Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Faithlessthewonderboy

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

Faithlessthewonderboy

(53/3/2); Scheduled to end 06:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Faithlessthewonderboy (talk · contribs) - "Faithless" has made about 7,000 8,000 edits in the last six months. He claims on his userpage that he edited Wikipedia for several years without an account, and I have no reason to doubt this. He certainly acts like someone who's been here for more than six months.

His favorite topic seems to be Harry Potter, but he edits other articles, and he does recent-changes patrol. I don't have much else to say, except that I see no downside to giving this experienced user the tools. Let's all have faith in Faithless! Shalom (Hello • Peace) 06:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you, Shalom! faithless (^speak) 06:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I don't imagine doing much admin work at first, until I feel comfortable using the tools. I'm a regular New Page and Recent Changes patroller, so it will be convenient to be able to delete obvious vandalism (such as attack pages, test pages and the like) and to give short blocks (usually 24 hours-1 week, depending on the circumstances) to persistent, unrepentant IP vandals. I also see myself helping out at CAT:CSD, as there is almost always work to be done there, reviewing proposed speedy deletions and deciding if speedy deletion is what is warranted. Once I've got the hang of things, I will likely begin participating at WP:AIV and WP:AFD.

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

A: This is a tough one. As Shalom mentioned, I am an active member of the Harry Potter WikiProject. As you can imagine, the Harry Potter-related articles are a lightning rod for vandalism, fancruft and well-meaning but nevertheless inappropriate edits. I am proud of the fact that (especially when compared to other fictional subjects) the HP articles are fairly well written and generally meet WP:WAF.

One article that I've worked extensively on is Belle & Sebastian. I provided every source in the article (currently 47), four of the five pictures and did a fair amount of rewriting, single-handedly taking the article from this to its current state. While it didn't pass its GA review (the reviewer felt that there were some POV issues), I'm confident that a minor cleanup will be sufficient to bring it to Good Article status.

As for articles which I have created or rewritten entirely, I would point to Literature of Egypt, Saint Paul's Episcopal Church (Norfolk, Virginia) and Operation Instant Thunder, all of which were Did You Know? selections. I enjoy creating articles for obscure (but nevertheless notable) historical figures and athletes. I also upload images to Commons; I've taken pictures of many local buildings and also searched for Creative Commons-licensed images on Flickr.

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: We've all had our disagreements on Wikipedia, and occasionally they can get quite heated. For me, Wikipedia is a fun way to spend my downtime, a hobby; on the occasions where I have been attacked or insulted to the point where I begin to take it personally, I simply step away from the computer and go feed the ducks (literally - I live next to a park with an excellent duck pond :)). It's important that we have a level head when editing, and I like to think that I am a particularly civil editor, even in the face of abuse and insults. I always assume good faith and do my very best to bring an amicable end to all disputes. Of course, misunderstandings can sometimes occur, and none of us are above an occasional lapse of judgment. However, I am always ready to admit when I am in the wrong, and will happily apologize when I have wronged a fellow editor.

Additional questions from Daniel, posted 10:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

4. Were you aware of the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff about undeleting articles citing biographies of living persons concerns, and what is your understanding of it?

A: The Request for Arbitration in question occurred before I was a registered user, so I was not familiar with it until fairly recently. This being the case, the current state of the policy is "all I know," so to speak. BLP is a policy with which every Wikipedian needs to be familiar. Not only do violations of this policy damage Wikipedia (through loss of credibility, potential legal ramifications, etc.), but there is also the very serious risk of harm to the subject of an article. Furthermore, Wikipedia is driven by consensus, and it is especially important that consensus is achieved before any potentially controversial or contentious actions are taken. Unilateral action in general should be avoided (which isn't to say that we can't be bold, but that's another issue entirely), particularly where biographies of living persons are concerned; in other words, we must err on the side of caution. Before an article deleted over BLP concerns can be undeleted, an editor must show that the article does not, in fact, violate policy, and the community must reach a consensus before one can even think of undeleting such an article.

