Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trusilver

Trusilver

Voice your opinion (talk page) (53/1/4); Scheduled to end 17:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Trusilver (talk · contribs) - Co-Nominations by Jmlk17, Riana and AGK.

• Statement from Jmlk17: I am more than pleased to be able to nominate Trusilver to be an admin. He is an exceedingly prolific editor, spanning from his obvious anti-vandal qualities, to his rewriting of articles. He has become more involved in his time here than many could hope to be. He is able to contribute at a high level of clarity and levelheadedness, even when under attack from vandals on his own userpage(s). His ability to perform the tasks that are necessary to help keep Wikipedia organized and trustworhy are an immense help to every admin and non-admin alike. The work he does necessitates the use of the admin tools. He is a great asset to Wikipedia as it is; let's not delay in giving him the tools he needs to expand into a superb admin. Jmlk17 04:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Statement from Riana: Trusilver is one of those anti-vandal users that admins who patrol AIV often wish there were more of. He is, quite simply, one of the most clueful RC patrollers I have come across - I've never had to reject a request for being too premature or too stale; never seen him make a revert in error; and I personally think tools like Twinkle, while brilliant, sometimes limit an RC patroller's ability to think for themselves, something Trusilver has not fallen victim to. Vandals dislike him equally - someone who gets their page messed up as much as he does must be doing something right :) However, Trusilver is not just a vandalfighter - loads of great, consistent contributions to the actual encyclopedia, including copyediting, attempting to mediate a fairly difficult dispute at Talk:Anna Anderson, and rewriting Cirque du Soleil in an ongoing effort to raise it to featured standards. All in all, the evidence is clear that he would make a fine admin - a proven willingness to do repetitive drudge-work, a fine sense of humour and great communication skills, a genuine friendliness towards his fellow contributors, and someone who's basically working on the right side of the project at all times. Let's give him the key to the closet. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Statement from AGK: Trusilver is, in one short sentence, busy as a bee: not only is he a fabulous contributor to the encyclopedia (e.g., Cirque du Soleil), Trusilver is often seen Twinkling generic vandalism (e.g., [1]), and taking the time to caution such contributors against disruption. Trusilver is often seen at AIV (e.g., [2]), which is rather unfortunate as the sysop tools would allow him to prevent further harm coming to Wikipedia. However, that's not to say he's nothing more than a VandalBot - he's active at Deletion Discussions, including AfD (e.g., here and here), and always makes an effort to give a rational backed up by policy or guidelines (and some humour as well!).

• Trusilver even tries his hand at Mediation, and in addition to all this is clearly valued and liked amongst our community (eight barnstars and counting :) it's unfortunate to see a user of this calibre and ability having to traipse over to AIV whenever he comes across an IP blanking Hinduism four times, and although his talents and services in the blocking area is reason enough to mopify Trusilver, I'm confident if he tried his hand at Protection (as well as shifted his contributions at XfD to closing), he'd be equally as talented at assisting Wikipedia in its aims and goals.

• Best of luck,
  Anthøny 20:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept, with the utmost thanks to these three editors who I respect tremendously.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: Wikipedia is a constant learning experience for me. It's my nature to try new things and explore areas of the project that I have never taken part in before. However, most of my work has been and will continue to be in anti-vandalism. As such, most of my admin activity would be centered around anti-vandalism functions. WP:AIV is often inadequately monitored during the time of day that I'm on, I can lend a hand to change that. I also plan to take part in page protection as it relates to vandalism activities. Mostly though, I will continue what I'm doing. I enjoy being a vandal fighter and I will continue being a vandal fighter. The primary difference that being an admin would make for me is to lighten the burden on WP:AIV and to cut out the middle man, so to speak, when it comes to blocking repeat or habitual vandals.

