Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rlendog

Rlendog

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (94/1/4); Scheduled to end 16:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Rlendog (talk · contribs) – Ladies and Gentleman of the community, I would like to present Rlendog for your consideration. With nearly 2 years of active editing, Rlendog has made over 22,000 edits. A very strong content creator, Rlendog has significantly contributed to 9 Good articles, 12 featured lists, and a staggering 120 Did you know's, along the way earning 5 Triple Crowns. He also has substantial edits to talk pages, clearly this is a user willing to work with others, a review of his conversations shows that he is a friendly and helpful user. Around 1500 of his edits are in the project space, showing a significant amount of input at WP:AFD, as well as further collaboration in various wikiprojects, along with peer reviews and featured list/article candidates discussions. When it comes to edits, most of his are done old school, without the use of tools, he was granted rollback several months ago which he uses accurately, giving a warning or message for each one. Finally, when it comes to general things, he has a sensible signature, clean block log and email is enabled. When it comes to the bit itself, I initially approached Rlendog in September, who asked for a few weeks due to other commitments. Unfortunately when Rlendog replied to say he was free I had lost regular access to the net and was only reminded of my offer this morning. In the 4 months since I made that offer not once has he come to me to pester me about my offer, clearly he is in no haste to receive the tools, which is an excellent attitude to have towards the role. Thank you for your time. Jac16888^Talk 03:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept.

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: Mostly, I would want to be able to help out users in need of assistance. For example, I edit a lot at WP:MAMMAL, and in the past User:UtherSRG was able to help out users in that area when needs arose and users didn't know which Wiki page to turn to, such as page protection. I also contacted him once to check out an article that was speedy deleted and, having worked with the then fairly inexperienced user who created it, I suspected the deletion must have been an error but couldn't confirm for myself. Lately UtherSRG has been inactive, and although there are some other admins in the area now, there aren't many and I think I could help out. There is also often a backlog at DYK, and I would like to be able help out more there as well. And of course I want to do everything I can to help fight vandalism.

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

A: I am certainly proud of my contributions to audited content, as I think the process resulted in some very useful articles on topics that I am interested in. Among the featured lists I was involved in, I think List of New York Yankees managers and List of San Francisco Giants managers are the best and most important. Among the GAs I contributed to, I think the articles on Costa Rican monkeys, White-headed Capuchin, Mantled Howler, Central American Squirrel Monkey and Geoffroy's Spider Monkey are pretty solid and are meaningful to me, and I think Mr. Tambourine Man and Sperm Whale are good too, although the latter gets its share of vandalism. Some of the non-audited content I have worked on that I am quite happy with are Kasakela chimpanzee community and List of NFC champions and It's All Over Now, Baby Blue. I also contributed to the Primate FA, although in a secondary role, and have been working with a group from the Dylan WikiProject to try to get Like a Rolling Stone to FA. And the first article I created, Brian Ostrosser, is of course important to me, and I think it is about as good as an article about a baseball player who never got a Major League hit can be.

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

A: I haven't had too many stressful conflicts here. Back in June I did get into a conflict with another editor when I commented that he appeared to be canvassing at AFD, and turned out to be mistaken. He was obviously upset with the comment, and I apologized and redacted it. I also tried to explain in a discussion on my talk page (it is in Archive 3 now) why I thought there might be canvassing and let him have the last word, although I am not sure he was molified. Since then and in the future I have been more careful in wording my comments, but if I did end up in a similar situation again I would probably handle it similarly.

Another incident which caused me a small amount of stress occurred in June 2008. I was involved in an edit war when one editor insisted on removing a helpful hatnote from Thylacoleonidae to make a point and several users, including me, reverted it. The other editor accused me of being a meatpuppet, and that was my introduction to WP:ANI. I tried explaining to the other user why the hatnote was needed, and in that case probably AGFed a bit too long, after the more experienced editors were calling him a troll - he turned out to be a sockpuppet of a banned user. I am not sure I would do much differently if such a situation arose in the future either. Perhaps this should have gone to ANI a little sooner - if I recall correctly there were a couple of 3RR violations during the process (although not by me), but AGF and discussions can only get you so far when one party is trying for disruption.

