Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lord Roem 2

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

Lord Roem

Final (138/13/3); Closed as successful by The Rambling Man (talk) at 20:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Lord Roem (talk · contribs) – Hello all. I am delighted to nominate Lord Roem for adminship. You will likely have noticed that this is Lord Roem's second RfA; his first was last June, where he withdrew despite doing decently well at the time. The main concerns expressed then had to do with experience overall, with opposers pointing to a variety of different areas, though many centered around article writing experience, something that has been well remedied in the months since last June. Lord Roem has written over 40 articles, including seven good articles and one featured article, Washington v. Texas. The articles show a solid understanding of our sourcing, neutrality, copyright/plagiarism, and other content policies.

Lord Roem has also participated in a number of other areas in the project. I am most familiar with his role as an Arbitration Clerk, where I feel he has done an excellent job, but in my review of his recent work, I have seen excellent work in the more administrative roles of the project, such as anti-vandalism and deletion discussion closures. He has a solid head on his shoulders, always projects a calm demeanor, and now has as much or more experience as most admins did when they were first promoted. Overall, I feel that he would be an asset to the project as an administrator and that we would be worse off to not have him as one. NW (Talk) 15:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Co-nomination: Over the past year, I have had many opportunities to see Lord Roem interacting with other editors in the sometimes difficult or stressful environment of arbitration. Throughout this time, he has been unfailingly calm, courteous, and professional. When he has been unsure of the best course of action, he has asked others for advice. When he has needed to justify his decisions, he has done so clearly, politely, and within policy. Many of the qualities he has amply demonstrated as an arbitration clerk are also those expected of an administrator. I have no hesitation in recommending him for the mop.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you NW and Roger for your kind words. I am happy to accept. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2013 (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: I have spent a good deal of time participating in AfD debates as well as performing some non-admin closures in the past year. Additionally, I've done work with the wonderful (and overworked!) group at WP:DYK, including reviews, moving hooks to prep areas, as well as putting forward the occasional self-nomination. These two areas, plus WP:AIV, are places I'd work in should I be handed the mop.

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

A: I feel that Washington v. Texas is the single best article I've worked on. It took months of research and copyediting to make everything work just right. The trials of the Featured Article process were tough, but it also was a great opportunity to hear comments from editors whose time in the SCOTUS-section of Wikipedia was probably low; I was happy to bring them into the fold!

For my other contributions, I keep a running list on my user page.

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: Thankfully, I've not been in any conflicts with others, but I have been inside conflict in my capacity as a mediator. The disputes that fizzle up to the Mediation Committee involve either broadly-entrenched wars over content or just a heated disagreement between a few people. In either case, the root cause is a substantial break down of communication. Mediating has helped me develop skills to work in such an environment with the ability to move a dispute forward to resolution. It has opened my eyes on how editors in such tension feel, and with that I've gained a better sense of how to deal with conflict broadly, should I encounter it as an administrator.

Additional question from Salvidrim

4. Can you explain, in your own words when it is appropriate to grant an editor the IP-block-exempt flag?

A: The IP-block-exempt flag is a way for editors affected by IP blocks, but who themselves aren't the target (someone caught "in the web"), to be exempt from that block and thus be allowed to edit. Policy requires that administrators look at the editing history of the user requesting the exemption and that the requesting editor confirm they won't misuse it (i.e. to edit through a blocked anonymous proxy). Once the original IP block expires, the exempt flag is then removed.

Additional questions from ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!}

5. Looking at your rollbacks in every 500 edits your use of the tool seems to have been decreasing slowly since you were first granted it. How valuable is the rollback feature to you? When should it not be used? Have you ever needed or considered using automated scripts such as WP:TW, WP:HG, WP:AWB for any reason?

A: Originally, I had a fond (probably strange) enjoyment of prowling the recent changes page and finding the clear edits of vandalism; in the process, I racked up a ton of rollback edits. Lately, my focus has shifted to more article work and with that, I've just used the rollback feature less often. It's not that its value has changed in my eyes, just that I've had less need to use it.

Rollback should not be used in an edit war, and such misuse can justify it's removal by an administrator. Generally, it should be used for reverting clear cases of vandalism.

To the third part of your question: I have considered using those scripts, but I never saw them as helpful in what I was doing to necessitate me using them. I like Wikipedia Classic.

6. You notice the most recent contributions 500 contributions of a bot appear to be in error making incorrect changes to an article. The bot has not edited in a week. None of the incorrect changes have been reverted. What do you do?

A: Hmm. It's probably doubtful that such a massive set of errors would remain for so long, but I'll still answer the hypothetical. Obviously, something's wrong with the bot, whether or not it's still making the errors, and so it should be blocked until we can sort out what the deal is. As to the incorrect edits, assuming all these errors were clearly wrong, I don't see why reverts aren't in order. If there's more nuance that you wanted for this question, I'd be happy to elaborate in a follow-up.

7. A new account is created as User:John Smith, and begins to edit the John Smith article in an autobiographical sense, leaving edit summaries that indicate the user is actually John Smith. The edits are minor, fixing birthdates, high schools, childrens names, etc., however the user is bitten and left with talk page warnings about COI and reported at UAA and COI. You, an administrator, notice the UAA report. How do you proceed?

A: Editor retention has been a huge part of my thinking ever since Wikimania last year. I went to two presentations by Steven Walling and Maryana Pinchuk, who beyond being incredibly nice people, delivered a strong case for changing the way we approach some instances of 'new-editor-interaction'. They argued it's important for the long-term vitality of Wikipedia, and I agree. With this in mind, here is what I would do: Your example has the editor in question doing innocuous/good-faith changes to an article. I would write a message on John Smith's wall, first welcoming him to the encyclopedia and then explaining the concerns, concluding with a note that I'd be free for any further questions in the future. Now, that's how I would act on the issues with the editor on a broad scope; I know very little of the username rules (besides a few basic guidelines), so I'm not entirely sure on whether the name is itself okay (my guess is it's not). UAA is not a place I intend to work in because I have zero previous work there.

Additional questions from John

8 What is your view on civility?

A: I think NW said it best recently: "...civility is more than the sum of the individual words that have been said—it is about the intent of one's underlying message and how one reacts when challenged on the comments one made". In mediation, I've seen just how vitriolic a situation gets when people stop collaborating and begin fighting. And there really is a moment when communication breaks down, an actual point where you can see it happen. Many times, you just want to shake your head and say "You're arguing over this?" And yet, in all the drawn-out conflicts I've dealt with, there is a desire to find some compromise even if that belief is deeply buried. I've tried to uproot it many times in many instances, some successful and others not.

