Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fayenatic london

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

Fayenatic london

Final (53/2/1); ended 19:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Maxim_(talk) 19:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Fayenatic london (talk · contribs) – I'm nominating Fayenatic for adminship because he's got the attention to detail that I think an admin should have. If you look at User:Fayenatic_london#Portfolio you will see what I mean; articles and tasks carefully logged by type and benefit to the encyclopedia. He's level-headed, polite, and weighs the opinions of all participants before acting. I'm quite specifically nominating him because he's been willing to close some of the thornier discussions (1, 2*, 3) in the Categories for discussion arena... but since he's not an admin, he can't do that without review and assistance. I know I was brought into the admin fold because people thought I could do a better job with the tools. I am certain from my interaction with him that he will not only do a better job, but enjoy more opportunities to help than he has now. (*I particularly like this one, where he says he would have supported the minority opinion, but knows that the majority opinion was unavoidable. That's the kind of level-headedness I'm talking about.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(co-nom) I've encountered Fayenatic repeatedly the last several years. Way back when we both were "around" various fiction-related stuff - and anyone who's been in discussions there knows how contentious that environment can be. And yet, throughout it all, to my recollection Fayenatic always remained civil. And in any discussion, Fayenatic typically comes off friendly and in good humour. And the discussions are just that: discussions. (Fayenatic is one of those who actually discusses with, rather than talks past.) These days, Fayenatic can be seen just as Mike Selinker says above - helping out wherever help is needed. Fayenatic is one of those who already helps out with admin duties without already being an admin. And CFD in particular, when so many of us are in and out of regular editing (or for that matter, are commenting in the discussions) there's often a backlog. It will be nice to know that Fayenatic will be around to help (ahem) shoulder the load : ) - jc37 19:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes please. It's about time I did some of the hard work instead of leaving it to others and just doing the interesting bits. – Fayenatic (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

See response under #Neutral for clarification of my acceptance comment, which is mainly about the CFD work mentioned in the nomination. – Fayenatic (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Initially, closing CFDs. I may occasionally do PRODs or other XfDs. It would be handy to be able to move pages and merge history myself rather than tagging db-move etc for others to do the work. Being able to see deleted pages will also be useful. When I delete anything I will be punctilious in removing backlinks; I sometimes do this already, clearing up after CfDs, PRODs and AfDs where a redlink catches my eye. I may well do some closes that require quite involved follow-up actions.

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

A: Probably the least visible ones, like this: adding citations where needed or replacing dead links using Wayback or other archives. It's a pleasure to leave an article transparently verifiable, having found it in a state where it was liable to be deleted. For a more visible example, I'm pleased at the work I did to set up the hierarchy in Category:Hebrew Bible, replacing previous parallel category hierarchies with Jewish and Christian naming.

Expansion: It's very satisfying to trace and remove hoaxes, like this - a joke edit which had then been mistakenly accepted in good faith, expanded into encyclopedic language, left for two years, and taken seriously by multiple readers! That won one of my barnstars.

Some articles I'm particularly glad that I created are:

• Li Lili, an early leading film star in China, much more notable than Lily Li whose name needed disambiguating;
• Boyanka Angelova, which I created to debunk a hoax in a viral video email, working entirely from foreign language sources most of which I cannot read at all, because she so deserves credit in her own name for the stunning performance in the linked video;
• Solomon Male, a Ugandan campaigner against corruption, whom I read about in a magazine;
• South Africa Conciliation Committee which I created to fill redlinks that I found after a South African friend told me who invented concentration camps, and which won a DYK;
• Calypso Carol, which likewise won a DYK with a hook about its surprising origin;
• Millennium Mills, a very enjoyable three-way collaboration and deserving DYK winner;
• Production babies, which I created because I wanted to know what they are when I saw them listed in film credits! It was my first new page to make WP:DYKSTATS. – Fayenatic (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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) Conflict: yes, occasionally. Just recently I (and another editor) misread a series of edits by an editor as appearing to pursue a POV; he did not take kindly to what he saw as an attack on his integrity, and heated discussion followed, although I think I stayed polite. Eventually I pointed out that I still did not understand why he had cited a certain policy in a particular edit summary; he explained that; and we got on with improving the article in question. I'm willing to provide details here on request, and will invite the editor to comment on this RfA anyway.

Expanding the above answer: the above dispute has now been identified and discussed below under #Neutral, #Oppose and on the talk page.

For another, see this discussion on foreign language in track listings, where I think I was very calm with an editor whose writing on talk pages is sometimes barely comprehensible -- once I have worked out what she is getting at, I normally summarise this more clearly at the start of my next response.

And here and here are a couple of pages where I have reinstated revised versions of material deleted as "puff" by an admin; I left him a note about it and we have since co-operated on other pages, some of which are referred to in the last case under 5b below. – Fayenatic (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(ii) Stress: not really. I felt like using some strong words recently to a user who was wasting people's time on English WP having been banned on their native language WP, but managed to keep it civil.

