Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/VernoWhitney

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

VernoWhitney

Final (151/8/3); ended 15:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC) - Kingturtle = (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

VernoWhitney (talk · contribs) – I am pleased to present Verno Whitney as a candidate for adminship. Verno has been with us for almost a year, during which time he has become a central part of Wikipedia’s copyright cleanup. Among his contributions to that work, he has been a prolific contributor to suspected copyright violations since March, he has been a conscientious clerk at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations since May, he has personally devoted many hours to evaluating and cleaning individual CCIs, he is an active volunteer for the permissions queue at OTRS, and he runs User:VWBot which handles much of the manual labor at various copyright points and also helps to ensure that articles tagged for problems receive appropriate review. He is also an active participant at various discussion boards related to copyright (including the oft-neglected Wikipedia:Non-free content review and Wikipedia:Media copyright questions Oh, and even my talk page, where I get a wide diversity of copyright questions! [1], for one example) .

In terms of judgment, Verno is a careful evaluator. His deletion logs show a history of appropriate deletion tags (WP:CSD#G12, WP:CSD#F9, WP:CSD#F11), but he also knows when content needs further review rather than immediate deletion. He has listed many articles for additional content review at the copyright problems board. He also recognizes when content does not need deletion at all ([2], [3]). And he knows when to seek feedback when necessary, as all of us who work in this area must do: see, for example, this thread at my talk page.

Verno does quite a bit for the project already, but he could do even more with the tools. He has need of them to prevent redundant labor. Snagging one day at random at SCV (which actually displays examples of the kinds of judgments required there), we can see that he frequently must tag articles for some admin to review. On that particular day, it was for history merges. Frequently, it’s for WP:CSD#G12. Also, as an OTRS agent he often handles tickets for items that have already been deleted and must request an admin to restore them in order to note the permission (see for one example: [4]). Too, with his familiarity with image copyright issues, he could help clear out some of the perpetual backlog at image CSDs.

I think Verno is one of the best assets copyright cleanup on Wikipedia has, and the tools would only make him better. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Co-nomination from OlEnglish

There's not much I can add that's not already quite evident about how invaluable VernoWhitney is to the copyright cleanup project. What I can say though is that VernoWhitney is one of the most dedicated, proficient and thorough editors I've had the pleasure of working with. His passion for keeping Wikipedia clean is indeed inspiring to me, and I can just imagine how much better things could be if he's able to perform his duties more efficiently and expediently with the admin toolset. I would have to say he's more than qualified to wield the mop: He's got a clean block log, over 20,000 edits, plenty of barnstars, doesn't get involved in senseless drama, always uses edit summaries, operates a useful bot, is helpful, clueful, reliable, and accountable. 'nuff said. -- œ^™ 12:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Acather96

I can only echo the sentiments expressed above, but feel compelled for the first time to write a co-nomination. I first 'met' Verno at the start of May this year, when working at SCV. He gave me important advice and guidance, like he does to many editors, whilst remaining approachable and civil. From then on, he has impressed me constantly with his outstanding devotion to copyright cleanup on Wikipedia, with SCV sometimes being managed solely by him [5], and also helping out at CP and numerous CCI's. And don't just take my word for his brilliance, he's received an impressive 30 barnstars in around 8 months, and he is an active member of OTRS, further demonstrating community trust in him and in his capability to make good judgements. He also sports a clean block log and a good balance of namespaces, and has proven his commitment to the project. I am confident he would not abuse the tools, and giving Verno the mop would be a great benefit for copyright cleanup work and the community/project as a whole Acather96 (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you both for your kind words. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I intend to continue working in the copyright area; speedy deletion of copyvios, undeletion of images and articles when permission is confirmed, history merges to fix attribution for cut/paste moves, and blocks of repeat infringers.

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

A: As you may have guessed from Moonriddengirl's nom statement, that would be my copyright work. I have helped complete multiple WP:CCIs and would hazard that I have cleared most of the entries at WP:SCV almost daily since mid-March. I am an OTRS volunteer and regularly handle copyvio complaints and permission donations there. I programmed and run VWBot which helps clerking the text copyvio area so that tagged problems don't get overlooked and provides redundancy for the occasions when the other bots that work in the area go down. I also contribute to discussions at WP:IMAGEHELP and WP:NFCR on a semi-regular basis. As far as non-copyvio work goes, I keep Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board clear.

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

A: I believe the biggest conflict I have been in was for starting CCIs on users who uploaded copyvios in good faith. I would say that having my motives called into question caused my stress. I have dealt with it by trying to explain in detail why I did what I did and why I stand behind my actions, and attempting to explain using different words when there appears to be an impasse in communications.

Additional optional questions from Tikiwont

4. Did you contribute to Wikipedia before creating this account?

A: Yes, very intermittently as an IP since probably 2005.

5. In case you've edited previously as IP, what was your experience?

A: By and large I was only a WikiGnome, correcting simple spelling errors or formatting or removing vandalism when I happened to see it on an article I was reading. I started becoming a more active vandal fighter last year and so I created the account. I never actually had a conversation with anyone until I was editing under this account. If that doesn't answer your question, let me know.

Addition question from WFC

6. Could you explain how you would decide whether or not to block someone in relation to a copyright infringement?

A: If after an editor has been sufficiently warned that they are violating copyright and persists with no attempt to communicate or adjust their behavior, then I believe a block would be warranted. Alternatively, if after being notified that they are violating copyright an editor is willing to communicate and explain why it is not a copyright violation (e.g., they have permission but were unaware of OTRS) and/or adjust their edits in an attempt to no longer violate copyright, a block should in general not be used unless the editor is simply incapable of contributing content without violating copyright.

Additional optional question from Clovis Sangrail

7. The RFA process is frequently acknowledged to be a harsh affair, with high levels of critcism of editors, a strong focus on conforming (in actions and answers) to policy strictly to the letter of the law, and a focus on statistics. Do you have any thoughts on how to make the process more open to both specialists (ie copyright) and editors who focus on contentious / difficult topics?

A: While I have seen a focus on being a well-rounded editor and counting numbers, I have also noticed that some fairly specialized editors have been promoted (albeit occasionally), so it's not impossible as RFA currently stands. Leyo and Bsadowski1 come to mind.

