Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rannpháirtí anaithnid

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

Rannpháirtí anaithnid

Final (71/10/4); ended 15:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Maxim_(talk) 15:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Rannpháirtí anaithnid (talk · contribs)

This is my second request (and first self-nomination) having been unsuccessfully nominated in 2007. That request failed largely due to a lapse of judgement on my part to do with handling a hoaxer that I was familiar with.

It is daunting to be here again — and especially self nominating — but it has been something that has been at the back of my mind since being nominated in 2007. On the advice of another user, I opened a subpage of my talk inviting comments on whether I would make a good admin. Obviously, that sample is skewed but, over a year later, with some comments there being definitely 'no', it has given the courage to self nominate this time.

So, not with a little trepidation, I nominate myself for adminship.

Note: I previously edited under the user name "sony-youth" but requested the right to vanish in 2008. In 2009, I found myself editing regularly again as an IP and signed up for my current account. The former "sony-youth" account has since been moved to User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid (old).

--RA (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I don't have anything special in mind. Over the past few years, many previously admin-only tools have been dispersed widely among the community. I think this is a good thing. Some buttons are still admin-only, so the work I would expect to do would be in those areas that are still "reserved": page moves that require admin assistance, articles/templates for deletion, edit requests on protected pages, and so on. I expect I would be a regular at the administration backlog picking up idle tasks.

As during my previous nomination, I know that adminship is no big deal. I am a affirmed believer that the best decisions are community ones and that no-one in the community has bigger boots than anyone else. For practical reasons, some buttons simply aren't available to all from the off set. The actions of administrators in using those buttons should reflect community decision — which includes policy as well as local consensus — and not their own. It's a trust thing and is a job that is done in trust for the community, not in the service of oneself.

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

A: Most of my content development is centered around Ireland-related topics and so I am active contributor to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland and related discussions. Some of these can be fraught, even over things that might otherwise be considered to be non-controversial. Successfully handling disputes in this area can be very rewarding as well as educating (and even more educating when unsuccessfully handled).

As part of day-to-day work for the WikiProject, I established the Irish-language task force and am involved in working on the manual of style for Ireland-related articles. I am the regular curator of Portal:Ireland, which I took over after it was neglected for some period and brought up to Featured Portal status. With the help of others, I also brought the Ireland article back up to GA standard, which was another proud personal achievement.

Offline, I am an administrator of the Wikimedia Ireland email list and am active in trying to raise support for the establishment of a Wikimedia chapter in Ireland.

I've written one essay that I am particularly proud of, Wikipedia:IPs are human too. This is based on my experience whilst editing sporadically as an IP during the time after I stopped editing in 2008 and before I opened my current account in 2009. The essay is not uncontroversial — many people have strong views on whether anonymous editing should be allowed at all — but I am pleased that it has come to be linked to from so many places and so, I assume, is of use to many people.

I've written a JavaScript framework for writing bots and run one bot based on it: User:Luasóg bot. Whilst this bot has been granted the bot flag, I have only used it on a handful of large-scale tasks. Usually, these are simply tasks that I find interesting for one reason or another at Wikipedia:Bot requests. Similarly, I am an irregular contributor to the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab, and particularly the workshops. Like bot scripting, contributing to the Graphics Workshops is an occasional task that I simply enjoy and that I hope allows me to bring specific skills that I am lucky to have to the help of others in completing their work on Wikipedia.

I have a habit of also irregularly working on Special:NewPages for several hours at a go. My modus operandi when doing so is as a "WikiFairy" who attempts to beautify and wikify new pages, including renaming, categorizing and copy editing. It's repetitive work that needs to be done but that somehow I find relaxing and strangely enjoyable (as well as allowing me to come across some of the strangest items of information!).

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: Topics to do with Britain and Ireland are well-known to the community as a source of conflict. So, as someone who contributes regularly to these areas, I've met with conflict more times that most. (And have been at the centre of some of the most torrid Britain and Ireland-related conflicts.) However, as I wrote in my 2007 request, conflict, what ever the source, is the same the wiki over and every editor will encounter conflict at some time.

From my experiences, I've learnt many things, most of which I won't repeat here. There are already many excellent essays from the just-as-well-founded experience of others that can do a much better job of putting words on these things than I can. (I have, for example, recently re-discovered Wikipedia:No angry mastodons, which is wonderful reading and sound advice in avoiding creating conflict as well a how to deal with it.)

I will say, however, that, over time, I've come to appreciate the unique difficulties that text-based communication across the internet demands of people, especially when it comes to conflict. The most important of these, I believe, is to remember that another person exists at the other side of the screen. Whether you agree with each other or not, treat people with respect and (with common sense) in good faith. Of course, everybody falters or looses their temper from time to time. That's not the point. The point is to be human, and to treat other people as human too.

Additional question from Fox

4. Hi there. This is purely out of curiosity, but what does your username mean?

A: It's Irish (Gaelic). Literally, it means "unknown participant" or, in this context, "(an) anonymous contributor". It's pronounced ran-vawr-tee an-ah-nij. I usually shorten it to simply "RA". --RA (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Surturz

5. Will you agree to a term limit? For example something like that for the US President: you agree to resign your adminship after 4 years and optionally seek RfA again, and permanently resign as an admin after 8 years. If not, why do you think admins should be appointed for life?

A: Apologies for not answering this question straight away. It is an important one because I believe it brings up issues that are important to the community and that are at the heart of being an administrator. I wanted to first give my answer the time the question deserves.

To begin, being an admin isn't like being President of the USA. The President of the USA is a man — they have all been men to date — who commands armies, rules by decree and issues justice arbitrarily (with a little exaggeration). This is why term limits are placed on presidents (not only of the USA): to limit the duration of their reign. It is also why we have positions on Wikipedia/Wikimedia that come with term limits e.g. ArbCom or the Board of Trustees. These are positions where the people elected to them do, in fact, "reign" for a certain period of time. It is also why, I believe, that term limits aren't relevant to adminship: anyone who thinks that being an admin is akin to "reigning" like a president shouldn't be one for two minutes, never mind four years.

Admins should act not out of a position of power (like a president) but out of a position of trust: the community's trust in them. That isn't to diminish the power entrusted to admins. The tools available to administrators can cause a great deal of anguish for others. For the community, myself included, that brings up the question of what we can do when an admin loses our trust or does something to breach that trust (so I don't believe that administrators should be unconditionally "appointed for life"). However, I don't believe that term limits are the answer to that question.