4i. (follow-up) — You said above "it is especially important that consensus is achieved before any potentially controversial or contentious actions are taken. Unilateral action in general should be avoided". Was this in reference to speedy deletion of pages which are considered to violate the biographies of living persons policy, undeletions of articles which were deleted citing the biographies of living persons policy, or both? Daniel 11:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have been more careful with my wording there. That was in reference to undeletions of articles deleted citing BLP violations. An article which is in violation of this policy needs to be addressed as soon as it is noticed; in some cases, deletion is warranted. It is not worth seeking a consensus before deleting such an article; that is, the risks outweigh the rewards. In such cases, an administrator needs to rely on his/her judgment, and use the tools with which they have been entrusted. While such an action might be controversial or unpopular, it is better for everyone if we err on the side of caution when it comes to BLP. If it is decided to undelete the article, then no real harm is done. But if an article violating BLP is left up, we may have to deal with consequences which would have been easily avoided if the article was deleted. Administrators must be willing to make an unpopular decision if it means saving the reputation of both Wikipedia and the subject of a biography of a living person. When I stated above that "it is especially important that consensus is achieved before any potentially controversial or contentious actions are taken. Unilateral action in general should be avoided", I should have noted that cases of BLP violation are an exception. Thanks for allowing me to clear that up. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faithlessthewonderboy (talk • contribs) 12:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

5. If you wish to undelete an article citing the biographies policy (or OTRS as well), what steps would you take? What steps wouldn't you take?

A: Well let's break this down: this is assuming, of course, that this hypothetical article meets all other criteria for inclusion (that is, that the subject is notable and that the information is verifiable and properly sourced). Assuming that this is the case I would, of course, never just go ahead and undelete the article. If I believe that the article (or an earlier version of it) does not violate BLP, I would contact the administrator who deleted the article. I can't imagine that between the two of us we wouldn't be able to sort things out. If, however, we were unable to come to an agreement, there are several avenues to explore. Perhaps the easiest of these would be to ask a few other admins to weigh in; an outside view is often what is needed to break a deadlock. If there is still disagreement, the next step would be to take it to deletion review. If there is a clear consensus to undelete the article, I would do so. If however, there was consensus to leave it deleted or the result of the discussion was close, I would not undelete the article.

In the case of an article which meets all criteria for inclusion but for which there is no "good" version, I would create the article from scratch, making sure that it is BLP compliant.

Additional, optional, question from JodyB

6. There has been considerable discussion of the notability of fictional characters, places and events and the standard they must meet in order to be considered notable for stand-alone articles. Would you discuss your understanding of when a fictional character, place or event should have its own article.

A: This is one area where my view has changed over time. Earlier in my Wiki-career, I was much more flexible in my view of what notability meant as far as fictional topics were concerned. This was due, I believe, to the fact that I did not have a firm understanding of WP:N, WP:FICTION in particular. I have spent a fair amount of time familiarizing myself with the notability guidelines, and I believe that I now understand them quite well. The notability of a fictional subject is actually pretty easy to determine: the topic must be notable in a real world context. It doesn't matter how important the character, place, etc. is within the work itself, it must be noteworthy independent of the book, film, etc. In order to prove notability in an out-of-universe context, a fictional topic (like all others) must have received significant coverage by a reliable source independent of the subject. In other words, you can't use the Star Wars Encyclopedia to establish the notability of Han Solo. We must also keep in mind that notability is not inherited. The notability of Star Wars does not extend to an unnamed character standing in the background of the Mos Eisley Cantina. In borderline cases, I think that articles such as Places in Harry Potter and Minor characters from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy are a good compromise. For a specific example, I'll use Cho Chang and Cedric Diggory. On their own, the notability of these two characters is very shaky at best. But when we combine such characters into a larger article, in this case Hogwarts students, not only is the notability bolstered, but we create a stronger article overall.