I honestly don't know that there is any realistic way to make the process more open in general. As an exercise in listing some ideas and shooting them down:

• Adjusting the opinions and expectations of those who comment at RFA won't work. Examples of specialist editors being promoted who are found to be good all-around admins would help, but it doesn't scale terribly well.
• Some would-be-admins could benefit from the perennially proposed unbundling of tools (such as commons admins deleting moved images and reviewing deleted images here), but in the case of copyvio (since that's what I'm most familiar with), almost all of the tools are useful.
• Another idea that I've seen bandied about is having admins declare certain areas off-limits (e.g., closing XfDs if they're not experienced in that area) seems to me that it would be impractical to enforce and roughly equivalent to a topic ban, which is only used in the case of repeated egregious violations of policy in a particular area, and seems to me to be directly in contrast to the trust required to be an admin at all. Holding admins to a higher standard is good, because they're very public members of the community, but I think requiring them to prove that they are capable in every area of adminship before they get the mop would make it even more of a big deal than it is already.

Optional question from Skomorokh

8. You have attracted opposition below for the perceived reactionary nature of much of your work here. What constructive contributions of yours can you point to outside the realm of mitigating damaging or potentially harmful content and contributions from others?

A: I'm not particularly fond of the connotations for the word "reactionary", but if it's meant in the sense of editor A does something, and then I do something because of their action, then I would have to largely agree that this is how I edit. I can't think of an example of copyvio work off the top of my head that isn't done because someone did something they shouldn't have (or didn't do something they should have). That doesn't mean that all reactions on Wikipedia are damage control though. For a trivial example that comes to mind, a citation needed tag was added to Platypus and so I found and cited a source supporting the statement (and later prettified it). For a slightly more substantive example, a question was asked about how to improve The Maze of Bones and so I looked at some FA articles, found some sources, and added the "Major themes" and "Reception" sections to improve the article. A post was made on the reward board to "Expand and add additional references to Caracol falls" and so I provided a majority of the expansion from a one-sentence, one-reference stub to a 2-paragraph, 7-reference stub. I also field questions about non-free image use, (MRG linked to an example of me using her talk page for that), which is of course a reaction to their question but not really concerning harmful content. I feel like I'm rambling so I'm going to stop now; hopefully that tells you what you wanted to know. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, I think "reactive" in the sense of "not proactive" was meant, not "reactionary". - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that my second DYK was completely proactive, but even my first one was written as a reaction to seeing a redlink. <shrug> I guess that's just the way I work.

Additional question from Keepscases

9. What is your favorite element on the periodic table? Why?

A: I've always had a soft spot for hydrogen, because it gives us deuterium and tritium and who doesn't like a bigger boom now and again?

Is it antimony, arsenic, aluminum, selenium? Or hydrogen or oxygen or nitrogen or rhenium... NW (Talk) 17:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope you're all taking notes, because there's going to be a short quiz next period. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional questiona from DGG

10 When patrolling Speedy and encounter copyvio normally I delete, but if notability is clear without the copyvio material I sometimes stubbify, and once in a while when the subject is clearly very important or interests me, I decide to rewrite from scratch. Other admins whom I respect always delete if the copyvio is unambiguous. What do you propose to do? DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

A: When notability isn't clear, I don't have any issues with speedy deletion. The more confident I am that a subject is notable, the more inclined I am to stub an article if I can think of how to write a clean stub that will still pass muster, but I can't say this happens all the time even when the subject is notable since creative writing doesn't come quickly to me. When I personally think that the subject deserves a decent rewrite I'm more inclined to blank them (even when it qualifies as G12) so that someone better at writing has a shot at salvaging it. This is the approach I took with a few dozen classical paintings that went through CCI around June, and Moonriddengirl obliged and rewrote a large chunk of them.

11. In the current AfDs you initiated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters of Dragon Prince, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunrunners of Goddess Keep , you simultaneously nominated the articles on individual characters and the group article containing a list of characters in a single multiple nomination. Do you think a multiple nomination of what many might think articles of different levels of suitability- (and where AfDs frequently conclude in such a merge) fulfills the the policy on multiple nominations at WP:AFD? DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

A: At the time I nominated the articles I saw no indication within the guidelines that the list article should be treated any differently than any other article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters of Dragon Prince for the gory details of my reasoning), or that there was a likelihood that any of the characters would be mentioned separately from the others and so saw no reason that this would be against the instructions at WP:BUNDLE.

In retrospect, the best I can say is I don't know. Clearly there's at least a local consensus against my reading of the list guidelines, but guidelines that aren't clear aren't very helpful. I haven't waded through it yet, but I hope that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists (which I referenced below in the oppose section) will result in some clarification in the guidelines which will reduce the confusion (at least mine) in this area.

12 Do you intend to close AFDs? If so, do you intend to close AFDs on characters and other elements of fiction? DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

A: I'm not going to say that I won't close any (see my last bullet point in the answer to #7), but I don't seem to recall hearing anything about a backlog in that area, and I know there's a backlog where I'm already working so closing AfDs really isn't on my list of things to do. If I do close an AfD then I don't see a significant difference based on the topic of the article; it's determining consensus that matters.

Question from Deckiller

13 Here's a situation: you've been working hard on admin/copyright tasks for several months nonstop, and it might be taking its toll on you. Some users mention that you should diversify your output, while others suggest a WikiBreak to recharge. There are many other options available. What do you do? —Deckiller (t-c-l) 23:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

A: I would bet that any real WikiBreak I take would be caused by RealLife and not WikiLife. So if that's not an issue and I start burning out on copyvio work I imagine I would spend more time programming or writing articles depending on my mood. I have a few dozen more ideas of copyvio tasks for VWBot to do as well as scripts and tools and the odd non-copyvio automation task that comes to mind. I'm also currently working (offline) on a new article where there are actually enough sources to write up more than a few paragraphs as in my previous articles. At my current rate of progress it will be next year before I even post it, and it would be nice to spend more time working on that (It's not that I don't like writing, I'm just not good at it).

Optional question from Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message}

14 Thanks for applying. I apologise in advance for the affronting style of the queries; but I wish to only enquire in good faith. I might (or not) add to this question based on your answer. The question is in three parts. (a) How many articles that you have edited in the past still contain explicitly copied content from non-free sources, since the time you last edited the articles in question? (b) This is just one example; I might forward more later on. In the past, you have on and off edited content/reverted changes at Thanksgiving (United States). Each and every line in the introductory paragraph seems to be an explicit copy-paste from one or the other website.[6][7][8][9][10][11]. It could also be (and more probably than the previous conjecture of mine) that all these sites have copied the content from us. What would be your view on this, as the last edited version of this page is signed off by you? (c) How would you handle situations like Thanksgiving (United States) when the the content of the article is present on a website[12] which claims copyright; yet, it is not clear who has copied (from) whom?

