Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Boing! said Zebedee

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Boing! said Zebedee

Final (160/1/0); Closed as successful by Avi (talk) at 18:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC) ; Ended Tue, 01 Mar 2011 18:36:51 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs) – Technically I've been editing here for approx 3.5 years, though I really only got seriously started at the end of 2009. In that time I've built up quite a lot of edits, and have started a small number of articles - they're listed on my user page, along with my WikiProject interests - but I have mainly been doing gnome work and anti-vandalism work. I've also joined the Guild of Copy Editors, the Wikification Drive, and the Wikipedia Typo Team, and I do work on those projects as and when I can. In my day job I'm a freelance writer and online forum moderator, so what kinds of brain capacity I have to spare depends a lot on the demands of those tasks - of late I haven't been able to do as much copy editing as I would like, but it varies. I also like to try to defuse disputes, as that's something I do quite a lot in real life.

A number of people have suggested I run for admin, and have offered to nominate me. Admin hasn't really been something I wanted to do at the time, but I do thank them for the suggestions - I don't really want to go back and ask anyone to nominate me now, so I'm nominating myself. Why now? Well, in the past there really hasn't been much admin work that I would have wanted to do, and to be honest there really isn't a lot I want to do now. But I am increasingly finding non-controversial admin actions that it would be very helpful to be able to do, and which would save time and the efforts of other admins - explained below in Q1.

So what I'm offering is to do relatively small amounts of uncontroversial admin work as and when I come across the need for it during my daily editing. I don't wish to become primarily an admin - a number of people do that very effectively, but it's not for me. If the kind of service I offer is something you think would be beneficial, then I hope you will offer your support.

Feel free to ask me anything you want, and be as honest and as blunt as you need - I really don't mind. It's not so much that I have a thick skin, as that I just don't have much of an ego underneath it - I find an ego is a tiresome impediment to a calm and relaxed life.

Please note that I'm in the UK and on UTC, and the timing of this will hopefully catch the last couple of daytime hours in the US and a bit of the evening here. I'll be off to bed about 00:00 UTC, and will get back to it as soon as I can tomorrow, depending on how my work schedule goes. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 want to be able to do uncontroversial things that I come across in daily editing, which would otherwise require me to file reports and wait, perhaps having to repeatedly revert vandalism while I'm waiting - it would save my time and the time of other admins. That includes blocking vandal accounts - I often come across blatant vandal-only accounts, with Talk pages full of warnings, but which have not been reported. Being able to block them myself rather than file an AIV report, then wait and carry on reverting, would improve efficiency. The same goes for blatant CSD cases, particularly attack pages and blatant vandalism, which should be instantly zapped (less blatant cases I would still report in order to get a second opinion). I'd protect pages too when necessary, though I really see that as a last resort for bad cases where addressing the miscreants directly is not effective. With a bit of experience, I would probably expand to dealing with AIV and CSD backlogs, and perhaps UAA too - I've made a lot of reports to UAA. I may well expand towards reviewing blocks and handling some unblock requests, but not until I had a reasonable bit of admin experience. I do not envisage closing AfDs, or engaging in more controversial admin work. Having set down my limits here, however, I'm still happy to be asked questions on any aspect of adminship - as long as you don't mind my possibly answering that I don't know and will never go there.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: It's got to be my gnome work really - copy editing, wikifying, spell checking, formatting, fixing, tweaking, etc. I really enjoy leaving an article better than I found it - even if that's only a little bit better, if everyone did it we'd have a world class encyclopedia (oh, wait, we have - it works!) I've created a small number of articles, and I'm quite pleased with those - I do want to do a lot more, but it depends on getting clear free time. I've also tried to intervene in content disputes and have successfully helped bring some to resolution. It's exceptionally hard to be seen to stay completely neutral, as it is difficult to not have an opinion oneself, and even if you don't, at least one side will see you as taking the other side - often both. Still, I find it rewarding.
Oh, and with my photographer hat on, I like to go shooting pictures for Wikipedia articles - you can see what I've done so far on one of my User pages.
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've certainly been in disputes, yes - partly because I choose to get involved in them to try to settle them, but often they come out of the blue. I don't really do stress though, mainly because I've been doing this kind of thing in my day job for years now. Specific disputes? There's one I started on about a year ago at Talk:Yehuda Amichai, to try to settle a content dispute that had been simmering for years. I could have done it better and gotten less involved, but as I was instantly seen as an enemy by one of the protagonists, it was probably hard to avoid. If I was doing the same thing again now, I'd probably seek help from WP:ANI, as there was bad editor behaviour in addition to just the content dispute. Still, my efforts got it sorted, and that's what counts. Another one took place here and here - I remember that one because it's probably the most foppishly polite abuse I've ever received - and I'm getting to be quite a connoisseur of abuse these days. There have been others too, but nothing that I couldn't handle calmly, and I hope that answers the question - I'll carry on dealing with stressful situations by not getting stressed.