Also mentioned under 5b below. – Fayenatic (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

4. How do you think having the administrative tools will change how you edit?

A: I hesitate to predict; I didn't think broadband would change how I use the internet, but it wasn't long until I was exploring strange new worlds! Being accountable runs very deep in me, so I am confident that I am not going to start riding roughshod over anyone. In fact I will put up that voluntary thing about giving up adminship in the event of anyone challenging my use of it. At the time of writing I intend to remain mainly a contributor rather than an administrator, but the tools will undoubtedly come in handy.

See Q14: for clarification, I commit to WP:AOR. – Fayenatic (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Optional questions from jc37

In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:

• 5. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:

• 5a. ...an editor to be blocked (or unblocked)?

• A: Blocked: Examples include persistent & ongoing intentional violation of policies after warnings, or blatant abuse such as vandalism or libel. (I have occasionally reported accounts or IP addresses at WP:AIV. I can't readily think of other situations where I might use blocking powers myself rather than refer it to experienced admin working parties.) Unblocked: perhaps if the editor made a credible plea of good faith and appeared to have learned the lesson. Conceivably, I might unblock if the blocking admin had clearly overstepped the mark, but I'd first try to see it from that admin's point of view and communicate with them.

• 5b. ...a page to be protected (or unprotected)?

• A: I'd use protection in a case of persistent vandalism or repeated POV editing from new accounts or IP addresses. I've occasionally made recommendations at WP:RPP in the past which have been implemented, so I seem to be thinking on the right lines. Unprotection: when there is reason to believe the problem may be over.

To expand: In the case that I referred to in 3(ii) above, I was relieved when an administrator blocked the user, and later protected the user page where the blocked user carried on trying to waste people's time. In another case, this IP address was blocked after repeating a series of mischievous edits, and some of the affected pages were protected; even though I had left warnings, I was a bit surprised at the speed of the sanctions in that case, but had no objection as it was blatant vandalism using multiple IPs, and seemed to be effective by nipping it in the bid. Although I am expressing support for both these cases, I don't think I would take these sorts of action myself unless & until I get more experience of such incidents – better to warn/tag/report them and leave it to experienced hands to apply sanctions. In those instances, my warnings may have helped the admins anyway by setting out the case for action. – Fayenatic (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• 5c. ...a page to be speedily deleted (or speedily restored)?

• A: I'm familiar with the cases at WP:CSD which are narrowly defined and interpreted, e.g. sole author requests deletion, category empty after four days. Speedily restored: if the CSD criteria were not met or arguable so that AfD would be required; or if requested after PROD or in accordance with the criteria at WP:UND.

Expanding the above: in cases where an editor has requested speedy deletion but the criteria are not quite met, the admin or any other editor can still put the page through PROD or the relevant deletion discussion process e.g. AfD. – Fayenatic (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• 5d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?

• A: This applies in conjunction with WP:BOLD where a pedantic following of policies would be detrimental to the encyclopedia. The only example I can think of where I put this into practice was re-creating Category:Batman characters as a parent category only, after it was deleted at CFD leaving the sub-cats cut off from the parent. Now that I know about DRV, I would probably use that instead in such circumstances. (being accountable)

Follow-up: my re-creation of that category was considered (hotly debated!) at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 22#Category:Batman characters. There was no consensus there, but even though I was not notified of the discussion, several people understood my intention as stated in the edit summary when creating it, and there were some strongly supportive comments e.g. "an editor does have the right to recreate a category if ... the proposed use is sufficiently different or restricted from what was removed", and "Kudos to whoever took the bold step of recreating a category that is a clearly effective aid to navigation, the true purpose of the category system". – Fayenatic (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• 6. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.

• A: Weigh arguments rather than votes; WP policies may apply conclusively; precedents may help, but should not be a bar to creative improvement. A Delete outcome at XfD requires a decent level of consensus; in the absence of that, the outcome is "no consensus" which results in keep by default. The burden is reversed at DRV: no consensus results in undeletion.

See also my answer to Q9f about determining consensus at CFD. – Fayenatic (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• 7. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: Remind them both about 3RR, BRD and (if necessary) civility, to get them using the talk page constructively. I might take part in the discussion to indicate which arguments so far carry more weight and why. If in need of knowledgeable third parties, refer it to a Wikiproject or policy noticeboard.

• 8. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

• A: To implement CFDs that result in merge/rename/delete/listify rather than keep. To be able to see deleted pages in order to be better able to trace what to do with some redlinks. To speedily delete irredeemably worthless pages. To impose short-term blocks on IPs/accounts being used for puerile vandalism, or short-term protection if multiple IPs are being used to attack a page. Note that as a member of WP:WikiProject Anthroponymy I have a large number of articles about personal names on my watchlist, and these are a big draw for school-age vandals; hence my comments about blocking or page protection have this mainly in mind.

Optional questions from DGG.