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

A: This is a rough one for me. Without a doubt my best contribution to Wikipedia has been the creation of the League of Copyeditors Wikiproject. At the same time though, I feel like a fraud posting that as part of my "resumé" because of how wonderfully the project has worked with a bare minimum of work on my part. When I started it, I did so because I saw a backlog of around 1500 articles needing copyediting. My hopes were that my project would at least keep the backlog from getting any bigger. Instead, the 250+ members shocked me. In the nine months the project has existed, they have whittled the backlog down to nothing. The project grew a life of its own and after its creation, it has taken very little work on my part to keep it on task. I also (at least hope) that my research skills make me useful to the project too. I delight in chances to do a little bit of legwork outside of Wikipedia, to find the answers to things that I can't find while sitting in front of my computer such as in this AfD [3].

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: The answer to the first question is "every single day." Working in recent change patrolling means I'm going to be in conflict with others constantly. I often hear others say that anti-vandalism is mindless work, I consider this to be a foolish statement. The recent-change patroller is often the first contact a vandal has with another editor. Although it doesn't always work, sometimes I get a chance to get into a real conversation with a vandal and just maybe get them to stop what they are doing and become a productive editor. The times that I have managed this represent probably the best feeling I've ever had working on the project.

I also try very had to be extra civil at all times to try to offset my normal demeanor. I work in a job that everything I say must be direct and leave no room for interpretation. That mindset carries over outside of the workplace and many people consider me brusque and a little cold. This seems to be amplified online where it's difficult at best to read peoples expressions and intents through text. I realize that this is going to be even more important as an administrator. When I'm talking to others I often find myself rewriting to add in a few words to make my statements less abrupt and humorless.

The bottom line is that I try to give everyone a chance. I don't care if someone has sent me a dozen profanity riddled messages, if the thirteenth is a plea for help, I will help without a second thought. I feel that life is just too short to hold grudges, especially against people whose only representation in my life is strings of letters and numeral on my monitor.

Optional question from WarthogDemon

4a. In regards to Q3, what would you consider to be the biggest conflict you've been involved with during your time here?

A: Forgive me, I need to think about this one for a while and time has not been on my side. I haven't been on the ground and in a chair long enough to really gather a coherent thought in almost 72 hours, so I sincerely apologize that a lot of what I'm saying and have said sounds disjointed. I will return to this question tonight.

I'm still here and I have the answer but I am going to collapse if I don't sleep. I promise that I'm going to finish this question tomorrow :)

I've given thought to this answer and I have a hard time saying what my "biggest" conflict is. I really have a difficult time quantifying "big". However, I definitely can point out my most stressful conflict. That would undoubtedly be Talk:Anna Anderson. I went there on a vandalism revert and somehow found myself mediating a content dispute between three or four editors that had vastly differing opinions on how the article should be written.

4b. With regards to conflicts, how would you handle a situation if an admin made a death/legal threat to someone on Wikipedia?

A: Jimbo has made it very clear that adminship is "no big deal". Adminship definitely does not bestow special rights or privledges that allow a user to violate rules that any other editor would not be permitted to get away with. While I would not template an admin who violates such rules, neither would I give that user any more latitude to make such a threat than I would an anon IP user.

Optional question from Rocksanddirt

5. How much time to you expect to spend on Admin type activities v. editor/encyclopedia type activities?

A: My schedule is always in a state of flux so I can not give more than a vague answer to this question. The best answer I can give is to say that I have in the past and intend in the future to give the majority of my time recent change patrolling. In any give hour, especially in the late evening hours of my time zone, I can revert 50-75 cases of vandalism. Just the fact that I can do that means that RC patrolling is an incredibly crucial job and one that I must keep doing as much as I can. I hate that it takes away from creating articles, because I have quite a few that I want to write, but I feel strongly about the importance of anti-vandalism.

6. Regarding contentious behavior, such as that below in Crockspot's Rfa, what or how would you approach trying to defuse a hot button situation?

A: I'm sorry, I've read over Crickspot's RfA and I'm uncertain exactly what you are specifically addressing. Would you please expand on the question?

