Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Paxse

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

Paxse

Nomination

Final (89/3/0); Ended 12:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC) - closed as successful by —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Paxse (talk · contribs) – I recently discovered Paxse when looking at highly active contributors. He is a real gem, in his lengthy Wiki-life, he has created over a dozen DYKs and has a nice healthy 63% article space contribution rate. But, wait, he is also a maintenance worker with over 780 accounts created through WP:ACC. He is very active in WP:WikiProject Cambodia and has helped to fill out our coverage of a systemically under-represented area of the encyclopedia. Through his work with ACC, and RecentChanges Patrol, I am confident Paxse has the requisite knowledge of policy to perform as an administrator. MBisanz ^talk 23:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Syn

I first came across Paxse some time ago with ACC, and I was very impressed. Mbisanz has said much of what I would have already, so I don't want to repeat it. I first asked him about running about a month or so ago, and he declined. He said he had some things to work on first, and I saw no problem with this. I believe he has what it takes to be a proper admin (patience, intelligence/clue, etc) and think he is ready. Synergy 20:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks very much to Matt and Syn for the nomination - I'm happy to accept.Paxse (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: If I get the bit, I’ll definitely use the extra flags in my work at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cambodia where we have few active admins. This would mostly be pagemoves, some page deletions, some restoring and then sourcing of deleted content (where appropriate and discussed with the deleting admin), occasional page protections, (Cambodia intermittently requires brief protection from IP vandalism) and the odd repeat vandal who needs a short block.

However, I’d really like to find an admin shaped niche to work in regularly. I’ve noticed a couple of areas where admins seem to be in short supply. One is helping to deal with potential and actual socks at WP:SPI. This sounds like interesting work requiring careful review of evidence and good judgement. I contribute a bit to WP:DYK and I feel a little guilty for not contributing more than just articles for others to review. There seem to be times when no-one is around to check and update the queues to post on the main page. I’d like to learn the process and put myself down to help out with updates.

If this nomination is successful, I’ll find myself a willing mentor in one of these areas to help me learn the ropes and then try to help out long term. Nixeagle and Synergy have offered to coach me on sockpuppet investigations at WP:SPI. I plan to approach one of the regular DYK admins to ask for mentoring in the same way.

These days a backlog at WP:AIV, WP:AN3 or WP:RM seems to be generally only 4/5 requests long and XfDs are closed pretty promptly. I’m happy to help out with these areas if required but they are generally very well patrolled. That’s why I think I could be more useful in one of the more under served areas.

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

A: I'm pleased with the work I've done at WP:CAMBODIA. I've been a member since the project started. Since then, I've kick started the assessment system, welcomed many new Cambodia editors, tagged and assessed a good 1500 articles, got various bot assisted lists going, referenced dozens of articles, expanded many micro-stubs, added GIS location data and tried to come up with some standard layout and content for geography articles. I've created 22 Cambodian articles and a couple of hundred redirects to improve linking [1]. However, I'm not alone in all this and many other editors have done excellent work on Cambodian articles.

I'm proud to have worked with the WP:ACC team to survive the great UK ISP debacle of 2008. Together we dealt with 800+ account requests in 10 days - one hell of an effort. This was definitely not my work alone, ACC stalwarts like Matt, Maedin, Nukewar, Isabell, Neuro, terrillja and many others worked like trojans during December. Stwalkerster and Prodego managed the team and kept our jury-rigged interface from melting under the strain.

The work I'm personally proudest of is my work on Cambodia geography articles. This is a long term project of mine to create, reference, expand and illustrate articles on the major geographic features of Cambodia. This year I've been working on the 185 articles under Districts of Cambodia. I plan to photograph each district during my travels around the country (I have a commons account for this [2]) and expand all the districts to at least a start class. To date I've managed to get 20 of the district articles on the front page via DYK - there should be a few more this week. I'm planning to get all the district, provincial and town articles looking like Kang Meas District, (which used to look like this [3]) or Koh Kong (city), which used to be on WP:shortpages and looked like this [4].