Interpreting your question more broadly, though, if the community was to decide that adminship should come with a term limit then I would agree to one. --RA (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Monty845

6. How would you handle the CSD A7 nomination on Grant McFarland as of this revision?

A: Personally, I wouldn't delete. The article states that Grant McFarland has the starring role on Power Rangers Samurai, a well-known US children's TV series, so his "importance" is stated. At the very least, this isn't an obvious case so it's not suitable for a speedy delete. An articles for deletion discussion or simply a proposed deletion would be the way to go if someone wanted it deleted IMO. I'd remove the speedy template and indicate that in the edit summary. --RA (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional questions from Snottywong

7. If you are comfortable doing so, can you elaborate on the circumstances which prompted you to exercise your right to vanish, as described in your nomination statement? Additionally, it appears that all of your last edits before you vanished were signed User:Grahamzilch, not User:Sony-youth. Can you also elaborate on the need for all the username changes, and why you didn't also mention User:Grahamzilch in your nomination statement?

A: No problem. It's not a big deal. I decided to stop editing Wikipedia for a mixture of reasons: burn out and a change in my personal circumstances offline. My user name was easily linked to my real-world identity and, since I edit in a number of politically sensitive topics/areas, I did not feel comfortable leaving my edits "unattended" while still easily linked back to my real-world identity. For that reason, I asked for the right to vanish.

In mid-2009, I found myself back contributing regularly again. I signed up for another account (which I regret, really). Initially, I tried to get the two accounts merged but, since that is no longer possible, I was advised to simply rename the old one to match the new one.

User:Grahamzilch was the name that I changed User:Sony-youth to as part of the right to vanish process. It looks like I made three or four final "tidy up" posts that evening signed under the name I changed the "sony-youth" account to. --RA (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

8. Your answer to question 1 is very non-specific, and essentially amounts to saying that you plan on doing anything that an admin can do. Are there any specific admin tasks which you plan on performing? Are there any specific admin tasks you see yourself staying away from? Are there any specific backlogs you feel particularly well-suited to help with?

A: One specific thing that I will not do is easy to identify: I cannot foresee myself blocking anyone on Britain and Ireland-related topics except in the most extreme and/or uncontroversial of circumstances. I simply would not be seen as uninvolved in those topic areas. That doesn't mean that a regular contributor to these topics areas with admin privileges would not have work to do in those areas. There are plenty of non-controversial page lockings, protected edits, moves, etc. in those areas that are 100% uncontroversial and for which it is handy to have an known admin regular around. There used to be several admins working regularly in these topics areas but I have not seen them around of late.

Across the broader project, I expect that I will work on speedy deletion requests. This would build on my current (irregular) habit of working on Special:NewPages. Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests is an area that would attract me also. That would build on my experience of handling controversial edits on Britain and Ireland related topics. Although, for the most part, I expect these requests would be largely uncontroversial, it is useful to be able to spot the kind of things that can be controversial before acting on them.

I may like to work in areas of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (possibly in areas affected by ArbCom rulings, ANI or 3RR). Possibly my experience in working on controversial topics to do with Britain and Ireland may have some contribution to bring to those areas. I know that these are areas to which I can contribute already — and I sometimes do at ANI — but I feel awkward stepping forward for this work without being an admin first (for the reason of the expression of trust from the community that comes with it). --RA (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Question from /ƒETCHCOMMS/

9. You vanished, yet now you're back. Do you currently think that RTV is a permanent (or at least a very long-term) commitment to stay away from editing Wikipedia? Also, what did you mean above by "I signed up for another account (which I regret, really)"?

A: The right to vanish is not intended to be temporary — and in 2008 I didn't know it would be. It is a courtesy though to editors in good standing who, for various reasons, want to "vanish". As things turned out, I returned in 2009 and signed up for a new account. I regret signing up for a new account. In hindsight, I would have preferred to have simply signed into the vanished account and request that the vanishing be reversed. As things are, my edit history is split across two account. --RA (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Salvio giuliano

10. What is the diffeence between a softerblock and a spamublock; and when would you employ the former instead of the latter?

A: Both relate to the use of organisational or promotional names as usernames. In most (good faith) instances, {{uw-softerblock}} is the appropriate response. However, if the user has been engaged in obvious spamming then {{uw-spamublock}} may be appropriate.

In most cases, no summary blocking action should be taken except in obvious violations of the user name policy and where the user has been editing problematically. An editor may simply not be aware of our policies (either to do with user names or to do with conflicts of interest). Discussion with the user on their talk page explaining what these policies are should be the first step in resolving any issues.

The full instructions for dealing problematic names like this are described here. --RA (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional questions from Off2riorob

11. Hi, thank you for offering to assist the project. Please clarify if you would be open to one of the generally used options for community recall and that you intend to add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. There are two or three widely used versions of recall, I am not requiring you to choose a specific one now, just that you declare whether you will be open to one or the other and that you will choose yourself one of the widely used options in the near future.

A: I'm very serious when I say that access to the admin buttons is given in trust by the community. By the same token, if that trust is lost for some reason, or if that trust is abused, the community should be able to take that access back. This shouldn't be a big deal, because adminship is not a big deal, but it does need to be possible. Currently, I believe, the threshold for the community to be able to remove access to the admin buttons from an editor is too high.

Of course, the process of removing access to the admin buttons needs to have a high threshold. Admins do things that get people angry: they delete pages that people put effort into writing, they lock articles at the "wrong version", they block people for edit warring who firmly believe that what they are doing is "right" by the encyclopedia. It is very easy for an administrator who is doing right to pick up a lot of people who firmly believe that that administrator is doing things wrong and is not acting in trust. We all know, however, that there is no consensus over a simple system of admin recall that is robust enough to handle the kind of hostility that admins can attract. I think one of the reasons for that is because that simple element of trust (and that adminship is no big deal) is forgotten about.

Thank you for offering me the opportunity to dwell over what form of recall I would accept. Like the rest of the community, I don't have an answer to what that system of recall should be. I am open to suggestions. Administrators of course are not perfect. However, if an uninvolved and well-respected editor (not necessarily an admin) closed an RfC/U on my conduct with the summary that the community had lost faith in my ability to use the mop, I would resign the admin privilages. Likewise, if the result was that consensus was that I should stand again for RfA, I would do so. Indeed, what ever the result, I would stand by it because adminship is a position of trust and once that trust is gone, it doesn't matter if a person has access to the buttons or not: it is the trust that matters. Holding onto the buttons once that trust is gone would be a very hollow victory.