This serves as a backdrop to my views on this issue. We need an encyclopedia where people can respect each other at a basic level so that we can do what we came here to do. Rampant incivility, when serious, can threaten that environment. But then the question is "What do we do about it?" I'd be lying if I didn't say "I don't know". This question seems to be in flux, especially in recent months. I think there's some need for a sanction in extreme cases, but what that looks like or how it's implemented is above my pay grade. There's a reason the Arbitration Committee had to take the Civility enforcement case -- these are big issues that we need to works towards resolving in a firm manner. I'd be glad to participate in those discussions, but right now, it's my ears that are open.

9 You've come across an edit war on the Abortion article. The edit war is long and drawn out over the course of an entire day. Editor A made a bold edit of contentious material with a weak source. Editor B has reverted the material three times while Editor A has reverted the material back in only twice (both used rollback and neither are sysops). No talk page discussion has occurred, no personal attacks in edit summaries. However, Editor A has said "read the source" in the edit summary and Editor B has said "Source not valid" in theirs. Both editors are registered users in good standing with at least a year of project experience. How do you handle the situation?

A: Ah, I remember this question! No violation of 3RR, but certainly a misuse of rollback and probably problematic edits on a page covered under Discretionary Sanctions. Both editors in this example are using rollback to help them in an edit war which is explicitly against the purpose of the tool. I'd probably remove that from both editors. Pursuant to the rules for DS, I'd warn both editors to be wary of the rules on the Abortion pages; if they continued this edit war despite that, then a short block may be appropriate.

Additional questions from Salvidrim

10. An established editor whose real-world identity is not known mistakenly adds his professional e-mail address (including name & workplace) to his userpage instead of his more private, Wikipedia-only address. Would it be appropriate to simply delete that revision using your administrative tools?

A:: In the situation you describe, an administrator may delete the revision. While it's not the usual "scenario" for outing situations, administrators are supposed to err on the side of caution when dealing with private info posted on the encyclopedia.

11. Are there any areas of administrative work that you specifically do not intend to work in?

A: The areas I want to work in (AFD, DYK, AIV) are places I've had a good deal of experience in. I wouldn't feel comfortable moving beyond that until I have further experience in such a new area in a non-admin capacity.

Additional question from Mohamed CJ

12. I would like to expand more on your answer to question 4, if you don't mind. Are there any other cases in which one may be granted the IP-block-exempt flag? Mention an example or two.

A: In some extraordinary cases, an editor may be allowed to edit anonymously, but that's certainly not the major use of the flag, and such permission is held to higher scrutiny.

12 B. Could you mention an example for such an extraordinary case that would permit you to give this right that is held to a "level of trust equal to that given to administrators"?

A: I've never requested this flag before (and obviously never given it out), but it looks like policy says a specific example is the editor who's being limited by restrictive firewalls. The level of trust you mention, in line with what it says, rightly requires close scrutiny of the contributions of the editor in question and the nature of the request itself. It should not be given out lightly and should be taken away if/when the issue hindering editing is gone.

Additional question from Ritchie333

13. You seem to talk a good argument at AfDs, even those where consensus didn't go in your favour, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bi Yantao, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karina Marczuk and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amos Williams. Let's assume all three of these AfDs have gone for a deletion review. What would you say to put consensus in your favour and overturn the deletion?

A: I don't think any of those AFD closes had any procedural errors or that the closer misinterpreted consensus. So, I don't think deletion review is needed here. I think my comments on each individual AFD speak for themselves on my position, and I don't fret that consensus was not on my side. I can't always be right! :)

Additional question from Kiefer.Wolfowitz

14. Are you an adult?

A: Yes. I understand Rschen7754's concerns, but this is no secret. I've identified with the Foundation. Also, just to respond to a note by Kiefer below, my username "Lord Roem" comes from another name I came across many years ago online. It's honestly gibberish. :)

Extended discussion regarding the appropriateness of this question moved to the talk page. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 21:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Cmach7

15. How many quality edits have you made? A quality edit is a good article edit and a non-vandal edit.

A: Well, I don't like the term "quality edits", but if you're looking for a listing of my recognized content (GAs, DYKs), I keep that on my user page here. If you're looking for something more specific, I'll do my best to answer any follow-up. :)

Do you mind clarifying your definition of "quality edits"? Salvidrim! ✉ 00:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have clarified my definition of "quality edits". Cmach7 (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Is a "good article edit" an edit of a Good Article or a good edit of an article? The former is objectively quantifiable; the latter is entirely subjective. Bielle (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I honestly can't understand the question. Was this intented to be like this: "How much recognized content have you got? Which are your contributions that could be considered of the highest quality?" and the like? — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the question is supposed to mean what edits of Lord Roem's have been based on adding content ie: on article space not automated, not vandal undos or rollbacks. For me, that is easily answered by going to his user page and viewing the history of the articles he took to GA and FA status. This diff of Dorsey v. United States might be a good example. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional questions from Trevj

16. How confident are you that you wouldn't repeat an AfD close like Avaya Definity, and why? (Not that the following matters, but I missed that Secret linked to this very debate immediately after I !voted... and I indpendently trawled through your user talk contributions to find it!) -- Trevj (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

A: As you can see from my talk page, when the editor brought their concern, I promptly gave a in-depth reading of my reasoning, even directing the editor to any further places of appeal if they so desired. With the perfect vision of hindsight, I think I should have relisted the nomination, per User:Secret's suggestion on my talk, but I don't think it's something that will crop up again (35 of my 36 NAC closures have been without incident).

17. You're asked to mediate regarding an edit war concerning a topic/organisation in which member(s) of your family or close friend(s) are (or have been) closely involved with. What do you do? -- Trevj (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

A: Well, I certainly wouldn't be a neutral mediator if I had such close connections to the parties; I'd certainly be involved. Personally, I've adopted a liberal reading of conflicts-of-interest, whether it's my involvement in mediating, clerking, or anything else. Nevertheless, I would direct the warring parties to the dispute resolution noticeboard so that everyone gets some progress on the dispute.

18. If this RfA ultimately proves to have a more disappointing outcome than expected, do you think some of your supporters might maintain that you have a very bright future? -- Trevj (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

A: I don't know what "very bright future means" in this context. I edit on Wikipedia because I like to do it. My interest in helping out in something that I've always found to be an amazing idea has been my driving passion since I first got here. Everything else that I've been involved with, be it the Mediation Committee, clerking, or DYK work, has been because I found those areas interesting and fun! I have a profound joy for being part of this community and whether I'm an admin or not is irrelevant to both the reason I'm here and the contributions I make. If I'm honored to have a few extra tools to help out where help is needed, that would be just another way to channel my love of this place. But that alone is far from my motivation for anything I do. Since I got here, but in a stronger way since Wikimania, I've had a real connection with the work I contribute and the people I meet and interact with. My goal, and I believe my "supporters" share this, is to keep helping out, keep writing articles, and stay involved. I don't know how you define that, but for me, that's definitely a "bright future".