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: In three and a half years? ;) of course. Only rarely though and nothing very major. The only 'notable' dramaz I can remember was with Domer48 in June 2007. There was much back and forth between Domer and I on our talk pages - see link to my talk archives here over an AfD debate. Eventually, we resolved it quickly through discussion and parted on amicable terms. Since then, I deal with potential conflict initially by apologizing (this is often very effective at diffusing conflict), then by discussion and explanation. If that doesn't work, I'll walk away and do something productive. If I'm stressed by the wiki, then I need a break. I think one of the secrets to surviving wikidrama and maintaining your sanity is a good sense of perspective. This is only a virtual world and nobody will take away your birthday if they don't like your edits.

Optional question from SoWhy

4. Your edit history shows huge gaps between November 2007 and October 2008, where you went from 2000 edits/month to 0 edits/month for 11 months. Are you willing to explain this (apparently) sudden drop in contributions and can you predict whether that will occur again?

A: It's fair question - I was anticipating it before the Bald One brought it up. My daughter was diagnosed with cancer in August 2007. This initially dropped my contribs significantly, then got me offline for quite a while when she started surgery. It was a big shock for the family and for my other kids and understandably Real Life^Tm trumped wiki for quite some time. I came back late last year. To answer the second part of your question, yes it could happen again. Wiki-life is great fun, but it should never be more important than family. I plan on sticking around for at least another ten years, but during that time there could be gaps for family reasons, health reasons or just for sanity breaks ;) Cheers, Paxse (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely I understand. I hope she is better now. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Blofeld (and all you nice well-wishers) for your concern and kind words. She's doing great. She recently passed her exams, had her 15th birthday and then won the 200 metres sprint on Saturday. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Letsdrinktea

5. A user vandalizes pages by blanking out sections and inserting nonsense. After their final warning is given, the user does it again and you block them indefinitely as a vandalism only account. The user then posts an unblock request apologizing for their actions, acknowledging that what they did was wrong and promising to make productive contributions. What would you do?

A: Thanks for your question Letsdrinktea. In that situation, I wouldn’t need to do very much. The unblock request would be reviewed by an uninvolved admin – not by me. If the reviewing admin contacted me to ask my opinion on lifting the block – I’d likely say ‘no problem’. If a vandal wants to cease being a vandal, then it’s a win all round. Having said that, I’m a nasty suspicious person at heart – so I’d probably keep an eye on their contribs for a while ;) Paxse (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Jeandré

6. What do you think of April fools edits like [5] showing on the Main page: de-admin, block, undo, nothing, leave a barnstar, other?

A: Thanks very much for your question Jeandré. I'm sorry to say, that I think we are going to disagree on the right thing to do in this situation. I read the thread on Main Page talk and checked the page history to see the various edits and reverts. The issue of April's fool's day games really seems to polarise Wikipedia. I noticed this last year particularly. Some people seem to think that creating a worthwhile encyclopaedia is a serious business and that jokes among the content are plain wrong. Others seem to think we sometimes take ourselves too seriously and that letting our virtual hair down once a year is essential. Me? I think the lighthearted stuff is great. As an example, I logged onto the ACC interface today and clicked the link to log into the account creators IRC channel - instead I was taken to a Rick Astley video on YouTube (thanks to User:Prodego User:Stwalkerster I believe, I'll get you for that next year!). The clincher for me was a search of Google news today. Public reaction to our April 1st front page was overwhelmingly positive - streaking Taoiseach and all. No complaints from the Irish government, no gotchas from the press for WP:BLP problems, no splutters of outrage from Brian Cowen, just appreciation of our humour. I really think that's the acid test Jeandré, if the public appreciates the fun, them maybe we do get too worried about these things sometimes. Now, I don't think you'll like it, but my answer to your question above would be: 'nothing', I would do nothing. I think Kimchi.sg's version was in slightly poor taste, but then 20 years ago, I thought fart jokes were hilarious. Taste in humour varies wildly. However, I believe that Kimchi.sg was genuinely trying to make Wikipedia funny, in the spirit of April 1st. I don't think that deserves any kind of sanction. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

7a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

A: Hi Carlos, thanks for the questions. It depends on the timing and the notability of the company. I'd research the company to see if it looked like it would survive an AfD. Let's assume the company meets our notability criteria. Then if the article had just been created, I'd decline the CSD request and watchlist. If it had been up for a while (say a day) with no progress, I'd check the author's contribs and leave them a message. A web link is not enough content for an article to survive long on Wikipedia.

7b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template?

