Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Protonk

Protonk

Voice your opinion (talk page) (114/9/2); Scheduled to end 00:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Protonk (talk · contribs) - Protonk is a very solid editor, who I noticed participating in various AFDs, and admin noticeboards, lately on the discussion regarding TTN. He struck me as a very admin-like user; I thus decided to nominate him. He has been around, and active since April; he has a decent amount of edits, including lots of discussion with other users. He has twothree Good articles to his name: Mathematical economics, Warhammer 40,000 and John Emilius Fauquier, as well as work on many others. While I don't always agree with his comments, he presents his ideas fairly and calmly, and is always willing to listen to others. He frequents AFDs, where, unlike a lot of users, doesn't make "drive-by" votes - he makes a clear and proper explanation for his reasoning. He has already made several non-admin closes, as documented here, and if he was promoted, I can imagine this being his primary area of admin work, before stretching to other areas. So, in conclusion, I do believe Protonk will make a very fair, positive, and hardworking administrator, so I hope you will support him. -- how do you turn this on 16:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

• I accept. thank you. Protonk (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I intend to work with non-controversial admin tasks. I occasionally do new page patrolling, either through huggle or through the watchlist I've build up from project tagging, so I can work to block vandals after the final warning there without having to generate a report to AIV. I do a small amount of work in template space (although I'm no programmer), so I would be able to make non-technical edit-protected requests to headers, templates and other transcluded pages. I can likewise help with Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. I also am interested in closing AfD's, as can be seen from the nomination. When I do so, the types of AfD's I will close will almost never be the types of AfD's I comment in regularly--I feel that my input as a commenter there is more helpful than as a closer. I am an administrator on a local wiki for a prior job and I have created and hosted private media wiki installations, so I feel I have some grasp of the "nuts and bolts" (so to speak) of the tools themselves.

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

A: I'm proud to be a Good Article reviewer. From a look at the edits to WP:GAN, I would guess that I have reviews 20-25 articles (and provided second opinions on others). I'm happy to work there, as it allows me to meet new people and find articles on new subjects and hopefully give helpful peer review to those articles in their way to FA. I am also very proud of User:Protonk/Rescued. If I can find an article at AfD that is there solely because of lack of attention, it makes me happy to spruce it up and save it from deletion. John Emilius Fauquier was one of those articles--I found it at AfD and now it is a Good Article. Warhammer 40,000, now a good article nominee good article, represents a portion of my attempt to bring Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000 back from the abyss. I found this project and these articles when a number of the fictional elements of that board game came up for deletion. I felt that there was enough material to build good core articles, but that the project had been focused on quantity, not quality. I revamped the project page and sub-pages, verified the member listing, created userboxes, fixed templates, parented categories, implemented the WP 1.0 quality scale and assessed many of the articles in the project. I was also happy to work on Mathematical economics, which represented a large block of time spent researching journals and books. It is far from complete but I have learned a great deal about Wikipedia from just that article.

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: Yes. I have had a few conflicts but the biggest series of them relate to User:B988a4299d07c0f61fbc8378965438f0. He is an inclusionist and I can be labeled a deletionist, so that is the impetus of our disagreements. That difference doesn't explain our disagreement or justify it. We came to loggerheads in May. Being new, I assumed that AN and AN/I were not a place to take our specific disagreement, so I filed a WQA. He changed the title of the WQA so that it would be about both people and I reverted his change. Again, being new, I interpreted his 3 reverts as an edit war and posted a 3RR report. This was declined on the basis that 3 < 4. Still pretty upset about this, I filed an RfC (which the editor who closed the WQA suggested I do). This was dismissed as trivial. I worked with this user for a few weeks, avoiding AfD and collaborating on some minor article work (namely the recreation of Cheshire Cat in popular culture and List of controversial video games. This, for a while, proved to be helpful as he and I seemed to get along on talk pages or article space. When I returned to AfD I grew increasingly frustrated at his behavior and said things I regretted later. Most of those can be found, variously, in my talk page archives (there aren't many). I don't think I handled this series of disputes well. In retrospect, the right answer is distance and time. AfD is, in fact, not the most important thing in the world, and not every AfD out there needed my input. At the time I didn't really fully "get" this. I was still either too upset about his actions or too interested in the disposition of the content. Now I realize that the answer is really to not lose sleep over it. The world won't end if I don't get in a "keep" comment here or a "delete" comment there. Community processes like that work well with one less user or one more user, the process itself is what moves things along. I am happy to answer questions or respond to comments about these disagreements, but in fairness to this user (who was renamed for off wiki reasons) and due to the fact that much of our communication was off wiki, I would prefer to not dwell on things further.

Additional question from Banime:

4. Question borrowed from George the Dragon: Your first contribution after creating your account was to articles for deletion. Did you edit Wikipedia under an account before this one, and is that account still active?

A That's a good question and I'm glad it is an early one (as I meant to include it in the "optional statement" but forgot). I did not edit under a different account prior to registering this one. Like I said above, I have installed the mediawiki software and administered installations of media-wiki, so I was somewhat familiar with the formatting and such prior to 2008. I also edited under an IP address for a brief period in march and in April. One of the AfD's I actually noted the connection but I can't seem to find that contribution now. An earlier version of my userpage has some explanation there. I literally came to wikipedia because of AfD. I never gave the inner workings of the encyclopedia much thought until I read an article about "deletionists" that lead me to Encyclopedia Dramatica and then I read the policy pages, noticeboards and so forth on wikipedia before diving in to AfD. Once I got here I quickly discovered that I liked the place quite a bit and here we are. I hope that answers your question. Protonk (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

4b.Another quick question after reading another response to TomStar81 in 5b. You said you have nothing to do with 4chan. Below also, Giggy said you were very helpful in getting the 4chan article to FA status. What kind of work did you do on the article in question, and why did you feel the need to contribute to it? This isn't intending to be a trick question I'm just interested since you seemed to distance yourself quite a bit from it.

A Sure. Recall that I said I worked/studied in a field that deals with emerging and informal economies in virtual worlds. This connects tangentially to dealing with culture online. I noticed the 4chan article because of Dibbell's article on it in wired but also because of this talk. That's why I decided to give a GA review and help it to FA once it passed. I am flattered that Giggy gives me so much credit in that article, I had a pretty minor role getting it to FA, just some typo work and some discussion on the layout. I think the "distancing" from it was because I never was a "part" of those groups (insofar as you can be a part of anon). I read ED, but never spent much time on 4chan (and I'm sure people would agree that time spent reading ED would be at least a little more edifying than time spent reading /b/. Simply reading ED isn't really a terrible thing, in my mind--what happened here was that I didn't properly articulate what "I came to WP from ED" meant. What I meant was that before seeing ED's page on wikipedia I didn't think about a "backend" to wikipedia. I just assumed that people wrote articles and that some of them were sysops. I hope that helps to answer your questions. Feel free to post followups as needed. Protonk (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional question from TomStar81:

5. You have admitted to being a deletionist, and to having problems with an inclusionist. I am curious to know what your positions are on the difference between the two philosophies (is one better than the other? are they essetially the same? etc), and whether you feel that as a deletionist you can adhere to the principles AGF and NPOV. This won't effect my ivote either way, I am just interested in your opinion and position on the matters.