Follow up Q As I understand it , Star Wars Encyclopedia is a published book from a major SF publisher. Aren't published works about a subject evidence of notability of the subject discussed? Are you saying we could not use a work on Shakespeare with a chapter on Hamlet to establish that character's notability? Or material in a history to establish that of historical figures? DGG (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A. The Star Wars Encyclopedia was written by Steve Sansweet, an employee of Lucasfilm. Therefore, the work is not independent of the subject, and can't be used to establish notability. The two examples you provided are not at all comparable to the SWE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faithlessthewonderboy (talk • contribs) 00:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

7. How do you view the relationship between standards for articles set by WikiProjects and the community at large.

A. While there's no reason why there shouldn't be agreement between a WikiProject and the community at large, it would depend on the situation. For instance, many of us consider ourselves experts (for want of a better word) when it comes to our favorite sports, and therefore we can all make an informed decision when it comes to these topics. However, there are cases where I believe it is probably best for the community to defer to particular Projects; there are topics where not only are most of us not experts, but many if not most of us are completely clueless and unable to give an informed decision. For example, if an article comes up at AfD which is under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fluid dynamics, those of us who aren't physics experts ought to defer to those who are. However, if an article which is under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football comes up, the views of members of that Project probably shouldn't be given special consideration, as it is a topic which many of us are familiar with, and which a non-expert can easily understand.

Additional question from User:Krator

8. Following up on question 6, how would you close the AfD debate copied to /Question 8, and why is that? Please refrain from viewing the original.

A. Wow, that's quite a mess. I can't give a definitive answer without being able to see the articles nominated, but I can tell you what I'd probably do. As a former Warcraft player (old school - Warcraft II, not World of Warcraft), my initial reaction is that the characters from the series are not notable. While I believe that the "delete" arguments are better than the "keeps," there is no consensus. Therefore, I'd likely close the discussion as "no consensus" and recommend that the articles either be listed individually or in smaller groups. This would seem to be a good place for a List of Warcraft characters, except that that article has been deleted several times already. All things considered, the Warcraft Wiki is probably a better place for this information.

