Select Page

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AzaToth 4

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

AzaToth

Final (143/4/3); Ended Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:48:31 UTC

AzaToth (talk · contribs) - I am pleased to nominate AzaToth (talk · contribs) for adminship. AzaToth joined Wikipedia in November 2004, and has been active for more than a year now. He's racked up over 13,000 edits across the article, Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk, user talk, template, template talk namespaces. He has previously run under RfA in March 2006, September 2006 and most recently in January 2007. In his last RfA, nearly two months ago, most of the opposition he received was based on the answers to his questions, which appeared to be too short, and made the user seem like he was not fully knowledgeable about adminship. I feel that AzaToth's attitude, and his work since last RfA have shown that he fully understands and can demonstrate Wikipedia policy, when needed in XfDs, AIVs, etc. AzaToth has also made many valued contributions to the article namespace, which his lack of had been a concern in the previous RfA. AzaToth made one of the most widely-used RC patrol tools called TWINKLE and he has effectively demonstrated his knowledge in his hundreds of AIV reports that he has made using the tool. AzaToth is a valued contributor to Wikipedia, and I feel that the tools will be of more use to him when working with templates (btw, he's a template wizard :-P) and dealing with administrative duties such as RFPPs and AIV reports. AzaToth is definitely qualified, and I think he can really use the admin tools. Nishkid64 23:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination: Once or twice a month an RfA nomination comes along for a user whose need for the tools goes above and beyond the typical RfA candidate—AzaToth is such a nominee. AzaToth, as noted above, is not just a template wizard, but arguably, the template wizard. His work in template space was instrumental behind the development of conditional expressions in templates. His special need for admin tools is to allow him to help maintain the many templates that he both developed and extended that are permanently protected. In addition to being a valuable resource with a special need for admin tools, AzaToth is also an extremely trustworthy and civil user. His contributions have been of consistently high quality and tremendous benefit to Wikipedia. While much of the opposition on his previous RfAs has focused on editcountitis regarding his article contributions, I sincerely hope that people will look beyond article contribution and consider both his special need for admin tools and the complete picture of his contributions to the project. I couldn’t give a higher recommendation. —Doug Bell talk 21:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept →AzaToth 12:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I would like to help with CAT:CSD, as I have been doing a lot of speedy deletion tagging, I feel I have got a pretty good grip on the WP:CSD criteria. Even though we don't need much more RC patrolling admins, the ability to block vandals instead of filling up the WP:AIV backlog (or even be able to reduce it), could be a benefit. My expertise in the AfD process is somewhat limited, so for the moment, it's perhaps best for me to stay away from it (or at least, don't close grayzone afds). Other places I will keep/am keeping an eye on is WP:TFD, WP:RFPP, WP:ANI. As I have done some maintenance on WP:FP, perhaps I could help on WP:POTD (if they need help that is).
There are lots of things that need to be done, and if I can do my part, then I believe that's good for the pedia. If you grant me this request, I won't let you down!
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm pretty pleased with Twinkle, as it may help even non-admins conduct maintenance rather easily, otherwise I'm trying to help people find solutions to problems, for example, when a template is in need of major maintenance, or when something doesn't work as expected. I helped WP:ACID to get back on their legs, and with the help of User:Diez2, articles are starting to get to GA and FA again, though the last month, as I have been somewhat busy, most of my work there has been to spam people once a week with the new article to be fixed. See Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive/History for past collaborations.
One article I feel warm about, is Death, and since my start to find the problems, it has become a rather good article, though it still needs to be expanded even more, and is still lacking some verifications. [1].
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I'm pretty sure I have been in some conflicts in the past, but can't remember any specific occasion at the moment though. Those times I have been attacked by vandals/trolls, I have tried to keep my head cool, often I try to post the appropriate warning on the users talk page, and hope they get the message. If not, I'll report them to AIV, and try to go on with my business. Sometimes when RC patrolling, I may make an error in my judgement, and revert wrongfully, and give a wrong warning. On these occasions, I give an apology, and fix the problem as soon as possible; I haven't had anyone not accept an apology as of yet.
In the past there have been some incidents, where I have been a bit too bold in implementing things, without discussing first. Sometimes then I felt some stress, as I didn't know how to proceed, as I didn't want to hurt anyone's feeling, but it usually was possible to resolve the issue with a discussion and a compromise.