A: Okay, to answer your questions:

(a) I have no idea. I know there are some since I've added quotes from non-free sources to more than one article. If you're referring to articles which still contain copyvio, there are almost certainly some of those as well, since I search out articles which show signs of being copied and pasted from somewhere else, and am sometimes not able to find evidence of anything, so I've added more than one {{cv-unsure}} tag to articles which may very well be copyvio, but there's no identifiable source or evidence that the contributor has copied other material. Without some evidence either way those articles are generally left alone, since there's just no way to tell if it's clean or not, and there are always more confirmed copyvios or higher-probability-of-copyvio articles to be cleaned.

(b) I haven't gone through all of your examples right now, so if that's what you were asking me to do, I'm afraid you'll have to be more explicit. If there's no indication that the material is copyvio, then we don't hold it against editors for inadvertently restoring copyvio. When it becomes a problem is when it's tagged (e.g., via {{subst:copyvio}}) as a problem or potential problem or removed with sufficient communication to indicate that it's a copyvio and someone restores it or removes the tag without evidence that it's really not an issue.

(c) When there's a question about which direction text was copied there are two good techniques which can help to establish provenance. First, we can check for an archived copy of the external source (or search engine cached copy for recently added content). In this case, there are only archives from '02 to '05 and none of them contain any text such as that in the current article, so that isn't much help here. Second, we can check the history of the article to look for either natural evolution of the text in the article or a sudden influx of text which matches that of the source. In this case I picked an arbitrary phrase ("lasted three days providing enough food for 53 pilgrims") and used WikiBlame to see when it entered the article. It was adjusted to that particular wording about a year ago, and I also notice that the sentence directly before it is a little different than the current text, it used to say "helping the pilgrims survive the brutal winter." where it now says "helping the Pilgrims of Plymouth Colony survive their first brutal winter in New England." As both of these changes are reflected in the text at http://www.lareinamarkets.com/ we've now got good evidence that they copied the text from us some time after that, and not the other way around. If they copied a good chunk of Wikipedia then they could be added to WP:MIRRORS, but if they just copied a single page and there's a likelihood of the article being mistakenly tagged as copyvio, then we have the {{Backwardscopyvio}} template to tell people that we're pretty sure it's not our problem. In this case I doubt there's a serious question of whether we copied from them or not, so I haven't added the template.

Question from User:TucsonDavid

15. Being given Admin rights is a big privilege, I would like to know how you would respond to say a banned user request to be reinstated? And how you plan on using the right to ban that you will receive?TucsonDavid (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

A: Just to be clear, are you asking about WP:BANs or WP:BLOCKs?

Sorry I meant WP:BANs.TucsonDavid (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If I received a request from an editor to be unbanned, then I would forward it to WP:AN or ArbCom as appropriate to the nature of their ban. I will in general have no right to ban anyone, since that is usually done by the community as a whole or by ArbCom. I don't anticipate doling out discretionary sanctions, since I am fairly certain that there would be other admins available who are more familiar with any topics or articles involved and thus more readily able to determine whether a ban is in fact called for on any particular issue.

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Candidate has only created six articles (nine including others), all stubby, and their most edited article is The 39 Clues (126 edits), which has no less than four clean-up tags and is in poor shape. Christopher Connor (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Verno openly acknowledges that he is not a comfortable content contributor. However, I believe that his value to the project lies elsewhere. The janitorial work involved in copyright cleanup alone is a full time job to the extent that even those of us doing who do enjoy writing seldom get the chance. (Adding; his contribs to The 39 Clues seem to be largely devoted to cleaning up vandalism, NPOV issues and copyvios. I've glanced back to the beginning of April.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
• Yes Verno is a specialist. And Wikipedia is a versatile enough place that we can have people that specialize in its various aspects. We need to acknowledge and accept that there are other ways of contributing to Wikipedia that are just as important and worthwhile as being a content writer. Maintenance of the project is a full-time job that not every user can do, but those who do do it should be encouraged and their work appreciated just as much as those who write. -- œ^™ 13:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Since I'm sure some will be looking for an explanation about my content contributions: I am very slow at creating what I would consider quality content. For example, I am proud of my 2 DYKs, but each of them took most of two weekends for me to research and write and collect images for them for Commons. I came across The 39 Clues (directly or indirectly, I don't recall) while patrolling recent changes, as I have all of my top 10 most-edited articles. My first edit there was removing copyvio, and my goal has been to keep it relatively free from vandalism and unsourced speculation. I feel my time is better spent working where both I'm more efficient and there are few others willing to get involved. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Edit stats posted to talk. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
• I appreciate the answer to question 13. I was glad you avoided the whole "I'll move on to other admin tasks!" and answered honestly. Adminship is all about entrusting someone with tools; it's not about when and how much they use them. Although I know you'll put the tools to good use in your niche, I also know that you'll make solid contributions outside of cleanup. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 02:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• Can this reach WP:200, it's already reached WP:100 in two days. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 20:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support, valuable copyright cleanup contributor. Earning rave reviews from Moonriddengirl says it all. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 12:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
2. Support as nom. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
3. Absolutely. VernoWhitney is a valuable contributor with good knowledge about copyright issues and would certainly benefit from admin tools. Jafeluv (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
4. Support as co-nom -- œ^™ 12:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
5. Support - an excellent candidate. ~NerdyScienceDude 13:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
6. Support --Tikiwont (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
7. Support VernoWhitney has great experience in copyright issues, something I think we can all agree needs more eyes in. Derild4921☼ 13:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
8. Support This user is definitely a great benefit to copyright cleanup and to the project as a whole. Yoenit (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
9. Support I think VernoWhitney can be trusted with the tools and would put them to good use. I can understand why some would want to see "more content creation" but that handful of created articles looks reasonable enough to me. Specialists are a Good Thing. bobrayner (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
10. Copyright issues always need work. VernoWhitney's contributions look good and their content experience is sufficient for the job.  Sandstein  14:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
11. Per Moonriddengirl. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
12. Support, with reference to Strange Passerby's second reason; and because content creation is not the be-all and end-all. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi
13. NW (Talk) 14:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
14. Trust the nominator, and seems like a solid editor. ceranthor 14:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
15. Support This user should be a fine admin. WAYNEOLAJUWON 14:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
16. Support per nom. --John (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
17. Support without hesitation. I'm familiar with Verno's work since he started helping out at WP:SCV. Having myself manned that particular backlog for a semester in 2009, I have been impressed with his dedication but also the precision of his intervention. Verno is clear, concise and helpful. In times where copyright issues keep being brought back to the collective consciousness, more admin hands that understand both the issue but also how to handle them are sorely needed - one only needs to look at WP:CCI to get a grasp of how important that is. I had no hesitations backing Verno as a CCI clerk, where he has again shown that he is an asset to the project in this critical area, and I have no doubts that he will be nothing but a net positive for Wikipedia with the broom. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
18. Seems to know what to do with the tools.  f o x  14:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
19. Support Experienced, knows a lot about copyright and is very helpful in that area. Theleftorium ^(talk) 14:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
20. Support, with full clarification and disclosure of the amount of "homework" I have done on this candidate. I have not read his statements calmly and thoroughly, I have not checked his contribs and recent history, I have a lot going on and do not have time to do that this week due to IRL issues, my support is entirely based on three things: 1) my knowledge of the nominator, MRG; 2) my encounters with the candidate since 28 October when plagiarism and copyvio issues surfaced at ANI; 3) Wiki's need for more admins conversant in the Copyvio realm. That is my disclaimer-- should evidence of failure to understand or enforce any aspect of Wiki policy surface during this RFA, I will revisit my Support as time allows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