Additional questions from Scottywong

19. Are you a deletionist or an inclusionist?

A: I'm not a fan of those broad labels; I have no particular ideology when I comment at an AfD. I do what anyone else does: ensure there are significant, reliable, and independent sources for an article's subject, and look at the subject-nobility guidelines when one of them is relevant. Sometimes that means I !vote Keep and sometimes it means I !vote Delete.

Additional question from Leaky

20. Sorry for the late question. I hadn't intended to !vote either way since you are nailed on, but the substance of the opposes, who they come from and what they have said, makes me concerned. You have been accused of being partial. Not good for anyone, especially bad for an Admin. So, I would welcome your view on a recent incident. Here is a link [1]. Please review and set out what, if any of the actions taken by all involved parties, was inappropriate / incorrect in YOUR opinion. I'm not asking what you would have done, since you could have just not got involved and that would be absolutely fine. I'm asking you to review it for errors of judgement, mistakes in policy interpretation, impartiality, etc. Leaky Caldron 13:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A: Let me address both points here (the opposes and then the recent incident).

All decisions in terms of removing evidence or hatting discussions was passed by arbs on the list or more senior (i.e. more experienced) clerks. My "discretion" was at its nadir. It's also important to understand that the drafting arb had placed highly unique and stringent rules on the proceedings. Anything I did to clerk the case was based in this framework, and all my actions were based off the advice or direction of others. Simply put, I had no chance to be biased if I actually had something invested in the case to be biased about.

Now, to address the recent incident concerning Beeblebrox. From my reading of it, this seems to be one of the common instances where everyone should have taken a step back before acting. If I've learned anything from observing cases before the AC, it's that the big mistakes made by admins (or really anybody) are many times the result of acting too quickly without thinking about the ramifications of an action. In this specific situation, I think the blocking of Beeblebrox for a potentially "compromised account" wasn't a good call. It was based on a single edit summary, which itself wasn't primae faciae evidence of anything strange. Indeed, Beeblebrox wasn't crazily editing Wikipedia posting "FASCIST" on random articles or something that would indicate a clear departure from the normal expectations of editors. I'd be very hesitant to think anything more of an isolated edit summary on someone's talk page. However, none of this means I think Beeblebrox's initial edit was perfectly fine. From the AN discussion, he was clearly angry (and rightly so) over another editor's messing around with threads he had already closed. I certainly can understand the stress and tension of such a dispute; I feel it all the time when mediating intense content battles. But, it's important that we all take that step back and chill out. I wouldn't sanction him for making that edit, but I would hope that's not the norm of how he communicates, and I don't know him enough to make any broader or generalized statement about his behavior. All in all, we need to focus on what we are here to do: build an encyclopedia. Everything else is just filler. The sooner we learn to make that our sole focus and not get tied up in the drama, the closer we get to the dream of holding all human knowledge. Yes, I'm an idealist on the basic idea of Wikipedia, but it's what keeps me going. :)

Thank you for your first paragraph, which is the first response you have given in the RfA to my oppose and to some of the others. You say that the hatting that I cited "was passed by arbs on the list or more senior... clerks." Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds like, after the fact, none of those persons overruled what you did, as opposed to them instructing you ahead of time to hat that particular thread. From what I've seen, Arbs are very reluctant to criticize a clerk after the fact, and understandably so, given the potential harm to cohesion that would result. Indeed, it seems to me that a more senior clerk (and, perhaps, an Arb who felt strongly) would have just hatted it themselves, if they had felt hatting was needed, as opposed to telling you to do it for them. I'm well aware that the drafting Arb set out particularly strict parameters for what would, or would not, be permitted in discussion. Indeed, I read carefully what he had said before I started that talk thread, and made sure that I was complying with it. Looking at what those parameters actually were, as well as your reply to me on your talk page at the time, I don't think that you were carrying out those instructions from the drafting Arb, so much as issuing your own interpretation of and extrapolation from them. I feel as though you are trying to pass the buck, by making it sound like it wasn't your decision, when it really was. Do I misunderstand? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

All hatting or any significant clerking action was either passed by the list ("Hey, what does everyone think about X post?") or I had a discussion via Google Chat with another clerk to see what they thought. I was new and I wanted to be overly cautious before taking action. My answer above speaks to that environment broadly. To the specific example of hatting your question, I believe I spoke to another clerk first before acting. So, it's not "passing the buck" onto someone else, I did it and I thought it the appropriate thing to do under the rules at the time, but it's also important to understand that I didn't act on my own without oversight. I recognize your question was legitimate and important, but it would inevitably involve speculation (as it did) because it asked what the intent of the attacks against Fae were. It was never meant to be a sanction against you, indeed I was curious at the time of how that discussion would unfold, but under the strictly-set Argument/Statement + Diff framework we were under, that discussion would go off in a direction that just wouldn't be appropriate for that page. Just as I told another editor on the other side of the case, speculations or blanket, open-ended statements or questions would not be permissible.

Tryptofish, I think the above answers your single question, but I don't think it will answer your broader concern. I feel it's important to address it. If this shows anything about me, it only shows that when doing the unique work of clerking, I will enforce tough rules when implemented, nothing more. It was a case over six months ago in which the only things you ever saw me do made me look like a meanie, because the only things to do (besides posting the Final Decision) was enforcing the pretty intense rules. That gives a rather one-dimensional impression of me, and I really hate that that's the place where we first had an interaction. I'm so much more than that. Since Wikimania, Wikipedia has become an essential part of me, something I deeply care for, and that's a passion outside of the drama of Arbitration. If you really want to get to know me, see my interactions with editors on my talk page archives over the past few months. Get to know the way I tick. See how I respond when challenged or when I'm in a challenging situation. But please don't picture me with a whip labeled "THE CLERK" brutally attacking my computer screen with shouts and vindictiveness. It hurts when someone says I'm biased--if you got to know me, you'd see that's just the opposite of who I am. I pride myself on being open-minded about... well, everything! Take your time to understand "Lord Roem" (which is a rather silly name, I agree) in a broader sense and then you'll get a much better picture of how I'd be as an administrator. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, so to be precise, it was after a discussion you had with another clerk. I appreciate that it's tough going through the scrutiny of an RfA, and I don't mean to be Javert about this, so I'll just point out that it was other editors, not me, who alleged bias about the case; I never did. And then I'll move on. I suspect that what I've said to you can be filed under "things you can think about and learn from for your future actions". It seems to me that it would have been a lot easier for you to have said, a few days ago, something like "I was curious at the time about how that discussion would unfold, and I recognize in hindsight that it did end up yielding useful information that several of the arbitrators followed and paid attention to, but it was the call I made at the time, based on the instructions I had been given. In the future, I will probably be more attentive to getting at the truth and less attentive to following form." Or something like that. I said below that I'm looking for learning and growth, not perfection, so I hope you've learned something from this. Sincerely, I wish you the best. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you think being impartial is a bad thing, do you perhaps mean partial? Jebus989^✰ 13:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. Leaky Caldron 13:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Lord Roem
• Requests for adminship/Lord Roem 2