6 abit more I guess what I'm getting at is what would you do in any of it? Suppose you were in MONGO's place at the outset? Would you have maybe suggested that he redact some of the links to likely objectionable material from his userpages? What about the responses and discussion of the oppose votes? how might you have talked some or all of those folks into less confrontational statements and responses? --Rocksanddirt 22:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A: Ah, I see now. I don't have any interest in stirring up a conflict that is now dead and deservedly so. The only comment I'm willing to make about situations such as these is that I feel it's best to leave your biases at the door when you start working at Wikipedia. I have a very strong rule when it comes to disputes - I never get involved in a debate over something I feel passionate about because passion clouds objectivity. I exhibit this the most in AfD discussions, I have never and will never involve myself in an AfD concerning a subject that I have strong feelings about. Likewise, aside from declaring myself a Christian, I do not and will not display any userboxes that in any way that suggest any type of political agenda.

Optional question from TwoOars

7a. You said Do not put CSD tags on people's user pages. Can you give a few circumstances in which a user page can be speedily deleted?

A: First, I will point out that although the user in question continued to put the tag on the user page, administrator User:DarkFalls agreed with my interpretation and nixed the CSD saying that it is not in mainspace. Generally, I am not happy with people advertising comercially on their user page. However, I don't feel that G11 is appropriate criteria to delete a user page either. I mean, our user pages are generally our own personal advertisments in a way, and I would accept it as logical that to delete one user page under G11 means that basically every user page falls under G11. As for what I do consider to be legitimate cause for CSD'ing a user page - blatant attacks, copyright infringement and the like. Personally though, I am more comfortable with removing the offending section rather than deleting the page.

7b. What according to you is "vandalism"? Do you consider this vandalism? And in the context of the relevant thread on User talk:61.45.36.159, do you consider speedy tagging obvious spam in userspace as vandalism? Addendum: Unrelated to the general context of this set of questions, do you think this is vandalism? - TwoOars 20:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A: I have very little time right now so I can only answer one of your questions, I will get to the others when I can. But to answer your question, I definitely view that as vandalism. Making personal attacks is vandalism, period. I would remove that from my page, I would remove it from any other user's page too with a warning to the editor. I would remove the same thing from the offending editor's page if someone had done it to him. I feel that there are zero legitimate reasons for violating WP:CIVIL. The only way that the project can be successful is if every editor respects others and as such, I hold high standards for civility. For that matter, I would not only accept, I would expect another editor to call me on it if I was uncivil.

If you read [4], you'll notice that it is explicitly spelt out that making personal attacks is in fact not vandalism. I do not ask you to tolerate incivility; I only ask you to realize that it is totally different from vandalism. Further, If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.. And even if you disagree with the personal attacks part (which is policy, by the way), the second diff i mentioned above (which I presume you will respond to when you have the time) and the Freddy Mercury talk page reversion show me how inappropriately labelling edits as vandalism can cause actual harm: I n fact, to me it is obvious that the anon IP flew off the handle solely consequent to your inappropriate calling of their edits as vandalism. I believe good faith editors leaving is a great evil and that good faith editors leaving is worse than vandals not getting caught. - TwoOars 02:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to respond to this just so that there is no misunderstanding between us. You have your interpretions and opinions and I respect those as I respect you as an editor. I have stated my positions just as you have stated yours, and I'm afraid that we disagree. But that is one of the most beautiful things about the project at times, Wikipedia functions fantastically even though the whole lot of us have different opinions and interpretations on how polices does/should flow. I agree with certain things you have said, I disagree with certain things you have said, but I won't go back and forth arguing about them.

7c. Do you consider your interaction with User:61.45.36.159 a "conflict"? (relevant diff and thread ). Do you think you handled the situation well? In hindsight, do you think you could have done anything differently?- TwoOars 19:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A: I'm not certain how to answer this because I don't know how you are attempting to interpret "conflict". Sure it was a conflict, just as what we are having can be termed a "conflict" or how most anti-vandalism reverts I make can be termed a "conflict". I have a very simple rule that I carry with me to Wikipedia as well as in my personal and professional life. The rule is one that most people should learn at a very early age: "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar." I deal with uncivil people the way I deal with my youngest daughter when she's throwing a temper tantrum. I ignore their outburst and when they have calmed down and are willing to be civil again, I will treat the nastiness as though it had never happened. I did give this user a warning for their last personal attack but that was not personal, it was within the scope of the project. I would have left the same warning had someone posted a personal insult on your page or User:61.45.36.159's page for that matter. Warnings are not punitive, they are preventive. Vandalism patrolling is trying to protect the project and to discourage behaviors which are destructive to the project, they aren't a case of lording power over others.

