edit warring? I don't think so. Could we achieve this if we did not have policy on neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability? Again I don't think so. I suggest that these policies are of equal importance in achieving this ideal.

Question by Sandstein

13. Are you at least eighteen years old? (For part of the reason behind this question, see here.)

A. I'm a few decades beyond 18, Sandstein. I'm old enough to remember the Beatles, when the England football team last won a major trophy and Neil Armstrong stepping onto the moon!

Optional questions from  Asenine 

14. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?

A: This is, I think, rather similar to question 11 and I would answer it in a similar way. In short: verifiability trumps consensus but the ideal is that we have both. I would encourage discussion on the talk page to find a form of words that is both verifiable and enjoys consensus.

15. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?

A:

16. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?

A: In the usual working environment where resources are limited, particularly time, it is true that one often has to assess priorities and make decisions on doing less in some areas so to meet targets in others. Here on Wikipedia, there is no time limit so there is less need to do that. I anticipate simply adding admin tasks to what I do now and spreading what I do over a longer period of time.

Optional question from CrispMuncher

17. I see that you have made several edits to the Delimitation Commission redirect, including making the decision to replace it with a disambiguation page, only to revert your actions three minutes later. What brought about this sudden change of heart, and what role (if any) did the use of automated tools have in influencing your activity on this redirect?

A: —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrispMuncher (talk • contribs) 16:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• See Malcolmxl5's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Malcolmxl5: Malcolmxl5 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Malcolmxl5 before commenting.

Discussion

• Strictly my opinion: I do not feel the candidate has to answer question 4. Synergy 15:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's why it's optional. Skomorokh 15:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, they're optional, but what, may I ask, is wrong with them? The questions are perfectly valid and uncontroversial. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
    • You feel that this question is uncontroversial? I must disagree. I'll wait to see how it plays out. Synergy 15:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
      • It'd only be controversial if you have already decided in your mind the "right" and "wrong" answers to Q4. I guess we'll find out based on the answer and how you respond to it. Wizardman 17:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
        • This was precisely why I spoke out, yet opt to say no more until the question is answered. Synergy 17:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
          • I agree with Synergy. You can't make an informed judgement based on this kind of executive summary, simply because there isn't anything to judge. In matters like this the devil is always in the detail. It would be rare for arguments to be exactly balanced in the manner suggested - usually if it is too close to call on your usual criteria you could apply alternative criteria. What is the basis of the candidate's own preference? If the candidate has an expert knowledge of the area in question then his or her own preference may be a legitimate consideration when reaching a decision. If it is a simply a perception than the article is 'low-brow' or otherwise 'unworthy' of inclusion then this may not be as satisfactory a basis for reaching a decision. CrispMuncher (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
            • Perhaps that is right answer the question is looking for? --T-rex 21:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
              • Aye. There is no right answer to question 4 except something along the lines of "It depends". Black Kite 22:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
                • Very pleased with the result by the way. Excellent. Synergy 12:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• I object to Majorly's repeated removal ([6], [7]) of my question ("Are you at least eighteen years old?"). If the candidate feels that providing this information is in violation of his or her privacy, he or she may choose not to answer it. I am of the opinion, though, that age is an important indicator of general maturity, as shown in various recent incidents related to administrators, and that there is no policy or other rule forbidding this question.  Sandstein  06:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Asking if the candidate is 18 is a poor way to determine if the candidate is "mature". When someone turns 18, they don't magically become mature. It's a gradual process, and some people never really grow up. Also, not saying this is the case here or the other RfA where you asked it, but the candidate could just lie. Have you thought of um, you know, looking at the candidate's edits for an idea of maturity? Majorly ^talk 13:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I should be more precise, then: An age of 18 or more is not sufficient to confer the maturity we seek; it is in many cases not even required. But it correlates with maturity to a statistically significant extent.  Sandstein  14:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, lot least because of how you've phrased it. "Are you at least eighteen years old?" sounds like there is an official requirement to be so, which we all know isn't true. Secondly, basing your oppose solely upon age ironically shows a lot of immaturity. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 15:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not yet cast a vote, but I find it ... very remarkable ... that you undertake to assess my maturity based upon a vote that I have not yet cast.  Sandstein  16:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandstein, did you plan to oppose this candidate if they answered no? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not my habit to base my vote (if any) on any single question, but, as one might assume, I usually ask questions only if I do intend to take the reply (or the lack thereof) into consideration.  Sandstein  16:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Wizardman 14:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Support. Experienced and good answers. Axl (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Strong Support Good project work, experienced, and excellent, articulate answers. PerfectProposal 15:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
4. naerii 15:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
5. switch to Strong Support per nom. Dlohcierekim 15:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