A. Well. I admitted to being what could be described as a deletionist. I feel that notability is a means to an end, that end being an informative, discriminate and factually neutral encyclopedia. If we had a better way to reach that end, I would support it. I am active (though not nearly as much as the main editors) at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise where attempts are being made to do exactly that:get the results of the GNG without the unintended consequence of offering a skewed portrayal of fictional subjects (from the framework provided in the fictional universes). I put the "AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD badge on my userpage as kind of a lark, but that is how I feel. Some articles meet the inclusion criteria. Some don't. That isn't inherently a value judgment, though it may feel that way. As far as the inclusionist philosophy, I understand it. Part of wikipedia's charm comes from "in pop culture" sections. It comes from being able to see an article like Back to the Future timeline and think: this is only possible because of the collaborative efforts of people in unison. It makes me a little sad to see that as a redirect now. I can understand the point that "notability" flies in the face of some of the tenets of web 2.0 collaboration in general and the founding principles of wikipedia in particular. So I don't think it is illegitimate or that it is impossible to assume good faith of those who might hold those ideas close to their hearts. I just feel that what we give up in not demanding third party sources is too much.

5b Banime states below that "I was also concerned because of an edit summary using a 4chan saying." Are you related to 4chan? If so, how, and if not, why use a 4chan saying. (I need to state for record that I was informaed that a good deal of vandalism on the article USS New Jersey (BB-62) was traced back to the 4chan site, and that I am still irate about it, so this may effect my ivote). TomStar81 (Talk) 01:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A.Not at all related to 4chan. I work in a field that studies (among other things) emerging economies and cultures in virtual worlds and I came to know about 4 chan from reading Julian Dibbell's articles on the site. The problem with saying things like "4chan edit summary" is that we have no idea where that horrible, racist, ugly site ends and the rest of the internet begins. Lolcat? Originally "Caturday" at 4chan. Same with a dozen other internet memes. They don't come with a point of origin, so you can pick up the habit pretty innocuously. Protonk (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional questions from seresin

6.Given what you said above about an editor (now named A Nobody), how do you plan to act in the future both in using your administrator tools with regards to fiction/notability areas, as well as working with inclusionist editors? Do you plan to close non-obvious AfDs where your personal view of notability would perhaps cause you to wish an article be deleted?

A I'll defer part of the answer to my response to Q1. By and large I don't intend to close AfD's about fictional subjects. In those cases, should I be at AfD, I'll probably do a search for sources and leave some comment on the AfD pursuant to that search. I don't want to flat out promise that I will never close fictional AfD's, because part of the reason you might be supporting me is that you trust me to make judgments. In this case, I hope that you can trust I would recognize my bias in light of notability issues. And, as a tie in to the answer above, I don't think this is about a certain "class" of articles. I don't feel wikipedia should have articles on Napoleon and not on ice cream. I just feel that what we cover should largely be determined by the coverage in secondary sources. That lifts the burden (and bias) off of people like me and you in choosing which articles to keep and which to point toward a specialist wiki.

Additional questions from casliber

7. I am curious about your early edits and find it unusual that almost right from the word go' in April, you are participating in AfDs (pleased to see at least one keep there). Did you have an account under another name, or otherwise why/how did you end up at AfD straightaway? My main concern is previous sock issues with people involved in these areas, hence need a plausible explanation to gain a measure of trust. Am pleased with efforts in GAs BTW. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Duh, that'll teach me - should have looked more closely - see Q4 above. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional questions from Blooded Edge^awards

8. As an administrator, you will most probably come across rash users/IPs, who will not take kindly to reversions by yourself, for whatever the reason. Indeed, you may already have been in such situations before. I want to know what exactly your personal stance is on the cool down block. Wikipedia generally discourages admins from taking this course of action, due to the belief it only inflames the situation. However, there is still the small chance that the subject will indeed take the oppurtunity to review his/her actions, and may change his/her way of acting to something more appropriate. Assuming that Wikipedia had no clear policy on this, would you use such a block? Or wait until the IP/User simply becomes too irksome to ignore?

A. Well, "cool down blocks" as we colloquially refer to them don't really apply to IP editors. Most of the IP addresses we see are dynamically assigned and may be assigned to many different humans over time, so short blocks for disruption are usually all that will ever be used (With exceptions for static IP's and school/organization blocks and other special cases). For users, there are a few theories. In some senses I think that Kurt is right: every non-indefinite block we hand out to a longstanding user is a cooldown block. We engage in a kind of cognitive dissonance in saying "we don't give cooldown blocks" which becomes slightly absurd sometimes. However, when a social group engages in an act of cognitive dissonance like that, the right question to ask is "why?". Why do we hew very closely to the policy in our discussions of blocks when it sometimes seems that blocks are handed out for things other than "immediate threat of future disruption" (paraphrasing)? One of the good reason to not block someone to "cool off/down" is the most common one: we have no way of knowing what the person in from of the keyboard is feeling. We don't know if they are upset, drunk, vindictive, calm, collected, remorseful, etc. Even if they were willing to display their emotions in their writing (in other words, they didn't seek to conceal anything), the method of transmitting that emotion in a text based environment is...imperfect. So to block someone and say "you need to go blow off steam someplace else" represents a big assumption and would likely be a huge affront to the person on the receiving end.

But the expressed conventional wisdom about blocks doesn't tell the whole story. We have a strict and (usually) well defined blocking policy for several very good reasons. But those reasons don't fully explain why we frown on "cooldown blocks". My opinion is that we occasionally issue blocks outside of the letter of that policy and those can still be good blocks. For example, blocks are meant to stop disruption to the encyclopedia, but some blocks of long term users occur after the disruption has occurred and may not literally prevent disruption over the period of the block duration--the easiest way to thing of this is to imagine a long term editor blocked for incivility or some other action. If we don't have evidence that s/he will continue to be incivil over what would be the block duration, how can we block within the realm of policy? If, instead, we have a pretty good idea that the editor will be incivil in the future, though not the next 24-48 hours, how do we stop that future disruption? In that case, if we follow the letter of the law, we would be forced to concede that only an indefinite block would stop future disruption. But blocking that editor indefinitely would be insane. So we block for a period of time as a way to let the editor know that they are on the wrong path (in a manner of speaking). That looks and quacks like a cooldown block: we want them to learn that we take X problem seriously and we expect that they come back chastened and wiser for the experience. Those blocks are often contentious and should obviously be given with care, but we as a community tolerate them because strict adherence to the rules would result in an untenable outcome. Before I get a bunch of opposes that say "CDB's are against policy", I should note that I have read WP:BLOCK in its entirety.