So, yes, I would add myself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. --RA (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

12. Also as has been mentioned, you hold very strong "opinions" in the English/British Isles/Ireland disputed topic area, if given the mop would you consider yourself "uninvolved" enough to use it is these areas? Such as in, protecting any articles under "community dispute" and blocking users in disputes in these areas or responding to 3RRNB reports in regard to these areas and similar disputable community discussions related to the topic.

A: I'm grateful for the opportunity to be very clear on this. The simple answer is that I could never be considered uninvolved in those areas. This does not only apply to pages that I have edited, but to the broad topic area. Admins have to be able to act in trust. A part of that is that people have to be able to trust their actions. I am far too involved in areas to do with disputed topics in relation to Britain and Ireland to say to others to simply "trust me". Even on very straightforward cases, I would be seen as imposing my will rather than acting on the community's will.

Of course, there are some reasonable and straightforward things that I might do (e.g. lock a page against blatant nuisance vandalism). However, as we both know, symbolism is as important as acts in these areas. For example, if a page was locked owing to a content dispute and an outside editor requested that an obvious typo be fixed, I couldn't assume that I could use admin privilages to fix it. Regardless of the how straightforward it might appear, the symbolism of the act — of a person from one "side" using privileges to change content on a locked page — could (reasonably) be interpreted as being provocative. Blocking a person, as in your questions, is always a symbolically charged act. In fact, I could do none of the things that you suggest in your question.

In virtually all cases, the appropriate thing to do would be to defer to an outside admin and just act as another editor. --RA (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Mtking

13. Having reviewed your contributions over the last 12 months, it is not obvious what element of your work on the project over the last 12 months would have benefited from the tools, can you elaborate on what would have benefited ?

A: I don't believe my answer will be satisfactory to you or change your mind on your !vote but I will answer it as honestly as possible. I think there are a number of issues that your question (and your comment below) brings up:

• Should administrators first "need" the tools (and so do I "need" the tools)?
• How often should administrators use the tools (and so how often will I use the tools)?
• What past experience do I have or will I be "learning on the job"?

The simple answer to the first two of these is that I don't need the tools and I cannot promise I will ever even use them. However, I am a believer in what is described at WP:NONEED.

I don't think that it is necessary that administrators should first "need" the tools or that they need to be "active" as administrators after receiving them. An administrator who uses the tools infrequently still brings benefit to the project. What matters is that the community has trust in them to use the tools properly and that they do so any time that they do use the tools. (And I agree that adminship is not "the next step or […] a badge of honor", as you write below.)

That said, I am interested in acting in specific areas (Q8 above), such as speedy deletion requests or protected edit requests. And I have specific experience of these areas. Counting pages I have tagged under CSD is difficult for obvious reasons. I am tempted to point to the 850 deleted edits between my two accounts but I'm not sure if they indicate the number of pages I have tagged for deletion … or the amount of junk that I have added to the project! :-)

At the same time, every new activity entails an element of "learning on the job". I have been a regular contributor since 2006 and I've gained a lot of experience in different areas but I don't know everything. I hope that I will continue contributing to different areas and keep learning while I am doing so. Every new activity that I engage in, I learn something new. --RA (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Matt Lewis

14. In your long period between accounts, you edited as a 'human IP', but nobody knew you were connected to your previous account Sony Youth. As I understood it you edited reasonably frequently as an IP (I think you told me it was a few hundred edits). You did say that you never once returned to edit in the UK/IRELAND crossover area, and so it was not a period that could be seen as 'socking' (or perhaps as 'gaming the system'). As RA, after you clarified your Wikipedia history I asked you if you could supply me with a few examples of where you edited in your IP period - but you were not forthcoming. Having seen so many IP edits in your editing area during that period, my natural concern was that, as your editing before and after your IP period was largely in the UK/crossover areas (specifically the British Isles, which you were focused on when you retired), I wondered if you were sure that you really didn't return to edit on that topic as an IP at any point? Or perhaps on the issues surrounding the Ireland/Republic of Ireland naming debate? From looking at your editing patterns prior to and in the months after your IP period, I cannot clearly see what unrealated areas you may have edited in, apart from perhaps Ireland outside of the famine/UK rule. Can I ask you again to supply a few diffs of your edits as an IP? I don't think it is an unreasonable request, especially in light of an RfA. If you use a different IP now you should still be able to find some diffs by looking for your contributions.

A: Matt, I'm declining to answer this questions because I don't want to encourage drama. Other reasons to decline are mentioned on the talk page.

You've asked me this question several times before and I've endeavored to answer it honestly and as fully as I can. I'm surprised if I said that I did not edit any Ireland-related articles during that time. I signed up for a new account after I began to regularly contribute to Ireland-related discussions. The substantive point is that whatever edits I made, they were just edits. The period you are enquiring about was three years ago. I can't remember what they were.

I know that answer will not satisfy you and that you believe something underhanded was at play. I don't know what answer will ever satisfy you. But, honestly, I think that you are looking for something that is not there. --RA (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Then you lied to me with (seemingly) no need to have done so. I'm sure there would be "drama" alright if you did give an IP. People need access to all your edits, but we don't have them. You could easily satisfy my requests but you won't - and 3 years ago we were all debating exactly the same things as we are now. Can one person here tell me what has changed on UK/IRE in 2-3 years? With you becoming an admin I am entitled to push you on this. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Sven the Big Viking

15. I would like to second the request for details of his anonymous editing. It is a very sign for a potential admin to refuse to be transparent under any circumstances, never mind with such a lame excuse. If you then empower such a character after they refuse to do so, we can only expect things to get worse at a later date.

Of course, part of the question is also see if he continued on editing from the same anonymous address after creating a new account.

As someone who stubbled rather naively into the whole Irish British debacle and sees many of the same deeply involved characters lining up in his support with glowing praise, and was welcomed with the blows of many of said "cavemen's stick", it concerns me greatly that he sees himself above answer others honest questions in public.

A: I have tried to be as open and as transparent about this as possible. There really is little more that I can add apart from what I said in Q14, in my nomination statement and on my user page, as well as in Q7 and Q9 above.