Would I have done something different? Oh probably. Hindsight is 20/20, however inappropriately the user handled the situation afterward, his edit was made with good intentions. I would still have removed it because I feel that his CSD in that situation was not appropriate, I would have rather he removed the sections that were the most blatant advertising (contact info, phone numbers, etc.). As that his intentions were good, I would have done an undo instead of a vandalism revert. However, I still would have treated his outbursts the same. I do not and never have claimed to be perfect and the presence of vandalism is not always a case of black and white. In fact, you will notice on both my user page and my talk page I specifically apologize in advance to anyone I have offended by making an incorrect revert. Though at the same time, I expect the civility I show to others to be given back - being nice isn't an unreasonable demand. It's impossible to make the correct call 100% of the time as you noticed today by suggesting that this wasn't vandalism and then realizing your mistake and correcting it. Nobody is perfect, not you and not me.

8. I am real sorry at the way I keep coming back with questions, but the deeper I dig, the more I see stuff I don't like. I have seen quite a few notices from other users on your talk page archives about not jumping straight to a higher level warning. So here's a question: a) why is it important to give warnings incrementally? b)If for example, you see a registered user / IP removing entire sections of an article without explanation (no edit summaries), after someone else had already given 2 warnings (level 1 and level 2), what would you do? - TwoOars 20:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A: You have asked possibly one of the most difficult yet important questions when it comes to anti-vandalism. I feel the crux of the question is "Does the user know that he's vandalizing?". The answer to that is not always clear. I have seen some of the most bizarre edits you can imagine. I have seen a person who over and over kept removing the "/" at the end of a reference tag. Second guessing people is difficult and I don't read minds therefore I have to take an edit for what it is. If the user is removing large sections of an article without an edit summary, and they are at a level 2 warning for deleting content, then I'm going to escalate to level 3. I have to make the assumption that the user is reading the messages he's being given and is aware that he is being discouraged from doing what he's doing. If you look back through my history (as I'm sure you have) you will notice that every single time someone has said "I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was vandalizing an article", I have gone back and removed the warnings.

Optional question from Kamryn Matika

9. What article have you improved most? Kamryn · Talk 11:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Trusilver

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

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Trusilver before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Strong Support – as explained in my nomination statement. Anthøny 17:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - I have seen you often in RC Patrol and have great admiration for what you bring to the project. Best of luck! Hiberniantears 17:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
3. Reason why I didn't nom = I seriously thought he was an admin. Support. Wizardman 17:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
4. Nominator pretended to go to sleep but secretly lurked to see this go online support ~ Riana ⁂ 17:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
5. Strong Support -- a trusted vandal fighter makes a great Wikipedian. Someone who vastly improves articles makes a great Wikipedian. Both traits in one person? An amazing Wikipedian. You're the kind of editor I want to become. Gscshoyru 17:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
6. Support - Woah!. Onnaghar ^{tl | co | @} 17:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
7. How could I not Strong Support with fourthreefourthree (Jmlk17, Riana, AGK, and Anthony, who is not listed, whoever it is that struck-through my "four") noms from users I respect tremendously. Hey maybe you should shoot for WP:100 in nominations :) J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 17:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

   AGK = Anthony :) Anthøny 19:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