I will also note that part of your question asked "...you will most probably come across rash users/IPs, who will not take kindly to reversions by yourself." In those cases, unless I'm reverting BLP vios or vandalism, I probably won't be the person to block the user. I'll just send something to AN/I if I think it is a serious problem and I'm involved in a content dispute as well. I hope this answers your question in and isn't too lawyerly/academic. Feel free to ask some followups if you need to. Protonk (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

9. This isn't really to do with your work on Wikipedia, but is important if you indeed gain the requested status. Is your password alphanumeric? Formed by at least 8 characters? Not by words in the dictionary? A hiijacked admin account can do widespread damage across the site, it is important to confirm the security of your account. Please note that isn't some carefuly orchestrated plot to get at your account.

A. I have a strong password and a committed identity. Protonk (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional question from Lankiveil

10. Assuming for a minute that there was no valid redirect target for the article, was this a valid speedy target? Why/why not?

A No way. Saying he was a nascar driver is clearly an assertion of significance. If the speedy tagger did some googling and found that he wasn't a nascar driver, then AfD might even still be a better route. Protonk (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional question from Caspian blue

11.You appear to be a civil editor with many good values. Right now, I have one concern about you. I visited Encyclopedia Dramatica where you were used to edit. I think that the place is a crap filled with bashing slangs, libelious contents, and obscene images with dubious copyright. Do you still edit the "parody site"? Editors there ridicules Wiki administrators and seem to leak real life info as well. How would you react if somebody familiar with you in Both Wikipedia and ED, post your info there and you want to the content to be deleted? How do you think that WP:LEGAL policy apply to the case?

A

General comments

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

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

---

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

Discussion

• I have seen Protonk around. I already thought that he was an administrator, and was impressed with his actions. I am inclined to support, but I feel like I would need to look further into his contributions and such. My initial reaction is that Protonk would make a great administrator. :) --Iamunknown 21:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Nominator support. -- how do you turn this on 00:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
2. Support - level-headed editor with a good grasp of possible. Generally more patient with other editors than I am; sets a good example for editors in content disputes :-). Makes responsible edits with helpful edit summary and talk-page follow-up, and in general is someone whom I'd trust to mind the shop when no one else is around. --EEMIV (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
3. Support - I've seen this guy around a lot at WP:RSN where he is always handing out well reasoned, useful advise. I kinda had assumed he already was an admin. Yilloslime (t) 01:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
4. Strong Support. Probably would have co-nommed even. Great editor on fairly technical subjects. We need more admins who can deal with complex topics, and Protonk has the rare ability to do this with economics content. Has been very helpful in raising Tulip mania to FA and Panic of 1907 to FAC, for example. As someone tending toward the inclusionist end of the spectrum, I'd attest that User:B988a4299d07c0f61fbc8378965438f0 was a frustrating user, and that although Protonk may feel he crossed the line he 1) is clearly aware of this and upfront about it, per his answer to the third question, 2) anyone with flesh and blood would have gotten frustrated, and 3) he made a good faith and concerted push to work constructively with the editor in question. Approachable, smart, exactly the sort of admin we want, in my opinion. --JayHenry (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
5. Support I offered to nominate this user myself about a month back; (s)he was a great user back then and from what I have glanced over recently that has not changed. I have always been impressed by his/her thoughtful statements on a wide variety of issues. Icewedge (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
6. No reservations. Early congratulations on your successful request. Avruch ^T 01:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
7. Complete support. I've hoped this would happen for awhile; we need more like you. Good luck, Lazulilasher (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
8. Support. Reality stinks a lot of the time. I wouldn't get my hopes up this early if I were you, Avruch. bibliomaniac15 01:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
9. Support - glad to provide early support for this productive, knowledgeable editor.  Frank  |  talk  01:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
10. Hello, I'm the Road Runner and I would like to file a restraining order against Wile E. Coyote...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: Support for one of our finer editors. (Does Richard A. Houghten know you're going for adminship?) Ecoleetage (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
11. Everyme 01:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
12. HiDrNick! 01:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
13. Support - Clueful editor with the necessary experience to excel as an admin. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
14. Strongest possible support, I've seen this guy around and honestly thought he was an admin (ignoring the cliché/ROFLZ value that statement normally brings). Ironholds (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
15. Support Thought he was an admin already... LittleMountain5 ^review! 02:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
16. Strong support – cool-headed, excellent user. Absolutely no qualms in supporting him. Will be a superb administrator. Probably would have offered a co-nom if I had heard about this earlier ;-) — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
17. Support - A very productive and insightful editor who works constructively with others. Good judgment, good attitude. Flexible in his approach. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose for calling us a nest of vipers. Support for all of his other edits. I've been reviewing Protonk for about 2 hours now... while I don't always agree with him, and there are a few concerns that I have, I haven't seen anything that really makes me say, "No." One of the things I really liked was how people came to him seeking help... he is seen by many as an admin, which makes him one by fiat if not by RfA---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
19. Strong Support. I've seen this user frequently in AFDs making articulate arguments that show a good mix of knowledge on policy and common sense. He is polite and respectful when engaging other editors, and goes the extra mile to explain his rationales thoroughly. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
20. Support I've frequently disagreed with Protonk in AfD, but he's a well-reasoned contributor and I have no doubt that he will make an excellent administrator. And I'll specifically note that the Oppose does not concern me a single iota; I've seen Protonk manage conflicts in other circumstances, and dude handles disagreement well. Townlake (talk) 03:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
21. Support I see nothing that causes me not to trust this user with the colloquial mop. Fraud ^{talk to me} 04:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
22. Support Extremely active in AfD and policy pages, thoughtful contributions, and understands the difference between personal opinion and consensus. Easy +sysop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xymmax (talk • contribs) Diff
23. Support. Per the nom, per answers to the first three questions, per some positive contributions to this project, thank you. Cirt (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
24. Support- I've had a fair bit to do with this user. Protonk knows the policies, knows what an encyclopedia is about and how this one operates, and can be trusted to use the tools responsibly. Reyk _YO! 05:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
25. Support - agree with EEMIV, responsible and trustworthy. PhilKnight (talk) 06:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
26. Support. His attitude about Wikipedia was definitely a tad too pessimistic in the past. But I see no evidence that that has prevented him from doing good work in multiple areas: he wrote good articles and constructively took part in several admin-related areas. He could have said nothing about his old views about Wikipeida, in which case I doubt anyone here would have guessed his past opinions. If anything, mentioning those is case of too much honesty, bordering naiveté, but I'm not going to hold that against him. VG ☎ 06:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
27. Support - Great edits, no problems, active contribs, good luck! -FlyingToaster (talk) 06:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
28. Support Why the hell not, its no big deal.--intraining ^{Jack In} 08:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
29. Support, thought he already was one. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
30. Support per A Nobody. Garden. 09:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