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

---

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

Discussion

• Thanks for keeping the stream of new admins flowing. We're losing too many and not gaining enough... Vacation9 22:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. YESS!!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Is supporting before the candidate's acceptance allowed? :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
3. NW (Talk) 20:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
4. 255 edits to his FA, which is well-written. Reasonable amount of article writing. Arbcom Clerk, and a clear net positive. ceranthor 20:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
5. I supported the last one, so unless there's some surprise here, I'm on board. - Dank (push to talk) 20:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
6. Nouniquenames 20:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
7. knows what he is doing --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
8. I would much rather have someone amass 7000 edits as high-quality as his (assuming--correct if wrong) than 20000 of lesser quality like we've seen in the past. He's managed to make 42% of his contributions to article space, has an FA, and 7 GAs, all the while being a respected ArbCom clerk. He has the NW seal of approval (not as familiar with Roger, but that's probably a plus too ). I'm really finding no reason to oppose, and lots of reasons to support. Go Phightins! 20:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
9. Support per nom and co-nom. INeverCry 20:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
10. Solid contributions to the encyclopedia. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
11. Support A quality contributor that will be a net positive as an admin. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
12. Support Great content work and experience with sticky situations at WP:RFM; no concerns Jebus989^✰ 20:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
13. Support. Rzuwig^► 20:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
14. Dub thee administrator. Arbcom clerks need the keys to Heaven and Hell, and if my memory is correct Lord Roem has been honourable and efficient as a clerk. My previously stated concerns about his editing experience and about his writing standard English have been addressed by sustained editing projects focused on quality articles. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
15. Support Great candidate, No general reason to oppose or raise any concern. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
16. Support He isn't one already? Make it so, Mr. 'Crat! I have the utmost confidence in his integrity, and he's a top notch contributor at many levels. He will excel, I feel. All the best. Cheers! -T.I.M^(Contact) 20:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
17. Support a lot of experience in MedCom, as a clerk, and commissioner for the ArbCom elections. --Rschen7754 21:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
18. Support what's to oppose? He's touched all the bases.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
19. Fuck yes. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
20. Support – I'm somewhat familiar with Lord Roem's record by watching his sensible edits in Arbcom-related matters. His FA work at Washington v. Texas certainly looks good. No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
21. Support I can't believe it's already been 7 months since the last RfA. No doubt you're going to pass this one.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
22. Support. I supported last time, and my view of Lord Roem has not changed since. I am certain he will use the tools wisely. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
23. Same as last time. Courcelles 21:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
24. Support, definitely. Prioryman (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
25. Abso-fricking-lutely! Kurtis ^(talk) 21:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
26. Support, seems like a good candidate. Lessons from the previous RfA seem to have been learned.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
27. Support should have been elected last time, IMHO--he's more than ready. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
28. Support has a record of high quality work. Has learned a lot from previous RfA, which is commendable. Work on Washington v. Texas was first rate. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
29. Support Last time was perhaps borderline. He has taken note of objections raised then and met them. no concerns now. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
30. Strong Support - He is an excellent editor. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
31. Support This user has a lot of good edits and is fit for an admin because he can enforce MediaWiki Policies and not get rid of users he doesn't like. Cmach7 (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
32. Strong support. Ironholds (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
33. Support Hell yeah! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
34. Support as co-nominator  Roger Davies ^talk 22:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

    Took you long enough... Sven Manguard Wha? 00:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

    Yeah, 'fraid so. I was waylaid by the extended cut of Avatar, which is mesmerising.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

35. Support I've been keeping an eye out for this nomination, and am glad to see it now. No concerns whatsoever. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
36. A sure no-brainer. Rcsprinter (warn) @ 23:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
37. Support Absolutely yes! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
38. Support. Experienced, trustworthy candidate. No concerns whatsoever. AGK [•] 23:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
39. Support 100% JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
40. Support Tony (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
41. Support Well, if you insist... ;) MJ94 (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
42. Support clueful editor. Legoktm (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
43. Support same rationale as previous RfA Pol430 talk to me 00:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
44. Support - Everything looks good to me, and he's had a lot of very good contributions. Work clerking at ArbCom is good as well. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
45. Should've been the first time. Wizardman 00:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
46. Support Having read the diffs and objection of the first oppose, but also being familiar with the other work of the candidate, I support. I agree with the oppose that that area of inquiry needed to be explored in that case, particularly the seemingly extreme off-site "campaign." However, the query was rather indirect and unfocused, and the clerk has the sometimes tough job of herding cats to focus, and is bound to step on toes -- in the end it seems that action was within not unreasonable bounds for that job, even if not perfect (also, the issue in the view of the oppose was in fact hashed out elsewhere, so no irremediable foul). Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

    About your last point, my concern really is not about remediating a foul here. It's about judgment. And I worry that an admin with the wrong kind of judgment could, for example, issue a bad block – and even if there's an unblock, the effect on a user's morale can indeed be irremediable. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

    Even so, a lapse in judgment, is not the same as lack of judgment. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