A: Personally, I'd still like to give it 24 hours and leave the author a message before deleting - Someone could have lost 'net access while creating the article for example. However, I'm fairly sure another admin would pounce before then. I don't like new editors having their first contribs deleted without a friendly explanation - it drives people away from the project. In either deletion scenario, I'd leave the author a message (no boilerplate) apologising and explaining why their article had been nuked. I'd encourage them to contact me when they returned and then try to help them develop the article in userspace before reposting.

7c. Editor1 adds relevant properly sourced, but controversial, material to an article and Editor2 removes it; Editor1 readds it; and Editor2 removes it again, would a re-add by Editor1 be a 3RR violation? If Editor2 removes it again, would Editor2 be in violation of 3RR? Is anything different if one of the deletes was made by Editor3?

A: Nobody has yet violated WP:3RR even with the additional three edits you mention. At the same time, everybody needs to start using the talk page rather than the revert button. If I saw this situation, I’d probably leave some friendly messages to that effect.

7d. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?

A: Consensus is important in both cases. I’d like to think that majority rule is not the same as consensus. I’d also hope that both article writing and deletion discussions could achieve true consensus through creative discussion and compromise. Unfortunately, I don’t think that is always the case, particularly in XfDs. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Jennavecia

8a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: Thanks Jen, these are excellent timely questions. There is definitely a problem with BLP articles. We are doing an absolutely horrible job of protecting our BLP articles. I’ll explain why. I’m sure the articles on Barack Obama, Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarcozy and Kevin Rudd are quite well patrolled and watchlisted by many editors. However, the biographies of Hun Sen, Bun Rany and Norodom Sihamoni are very poorly patrolled. The same goes for articles on the Thai government and monarchy and probably for many, many other countries. In some of these countries lese majeste is a crime, in many, banning web-sites is the norm. I can tell you now, the only thing stopping Wikipedia from being banned in Cambodia a dozen times in the last year is pure luck. We’re lucky that government representatives haven’t seen some of the edits to these articles. We’re also damn lucky that there are a few people watching and correcting BLP vandalism in these less watched areas.

Forget worrying about whether Brian Cowen will be offended with the play on words about his ‘hanging’. In the last few years, I’ve seen Prime Ministers accused of murder, Royals accused of prostitution and Kings purported to be gay – all in Wikipedia articles.

I need some time catch up on the trial and the latest changes to answer the rest of your questions. I get back to them after I’ve done that. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple of general statements first:

• I don’t want to place any barriers between IP editors and articles. Without them we would have very little Cambodia content at all (or Vanuatu, Cyprus or Burma content for that matter).
• However, I think we have to do something to protect BLP subjects from slander, libel and general calumny. We also have some responsibility to protect WP and the foundation from litigation and blame for diplomatic incidents.
• Not all of our BLPs are currently tagged as such – this will make effective patrolling impossible without an initial drive to tag biography articles.
• Flagged revs, semi protection etc will have an impact on our content. BLP articles will develop more slowly without free IP editing. Also many editors will need to spend time reviewing and monitoring that could otherwise be spent creating content. Huggle and some very very clever bot programming has given us back significant time we used to spend reverting silly vandal edits. Hopefully, this will mitigate the loss of editing time problem somewhat. However, I think we should consider actions to offset the likely reduction in expansion of BLP article content.

8b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A: Yes, unfortunately we need them all, including liberal use of semi protection.

Request for clarification: So you believe BLPs should have flagged revisions, flagged protection and patrolled revisions as well as the liberal use of semi-protection?

Sorry for not being clearer – I have limited and unpredictable net uptime at the moment, so I foolishly tried to summarise. No we don’t need all 3 options for all BLPs.

1. Flagged revisions

I think this is the way en-wiki will go eventually after the trial has been evaluated. I have some misgivings, but I think that overall the effect will be a net positive.

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

I think these are sensible trial measures. They give the community the chance to get used to the idea and evaluate the impact and difficulty of implementation.

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

I believe semi protection should be used more liberally for unwatched BLPs. That said, I’m not planning to semi protect hundreds of articles myself without some kind of consensus that this is appropriate. Paxse (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

8c. You're patrolling recent changes and you come upon a BLP that has just seen the addition of an unsourced, mildly controversial change regarding the subject's career. While reviewing the edit, you see that the article is wholly unsourced. There are no other controversial claims, and the subject appears to a notable sports figure, but again, there's no source to establish notability. You then remember you have an appointment you need to get going to. What do you do with the article?