    Garden, could you please explain your !vote... and if it is meant to be pointy, then it really looks petty and lowers my respect for you. Supports per an opposer, are just tacky.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

    And yet, if an editor's opinion is formed or solidified in reaction to an opposer's stated opinion, it may well be perfectly appropriate to identify that fact. "Pointy" refers to disruption to make a point; this is nothing like that.  Frank  |  talk  03:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

31. Strong support because I've suggested he run well over 9000 times. My experiences with Protonk indicate he will be an excellent admin. Giggy (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Incidentally I find the above support both weak and rude.
32. Support Experienced editor, net positive, WTHN? SpecialK(KoЯn flakes) 09:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
33. Thoughtful, well-intentioned, patient, considerate, clueful etc. I could rattle off a longer list of good qualities but I don't think I need to. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
34. Support, seen around and anticipate good work, while my preference tends to be keepist, notability is essential so no problem there. . dave souza, talk 11:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
35. Support for a great editor. Much anticipated. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 12:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
36. Support Seems clueful and trustworthy. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
37. Strong support I've been waiting for this for a while. A net benefit, no doubt. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
38. Support Protonk's AFD contributions are presented clearly and further the discussion. Good asset to the encyclopedia, and hopefully an even better one once he is an admin. Pagrashtak 14:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
39. Support. Insert standard text expressing surprise this editor isn't already an admin. Seen Protonk at AfD quite a bit, and the comments there are always well thought out and based on policy. No worries.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
40. Support for my favorite sub-atomic particle. Also, I have checked Protonk's contribution history and found nothing of concern. Jehochman ^Talk 14:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
41. Support. I can see from Protonk's record that I have several disagreements with him when it comes to deletion policy. However, the fact that he also has an eye on rescuing what should be rescued, and writing encyclopedia content shows that his heart is in the right place. He has done a good job with content writing, and remains civil in discussions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
42. Support, I had this real negative feeling when I saw this RfA - for some reason my brain was telling me there was some serious bad experience I'd had with you in the past. So I looked around for quite a while to figure out what that was and saw pretty much nothing but good contributions from a sensible user. In the end I decided I was probably just crazy and/or hallucinating. Best of luck. ~ mazca ^t|c 14:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

    Hmm. I don't remember anything. Is it somewhere on this list? Protonk (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

    Heh, useful tool. Definitely doesn't look like there's any serious disagreements in there - I'm sure I was thinking of someone else. Crazy it is :). ~ mazca ^t|c 17:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

43. Support Yup, looks good to me. —αἰτίας •discussion• 15:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
44. Support per others. --Kbdank71 16:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
45. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
46. Support — No objections with this user whatsoever. Will make a fine administrator. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
47. Strong Support A great editor who will make a great admin. --Patrick (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
48. Support - I've seen Protonk around and have yet to run across anything which would make me think he would not be a good admin. TN‑X-Man 17:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
49. Support: OK, I'm sold. Make me proud. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
50. Support. All of P's actions and comments I've seen (even when I've tended to disagree with him) have shown him to be a level-headed Wikipedian who can certainly be trusted with the tools. Deor (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
51. Weak Support - I would normally go neutral, due to the short time period you have been here. However, you have always been professional when I have bumped into you. Yes. — Realist² 18:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
52. Support Why not? America69 (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
53. Extremely competent. —Ceran ¿? 19:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
54. Support Hello, I'd like two tickets to London? Oh damn, wrong queue...Sam ^Blab 19:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
55.  user OK. macy 20:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
56. User seems civil and I can't see anything that would indicate they would abuse or misuse the tools. Guest9999 (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
57. Support; I trust this user. RockManQ ^(talk) 21:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
58. Support Ive seen him around, does good stuff. II MusLiM HyBRiD II 21:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
59. Support See no misuse of tools as per track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
60. support Frankly, the dif given in the first oppose vote strikes me almost as a reason to support. We have an editor who came here with negative feelings about the project and the people in it and has changed his mind becoming a well-intentioned productive member of the community. Protonk's honesty in this matter is refreshing. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
61. Support. Sure. Malinaccier (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
62. Can this one be trusted with teh tools? Yairs so Support already. X MarX the Spot (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
63. per above-- net positive. Dlohcierekim 01:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
64. Support, heartily. I can't stay on Wikibreak when such a clueful editor is taking a stab at adminship. I've had some very solid discussions with Protonk regarding several extremely "sensitive" issues related to Wikipedia, inclusion, exclusion, WikiProject tagging, and deletionism. In my experience, he is always communicative, always remains civil even when in conflict with another editor over guideline/policy interpretation, and always willing to be wrong when approached constructively and intelligently. Absolute 100% support for an ideal administrator candidate. Keeper ǀ 76 01:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
65. Support As someone I've found reasonable in my interactions with him. Jclemens (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
66. Support. Good user, good work on the 4chan article. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 04:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
67. Support He has done plenty of good work on articles, he has enough experience with process, and his interactions with other users have been reasonable. I understand that working with A Nobody can be frustrating. In one of the conversations A Nobody referenced, Protonk was having trouble keeping his cool. However, Protonk has always worked to improve Wikipedia. I trust him with the tools. Wronkiew (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
68. Support familiar with his work at AfD & elsewhere, trust with tools. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
69. Support Warm, enthusiastic support; I've worked with Protonk on a number of articles and issues. Nothing in the Oppose section or the questions gives me any doubts. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
70. SupportFoxy Loxy ^Pounce! 13:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)per my RfA criteria ~~~~
71. Support Civil, frank and clueful, I trust this candidate. ϢereSpielChequers 14:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
72. Support After looking at his edit history, his interactions with others and other such variables, I see nothing that concerns me greatly and lots to suggest he would make level-headed and useful administrator for this site. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
73. Strong support: I'm familiar with Protonk through AfD, and I have full confidence in him. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
74. Support. Good contributions & answers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
75. miranda 22:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
76. Support Sure. Seen him around, nothing disturbing stands out on a cursory look through contribs, opposes don't really concern me. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
77. Support--LAAFan^sign _review 00:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
78. Support There a handful of editors whose edits and actions I've encountered and remember. Protonk is one of them. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
79. Support Per correct understanding of WP:BLP1E[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cube lurker (talk • contribs)
80. Support I might have some disagreements with his stances (though our base beliefs on the project are alike), and he hasn't been around too long, but he's clearly dedicated to the project, and I don't see a reason why I would oppose him. Wizardman 01:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
81. Support {{thoughtthisuserwasalreadyanadmin}} ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 03:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