47. Support Nice answers for my questions and good contributions to the wiki. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 02:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
48. Support - Good contributions and judgement. No concerns at all. - MrX 02:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
49. Support - Per Legoktm. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 02:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
50. Support. I've interacted with Lord Roem and have found him to be very clueful. I believe he understands both user interaction and content creation, and I have no qualms about supporting his RfA. I acknowledge the one objection that has been raised thus far, but although I believe that concern was expressed in good faith, I don't consider it sufficiently serious to sway my positive opinion. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
51. Support - Seems generally decent. Per noms. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
52. Support Done good work as an ArbCom clerk, seems to have good judgment and gives thoughtful, measured opinions. No concerns. wctaiwan (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
53. Support - Although I have some reservations based on this users actions as a clerk in some Arbcom cases I don't think they would delete the main page either. I think the user has also been too focused on Arbitration and mediation matters and not enough on Article creation or admin related duties that don't pertain to those 2 areas but that to me is still no reason to oppose. I also have a lot of respect for Roger Davies opinion so if he thinks this user is good enough then that's good enough for me. Kumioko (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
54. Support - Slam dunk, no research necessary. Be nice to the little people... Carrite (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
55. Support - Well contributions. No cause for opposing.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 05:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
56. Support Well-rounded, looks good. Spencer^T♦C 05:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
57. Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
58. Support – Great FA. Edit history and AfD seem good. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 07:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
59. Support - Everything looks great. Torreslfchero (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
60. Support. I thought we could trust Lord Roem with the administrative tools at the time of his first RfA, and I am still of that same opinion. — sparklism ^hey! 08:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
61. Support I see no reasons for opposing this editor especially at his adminship. Mediran (t • c) 09:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
62. Support I think he can trusted with the mop! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 09:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
63. Support - no concerns. Stalwart111 10:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
64. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
65. Support. Solid content contributions and no red flags that I noticed. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
66. (edit conflict) - filelakeshoe 10:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
67. It looks like the candidate has addressed the concerns raised at the last RfA, and then some. I'm not concerned about the clerking incident raised in Tryptofish's oppose, as a) the clerks were specifically asked to be strict about enforcing the rules in that case, b) isolated incidents shouldn't topple an RfA unless they are major screw-ups (which this one wasn't), and c) the functions of an ArbCom Clerk don't have all that much overlap with the functions of an administrator anyway. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
68. Ja. Daniel (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
69. Support - no concerns, has worked on the issues raised in last RFA which is always a good sign. GiantSnowman 11:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
70. Reluctant Support — Ched :  ?  11:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

    What makes you "reluctant" to support? If you have concerns then you should raise them. GiantSnowman 11:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

71. Support as I had supported you in the previous nom--Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
72. Support Per nom and an assessment of Roem's contributions. Wifione ^Message 11:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
73. Clueful, intelligent guy. Knows what he's doing. I have no concerns. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 13:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
74. Seems to be OK, although I am worried about the number of edits since the previous RfA. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
75. I supported the last time around, might as well support this time, too! – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
76. Absolutely. Worked with him on arbcom clerks, completely trust him. (X! · talk)  · @641  ·  14:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
77. Support Good track record of article writing, experience of dispute resolution as an Arbcom clerk, no evidence of biting in contributions I looked at, demonstrates a capability to use tools responsibly and defer to consensus calmly. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
78. Support...no evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 14:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
79. Support Seems to be a trustworthy and capable editor. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 14:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
80. Weak Support - I'm a bit concerned about the answer to Q10, in which case the info shouldn't be "simply RevDel'ed using the administrator tools", but Oversighted per point 1; the particular understanding of RevDel/Oversight policies is minor but I worry it may indicate that the user is prompt to enact the first solution that presents itself instead of looking farther and finding a better, more appropriate solution. However his experience at the ArbCom levels of Wikipedia and his passion for dispute resolution leads me to believe he can be trusted with a few extra buttons, since I have no doubt he wouldn't be clerking ArbCom is there were serious flaws in his general trustworthiness. Salvidrim! ✉ 18:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
81. Support While I was hoping for a deeper answer to my question, I think Lord Roem is ready for the mob. His other answers and general behavior show a good grasp and understanding of Wikipedia policies, and he has a sufficient level of content creation. Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

    I kind of think you might have meant "ready for the mop", but maybe that's actually quite accurate. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

    It may have been a mistake but ready for the mop is basically the same as ready for the mob. Maybe I'll use that line myself sometime. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

    Yes, It was not intended; the candidate has already dealt with some "mob" as his history shows. Don't credit me for it though; I've seen it here before. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

82. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
83. Support, excellent candidate, level-headed and fair. Dreadstar ☥ 21:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
84. Yes. Learns from mistakes. Willing to help out. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
85. Support Excellent editor. I think he's learned from his last RFA and he is now a trusted ArbCom clerk. He has created many quality articles. I see no reason why this user shouldn't be an admin. Vacation9 00:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
86. Support. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
87. Support - No problems last time, ditto. Good luck. Mlpearc (powwow) 00:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
88. No obvious issues.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
89. Support: From what I've seen, LR receiving the tools will result in a clear net benefit to the project. Gizza^{Talk ©} 02:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
90. Support at one point I had some conflict with this user. Looking back, I'd say he was more in the right than I. But in any case, he handled the conflict fairly well. I think he may be a bit too rules bound (which is saying quite a bit coming from me) but I think he'll do fine. Just look at the larger picture and be willing to go out on a limb to do the right thing, rather than the easy thing, a bit more. I'll admit to not looking closely at his more recent work (given I'm supporting already and the oppose votes all come from things I'm familiar with I don't see a need). Hobit (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)#
91. Support I'm impressed with the users experience in MedCom. Webclient101^talk 05:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
92. Support. —Neotarf (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
93. Longterm user, clean block log and many sensible edits. As for the opposes, few other than NewYorkBrad came well out of the Fae case. I've trawled back through the edits and seen Lord Roem insisting that people on both sides furnish diffs and not elaborate their case beyond what the diffs would support. Perhaps there was something egregious that I've missed, but if so I'd rely on others to find it and perhaps consider whether it was important enough to oppose over. As for me I've supported candidates where I've taken the opportunity to chide them over the odd flaw, others may yet find the odd flaw in this candidate but it would take more than one recent mistake for me to reconsider my position. ϢereSpielChequers 14:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
94. Support WereSpielChequers expresses it well. I have a high regard for Salvio's opinions and his oppose gave me pause but, perhaps because I wasn't involved in the fae case, don't really see anything egregious there. To the contrary, I see Lord Roem as having been a firm arbcom clerk and that also gives me the confidence that he'll be a strong administrator as well. --regentspark (comment) 14:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
95. Support Seems like a solid candidate, and I appreciate his welcoming approach toward newer editors and his focus on editor retention. CaSJer (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
96. Support. Good contributions. I don't see a problem with the ArbCom clerking. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
97. --LlamaAl (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
98. Support. The opposes bring up a couple points, but I don't see any long-running issues. I had a rather controversial RfA in part because of a single incident, and such an incident has not happened before or since. On the whole I prefer not to !vote based on limited incidents but rather long term patterns, and Lord Roem's positive long term patterns compel me to support. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
99. Support per my rationale the first time. "Seems to be a good editor, and I doubt that ArbCom would trust someone enough to make him a clerk if he were untrustworthy enough that he wouldn't be a good admin." Nyttend (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
100. Support. Repeating what I said last time: " Lord Roem rolls up the sleeves to help in a variety of areas, understands procedure and protocol better than most, and demonstrates consistent good judgment everywhere I've observed his work." --Orlady (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
101. Support. The candidate is a good content contributor. He is clued in and seems trustworthy. Majoreditor (talk)
102. Support - notoverly concerned by the opposes. Don't get this rubbish about concerns that the editor "wants" to be an admin when half of WT:RFA is filled up with comments that we should look through CAT:ADMINHOPEFULLS for good candidates. Solid editor, will do just fine. Pedro :  Chat  20:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
103. (edit conflict) Support, per WereSpielChequers. If this RfA is successful and the candidate does exercise poor judgement/bias, then the community can deal with it at that time. Until I've investigated further, there don't seem to be any compelling reasons to oppose (one editor who participated in the case referred to under oppose is even supporting this time, after opposing last time). -- Trevj (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
104. Weak Support the opposers has some valid points, and I do have some concerns about some of the NAC closures he did one example, but I see a net positive, and Trevj is right, if anything does happen we have more community control than before dealing with problematic administrators (though still nowhere near perfect yet). Secret ^account 21:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
105. Support Thought they passed the first time round! All the best, Miniapolis 03:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
106. Support Looks good! I hope he'll be a great admin. Good wishes! --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
107. Support Seems to be a trustworthy editor. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 15:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
108. Support Don't see any reason not to. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
109. Support Supported last time and I still think this user will not abuse the tools. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
110. T. Canens (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
111. Support - And I thought this user was an administrator when I first saw them! Good luck, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
112. Support - Appears to be a firm candidate. After reading through the opposition, I'm unconvinced that this will make him a bad administrator. Certainly, giving LR the mop will be a net positive to the project. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
113. Weak support I really consider the number of deleted edits important in RfAs. And I think 73 (1.05% of total edits) deleted edits are not very appropriate for showing if know or not the deletion policy, to me. So It's a "weak support". Érico Wouters ^msg 01:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
114. Strong support I wish we had 20 more like him. --Guy Macon EDIT: after carefully reading the oppose arguments, I still support. Should this pass, I suggest that they wait a year, review his work as an admin, and give an "I was right" or "I was wrong" opinion. In fact, I think that would be a good thing in all RfA cases. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
115. No brainer support Lord Roem is very well qualified, and can clearly be trusted to use the tools sensibly. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
116. Support - I had a long look at the opposes and there are some cogent observations there - however I don't want to upset the "winners" and am simply sucking up to all those named above however I don't believe a candidate with genuine potential should be expected to be perfect at RfA, and assume his lordship will take on board these comments if he is successful. Ben MacDui 09:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
117. Support There are some valid sounding concerns in the opposes, but I consider the positive side outweighs them. I can't see anything wrong with being the sole editor of an article, by the way. At least we've got an article on it now - and it could well mean that no-one's managed to improve on it anyway... Peridon (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
118. Support I think the opposition is sensible, but so is the defense to them. Maybe LR's actions at the Fæ Arb case were wrong, but also maybe they weren't. They were questionable, but within the domain of reasonable discourse. They weren't gross inadequacies. Now, if all of LR's actions were merely defensible, and none indubitably good, then there would be no question of his inadmissibility. However, this is just one questionable case among many indubitably good. I think his content creation was good: If it was done merely to establish his credentials for this RfA and for ArbCom, I don't think that matters, as admins are not required to be content creators but merely, I think, should be familiar with the intricacies of it. Having made an FA and a GA I think shows that he has this familiarity. Finally, I think if an admin acts in the model established in LordRoem's history, then the project would be, overall, improved. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
119. Support - I'm a bit concerned about this candidate leaning pretty hard on the inclusionist side of the spectrum, but all things considered, that concern isn't enough for me to oppose. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 17:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
120. Support without reservation. GregJackP Boomer! 01:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
121. Stephen 03:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
122. Support I have no concerns. Lord was ready for the mop a long time ago. If he can't make the cut at RFA then the bar is way too high. Royalbroil 05:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
123. Support level headed, composed. No obvious concerns that I can see. Leaky Caldron 10:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
124. Support - no concerns here.--В и к и T 13:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
125. Support per WP:DEAL: clueful, and unlikely to break Wikipedia. Guettarda (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
126. Support - I don't find the opposes to be enough reason for me not to support and I don't see anything else that would warrant an oppose. James086^Talk 21:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
127. Support --LemonTwinkle 04:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
128. Support. There's no reason to mistrust his future use of the admin toolkit, even given others' concerns about arbcom etc. —Darkwind (talk) 09:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
129. Support No reason to oppose. Widr (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
130. Support Will be an asset to the community. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
131. Support. The candidate is a dedicated, experienced editor who has made useful contributions in a wide variety of ways. The concerns about the candidate's work as an arbitration clerk do not, in my view, reflect on the candidate so much as on the difficulties of the role in the context of especially contentious arbitration cases. While I am sure Lord Roem will take the other concerns raised on the RfA into account going forward, on balance I find him to be an excellent candidate and am glad to be supporting him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
132. Support - Quite possibly more qualified than most current admins. AlexiusHoratius 22:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
133. Support, I took a look back through the Fae case and do not see the candidate taking any actions that I can in any reasonable way perceive as biased, either individually or taken as a whole. I'd be willing to consider more specifics, but I just don't see anything that matches the generalities given. As to "wanting to be an admin"—we better hope more people "want to be an admin". You'd damn well need to in order to come here and put up with that kind of silliness. (Though putting up with silliness at RfA is, I suppose, good preparation for what awaits should you pass.) Candidates who come here without preparation tend to fail pretty spectacularly. Now, apparently, candidates who come here and did consider their decision and prepare accordingly get opposes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
134. Support: Great to work with; will handle the mop with alacrity. Sunray (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
135. Support Happy to support per my RFA standards. Mkdw^talk 09:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
136. Support. As per my oppose vote in the previous RfA, I'm now happy to offer my solid support. Without prejudice to the concerns expressed by the opposition below, I'm actually quite impressed with his work as an Arcom clerk and the sincerity with which he has calmly responded to the heavy discussions in the question section above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
137. Support per rogerd. As an aside, while Im not sure I fully understood the dynamics of the Fæ case, plenty of others have offered their opinion, so here's mine. Right at the start, the Arbs asked for extra strict clerking, especially against unsupported speculation. Any clerk who dutifully implemented the Arb's request was inevitably going to attract criticism from some. Perhaps you now think there's a few things you could have done better, but for me your performance at the Fæ case was close to flawless. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
138. Support The opposing views are concerned that LordRoem supported the popular rather than remaining completely neutral. Perhaps he saw consensus? I find no reason to oppose and have always found him civil and thoughtful. He will be an asset to WP, in my opinion. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 14:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, but I'm open to persuasion. In a change from what often happens in RfAs, I actually supported last time, but oppose now. In that last RfA, there were questions about the candidate's clerking in an arbitration case that was going on at the same time as that RfA. I supported, and specifically commented that I thought that the clerking looked just fine to me. Very shortly after, I ended up feeling like I had put my foot in my mouth. I raised what I know was an appropriate question, one that the arbitrators ought to follow, on the evidence talk page. Then, this: [2], happened. I asked Lord Roem about it on his talk page, and got what I feel was an insufficient answer: [3]. I explained further: [4]. The discussion that I tried to start on the evidence talk ended up moving to my own talk page, and many editors commented that it shed more light than just about anything else in that case. Ironically, I know that some of the arbitrators followed it there, because some of them made comments there. Some of the users who opposed the last RfA said that Lord Roem seems very focused on having the position of administrator, but lacked the nuances of judgment that are needed. They were right and I was wrong, then. If you parse his response to me, in the diff above, there's nothing grossly wrong: it's professional and workmanly. But it just doesn't get it. Now, that said, I began by saying that I'm open to persuasion, and I am. Please feel free to pile on. But I'm not looking for an ArbCom circling of the wagons, so please don't tell me that the arbs supported the hatting. What I am looking for is convincing evidence of growth and learning. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