    I have read the first four opposes, and my feedback so far is that lack of knowledge of MOS is a trivial concern (heck, I try to keep up with MOS, but it's a trainwreck that few can keep up with), and LIST (only another page of the MOS mess)-- well, a mess all-round, that few are able to keep up with. I'm still in the Support column; I believe any lack of content creation is balanced in this case by evidence of maturity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

21. Support Cool and level headed, knowledgeable about policy, good "customer service" type skills. Has great respect for content even if, as he says, he's a slow creator (can't be slower than me, surely)Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
22. Duh /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
23. Super Strong Support Perseus!Talk to me 15:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
24. Support Clear case of long overdue. If he wants to demote himself into the oblivion of adminhood, then he deserves it :) --Hammersoft (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
25. Support. Good experience in admin-related areas, content contributions aren't so bad as to justify opposition. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
26. Support. It's funny, I'm surprised to see the candidate presented as such a specialist, because I have repeatedly seen him around, and found him to be articulate, measured, and sensible in discussions, not just some kind of narrow-band gnome. The rationale for use of tools makes good sense to me, everything I see when I go back over contributions reassures me that this is not a drama-monger, and the AfD comments linked in the second oppose show me someone willing to listen to those who disagree with him. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
27. Support My experinces with the editor have been pleasent and show him to be communicative and engaging. Indeed Verno shows a desire to improve the project. Verno has demonstrated the necessary knowledge which leads me to believe the tools will be used extremely well. Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
28. Support - I have had the pleasure of working beside Verno for several months. He is a highly collaborative workhorse. Has demonstrated a willingness to discuss and solve issues with both new and veteran editors alike. And Wikipedia's list of copyvio problems has diminished by 10-fold due to his diligence. I have firm trust in VernoWhitney's use of the additional administrative tools. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
29. Support - having had an article blanked by VW for copyvio (inadvertently but justifiably) in the last few days, he's been helpful in getting it into shape and back into view, and from looking through his pages I've no doubt he'd use the tools wisely. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
30. Support. I see no reasons not to; and, in particular, I agree with Alzarian16 that content contributions aren't so bad as to justify opposition. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
31. Support. Does not have the level of contributions to audited content that I usually look for in candidates to support, however this is in my opinion balanced by the strong focus on article maintenance and backend. My selected sample of his CCI contributions suggest he is competent and understands these policies well. In regards to the opposes below that sample recent AfDs, I don't see VW's comments as not "getting it" or ignoring guidelines; he repeatedly references policy in a non-manipulative fashion and while his opening nomination statements could use some work beyond "non-notable", his engagement in AfDs seems perfectly acceptable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
32. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
33. Support - trustworthy editor. The opposes are unconvincing. PhilKnight (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

    Because ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

    ... maybe Fastily convinced him? —WFC— 17:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

    Yes, I particularly enjoyed Fastily's solid reasoning. Kevin Rutherford's, too. But I shall stop badgering the Supporters now, hopefully having made my point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

    -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

34. I thought he was already an Admin :) All good.--intelati^talk 17:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

    Why is "what you thought" relevant here? Do you have a good reason for Supporting? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

    Through my contact with him on Moonriddengirl's page, I honestly thought he was an admin until I saw this comment on HJ Mitchell's talk page. I was Shocked by that. :)--intelati^talk 17:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

    Thank you for the response; I'm relieved to know that your support is based on some experience with and knowledge of the candidate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

35. Support No reason not to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
36. Support Specialist adminstrators are the best kind of adminstrators, know his stuff because of copyright cleanup. Secret ^account 17:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
37. Support after reviewing user pages, some contributions, and remarks here. Looks OK. Jonathunder (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
38. T. Canens (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