8. Support - Finally a primarily vandal-fighting RfA for someone who has a clue about the job. Roadmr (t|c) 17:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
9. Support per all the above, the nominating statements, answers to questions, etc. etc. New England ^{Review Me!} 17:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
10. Extremely Strong Support - I admire this user as much as Jimbo; however Trusilver is humble and definatly won't abuse the tools. --Hirohisat ^Talk 18:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
11. Support - absolutely! No issues with this editor whatsoever. One of the least BITEy editors on here & should make a super admin - Alison ☺ 18:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
12. Support I immediately bumped into Trusilver after I came back from my long wikibreak when I saw a report of his at WP:AIV. I looked over his contributions and saw he was an astoundingly good vandal fighter as well as a very level headed user. Since then I have really come to like Trusilver and I do not believe there is anything to indicate that this user would abuse the tools. Suit him up.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
13. Nom Support Obvious...'nuff said. Jmlk17 20:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
14. Sufficiently reputable nominators. Moreschi ^Talk 20:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
15. Very strong support I've wanted to nominate him. :( He really needs the mop 'cause he's a real vandal whacker. ;) Regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 20:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
16. Support with mild reservations. I was thinking of nominating Trusilver, having seen his hyperactive response to vandalism at RC patrol, which has earned my general trust after a period of time that is normally insufficient to demonstrate competence. I don't like to give adminship to RC patrol specialists - and that's what Trusilver is - but he's such an outstanding specialist, I think it will only help the project, especially at WP:AIV. Shalom ^Hello 20:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC) That's what happens when I don't bother to read the nomination statements. Oops! Shalom ^Hello 20:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
17. Support, what Shalom said. An outstanding RC patrol specialist. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 20:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
18. Strong Support I had offered to co-nom, but obviously missed thr bus. A very good editor who will handle the tools well. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
19. —AldeBaer 22:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
20. Support per below comments in neutral section. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
21. Support this user will be fine with the mop. -Lemonflash_(chat) 23:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
22. Support Per nom. Politics rule 00:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
23. Strong support You've beaten me to vandalism quite a bit in the past! Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 00:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
24. Trusupport I've witnessed this user's excellent work for a long time. Time for him to keep it up with the help of the admin tools. Húsönd 00:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
25. Support per noms and personal interaction/review of this user. -SpuriousQ (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
26. Support trust the nominators here, candidate looks fine --Lucid 00:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
27. Support, holy crap! You go from 1 edit per month, to 3332, to a mind-blowing 6341! What is your left hand a laptop hot-wired to your brain or something? Anyways, very impressive, we need more machines like this as administrators. Keep up the good work! Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 01:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
28. Support Trusilver is a great editor/vandal fighter and he will make a great admin. Oysterguitarist 01:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
29. Yes!, per all of the above :-) --Boricuaeddie 01:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
30. Support After seeing the list of nominators, I knew that supporting that was a very good idea. Captain panda 01:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
31. Support Why the hell not? ~ Infrangible 01:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
32. Yes - seems good to me. League of Copyeditors is very good. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
33. –sebi 03:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
34. Support A strong contributor to the project who will help even more as an admin Acroterion _(talk) 03:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
35. Support. I have seen his name on many AIV reports since I got the tools and been very impressed with his diligence. Daniel Case 04:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
36. (is) Styðja , Latína öxl vera gunnfáni á beiðni fyrir adminship. I trust Riana's judgement in nominating candidates. I see no reason in this candidate for this trend not to continue. Daniel→♦ 04:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
37. Support Good vandal fighter - Nobody is perfect Corpx 04:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
38. Strong Support, good recent change watcher and usually professional. I have no doubts he needs and will use the tools well. Kuru ^talk 05:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
39. . The kind of vandal fighter we need more of -- one who acts reasonably with good judgment and does more than just mash buttons on Twinkle, while also making some dedicated contributions to articles. His judgment and dedication are exactly what we look for in an admin. --Krimpet 07:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
40. Support. Is candide mos addo ultum veneratio ut suus domus! Is mos trucido plures vandals in glorificus certamen! --Hemlock Martinis 08:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
41. Support This editor is experienced and can be trusted with the tools. --_{Hdt83 Chat} 08:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
42. Support Over 470 edits to WP:AIV! Wow! We need more active and accurate vandal fighters and hence admins. Pedro |  Chat  08:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
43. This sucks. I was watching Riana's talk page like a hawk, and still didn't realize that Trusilver was up for adminship. Talking about stupidity... Well back to the point, Trusilver will be a great admin. Trustworthy, trustworthy and trustworthy. Basically, he's trustworthy... And if you strike this support because Riana nommed, I'll be after your blood :) --DarkFalls ^talk 10:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
44. Support - I've had good experiences with this user. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
45. Support Dust Filter 13:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
46. Support No major concerns here. Would be a fine admin as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
47. Support! per noms and above. PeaceNT 16:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
48. Support - I like this user's work. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 18:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
49. Support - No issues with this editor. Great vandal fighter, very level-headed. --Bongwarrior 22:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
50. You are nominted from people whose opinions I trust. I see no reason not to trust you. Cbrown1023 talk 01:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
51. Wow, I haven't supported yet... looks excellent. Majorly (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
52. Support - An experienced and calm editor who outlines good reasons for seeking admin tools. The arguments against are noted but seem a bit semantic to me. Euryalus 03:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
53. Support Track is good and a vandal fighter.Harlowraman 03:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose Sorry. Should have waited for your answers to my questions but I find too many issues and I do not think I'll change my mind whatever your answers are. More evidence of inappropriate reversions/labelling as vandalism, like this and this and this unnecessary goading convinced me of this. But I am going to leave the questions so that you can answer them and others can take the diffs and your answers into consideration. Good luck though. - TwoOars 20:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