   Just to comment. Your the first person who actually wrote an oppose as well expressed as yours. I'm not in agreement with you on this but, your oppose is well written in my opinion and really does express how you feel.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

   Indeed, I feel this one of the better-posed opposes I've seen in my near six years here. Sorry to provide useless commentary, everyone. ceranthor 01:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

   • I've followed the links provided... Tryptofish, do you think this demonstrates a lack of clue on the part of Lord Roem? I see this as more of a grievance than RfA evidence... Then again, I'm only a Tutnum, haha! I'd like to hear more about it, when you get the chance. Maybe on my talk page? Cheers! -T.I.M^(Contact) 03:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

   Yes, lack of clue is what I think, and I wish someone would prove me wrong – not in terms of what happened then, but in terms of where the candidate stands now. I knew when I first wrote the oppose that it would only be a matter of time before someone would wonder whether I was being motivated by a grievance. I've looked carefully in the mirror, and no, it's really not that, please believe me. Salvio, just below me, knows a thing or two about ArbCom, and I think he may be right. I'm not the type of RfA participant who opposes candidates for too little content work, but I'm worried here that I'm seeing someone who is primarily interested in attaining titles and who showed really bad judgment in the example I gave. In RfA, I care very much about trust. I'm worried that someone who really, really, wants to be a policeman, and who, in the clerking action, was more interested in process than in getting to the truth, might be someone who, with the tools, would for example make bad blocks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

   I see from this and your statements in the question section that you seem to think discovering Truth should take precdence over form and process? It's interesting you mention police. Back in the 70's, prodedures were less strictly followed, and my local force (the Met) were infamous for applying the old "truth drug" to get innocent subjects to confess. Go back a few centuries, and witchhunters, some acting in perfectly good faith, used to weep tears of compassion as they applied even more ruthless methods in their quest for truth. Im not sure what sort of revelations you expected from your question, considering that both sides seemned to have gone all out to provide objected evidence? It looked likely only to invite further speculation which would have been at best useless, at worst to add further fuel to a situation that was already heated enough to involve multiple real world attacks. Proprer respect for process is better than a naive believe that "Truth" should be pursued regardless of cost. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

   OK, so I'm a proponent of forcing prisoners to injest drugs to elicit a confession, witch hunting, and torture. Thank you. As you so eloquently explained, both sides were providing "objected evidence". In fact, there was a great gap in explaining what was going on, and my question back then was intended to repair that gap. And, as it happened, it did. Numerous editors who were actually paying attention at the time said so, and a couple of the arbitrators followed the discussion. In Wikipedia's content, it's verifiability, not truth, or at least it used to be, but in dispute resolution, well, call me a torturer, but I'd kind of prefer to see the outcome based on truth rather than ignorance. But please feel free to take the opposite position. Anyway, I'm quite capable of understanding that your insights should not be held against the candidate here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

2. I apologise for being blunt, but, unfortunately, there is no gentler way to express my opinion. In the end, adminship comes down to trust and I don't trust you with a mop. I have witnessed the way you clerked Fae's case and, in my opinion, in some cases you did not act in a neutral fashion, but simply chose to side with the popular guys. Flaiano once wrote Italians are always ready to run to the rescue of the winners; my fear is that, as an admin, you would do the same. On top of that, I get the feeling that you've been trying to tick all the right boxes to get the mop. For these reasons, I don't believe you should be made an admin. Disclosure: I was peripherally involved in the cited ArbCom case though I have a strongly held view regarding the issue. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

   In what way was the candidate's clerking of the Fae arbitration case subpar? Could you point to specific instances of misconduct by the candidate in his clerking capacity? AGK [•] 16:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

   Just to clarify, are we talking about Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ and Evidence? -- Trevj (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

   Yes, that's the case I'm talking about. Now, regarding Lord Roem's clerking of it, there was nothing rising to the level of misconduct – had there been any, I would not just be opposing his candidacy, but would be actively trying to have him removed from the clerk team – and I admit I don't have any "gotcha" diffs handy. It was something more insidious... It's difficult to explain, mainly because it is a feeling I had, but during the case, my perception was that, whenever a nuanced situation would crop up, one where both solutions were defensible (for instance, an allegation that could either be left alone or removed, depending on how the directions given by ArbCom were interpreted), Lord Roem would consistently err on one side, the one which I simplified as that of the popular guys. Then again, as I have already acknowledged, I'm biased regarding the underlying issue and, so, my judgement could be clouded, but that was my feeling back then and is my feeling now. And this, coupled with the "gunning for adminship" attitude I have already described, is what has led me to land here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

   Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

   This is a very tough, moral oppose; and I am not dissatisfied for the solid consensus that Lord Roem succeeds this RfA. I did come to support, but there are times when it's better, standing with a soul; in full confidence. Salvio's expressed concern, immediately becomes concerning to me. Likewise, If he sees fit to move into support, I'll gladly move also. But right now, it is important the Salvio not be right. Should you rise to your-own potential; we can say gladly: "you done good, thank you!" I believe Salvio would as well. Best regards to everyone before me, here; and the others, after; Welcome! --My76Strat (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

   If I'm reading your oppose correctly (and, as with most things, I'm not 100 percent confident); you're opposing not because you have any objection to this candidate, but because another user presented an unsubstantiated claim and you're waiting until they do a volte face, at which point you'll support? Ironholds (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

   Yeah I know; don't have a candidate named Lord and I'll be less solemn. I'm going to trust the closing bureaucrat to give mine its due weight, as is. --My76Strat (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

   That's...sort of not a reply. But sure. In any case, starting from the principle of "if there's an unsubstantiated claim, oppose" is a silly way to treat !voting habits. I could always chip in and oppose per Lord Roem's well-known habit of eating children. Ironholds (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