    Barely relevant here, but since IDIDNTKNOW does of course most frequently pop up in RfAs, I'll take this opportunity to shamelessly advertise: I don't understand why so many people apparently don't use (probably don't even know about) Ais523's Admin highlighter script. Very easy. Install once, never wonder about another user's admin status again. Disclaimer: Ruins the surprise and may widen the perceived gap between the classes. Everyme 12:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

    Was trying to think of some witty germanic sounding-phrase but nothing springs to mind, oh well :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

    How about: The admin highlighter is based on the original concept first invented by Heinrich Hö⁠chleuchter ? Everyme 09:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

    mit einem earschplitten laudenboomer? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

82. Support Protonk has been very kind and helpful with administrative issues whenever I've run across him. RayAYang (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
83. Support with nom. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
84. Support per "I thought you were already one". Arakunem^Talk 14:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
85. Support I gave your history the once over and could not locate anything disquieting enough to withhold support, although that may change if I can find a free moment or two to do more thorough contribution check. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
86. Considered a nomination myself earlier. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
87. I particularly like his attitude toward blocks and his willingness to go out on a limb to give second and third chances. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 21:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
88. Support – good contributions to the project, the number of which can't undermine their significance. Caulde 21:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
89. Support. I trust this candidate with the tools. Tan | 39 22:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
90. Support. ultimately a net positive. article work is a good change of pace. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
91. Support Ran across his contributions at AfD, then saw him up for sysop here; definitely like his style, and honesty above about past issues above helps cement the initial impression I've had of his being a solid editor with a good head on his shoulders (something we need in admins). Look forward to the verdict on this one. JasonDUIUC (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
92. Strong Support As a fellow member of WP:WikiProject Economics, I've had many opportunities to observe Protonk's contributions to Wikipedia articles. They have invariably been good. Additionally, he is cool-headed and contributes positively to talk page discussions. There is every reason to believe that he will be an excellent administrator. LK (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
93. Support - I came here to support before I knew about the ED thing and it doesn't really seem right to change my mind based on a single revelation, such as that. My reasoning is that Protonk didn't have to admit it, but did anyway. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 12:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
94. Support - Not generally one to be involved in RfA, I thought, however stereotypically, Protonk was an administrator already. I've encountered him in general and to say the least, have typically found him civil when engaging in discussion. --Izno (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
95. Support - Good user, don't see any problems here. SchfiftyThree ^(talk!) 19:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
96. Support (switching from Oppose). I spent some more time and reviewed Protonk's track record. While the record is newer than I would have preferred and I would have preferred a few more months of experience, I think Protonk does have the the experience and demeanor to serve effectively as an administrator. I had originally planned to switch to Neutral, but the nature of some of the oppose votes, particularly from Husond, and the manner in which Protonk has handled them, has convinced me that a vote of support is in order. Alansohn (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

    Wow, your decisions are always so balanced and well reasoned, Alan; who would guess that I'd have the power to influence them after all? Húsönd 20:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

    Wow, your responses are so remarkably civil! You really don't ever expect to be a bureaucrat, do you? Alansohn (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

    No, I don't. Nor would I ever aspire to surpass your impeccable civility record. Húsönd 17:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

    Please stop arguing here. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

97. Aye. No reason not to trust with the tools. Black Kite 23:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
98. Yes. I've worked with user at Talk:Deletionpedia and have seen his work on other controversial website articles and in gaming. User has a strong understanding and commitment to our policies in even the most controversial areas. Will be an excellent admin. Cool Hand Luke 23:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
99. Support will be a net positive to the community. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 02:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
100. Support I could have sworn you were already an admin, and I was quite surprised when I saw this. I've seen you around a few AfDs, most notably the various AfDs where LGR was arguing everyone in circles. You may or may not remember that, but I do remember you kept your calm, and made that review on my review page. All around, you're a good editor, at least in my opinion, and from my interaction with you. Good luck.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 04:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
101. Strong support YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 05:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
102. Support Two words: Mathematical economics. Steven Walling (talk) 05:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
103. Support - Good work in the Afd process --Flewis^(talk) 05:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
104. Support: Throw another one on the pile. My experience with this editor has been positive and I thought he was an admin already. Oren0 (talk) 06:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
105. Support: with a request to concentrate more on mainspace and deleting the articles  :) -- Tinu Cherian - 08:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
106. Support per Q10. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC).
107. Support, I've seen many good things from this editor; someone I think will make a fine, fair, level-headed admin. Dreadstar † 18:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
108. Support. Good contributions. Articulate and sensible answers to questions. Wikipedia needs more admins of this variety. Geometry guy 19:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
109. Support. Protonk is a good and level-headed editor with a good understanding of our policies. -- Vision Thing -- 20:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
110. Strong Support (just noticed this - better late than never) - I worked with him on Tulip mania and he is the type of editor who is a pleasure to work with. Smallbones (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
111. Support - looks, good, meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
112. Support with no problem whatsoever. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
113. Support - tons of great work, always very clueful in everything I've seen him do. Certainly seems ready and I don't see any problems that should prevent becoming an admin. delldot ∇. 06:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
114. Support Hell, 6 months is enough, and the conflicts presented below don't seem all too severe and besides, everyone makes mistakes at some point. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 06:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose because the candidate came here with bad intentions (how do we know we’re still not being had?), does not seem to understand how admin boards work and venue shopped/escalated tensions during a dispute (see User_talk:Protonk/Archive_1#Suggestion, User_talk:Protonk/Archive_1#Title_and_3RR, and User_talk:Protonk/Archive_1#RFCs), is too quick to fly off the handle/lose temper for a prospective admin (User_talk:Protonk/Archive_3#Rescue_tag_on_Ultramarines) and while claiming there that he wanted nothing to do with his opponent followed him around anyway as seen in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stormie/DRV notes and apparently was in no hurry even after that to let things be, has been warned for vandalism, and has engaged in edit warring. Also, look at the earliest edits here. His immediately jumping into AfDs is also somewhat unusual for a “new” user.--A Nobody 02:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