A final incident of a different sort that comes to mind occurred later in the summer of 2008, while I became overly addicted to ANI. An editor was accused of issues with DYK submissions, and as a result was topic banned from DYK. I was one of the editors who quickly supported the topic ban, but after taking a step back realized that there was less to the accusation than appeared at first glance - the incidents were either minor, isolated or several months old. I felt terrible and did what I could to support the editor, leaving her a supportive message on her talk page, nominating an appropriate article she had recently created for DYK (one of the conditions for lifting the ban was if several users nominated her creations) and engaged in discussions at AN and other involved editors, and I believe I did so appropriately. The ban was ultimately lifted when the closing admin saw that she requested my review on some fish articles she had just created, and has since been editing productively - I am not sure if the request was due to the message I had left her or she had noticed I had recently had some similar articles at DYK (or perhaps both). I don't think I would have done anything differently post-ban, but the initial incident taught me to be careful about jumping in too quickly when incidents like this are raised before thoroughly investigating.

Additional optional questions from Phantomsteve

4. Could you please answer the following questions related to CSDs:

a. In your own words, could you explain the difference between CSD A1 and CSD A3?

A. A3, no content, would apply to an article that has no informative content whatsoever. Any text that may be in the article is a link or category or the title itself or some other form of non-informative text. A1, no context, would apply to an article that has some (perhaps a minimal amount of) informative text but no identification of what the text applies to. So an article that just states "It is green" would be A1, since stating that something is green is informative text, but it doesn't identify what is green.

b. In your own words, could you explain what would cause you to decline a request for a speedy deletion using criteria A7?

A. Obviously, a subject that meets notability guidelines would not be eligible for A7. But the threshold for A7 is much lower than notability, so that any credible claim of importance would necessitate declining speedy deletion under A7. So, for example, a statement that a person played minor league baseball would not satisfy notability, but would be enough to decline under A7. Similar for a statement that a person ran unsuccesfully for mayor of a small town. In addition, A7 only`applies to articles about people, organizations and specific animals, so many subjects are ineligble for A7 altogether. So a speedy deletion request under A7 for an article about, say, a song should be declined since the subject is not eligible for A7.

5. You have been editing an article Article-1, adding information, sorting out layout, etc. Another editor (editor-123) reverts some of your edits, with the edit summary "removing of unsourced information". How do you deal with this, which admin tools (page protection, page deletion, blocking, etc) or other methods you would use to deal with it, and which policies/guidelines/essays you would use in justification?

A. It is not appropriate to use admin tools in a content dispute. So I would deal with it the way would now, without tools. If there really were not sources, I may add back the content and add a reference. If there actually was a source provided, it would be a more difficult situation. I would probably restore the content once, with an edit summary pointing out that there is a source, but if it was reverted again I would try to engage in a discussion on the article talk page or the talk page of the other editor. Perhaps the dispute is over whether the source is reliable and could be resolved by discussion. If not, then further WP:DR steps may be needed, such as attempted to get a 3rd opinion from another editor, or if it appears that the other editor is just being disruptive seeking admin intervention.

6. In your own words, could you explain what the difference between a block and a ban is?

A. A block is an admin action taken to prevent a particular editor from editing, usually for a set period, in response to disruption or incivility in order to prevent continuation. A ban is a community decision that a particular editor's contributions are not wanted (either for a particular period or indefinitely), and any contributions can be reverted by any other editor. A ban does not have to be enforced by a block, although it can be. A ban might only apply to a partticular area of the project, while a block would prevent editing in any area (other than the user's talk page) for the duration. If an editor is indefinitely blocked and no admin is willing to unblock, the editoris effectively banned, so in that case the two overlap to an extent.

Questions from ArcAngel

7. Do you feel that pages can be moved without a discussion first to form consensus, and do you feel that WP:BOLD overrides that?

A. Do you have a specific situation in mind? I am not aware of a policy that requires a consensus in general before moving a page, and have moved some myself in the past for very un-bold reasons such as the title was misspelled or miscapitalized. I think WP:BOLD does apply to page moves - even controversial ones - although in the case that there already is a consensus on the current title, particularly a recently developed or broad consensus, it would be best to discuss such a move prior to doing it. Generally, taking care to avoid disrupting a consensus when making bold edits is part of WP:BOLD itself.