In 2008, I decided to stop editing and requested the the right to "vanish". In 2009, I found myself contributing regularly again and signed up for a new account. In the mean time, I effectively ceased editing but did make occasional (and trivial from what I recall) contributions to different articles across the encyclopedia. Three years on, I cannot cannot remember what these were. Once I signed up for a new account, I stopped contributing as an IP and linked my old account and my new account. --RA (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Rannpháirtí anaithnid: Rannpháirtí anaithnid (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Rannpháirtí anaithnid can be found here.
• Links for "sony-youth" account: Rannpháirtí anaithnid (old) (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for "sony-youth" account can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Stats are now on the talk page. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 20:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Don't see why not. Active since 2009 and over 10000 edits. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
2. Sure - A glance through his contributions and talk page doesn't reveal anything upsetting. +1 for editing in contentious areas without edit-warring blocks, and another +1 for actually following the terms of WP:RTV and having the old account unvanished when you returned to editing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
3. Support - I've encountered RA on numerous occasions in relation to "BI"-related matters, where he is one of the most effective protagonists for a calm, measured and balanced approach in a very difficult editing environment (though I'm sure we don't always agree about everything). I'm confident he can use his mediating and other skills more widely here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
4. Support I take an active interest in watching the British Isles articles, and related (although I don't think I've ever edited them) and have seen the numerous issues and POV pushing that occur on them (from all sides). I've always been impressed by RA's neutrality and calming influence on those talk pages. That alone is enough for me to support. Pedro :  Chat  12:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
5. Support per Ghymrtle above. Would be an asset to the cohort of admins. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
6. Support seems like the negative issues from 2007 have been addressed, and I agree with Reaper-Eternal +1 for full compliance with WP:RTV - is this compliance is not a show the maturity issues from 2007 are absent now, I do not know what other evidence is needed.--Cerejota (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
7. Support per the above. I don't see any issues with this candidate - lots of good edits, and a level of reasonableness that trumps any maturity issues from 4 years ago. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
8. Support long-time veteran with clean block log, broad range of experience, sound understanding of policy, solid contributor to article space, seems to have the "right stuff" with respect to the demeanor expected of a sysop--Hokeman (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
9. Support I'm generally not a fan of users enacting RTV without a pressing need to do so. However due to it being 3 years ago and me not knowing the details, support Jebus989^✰ 15:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
10. Support I'm a bit concerned about the RTV, otherwise this user seems fine. HurricaneFan25 15:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
11. Support Very reasoned contributor and editor. A breath of intelligent fresh air around the British/Irish article space (with one notable recent exception which I disagree very strongly with). Would be a real asset to the project, IMHO. Fmph (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
12. Demote to admin and assign a mop. Don't see why not. Monty₈₄₅ 15:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
13. Support Dedicated and good editor - lots of good edits, seems to approach issues or disputes reasonably and rationally - would make a good admin. ItsZippy ^{(talk • Contributions)} 15:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
14. I've looked into specific edits which the negative comments on your userpage RfC stem from, and can only conclude that the complaint about your edits was based upon the POVs those people have. No evidence of improper behavior has been provided, nor have I found any.

    On the one hand you've less of a record in deletion-related processes than I'm normally comfortable with, but on the other you have a strong record in Ireland-related matters, which is just about as controversial an area as there is. I've got no reason to suspect that you would use the tools in an improper way, I'm satisfied that you have decent all-round experience in spite of a small XfD record, and for that reason I'm happy to support. —WFC— 16:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