   FYI to curious readers - this editor, A Nobody, is the 3rd name of the editor that Protonk referenced above in his answer to question 3 (conflicts). They have a history of disputes, albeit under the original name of the editor above. You should have no difficulty figuring out his previous names, but he was renamed because of stalking issues (according to him) so I won't say it outright. Avruch ^T 02:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, please don't as the concerns do remain to some degree. In any event, I do not wish to renew our past conflicts and hope that we will never have any negative future interactions. I am saying here what I feel I need to say after everything and will say no more. I have no wish to pile on or reignite things. Actually, I don't think that's really likely at this point anyway, as I'm not apt to be around much and I definitely don't have time for the areas in which we had run into past conflict any more. I really do not trust him as an admin due to our past experiences, although I always hold out hope that anyone can surprise me, and I have no desire to feel any animosity beyond that. I have said my peace and that is all. --A Nobody 02:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose I can't support because of not even having 6 months experience yet. I was also concerned because of an edit summary using a 4chan saying. The drama with a certain editor doesn't help the case either. However, your edits that I looked through are all good and you have a good deal of anti vandalism work. Maybe in a few months you'd be ready under my standards, but for now I have to oppose because of that. --Banime (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

   That's a ridiculous reason. If you take "time on wiki" as "since first edit" he'll have 6 months experience as of friday. Will two days make a massive difference to his knowledge and wiki-maturity? Ironholds (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

   Maybe my language was a bit off, but I meant having 6 months of experience is not enough in my opinion. --Banime (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

   The second sentence of this oppose is weak considering Protonk was very helpful in getting the 4chan article featured. Giggy (talk) 03:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose per his poor judgments on AFDs, his short experience for only 6 month old, and others - I don't support any candidate with less one-year-experience unless they're exceptionally excellent. His nominator is also barely out of being a novice (only 2 and half month old) with judgments about which I doubt. It would be much advantageous for the candidate if the candidate accepted the RFA nom by an admin or edior with long experiences in good standing. I reviewed the AFDs closed by Protonk, which the nominator calls the candidate's speciality and I concluded that he should've not killed active discussions as closing them hastily. I generally appreciate non-admin closure for AFDs, but not for these.Leonov (fictional spacecraft) (before closing the AFD, the candidate merged the article in question), Race to the top, Area of figureWhile only one editor participated on each AFD, he closed the discussions just two hours or one day after they was open. The articles should have due time for discussion unless they violate WP:COPY, or meet WP:SNOW. He is not even an admin to make the decisions like above. If he argues that there was no objection nor WP:DRV, that would be wrong because contributors or readers do not even realize the articles were merged or the AFD was held. If he has the admin tools, I am afraid that more hasty AFD closures by him would come.

   In addition, as I also looked through the history of his three GAs, I feel unfortable that he seems to take the credits for only himself. He rescued John Emilius Fauquier for its AFD and made it to GA which is good. However,the article is still much based on Cahf (talk · contribs)'s initial content, but he did not notify the creator of that article getting the GA title unlike his kind message for the AFD.courtesy note for afd He truely deserves the hard work, but the credit is only for him? Moreover, when he deleted a mass of information to clean up Warhammer 40,000 sincen Sept. 29th, he has barely used the talk page or notified his act to people.[2] Therefore, an inquiry for the mass deletion was asked to him.[3] Therefore I could not support Protonk to become an admin at this time. --Caspian blue (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

   I'll try to answer some of the questions here. I don't think that all of my NAC's have been the right answer. One, especially (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/To_Kill_The_Potemkin_(2nd_nomination)) was flat-out improper, as it didn't meet the speedy keep criteria since there was an outstanding good faith delete vote. One was hasty (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Financial freedom), but mirrored the eventual result. I do, however, feel that closing as "redirect" or merge based on WP:SNOW is appropriate. Sometimes articles come to AfD where there is an obvious parent article and an obvious lean in the discussion toward merging. In that case, a 5 day debate on deletion of the article seems a little bureaucratic. That is a judgment call, and as you note, isn't always the right one. I can say that I learn the AfD process by doing and that over time (the list on my sub-page isn't chronological), my AfD closes got better. As far as the article credit issue is concerned, you are right. I didn't singlehanded turn those articles into Good Articles. Each one was something of a collaborative effort. The Fauquier article was built largely from Cahf's initial draft and expanded somewhat. The Warhammer article was winnowed considerably from its original size. Mathematical economics was much more of a solo effort (~100 or so revisions completed on a userspace draft and then history merged into the article). But I don't feel that I owned any of these articles. On my userpage, the GA symbol (at the top) for each notes another major contributor to the article (it is in the alt tag). Without their help I would have not been able to bring any of those articles to GA. As far as undertaking those revisions without prior discussion, I feel that it is best to begin working on the content prior to coming to the talk page, if the subject and changes are not particularly contentious. Thanks for your comments. I hope this addresses some of the issues here. Protonk (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose I don't approve of the shaky AFD work, so far. You have stated that you want to be involved in closing AFDs, and I do not trust your judgment at this time. SashaNein (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
5. OpposeCharles Edward 18:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

   Any reasoning? Ironholds (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

   Low percentage of mainspace edits. Charles Edward 23:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

6. Per revelation "I literally came to wikipedia because of AfD". (It saddens me now to realize that I was right[4] and Phil was wrong[5].) — CharlotteWebb 19:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

   I actually came to be an inclusionist. The old userpage revision in my answers above gives some explanation of the switch over time. Protonk (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

   Though off topic, I think CW and Phil are both more right than wrong in the mailing post links. Daily prominent featuring of pop-culture articles would likely prod a lot of the more passively deletionist editors into activity. It would become a cause célèbre for the movement--"We've had two Pokemon on the Main Page this year! We must do something!" Certainly it would lead to increased deletionism. In the general case, however, Phil is right. Outside Wikipedia, the vast majority of people care only about the information they are seeking; the presence of 10,000 Pokemon articles has no bearing that they can perceive on the things they care about. For someone looking for information about literature, what matters is the quality of the literature articles. Not whether or not there are also Pokemon articles, or even what the quality of the Pokemon articles are. The deletionist perspective is often some variant that low standards for pop-culture topics prevent the community from accepting tighter standards for serious topics. Or that pop-culture topics reflect badly on other topics, but this is of course not the case for the vast majority of users who aren't looking for pop-culture information; they never see it (and indeed, those who are looking, are grateful it's there). In other words, deletionism is primarily a perspective one would develop only after becoming familiar with the community. That's not to say deletionists are wrong, but I think it does suggest that Phil is correct that deletionism is almost entirely endemic. --JayHenry (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