A: Horrible example. It leaves only two choices, both wrong. Either leave the edit in and run away or revert and then run away. I would revert with a polite message. However, after my “appointment” I would seek to add references. It’s often so damn easy to hunt down some references on Google, use the cite button and pop them into the article – why leave the problem and pass by? If the controversial change can be reliably sourced, then source it and leave it in. If it can’t, then it should be removed. The same goes for notability, the best protection against drive-by deletion tagging is references – search for some and add them to show notability. Turn on refTools under Gadgets in your preferences, learn how to use the cite template (it’s dead easy) – then bingo you can add stunning inline citations in under a minute.

<end rant>

I’m getting carried away here and I don’t mean you Jen, but I think you know what I’m trying to say. I’m off to reference something until I calm down. Sorry for the long rant and thanks for bringing up this issue (seriously). Cheers, Paxse (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• For those that prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • Soxred93's edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 01:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I’m having horrible ‘net and power problems here over the last few days, so my sincere apologies for the delay in answering questions. Cheers Paxse (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Candidate appears to be solid and should be a net positive.--Giants27 ^T/C 12:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support - Clueful editor with varied experience. Will be a benefit.  Frank  |  talk  12:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Long on contributions; short on drama. No worries. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 12:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support -He is great guy, excellent contributor and has an excllent way of staying away from wikidrama. My only concern is that on occasions he is absent for a great deal of time and that his interest towards the project may waver. For instance he left for a whole year between November 11, 2007 and October 27, 2008. Since however he seems to have become a very consistent editor and seems to have taken encouragement from somewhere that the project is worthwhile.Not sure why he needs the tools though, although he may find them useful for certain tasks, I hope it won't affect his development of the Cambodian districts!. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support, looks great. No concerns. ~ mazca ^t|c 13:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Support - Can't beat the noms, can't beat the edits, can't beat the value of this editor having the bit. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 13:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
8. "Nukewar" ;) approves of this user. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 15:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Good experiences with this trustworthy editor, no reason for concern. FlyingToaster 15:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Support - Nothing but good experiences. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Support - excellent contributor. Jd027 (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Support he's an excellent contributor with a lot of experience. Frehley^{Space Ace} 15:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Support. An excellent candidate. Content contributor, civil (despite dropping the F-bomb nine hours ago), and has a good grasp of policies and procedures. There are some sizeable gaps in editing history, but this is a volunteer project and real life gets hectic at times. Useight (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Support - a good candidate with no problems I can see. The answer to his absence is understandable and no reason for any concern. I cannot share the concerns of Wisdom's oppose; admins are perfectly allowed to perform admin actions within the scope of their interests, as long as they are not involved in the dispute that needs administrative intervention. Regards SoWhy 16:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Majorly talk 16:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Excellent contributions. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 16:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Solid contributor. -download | sign! 17:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
18. Support My sincerest condolences on your daughter. GlassCobra 17:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
19. Support. Not enough administrators currently. Tan | 39 17:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
20. Support. I don't often give a straight support to someone I don't know from AfD, because normally I want to see the prospective admin's attitude to deletion, but in this case I find the contributions are sufficient for me to decide.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
21. Strong Support Clean block log, civil talk and edit summaries, lots of quality contributions, (over 12,000 manual edits as well as over 2,000 automated ones). As Tan pointed out we are short of admins and I think Paxse is a great candidate. ϢereSpielChequers 18:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
22. Support - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
23. Support - Changed from oppose. See below for details. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
24. Support Sterling contributions in two much-needed spheres. Steven Walling (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
25. Support: Having worked with Paxse at ACC and having stalked his contributions and talk page for a couple of months, I'm confident that he will make a superb administrator. Maedin\^talk 20:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Great contribs, and per GlassCobra. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 ^review! 21:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
27. Support As nom. MBisanz ^talk 21:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
28. One need only look at his progress in the WikiCup to know this user cares for the project in ways many current admins do not.  GARDEN  21:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
29. Exactly per Garden. Absolutely impressed by work in WikiCup, clearly dedicated user. Good luck! iMatthew // talk // 21:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
30. Support Looks Good. - Fastily (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
31. Support No concerns on the horizon. I really liked the answer to #4. Spinach Monster (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
32. Support per Tan. And because I fully trust the candidate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
33. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Looks like somebody I would trust. Looie496 (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
35. Strong support Excellent user. It's great to see activity on Cambodia related articles. SE Asia is pretty much dead on WP, unfortunately, well done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
36. Support per Dr. Blofeld --Caspian blue 01:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
37. Support per no objection found :) G'luck! Ray^Talk 02:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Nom says it all.... I like it! -Senseless!... says you, says me 03:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
39. Support Per MBisanz and Synergy. -- Avi (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
40. Rather-astonished-he-wasn't-already-support - //roux   06:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
41. Support per nomination. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
42. Support, and may you get many more DYK Cambodian articles. ;-) -- Mentifisto 09:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
43. Support. Short on the Wikipedia-space edits that I like to see, but clue outweighs that for the moment. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
44. Support' Really helpful on ACC. fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 15:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
45. Absolutely Helped provide an outside opinion on Ice Wine, nothing but great interactions with Paxse in the past (other than getting ACC requests sniped before I could get to them)--Terrillja _talk 17:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
46. Support No complaints. America69 (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
47. Support Per nominator, excelent ACC work - it seems to me this editor keeps out of the drama boards and just does what keeps them happy - and that the tools will only help further. Pedro :  Chat  19:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
48. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concern. The opposer's comment is devoid of merit to an almost alarming extent. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
49. Support. Strong candidate doing great work. -- Vary Talk 00:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
50. Strong support Wizardman 00:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
51. Support User has been around since Oct 2005 and has used Rollback very well and good track in particular in Cambodia related articles.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
52. Support. See no reason to think candidate will abuse the tools. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
53. Support Per everyone else :D--Res2216firestar 02:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
54. Support - Great editor, will definitely be a + to the Wikipedia community. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 02:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
55. Support - Very nice contributions and a well-rounded candidate for adminship. Good luck, Razorflame 06:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
56. Support - Good head on shoulders. LK (talk) 08:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
57. Support I see no alarms. --GedUK  10:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
58. Support definite positive, no red flags. Mayalld (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
59. 'Support No qualms here. hmwithτ 12:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
60. Support- Maybe if we give him the mop, he'll stop hogging the ACC requests :) PerfectProposal 14:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, but then you have to deal with me. o-;-) Synergy 14:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