    œ^™ 19:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

39. VW is already acting as an admin and we need to give him/her the tools to confirm it. I have seen VW's work in many capacities around the wiki and from those experiences have nothing but 100% confidence.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
40. Support. Long overdue. I've been complaining to VernoWhitney for their lack of tools recently. We have few expert-like editors dealing with copyright issues, and VW will only become a greater asset with the tools. — ξ^xplicit 19:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
41. Support Good candidate. AniMate 19:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
42. Support It's easy to pick up on an article that receives lots of garbage, and end up with an high number of edits there without actually writing a word. We need more copyright-focused admins, and this is one of the best not to have the mop. Courcelles 19:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
43. Support—I have actually been thinking of offerring to nominate Verno in recent weeks, but looks like that has been done already ;). Airplaneman ✈ 19:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
44. Support Keepscases (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
45. Support I've worked with the user a few time before, great user, and will make a great admin. CTJF83 chat 19:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
46. Keeping with the current trend. Now for the real support rational, VW appears to be a very clue-full editor would should only be a net positive if handed the mop.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 20:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
47. Support. No substantial reason not to. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
48. Support Giving admin powers makes removing copyvio easier, and no reason not to.Дунгане (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
49. Support Don't see why not.... :-) Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 21:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
50. Support - No doubt (s)he will make use of the tools. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
51. Diego Grez (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
52. Support MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
53. Strong Support - All experience I have had with VernoWhitney has been positive. VernoWhitney is a great editor. I don't have any issues with him/her having the mop. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
54. Support Mature, thoughtful and dedicated to a difficult area of management. Admin tools will make them much more effective, and I believe they can be trusted to use them well. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
55. Support- I have seen VernoWhitney around and know they do good work. VW has always struck me as clueful, courteous and intelligent. I also find the opposes totally unconvincing. Reyk _YO! 22:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
56. Support – Trustworthy and experienced. Definitely is a net plus for him to become a admin. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
57. Strong Support Very experienced. Inka888^ContribsTalk 23:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
58. Support After a thorough examination of the candidate's history, I am !voting support for this candidate. The tools would be well used, as the concept of an experienced copyright investigator identifing copyvios and then having to get an admin to do the actual deletion is, for lack of a more professional term, a huge time suck. Also I find the user's interactions with others to be encouraging. Sven Manguard _Talk 23:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
59. Absolute, without-hesitation SUPPORT. Great editor. Polite, courteous, helpful and experienced with the various copyright areas which are chronically short of admins. To add VW to that small list would be a massive net positive for Wikipedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
60. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Most of the opposers' rationales are unpersuasive. An exception is Jclemens' comment in opposition, which makes some sound points that the candidate should seriously consider going forward. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
61. Support-ish. He's useful, hard-working, interacts well with others, and has done sufficient content work (e.g. Charles-Amable Lenoir and Henri-Pierre Picou)., but I'd be happier if he'd applied some of his source-sleuthing-skills to substantially improving an article or two. FYI—in the spirit of SandyGeorgia's comments—my due diligence was: read all the messages to/from/about VernoWhitney in the talk pages and archives of Theleftorium, Fastily and Hammersoft; looked at twelve of the WP:XFDs he'd participated in (seems to be even-handed); checked that he can find sources (example); briefly scanned some of his WP:CCI work (e.g. Arab League); dug around a bit more and read all of Talk:Battle of Berlin#Free equivalent of the Reichstag photo. - Pointillist 00:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC), updated 00:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
62. Support I think he does understand the work he intends to do, and that he will be careful in doing it. I recognize the possible validity of the objections from some people I generally agree with, but I am using my personal estimate that he'll do OK. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
63. Support I've seen his work on WP:NFCR when I've been there to talk about non-free images I've run across. This is the kind of user who would benefit greatly from the tools. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
64. Support enthusiastically. So happy to see this go blue, especially with such fantabulous nomination pedigree. VernoWhitney is a a solid and dedicated contributor, and I will be sorry to lose his (apparently - I had for some reason been under the impression that you were in possession of a redundant X chromosome; no idea why, though) contributions to keeping the G12 category filled. Solid reasoning skills evident whenever I have seen him elsewhere, and spot-checking reveals no concerns. Content contributions are sufficient to demonstrate an interest in the core purpose of the encyclopedia and an understanding of the difficulties faced in content creation. Plenty clueful to RTFM before deleting the Main Page. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
65. Support Needs the tools. --Banana (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
66. Support. A very useful editor who will make a useful admin. Deor (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
67. Support In this case, having an editor who is more of a specialist than most admin candidates is a big plus—we clearly need admins who are knowledgable about copyright. First Light (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
68. Support While I don't think I've had any interaction with him, I've seen him around and he does have clue. —DoRD (talk) 03:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
69. Stephen 04:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
70. I see no reason to oppose. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 05:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
71. Support, a careful and thoughtful editor, with an expertise in the area of copyright, where more admins would certainly be a plus. Nsk92 (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
72. Support - about time :) —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 4:36pm • 05:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
73. Support As someone who works on NPP, sometimes obvious G12 candidates can sit for hours, and we need more people willing to deal with them. VernoWhitney is someone who can and will, hence my support. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
74. Full Support I've always liked to see more users helping with removing copyright violations, maybe even rather than removing vandalism, and VernoWhitney along with MRG and Elen of the Roads has done a terrific job removing them along the way. I remember his communication skills, and he always tries his best to keep civil when communicating. Minimac (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
75. Support - From what I've reviewed I see a careful diligent editor in a much needed area that would be a great asset. I haven't seen anything that would weigh against that yet. Shadowjams (talk) 08:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
76. Support after a, what I admit to be a somewhat limited, review. Everything seems to be in order. extransit (talk) 09:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
77. Support My work on WP is almost exclusively content writing (and areas related to it). I have interacted several times with Verno concerning copy vios I've discovered and found him unfailingly helpful, prompt, and knowledgable. His skills and his dedication in this area are sorely needed here. How on earth this can be termed 'elitist' is beyond me. From what I have seen, he is also very good at communicating with editors who have (intentionally or unwittingly) violated the copyright policy on Wikipedia. This is key, and his restraint and patience is admirable — administrators working this area sometimes have to take a fair amount verbal attack and/or "I didn't hear that". I see no indication that we would misuse the tools or use them in areas that he is unfamiliar without seeking advice first. His adminship would be more than simple net gain. It would be a positive asset. This is the first time I've ever commented in an RFA, but I feel very strongly about this one. Voceditenore (talk) 12:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
78. Strong Support Fully trust the judgement of Moonriddengirl and outstanding work in Copyright related areas and user is very helpful and friendly.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
79. No problems here AtheWeatherman 12:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
80. Support, does good work in an important area. January ^(talk) 13:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
81. Support always willing to help others and I dont see lack of content creation a big problem, if VW is not comfortable with creating articles but loves to fight copyvios, so be it, it can only be of benefit to the encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
82. Support - the tools will be a large wiki net gain in the field the user intends to use them and he has the experience in the field and the maturity to use them intelligently with the support of policy and guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
83. Support, as his rather tedious work at WP:CCI has been invaluable. Guoguo12--Talk--  14:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
84. Support, a great asset to Wikipedia, I see no reason why they can not be trusted with the mop Peter.C • talk 14:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
85. Strongest Possible Support as co-nom. Acather96 (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
86. Support - No concerns. My review included reading Spreuerhofstraße, an article he created. Although it is a short article, I found it to be informative, sourced and well-written. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
87. Support, certainly! PeterSymonds (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
88. Support - WP needs some specialist admins. Content creators are not the only type of users that keep WP going. VernoWhitney is clearly dedicated to copyvios, and shows no other behavior that is concerning to me. SnottyWong ^chat 16:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
89. Support per my observations on MRG's talk page and links from there! —SpacemanSpiff 16:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
90. Virginia Support! If others can use pictures in their statements of support, then so can I. I have heard of you and that should suffice for me. harej 17:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
91. Strong Support. I believe that VernoWhitney is clearly dedicated to improving the quality of Wikipedia through his work on copyvios. I think this editor will be a tremendous asset not only to the Admin team, but to the project overall. Strong vote of confidence here. Thank you for the work you have done. It has not gone unnoticed. Cindamuse (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
92. Support—per . Seriously, though, I don't see a reason to withhold the extra tools here. This isn't an RfB. I would like to see more article contributions, but oh well. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 19:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
93. Strong Support. You don't need to be an admin to create content, but you do need to be an admin to be able to clean up copyvio efficiently (well, without asking other admins for help, anyway). While I don't do much [read: any] copyvio work myself, I've come across VW more times than I can count and every time I do come across him, he's out there, doing some mundane task of cleaning up the encyclopedia from copyvio or asking an admin to do something for him that he doesn't have the tools to do himself. Having the admin tools will just speed up his work and I'm confident that he'll do an outstanding job in his area of expertise. Lack of content doesn't bother me in the slightest, we have thousands of editors creating content, there's no harm in having specialized admins who focus on a handful of administrative [read: ugly janitorial] tasks. ~dee^(talk?) 19:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
94. Support based largely on my review of contributions. Good CCI work, I trust this user to make good and careful use of the tools. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
95. Support Absolutely yes, active, experienced contributor. Deserves the mop, they'll be in good use. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 21:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
96. Support - I like what I have looked at, I trust the nom's and I also like Cheesecake. Mlpearc powwow 21:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