• 9 I'd appreciate it if you expanded on some of your very brief answers in Q.5, and expanded on them in such a way that we could see you own personal interpretation: the basic rules of the situations there are clear, and you repeated them correctly. But when there are disagreements, the disagreements are usually over the interpretation. I'm asking some question about which I think not everyone would agree on the right answer.

  • R (for response, as opposed to answer): this is reminding me that there were three reasons why I never got round to RfA before: I didn't need it for what I was doing; I thought I should read up on lots of policies first; and I'd have to set aside a good amount of time to answer the questions. Last weekend I let the two kind gentlemen above put their hands on my shoulders and march me up to this bar to be examined, and am having to fit this in around real life... As you noticed, I took account of your request to see my own interpretations in my answer to Q10 below, and I'll try to do that in subsequent answers. Re Q5, I've added to 5b, but otherwise I'd just like to emphasise a point I made in 5a: I won't go around trying all the tools in the box to see what they do, or jump in to new activities e.g. page protection or DRV without studying the policies or getting to know those areas at a user level first. – Fayenatic (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

  • 9a If you correct a obviously unconstructive edit, such as adding personal opinion, and the editor reverts you, what factors will determine how you will deal with it?
    • A: I'd consider: (i) The nature of the edit, e.g. potentially defamatory or otherwise in breach of WP:BLP; where it sits on the scales of being at all encyclopedic in content, appropriate in tone, or capable of verification. (ii) Evidence about the editor, e.g. vandalism-only account; single-purpose account whose edits had mostly been reverted in the past; registered account with mostly valid edits, perhaps being used by a kid brother; IP account apparently used by one editor, multiple editors, or already identified on the talk page as a school. (iii) Other edits made by that account today. If the editor appears to be still online I'd place an appropriate message on their talk page to get their attention and, if they are not a blatant vandal, hopefully start a conversation. I keep this inactive user page in my toolbox for its set of shortcuts to standard template messages, and would probably pick one of these. If the message didn't fit the circumstances I'd then edit, expand or trim it (like I did here because in that case I didn't revert all of the edit). If the encyclopedia is badly damaged by the edit, e.g. BLP problems or plain silliness, I wouldn't wait to revert; otherwise, if there is scope for useful dialogue about it, I could leave it on my watchlist for me to fix later. I'd be in no rush to block the editor or protect the page (see 5b above). – Fayenatic (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • 9b Suppose you observe an experienced fellow admin making a blatant personal insult about a contributor's intelligence, what would you do first, and how exactly would you word it? what of the various possibilities motivating the action would give you the most concern?
    • A The possibilities that might have motivated the action include (not exhaustively): editing while drunk, the account being hacked or used by a household member while left logged in, mood swings perhaps attributable to mental instability such as bipolar disorder, or a history of sharp disputes between the two accounts. Most of these are generally forgiveable if they are exceptions to a pattern of good conduct and careful editing. The possibility that would give me the most concern is the possibility that the editor might be at risk of coming to personal harm from an untreated mental disorder.

    I would first take a quick look at the talk page for the account that had posted the insult, talk page history (in case there were relevant deleted or archived messages), and recent contributions, to see if there were strong clues about what had been going on. I would then attempt to contact the editor. I can't say exactly how I would word it, unless I used a template such as Template:Uw-npa2 or another from Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Behavior towards editors as appropriate. Even then I would probably add a personalised message specific to the situation following the template. If the editor did not appear to be online at the time, I would probably send an email to alert him to the message on the talk page, especially if I thought the account might have been hacked.

    As an admin I would have the power to block the other editor, but would be very unlikely to use this on a fellow admin, unless the account was at that time still being used to post further non-trivial unconstructive edits, and even then I would only block for a short time and would probably first seek the advice of another fellow admin. – Fayenatic (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  • 9c What is the difference between an informative article about a product, and a promotional one that would trigger Speedy G11? If the product were in practice quite likely very notable, and quite likely otherwise, would it make a difference? Would you use the standard template, or give personal advice as well, or give personal advice only--and why--and if you would say something personal, give an example of how you would word it.
    • A Answering the last bit first, with an example about a person rather than a physical product, here's one I did earlier on an entertainer (no relation): this link to the 2007 page history covers several of my main edits. I think I stumbled across the article when I was trimming an untidy category, and it was blatantly promotional. Nevertheless I could see that there was scope to demonstrate notability from independent sources, and I adopted the article for a while, although it is no longer on my watchlist. In that case I did give a good deal of personal advice, which was well received. I would summarise my involvement in that old case as rescuing a conflicted promotional article into an objective and verified one. I was probably generous to a fault.

    That was quite early on in my editing history; these days I would say more about COI, from the start. Here is an example about an architect, where I started in 2009 with a COI tag but ended up helping to trim and rewrite the page. In that case I left a standard COI message at the first user page. I later left some bespoke messages on the article talk page to explain the tags on the article. In the end another editor joined in and expanded it to the point where it won a DYK.