Additional optional question from Hasteur
4. Devil's Advocate Question: Write a spirited oppose position and a equally spirited rebuttal to your candidacy Hasteur (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A: Oppose. The editor has done very little content creation - just a handful of articles, all of which are quite short, and not even an attempt at GA or FA. Has he ever had an article deleted? How can he make admin decisions that affect content creators if he hasn't felt that attachment to a really good piece of work, or had one of his articles cruelly snatched away?
Reply. I actually have had an article deleted - it was one about a Klezmer band I created when I first started, and the band was really not sufficiently notable (I realised soon after - I hadn't really got my head around notability at the time). And I confess, I really didn't like it happening. I haven't created many articles, but even though, for example, Skeleton Tarantula is not long, it did take a lot of work - and I still want to create many more tarantula species articles when I have clear time. I'm also a writer by profession (mostly web based, but some in print, including one book), so I really do know what it's like to take a sizeable chunk out of your life to spend on a writing project with no guarantee that what you produce is going to be accepted at the end of it. GAs and FAs? I'd like to turn towards such work in due course, and I have half a mind to try to take Tarantula to GA status some day - it's been nominated before.
Additional optional question from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
5. Do you consider content creation as important for adminship, or is a sound history of good judgement and dispute resolution more important? Bear in mind that I become an admin with no content creations whatsoever, and an arbitrator with only one or two DYKs.
A: That's a question I've wrestled with, and it's difficult for me to be sure seeing as I had already done a lot of writing before I came to Wikipedia. I think what really counts is understanding what content creation is about, rather than being required to have done it oneself. But even if the best way to get that understanding probably is to create content oneself, there are other ways, as successful admins (and dare I say arbs) here have shown. To use the example given, if you become successful at dispute resolution, then I think you really can get a feel for the attachment and passion that people have for their content creation.
Additional optional question from Chzz
5. Hypothetical, and not a trick question - I'm looking for your thoughts; a user has been active for 3 weeks, has made 150 edits,no problems, demonstrating a good knowledge of policies - especially how to deal with vandalism. She ask you for Rollback, explaining that she has over 9000 good edits on the German Wikipedia (and this also checks out). Do you think she should be granted the permission?
A: Hmm, interesting. Yes, I think she should get rollback. Rollback is really for people who can show a basic level of trust, and the bar isn't really very high. And I think a good history on another Wikipedia (providing, as you say, it checks out) together with evidence of understanding of policy is enough. It's easy enough to remove, should it not turn out well.
Additional question from Keepscases
6. Do you ever dream about Wikipedia?
A: I do, yes! The trouble is, as with most dreams, what I dream is nonsense. So I might dream about an article I'm copy editing and in my dream I'll track down an elusive source, then I'll wake up sure I've got the answer only to quickly realize it's all just a dream. Does that make me obsessive? Hmm, maybe.
Additional optional question from NuclearWarfare
7. What would you done if you were writing the article Mkativerata refers to in his(?) oppose today? Would you still have included that reference in question?
A: Good question - I've been pondering that, and I would definitely not do it with just that reference. I think I see two alternatives. As there is no other species-specific source that I can find, one option would be to add another general tarantula-keeping source to support it, so that even though the species-specific Wikipets source is not a very good one, people can compare it with a general one and see it is pretty much in line. Another option would be to remove the "In captivity" section altogether, and instead make sure there's a good general section in Tarantula with good sources. I'm drawn to the latter, for several reasons. Firstly, if there are no good sources for the keeping of that species, that suggests it's not a notable in-captivity species. Also, the idea of an "In captivity" section is a bit "How to/Guide book" anyway, which Wikipedia isn't. In fact, what I think I will do when I get back to tarantula articles is take it to WikiProject Spiders and ask a few others to see what they think - I know several other spider-people now, including one who has offered to help in this RfA. (Oh, and Mkativerata says he's a dad on his user page :-).

General comments

  • Links for Boing! said Zebedee: Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
  • Edit summary usage for Boing! said Zebedee can be found here.