    I like pie. -- œ^™ 22:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

    And I love lamp. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

    No, seriously... I like pie. -- œ^™ 09:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

97. Support, clearly a competent and dedicated user who would benefit from the additional tools. A great example of a user that has identified the best ways they can help the encyclopedia, and proceeds to do so effectively. Also, ~ mazca ^talk 22:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
98. Support Good work when it comes to image use and it is an area that always needs more clean up. I was concerned about his interpretation of what is and is not OK for lists but he addressed it in question 11.Cptnono (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
99. Support Self evidently able to use and not misuse the extra tools per the nominations. The opposes - (2-4) at time of posting - are reasoned enough but hardly sufficent grounds IMHO to deny the tools. Colonel Warden's oppose is easily ignored unless expanded upon. Pedro :  Chat  22:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
100. 100% support The Thing ^T/_C 01:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
101. Support AndrewN ^talk 01:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
102. Support Appears to be doing good, valuable work, with which the admin tools can assist. I also have trust in the judgement of the nominators. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
103. Support; I trust him. Ironholds (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
104. Support. Easy one this - great candidate, with knowledge and experience in the key area of copyright where were need more admins. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
105. Weak support A Wikipedian for less than a year with minimal article creations and light content work; however, the candidate's work as a copyvio specialist and answers to questions merits a vote in favor.--Hokeman (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
106. Support - sufficiently experienced, trustworthy user who would be a net benefit to Wikipedia as an admin. Robofish (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
107. Strong support Extremely sincere in efforts and a brilliant plus for our project. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 18:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
108. Strong support. Copyright work is extensive and valuable. Zilch indications of potential problem editor. Obvious that the admin tools will streamline work in the copyright areas. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
109. Tentative support - not thrilled about lack of content creation or AfD material pointed out by opposers below, but overall I predict still likely to be a net positive. If there is a problem identified subsequently, someone can ask the arbitration committee for a review. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
110. Support wiooiw (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
111.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, VernoWhitney. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
112. Support - I'm a stickler for content, but this candidate's work in an area that is particularly complex, the sensitivity required for OTRS, and an endorsement by Moonriddengirl, leave me no option but to make an exception to my rule and offer my support!--Kudpung (talk) 09:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
113. Images have been my achilles on WP, but I think he'd do a good job with image management and the abilty to delete copyright violations.–BuickCenturyDriver 10:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
114. Support Copyright work is so important, we can use specialists. Hekerui (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
115. Per the noms and sound answers to questions. EyeSerene^talk 14:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
116. Support Less than stellar content creation is trumped by copyright work. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 15:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
117. Support – I think Mkativerata put it best, this editor will be a benefit as an admin and I fully trust that the tools will not be misused. Bigger digger (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
118. Support I had this huge long support statement, but I had an edit conflict. Oh well. Dusti^*poke* 17:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
119. Fully support.TucsonDavid (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
120. Support I have seen the tireless efforts VernoWhitney has made with regard to copyright clean-up and if having the extra buttons will help enhance his contributions, then I definitely support it. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
121. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
122. Support - Candidate seems to know their stuff in their given field and appears to be polite and well-reasoned when dealing with other editors. The only thing I would ask is that the candidate take note of alternatives to deletion a little more often. Best of luck! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
123. Support: This looks like a great candidate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
124. Support - It doesn't take a genius to know that copyvio is one of the most important wiki-issues that need firm oversight. Verno is willing to work in this area - great! Having the tools will help with the work, so I'm happy to support. The few Opposers (6 as of this !vote) utterly fail to convince me with their arguments. My thanks to this candidate and best wishes. Jusdafax 23:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
125. Support I don't see a problem with "specialist" admins when they also have the judgment not to charge about waving their tools all over the place. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
126. Support Why not! Great contributions! What else can I say. Smiley4541 (Push to Talk) 23:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
127. Support I remain deeply conflicted about copyvio, and I think that the opposers have good and valid points; but I have decided to support. Having the tools will help with the work the editor is doing. Please do not make me regret my support. Be polite, cautious and sensitive at all times. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
128. Support I've seen lots of great work being done, and he clearly is prepared. Brambleclawx 04:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
129. Support Looks like the candidate will do fine with the tools. --iGeMiNix 04:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
130. Support, after reviewing edits, I find a lot of good cleanup work. Anyone who can handle that can well handle what's thrown at an admin. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
131. Support this is a rare case where the identity of those in the oppose column speaks almost as well for the candidate as the legion of supporters do. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
132. Support. I looked at the concerns raised, but I just do not see it. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
133. Support. Stirling chap. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
134. Support an asset to the encyclopedia, even more useful with admin tools. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
135. Support - opposes, while perfectly entitled to their (mostly) understandable opinions, are not enough to discount Verno's useful, clueful, work. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 22:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
136. Support - concerns over one joint AfD not strong enough to outweigh good work he does. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
137. Support - anyone that can handle the problems that come with doing copyright work should be able to handle being an admin. And on a purely selfish note, more admins familiar with NFCC are always useful, of course. Black Kite (t) (c) 04:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
138. Support Seems genuine and capable, good luck...Modernist (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
139. Support. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
140. Support - Copyright clearance is an important issue for Wikipedia, and this candidate has expressed interest and competency in this area.     Eclipsed   (t)     12:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
141. Support as specialist in an important area, and per Sandy Georgia's leap of faith. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
142. Support. Has my trust. Opposes unconvincing. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
143. Support - I may have had an interaction with Verno, but I'm not sure. Very helpful responses to the questions. Has a measured response to most anything he begins; No snap judgments a definite plus. Can be trusted with the tools. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
144. Support - solid candidate, wholeheartedly sndorse/ --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
145. Support - No concerns. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 20:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
146. Wants to work in a specialized field, and has demonstrable knowledge of that field, and I have no concerns that if he does "spill over" into other areas, he'll do so in a disruptive way. – iridescent 20:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
147. Support - Good editor; will be good sysop.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
148. Support. It's all been said above, and swayed my opinion from neutral. Saebvn (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
149. Support - I have no doubt that this candidate will do very well with the tools. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
150. Support I've always thought that you had the mop. Bejinhan talks 06:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
151. Late support Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 15:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too negative. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