   More: one more example of inappropriate reversion where the IP in question had made significant contributions to the article and I do not see evidence of vandalism as of then, although they did become progressively uncivil later. - TwoOars 21:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

   Your serious? All of those instances are clear vandalism, although the first one was on a talk page, so I don't think I would have reverted it. Other than that, every single instance was vandalism. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 22:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

   Sadly, I am. Although I pretty much support anyone for adminship, I simply can not this time. And J-stan, I urge you to take a look at WP:VAND, especially, the part I quoted below, which basically is an extension of WP:AGF. Anyway, Trusilver has the good will of a lot of users as evidenced by the nominators and the supporters, so my lone oppose will not hurt his chances, especially if my reasons are so trivial. :) - TwoOars 23:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

   At first I thought Twooars was being far too trivial with the reverts he raised in his opposition arguement, yet the edits by Trusilver raised in Q7 are enough of a concern for me to question Trusilver's judgement of what is considered vandalism. The first example mentioned in Q7b appears to me that the justification for the revert solely relies upon the nature of the comment being rudely written on Trusilver's talkpage. Although inappropriate, it certainly doesn't validate a reason of vandalism reverting imo. I do believe however that it is too trivial for opposition, although I can understand Twooars reasoning behind their vote. Bungle44 23:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

   I think it's important to keep things in perspective. First, think about the majority of other RFA candidates don't reach this level of reliability and civility. Second, we're talking about 3 or 4 edits out of 5,000+ mainspace edits. That doesn't exactly look like a pattern of ignorance to me. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

   It is because of the vast quantity of good-faith edits by this user that I wouldn't even consider voting opposite. I said I understand Twooars reasoning behind his vote decision, not that I agreed with his decision to vote oppose on such a trivial matter. I am merely expressing my view that Trusilver's judgement on some occasions has seemed somewhat misjudged and that maybe a better action, or action reasoning could have been specified on the given examples. Bungle44 23:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

   Ok, "strong oppose" is probably too strong, because I like parts of the answers to my questions. But I continue to oppose because in 7b you say you'll interpret policy your way. I think policy is rarely, if ever, open to interpretation. Since it appears that you are going to be an admin anyway, I request you to thoroughly read up WP:VAND. What is vandalism and what is not is clearly spelt out there. I don't think you quite got the point of my oppose: All I am saying is try to assume good faith more often. Calling all kinds of edits as vandalism will not help anyone. Erring towards good faith is always better than erring towards bad faith. Which brings us to 7c: you are right when you say everyone makes mistakes; but I'd expect an admin, or any other reasonable editor for that mattter, to admit their mistake when they are called on it. No matter what the tone of the objection is. And then comment on the tone, if you want. - TwoOars 11:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose Res ipsa loquitur. Anything but a self-nomination is an actus reus displayed by the boisterous sociability essential to obtain one. Neil Larson user was blocked for disrupting RFA--Lucid 13:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