61. Support because this person sounds like a real winner. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
62. Support. Good communication skills particularly; is on IRC (re ACC) regularly; no other complaints. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
63. Strong support not only based on his legendary ACC work (nearly 900 accounts?!), the noms, and the enviable amount of DYK's, but also our first interaction; I asked Paxse for help and he kindly gave me what I wanted. He should be an admin both here and at ACC! →Dyl@n620 20:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
64. Support Excellent user LetsdrinkTea 22:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
65. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate has never been blocked, has numerous DYK credits, and as an adopter in adopt a user is dedicated to helping new editors (it is important that admins be helpful as they were be approached by many editors seeking help); in other words, the candidate is here to build a paperless encyclopedia and assist others here to do the same. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
66. Support   Steady growth in editors dictates we add qualified, sensible admins. This is such a candidate. --StaniStani  23:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
67. Support Erik9 (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
68. Support ... but to set the record straight, MBisanz not only stole the nom from my suggestion (which is fine, because I'm a slakr), but he also didn't give me a heads up to be able to co-nom (which is total bollocks). :( I shall therefore rightfully be entitled to render copious amounts of trout unto him at my leisure. By the way, this is my first, ever, !vote for an RFA (despite lurking and rarely commenting), and it would have been my first nom, but noooooo... *eyeroll*. So yeah, Paxse. Totally don't know the person; haven't even had any interaction with him, but somehow I stumbled across him at wikicup, saw ridiculously good attitude+interpersonal skills+contribs, combined with a cheerful, fun rapport with fellow editors. It's exactly the type of thing that I think needs to spread, infectiously, among the community as a whole. Hopefully as a fellow admin that'll rub off on other admins as well. :P Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 03:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
69. Support, per noms, per answers to the first three questions, per content work as well as contributions to the project in other areas. Thanks for agreeing to help out in this capacity. Cirt (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
70. Support, good evidence mainspace work. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
71. Support, I trust this user. ∗ \ / (⁂) 08:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
72. Support, for the sake of Cambodia. Tavix (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
73. Support. Looks like good admin material. Good content contributor with a grasp of policy. Cool3 (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
74. Support. Would be great admin. SD5 (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
75. Support - A stone among pebbles. Tiptoety ^talk 19:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
76. Support Excellent candidate. Dean B (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
77. Support: Превосходный кандидат. South Bay (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
78. Support—per MBisanz. Capricorn42^Talk 01:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
79. Support Looks good to me; best of luck as an administrator! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
80. Support. Paxse, you appear to be trustworthy. Wishing you well with mop and bucket! --Rosiestep (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
81. Support. You appear to be an intelligent and thoughtful editor that will do well as an administrator. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
82. Support ^_^ Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 21:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
83. Support Don't see anything wrong with this user. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
84. Holy Sword of Support +10 Solid editor, working in an area that needs all the editors it can get. Good history as far as I can tell, and nothing in the Oppose section that concerns me. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
85. Prodego ^talk 04:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
86. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
87. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
88. Support Excellent candidate will make a solid admin. Royalbroil 06:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
89. Support. Looks okay to me. — Σxplicit 07:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose - Editor feels it's appropriate to use protection and block functions in a Wikiproject where they are heavily active. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 13:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Er, yes, of course he does; admins are expected to use their tools to protect Wikipedia from disruptions in all areas of the encyclopedia - except, of course, to further their position in in a dispute, which is not the same thing at all as blocking users who disrupt pages within the scope of one's project.  Sandstein  15:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with that? If he said he didn't want to use blocking at all that wouldn't attract opposers, but saying he won't use it in a certain area does? Strange IMO.--Patton^t/c 15:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me like Wisdom is saying that no one is objective about the things they care a lot about; sounds good to me, and I hope on wikiproject pages, the candidate will post at RFPP and AIV instead of wielding the mop himself whenever it's not clearly a matter of vandalism. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That's how I read it too. Thanks for your comment Wisdom89, I phrased my answer poorly above (and I don't know if I'm allowed to edit my answers or not). I would never block any editor over content on a page I was editing (or had significantly edited). If there was any hint of COI on my part, I would call in an uninvolved admin to make the call or simply post at WP:AIV. However, I would (briefly) block a vandalism only account (or perhaps a serial spammer) for simple vandalism, after adequate warnings, as permitted by the blocking policy. Ditto for page protection. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my comment, Paxse. Yes, you and Dan are precisely right regarding the nature of my COI concern. I feel that it's important that administrators do not wield the tools (especially block and deletion) in areas that they are passionate about and editorially associated with. In light of your stipulation to post to AIV/RFPP on pages which you are an active contributor, you have alleviated my concern. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