8. Do you feel blocking a user who has vandalized your userpage is a conflict of interest? Why or why not?

A. Using tools in a content dispute is inappropriate, as it does represent a conflict of interest. I suppose there could be a technical argument over whether vandalism to a userpage is necessarily a "content dispute", but if you have to resort to technicalities to justify an action it is probably not appropriate anyway, and in this case would certainly give the appearance of a COI regardless. If there is truly a vandalism issue that needs to be addressed, it should be easy enough to find an unaffected admin to address it.

9. When should cool down blocks be used and why?

A. Never. They are against policy, and in any case I don't think that blocking someone who is already upset about something but has not engaged in disruptive behavior would be likely to have the effect of "cooling down" the situation - more likely it would compound the issue.

Additional question from Keepscases

10. You have a userbox that encourages others to say no to political correctness. What parts of Wikipedia's content or culture do you believe are overly politically correct? Why?

A: My userbox on political correctness represents my general opposition to political correctness, and is not in response to a particular Wikipedia issue. I actually think Wikipedia has done a good job of limiting political correctness problems (although I caveat that by noting that I done limited editing overtly political subjects. I think that in some instances politcal correctness can (and does) seep into Wikipedia appropriately, since Wikipedia reflects the information that is available in mainstream sources, so to the extent that those sources in society at large are impacted by politcal correctness, Wikipedia necessarily will be too. One rather minor example of this (from my point of view) is that 20 years ago or so, the small, colorful New World frogs with toxic skin were usually referred to as "poison arrow frogs". Nowadays, in part due to politcal correctness, I believe, they are usually referred to as "poison dart frogs", which is the name they appear as in Wikipedia - and appropriately so, since it reflects the change to the most commonly used name over the past decade or two. Another examples, which bothers me more, is the description of Al-Quaeda, which refers to it as an "Islamic group", but avoids calling it a "terrorist group". And while that again reflects the mainstream media's tendency to avoid the term "terrorist" so is not specifically a Wikipedia issue, I think it is unfortunate that it is necessary to avoid that word as a descriptive term for a group that hijacks civilian airplanes to fly into heavily populated civilian buildings, regardless of what any opinions are of the merits of their cause.

Additional optional questions from Coffee

11. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?

A. The quick answer is that I would not close an AfD like this, certainly not anytime soon without becoming much more experienced in closing AfDs. But if I were to close this one now, I believe it would be as a "keep - no consensus". Since the article has obviously been deleted, I will explain why I come to that conclusion. The primary guideline for this decision (there are others which I will discuss below) is WP:N: has the subject received significant coverage from independent reliable sources? There seems to be broad agreement that there are between 3 and 6 reliable sources that are independent of the subject that provide coverage. So the notability question boils down to whether that coverage is significant. And there seems to be fairly broad agreement that one of the sources, Columbia Journalism Review, provides significant coverage, although some concerns are raised that this article explicitly mentions that the subject is "relatively unknown outside the Wiki community". There is less agreement about the significance of the coverage in the other sources. But this discussion is precisely the type of decision that cannot be determined by a stated rule, policy or guideline, i.e., exactly what volume of coverage is "significant", and to what extent (if any) should a comment stating that the subject is relatively unknown detract from the significance of the coverage. And there does not appear to be a consensus on this issue.

But there is another aspect to notability, namely that satifying the above criteria gives a "presumption" that the subject is appropriate for inclusion, not a guarantee. And some editors take a defensible view that this subject is a case of "navel-gazing" or would not be included if the subject were not a Wikipedian. However, WP:N requires a consensus to override the presumption that a subject that meets the other notability criteria should be included, and I do not see any consensus to that effect.