   Hi Colonel Warden, have you got any diffs to highlight some examples of this? I have no opinion on this RfA yet (read: I'm not asking, "I've never come across this, so why are you saying it?"), but to help me to make an informed decision I would love to evaluate some of these negative edits. Arctic Night 14:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

   The nature of the candidate's contributions is detailed above - mostly copyvio patrol and other reactionary edits. I sampled the contribution history to confirm this. There's nothing especially heinous there which warrants a diff but it's one-way traffic and I would prefer an admin to have more rounded experience and some skin in the game. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

   With respect, Colonel, the vast, vast majority of admin work is "reactionary". We protect pages that are being vandalised (or edit-warred on), block disruptive editors, delete inappropriate pages and various other things, almost all of which are negative and reactionary, but all of which have to be done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

   The candidate is not an admin. The point is that, as an ordinary editor, the candidate's activity is almost exclusively reactionary. This is inadequate experience of and competence in fundamental aspects of the project. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

   WP:KETTLE. SnottyWong ^babble 20:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

   We're not here to discuss the contributions of !voters, we are here to assess the candidate's contributions, so can I politely ask that we keep this focused on VernoWhitney and not on Colonel Warden? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

2. Weak Oppose Comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters of Dragon Prince, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunrunners of Goddess Keep implies a lack of sufficient knowledge of guidelines and site policy such as WP:LIST and WP:LSC. The community has promoted several candidates in the last month that have similar issues, and I cannot support the addition of another potential inexperienced admin. Vodello (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

   Addition: Content creation is weak at best as someone brought up above. This further expands my concerns of a lack of policy and guideline knowledge, especially anything that has to do with WP:MOS. Vodello (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

   I've never read those in my life, and I've been an admin for almost three years.  f o x  14:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

   I didn't vote in your RFA, but congratulations. We pass admins all the time that know little in guidelines or policy. That doesn't mean I'm going to ever support under those circumstances. Vodello (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

   I appreciate you opinion and would welcome clarification on those issues if you'd be willing to have a discussion at your or my talk page, but I would like to point out that 364kb of discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists suggests that those particular guidelines (neither are policy, just to nitpick) are not especially clear to the community-at-large. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

   Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 15:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

   I would accept that argument if WP:LIST were only an essay, but it is not. Vodello (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

   If the point here is that administrators should be generally familiar with our site policies and guidelines, I agree. If the suggestion is that a candidate is expected to be familiar with every policy page, that is not a reasonable expectation. I wonder how many policy pages and subpages we have now: it certainly must be several thousand. I was going to personify this by saying that I don't claim to have reviewed every policy and guideline, even though I've been an administrator and an arbitrator for several years now; but I will go one better, and suggest that there is not a single person on the entire project who has read every policy page, much less can we expect every candidate for adminship to have done so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

   I somewhat disagree with Verno's interpretation of RS and N in those examples, especially because of the trickiness of covering fiction on Wikipedia, but it does not demonstrate inability to judge consensus. In those examples, Verno sees no significant coverage in reliable sources; clearly, he/she has a clear stance on the "article versus subarticle" and the other relevant debates that have been raging for years. My stance is not as firm, but I still have interpretations; if nobody had interpretations of policies and guidelines, then we wouldn't be changing them constantly. Again, none of this proves that Verno won't be able to judge consensus in AfDs. Interpretations of questionable guidelines is fine...as long they don't trickle into a judgment of consensus. Also, I sense a degree of recency effect here; those AfDs are active. I understand your oppose, Vordello, but I kindly ask that you look beyond Verno's beliefs on borderline issues when he/she is simply applying for some additional tools. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 23:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose While VernoWhitney has been polite and straightforward in dealing with fictional cleanup, he's demonstrated a penchant to use the hammer (deletion process) when other tools (merging, redirecting, sourcing) would have worked much better, and are expected by guidelines like WP:ATD. This is a bit problematic, in that he's obviously working in a new area, in good faith, but failing to listen to the counsel of other admins (like, oh, me) who've worked in the area and understand precedent and consensus as applied to this particular facet of Wikipedia. This, in concert with his lack of content creation, suggests that he may in good faith end up doing a lot of damage as he expands his scope, contrary to the answer to question 1. This is precisely the reason that administrators should have adequate content creation experience. If VernoWhitney is confirmed, he needs to learn to rely on the advice of contributors with more experience in an area when he enters it, and if he is not promoted in this RfA, he should seek to expand his scope of interactions, such that he can use the tools effectively in any realm. Given his polite and straightforward manner, I would be willing to support him in a future RfA once he has demonstrated content competence. Non-copyright problems are handled in a vastly different manner than copyright problems, and I do not currently have confidence in the candidate's ability to effectively manage the former, despite his compelling track record in the latter. Jclemens (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

   I agree that Verno may focus on deletion too much in certain areas—especially given the delicate nature of Wikipedia—but that has nothing to do with judging consensus. The default for no consensus is to keep, after all. I also don't see how Verno's personal stances conflict with speedy deletion criteria or any other possible pitfalls for knee-jerk reactions. I trust that Verno will not whimsically mass-delete articles just because they are similar to his/her AfD nominations. With respect to that issue, I think any attempts to do such rash behavior have been crushed to bits through this RfA process :). —Deckiller (t-c-l) 23:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

4. I like a lot of what I'm seeing here. But there are three factors that bother me. First, I'm getting a bit concerned that we're in the process of creating a ruling caste who think there are more important things to do than write content. It's okay that some admins don't write content, but it's not okay that there are now so many who don't, and content-writing experience is necessary to deal appropriately with content writers (as anyone who's active in copyright must). Second—and I think this is linked to the first concern—I entirely agree with Jclemens when he says that this candidate doesn't always exhaust the alternatives to deletion, and needs to improve on that. Third, admins have wide powers so we need to see well-rounded contributions from them before we can properly judge their fitness for adminship.—S Marshall T/C 17:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