   With all due respect, Le Roi, you're dif's have persuaded me to strengthen my support. Guess, we'll have to agreeably agree to disagree as agreeably as possible. :). Cheers, Dlohfcierekim 22:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

   Ouch and a WP:PERNOM to boot!  :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

6. No problems spotted. -- iMatthew _T.C. 16:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
7. Support Experienced user, good admin candidate, voted Keep on an AFD for my article. Universal Cereal Bus ♫♪ 16:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Support - Yes. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
9. Support Good answer to Q1, and I doubt Malcolmx15 will abuse the tools. America69 (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
10. Support. Good article work, experienced, looks good to me. Useight (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
11. Support. Will be just fine. nancy ^talk 17:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
12. Support - Would be a good admin. Soxπed93^(blag) 17:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
13. Support--LAAFan 18:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
14. Support - clearly a good candidate. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
15. Support Yanksox (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Why? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Supports don't need to be justified, it is assumed they go along with the nomination. Yanksox (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I justify my supports as Wikipedia works by consensus reaching discussions and not votes. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
          • So, I am not allowed to state my support of the candidate. I'm merely just echoing the main statement and my agreement with it. By showing up I'm helping build consensus. I'm not wasting my time and I'm not baiting you anymore. Yanksox (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
            • If it is okay to challenge opposes, then it is okay to challenge supports. Being an admin is reportedly "no big deal" and admins will have to put up with far worse than a simple oppose when people challenge his or her blocks and closes. A sign of an admin's character is when they can respond calmly and civily or put simply not be perturbed by RfA opposes. That the candidate has not reacted as you have to the oppose below actually has augmented my opinion of the candidate. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
              • It is ok to challenge your oppose because there where many issues, all you included why links to AFD's that the candidate has disagreed with you. It is to be assumed that, as pointed out above, he goes along with what the nom said. America69 (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
16. Support Protonk (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
17. Support - no reason found to oppose. Also not the deletionist that Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles makes him out to be [8] --T-rex 21:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

    Reasons have been presented below. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

18. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
19. Support Other than gently pointing out that admins participating at AfD might reasonably be expected to also close cases where the consensus is keep I see no reason not to support. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
20. Support Would be a good admin. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 22:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
21. Weak support considering you said you'd like to work in AIV but I see little activity there. Just take it slow for a few weeks before pressing 'block' :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 22:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

    That's good advice. I agree. Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

22. Support Trustworthy user. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
23. Slade (TheJoker) 00:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
24. Hello, I'm here for my vasectomy and...oh, wrong queue. While I am here: Support Ecoleetage (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
25. Support per Ecoleetage per nom! :P Candidate looks fair. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 02:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
26. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 03:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
27. —Giggy 06:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
28. Support may vote delete as per Le Roi, but does vote keep some of the time and appears to think about AfD and be open-minded. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
29. Support because of the fantastic answer to Q5! John Sloan (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
30. Support I've looked at the examples Le Roi gave for his oppose and and whilst Malcolmxl5 doesn't always give detailed reasons for supporting delete, those articles all seem to have been deleted; which I take as a sign of good judgement. Having looked through a few of Malcolmxl5's contributions I'm happy to trust this editor with admin tools. Though after reading these two good bits of vandalism reverting, I would like to suggest that in future Malcolmxl5 follow up more of his vandal reversions by putting vandal warnings on the users talk page. ℑonathan ℂardy(talk) 13:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