Notability aside, there are other issues in play here. Most importantly, the subject is a living person, so per WP:BLP extra care needs to be taken. And in particular, for lesser known living person (which this is), a non consensus AfD can default to delete, if the subject requests deletion. However, in this case the subject remained neutral on the AfD, and did not request deletion. A concern is raised by a couple of editors under WP:ONEEVENT, but that appears to be effectively refuted in the discussion - the Peres interview was the most prominent reason for importance of the subject, but there are other interviews as well as photos that have received some coverage. More importantly, some concerns are raised about the article being a "puff piece", and if it really did represent advertising and could not be fixed through normal editing then deletion may be appropriate on that ground. But from the discussion it does not appear that any puffery could not be eliminated through editing, and apparently one editor accomplished that task on the (I think) Latin Wikipedia. Most importantly, concerns are raised about the ability to avoid the article being used to harass the subject. To claims that it is not currently in such a state, it is remarked that while the article is at AfD it has lots of eyes on it but may deteriorate after the fact. However, the AfD itself appears to have brought the article to the attention of over 100 editors who participated in the process, at least some of whom would be likely to retain it on their watch list. So any inappropriate edits would likely be seen and reverted, and the article (semi-)protected if nececsarry, so I don't think this had a high risk of becoming a hatchet job, and so I would not use that as grounds for deletion.

12. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?

A.To answer the 2nd question first, I have created a number of BLP articles and I am sure I edited many more. The creations are mostly former baseball players, such as Brian Ostrosser, Roy Staiger, Ronn Reynolds, Randy Tate (baseball), Kelvin Chapman and Dan Norman, but I have also created a few non-baseball related BLPs, such as Carl Spielvogel and Paul Garber. But BLP policy does not just apply to articles about the living people, but any article that includes information about living people. So many of the articles I have created or edited, such as List of New York Mets Opening Day starting pitchers (which includes information about several living players) and Kasakela chimpanzee community (which includes information about Jane Goodall) are subject to the BLP policy as well. I have also participated in AfDs regarding articles about living people, primarily musicians and baseball players.

As for the current BLP policy, I think it is good but some improvements could be made. I think the policy appropriately tries to balance the appropriateness of a subject for an online encyclopedia (which will necessarily have more coverage than a paper one) and the possibility of harm to the subject. Requiring reliable sources, for example, insures that (if policy is followed) any information included about a living person will have already appeared in a public source, limiting the likelihood of scandalous or otherwise harmful information originating on Wikipedia (again, wuth the caveat that assumes policy is followed). But with many, many BLP articles it can be difficult to insure that BLP and other relevant policies are being followed. This is one reason I support flagged revisions. I think that can be a useful tool in maintaining the integrity of BLP articles, as I believe that avoiding harm to a living person is more important than making it easy for an IP to edit any article (there are plenty of non-BLP articles available to edit easily). Another issue is the inherent unfairness that a lesser-known non-public figure who knows the Wikirules can request article deletion and get it if there is no consensus, but others would not be likely to avail themselves of the opportunity. I am not sure the best way to deal with this, since I don't think defaulting to delete as a general rule for BPLs is a good idea, and there is no consensus (so far as I have followed the issue) that I have seen anyway. An approach might be to require a higher notability standard for lesser-known non-public figures, but I am not sure that could attain consensus and it would be difficult to determine the appropriate notability standard as well as an workable, appropriate definition of "lesser-known".

13. What is your interpretation of IAR, and do you think that common sense should automatically overweigh policies in any area on Wikipedia?

A.My interpretation of WP:IAR is that the goal of the project is to build an encyclopedia and editors should not let various rules, policies or guidelines get in the way of improving or building it. I think its existence is one of the main reasons Wikipedia is so successful. That said, IAR is extremely easy to abuse, and so must be used extremely carefully. It is after all very easy to fall into the trap of thinking that because I think this otherwise noncompliant action will be benefit the project I should do it, without regard for other opinions that may differ. Before invoking IAR to avoid compliance with a guideline or policy, editors should ask themselves whether they truly believe that a random Wikipedian with a differing world view would be likely to agree with that action. They should make sure they understand why the contemplated action would differ from existing guidelines and policies. For example, is this a new situation that was not contemplated by existing guidelines or policies? Or, has the world or the project changed since the policy was implemented so that the policy is now outdated?

My view on whether common sense should automatically overweigh policies is similar. I have percieved an increased desire for "black and white" rules on various issues among editors over the past two years, when I think that resolving issues by applying common sense and discussion and consensus, though perhaps less convenient, will result in a better encyclpoedia. But my common sense may differ from yours, so it is important to ascertain, at least to the editor's own satistfaction, that when invoking WP:COMMONSENSE] to override some other policy or guideline, the contemplated action or edit truly represents common sense, and not an attempt to further the editor's point of view on a particular matter.