   Thats really not a valid reason. We need and we ARE still looking for administrators so that is a redundant reason. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

   This is already being discussed at WT:RFA, please keep discussion of this oppose there. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 17:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

   I don't think it's necessary to reply to each and every oppose DougsTech makes. I'm sure by now he recognizes that his !vote holds little water. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose Quick to judge. Occasional uncontrolled temperament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exploringonions (talk • contribs) 00:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

   And how would you know that, what with your 4 contribs to Wikipedia? Crotchety Old Man (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose for answer to q6. The public I answered at m:OTRS didn't appreciate the childish and clearly false statements in the news section. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-03t12:04z

   So, if I may: How many negative complaints were there, compared to the number of positive mentions in the media? Also, you should know that Paxse doesn't have access to otrs, so he couldn't possibly know that there were complaints. Synergy 18:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   Although I value your opinion and your work at OTRS (you guys are invaluable), it would seem to be that negativity bias, among others, might be at play here. For the 0.2% of the year that something remotely controversial lands on the main page resulting in a temporary spike in confusion/workload, it would seem, at least to me, slightly excessive to oppose a good candidate simply on the grounds that they wouldn't do what you would do for that 0.2% of the time, despite 99.7% of the time demonstrating everything else the community could possibly want in an administrator. Of course, that's a judgment call on your part— just saying I wouldn't make the same assessment based on the data available. --slakr^\ talk / 05:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

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.