    Noted. Thank you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

31. Can't say no to a Wizardman nom. :) GlassCobra 16:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
32. Support. Everything looks good here. Antandrus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
33. Support Should make a decent admin. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
34. Support — As an England supporter, this man has clearly suffered enough, and I feel that an oppose vote might push him over the edge. (Seriously though, looks good.) Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 10:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

    Support - trustworthy editor. Opposes aren't especially convincing - I get the impression that LGRDC opposes anyone who has 'voted' delete when he opined keep. Sceptre's oppose is the most interesting, however if the candidate doesn't cause or rush towards drama, I consider this to be a positive attribute. Lastly, whether the candidate should join 'admins open to recall' is still a no-win situation. PhilKnight (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry Phil, you seem to have !voted twice! :-) John Sloan (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

35. Support I like it. MBisanz ^talk 13:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
36. Support, good contribs, obvious clue, civil talkpage. Also, I generally don't read the Q and A above, and if I do, it generally has no bearing on how or where I offer an opinion, but you nailed Q4. Keeper ǀ 76 16:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
37. user:Everyme 17:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
38. Support I think he well understand what to do as an admin, and I trust he is reasonable use of the tools. I also appreciate his patience here, a very good sign.. DGG (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
39. Support per profuse amounts of experience in a myriad of areas (1450 WP edits!) and well-thought out answers to questions and thoughtfulness in general. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
40. Support. - Per the well thought-out nom by Wizardman (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
41. Support. I don't see anything wrong with giving the candidate the tools. Malinaccier (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
42. Support, no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    A few editors have provided some reasons below, whether you disagree or not. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

    Most of the reasons you suggest for opposition are reasons I would support. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

43. Support Malcolmxl5 has more than 10,000 mainspace edits. He has made fine contributions and I couldn't find any reason to oppose. I also found the arguments of editors who opposed this RFA unconvincing. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
44. Support - WTHN?  Asenine  03:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
45. Support–your answers show a strong knowledge of wiki-policy and a desire to promote it; they are very impressive and, for me, overwhelmingly convincing.--danielfolsom 03:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
46. Weak support - It's funny, because the opposes have some good and bad arguments. I do not think Malcolmxl5 is a complete deletionist, although that might be a tendency. Also, I see some good article-building work at the football (soccer) articles, especially bios. On the whole, though, this editor just about meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
47. Support per just about all the above. LittleMountain5 ^review! 21:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
48. Support I see no reason not to. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
49. Weak Support Something bugs me, but I cannot say what it is. From what I can judge, I see no reason not to support. SoWhy 13:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
50. Support I believe that Wikipedia needs to build up its forces against vandals. As a devoted vandal-fighter myself, I support this user becoming an Admin. Thank you. Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
51. To nullify Skinwalker. Hiding T 10:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
52. Support. Superb answer to Q7. I couldn't agree more. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
53. Support Absolutely. AniMate 20:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
54. Support I would support you anyway but take cyclonenim's comment to heart. ;) Regards, --Cameron* 20:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
55. Support per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Lawrence College in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to imps in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Smeaton (baggage handler) (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture (second nomination)... ah, what the hell. Well-rounded editor who has demonstrated in the past that he can be trusted to use the mop and bucket wisely. I also trust Wizardman's judgement. seicer | talk | contribs 21:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
56. Support. Seems to be sensible. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
57. Support. No reason not to, and the "oppose" arguments below are rather silly.  Sandstein  08:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
58. Support Longstanding trustworthy contributor. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Changed to Weak oppose bordering on neutral, maybe even weak support per answer to question 4. I originally regularly opposed per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Lawrence College in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to imps in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Smeaton (baggage handler) (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture (second nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydra in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falkner Eggington Courts (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Carrea. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