  • I really, really don't like these "write an 'oppose' then write a rebuttal to it" questions. I don't see how they help the community judge a candidate any better; it seems more like a cruel joke and it's concerning that it's becoming somewhat of a routine ANI question. No one has offered a single oppose !vote, why would anyone ask the candidate to do so? Not helpful, IMHO. Swarm X 09:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually quite like that question - even if there aren't any actual opposes, I think its good to be able to approach one's own contributions and try to identity one's weak points - in fact, thinking about Hasteur's asking this question in other RfAs helped me in my decision to run.
    For the record, I've never asked that question before. I've seen it in other recent AfDs and think it's a good Devil's Advocate exercise. We get an opportunity to see what (in a very small description) what they consider their weakest point and what they would say/do to ameliorate the situation Hasteur (talk) 12:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, sorry, I just assumed it had been you - I still like the question though. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    At the same time it gives an easy excuse for those who prefer to oppose people, to oppose the candidate. We should be stamping out such negativity, not encouraging it. AD 12:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never been a fan of the question since I first saw it show up in an RfA. It strikes me as a move towards clever 'job interview' style questions, which is not something we need at RfA. In addition, it feels rather like pointless hoop-jumping, to force someone to write a hypothetical oppose that they obviously do not agree with, and then defend themselves against it. Why not just say 'what is your weakest point as an editor, and how will you deal with this as an admin?'. Or, why not just not bother? It's a fairly meaningless question since the candidates with real problems won't reveal them, while good candidates with a genuine weakness who want to be open about it and address it ought to do so in their initial statement.--KorruskiTalk 13:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, if you want to know something, just ask. No need for mind games. Swarm X 19:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My two cents in regard to this particular issue is that any such question - as is any question posed outside of the standard three - is optional. If the candidate does not want to answer it, they do not have to. Frankly, I would not answer it myself, nor would I hold it against a candidate if they chose not to, for the reason pointed out by AD above. Strikerforce (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, if the candidate does not answer even one question, there are always oppose votes. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't help thinking that if you're respectful to the questioner, you can find ways to decline to answer it. If I hadn't wanted to answer this one, I might have gone with something like "I've held off RfA until I felt confident there are no convincing reasons to oppose, and if I were to make one up now just for the sake of answering the question, that would be dishonest - so I hope you understand why I'll decline to answer." -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support. I've seen this editor around quite a bit, and have seen nothing but positive things. 28bytes (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. As 28bytes said: seen him around & seems suitable to wield the mop. Jarkeld (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. I was actually shocked to discover that mop privileges have not already been handed over to this user. Exemplifies well reasoned thinking is about. Hasteur (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support of course, per above. --Perseus8235 20:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I've seen his work quite a lot, and his willingness to help people (even those who don't actually deserve it...). I thought he was an admin for some time when I first encountered him, which probably means he's a natural for the job. Peridon (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. What, you're not admin already? Trustworthy, insightful, helpful, and familiar with the intent of policy as well as the literal wording. bobrayner (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. The editor is committed to the ideals of Wikipedia and an ideal candidate for adminship imho §piderJon (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. You're not an admin already support? haven't looked through his history, but when you thought somebody was already an admin and they aren't, that's a good sign.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Number nine... number nine... number nine... just wanted to get that in, I'll expand later. Dylan620 (t • c) 20:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Same as 28bytes, I've seen you around the place with no negative interactions. Good luck! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support You are a marvelous editor and I see no reason why not to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Sensible, friendly and diligent, he'd be the kind of admin whose interactions would draw new editors to the project, rather than putting them off. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support – Has been behaving like an admin for a long time. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Have seen him around and been impressed. In all honesty, I thought he already was an admin! Plus he has a great username. Hugahoody (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. My reaction is similar to Balloonman's. A major asset to Wikipedia.-gadfium 21:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I offered to nom you; you'll do fine. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 21:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Great editor with over 30,000 edits!--Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 21:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Well duh. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Harrumph. This low in the support stack even if I say something witty no one will read it. Hence the basics: Knows his stuff, seen around and about the community, is not an ass to others, has clue, etc., etc.. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 21:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong support - Honestly, I've been expecting this for a while! ;) More seriously, I have seen him many times, as he is one of only around 10 active new page patrollers. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. (edit conflict)Support. For the longest time, I had thought the candidate was already an admin. Time to make it official, or? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong Support Just checked through the last 2000 edits and it's all good quality gnomish work, also meets my other criteria, I have seen this editor around and am more than happy they be given the mop. Pol430 talk to me 21:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support per Pol430's criteria. Swarm X 21:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Long overdue for the mop. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. one of the greatest people to work with on wikipedia. I truly thought he was a sysop already. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Great editor. Brambleclawx 22:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - Good candidate whom I have interacted with on more than one occasion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Very strong candidate. AD 22:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  30. No problems. Good luck! →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Lots of good WP:UAA work. - Dank (push to talk) 22:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  32. No-brainer. Airplaneman ✈ 22:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Long overdue, I even offered to nominate Secret account 23:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Good choice. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support A good candidate for the mop.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Aye, cannae see onythin' wirth opposin' ye fur.  狐 FOX  23:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  38. FINALLY! I've been waiting and waiting for this one. Will be a tremendous asset. GedUK  23:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Diego Grez (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  40. 1 edit conflict with 4 supports Wholehearted support; my first experience working with him was when he and I were reverting what we thought was vandalism on Earthcore. When we realized what was really going on, he did an exceptional job keeping his cool and sorting out the issue with someone who was (justifiably) very angry. I was extremely impressed, and in looking through his contributions I see that this is the norm for him, hence my support. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support: About time. ~ Matthewrbowker Say hi! 23:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - I /love/ your answer to Chzz's question. (The other ones are good too :P) - I see no problems. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support It was very well done the RfA questions. ~~Awsome EBE123~~(talk | Contribs) 23:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - I can help you right articles about spiders when yer up to it. I strongly recommend a bit of content contribution to see the WP processes from the inside out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Strong support I was shocked when I saw this. I thought he was already a sysop.--Hokeman (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - great editor! jonkerz♠ 00:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Stephen 00:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Easy support. A sensible, dedicated editor with a high level of clue and who would put the tools to good, albeit not necessarily prolific, use. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Absolutely support! In fact, I would have loved to have nominated him, had I known he was interested in making a run! --Strikerforce (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - You weren't an admin already? o.O Clear support. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 00:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - Like many others, I was absolutely certain the candidate was already an Admin. He has extensive knowledge of policies and guidelines and has worked in many areas all across the project. Has been courteous and helpful and obviously behaves as an Admin should. I'm very happy to support this candidate. - Hydroxonium (H3O+) 00:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - I rarely support (or oppose) nominees. I like what you (and others) say. Do your best to remain uncontroversial and doing the janitorial duties that other administrators forego. I hear unions have good pensions. Buster Seven Talk 01:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support: Everything I have seen from this editor is great. Hand the man a mop. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Thought he already was one. --John (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Only have good things to say, absolute no-brainer. StrPby (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Tiderolls 02:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Boing. Meet support. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 03:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. per the statements above. Especially Hydroxonium's point about courtesy and helpfulness. MarnetteD | Talk 03:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support No concerns about this candidate. SnottyWong gossip 04:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong Support I feel that you will be a good admin. And I would also like to thank you for all your help. Lord Porchcrop POWER 05:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support no concerns. Inka888 06:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Very helpful and active editor that can be trusted. – SMasters (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support I don't need to run any of my usual checks - if I had known he had this escapade planned I would have nominated him without hesitation. Kudpung (talk) 06:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Been time for this for a while now. Be careful not to spend too much time at ANI, that place is soul-crushing in large doses. Courcelles 06:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Definitely. BigDom talk 06:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support I've seen B!sZ around Wikipedia, and while I haven't always neccessarily agreed with him, I've found him to be competent and reasonable. Giving him the mop would be a net asset to the Project. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support He's been around for a while. Minimac (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support along the "can't believe is not one already" lines. As applications for RfA seem to be much slower these days, it's nice to see a strong one that looks to be snowed under! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support This user is exactly the sort of person I look for in adminship. Diffusing issues, making rational, clear and concise comments on issues, I would be happy to support the user in holding the mop. WormTT 10:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  70. User fails WP:NOTINAMILLIONYEARS criteria, appears helpful, useful, and civil. Definitely appears to have best interests of WP at heart and takes steps towards encouraging improvement in Wikipedia space. Shortish active period outweighed by the good work acheived, and as ADMIN is supposed to be about trust and experience I gice this user the nod.