   That's a good read. for a long time, I didn't really have any idea that anything "happened" behind the scenes at wikipedia. I just assumed you put people and magic web 2.0 pixie dust in and you got a functioning encyclopedia out. This seems ludicrous now, but imagine how many elements of the world you engage without giving second thought to the work that goes into them? Who, outside of those who worked in finance, knew what a Credit Default Swap was 2 years ago? How many people know what the full supply chain for their computer looks like? When I looked at the policy pages and discussion boards from that first glance, I felt an urge to jump in and "fight" for inclusion. I didn't even care about IPC or pokemon, but it seemed so parochial for people on these boards to decide the fate of these articles. It wasn't really until I worked a bit with the encyclopedia (and saw the average article that came to AfD) that I swung toward the "deletionist" spectrum. You can chalk that up to cynicism or to wisdom, depending on your persuasion. I'm not sure which it is yet. Protonk (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

   Wikipedia runs on openness [6]. Mr.Z-man 20:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC) After more thinking, I really don't like to oppose over one diff, changed to neutral. Mr.Z-man 01:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

   I'm afraid I don't understand. Protonk (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

   Neither do I. It looks like his openness is his problem, in this situation. Avruch ^T 20:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

   No, the problem is that he was basically hiding his original intentions for the first 3 months or so that he was here. We don't need admins hiding their intentions for why they do things. That, plus what his original intentions actually were leaves me far too wary to support right now. Maybe in a couple months when that's a little more in the past. Mr.Z-man 21:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

   I don't agree with this assessment. When I wrote that little "essay" on my user page, I was feeling like I should reconcile my then current userpage (which said I was an inclusionist) with what was turning out to be my "wikistance". In fully explaining that, I thought it would be helpful to show where that arc started and ended. I had no way to go back in time and announce these ideas in March. And...honestly, if I had never written that essay, we wouldn't be having this conversation. People would have asked "why did you start in AfD's so soon" and I would have said "because deletion is interesting to me" or something along those lines. We would have never seen why I was an inclusionist to be begin with. We would have never seen why I came to wikipedia in the first place. After a while, I grew out of the "soapbox" phase and I changed the userpage into what it is basically now: a collection of useful links for me. So I'm not trying to get you to change your mind, just trying to explain myself. Protonk (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

7. Moved from Neutral I will say that overall from what I have seen of your edits, I'm good with them. We've only edited in the same places once or twice, but I have gone through the logs. I like that your edits aren't relying on tools to do the job. I do think that you will need a little more time on the job as an editor before being upped to an admin. I appreciate your reply below to my questions about controversy. This shows me that I would readily support you on an RFA after about 3 more months of similar editing and cooperativeness. BMW(drive) 14:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose Switch to Support (see above) Way too few edits and way too soon to demonstrate an appropriate understanding of Wikipedia processes and administrator responsibilities, and there is nothing in the user's edit history, especially at XfD. to convince me otherwise. I would be more than willing to reconsider in a future RfA. Alansohn (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

   I am curious about your criteria regarding account age and edit count. Can you please detail them? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

   A user who has only 2,800-odd mainspace edits and really only started editing in earnest in July is way too soon for adminship. The user's weak experience at XfD is what tips the scales to oppose. Alansohn (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

   If you think I have a poor grasp of some policy or procedure then I'm happy to get that kind of feedback. It's ok to oppose because of some specific AfD or DRV dispute. I know we have disagreed on issues at XfD before, but I have ~1800 edits in XfD, so it strikes me as a little tacky to just assert that my experience there is "weak" without offering some support for that claim. Protonk (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

8. Oppose I have not had much interaction with him but the one that I did have did not leave me with a warm feeling. We became involved in a discussion at AN/I (see this section of AN/I archive titled User:Jarajet89, for context) where we had a difference of opinion of whether a disruptive editor who refused to respond to any attempts at communication, should or should not be blocked for a short period, to force some kind of reply to repeated inquires as to why they were continually removing an image from an article. Every attempt at communication with Jarajet89 failed to get any kind of response. The discussion at AN/I became a discussion of Protonk's and my view on blocking to force communication and end disruption. The editor continued to refuse communication, even when Protonk tried to ascertain why he was editing in the manner that he was, which eventually resulted in Protonk filing a 3RR and the editor being blocked for 48hrs. Protonk posted this action in the AN/I discussion, to which I replied "no comment". His immediate reaction was to rip into me for what he felt was a he was wrong and I was right plug. I replied to his reaction with a further explanation of what I meant by my comment, but the AGF of my comment, considering it was right under the 3RR notice he had posted, being made on the 3RR rapid response, seemed to not have entered his mind. I would invite any editor to view my edit history and my participation at AN/I, and would expect that before someone ripped into me, they would at least give me some credit for not being a drama seeker or immature as to want too disparage them. This incident being little over a week ago, does not give me the impression he is ready at this time to deal with the duties an administrator faces in levelheaded and cooperative discourse. This is the impression I am left with at this time, but do not see it as something that can not be changed with less contentious interation with him.--JavierMC 23:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

   Can you provide diffs for this, please? Wronkiew (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

   The conversation is in that archived ani thread there. Protonk (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks, I didn't realize that was the link to the thread. Wronkiew (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

   No problem, the first time I saw it I figured I was going to have to dig through the archive to find the link, but I forgot the section name was the name of the user in question. Protonk (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

   I reworded the link to the conversation, I thought see this section was enough, but evidently not.--JavierMC 19:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

9. Oppose, sorry. Do not endorse nomination and have doubts on user's judgment. This bugs me; all users should have the right to a fresh start. Húsönd 19:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

   Well, WP:RTV states (in bold letters, no less): The "right to vanish" is not a "right to a fresh start" under a new identity. WP:SOCK#Clean start under a new name, while it does explicitly allow to abandon accounts, makes some very important qualifications, among those: [...] a genuine, clean, and honest, new start [...] (which, looking at what perennial RfC-candidate LGRdC did since he returned, is an entirely moot point). Those are the things which Protonk appears to have, in effect, stated there at ANI. Users who have no intention whatsoever (or lack the capability) of actually changing their behaviour after a fresh start, forfeit their "right" to a fresh start. This applies doubly where such a user (like LGRdC) was on the brink of an RfC and vanished "under a cloud" (doubtful claims of some obscure real-life situation notwithstanding). Everyme 00:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

   I am fortunate to know LGRdC off-Wiki and his real-life situation was not made-up. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

   Then strike that part. Doesn't change the main point. Everyme 08:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

   That does not change anything, Everyme. "It is unacceptable for him to return to editing under a new name with a fresh start. Period." could hardly be subject to multiple interpretations. We already have too many admins who'll rather play the strict cop than assume good faith. Húsönd 10:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