15. Support Displays a clear understanding of the project. --CutOffTies (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
16. Support - I see no problems. James500 (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
17. Support; I didn't think you were an admin already, but I did think you should be. — Coren ^(talk) 18:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
18. Support - Enthusiasts are welcomed. --MoRsE (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
19. Support From what I can see from his contributions, he looks like a dedicated editor and a great candidate for adminship. -- Luke (Talk) 19:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
20. Support The editor has cast his mind on other times that WP in coming declines may be still feature the indomitable Irishry.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
21. Support we need more adminstrator specialists in problemmatic areas. Secret ^account 20:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
22. Absolutely sure: Going to do well with the SysOp privilege. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
    _Contribs 21:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
23. Support this thoughtful editor who seems to understand the position of trust he seeks. Moogwrench (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
24. Support. No obvious issues and clearly trustworthy. AGK [•] 22:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
25. Support We need more editors willing and able to work on dispute resolution (not just areas affected by ArbCom rulings, ANI or 3RR but before content disputes escalate that far) which RA seems eminently capable of doing. It would be nice if on becoming an admin they changed their sig to link to their userpage as it's useful for other editors to be able to readily ascertain whether a user is an admin or not.--Pontificalibus (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
26. Support - Reasonable, dedicated, qualified, no concerns. Swarm ^{u | t} 23:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
27. Support - My compliments on steering a straight course and remaining afloat in stormy waters Lugnad (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
28. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
29. Support Yes - Why not? Certainly trustworthy and experienced enough. Demonstrates excellent diplomatic skills when faced with inappropriate questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
30. I do like WP:HUMAN and having an admin who has such views is a good thing, I think. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
31. Support Knowledgeable and balanced editor. Would be a great asset. Bjmullan (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
32. Support I'm not in the habit of commenting on RfA's here (enwiki isn't my homewiki), but I've seen RA around and have been impressed by his approach, knowledge and obvious commitment to this project. I believe he would make a good addition to the team of administrators, happy to support. Finn Rindahl (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
33. Support Can see no reason why not - give the man a mop! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 09:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
34. Support I believe he'd make a good admin. Just hope it doesn't take from his editing.... --HighKing (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
35. Support - I'm glad you acknowledge WP:HUMAN as well. smithers - talk 13:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
36. Support - I wasn't familiar with RA before this RfA but what I see is good. A balanced number of contributions to article and non-article space, plenty of experience, a reasonable temperament, and a solid working knowledge of policies and guidelines. I see no reason to oppose. -- Atama頭 17:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
37. Support per many of the above. 28bytes (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
38. Support - Why not? +1 for WP:HUMAN. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 20:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
39. Support Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 20:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
40. Support - per many reasons given above; good answer to Q12. Mato (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
41. Support - I glanced through his contributions and he has my check on that. He also has an ability of properly pouring well very articulated thoughts, which is something I like. Divide et Impera (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
42. Support - Qualified candidate. Unlikely to abuse tools or do anything stupid. I'm really impressed with this editor's overall knowledge of policy and the wide variety of tasks already performed. I see no reason at all why they won't make an excellent admin. Trusilver 23:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
43. Support – Absolutely; candidate is definitely qualified to be an admin. —mc10 (t/c) 23:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
44. Support I find the opposes unconvincing. No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
45. Support You have my portion of community trust. Rest assured that if your conduct ever belies that trust, (which I highly doubt) I will tell you on that day. My76Strat (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
46. Support - User seems able enough and willing to take his time, slowly developing his mopping skills without the wheels dropping off. His offer of openness to community recall and understanding that he is perceived as involved in the UK/Ireland topic area and will allow others to mop up there all allows me to support . Off2riorob (talk) 02:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
47. Support -- Dianna (talk) 04:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
48. Support, convinced the candidate understands involvement sufficiently to function in the contentious Britain/Ireland problem while holding the admin tools. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
49. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
50. Support - User has displayed much diplomacy and tact when dealing with the controversial Irish/Troubles/British-related articles and their talkpages. I personally think he or she would be a positive asset to the community and fully endorse his candidacy as administrator.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
51. Support - As others have stated above, the candidate is fully qualified in all areas (understanding of policies, temperament, experience, contributions, etc.), so I shall not rehash that. I do want to comment on WP:HUMAN though. With the exception of a few dozen paid staff at the WMF, all the WMF projects, including enwp, are run by volunteers. For the most part, we volunteers do this out of the goodness of our heart. As volunteers we expect to be appreciated and treated with respect. Volunteers that are mistreated are likely to leave the project whether they are registered users or IPs. We've been losing registered members continuously for several years and it's enough of a concern that the WMF has made it a priority to increase our registered user base. All future registered users will come from this pool of IPs. They are a valuable and essential resource for our project. Having admins that understand this is a great benefit to the project and I applaud RA for writing WP:HUMAN. I look forward to RA's future contributions and hope RA will spend some amount of time interacting with the IPs that edit here and hopefully turn them in to long-term contributors. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 06:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
52. Support. Level-headed contributions in heated areas are a good sign. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
53. Support, great candidate. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
54. Support - has shown the required level of maturity to be an admin. Gizza^{Talk ©} 08:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
55. Support, but here are some things which I do not like: This user often seems unable to give short answers on talk pages. His answers are good, but more than what I would want to read. I advise working to be confident that giving responses to only what is asked and nothing more is best. This user does not have demonstrable experience working on admin-related functions; I trust that he will learn these. Some big pluses are that this user knows how to make new articles and start them off being awesome, such as here and some impressive geography stubs with great pictures. This user has on occasion made infographics and has tried to manage a bot, so I know he is exploratory. Throughout conversation this user has been polite and fair. I support this user's adminship. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
56. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
57. Support - Per reasons above I see no reason to oppose. --Kumioko (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
58. Support All the people above have pretty much summed up that he is an awesome editor who deserves the tools. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
59. Support - After looking through contributions over the last couple of days, I see nothing that causes me to be concerned at all. GB fan 02:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
60. Support - Why not. Monterey Bay (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
61. Support --Surturz (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
62. Support. Candidate has worked in a highly controversial content area, and has a clean block log, as well as the enmity of editors who have made the content area controversial. I'd prefer to see a clearer explanation of how the sysop tools would be used, but I'm satisfied that the candidate is qualified. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
63. Support This user has a clear understanding that we work under policy and the overall community, and even though they have a strong interest in a subject area, this should not have editors concluding that they would be misused. Concerned? maybe i'll give them that one. But this user seems to have the skill set of communication which is something I completely look for. -- DQ (t) (e) 03:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
64. Support, because last time around I said: Come back in a few months having learned from this and I will support you, I guarantee it, for I see the good in you. It's been more than a few months, I see real evidence of RA having learned, and I still trust him. --John (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
65. Support Seems capable, and ready to do the job...Modernist (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
66. Encouraging Support – two years experience with 10,000+ edits; looks like a great user to hand the mop to! --Bryce Wilson | talk 06:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
67. Support Not at all convinced by the opposing side at this moment, they seem to scraping for reasons in some cases but those editors are of course welcomed to their own opinions. What we have here is a engaging editor that has measurable confidence and trust from the community. I do not beleive they will not break the project. Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
68. I have been reviewing Rannpháirtí anaithnid's candidacy over the week, and have decided to support: he appears to have learnt from past issues, and comes across to me as highly communicative. As for using the tools, I don't think he'll abuse them; and I'm not worried if he actually ends up rarely using the tools. His last RfA was nearly four years ago, so he has not been in any rush to become an admin either. In all, I think he'll be okay. Acalamari 09:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
69. Support Opposes unconvincing. Good luck!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
70. Support Likewise, despite my initial oppose; and 70 looks better. Wifione ^Message 13:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
71. Support See no real concerns. The vanishing thing bothers me a little, but isn't enough alone to oppose. Good work with the mop. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 14:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose. RA claims not to have edited on British Isles topics during his long IP-only phase (between his accounts), but his edits before and after were all on the subject, almost at the exclusion of anything else. When I asked him for examples of his "other topic" IP editing he refused to provide me with any, and when I said he was 'All-British Isles' he only then edited outside of it for a little bit. I found the fact that he always demanded that the Channel Islands must be part of the British Isles hugely problematic in solving the various BI issues (but RA wants us to use the "Atlantic Archipelago" instead) - he would never accept that all the main encyclopedias say that they can "also" be included (so therefore we need to use the graphic showing both definitions - which he removed years ago), and he has been far too pushy on the subject in general. He also cannot accept people calling Northern Ireland a “country” (even though the British government does) and is far too quick to reference the Troubles in relation to Northern Ireland in my personal opinion (they really needn't be so synonymous, people). He is an admitted Irish nationalist (as are many of course), but not one that has kept the kind of distance a Wikipedia admin would surely need in the areas he has always edited in. Also problematic for me is that he has drummed-up interest for this RfA for about a year now in a special link on his user page, which I personally don't think is particularly fair, as it provides him with a head start of immediate support, and I've noticed that a number of commitments were from people who share his views. I realise there are elements that are vaguely 'personal' here (and he doesn't like me talking like this), but there isn't much I can do about it other than be as delicate as I can. Either I say this, or I don't say anything at all - which I think would be wrong given that I've seen so much of his editing since his days as Sony Youth. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