   Did you really need to say that in Latin? Couldn't "If someone else nominates you, you're socializing too much" suffice? --Hemlock Martinis 07:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

   This, maybe? Daniel→♦ 07:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

   The English translation does not give justice to the original Latin meanings. Neil Larson

   So...why use Latin at all then? --Hemlock Martinis 07:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

   You want to know why? I'll tell you why! Voters and lurkers of this supposed RFA, Neil Larson would like you to believe that non-self-noms are a sign of too much social activity. But, I have one more thing I want you to consider. Editors, this is the English Wikipedia. Now think about that. This does not make sense! Why would an editor, who speaks perfectly good English, want to speak in Latin? This does not make sense! But more importantly, you have to ask yourself, what does that have to do with this RFA? Nothing. This has nothing to do with this RFA! Look at me, I'm an editor defending someone who didn't self-nom, and I'm talking about latin! Does that make sense? No! None of this makes sense! If Neil speaks Latin on the English Wikipedia, you must ignore. The defense rests. --Lucid 08:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

   You, yourself are the one who went offtopic, not I. The meaning of my message can be understood without knowledge of Latin. Basic context clues should fill that void. Take a deep look at the social dynamics of this site. You'll understand my thoughts quite lucidly when you do. Neil Larson

   The point is that you have no argument, and you're just using another language to confuse people. Smoke and mirrors. Sleight of hand. Shock and awe. I can think of plenty of ways to describe what you're doing, and oddly enough they all work perfectly fine in the language that is spoken here. Your only point here is that you can't possibly comprehend someone becoming a part of the community on Wikipedia, or being noticed by someone they AREN'T friendly with, you have no ideas behind the reasons these people were nominated, just that they didn't do it themselves. You have absolutely no clue what you're actually voting against, you are simply looking for a defense to blatantly disrupt the RFA process for your own amusement. --Lucid 08:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

   Geeh, thanks for hearing my opinion out before you started in with the personal attacks and assault on my character. All attributed to the fact that you never asked for clarification and instead dove into the deep end with spurious assumptions. Neil Larson 08:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

   I don't need clarification to tell me the sky is blue, the grass is green, or the sun gives light. Res ipsa loquitur. --Lucid 08:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

   As with your example, you're assuming your perception is perfect and that you've made no logical fallacies. Something that no one can claim. Neil Larson

   And yet you continue to. --Lucid 08:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

   You're right. I shouldn't have responded. It's obvious you have no respect or regard for my opinions. Neil Larson

   (deindent a little) Yeah, pretty much. Thanks for proving my point about you only being here to distract and disrupt, if you only wanted to state your opinion you wouldn't defend every single thing that someone says. I have no respect or regard for the opinions of trolls, and I have no problem with that. --Lucid 08:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

   There aren't any English words or phrases that describe my thoughts as adequately as the Latin ones I have previously used. Neil Larson

   Res administrator est non a magnus paciscor. --Krimpet 08:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

   Oh, but it is. Neil Larson

   Just a comment: From this oppose (because its a self-nom) to the above oppose (because someone nominated him). People are merely opposing if they are seen as "power hungry" when they self-nom or if they are "socializing too much" because they are nominated by others... --_{Hdt83 Chat} 08:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

   You've attempted to downplay my opinion without any interest in hearing it. Neil Larson

   Note User blocked by Majorly for trolling of RFA. Oppose comment indented. Pedro |  Chat  09:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

   The oppositions seem to be based on mislabeled reversions. When using vandal fighting tools there are several ways to revert an edit and often the most convenient way is to identify it as vandalism just to be safe because it will revert all of the edits made by that user which seem to be vandalism. The oppositions are based on 3 edits out of several thousand and I think that's a fantastic record especially considering the fact that the edits are not really even a good reason to object to begin with. Most people would have reverted the edits in question and this user simply identified them as vandalism so that the tool would continue to revert any previous edits made by the same user just to remove any thing he might have added, which possibly not vandalism, weren't helpful and messed up the pages in question. I really don't understand when users say "sadly" or "unfortunately" or "I hate to oppose but I have to". If they are that conflicted about opposing then they should probably go with neutral. Someone who supports "nearly everyone" and then opposes based on 2 or 3 questionable edits which if one assumes good faith are pretty much trivial confuses me. While discussing a potential administrator it is very important to realize that the discussion is whether or not they will make a good administrator. I don't see how a few edits here or there which can easily be explained via utility would invalidate an editors reputability and request for adminship. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