    Ah, here's a product-related page that I helped with, about a sportswear company. I like the early edit summary (not mine): tagged for promotional tone and lack of sources; probably qualifies for speedy deletion under a7 or g11, but I'm feeling inclusionist tonight, so someone else will have to make the call. I thought the brand was notable, so after it was stripped to the minimum I found and used some sources to expand it.

    And here is one with a lot more of my own work: I de-prodded a tiny page about a small financial services organisation, because I thought it was notable by virtue of its age. I see that I left a cheery tailored message for the user. I then found sources and expanded it, and went on to rescue a few pages about similar mutual organisations.

    So yes, the likelihood of notability would be a big factor in deciding whether to delete it. Another factor would be the scope for verification, and it doesn't take long to check Google News archives. I'd still be inclined to PROD it rather than speedy it unless it was offensively and irredeemably non-encyclopedic. If it was pretty bad but worth leaving for a second opinion, then I'd tag it for speedy deletion rather than remove it myself. G11 says "exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten", so if there was any content that would be retained in an encyclopedic article, another option is to strip it down to those essentials, tag it as appropriate e.g. primary sources, and notify the article creator. As the example of the entertainer page shows, I'm generally prepared to rescue rather than delete. My AfD nomination mentioned in Q10 below was an exception, because of the amount of work required to rescue that list. – Fayenatic (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

    Expansion: here is another example of me coaching a user about notability and promotional tone; in that case I could not find any evidence and eventually nominated it at AfD; it was deleted. – Fayenatic (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

    And another constructive user talk page message where a novice editor had been turning a start-class article about a product into an advert. See also its AfD page ending with Revised - Keep: User:Fayenatic london has done a good job of adding sources to make it verifiable and clearly notable. – Fayenatic (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

  • 9d When checking deleted pages as in your answer to Q8, suppose you see a speedy deleted article deleted on the basis "this is nonsense", and you cannot see anything possibly nonsensical about it, and the deleting admin has long left Wikipedia, how would you proceed?
    • A First, I would probably google the subject and search Wikipedia including Talk and Project pages in case there was any indication of what was wrong with it. If I could still see nothing at all wrong with it, I may as well use my powers decisively for a change and reinstate it! Maybe the admin's finger slipped and he deleted the wrong page, perhaps when he had been looking at multiple pages in different browser tabs and went back to delete the wrong one. If I was in any doubt I would ask another admin to review it either before or after I restore it. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • 9e If someone argues in an AfD that we should ignore WP:N because the subject is notable by common sense alone, and 8 of the 10 people there agree with that view, how would you close, and why?
    • A Take a quick look at the !voting editors' contribution history in case they were single-purpose accounts. If they are regular editors, and there is no evidence of mischief, then the consensus is clear, and the admin's role is to implement consensus rather than to judge it. It would be a different matter if 8 out of 10 were just saying ILIKEIT, but if there is such a clear majority of editors satisfied about the notability requirement then it is met. There would be the option of relisting to let more people express an opinion, but 10 is good enough for a close. In fact, although it was argued that "we should ignore WP:N", if notability is obvious then I would say WP:N has been met; it's the GNG or other specific guidelines that are being ignored rather than the WP:N guideline itself. Of course WP:N is not the only requirement and a Keep outcome would not automatically follow unless the other content standards to were met: WP:V, BLP, NOR, NPOV or whatever else was brought as the grounds on which the article was nominated or supported for deletion. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • 9f We have a guideline that occupational cross-categorization by ethnicity should generally be avoided except in special cases. Suppose in a CfD half the people assert this is one of the special cases, and half say the opposite. How do you close, and why?
    • A The quick and easy answer would be "no consensus". However, I always try to find something more useful than that, either as a closing decision or at least as a pointer to enable future discussions more fruitful, by assessing each set of policy considerations to determine which weighs heavier than the other. I am well aware that this particular type of intersection category is highly contentious, and that there are many precedents with long discussions. You may not be aware that, as far as I remember, I have not participated in any of them, and certainly have not closed any. One reason for that is that I have an innate thoroughness which wants to at least skim all that has gone before, in order to take account of any material policy implications that have been brought to bear. Here is an unrelated example where I spurred another editor to express his impatience while I took the time to do so! – Fayenatic (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Optional question from Epeefleche.