Optional question 4 by Gracenotes Under what circumstances would you close a TFD early? This includes: under what circumstances would you snowball close a TFD? GracenotesT § 18:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: First of all I would close a TfD, if the nomination is defined under CSD. common example would be G7, the only auther posted a non-used template on TfD. Other case of early closure could be if the nomination is clearly a WP:POINT nomination (could be difficult to decide, but if someone nominates {{main}} for deletion, I would call it as a POV-nom. WP:SNOW would I only apply, if there is a clear consensus of the outcome. One example could be that a template has been deprecated, and no one is contesting the replacement template.
Optional question 5 by Gracenotes How often do you think you'd go through Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests? GracenotesT § 18:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Probably randomly. once a week perhaps, or more or less.
General comments
6. Optional question by Wizardman: As Wikipedia grows, and its search engine ranking increases, this is causing some people to use Wikipedia for search engine optimization, and to generally promote their website. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? If so, how high? Actually, this is Eagle's question from the previous RfA, but you did not provide an answer, and I would like to see where you stand on this.--Wizardman 18:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Spam is a difficult topic, as it's difficult to identify what's spam and what's a "good" link. As I have never used myspace, I cannot my self assert how notable an entry on myspace could be, perhaps there are some notable groups that have their main web-site on myspace, perhaps there are just junk there. I would say that if the article is about something notable, and that objects officual web-site is located on myspace, then it's ok to link to that page, otherwise not. The same goes for other sites like blogspot, etc...
YouTube is a bit more difficult. The question I ask my self, is what would be needed on youtube to enrich the article? If the article must have a movie about a subject, then it could be uploaded under fair use. If not, it's rather bad to link to a non-good object on an external site.
Lastly, official I'm "against" spam.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Strong Support as nom. Let's go for WP:100. Nishkid64 21:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per noms, answers, level of commitment, and overall record. At this point I believe this candidate is fully qualified for adminship. Newyorkbrad 21:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support my concerns from the previous RFA have been addressed and I wish AzaToth all the very best. The Rambling Man 21:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support An excellent contributor, will make a great admin. —Krellis (Talk) 21:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support yes, a great contributor, should be fine. Good luck! Majorly (o rly?) 21:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Looks good to me.--Anthony.bradbury 21:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support — Lost(talk) 22:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I agree, looks good. -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 22:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support an excellent contributer & template creator. Should be an excellent admin. Best of luck.:)--theblueflamingoSquawk 22:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support No problems here. (aeropagitica) 22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mop Support aye. Georgewilliamherbert 22:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support clear understanding of policy by creating twinkle Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support —dgiestc 22:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I've seen this user's edits when I've been reverting vandalism. Acalamari 22:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. WjBscribe 22:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support This user is a great vandal fighter.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. bibliomaniac15 22:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Co-nom support...you snuck it out of the garage while I wasn't looking.  :-) —Doug Bell talk 22:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Four edit conflicts Support - amazing job with WP:TWINKLE - the CSD summaries are invaluable for any admin. I looked back at the previous RFA and didn't see any real problems. I remember there was a reason I didn't !vote in it, but since I can't remember what it was, it must not have been important. Thus I support. --BigDT 22:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - Good Gracious!!! Kukini hablame aqui 23:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong Support, should've been an admin last go-around, though at least everyone's voting right this time :P--Wizardman 23:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, has improved markedly since the previous RFA, with good answers to questions. Great editor all around. --Coredesat 23:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Support Absolutely! Excellent answers this time. :-) - Anas Talk? 23:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support one more! -- Selket Talk 23:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong Support-This will probably be edit conflicted, but this user is amazing. He's created the best script ever, with every thing in the world needed for vandalism patrolling. Always helpful and knowledgeable. (Wasn't this RFA 1/0/0 2 hours ago? 25 supports in 2 hours =2700 supports total-unlikely, but then again, there are millions of Wikipediia users). --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 23:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Fourth time ze charm - NYC JD (interrogatories) 23:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. llama Support! –Llama mantalkcontribs 23:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Let the acronym BITYWAA! be born - But I Thought You Were An Admin! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, per this ancient edit -- stillnotelf is invisible 23:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, clear need for the tools. Neil (not Proto ►) 23:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - A very Good and Trustworthy Editor...--Cometstyles 23:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong Support I trust this user with the mop.--PrestonH(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!) 00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Supported last time, and nothing has changed my mind since then. Agent 86 00:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Well it is about frak'n time! JoshuaZ 00:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support (was neutral in last RfA) I still feel that AzaToth can be fully trusted with the tools. I am a bit concerned (and I really hate to say this) with his slightly subpar english. That of course doesn't disqualify him as a potentially great admin but he should probably choose the ways in which he contributes as an admin accordingly. Pascal.Tesson 00:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support AzaToth is a great user who we can trust to be a great administrator. Cbrown1023 talk 00:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support of course, will make a fine admin.--Húsönd 00:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. If you've been here since 2004, you're ready. Go for it. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 00:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong Support Incredible user. Made a great script and will make a great admin. -Mschel 00:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Twinkle is awesome. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support I am very comfortable with the idea of AzaToth as an admin. --Xnuala 01:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Strong support. I hope you will succeed throughout this RfA nomination. zero » 01:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Impressive user. Impressive admin. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Very helpful in vandal fighting. Twinkle is cool, too! Real96 01:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support I trust this user's abilities, knowledge, and intentions. He hasn't shown much bad faith so far, unless he's waiting to be an admin to add #globalWrapper { display : none; } to Common.css. But I doubt that (and don't get any ideas!) GracenotesT § 02:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. I don't normally join these pile-ons, but I'll make an exception for a candidate like AzaToth. Rje 02:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Very worthy candidate and great vandal fighter. Will (aka Wimt) 02:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. irc cabal support--Random832 02:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support This user is ready for the tools and responsibilities of adminship Gutworth 02:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Of course. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 02:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support AzaToth is quite a multi-talented user (referring to his great scripting abilities of course), dedicated vandal fighter, and seems fairly well enough aware of policy. Would use the tools fine.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Per nom, I'm surprised it's taken this long, definitely a worthy candidate-HornandsoccerTalk 02:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Garion96 (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support · j e r s y k o talk · 03:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support, I like his Twinkle. ^_^ Apple••w••o••r••m•• 03:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong Support. Long overdue. Khoikhoi 03:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support I see you in a lot of places doing a lot of good work.--Kubigula (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Weak support as in the last RfA, I would've been all for this nomination if the answer to question #1 had been "edit protected templates", which is clearly this user's major area of expertise. It's a bit worrying that so many people commented to that effect last time. and yet question 1 still includes no mention of such work and is just the usual 'speedies, AIV, etc.' pablum. But on balance I think he would use the tools productively, so I'll support. Opabinia regalis 04:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just point out that this is more or less what he said in his first RfA, and people opposed because of that position. So it just proves you can't please everyone. —Doug Bell talk 04:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but that was a year ago. Opabinia regalis 05:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. About fxn time. Grutness...wha? 04:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support, Trustworthy, dedicated contributor. I also trust that Aza will maintain the wisdom to avoid admin-areas he is uncomforable with, I normally don't !vote for admins seeking the role for limited purposes but this ones a no-brainer. — xaosflux Talk 04:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - Richard Cavell 05:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support, we should have made him an admin a year ago. Kusma (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Would make an excellent admin. Actually surprised he wasn't admin already. --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 06:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Full Support Great template work, great work on mediawiki development, and active in many mediawiki fields (spamfighting, vandalfighting; is there a mediawiki IRC channel that you are not on?). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Damn wish I'd seen this earlier. He's done some excellent insightful work on the warnings templates and it's about time he was given the ball & chain mop and bucket. I'm sure he will make a fine admin. Khukri 09:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support A fine editor in every way, even finer if sysopped. (so I hope, anyway) --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support per noms. Sarah 10:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Twinkle, twinkle, little star. Bubba hotep 10:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. 73 As per all the above. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 10:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. MANA-YOOD-SUSHAI. >Radiant< 11:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Although I didn't recognize the name at first, I recognize what he's done. Deserves to be an admin. —davidh.oz.au 13:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Absolutely... - Denny 13:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Terence 14:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Vandalfighter plus toolmaker. —— Eagle101 Need help? 15:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support What else needs to be said? Sxeptomaniac 16:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support of course.-- danntm T C 17:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support as it comes as a shock that he wasn't already. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 17:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Michael 20:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Super contributor, good judgment, recent incident on IRC mentioned by opposer seems an aberration not the rule. Pigmandialogue 20:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Lectonar 20:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support --lightdarkness (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support *definitely*! Yuser31415 21:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Patstuarttalk·edits 22:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support (with an LOL at the below oppose; that's why RFA sucks.) Jon Harald Søby 22:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. Kyle Barbour 22:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Late to the party support. – Steel 22:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Let's go for 100! Veinor (talk to me) 22:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Excellent user. 6 more to 100. Also agree with Jon Harald Søby. Nol888(Talk)(Review me please) 22:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Great, great user. 5 more to 100. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You already supported... See #46 above. WjBscribe 04:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support per marked improvement since last RfA. I believe AzaToth will do a good job and not abuse the twiddled bit. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Jaranda wat's sup 01:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - Chacor's mention of the IRC incident raises a slight concern, but really it doesn't sound like it was that big a deal. Aza Toth says that it could have been handled better and so that shows a maturity and sense of responsibility to learn from whatever mistakes were made, and that is always impressive. Plus, with 13,000 edits, if this is the worse then Aza Toth has done then I say no problem. Please pass the bucket, the mop, and the flamethrower. (But please don't become reliant on IRC. On wiki discussions are best precisely because the leave a record which is important for understand, accountability, and precdent.) Johntex\talk 02:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Absodamnlutely per previous nomination. -- nae'blis 02:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support WP:100 -- Avi 02:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support. It's been a while since I've interacted with this user, but the name brings up positive thoughts.--ragesoss 03:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support -- Gogo Dodo 03:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support, a hundred times over. – riana_dzasta 06:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Strongest support possible Why on the earth isn't already an admin? ;-) Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 07:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Weak Support because of your failure to discuss the change for nominations at WP:FPC. It turned out being just fine though! :) · AO Talk 11:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Ab-so-friggen-lutely James086Talk 12:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Strong support per nom gidonb 15:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. --Ligulem 16:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support Everyone else seems to be supportign but I have noticed this user around in many places before, just one of the is leaving messages on the WDefCon, I think he/she could benefit the tools greatly.Tellyaddict 17:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Let's do this. --SilverhandTalk 18:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support! —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 07:32Z
  110. Support. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. I hope you have dropped your topic changinating habits on IRC by now. Poor judgment on canvassing though, next time use PMs or /query, and people wouldn't indulge in sanctimonious bullshitTM :) Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Strong Support AzaToth=Twinkle...Twinkle=Adminship :). ~ Arjun 17:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support I've seen AzaToth around and was impressed. Will make a good admin. -- Jreferee 18:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support Everything looks good--better than good. IronDuke 21:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support AzaToth has always been a good contributor and will use the admin tools responsibly. --CBD 23:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support: Agree with above. S.D. 00:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support good editor, will be good admin --rogerd 02:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Cleared for Adminship User's improved and hostility level's gone down. —Pilotguy (go around) 03:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Weak Support User looks to be headed, although needs to learn from mistakes. Bigman17 05:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support Excellent editor. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support --MONGO 08:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support —Ruud 13:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support semper fictilis 18:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support Yet another !vote. Broke the WP:100 barrier! ffm yes? 18:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Shoop da Woop support: strong candidate, will do great things for the project. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 20:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support Wait, did I already support? Just Heditor review 20:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support. And, by the way, great tool! --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 21:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support Valentinian T / C 22:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support a good candidate --Steve (Stephen) talk 01:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support An amazing candidate in terms of template experience. The canvassing incident seems like an honest mistake to me and not sufficient reason to oppose his RfA; any shred of doubt regarding the canvassing is easily outshadowed by his expertise on templates. And of course, TW is fantastic. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support Why not? Sounds like a great person. Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 07:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support John Reaves (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support > Kamope < 21:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support. Valuable contributor. New tools will make him more so. -- Satori Son 23:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support A valued contributor, I can't see any reason to oppose, and thanks to AzaToth for that TWINKLE script! Will make a great admin. --sunstar nettalk 00:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Bandwagon per nom. No questions asked per Nishkid and Doug Bell. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Twinkle ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support again. NoSeptember 06:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  140. Support - Excellent candidate, have seen them around. No reason to believe they would misuse the tools. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support. -- DS1953 talk 19:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support. Will likely use tools to good effect. Jayjg (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support --MoRsE 12:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Everything looks good indeed[reply]

Oppose

  1. Sorry to be the first opposer. I don't like the recent incident on IRC where you tried to canvass for an FP review, when there were no responses you asked if we were ignoring you, and when I said that we'd look if we wanted to you said that people were "!voting wrongly" on an FPC delist candidate and asked for "help". Not behaviour I want from an admin. – Chacor 15:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I tried to canvass. I had the impression that the featured picture criteria clearly stated such an image couldn't apply the first exception, as it wasn't a "one of a time" image. I'm really sorry if you got that impression of me. →AzaToth 15:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It probably wouldn't be so bad if you didn't keep asking why we were "ignoring" you when no-one responded to you. Your persistence in chasing it until someone responded was not good, imo, and even after I responded you continued to point me there even when I said that if we wanted to we'd look. It's not solely about the canvassing, as I see it, but also the way you handled the incident. – Chacor 15:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You are totally right that I didn't handle that good. →AzaToth 15:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Should isolated IRC incidents be brought up in RfAs? Not a statement, just a question. Nishkid64 19:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would they not be? If someone is going to use IRC for wiki-work, then their actions on IRC become relevant. Johntex\talk 22:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any diffs or recordings to supply evidence of inappropriate behaviour on IRC? If such evidence can't be supplied then it makes it difficult to base an opinion on testimony alone. (aeropagitica) 23:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes, I agree that it is difficult to substantiate what happened on IRC.