   Maybe. We also have too many admins who interpret AGF as a suicide pact even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Consider that Protonk's comment came only after LGRdC had blatantly lied to the community while resuming his exact problematic behaviour under a new account. Blatantly. And brazenly. And that's not subject to multiple interpretations, either. And lets not even mention the fact that LGRdC had been indefblocked for egregious sockpuppeting even before that most recent, very brief "departure". Any admin who would grant someone with LGRdC's track record a secretive return with a clean slate is living in delusionland undermines my personal trust in his/her judgement (YMMV). I for one congratulate Protonk that he's not so naive and am all the more convinced that he is going to make a great admin. Everyme 12:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

   Perhaps. And still, I'm not confident about Protonk. Might be due to the fact that I'm also not living in delusionland. Húsönd 17:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

   We can subject it to many possible interpretations, but I only meant one. I believe strongly in second, third fourth and fifth chances--and so on. If someone messes up and realizes that they mess up, we should be wiling to let them come back (presuming that their expression of contrition is believable). For "A Nobody", he hadn't really "messed up" at the point of vanishing but he had upset a lot of people and caused a fair bit of grief. If he wanted to continue to edit, then we could have accepted a name change and does his best to obscure the past name (thought with ~10,000 talk page comments, that might be hard). But he didn't. He had his talk page deleted under RTV. Then, scant DAYS later, he returned with an account and started to troll AfD. When caught, he went into a spectacular flameout and blamed everyone but himself for the problem. In the discussions following this "incident", I have said consistently that should he want to return to editing he is welcome, but that he is not welcome to do so with his past account history mostly deleted. That is precisely what I meant. We probably aren't going to gain too much from further discussion here, but if you want we can continue this on the RfA talk page or my talk page. I would also ask that you rethink the "delusionland" comment. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

   Why, what is wrong with the delusionland comment? Húsönd 18:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

   Well, the implicit assumption in "I am not living in delusionland", in a clause directly following why you wouldn't support me, is that the person you are in a discussion with is. I don't think it helps matters any. There exists the remote possibility that you just decided to announce that you aren't prone to delusions without a relation to anything, or anyone else. I'm not convinced that is the case. Protonk (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

   He's just using the same terminology Everyme did. I'd let it go. Townlake (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

   Oh, I didn't see that everyme did it. In that case, I'm sorry, husond. And everyme, I'd prefer you retract the delusionland bit. Protonk (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

   That's okay Protonk, I was not upset. But I'm keeping my oppose and I must say I'm not satisfied to see that you would take a rather hostile stance as a reply to an innocuous, mildly sarcastic remark of mine, before even reading the previous comment. On your own RfA. Húsönd 20:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

   I didn't wish you to change your mind. I don't see the merit in attempting to convert good faith opposes on reasonable grounds. I figured that it was worth my while to assert what I meant when I said that RTV wasn't a right to a fresh start, that's all. Protonk (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

   He said he overlooked it and he said he was sorry. He was however right that the "delusionland" bit was not a good idea. It wasn't, if only because it allowed you, Husond, to dodge the real points. However, the fact that you're playing the political language game now tells me even more about your suitability, Husond. Everyme 01:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

   So your strategy is to drop by at opposers' talk pages every time you contest an oppose, demanding for response, and when you do get a response that you happen not to find satisfactory then you start throwing far-fetched accusations of political language and unsuitability? Gee next time I'll make sure I'll just ignore your requests as I'm really not up for this drama. Húsönd 17:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

   At this point we should continue at user talk to prevent disruption. Everyme 23:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

   You guys should take this opportunity to move to a talkpage with your discussion. Avruch ^T 01:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

   I agree that further discussion should take place elsewhere, but what has been said so far pertains to Husond's oppose and therefore to this RfA and shouldn't be moved. Everyme 02:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

   I think that's what he meant, if I read him correctly. Protonk (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

   Anyone else's irony detector just go off right there? Comment about ending convo on this page begets 2 (now 3) subsequent comments... just had to lol. JasonDUIUC (talk) 02:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

   Agree, lol indeed. There are however those who eagerly move everything to the talk page and I was afraid that someone might take Avruch's valid comment as an occasion to do just that. As to this meta-discussion, as long as it's this friendly and calm exchange, it doesn't disrupt the RfA in any way. Everyme 02:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

   It makes a nice zig-zaggy pattern down the page too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose As per Banime Seymour Goldberg's Testicles of Power (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

   Indented !vote of a blocked user. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 23:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Moved from oppose. Mr.Z-man 01:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral for the moment: Moved to Oppose What exactly do you mean in Q1: "I intend to work with non-controversial admin task"? What really is the benefit of dealing with "only" non-controversial tasks? What happens when a task becomes controversial? Do you understand and accept the overall controversial nature of sailing the Adminship? What will happen when controversy jumps up and bites you in the rear? BMW(drive) 13:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

   I think he just means he won't deal with things inherently controversial. You might want to pose this as an "optional" question further up to make 100% sure it is read. Ironholds (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

   I can't speak for the candidate, but speaking for myself, as a relatively new admin (3 months), I have not jumped into the deep end of the pool in areas where I have little experience. I personally don't view the bit as a "license to kill", so to speak. Even at CSD, where I had a good bit of experience with tagging before I became an admin, there are articles I skip (most especially bands) simply because I'm not well-enough versed to say which band is notable and which one is not. (Although lack of notability is not sufficient to CSD in the first place, I don't like to delete when notability isn't asserted if it could be established by a simple search. I spend the extra time to check this out, but with bands, it's hard to know what the community will decide on any individual one, so I skip them.) Getting the bit didn't suddenly impart that knowledge to me.  Frank  |  talk  13:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

   I'll answer here. This is a reasonable question to ask. I mean pretty much what frank means. I have ZERO intention of jumping immediately into something like multi-party mediation and sock-hunting on some inherently controversial topic. When I become more comfortable using the tools and dealing with the norms of adminship, I'll move into different territory. I don't have problems working in areas that can result in high emotions and hard feelings (as being passionate about this place will lead to both), I am just not going to seek them out. I hope this answers your question somewhat. Protonk (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

   I appreciate the answer. Please understand that my movement to "oppose" is not because of the value of this good reply :-) BMW(drive) 14:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

   No problem at all. Thanks for articulating the reasoning. Protonk (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

2. I don't see anything troubling, but it's pretty hard for me to support anyone with less than a third of his edits in article space. I might have been swayed to support if the majority had been on article talk, but Wikipedia. Pfft. We're here to build an encyclopedia not endlessly discuss policy, and if policy is your main focus, you should probably let others with more article experience enforce it. AniMate 04:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)