• 10 A bit over a year ago, you were the nom in AfD/List of cooperatives. There, you maintained that a list should be deleted because it added "no information" to its parallel category, except for what you viewed as inappropriate additions. The AfD closed as a keep. In retrospect, do you think the close was proper, or that your nomination was proper?--Epeefleche (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• A: I think they were both proper. It was a discussion worth having, as the article was then a manifest blot on the encyclopedia. It needed an awful lot of work to make it decent, and I didn't expect anyone to bother. However, the discussion resulted in an article rescue, and thankfully another editor did put in that work (about 130 edits). After that, a keep outcome was the right decision at that time. Since his work it has again gathered improper external links, and wants trimming again; but after the rescue, it will not take so long to clean up. It does add a little information to what is in the categories: a breakdown of Canadian co-ops by province; descriptions and cities which are not all included in the names; and in a few cases, statements of notability. So even though it remains a magnet for linkspam, I wouldn't nominate it again. If the article hadn't been rescued, we would still have had the categories, and it might even have been easier to build it again from scratch using them. As for the external links: in my nomination I failed to explain that I was taking exception to the listed organisations that had a link but neither an article nor an assertion of notability. BTW, it is my personal opinion that if a list entry asserts notability and provides an independent citation in support of it, then the entry can stay on the list. That would be another way for lists to complement categories: by including subjects that deserve to have an article written about them which does not yet exist. Interestingly those entries would be ruled out by DGG's comments at the AfD, which surprises me somewhat as I usually find him to be commendably inclusionist. Perhaps I am straying too far from the question; but hopefully the insight into my own interpretations will be useful. Feel free to correct me if I've missed a policy rule. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your highly thoughtful response. I do have sympathy for those troubled by articles that are in bad shape, as this one was. I suppose the guideline that comes to mind for me is our MOS on lists, and the essay (though it is just an essay) is WP:NOTCLEANUP.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Side issue, but since I noticed this, & its been concerning me, and I've been wanting to say something: there is some inconsistency; what I mean to say, it depends on the type of list: lists of alumni or people from X, should be construed narrowly, list of companies in a field, or lists like this, more liberally, except for the problem that this sort of inclusion is very susceptible to promotional entries, each of which takes investigation and a potential argument. At this moment on Wikipedia, the promotionalism problem is so acute that I think I've become much more cautious about some things like this. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Optional questions from Wifione ^Message

11. Please identify the BLP issues, if any, that exist in your edited revisions of Max Atkinson and Tony Schwartz

A: In both cases I decided that WP:V allowed me to identify them as bloggers. For Atkinson, I provided an independent broadsheet newspaper citation for him being noted as a blogger. For Schwartz, I made a judgment that having a regular blog in Harvard Business Review is sufficient evidence of notability as a blogger. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Expansion: the BLP issues include (i) NPOV: did I describe their status/activity as bloggers in a fair and proportionate way? (ii) WP:V: did I provide inline citations? (iii) OR: was it original analysis or synthesis to describe them in that way? (iv) Did the edits include any contentious aspect not clearly supported by the citations? (v) Was the tone impartial? (vi) Was self-published material or a primary source used improperly?

There are other aspects of WP:BLP that have no impact in this case. One worth mentioning because of its importance is: Did the statements risk any harm to the subject's privacy, or any other living person?

I have considered each of the above afresh, and do not think that the issues indicate any actual problems in this case. I could go into detail but that would probably be repetitive and dull. Nevertheless this has been a more useful exercise than I first realised – thanks. – Fayenatic (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

12. Please explain the conflict, if any, that exists between WP:GNG and specific subject related notability guidelines.

A: The specific guidelines are more generous. For instance, WP:COMPOSER supports keeping a composer article given evidence of "co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition". That must cover a lot of people who would never meet the GNG. (There may be published articles about a song but none directly about the composer. If they are known for only one song, merge them into a section of the song article, but if more than one, they can have their own small bio page.) But this result is fine; I'd call it a contrast rather than a conflict. It makes sense to have specific criteria, established by consensus from detailed discussions, for broad areas that are going to apply to large numbers of articles. The project also needs the catch-all GNG for sundry subject areas that don't have an appropriate subject guideline. We should expect the GNG to be less generous than the specific guidelines, otherwise there would be no need for the specifics. It's conceivable that the GNG might apply to an article about a "notable fail" even though the relevant specific guideline did not, and if so then it meets WP:N, but I can't think of any examples offhand. – Fayenatic (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

13. Do you believe that fans of celebrities would be considered to have a COI while editing the articles of those celebrities? What is your definition of a COI edit?

A: Not necessarily; and in practice, usually not. (Nice question, BTW, in view of my user name. In retrospect I've often noted to myself that it was not a great choice of user name; I had just made up that name to register on IMDB, and then when I registered here I used the same name, having no idea how involved I would get on Wikipedia. It's not a good name because, being an obvious pun on fanatic, it sounds fanatical, i.e. narrow-minded, obsessed, the opposite of NPOV and civil. Also, it does not reflect any values that are actually important to me. However, as time went by, it seemed too late to change it.)

Getting back to the question: COI is very closely related to NPOV. A celeb fan would have a COI if his editing was intentionally or unintentionally tending to a biased view of the subject, e.g. overstating notability, using WP:PEACOCK language, or removing notable criticism/controversy or other negative material. However, many – probably most – fan edits are made in good faith and beneficial to expand the article, update it, and add news links (which may just need re-formatting by experienced editors as citations). The motivation to make the subject better known coincides more than it conflicts with the goal of the encyclopedia.

The potential for COI editing by fans/supporters applies not only to celebs but very widely: to political and religious leaders and organisations, sports teams, media (film, TV, book, video game), fictional characters, manufactured products etc.