   I'll take you at your word on the main thrust of your oppose, although diffs would be helpful. But the subpage you refer to has also given his opponents about a year's "head start". I don't think there's anything inappropriate about that. —WFC— 09:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

   I'll have a look for some and pop them in. The problem with RfA's is getting unbiased interest from people with the time to look at the nominee in detail - some people do tend to want to be positive and support per others. Supporters are more inclined to vote too - I've been lazy that way myself in the past. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

2. Oppose: I never expected to be lining up beside Matt Lewis against RA but such is life! RA has been an excellent contributor over many years and has given a lot to the 'pedia. However, he has certain, shall we say, characteristics that are acceptable in an editor but undesirable in an admin. He is very attached to his own opinion and is sometimes slow to open up to ideas or arguments that haven't come from him. He can be very verbose and, whether he realises it or not, tends to overwhelm other editors with sheer word count. Here is a recent example: even though I agreed with what he said, it comes across as an attempt to dominate the discussion. He is also quite sensitive, and can sometimes take the most casual remark as a personal sleight. This is one of four or five times I was on the receiving end of that. Thin skin in an admin (pardon the assonance) is a dangerous trait. To be quite honest, I would be nervous if I saw him intervening in a dispute as an admin, because I would never know which way he was going to jump. An admin needs to be clear-headed and dispassionate; RA often is, but just as often isn't. I think he would make a better admin than some who currently have the job, but unfortunately that is not enough. Scolaire (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

   I am just going to say that all of those things you describe as negative are true even of some ArbCom members - because they are true of human beings. This presumptions that admins need to be dispassionate robots is hilarious.--Cerejota (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

   You could do a little better than read the comment like that: this is an RfA and the UK/IRE subject area has been a nightmare at times over the years. Scolaire has simply given his own personal experience. RA is typically polite and often well-spoken, but he has always held strong positions rather than be neutral or look for middle ground. I've often felt pressure behind his mild approach, and he does never seem to budge on anything, and he does get too offended when people get figged-off too - ie the thin-skinned thing. Much of the time he knows full-well what can come (many of these issues get repeated endlessly), and his entrenched positions sometimes simply brings the reactions on - like his constant cross-article complaining that Northern Ireland should not be called a 'country of the UK' on Wikipedia, despite all the quality sources that call it that elsewhere (inc the UK government). I find the idea that the simple "country" label (beyond NI's actual UK status - which nationalists of course do not like) can be offensive to people as crazy (or more to the point, just not widespread and notable enough to be relevant to Wikipedia's general presentation of Northern Ireland) - and the 'source battling' surrounding this is really debilitating. Common consent is that if we used 'province' over 'country' it would simply create well-documented difficulties for the other more-stabilised UK countries, not to mention that we would simply have to use both terms anyway a lot of the time. Both are unofficial and we have a clear choice, and there has been a strong consensus from all corners to use 'country'. As an aside it is my opinion that Wikipedia must at some point move to elevate national sovereignty over nationalist concerns: and actually state that they are not always of equal merit. RA's promotion of Atlantic Isles above British Isles is contentious too in my opinion. Outside of Wikipedia (which is chicken/egg after a while as Wikipedia has a powerful voice) you just don't see it used much at all, esp for modern times as oppose to for 2000 years ago where it is sometimes used - a point that I added to RA's insertion of the 'term' into Wikidictionary. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

   Admins may not need to be dispassionate, but they do need to be thick-skinned. As an admin you're going to be attacked, you're going to be insulted, you're going to be threatened, and you're going to be baited into responding aggressively. And you have to be able to take it in stride, it's part of being an admin. This isn't meant to be a "pity us poor admins" comment because we're volunteers and have the option to stop doing it whenever we want. But I think the gist of what Scolaire was suggesting is true. On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong in those diffs, I don't see anything less courteous than I would say myself to be honest. -- Atama頭 17:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

   Your later comment is my point Atama... however, admins do not need to be general purpose, I know more than few admins in good standing who have very thin skins, and hence avoid situations that require DR like the plague - yet do awesome mopping otherwise. I think the idea that admins need to be different than other editors means that adminship is big deal, and it isn't. The only requirement to be an admin should be that you have the presence of mind not to misuse your tools in a dispute and not claim superiority over editors for reasons of being an admin. If you meet those two, who should get tools. If you fail with those, the tools should be removed. Simple.--Cerejota (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)#

   But is it actually a simple process for admin tools to be removed? It seems to me that when people get the 'bit' they have to be consistently disruptive to eventually lose it - and even then I suspect that they often get it returned through some kind of default. If RA seemed keen to edit outside of UK/IRE perhaps I wouldn't feel quite so strongly. As it happens, I don't actually think that being an admin will aid him in some of the positions he has held, as it's much easier to be a plain editor in controversial circumstances. I just don't see anything beneficial coming from awarding him this - at least not within his editing areas, which can be difficult enough as contributors in the area will know. And after all these years of editing it can be seen like Wikipedia is taking a side here too, though to my knowledge few others so committed to this area have gone for adminship. If he could keep from contributing in those UK crossover areas (British Isles and Northern Ireland to be specific) maybe it would be a different matter. But is he interested in that? I still would like to know where exactly he edited as a 'Human IP' - I'm looking for the diff where I asked him directly. He has said he was quite prolific as an IP. But on what articles? Matt Lewis (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

3. Pledges to be open to recall are made ad captandum vulgus. Any individual willing to make such a pledge is not an acceptable administrator. Hipocrite (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

   Or, to put it another way, as is common on Wikipedia you're screwed if you do and screwed if you don't. Pedro :  Chat  19:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

   There are answers to the inappropriate recall RFA question that do not cause me to oppose but also deal with the demands by some that candidates make pledges. I will provide recent examples of successful RFAs on request. You are screwed if you say "yes," and screwed if you say "no," but "mu," remains an acceptable answer. Hipocrite (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

   Consider it requested. I'll have to add a section to the various RfA guides on how to successfully dodge the question. It's going to be an increasingly needed skill now that litmus tests seem to be making a comeback. 28bytes (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

   Review the most recent successful RFA. Hipocrite (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