   Not sure what Jonathan Swift has to do with anything, but let me make a modest proposal here: I think we are all trying to act in good faith and, at this stage, no real threat to the passing of this RfA has been made. Therefore, let's make too much of a fuss over this oppose (which frankly is testing the limits of my reading comprehension abilities). AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC

   Ironholds, there's no requirement that anyone have a good reason to oppose. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

3. Oppose, per Salvio. I have adopted his concern regarding LR and am not comfortable supporting this RfA. --My76Strat (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

   You struck out one oppose to write another?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

4. Oppose per Salvio and Tryptofish. Sorry, but this is a matter of trust and on reflection I share the concerns of these respected users. I hope I am proved wrong as this looks like it will pass. --John (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose I hate to jump on the losing side of a battle, but I wouldn't be honest if I didn't and frankly, I'm not afraid of being in the minority. On a personal level, I have no beef with LR, and he has always been very nice to me and from what I've seen, most everyone else. I am opposing for the same reason I opposed last time. Salvio actually sums it up fairly well, but as I articulated last time, Lord Roem isn't independent enough to be an effective admin. I think he means well, but he does seem to take the "popular side" as Salvio puts it. Admin must be neutral and use their own discretion, or non-admin can't trust their judgement. Assuming this passes, I sincerely hope Lord Roem separates himself from the pack and will use his own common sense and judgement, rather than go along with the crowd. While there may be safety in numbers, blindly taking the lead from others is very damaging to retention and overall morale around here, and fuels the (incorrect) assumption of "cabals". There is a fine line between "getting along" and "jumping on the bandwagon", and I sincerely hope that if you get the bit, you are able to make that distinction. Given my druthers, I would prefer waiting to get the bit until you can do that first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
6. Oppose - per Salvio. Simone 14:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
7. Oppose as per Salvio. It's my impression that the candidate uncritically follows the populist path, and his evident desire to become an administrator is disturbing in one without a demonstrated ability for independent thought. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
8. Agree with Dennis Brown, though I don't think waiting a bit would change my opinion. The populist politics are concerning, but not all that trouble me about this candidate. I like to see significant content contributions from admins. Some like to see FAs or GAs. I personally think FA/GA can be more about proper formatting rather than writing a comprehensive encyclopedia article, but it usually shows how one responds to criticism. FA/GA at RfA should be about two things: showing that actual writing of the encyclopedia is a top priority and showing collaboration with other users. The FA/GAs appear to have been written out of a desire to pass RfA (and subsequent Arbcom). Further, they were written entirely by Lord Roem and show no collaboration with others. The topics were simply not interesting enough for anyone else to even start a stub on the topic.[5] In Taylor v. Illinois, there are 3 listed references plus the primary source opinion/judgement/ruling/whatever. One of the references (Stocker) is used only once, one (Atkinson) is used 12 times, and the third (Heiderscheit) is used 5 times. Basically, this "good" article is based on one source. But there are so many <ref> tags thrown in there it appears as if the article is well sourced. This isn't to say the article is not needed on Wikipedia, but it does show that you are more interested in ticking off the boxes needed to make a Good Article rather than writing a good article. The same argument goes for the FA written by Lord Roem, and probably the other content contributions though I haven't looked in-depth. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

   No offence, and I completely respect your opinion, but frankly I find the content-related aspects of your rationale to be rather pedantic. Speaking only for myself, it doesn't matter to me if someone's writing articles for the sake of faring better at RFA or if they're just doing it for fun — nor does it make any difference in my mind if they do so alone or with other editors. Constructive contributions are constructive contributions. And I am also of the view that articles shouldn't be bogged down with too many references, otherwise they become needlessly elongated and difficult to navigate. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

   I probably didn't explain myself very well above. I have no problem with anyone writing about topics they are interested in even if they are on a unpopular topic. I have no problem with someone producing content to "[fare] better at RFA". I have no problem with the reference style used. What I do have a problem with is what appears to me to be the excessive box-ticking with a goal of advancing up the wiki-political ladder. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

   It sounds like what you are saying is that, should I ever go insane and subject myself to an RfA, and should I try to prepare for running the gauntlet by avoiding whatever past candidates have been criticized for, that in itself is something I would be criticized for? Catch-22 anyone? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

9. Oppose - per Tryptofish, Salvio and Dennis. I came to very similar conclusions at the time. Andreas JN466 05:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
10. Oppose per Tryptofish, Salvio and Dennis as well. I wasn't going to vote. But I feel strongly enough about it to a least agree with these editors. No offense to the the nom.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
11. Oppose per John and Salvio. There is an evitable run for arbcom in the making here, and I am uncomfortable with the tendancies so far, including evidenced judgement, as well as the transparency of the account to go with the direction in which the wind is blowing. Ironically I think we might have another Salvio here. Ceoil (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

    Um, to clarify, I think Roem has a lot of potential, but needs to mature his voice yet. Sorry man if I sounded harsh, I think in general your work here is spot on and I do have respect. My impression is that you are being groomed by very measured voices, that are very thoughtful in all respects, except in pushing people into the fire. Ceoil (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

12. Oppose per Tryptofish, Salvio and Dennis - I did not !vote in the first Rfa, if I remember this correctly, due to concerns expressed by opposers, and before I could weigh in, the candidate withdrew. Having worked with Tryptofish previously, I know him to be a most thoughtful, careful Wikipedian. I fully agree with his concerns, and feel this candidate is not currently a good choice for a lifetime appointment as an Administrator. I do thank the candidate for services to the project to date. Jusdafax 21:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
13. Oppose, mainly per Salvio and Dennis Brown. I'd also note that Lord Roem's evaluation of sourcing in legal articles is troubling; many of the articles he has worked on rely extensively on law student pieces in law reviews (which are glorified term papers, unreviewed by working professionals) rather than genuine scholarly work by authors with demonstrated expertise. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral Good answers to questions but the single oppose gives me pause. Not yet ready to support. --John (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(moved to support) Neutral I'm concerned by the opposes but haven't seen any evidence, so do not have reason to oppose, and am looking to support. I'll have a further look. -- Trevj (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Neutral I really like Lord Roem as an editor, but I am cautious to support as an administrator for the reasons Salvio and Tryptofish lay out. I'm split between supporting because the user is a good user, and opposing because the candidate has focused on becoming an administrator. As the candidate pointed out by quoting NW, intent is important. In this case, I question whether the intent is to be an admin or to help Wikipedia. I feel bad being here, but Salvio is right and Tryptofish has a valid concern.--v/r - TP 02:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
2. Neutral but leaning toward oppose for reasons outlined by TP above. Intothatdarkness 14:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
3. Neutral It's looking like you'll get the bit, but you must remember to remain neutral in situations. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 11:42, 25 January 2013 (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.