As for my own edits to the eponymous article Faye Wong, I believe these have all been demonstrably objective. For instance, one editor repeatedly added "philanthropist" after "singer-songwriter" to describe the person in the first sentence; but even though Wong notably co-founded and continues to support a medical charity, that is not what she is noted for, so I (and another fan editor) removed it. – Fayenatic (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Disclosure of spent conviction: a long time ago as a young editor I was accused of building a "popular culture" page to showcase a picture of Faye Wong; I held up my hands, even though that was honestly not the prime motivation for the page; I had created it when splitting content as part of a merger of two articles about a proverb, and at that time there were other examples of "Foo in popular culture" pages. (I already had a good track record in helping with Articles to be merged, e.g. this which was well received.) I'm revealing this here in a spirit of openness. – Fayenatic (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

For a more important example of NPOV editing where there could have been an appearance of COI: I also created the article street pastors when I became aware of their work. After than I actually became a street pastor, declared my interest on the talk page, and withdrew from editing the page. Later on I decided to return because: (i) I am only one of thousands of volunteers, with no involvement in leadership; (ii) the page was not getting much attention from other experienced editors, despite tagging it for a while; and (iii) I believed that I could maintain my objectivity. So, I changed my declaration on the talk page, and edited the article again, pruning some jargon which was widely used by supporters but not encyclopedic language. As stated on the talk page I looked hard for any negative coverage in WP:RS, and if I could find any I would certainly incorporate it in the article to present NPOV. – Fayenatic (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions from Surturz

14. Will you commit to a term limit, reconfirmation, or recall? If not, why not?

A: Yes, I think recall is the option that I was thinking of in my answer to Q4 above. Thanks, I couldn't remember the name of it.

15. Have you participated in any off-wiki (e.g. email or IRC) communication in regards to this RfA?

A: None whatsoever. It occurred to me that I could do so as I know one other Wikipedian in real life, but I decided not to.

16. Has there been any off-wiki canvassing for your RfA either by you or other editors?

A: None (as far as I know, and I have not picked up any hint of anything that I don't know). I wouldn't do it; transparency is important to me; it's all here, so you can look it up by "what links here", including why this kicked off at this particular time. As far as I know, no backlinks have been removed; as for my talk page, anything that goes there stays there and gets archived, except for automated bot notices. – Fayenatic (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC) or repeated Talkbacks. 17:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Achowat

17. You have indicated an interest in working XfDs; as someone who is active in MFD, I would like to ask you what your opinion of WP:FAKEARTICLE is, specifically in regards to Userpages that contain only information that would be acceptable in UBX or text of a UP, but are formatted like an Article (Infobox, etc.).

A: I can't think of any point at which I disagree with it, and recently nominated User:Foxtons/sandbox for deletion. I haven't been very active at doing so; quite often I comment-out categories from pages in user space, just to clean up the category, but have not usually been taking the time to look into whether they should be put up for MfD. Last year I stumbled across one set of four user pages from an abandoned account that were good enough already, and moved them into article space. In future I will be more active in assessing whether they should be kept at all. Your question also has made me realise that I have a few subpages myself which I should get round to cleaning up. – Fayenatic (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up - I'm sorry, I don't believe I was clear (my fault, not yours). Let's say that User:FrankRovin has set up a page (page [[User:FrankRovin]]) that uses familiar formatting to an article. The page has an infobox, a free use picture (of Frank, or so he claims) is broken up into sections with a Table of Contents, etc. However, the content of the article is not tremendously more detailed than what one might expect from UBXs (Nationality, Country of Origin, WikiProjects, alma mater, etc). Do you believe WP:FAKEARTICLE applies to this situation? Achowat (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Further reply: apology readily accepted, and I apologise in turn for only reading halfway; I don't remember reading that section of the guideline before, and it set me thinking about other ways that it applies. Presenting a user page like an article could be considered positively (quirky, imaginative, demonstrating knowledge of MOS:LAYOUT) or negatively (cheeky, potentially misleading). IMO the current wording at that guideline, "should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles", rules out what you have described, but the situation could be quickly and neatly remedied by inserting {{User page}} at the top of the user page. If this is occurring in practice (editors laying out their user pages like articles) then I would favour making it a requirement to include that header template when doing so. – Fayenatic (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats are posted on the talk page. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - Looks good! Swarm ^X 19:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Support - good noms - good contribution history. - Youreallycan 20:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Support I am impressed with all things indicative of this candidate. I have no concerns and the net positive effects from this user are clear in their contributions. My76Strat (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
4. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 21:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
5. Support - looks like a good candidate. PaoloNapolitano 21:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
6. Support. My interactions with this user have been extremely positive. I feel confident Fayenatic will make a great admin. France3470 (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
7. Support Impressive number of edits and edit count. Clean block log, great contributions. I don't see a reason yet to oppose.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 21:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
8. Support - I'm impressed by the way this user conducts themselves on Wikipedia, their understanding of policy, and their good judgement. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
9. Support Fayenatic has long demonstrated both the good judgement and the willingness to help mop up messes that is required of admins. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
10. Strong Support Great candidate! --Bmusician 02:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
11. Support I have no concerns about the candidates temperament, despite the oppose below. Why not? Pol430 talk to me 02:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
12. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
13. Support The exchange with Cusop Dingle should have attempted to de-escalate the situation rather than make it more tense. I was able to find no similar situations to this in making a quick run through this user's history. This user has consistently made excellent article contributions since 2006 and is a huge benefit to Wikipedia. I appreciate the commitment made to defuse debate in the future, and I see nothing wrong with an RfA being part of the continual learning process of improving oneself as a Wikipedian. If Fayenatic wants admin tools then I want this user to have them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
14. Support. Lord Roem (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
15. Support per responses talk page responses to my oppose below. Pseudofusulina (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
16. Support. Fayenatic is a high quality editor. I haven't always agreed with him/her, but I respect Fayenatic greatly and think he would do a good job as an administrator. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
17. Support - Good Luck! Monterey Bay (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
18. Support Have come across him before - polite and sensible - Mop please! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 14:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
19. Support - Per nom. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
20. Reasonably strong support Keepscases (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
21. CFD can always use more help. --Kbdank71 19:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
22. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 19:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
23. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
24. Support Looks like a good editor. I've read the diffs pointed out below, and the comments seem fairly mild. If that's what they were saying to every editor, then that might be cause for concern, but others have indicated that that isn't the case. --Rschen7754 02:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
25. Stephen 02:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
26. Support --Surturz (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
27. Support Good track and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
28. Support - I look for four characteristics in a candidate – a solid history of positive contributions (preferably to mainspace); demonstrated knowledge of and experience with policies, guidelines and administrative processes; evidence of willingness and ability to conduct constructive discussion; and general helpfulness – and Fayenatic has them all. He seems to have experience with the full range of article editing: from minor fixes ([1][2]) to content control ([3][4]) and content creation (User:Fayenatic london#Portfolio... I especially liked Suicide bidding). He also has a history of constructive participation in discussions, including at various deletion venues where he has offered well-reasoned comments. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