   So you're opposing because the candidate stated that he would resign adminship if an RFC/U on his behavior closed with consensus that he should resign his adminship? Would you prefer him to pledge that he would ignore the results of any RFC/U on his behavior? You're basically opposing because the candidate responded honestly and didn't attempt to respond with a vague, political answer (like "Mu") which dodges the question. What a silly oppose. Can we add this oppose to the list of reasons why RfA is broken? —SW— ^prattle 14:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

   No, I'm opposing because the candidate either does so little research into what "open to recall" means that he's willing to pledge something that he dosen't understand, which is disqualifying, or I'm opposing because the candidate knows that "open to recall," means "please vote for me," which is disqualifying. If you'd like to add people asking candidates to make toothless pledges to the list of why RFA is broken, please feel free. In the meanwhile, please remember to be WP:CIVIL. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

   A few points: Firstly, as far as I know, the terms of being open to recall are completely open-ended and defined by the individual admin. I interpreted his response such that he would be open to recall, and the terms of the recall would require a consensus at RFC/U. Any consensus at RFC/U is otherwise non-binding, so this seemed appropriate to me. WP:AOR says, "For example, an admin could choose to be accountable to six editors with over 500 mainspace edits and over one month of tenure; yet another could require Jimbo Wales; however some admins have imposed other restrictions..." The choice to require a consensus at RFC/U is just another arbitrary restriction, I don't see why it is automatically "disqualifying" or otherwise implies that the candidate misunderstands the entire concept of being open to recall. Secondly, if you believe that any response to questions about recall are "toothless", then why base your oppose on such a question? Thirdly, based on the evidence provided in the candidate's answer to the recall question, what specific character traits do you believe are lacking which would genuinely hinder the candidate's ability to perform real-life admin tasks, to the point that we would be better off with the candidate not being an admin? —SW— ^{spill the beans} 15:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

   The terms of being open to recall are not only open-ended - they don't exist, as they can be adjusted on the fly. The disqualifing part is where he makes a non-binding pledge that he will do something if something else happens. Like I said in my oppose - "Pledges to be open to recall are made ad captandum vulgus." The character trait lacking is either the ability/willingness to do enough research to realize one is making a toothless pledge or the willingness to do what appeases the masses as opposed to being fully honest. Hipocrite (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

   And furthermore, you reference the most recent successful RfA, Fluffernutter, yet Fluff's answer to the same question is almost exactly the same as RA's answer. I fail to see what was so different between the two responses that you felt compelled to oppose solely for this reason. —SW— ^speak 15:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

   Fluffernutter writes "such an RfC close with such a conclusion and I fail to resign my tools, the community would be within its rights to ask Arbcom to remove them." As such, he notes in his non-binding pledge to be open to recall that he is not, in fact, pledging anything except that his tools can be removed by the people that are able to remove tools without his consent. Hipocrite (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

   "The character trait lacking is either the ability/willingness to do enough research to realize one is making a toothless pledge or the willingness to do what appeases the masses as opposed to being fully honest." So basically, your oppose is based on an assumption of bad faith. By your logic, everyone listed on CAT:AOR is a liar (or, more specifically, they're not being "fully honest"). Just because there is nothing forcing anyone to abide by their AOR pledge doesn't mean that they won't or that they don't intend to. Assuming that the candidate won't live up to his pledge when the time comes and assuming that he's only pledging to get votes is assuming bad faith. Please consider moving to neutral rather than continuing to take out your own personal problems with AOR on an innocent editor. —SW— ^communicate 22:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

4. Oppose Mainly as I fail to see why Rannpháirtí anaithnid needs the tools, a look at his contributions over the last 12 months shows no work in AfD, CSD, AVI or any other area that his access to the tools would be of a benefit (a sample look at his ANI contributions shows only edits relating to areas he is involved in) . I find it strange that someone who, as Matt Lewis points out, has expressed for over a year a wish to one day become an administrator should during that time not at least demonstrate a willingness to help out in those areas. Since I strongly feel that learning on the job is not a good idea I have to oppose for that reason. I also have concerns relating to his reduced presence here over the last 12 months, this account has been active 27 months however only about 10% of his edits have been in the last 12 months, and three of those months see zero edits we do need administrators who are going to be around to deal with those who would harm the project, administration is not something that should be seen as the next step or as a badge of honour. If after Rannpháirtí anaithnid answers Q13 and he points out something I have missed, I would be willing to reconsider. Mtking ^(edits) 23:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

   That was a good call - why aren't these questions asked from the outset? I've never heard of WP:NONEED, but it seems like a crazy guideline. Since he started his RfA comments page it's always surprised me how little he's done outside of his UK/IRE edits. I worry from his answer that he sees the tools primarily as a stick too. I personally think that all established-editor blocking should be done by a clerk-admin after an admin-based consensus at ANI - it's too-often damaging to Wikipedia when admin do it on the fly imo. The clerk should be able to suspend someone before the decision in certain circumstances, like a temporary and liftable pre-block. That's what civil conjures for me - something approaching civilisation. Wikipedia currently offers something like a caveman's stick when it comes to blocking. RA's joking aside, he hasn't done 850 of any chore, but at least there is a possibility of things to come - though unfortunately he can't promise us anything. Adminship on the never never - we must be getting desperate! When you've been given the honour there is no reason to do anything beyond what you've done already, because it's never under a realistic threat of being taken away. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

   Oppose Although I'm not in awe of Matt Lewis' targeting of RA, I should like to see RA's reply to Matt's question - although it is an optional question for RA surely. My apologies in advance to RA and other editors for this oppose - which will be changed if RA replies appropriately. I feel funny too in this section, given the fact that editors whom I respect considerably - Atama, Fetchcomms, Fastily, Reaper, Pedro, Kudpung - are one section above.Wifione ^Message 12:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

   Excuse me - who else here has pointed out the questionable elements of RA's wiki life? RA has now for the first time admitted to editing in the UK/IRE area as an IP. I had a lot of experience in the area during that time - did you?? Don't be so quick to criticise me. His reasons ("drama") should alert you, not satisfy you. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

   Hi Matt. I believe the reason I opposed RA's candidature was because there was no reply forthcoming to your question - and I did believe it necessary for RA to reply to you. Once the reply was placed, I have been satisfied by it - along with a combination of RA's reply to other questions. There is no criticism I wish to point at you; the reason I wrote that I'm "not in awe of your targeting RA" is because I believe that you could have made a much stronger point to the community if you had worded your oppose diplomatically; much like how some editors like WSC, Clemens, NW sometimes do in their opposes. Your reasoning currently gives off an overall image of being plain angry. Perchance you are. And there it is. Wifione ^Message 17:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