Additional optional question from Microcell

14. Do you know any languages other than English?

A:Not fluently. I've learned some Spanish and some Hebrew, but I'm very rusty with them.

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted to talk page. JamieS93 16:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, figures I'd forget something--Jac16888^Talk 16:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom--Jac16888^Talk 16:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Support — Rlendog is obviously a thoughtful person from his answers to the questions, he seems to have very good reasons for having the tools (anti-vandalism is basically sysop work, and not having tons of edits to AIV or RFPP, in my opinion, does not mean that the particular person does not understand how things work there), and he has a desire to help out. Plus, his nominator has demonstrated good judgment many times in the past; I coudln't imagine him nominating somebody who wasn't suited for adminship. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

   I know you don't need tons of AIV edits to be a vandal-fighting admin, but don't you think nine edits in nearly a year and a half is a bit too little? JulieSpaulding (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

   I wouldn't say that, when I passed my RFA I only had 20, but plenty of vandalism reverting/warning same as Rlendog. All it means is that Rlendog encounters vandals who don't get far enough to be reported to AIV, as so many don't--Jac16888^Talk 18:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

   Only a portion of vandals merit blocking - not out of consideration for the vandals themselves, but due to the collateral damage caused to innocent users on the same network. A limited number of reports to AIV suggests a judicious use of the blocking tool. Jennifer500 (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

   You do have a point (Jac). Jennifer, a limited number of reports to AIV may also suggest a lack of activity in vandal fighting. I can't confirm this though - I can't look through thousands of contribs :) However, what do you think about responding to AfDs in the fashion that I highlighted in my neutral comment? They are all classics from the 'arguments to avoid in AfDs'. JulieSpaulding (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

   Much of the vandalism I encounter is by IPs, often with their first edits. So I leave a warning on their page, but I do not bring it to AIV until there are at least 3 recent warnings already. Most of my edits to IP talk pages are vandalism or test edit warnings, so if you want to review that is one way you can (generally) identify such edits. Rlendog (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

   Support Jennifer500 (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

   I've seen this said on other RfAs, so I'm going to dare to say it here: is there any reason why you 'support'? This is not a vote! JulieSpaulding (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

   In practice, RFA is basically a vote, with a bureaucrat deciding borderline cases. The assumption that any RFA vote unaccompanied by a stated rationale is frivolous reflects a failure to assume good faith. Instead, I would suggest a presumption that any editor who votes "support", without more, expresses a considered belief that the candidate would use the sysop tools in a manner beneficial to the project. Jennifer500 (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

   Supports are essentially endorsements of the nomination, so they don't generally need to prove in-depth rationales. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

   OK, point taken. JulieSpaulding (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

   Indenting !vote of blocked user Jennifer500 (a sock of John254). -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 04:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