    Having said that, the nominee has not contested the mention of the discussion. So there is currently no reason to doubt the version of events that has been presented.
    The phrase Live by the sword; die by the sword comes to mind. If one wants to treat IRC as a valid tool for wiki-work, then it is fair for that activity to be mentioned on wiki.
    Personally, I think use of IRC for Wiki-work is problematic for the very reason that accontability is difficult at best. For that reason, I believe IRC should never be used for important matters pertaining to Wikipedia. On-wiki conversations are best. If someone is afraid of a record of what they said, then they were probably saying something they should not have said.
    I would be more comfortable if the candidate were to take a vow that they will not carry on important Wikipedia-related discussions on IRC. Johntex\talk 23:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do have logs, but am unaware of the exact procedures to go through if anyone wants to see them, given the sensitivity about logging #wikipedia for public usage. – Chacor 02:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the !voting is at 107/1/1 and the incident seems to be of peripheral importance, I don't think it would be worth the effort to get special permission from every participant in the discussion to quote from the logs. I think you've made your point and can let this one go. Newyorkbrad 15:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment was meant to be in response to aero. It wasn't my intention to offer to make them public, and only brought it up in case "anyone wants to see them". Like you said, it should not make any difference. – Chacor 15:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    JohnTex, what you do on Wikipedia and what you do on IRC should be separated. Anyway, if you want to contact users quickly, the best method is by IRC (instead of spam-bombing user talk pages). It might not be on-wiki, and of course that could be a problem, but it does offer the best method of communication. Also, it's not like AzaToth went onto IRC to start that whole commotion. He went there to ask people to help with an FP review. I do agree that the situation could have been handled better, though. Nishkid64 16:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What one does on Wikipedia and what one does on IRC cannot be seperate if you are using IRC as a tool to work on Wikipedia. Spamming IRC to get people to support you is no better than spamming Talk pages. In fact, it is worse, because it hides your spamming from the scrutiny it deserves. (BTW - I should point out that I have already voted to support the candidate despite this one IRC incident). Johntex\talk 18:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe stuff done off Wikipedia that relates to Wikipedia is fair game for an RfA. That includes IRC. The broader issue of behavior on IRC (not AzaToth's) is worth a discussion elsewhere since it has broader implications than just this RfA for Wikipedia's transparency.--A. B. (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral Oppose This is a very tough decision for me, as I LOVE LOVE LOVE TWINKLE, have told people about it, and wish I could use it as an admin. I was there on IRC, however, and it was canvassing. That the candidate tells Chacor in this RfA he was not - well, it tipped the boat for me. I'm casting "moral oppose" because in this case, it's not the candidate that needs support. Other than this one convo, there's no reason to oppose. Xiner (talk, email) 21:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. The nomination statements and the answer to Q1 really don't add up. Either the nominators are pulling our legs, which I doubt, or the answer to Q1 is less than frank. Under other circumtances this might be a rather WP:POINTy oppose, but given the current status of this RFA there's no danger of disrupting anything. The canvassing stuff doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy either. I share Xiner's liking for TW, but I just don't feel comfortable here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. His name sounds like a dreaded character's name from Lovecraft's works. Just joking. I agree with trialsanderros below, although he choose to be neutral.--Kamikaze 11:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral I was ready to support, but WP:CANVASS is a directive that needs to be understood by admins, and from your comments above I don't get the impression you do, even now. ~ trialsanderrors 10:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral As above, I don't feel confident that the candidate fully understands or supports WP:CANVASS, which, in my view, any potential admin should. --cj | talk 12:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Hasn't written any featured articles, after all – Qxz 03:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.