    I thought this edit was particularly illustrative. The edit itself consists of minor fixes, but the edit summary not only describes the changes but also provides a polite reminder to consult the notability guidelines before moving the unsourced draft to mainspace... something that a lot of editors wouldn't have thought to do. :) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

29. Support per noms. Contributions in relevant areas show attention to detail, something I admire in an admin. Candidate seems to display good judgement, and has answered the questions well. This says to me we'd be better off if this user had the tools. Begoon ^talk 05:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
30. Strong Support first, for having the sense to take time to think before dealing with my admittedly tricky q.9--regardless of how it will be answered. And especially for being able, at q.10, to convince an established person here that they might need to rethink a position, and most of all for being WP:Bold enough to do it at their own RfA, a place where most candidates are excessively cautious. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
31. Secret ^account 05:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
32. Support. I'm convinced that F is a thoughtful editor, who takes the time to think through a complex issue and seek the best result (e.g., the difficult issue I raised for him in question 10 above).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
33. Support - 41K edits, 2/3 of which are to mainspace, well over 100 starts (I didn't want to wait around for the whole list to load). I looked at a couple, good content contributor. No indications of assholery. Carrite (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
34. Support. Articles seem competent-good, although I didn't check any sources. Intelligent answers above.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
35. Support I was interested in nominating this user for adminship nearly 4 years ago. Seems genuine and hardworking. --Dweller (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
36. Support per the above - particularly Carrite, who pretty well says what I would've said. I see lots of really good work from this candidate, and the interactions I've seen indicate that they have a cool head about them. No question that adminship here would be a net positive for the project. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
37. Haven't seen this user but I'll trust everyone else. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
38. Support, sure. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
39. Support Qualified user, and on-the-job is really the only way to learn adminship. Good admins have to be created through experience. Courcelles 00:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
40. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
41. Support Particularly impressed by the thoughtful and creative administrative goals the candidate intends to accomplish as stated in the answer to question 8--Hokeman (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
42. Support - has clue. And a great name. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
43. Support User has a very positive attitude. Cadonian (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
44. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
45. Support Yes! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
46. Support Does look good.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 11:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
47. Support. Everything looks good - contributions, knowledge, answers to questions, interaction with others -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
48. Support - Great WP:IAR-style answer to my MFD question. You'll do well with the mop. Achowat (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
49. Support Per Kumioko's opposition. No further explanation shall be given. HandiGoatMasala (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
50. Support per many persuasive arguments at cfd and also on this page. Oculi (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
51. Support Wifione ^Message 15:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
52. Support - Mato (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
53. Support Epbr123 (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose "It's a long time since I met another editor who was quite so adept at giving and taking offence. Thank you for your time." Please click here to see the full exchange.