3. Yep long overdue. Secret ^account 18:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
4. User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Support of course, all looks good. Garibaldi Baconfat 19:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
6. Support. Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Support Stats and edits look good, no major problems as far as I can see. Dayewalker (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
8. Support —Terrence and Phillip 19:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
9. Support pretty much per nom and above.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
10. Strong support. A font of nothing but positive contributions. A good collaborator who's competent in a variety of subject areas. We need many more editors just like him. --JayHenry (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
11. Support Have always been impressed by his strong content contributions and calm demeanor (at least from what I've seen). Dabomb87 (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
12. Support I can't find any reason not to.  fetchcomms☛ 20:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
13. Support I don't remember coming across this editor before, but I enjoyed reading their work, and I see from their contributions a nice mix of building the wiki and defending it. ϢereSpielChequers 20:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
14. Absolutely. I've found him to be easygoing and his contributions and temperament are stellar. ceranthor 20:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
15. Support Helpful and civil editor who has a strong record as an article writer. He seems to be less experienced in admin related areas but I am sure they will approach it in the same clueful way (for example, they have never compiled a DYK set but I am sure they will learn to do it easily and are able to ask for help if they need it). Regards SoWhy 20:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
16. Support, not because you're a Mets fan, though I am a fellow Mets fan. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
17. Support wow this user edits different parts of Wikipedia in general than me, on review they are pretty amazing... I am honestly surprised that they are not already an admin... RP459 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
18. Support. We've crossed paths, and I'm impressed that this is a very capable contributor. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
19. Support. I'm sure some would argue that he does not "need" them, but I have no reason to believe that he would misuse the extra buttons, and therefore think it would be a net positive for him to have them. Model editor, good answers to questions - thus support. decltype (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
20. Support High quality and quantity of article work. The Good Articles and many DYKs impress me more than Featured Lists, but that's just my bias. No negative things that I can find. Not very much policy/administrative work, but what I see looks clueful. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
21. Support The User is a outstanding content creator with high quality and quantity of article work.The Project will only gain with the user getting tools see no scope for misuse of tools through the user has not taken part lot of Admin/Policy work .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
22. If this editor has been here for 2 years and have more than 20,000 edits, why not? –BuickCenturyDriver 23:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
23. Nothing there to indicate he can't handle the tools. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 00:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
24. Oh definitely. Calm, cool, and collected, and the nominator makes some very good points. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
25. Support for pretty much the same reasons as the three editors above me. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
26. Support Now only if we could nominate more outstanding people like you... Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Support Excellent contributions and level headed in dealings with others. Rasputin72 (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Indenting !vote of indef'd sock. JamieS93 19:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

27. Support I have no concerns, hopefully will be helping out with DYK backlogs. Royalbroil 04:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
28. Support - Looks fine to me! smithers - talk - sign! 05:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
29. Support. Although I'd like to see more extensive work in "admin areas", the real question at RfA is simply: Is the candidate trustworthy. I see nothing to make me doubt that he is. HJMitchell You rang? 06:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
30. Support Good question answers, no reason to oppose. Doc Quintana (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
31. Strong support. Excellent work, good answers - a great candidate. Less experience in admin areas than other candidates, but I'm confident he'll take it slowly. Ironholds (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
32. Support Seems to have a good empathy and understanding of our primary purpose. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
33. Good candidate. Fine for me. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Support - I think you deserve a chance.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Indenting !vote of blocked user -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wiki Greek Basketball -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

34. Support No concerns. I do think only nine AIV's is rather low considering the amount of time Rlendog has been active, but I'm actually going to take that as a good thing. Blocks and other administrative actions should be used sparingly in response to only the most persistent of vandals; by requesting such actions only when absolutely needed, Rlendog shows that he will use them only when needed as well. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 12:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
35. Support stirling content contributor and clearly dedicated to the 'pedia. Should be fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
36. Support Editor's first contrib was creating an article that has remained relatively stable for two years. I found no issues in a random check through their contributions. Good job Tiderolls 13:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
37. Strong support - Apart from the answers to questions, the AfD discussion contributions I checked, for example, are simply excellent. --Cyclopia^talk 14:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
38. Support strong support , great candidate. Has plenty of clue. JamieS93 15:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Oh my goodness. Your answers to 11 & 13 blew me away, seriously. JamieS93 01:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

39. Support. Excellent content contributions and good answers to the questions. I think Rlendog will be a fine admin. Rje (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
40. Support as all looks good -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
41. Support Looks like a strong candidate to me. Should make a very good admin. -- Marek.69 ^talk 16:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
42. Support. I have found it a pleasure to cooperate with Rlendog (I reviewed one of his GAs and we've had some other interaction) and believe he'll make a good admin. The neutral voters' concern is reasonable, but I believe the answers to the questions indicate that Rlendog is able to immerse himself in the deeper parts of Wikipedia if necessary and in his Q1 answers specifically he gives solid reasons why his adminship would be helpful to the community. Ucucha 17:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
43. Support Wow, he may even be a bureaucrat if he keeps this up! Because he already has 3 barnstars and 22,000 contributions without warning, he surely does deserve the prize of becoming an administrator. Minimac94 (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    It's not a prize, and I don't think Rlendog sees it as one. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Agreed. Don't forget WP:DEAL. JulieSpaulding (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