General comments

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

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

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support Whats not to like? A few more months maybe, but to be honest if Faithless hasn't come unstuck by now with the vandalism at Harry Potter, he/she is doing something right. Good answers also. —Moondyne 08:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
2. This user is always showing up my watchlist doing good things. John Reaves 08:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Seen around, been impressed. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Definitely, he'd be handy-er than he already is with access to the block button :) Spebi 09:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Seen him at new page patrol. Excellent user who rarely makes mistakes. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 09:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Great new page patroller. Rt. 10:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Support, no good reason not to. Neıl ☎ 10:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Support. I've edited with Faithless, and he is a great editor. Good luck! Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier Public (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Seen him a fair bit around HP articles; an excellent user who should be trusted with adminship. asyndeton talk 13:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. I agree, the candidate appears to have solid edits and a good understanding of policies. No concerns about granting the tools. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
11. Support- A rare enough user who deserves the title of the user; has an extremely widespread edits throughout the Wiki. Takes part in WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:NP and goodness knows, possibly tons of other categories. Also has good (very, extremely good) grasp of policies in Wiki. All in all, this is a user who will thoroughly bring the phrase "to make Wikipedia a better place for everyone" to the next level. Cheers, and good luck. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Support Good all round experienced editor who would help the community. Harland1 (^t/_c) 16:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
13. Support answers give me confidence. Dlohcierekim 16:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
14. Support great answers, and all my encounters with him have been extremely positive. He is a very helpful person with my signature and user page Ctjf83 ^talk 18:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
15. Support as nominator. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
16. Support. When I first saw him on Talk:Harry Potter, I seriously thought he was an admin and spent half an hour looking for his RfA. With all the problems that he undergoes on Harry Potter and related pages and still managing to stay calm, he'll make a great admin. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 19:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
17. Support Someone who knows what he's doing, no doubt. No reason not to trust him with the tools.   jj137 ^♠ 20:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
18. Support - No reason not to. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
19. Support A well-rounded editor. Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 20:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
20. Support - Looking over his contributions, I see no reason not to, as he seems a strong editor- he knows what he's doing. cf38^talk 21:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Consistently good reporting at AIV. Also in this case the narrowish focus on a group of articles is a good thing; things Harry Potter related will attract all manner of editing problems so it is likely this editor has had a concentrated exposure to many of the ills that an admin needs the tools to resolve. No qualms re misusing the mop either. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
22. Support as a good editor. Lots of edits, many for new articles. Admits to IP edits. Has a sense of humor. No worries here. Bearian (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
23. Support. Keeps a level head, fights vandals, and excellent answer on WP:FICTION question. Give him the wand, er, mop. --Fabrictramp (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
24. Support, has clue. Keilana 00:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
25. Support. I saw FtWB making some nice contributions at WikiProject Virginia and related articles, and I mentally tagged him as potential admin material. Looking over recent contributions and his answers confirms my early assessment.--Kubigula (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
26. Support. Appears to be a well-rounded editor. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 02:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
27. Support I think that this user will dojust fine as an admin. Captain panda 02:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
28. Strongly per answers to Q4, Q4i and Q5. Daniel 02:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
29. Support Jmlk17 04:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)`
30. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 05:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
31. Could have sworn you were already! Best of luck. :) GlassCobra 06:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
32. Absolutely. Great editor, has admirable dedication towards the project. PeaceNT (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
33. I am satisfied, based on the answers above, that this nominee has the snarts needed to do a fine job. -JodyB _talk 13:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
34. Support Handles disputes rather well and has a good knowledge of policy. The oppose links actually pushed me close to a strong support: those links showed someone committed to protecting heavily trafficked articles from harm without being too bitey, arguing against OR and keeping rather calm in the face of personal attacks. Shell ^babelfish 17:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
35. Support, per the nom, the answers to the Questions, and a WP:DYK contributor to boot! Cirt (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
36. Support Editor has skills worthy of sysop tools, regardless of the anecdotal edit warring on the Harry Potter articles.--WaltCip (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
37. Support With +8000 edits, I think he would be a great asset on the anti-vandalism front. Sirkad_talk^sign 22:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
38. This user seems qualified to be a sysop; no reason to oppose. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 23:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
39. Support - No Issues. PookeyMaster (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
40. Agree with the above. Acalamari 02:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
41. Support keenness outweighs issue below for mine. overall a net positivecheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
42. Weak Support Sure, you may not be perfect, but then again none of us are. The perfect RfA would come at a later date for you, though I still doubt you'll make more mistakes with the sysop tools than the next one. :-) Pumpmeup 10:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
43. Support per mostly excellent answers to questions. --Coredesat 12:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
44. Support - I see this user's name all over my watchlist. We have done work (him much more so than me I have to admit), especially anti-vandal work on Harry Potter-related articles, and I think all his contribs have been really useful to Wikipedia. Keep up the great work! Lradrama 14:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
45. Support-Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 16:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
46. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
47. Support Trustworthy. I also feel the editor has grown out of the issues mentioned below. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 07:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
48. Support Fine editor. I also liked his answers. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
49. Weak Support seems like a great user to me....IslaamMaged126 (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
50. Support Deli nk (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
51. SupportArchtransit (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
52. Support Looks good to me. --Sharkface217 07:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
53. Support You deserve it mate!. --SAlex^{Talk to me} 02:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Faithless has revert warred in order to impose original research and crufty elements in at least 3 Harry Potter articles. He was asked multiple times to provide sources for his claims but never bothered to do it. He doesn't seem to like contradiction and thus his attitude was several time very close to article ownership, talking to the other users involved in the debates in an agressive and insulting way. In my opinion, this is not the behavior an admin should have.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

   His ability to maintain his composure while dealing with you is another reason he should be an admin. John Reaves 22:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

   If you call revert warring and agressivity "composure" that's good for you (also could you leave your personal problems out of WP ?)Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

   Difs, please? Dlohcierekim 22:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

   Don't have time for complete difs but you can find the edit wars here (bottom of the page), and here (middle), here bottom. Main debates here and here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

   Comment. Your block log (in which four different administrators have found cause to block you) and your talk page show a user who does not yet understand how to constructively contribute in a collaborative way. These comments should be taken with a grain of salt. —Moondyne 03:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

   Valid remark, but you're talking of heated disputes involving known disruptive users who've been blocked afterward.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

   Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, Folken de Fanel. Pumpmeup 10:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose Strong oppose. The editing and associated talk page discussion at List of Harry Potter characters Nov. 25-27 as mentioned above by Folken de Fanel reveals, in that one exchange, Faithlessthewonderboy editwarring, showing lack of understanding of cited policy ("OR" mentioned in edit summary), and an unwarranted personal remark. Reverting again after having said "please don't start a revert war" looks like a clear case of editwarring to me: [1] [2]. Meanwhile, the policy-based and apparently (to me) well-founded charge of "OR" in the edit summary of the reverted edit was not directly addressed in the talk page comments. Faithlessthewonderboy also seems to be implying [3] [4] that the other editor, who had already mentioned "OR" and explained it in an edit summary, still has the responsibility to start a discussion and "gain consensus" when Faithlessthewonderboy had not provided much or any argument against the charge of "OR". This, along with the words "an editor is trying to insist that..." in the latter link, shows to me a lack of willingness to take other editors' concerns seriously and discuss them -- a tendency I wouldn't want someone with admin tools having. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