   I think I'm well-known for being a content stickler at RfAs (I'm pretty sure I coined "audited content") but I disagree that we're creating a "ruling caste" here. I inspect candidates on a case-by-case basis, and in this case I think there's enough good work in indirectly-content-related fields to merit a support. We can't all have excellent or even good writers as admins, and as long as those other admins show a respect for content creation and know the relevant rules and regs, I don't see the problem (or, I don't see us creating or contribution to a problem). Your mileage may vary, just my thoughts. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

   David pretty much sums up my response to this oppose. Well-rounded contributions are preferred, of course, and that is why I've tried to do some extra digging here. I just hope the user tries to contribute more to the main space in the future! —Deckiller (t-c-l) 23:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

   Yes, and it's refreshing and unusual to see you supporting a candidate who I oppose, when content contributions are the issue. Our positions have often been reversed.  :) I've grown more concerned about content writers over the years.—S Marshall T/C 19:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

   For what it's worth, S Marshall, it's not that some admins don't try and create content that should be of concern, it's that some of them can't. –MuZemike 19:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

5. Oppose competent, but has elitist tendencies which run contrary to our collectivist ethos. MtD (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

   Would you be willing to clarify, here or elsewhere, which specific actions of mine show elitist tendencies so that I could try to change them? VernoWhitney (talk) 12:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

   Occasionally confident, yes, but I don't see any elitism. The user just has to understand that non-copyright practices are not as "set in stone". —Deckiller (t-c-l) 23:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

6. Oppose on three grounds, one of which is the "elitist tendencies". The others are the lack of content experience and the lack of an effective desysopping process in the event that the candidate tries to extend the application of his new tools beyond his obviously rather limited areas of expertise. Malleus Fatuorum 05:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

   Can I please see some diffs that prove the elitist tendencies claim? I've opposed already, but I'm curious to see if the supporters are making a gigantic mistake. Vodello (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

   You can go look for them if you like, up to you. I consider the whole admin schism to be "elitist" anyway, so I'm almost certainly not the best person to ask. I'm more concerned about the candidate's narrow focus on copyright, lack of content building, and no effective redress if he should prove to be incompetent in those many areas outside of his experience once awarded his cloak of invulnerability. Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

   Umm, when you say "the lack of an effective desysopping process in the event that the candidate tries to extend the application of his new tools beyond his obviously rather limited areas of expertise" you do realize that just about everyone has a limited area of expertise. I'd guess about 95% of the admins don't know as much about copyright as he does. Most admins do one of two things, content creation, which rarely needs the tools, and vandalism fighting, which is a rather limited area of expertise. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

   Please don't try to patronise me; better men than you have tried and failed. I am very aware that every admin, and indeed every editor, is incompetent in certain areas. Just as I'm aware that the incompetence of admins is swept under the carpet, whereas the incompetence of editors is punished. This candidate has displayed zero competence in the skill required to write an encyclopedia rather than police one in a rather restricted area. Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

   Copyvio investigations is an area which will need policing, though. Nobody is going to sue us if we don't have an article on their favourite subject, but if we infringe on someone's copyright there could well be legal implications. For me it makes sense to give people who do want to work in that area the necessary tools to do their work effectively. The fact that it's hard to get rid of admins who behave inappropriately unfortunately makes it harder for specialist admins to gain the overall trust of the community, though. Jafeluv (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

   The Protocols don't really support your last point. East of Borschov 01:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

   Please would the editor introducing the term in #5 (or the editor endorsing it in #6 as presumably he also knows precisely what it means seeing as he does not seek or add a definition) explain what "elitist tendencies" actually means with respect to a Wikipedia RfA candidate? Because it sounds like "RfA brought to you by Fox News" else. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

7. mostly per Jclemens and Malleus Fatuorum. -Atmoz (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Jclemens. While I definitely agree that we need more policing of copyvios on WP, I also think we need someone with a stronger understanding of deletion criteria to get the tools. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 07:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. My head says support, my gut says go neutral. Without question, we need to improve admin recruitment in this area, arguably more than any other. The answer to Q6 and good comments on your temperment suggest that you are well equipped to deal with those who were unwittingly committing copyvio. But S Marshall makes valid points, and the first in particular is one that I'd been mulling over before seeing it. There's a good chance that I'll switch to support, but I feel that there's some value in saying where I am at this point in time. —WFC— 17:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

   To clarify, I certainly don't think that you are part of a "ruling caste". I'm merely agreeing that content is a factor worthy of consideration, although not one that would automatically prevent me from supporting. —WFC— 17:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

2. Neutral. Disappointing lack of content creation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
3. Neutral per above statements. I know content creation isn't exactly exciting for most some people, but when I think admin, I look for someone who can do tedious work that they are a bit uncomfortable with. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 13:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

   Considering that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I would hazard a guess at saying that, on the contrary, content creation is exciting for most people. Or why did they join Wikipedia in the first place? Jenks24 (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

   Cleaning up copyvio is as tedious as it gets, imo. ~dee^(talk?) 18:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

   There's a certain satisfaction one gets from doing maintenance work; keeping Wikipedia clean and running smoothly, knowing that you're making a difference, that you serve a useful purpose. Although it may be tedious its rewarding in the end. -- œ^™ 20:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

   Definitely. Sometimes it's nice to take a break from researching and copy-editing to revert vandalism or close AfDs. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 20:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

   Rephrased to 'some'. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

   Just a comment - don't forget that behind every star footballer who creates goals there is a goalkeeper who is there to stop the other side from scoring even more goals....... Some people create content. Others sort out the content that shouldn't be there. Peridon (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral. At this point. Per WFC, above neutral no. 1, there's a high likelihood I'll switch to support but would like to see how the discussion progresses and develops. No concerns about temperment, which is a great sign at this point in the process. Some minor concerns about content creation, but nothing that would firmly plant me in the "oppose" column at this point. Great work, it appears, in the realm of copyvios, which as one supporter mentioned could very well be a "full time job." OE's comment above, in response to neutral no. 3, is also salient for me. I, too, make my Wikipedia "living" in doing minor tasks. "There's a certain satisfaction one gets from doing maintenance work." Amen. Saebvn (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Moving to support. Saebvn (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

   Tentatively support.TucsonDavid (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral per nomination of Sunrunners of Goddess Keep (characters) and Characters of Dragon Prince (obvious merge target) at the same time. Not enough to oppose, but concerning. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC) moving to support--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

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