   That's fair enough, Wifione. I've explained my reasons for declining above. --RA (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

   ...And I've struck my oppose. Thanks for the reply - and I don't wish this to be seen as a quid pro quo. I'm simply satisfied with what you've written. Best. Wifione ^Message 15:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

5. Oppose mostly per Mtking. Adminship isn't to be (or, at least, shouldn't be) regarded as a bauble, a little trophy given to those in recognition of good work. It's a set of tools that are used to accomplish certain tasks. The fact that this candidate self-nommed with no real admin-area experience, and is pretty blunt about having no real plans for the tools, leads me to oppose. Others may point to NONEED, I point to NOSENSE in having one more privileged account out there for vandals and phishers to target. I see no net benefit here - if you want a trophy, apply for a barnstar or something. Badger Drink (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

   Unless I am mistaken, increasing the number of admins does not increase the risk of hacking because it does not increase the number of hackers or the amount of effort they are prepared to devote to doing that. It probably reduces the amount of damage that a hacker could do with admin tools because there are more people to revert him and fewer people whom he can effectively block. Or am I missing something? James500 (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

6. Strong oppose. Given what I experienced in this area I am shocked that an individual's whose only involvement appears to be on one side of the British Irish debacle could by any imagination be empowered with the "caveman's stick" or tactical tools to promote his and his compatriots views. Only individuals with sympathies to the cause, or little to no knowledge of the issues, could support this idea. Sven the Big Viking (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
7. Oppose: Mainly due to the unsatisfactory answer to Matt Lewis' question. Surely it would have been easier to answer it by agreeing to not use admin tools in British Isles matters rather than appearing to dodge it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

   In Q12, in reply to Off2riorob, I was grateful for the opportunity to be very clear that I could never be considered to be uninvolved in those topic areas and so could not use admin tools in those areas. --RA (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

   I am accept that it looks likely RA will win, but is this really possible or normal on the Wikipedia? Can an admin be voted in whilst not being trusted to abuse their powers in a specific area? Can that sanction be made formally on their record or somewhere related to the issue of Irish nationalist editors? Shouldn't the balance be way over to admin related tasks with only a small proportion of personal indulgence rather than a focus entirely on personal interests with very little boring administration? Sven the Big Viking (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

   It's not totally clear to me, but I think the gist of your point is that he's being made an admin while not being trusted to use the admin tools properly. If so, I'd say that's not true; the preponderance of supporters suggests the majority here do trust him not to abuse the tools, though clearly there is a minority that disagrees. I'd still say he has the trust of the community as a whole based on the results here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

8. Oppose - no experience in admin areas means two things: 1) no need for the tools, 2) no experience in how and when to use them anyway. → ROUX ₪ 18:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
9. Oppose. I've been sitting on the fence for a couple of days, but I fear I have to agree with some of the other opposers; you are a good editor and an asset to the project, but you lack experience in admin-related areas. Therefore, I'm sorry but I feel I have to oppose your request at the moment. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
10. Oppose mostly per Sven the Big Viking. I wouldn't have too much problem with the lack of admin area participation, but that combined with the nearly singular focus on involvement in a very wasteful and pointless debate, leads me to oppose. Gigs (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Singular focus? Am I looking at a different RfA to you? Fmph (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - The whole vanishing thing isn't sitting right with me. I might dig into it further if I get a chance. Until then, I'm neutral. —SW— ^talk 22:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   I've looked into it further, and while I don't see any reasons to oppose, I'm a bit worried by the fact that RA works almost exclusively in articles about the British Isles (a subject about which he appears to have very strong opinions), and I'm not sure I've seen enough evidence that he won't eventually be tempted to use the admin tools in this area to push his POV. Therefore, I'm going to stay in neutral. —SW— ^spout 22:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

   Neutral - Candidate has not agreed to a term limit, reconfirmation or recall. However, the thoughtful and thought-provoking response given by the candidate means I cannot find it in my heart to oppose. I had not considered the existence of term limits for Arbs and Trustees until now. I disagree with the argument that admins do not "reign", but accept that I am out of step with consensus on that point. Many thanks to the candidate for the quality of their response, and the time taken to make it. As for the hoax issue and the vanish - no concerns there, ancient history. --Surturz (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Change to Support - candidate has agreed to recall. --Surturz (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

   It would in any case not be appropriate to base either an 'oppose' !vote or a 'support' !vote on a hypothetical question requiring the candidate's opinion on policies that have yet to be discussed and either introduced or declined by consensus. What we want to hear from candidates is whether they can be trusted to implement the existing policies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

   That is your opinion. However, I do intend to rephrase my question in future RfAs. I think the reference to the 22nd amendment is distracting. If you or any other editor would like to help with the wording of my question, please visit my talk page. --Surturz (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

   What you said is an opinion, but what Kudpung said is true. From Wikipedia:Administrators: "...candidates should generally be active...for at least several months... respect and understand its [Wikipedia's] policies, and have gained the general trust of the community." While you are entitled to your own opinion, I'd recommend not questioning RfA candidates about the admin term proposal until (and if) it is accepted. This is only a recommendation, so do as you see fit. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

   Neutral - Recall? - and - I would also like to see a declaration not to use his tools in the British Isles/Ireland editing area or I am unable to support/will move to oppose. Off2riorob (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

   Rob, these are both important questions for a number of reasons. I'd be grateful if you could put them both directly as questions above and I will answer them fully as I can. I want to answer them above so that I can be as clear as possible about them. --RA (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

   I have added question 11 - thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks. I've split the question into two for clarity (11 and 12). I hope you don't mind. --RA (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

   Cool - Your replies show a good understanding of involved and I am happy with that. I have moved to support. Off2riorob (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

   Neutral but hoping to support: Want to see your answer to the question about willingness to use admin tools in Britain/Ireland disputes before I decide. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Moving to support. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

2. Lately, I've often felt that administrators should 'referee' things in areas they're not interested in. But then again, it's better that they know a topic better, if they're to judge what's appropiate behaviour from editors in that topic. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
3. Neutral. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
4. I recall seeing the name once, and not in a favorable context. But I don't remember the exact details (or even be certain that I didn't mix up the name with someone else), so here I am. T. Canens (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

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