   I confess I was unsure of the rationale of your oppose, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, but I understand now that you are concerned that because I have !voted delete in Afd discussions on subjects that you felt were encyclopedic, I might show a bias when closing Afd discussions in future. I hope my answer to question 4 demonstrates that I understand the importance of being impartial when closing Afd discussions and that it goes some way towards reassuring you. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you for answering and responding in a mature and respectful fashion. I am changing form "oppose" to "weak oppose" and maybe evn considering switching to neutral or support. I am editing, however, in an extremely limited fashion due to some off-wiki concerns (I may not edit much again or only very sporadically, it depends how things work out...), so if I don't change, consider that I think you handled my oppose and that question well, which is tantamount to my endorsement. Good luck! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

   NOTE: Discussion of vote has been moved to article talk page.--Master of Pies (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

   In other words, oppose because you don't agree with his deletion votes? Stifle (talk) 08:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

   I also was concerned, but his answer to Q7 cleared up my concerns. "When in doubt, don't delete" is a good rationale for me. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, because that means I don't agree with how he interprets policy and would likely close AfDs; however, due to his answer to question 4 and reply to me above, I have reconsidered. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

2. For two reasons. First, he has not been in a significant conflict, so I don't know how the user would react in dramaful situations. We've had incidents in the past where we've had terrible sysops who quietly passed RFA. Second, there's a lack of experience in normal administration areas (the highest count is eight on AIV). Sceptre ^(talk) 21:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
3. At this time, I am unwilling to support any admin candidate who claims to be open to recall. Skinwalker (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

   What? Thats a good thing isnt it!? John Sloan (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

   It's nothing personal, but there have been several admins who have dishonored their recall pledges. With tongue sort of in cheek, I consider recall pledges to be prima facie evidence of power hunger, or at the very least a certain overeagerness to please. Skinwalker (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

   Fair enough Kurt, <cough> er, Skinwalker! LOL - thanks for the reply :-) John Sloan (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

   Bit House-esque, aren't you? Everybody lies? Would you support if, say the pledge was, "I'd be open to recall, and if I backed out of a good faith one, any uninvolved 'crat could strip me of my rights."NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 15:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

   Unfortunately, the phrase "good faith" as in "good faith editors" has been sorely abused. It seems to mean "people who do not disagree with me", instead of "individuals who are not obviously trollish and disruptive". Until there is an ironclad mechanism for bureaucrat-enforced recall, voluntarily selected by candidates at RFA and irrevocable thereafter, I must view recall pledges as empty campaign promises. Resa ipsa loquitur. I will support, or at the very least not oppose, suitable candidates who do not make such a promise. Skinwalker (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose per answer to #8. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

   You oppose someone because of their support for policy? Corvus cornix_talk 21:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, he does. Let it be. Keeper ǀ 76 21:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral leaning to Oppose: Article building is minor, would have liked to see one GA under your belt. You haven't got much experience with controversial, disputed articles. I can't see consensus building or dispute resolution work. Your AfD work is impressive, stopping me oppose. — Realist² 02:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

   Isn't AfD the epitome of "consensus building"? And why would it matter if an editor chose to work on controversial articles? That would exclude 90% of most editors. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

   Agree, 90% of editors aren't admins the last time I checked. — Realist² 02:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

   So you're basically saying that you'd oppose 90% of editors. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

   I certainly wouldn't support 90% of editor. Besides, this is a neutral not an oppose. — Realist² 02:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

   Ok, just wanted clarification. Cheers Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

   No problem, understand I'm taking a minority viewpoint. — Realist² 02:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral for now Awaiting responses to Q7-12 (but not Q13). SoWhy 12:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC) (switched to weak support)

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.