   Right. And I've made reverts with twinkle by accidentally hitting the vandalism button when the edits clearly were not vandalism. I don't think it right to oppose solely on the fact that the edits were mislabeled. I don't even think they were mislabeled! J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 03:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

neutral leaning to Changing to support. I've seen Trusilver perform essential sysop tasks with skill and aplomb. As for TwoOar's accusations, the first two linked diffs are both obviously borderline. They could be seen as either ignorant experimentation or unequivocal vandalism, it all depends on the contrib history of the editors and the warning response Tru gave. Honestly, I would accept a reversion of those edits as vandalism in the vast majority of circumstances without a second thought. They certainly don't give me pause to wonder if he will abuse the tools. But so far I haven't seen enough evidence that he can weather heated discussion with established users on an equal playing field. Debating spammers and anons is quite a different beast than dealing with knowledgeable opponents, and I need stronger assurance of his ability to stay civil. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough and thanks for bringing my misjudgment to my attention. After looking through the other contributions of the anon IP, I agree that Trusilver's action with respect to the second diff was appropriate. But I added one more diff. And please note that I did not oppose solely based on those diffs. There are other issues that I mentioned in Q7 and Q8. - TwoOars 21:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I still think the instance of talk comment deletion on Freddie Mercury was borderline. Not only were later comments (as you say) patently uncivil, but the first comment was more vulgar forum-like discussion of the topic than about improving the article. Though it's arguable, I again think Tru made the right call. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at that anon's contribs. You'll see that they have contributed significantly to that article and have posted often on the talk page before that diff too. While the language in the anon's post was not exactly refined, what they were saying essentially was "Although I hate the critic, I added some criticism from him to keep the article NPOV". Basically, I have a problem with the labelling of this post as vandalism. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism—it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. - that's from the introduction to WP:VAND. - TwoOars 21:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. All of these incidents you bring up seem incredibly thin compared to the entirety of his contribution history. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Everyone is missing the point of the oppose. It's not that he's telling a vandal that they are a vandal, it's that he's unnecessarily baiting them. I don't think that it's enough of a problem to merit a full oppose, but it is a problem. -Amarkov moo! 02:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
2. I came here ready to support. However, TwoOars's diffs cause concern. I know this user is a very good vandalfighter and writer, and as such is an excellent RfA candiate. However, being overzealous in classifying things as vandalism that are not is not a good thing. This also gives way to questions about haste in other areas, which as an admin would be very bad. I greatly respect Trusilver, and everything else is good, but I cannot support, but is too good a candidate to oppose. Therefore neutral. i ^said 02:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
3. I believe this adminship request can and will succeed, but please be careful to avoid baiting other editors. Escalating conflicts is troublesome in any situation, but particularly worrisome behavior from an admin. Neutral leaning support. Dekimasuよ! 04:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral per comments above, particularly TwoOars's concerns and per my own comments raised in his Opposition vote. I was debating whether to vote Support or Neutral, but it seems this RfA is overwealmingly in support, and I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting, regardless with how trivial the "vandalism" reverts are. I do believe the editor in question will make a fine administrator, though they need to be careful with regards to how they address reverting users' inputs, particularly when incorrectly identifying it as vandalism. The point made about it being "convenient" to identify vandalism as such is not a valid reason at all to allow it. As mentioned by TwoOars again, incorrectly identifying a user's edit/input as vandalism when it obviously isn't can cause further conflict than is necessary, and simply escalate the problem to a much worse state than it was prior. I do hope such comments by other editors also are taken on board by Trusilver. Bungle44 18:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)