   I'd like to respond to this oppose. The issue at hand is somewhat complex if you're not familiar with the series, so I'd encourage anyone interested in the whole story to study Talk:List of Harry Potter characters as well as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter/Archive 11#Opinions needed!. To provide a bit of context, it's worth mentioning that Folken de Fanel and I have had our disagreements in the past. I won't deny that, by the letter of the law, the information in question is OR. But this is clearly, IMHO, a situation where WP:IAR applies. Charlus Potter and Dorea Black are linked on the Black Family Tree and are known to have had a son. Folken argues that since it is never explicitly stated that the two were married, they should not be described as married. In instances such as these, we ought to use our better judgment and go by the intent of the work, and not get hung up on semantics. I sought consensus at the article's talk page and from the HP Project, and every member of the Project who weighed in agreed with my position. I was the one to seek the opinion of the community, and it appears to me that they agreed with my argument. As for this remark, I certainly could have handled that better. However, it was hardly an unwarranted personal remark, if you consider the comment I was responding to, along with this comment in which Folken de Fanel insinuated that I have "something against" having children born out of wedlock. Still, I admit that it was a mistake; after all, two wrongs don't make a right. As I said in my answer to Q3, none of us are above an occasional lapse of judgment. As far as the charge of edit warring goes, it was Folken who broke 3RR; I never did. I respect Coppertwig's right to oppose, and am not suggesting that s/he change his/her mind; I merely wanted to give my side of the story. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 01:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

   IMHO also, IAR is not an almighty excuse to ignore requests or challenges of statement from other users, or to be disdainful with them in debates (and yes, claiming that "everyone was with you" while we were at least 3 to oppose you was not very respectful). That's good, however, if you admit your reverts were not civil and justified.

   Concerning having something "against children born out of wedlock", I couldn't imagine that saying this would represent such an affront for you (I should have added in the HP world, maybe, and I really apologize if it shocked you); since you said yourself that "assuming that they were not married and had a child out of wedlock is, frankly, idiotic". Clearly you didn't have a "neutral" point of view in the first place, presenting the mere possibility of things not going the way you liked as "idiotic", thus calling me an "idiot" for thinking it was even possible for Dorea and Charlus not to be married. When I wrote the sentence about "having something against...", I was just wondering what could have warranted such contempt against me or this possibility.

   And so, you're claiming that your violent reaction to this sentence was not unwarranted ? I was insulted a first time, and because I reacted to it I was insulted a second time, and I just "deserved" it ?

   That you recognize you weren't civil is a good thing, but as Coppertwig said, I don't find it reasonable that an admin, with all his tools at his disposal, can act in such a way in the first place. I have started this debate so that, if you become admin, you can change your attitude a bit.

   Finally, continuing to revert while you were specifically asked to provide a source in a possible OR content dispute, was clearly the beginning of an edit war. I also reverted, I won't deny it, but edit wars don't magically start with the 4th revert if something looks bad prior to this.Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

   We have had a disagreement, you have voiced your opposition to the RfA, and I have apologized where I have overreacted. So please, let this end; this is hardly the place to rehash an old argument. You've given your opinion (which you are perfectly entitled to do), and I have given mine. You have given an apology to me for making a potentially misleading statement, and I apologize to you for using unnecessarily strong language. In this instance, it seems we both could have expressed ourselves better. I do have one last bone to pick, so to speak - your use of quotation marks above have give the impression that I said a few things which I have never said: that you are an idiot (I certainly have never said that, and never would, though I certainly employed a poor choice of wording, for which I apologize), that everyone agreed with me (I simply said that most agreed with me, which is true) and that you deserved something, which I also did not say. Both of us could have done a better job at keeping our cool, but Coppertwine's comments made it seem that the argument was one-sided. I don't see how stating that most of those who participated in the discussion agreed with my argument is disrespectful or disdainful. Hopefully we can now just agree to disagree and move on. faithless (^speak) 03:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