--ClubOranjeT 10:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strong Support - Definately. Without a doubt. (Please try and stop dreaming about Wikipedia though, that can't be good). Orphan Wiki 11:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support without a doubt. Having reviewed your contributions for the last few months, I'm struck by your high level of productivity, but also by your near-perfect accuracy. You have a very sound understanding of the principles behind CSD for example - something that too many current admins lack - and you are obviously active in the area. Long story short, you will be able to help people more with the tools, and I trust you to have them. Thparkth (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Bravo! Seems like a reliable admin to me. – Novice7 (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Seeing this in my watchlist cheered me up greatly. I can see no problems with the candidate, and have had only positive interactions with them.--KorruskiTalk 13:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support WP:RIGHTNOW. Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Keepscases (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Ive always been impressed, trusted and respected Boings editing, Boing will make a fine aaddition. (The answer to 6 has swayed me completely of any doubts as well ;) ) Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support I've seen the candidate around quite a bit and have noticed that he has a good knowledge of policy and, when in doubt, asks for clarification. An essential quality for an admin, I think. —DoRD (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  79. "Wait, what?" support Thought this might be a reconfirmation RFA at first. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support based on a review of randomly-selected contributions and positive interactions with the candidate in the past. --j⚛e deckertalk to me 16:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support I am delighted that Boing!... has at last decided to go for this. I tried to encourage him/her to do so several months ago. A very reliable and constructive editor, with a good grasp of policy, and very good at discussing and explaining, including to inexperienced editors who may lack understanding. I have frequently come across this editor's reports at AIV, and they are always reliable (which, unfortunately, is not true for a good many editors). Boing!... has also shown understanding of policies in other areas, including deletion. This really is one of the most certain and unambiguous "supports" I have ever given in an RfA: I am 100% sure that this candidate will make a good administrator. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support You have no trouble changing your mind when an article is improved, or standing up to unreasonable people who rudely attack others. You discuss things in a rational manner, and work through any concerns. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tiger_vs_lion Dream Focus 17:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support You're not already one? Kansan (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Strong support. Well-qualified candidate, good answers to questions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Obviously. ••pepper 22:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. Definitely OK from everything I've seen in the past year. - Pointillist (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support I like his willingness to be persuaded. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support This user helped me numerous times when I was new and was always very nice and helpful.--E♴ (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Boing! said delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 01:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support As others have stated, I too have seen him around the project and have never seen anything other than knowledgeable and helpful work. Very glad he's thrown his hat into the ring. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Yes! --Baseball Watcher 02:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Very familiar name. Boing is a prolific contributor, and although we've never interacted personally, I'm not given any reason to doubt that he'll do good work with the tools. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - Delighted to pile on. My best wishes to this obvious admin-in-waiting! Jusdafax 08:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Thought he already was an admin support Can definitely be trusted with the tools, a long history of dedication to the project, good judgement, no reason not too. :) Acather96 (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support, albeit slightly belated. I am one of the folk whom he mentions as having urged him in the past to apply for the mop and bucket, and am delighted that he now has done so. Would have nominated him had he agreed. He will make a fine admin. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  97. YES, yes, yes! Support this user gave me the right advice when my RFA failed, and is friendly all over wikipedia give him the mop!--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 13:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support - Why not? Seems like a trustworty editor, hand him the mop. ► Wireless Keyboard ◄ 13:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support I've certainly disagreed with things said by this editor in the past (I recall some friction at the BLPPROD discussions) but that's fine. I did honestly think he was already an admin... Hobit (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I don't recall taking part in any BLPPROD discussions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support. I'm pleased to be the 100th editor to concur in the overwhelming support for this editor, despite his unusual name the thrust of which completely escapes me. I had occasion to work with him during a dispute he was having at the Yehuda Amichai article and talk page, almost precisely a year ago. I in that instance sought to arbitrate a dispute he and another editor were having. In a situation that leads to raised passions more often than not, despite obvious keen annoyance he comported himself admirably and was civil and sensible throughout. Having seen his performance under fire, I'm happy to support him.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Zebedee was an almost human creature in a yellow jacket with a spring instead of feet. He always appeared and disappeared with a loud "boing"-sound and usually closed the show with the phrase "Time for bed." - The Magic Roundabout -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Zebedee first spoke those words on 18 October 1965, almost exactly nine months before the birth of our messiah. Spooooky. - Pointillist (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support No concerns at this time. Having checked things over, and noting a nice response to my q - which was specifically aimed at the possible minor concern over limited experience in some areas admins might wander into...but I feel sure, now, that Z. knows eir own limitations, knows when to be bold and when to ask for help. I've seen lots of good examples of collegiate interaction. Best of luck.  Chzz  ►  17:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support. Have seen this editor around for a long while and have no concerns about him being given the tools. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support - Absolutely no concerns here. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 20:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support - very knowledgeable and helpful; will make a fantastic admin. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support, frequent reports at AIV are actionable, no doubt he would do fine without a second set of eyes. No concerns found in review of contributions. Oppose/neutral concerns seem like they could be remedied through cursory communication. Kuru (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Excellent chap in my experience Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support He'll be a great administrator. WayneSlam 01:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support - why not. Monterey Bay (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support - Surprised you weren't an admin already. In my imagination, you have been an exemplary admin for some time; I can't see that you'll start acting differently if we make it a reality. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support - As others had said, I thought you were a sysop already. Go get 'em. Nolelover It's football season! 03:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Of course! Good luck. PeterSymonds (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support. Sure. Has been around since 2007, and seems like a pretty active, trustworthy user. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 08:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support - Why not RahulText me 09:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support. Good contributions. Good understanding of policies & guidelines. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Seen this user around, generally helpful and clueful, so I'm convinced that they will handle any concerns that arise (or arose) during this discussion in the same manner. Regards SoWhy 10:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support- I'm stunned that you aren't already an admin. Reyk YO! 13:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Pile-on support. I've been waiting for this. User is clearly clueful and level-headel and will be a great admin. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  120. SNOW I mean SUPPORT. Good candidate.--v/r - TP 16:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support – All interactions with me have been constructive. —UncleDouggie (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  122. I knew you wern't an admin, but assumed that you were one of several editors who just wasn't interested in the tools. Delighted to support per WP:RIGHTNOW. Get mopping Dougal! Pedro :  Chat  22:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Strong Support - strong because I thought you were an admin already! Seen you around a lot making very valuable contributions. Would make a great admin. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support, good answers to the questions, excellent candidate. Dreadstar ☥ 07:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support Have noticed a lot of good work from this editor. Johnuniq (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support. AGK [•] 11:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support Done good work, no convincing oppose, easy one here.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support. (Gosh, this looks to be so close!) This is an easy support from me, based on seeing the candidate's work so many times. I promise, though, that I looked carefully at the oppose, and it didn't sway me—I think the candidate has answered it to my full satisfaction. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support, this should have been done a long time ago=)Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me! 20:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support Chaosdruid (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support Seen this user around the site, only positive recollections. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support Nice to see experienced and clueful editors get the tools, even though they don't plan on being full time 'professional' admins. First Light (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support said My76Strat 02:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support I do not have any concerns. Alpha Quadrant talk 04:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support. Gnomes come across just about everything. Amphy (talk) 06:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support I had always presumed that you are an admin! Glad to support; no editor is free from mistakes. Bejinhan talks 06:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support - I have seen you around at ANI and think your answers are generally well thought out. I also assumed you already were. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 06:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Everything I've seen has been positive, the issue highlighted in the oppose while valid is possibly an aberration, and IMO not too significant. —SpacemanSpiff 08:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support - An editor who should have been an admin a good while ago. Excellent communication skills. I agree with JamesBWatson's reasoning below that even if you had made an appalling cockup on one spider article a year ago (and really, at worst you made a minor error of little consequence as far as I can tell), that's irrelevant to this proceeding. Let's just give him the tools and let him keep doing what he always has. Zachlipton (talk) 09:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support - I see nothing in this request or in my review if their edits to cause me any concern. ~~ GB fan ~~ 12:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support. Great user. Great username. ;) -- œ™ 16:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Bonus points for self-nomination, solid experience, history suggests candidate will be responsible with the tools, I find no reason to oppose. Townlake (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support: Great candidate. Thanks for making yourself available. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support Every time I've encountered this editor, he has been doing productive work and doing it right. I read the talk page of Yehuda Amichai, where he had to deal with an editor who had an axe to grind, and that later blocked editor was persistent, paranoid, rude and confrontational. He kept his grace under fire, and protected the integrity of the article from a sustained assault. Well done! Cullen328 (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support Great candidate. Steven Walling 20:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support I've seen this editor around quite a bit and think they can be trusted with the mop and bucket. Great editor, good luck!--5 albert square (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Absolutely. Tommy! 00:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support He's competent enough ;)--White Shadows Stuck in square one 03:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support. Everything seems to be fine with this editor. Salih (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  150. I wouldn't normally bother to comment in an RFA that is so close to 100%. But I've had good encounters with the candidate and he deserves my support ϢereSpielChequers 16:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  151. This is someone I've had a good impression about for quite a while. I'm sure they'll be a good addition as an admin. Boing! Jafeluv (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support My experiences with this user have been excellent; I've no reason to believe xe would abuse the admin tools. HeyMid (contribs) 19:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support - Long overdue, this user would make a fine admin. An absolute no-brainer. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 11:42am • 00:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Piling On Has the experience; will make a dandy admin. -- Mike (Kicking222) 04:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Yet more piling on. Good luck, Zebedee. Or Boing. Or both. If per anyone, then per WereSpielChequers, with whom I agree. Drmies (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support. Knows what he's doing and will make good use of the tools.--Michig (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Um... you're not an admin already? I've seen you around, mostly from a distance, but I've observed enough to know that you are kind and courteous and actually have enough matter between your ears to make the wise decisions needed to be an admin. --- c y m r u . l a s s (talk me, stalk me) 06:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support - looks just fine to me, and I was always a big fan of The Magic Roundabout, tho' I did have my suspicions about that TV program :D - Alison ❤ 08:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Oppose. Candidate is way too reasonable and fair-minded to be an admin on the English Wikipedia, and their adminship would be enough of a net positive to the project that it would make the other admins look lackluster and feeble in comparison. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Chuckle :-) That's the nicest "Oppose" I've seen, and I'm very flattered. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    One does what one can. TBH, I strongly considered putting it below and auto-striking it to tally here - but then they'd bury me in trout. Early congrats! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Pile on another support. Can't believe I almost missed this. Candidate will make an excellent admin. - JuneGloom Talk 18:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Sorry, now having had a deeper look I feel compelled to cast a lonely oppose. The issue with the Tarantula article isn't that the spider is dangerous or that you (the author) can vouch for the accuracy. It's that you've used content from an open-edit wiki as the sole source for critical article material. That you consider your own statement of expertise as being more important than correcting completely deficient sourcing is probably more concerning than the deficient sourcing itself. I don't see sufficient good content work to outweigh those concerns. The limited other articles that you've done any kind of substantive work on are far from impressive. On Kevin Foster (fraudster) there is close paraphrasing (second paragraph of the History section). It's got nothing to do with minimum levels of quality and quantity, but evidence that an admin has a practical understanding of core policies like WP:V. I'm sure you'd do fine at CSD and UAA but I can't !vote for giving the full range of admin tools and life tenure when the very limited content contributions that we can assess raise red flags about understanding of those core policies. But good luck. Please use the tools in a way that proves my concerns unfounded. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand what you are saying about the Tarantula article, but it was a choice of that or no other specific source, and as it is at least accurate I thought it was better than nothing (and I was working against the tide of tarantula articles in general, which often seem to be little more than unsourced keeping guides) - perhaps what I should do is find a source about keeping tarantulas in general and add that too. I do have to disagree about there being anything "critical" about it though - basically, if you just bung them in a tank with some moist compost and keep it warm, they'll be fine. I didn't think the Kevin Foster one was too close paraphrasing myself, but I'm happy to rewrite that part when I have the time. Anyway, my relatively low level of content creation is the reason I thought would be most likely to generate opposition, and I thank you for your thoughts. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is also a bit in response to Mkativerata's concerns when he was in the neutral section. I looked at all the candidates contributions in the realms of copyediting and wikifying, and concluded based on that that he does contribute to articles. Additionally, he mainly edited the article on October 23 (where he cited a lot of unsourced material), and on March 1, almost a year ago. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The basis of my position is not "contribution to articles", it is demonstrated understanding of policies like WP:V. You don't demonstrate understanding of core content policies by copyediting and wikifying. The candidate's efforts there are to be commended but it doesn't demonstrate the capabilities that I expect of an admin.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate has made over a thousand edits a month for the past 15 months. I think if your argument truly should be a concern, your 'investigation' would have turned up a little more. Swarm X 20:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Tell me. How many of those 1,000 edits are capable of demonstrating an understanding of WP:V. I've looked at every single article the candidate claims to have created or substantially worked on. I've done my homework. Have you? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've commented in the neutral section below - I think it would be a shame for this to descend to unnecessary argument. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Moved to opposeHad a quick look at the one article identified -- Skeleton Tarantula -- and not impressed by the use of wikipets as a source for critical information about how to keep a dangerous animal captive. The sourcing of some of the creations identified on the userpage looks shaky but I need to investigate further. WP:V is a must for all admins because it underpins everything we do here. Just setting up camp here for the time being in case anyone including the candidate wants to say anything that might help me decide. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that your only concern along those lines? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, "I need to investigate further" and I will do so. The fact that so many supports don't appear to be doing any work in this respect merely increases the need to do so. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I should point out that a Skeleton Tarantula is really not actually very dangerous. Tarantula venom is not as bad as the movies make out - there are no recorded cases of anyone actually dying from it, for example, and tarantulas are not classified under the DWA (Dangerous Wild Animals) act in the UK. Also, as a tarantula keeper with significant experience, and as a member of both the British Tarantula Society and the British Arachnological Society, I can say with some confidence that the Wikipets article is accurate. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that your knowledge of tarantulas (Tarantulae? Tarantulim?) is truly encyclopædic, but argument-from-personal-knowledge is really something we need to avoid on wikipedia; for every one editor who is a subject-matter expert, there are a dozen people out there who believe that "homeopathy works for me" or that JFK declared himself a doughnut. Expert editors are very valuable, but we can only really trust content which built on a bedrock of WP:V. bobrayner (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC) (edited to add: I don't see reliable sourcing as boolean - I think that wikipets has some value as a source but it would be better to have a non-wiki source)[reply]