44. Support After looking this candidate over, while there is low activity in the admin areas, I do not believe they will do any harm with the tools. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 19:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
45. Support looks good. Airplaneman ^talk 19:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
46. Support I see no reason to oppose--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 20:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
47. Support Keepscases (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
48. Support per Q11. Icewedge (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
49. Support - seems like a level-headed editor that will exercise some caution. The statement that he wouldn't close a BLP AfD if he wasn't comfortable doing so is a plus in my book. I trust him not to abuse the tools. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
50. Support! If anyone's deserving, it's Rlendog. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
51. Support per nom. --Caspian blue 03:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
52. Support no concerns, especially after the practical responses to questions by User:Coffee despite the noted lack of experience in AfD areas. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
53. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
54.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Rlendog. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
55. Support. Although I was initially inclined to !vote neutral here, I have done a bit of thinking and decided that extensive experience in every single administrator's tools area is not necessary to pass an RfA. JulieSpaulding (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
56. Support Seems level headed and trustworthy. No problems to be found, and I expect that this editor will easily grow into the role once the tools are in place. The well thought out answers to the questions (especially #11) are convincing. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
57. Support I am happy with his responses to the questions, and I don't think this editor would delete the main page or block Jimbo -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
58. Support No problems. Warrah (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
59. Support — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 18:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
60. Support User has many useful contributions, strong edit count (22,180), very high quality of articles, and is already an autoreviewer and rollbacker. I think he is trustworthy and could use the extra buttons. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 19:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
61. Support - thoughtful answers to questions, many featured contributions. Can't see why we couldn't trust you with the mop; wield it well! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
62. Support - Candidate is undoubtedly trustworthy and will likely make very good use of the tools. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
63. NW (Talk) 19:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
64. Support Looking through his edit history, I don't see any problems. Dream Focus 20:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
65. Support Capable, willing editor...Modernist (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
66. Support A very strong history of contributions - obviously a fine editor who can be trusted as an admin. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
67. support answers seem solid, lots of people I trust support. Seems good. Hobit (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
68. Support I did a little search and every thing is good, no concerns. Sole Soul (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
69. Strong Support - I don't know if I have an "ideal candidate" but I think Rlendog would be close. I see no negatives against this editor, and on the positive side some fantastic content contributions, a solid knowledge of policies and guidelines, very reasonable demeanor, and some of the best RfA answers I've ever read. I don't think I've ever heard of Rlendog before this RfA but that might be a good thing. -- Atama頭 00:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
70. Support no reason to Oppose.  IShadowed  ✰  01:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
71. Support - great answers to all the questions.  7  01:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
72. Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
73. Support – you're not an admin, yet? –MuZemike 03:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
74. Support – Yes! Aaroncrick (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
75. Support I don't recall ever crossing his path, but I like that he is a solid contributor with a suitable grasp of what makes Wikipedia tick. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
76. support Good editor, will make a great admin--NotedGrant Talk 12:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
77. Support. An admin candidate that contributes to article content‽ No Way! All for that! Valley2city^‽ 17:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
78. Support Nice whale article. No reason to think they'd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
79. Support I haven't encountered the candidate before, but from all I have seen at this RFA Rlendog is clearly a thoughtful and level-headed editor, who deserves our trust. Also, I think, it is useful to have admins working to help fellow project-members, even if they use their tools less frequently than admins involved in the more centralized admins areas. Abecedare (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
80. Certainly. Level-headed and balanced, I see no reason that they shouldn't be given the mop to help out as best they can. GedUK  19:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
81. Truly excellent answers and a sound contribution history; it'll be a genuine pleasure to welcome such a thoughtful, mature, and conscientious admin to the ranks... on the understanding that your skills will undoubtedly be used and abused until you regret ever hearing about the mop :) EyeSerene^talk 21:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
82. Support I've seen him around. his answers reflect his behavior that I have seen. Verrry good. Buggie111 (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
83. Support - a very easy vote. Great userboxen/userpage, huge number of edits, great work on DYK, sufficient experience. Bearian (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