   You seem to have apologized for saying "idiotic", but it's not clear to me whether you've apologized to Folken de Fanel for your comment "Yes, as usual you can't hold a civil conversation, insult other Wikipedians, engage in edit warring and harm the project rather than improve it" or whether you still consider this to be "hardly an unwarranted personal remark" as you describe it above, although I would characterize the message you're responding to as reasonably civil but emphatic, containing nothing worse than "you're just wrong", which can be seen as a statement about your arguments, not a personal remark. In response to this emphatic argument, you not only insult the editor but also fail to address any of the points the editor raises, in spite of the editor's emphatic attempt to get a message across to you. You seem to have not only invoked IAR but editwarred without even mentioning to the other editor that that was what you were invoking. Incidentally, I don't see how reporting someone for vandalism is a minor edit (you have more than one such edit); and I'd appreciate having my username spelled correctly. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

   People constantly mess up my username, too. I obviously didn't mean any offense, and I'd appreciate a little good faith. When you report a vandal using Twinkle, it is marked as a minor edit. I have dozens of such edits, as do thousands of other Wikipedians. As for the Folken de Fanel situation, if you read my statement above, you will see that I wrote, "I apologize to you for using unnecessarily strong language." I don't see what else I could be asked to apologize for. Both sides of the story have been given, and I have admitted that I could have expressed myself better. As far as I'm concerned, the issue is closed. I can't imagine what more could possibly be said. faithless (^speak) 02:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

   I was thinking maybe I should have said some nice things to you, besides just criticizing. I see that you are diligent in fighting vandalism, and Wikipedia needs more admins with tools to do stuff like that. Nevertheless, I still oppose based on the exchange described above. I understand that going through an RfA can be rather stressful and I hope the things I'm saying don't cause you too much stress.

   I assume when you say you'd appreciate a little good faith that what you mean is that you'd appreciate that I assume that you are acting in good faith -- not that you think I was not acting in good faith. I have assumed all along that you are acting in good faith, and still do. I assumed the misspelling of my username was a mistake, not something done with the intention to offend. All I meant was that an encyclopedist and/or admin needs to take care to try to avoid those sorts of mistakes. Actually, I expected that you would apologize for that minor error, not argue with me about it, but that's of little importance.

   Much more important, it seems to me that you may be refusing to apologize to Folken de Fanel for the comment I quoted above because apparently you still believe it was "hardly an unwarranted personal remark" as you said above. If the "hardly..." comment is left standing, then it appears to me that the apology for "strong language" applies only to the remark about "idiotic" If you meant to retract the "hardly..." comment, you haven't made that clear. If you want to make it clear, you can strike out "hardly an unwarranted personal remark" where it appears in your comment above (unless that sort of striking out is inappropriate in an RfA) or you can say "I retract the words 'hardly an unwarranted personal remark' and apologize for the remark referred to," or you can say any of a number of other things that would make it clear what you are or are not apologizing for. It's up to you to decide. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

   I'm changing my vote to "strong oppose" based on the above exchange, especially the lack of clarification as to whether the candidate is or is not apologizing to the other editor for the remark beginning "Yes, as usual you can't hold a civil conversation..." etc. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose I am really concerned about the comment "Yes, as usual you can't hold a civil conversation, insult other Wikipedians, engage in edit warring and harm the project rather than improve it" [5] when the previous comment was actually, despite what you say above, reasonably civil. And what leads me to oppose, is that it was only 4 weeks ago. (As it happens, I agree with you on the issue involved, but that's another matter). You are not yet ready to have administrative authority. DGG (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral - per the No.1 Oppose Comments and associated diffs. Otherwise, a good editor.Swap to Support. PookeyMaster (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Neutral — a very good editor, but as seen in Oppose Comments, I would be wary to give him sysop access just yet. Maybe in the future.--Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves ^{talk / contribs} (join WP:PT) 02:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral - per Ivo Emanuel Goncalves (aka Saoshyant), come back soon in my opinion. F9T 20:40, 20 December 2007 (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.