Oh yes, I agree. I'm certainly not trying to suggest that my expertise trumps reliable sourcing - far from it, in fact - just that in the absence of good sources, such expertise helps me to evaluate the weaker sources that are avaiable, and in this case I thought the weak source was better than none at all. Maybe it would have been better to leave out the source and just leave {{cn}}, or maybe better to just omit all mention of keeping in captivity at all (in fact, I really only included it because there are already so many articles that are little but keeping instructions - perhaps I should have been bolder and just left it out)? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should also point out that there are quite a few sources out there that talk about tarantula keeping, just no others I could find about this particular species, and if anyone checks the Wikipets source I used against any of them, it is clearly compatible - so it really is a long way from homeopathy and presidential doughnuts -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Groovy; thanks. bobrayner (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I meant to add that the plural is indeed "tarantulas" :-) Cheers -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone give a diff for the controversial edit? If it was when the article was created (about a year ago) I will regard it as no longer an indication of the candidate's understanding. If, on the other hand, it was more recent, it will be just about enough to reduce my 100% support to 99%: a fault, but nowhere near enough on its own to justify opposing. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feb 28, 2010, while originally building the article - [1] -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. You made one questionable edit. You have discussed your reasons intelligently, and shown a good understanding of the reason why it was questionable, and how it relates to Wikipedia policy. The edit was a year ago. That does not constitute reasonable grounds for opposing. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of dismissing the oppose on the basis of an arbitrary period of time, perhaps you could point to good substantive content work that the candidate has done in the meantime that would justify dismissing the concern on the basis of passage of time? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think I was "dismissing" the concern, I thought I was just saying that it wasn't sufficient grounds, on its own, for opposing a request for adminship. I have gone back over both my posts above on this issue, and I find it hard to see how they can be read as dismissing the concern purely on the basis of time, but since it has been taken that way, let me clarify. I didn't base my opinion on an arbitrary period of time. Even had it been earlier today I would have regarded it as being of only minor relevance, as I indicated above ("If, on the other hand, it was more recent..."), and surely it is reasonable to think that particular incidents gradually become less of an indication of a person's present state the further back in the past they were. As for examples of useful work, the candidate's edit history provides thousands of useful edits. I don't know what you mean by "content work", but if it means that you are one of the people who think that only people who have written lots of long articles should be administrators, then I disagree. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should read my oppose carefully. I don't give a crap how many articles the candidate has written or how good they are. I just want to see an understanding of core policies. The example I've brought up, and the candidate's response here, shows he doesn't have it. It has nothing to do with the amount of content work. But the low level of content work means the problems in that content work take on a much greater magnitude than they would for another candidate. Because there's no good content work to offset the concerns. Yes the candidate has "useful edits", but copyediting, wikifying, CSD tags, etc, don't demonstrate an understanding of WP:V. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Folks. I just want to say that I have no problem with Mkativerata's reason for opposing - it's an honest opinion, which is what I asked for when I started this RfA. I'm grateful for it, as I am with all people who have taken the trouble to contribute here, and I take it on board - and I think it's unfortunate to see two Wikipedians who I respect getting into an argument about it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mkativerata is certainly entitled to their opinion. However, if any of us had reason to believe you didn't understand the core policies, you wouldn't pass the RfA. I think it's a shame for such a great candidate to have one oppose based on such a trivial and weak argument. In weaker candidates, many of us often look for a "net positive" and will support if we see one. I don't see the point of looking for one minor issue and opposing based on that for stellar candidates. Swarm X 21:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really do appreciate your support, thanks, it's very kind of you to say such nice things. But getting an oppose (or however many I might end up with) really doesn't worry me. If someone honestly believes that I don't have sufficient understanding of a core policy, and that that concerns them enough to oppose, then that's exactly what I would want them to say. And after all, Mkativerata did say "But good luck. Please use the tools in a way that proves my concerns unfounded", which sounds pretty collegial and friendly to me - I see nothing here but good faith -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will you people stop being so reasonable and constructive? RfA is supposed to have drama and conflict. I want a refund. bobrayner (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith or not, I don't agree with it. However, I have immense respect for your position. At the end of the day, it's not a big deal. Just like adminship. Swarm X 05:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bob -- right church, wrong pew. Move over to AN/I and RFC, and I promise you your money's worth.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Boing!_said_Zebedee&oldid=1159449456"