84. Support - judging from my experiences with him over at WP:DYLAN, Rlendog is a very fine editor, and would make a good admin. - I.M.S. (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
85. Support I can see no reason to oppose, and from what I have seen of his work here to date he seems like a very level-headed and thoughtful editor. I have no doubt that he will make a fine admin, as well. Very pleased to see him as a candidate. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
86. I concur with the_ed and Michael Q Schmidt; Rlendog has a very solid record of contributing to the encyclopaedia, has given thoughtful and sensible answers on a broad range of issues, and throws up no obvious red flags. Seems to have a calm temperament and a cautious view of administrator actions, so I don't expect there will be any attitude problems down the road. Thank you sincerely for all your work thus far Rlendog, and best of luck in the future.  Skomorokh  21:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
87. Support. A superb editor who makes a great candidate, although I would like to see a bit more participation in admin-related areas. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
88. Support - so far undisputed by any editor, with only some minor neutral concern - impressive - is that a first? Williamborg (Bill) 02:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
89. Support. Solid contribution history, level-headed approach. What more can one ask for? Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
90. Support I don't see reasons to oppose. --MW talk contribs 17:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
91. Support Per nomination and answers to questions. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
92. Support—NMajdan•talk 19:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
93. Support. An actuary? Attention to detail and precision always welcome.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
94. Support I like it that you edit for vandalism from your own watchlist, rather than trying to make a name for yourself. You seem to interact well with other editors in a neutral manner, as if it's about creating the encyclopedia, nothing else. You've made a few mistakes, some heated. Well, that's not very interesting in your overall bland record of editing wikipedia. Please don't turn away from editing and devote too much time to adminship, wikipedia needs more editors like you, and if you can be the same sort of admin as you are editor, then wikipedia needs more admins like who can lead by example in the behavior department. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 01:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose I don't see any need for the tools for this user in the answer to that question above. You can help users who need assistance without being an administrator, oftentimes with less ego involved, too. Page protection is a simple request, and there are a number of administrators who will show you a deleted article. I just ask whoever deleted it, and, even as an unregistered user, either they or someone stalking their pop page will give me the deleted text rather fast. I'm not sure that DYK needs administrators so much as it could use a number of more editors. Eagerness to fight vandalism without any statement about what type, worries me. I have concerns when editors are made administrators without some positive declaration of the need for tools after seeing what can go wrong with this. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I see very little activity in general "admin areas" (AfD, RFPP, CSD, etc.), noticeboard discussions (policy pages, for example), or anything else that would reflect your knowledge of policy. There's really not enough to judge whether you'd use the tools correctly. Aditya Ex Machina 22:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Neutral leaning towards support—perfectly sound editor, and I have no reason to mistrust, but (as Aditya points out) there hasn't been much activity in the normal theatres of admin operation, and the answer to Q1 is a little vague; it isn't clear that Rlendog intends to do anything more than occasionally use the more peripheral admin tools. I'm open to persuasion, though! ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 11:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   Just curious, what is wrong with only using the tools occasionally? smithers - talk - sign! 16:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, perhaps I wasn't as clear as I thought, it wasn't the "occasional" element that concerned me, it was the fact that it looks like Rlendog only intends to use the fringes of the admin-right, irregularly, to satisfy curiosity (viewing deleted articles out of interest was the most specific example listed in the answer to Q1). And I'm not sure that that's 100% appropriate, particularly given the lack of overall admin experience. As I say, though, not a major issue at all, just a little niggle. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 16:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   I don't get that impression at all. I see an editor who (aside from specifically mentioning DYK) notes that he/she works in a certain area most often and that sometimes the tools are useful there. Just editing and being a sysop-for-hire is what it sounds like at the very least, if not more fleshed out. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

3. Neutral: Very solid number of edtis and defiantly trustworthy. I have one major concern though, as was noted in my AfD (which I withdrew), I don't see the need for the admin tools. The check to see why a page is deleted is what normal users deal with all the time. And if RPP only happens once in a while, why can't the admins who like to keep clearing out RPP? --MWOAP (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   Comment - FYI, "doesn't seem to need the tools" type rationales are generally considered arguments to avoid in RfAs. Just wanted to let you know. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

   Comment - Please... it's in the neutral section. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 18:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

   MWOAP, just to clarify, when you say you withdrew your AfD, do you mean RfA? smithers - talk 02:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

4. Neutral per Q1. Except for the DYK backlog, the tools are not strictly necessary to perform those activities. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 17:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)