If the editor was being offensive to others in the community, would your comments cool things down? If the editor excels at taking offense, are you accusing them of taking offense where none was intended? How about just saying "I think you took offense where none was intended?" Do you think your response was the helpful way for an administrator to deal with the situation?

"Look. You made a couple of mistakes. You've graciously conceded that the article has been improved, but have maintained your denial of any ulterior motive and reacted angrily to criticism of your edit summaries." I italicized the part I discuss below.

You've pointed out they made mistakes. You've pointed out that you were right. Was the additional accusation of "ulterior motives" necessary? What would have been the impact of assuming good faith instead of ulterior motives and saying, "Thank you for letting me know that you think my edits improved the article."

Feel free to convince me otherwise. Resolution of issue by both editors. Pseudofusulina (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I have replied on this RfA talk page. – Fayenatic (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Oppose (Moved from Neutral). From the chatter on the talkpage of this RFA (most of which should be here on this discussion page) I'm not sure that the editor has enough visibility into administrative functions to hit the ground running - or even at a slow crawl. As much as I know from personal experience how much of a learning curve there is and always will be, the fact that discussions that are germane to this RFA are being held off this page, and they aren't satisfactory IMHO has made me move to oppose (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   I started that discussion on the talk page because it was likely to be drawn out into side-issues and to include discussion about other editors. I'm happy to move it here, or for anyone else to move it here, if that's the done thing. (Another thing I never got round to in advance of my RfA nom was reading other RfAs to pick up the local etiquette.)

   As for the learning curve, I've stated that I expect to use admin rights at first mainly to do behind-the-scenes work at WP:CFD, for which the nominators and others have expressed confidence in my experience, and to hold back from using powers for which I lack the proper knowledge or experience. (I've explained in response to Q9 why I didn't read up in advance of this RfA. In the immediate future I will work my way through any parts of WP:PREP that I am not already familiar with.) – Fayenatic (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

   Oppose(Quite acceptable answers by Fayenatic. Striking my oppose. Wifione ^Message 15:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)) I find it extremely embarrassing to be opposing the third RfA this week. With NewyorkBrad, Courcelles, DGG - editors I hugely respect - et al already in the support column, more so. My apologies in advance to Fayenatic. I'll really wish to see the candidate's understanding of notability guidelines and CoI in their own words, especially given he is a self-confessed fan of a celebrity whose pages he is editing. The fact that Fayenatic has not answered two of the questions mentioned above could be because he hasn't found time. And that is what I'll assume given his expanse of contributions. Therefore, this oppose will get struck the moment I view answers that are acceptable. Kind regards. Wifione ^Message 03:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

   I'm not sure I quite understand how being a fan of someone constitutes a CoI. By far my most heavily edited article, Zoya Phan, is someone who I very much admire, and her life's work is for a cause I have a huge interest in. I certainly don't think I have a CoI (I've obviously never met her, we live on opposite sides of the pond); granted, it's not quite the same as being a fan of someone, but I think the analogy works. Of course, if I missed something do tell me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

   Being a fan gets in the way of NPOV writing for some editors; Here's one that I improved earlier. However, it is unlikely to be a problem with experienced editors who put in so much time that they are demonstrably committed to the encyclopedia and its goals. – Fayenatic (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

   Hi Blade. I'm quite comfortable with Faye's answer. I'm awaiting the reply to the question on notability. Best. Wifione ^Message 03:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

   Ah, this is what happens when I forget to check timestamps... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose - Sorry, its nothing personal but we have too many admins as it is. We don't need any more. Just my opinion. --Kumioko (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

   Is that really a reason to not qualify him as an admin? This project has around 1600 admins out of millions of users. There are backlogs that need to be cleared and extra admins would help.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,287,443) 15:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

   I propose this comment be struck as a WP:POINT !vote. The user has recently had a dispute with Admins and, likely, is blaming the Admin corps and everyone who would like to be a part of that. (I've removed an exact duplicate comment from Kumioko, as well). Achowat (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

   I propose that this comment NOT be struck. The closing bureaucrat will give the !vote the weight that it deserves. And what do you mean "I've removed an exact duplicate comment from Kumioko"? Diff please. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

   [5] Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

   Yeah, not to worry ... an editor who made a lot of such pointy !votes ended up blocked. That's the pointiest !vote I've seen in awhile (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

   Yep, we definitely need fewer admins—there were a grand total of two admins working on the CSD backlog this morning! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

   My last comment before I get banned for voting my opinion but I disagree that we need more admins. We need more people with the ability to do certain things but they don't need the whole toolbox. --Kumioko (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

   Reaper is right. Two is more than enough to handle such a backlog. I bet you that backlog could've cleared itself out. There is no need for admins around. Everybody's nice and doesn't vandalize Wikipedia, oh no. And because everybody is sooo nice and edits properly, there is no need for protecting pages or blocking users or deleting pages. I think I've said enough.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,339,963) 20:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, I think you (plural) have. Let's drop this, and go build our straw men elsewhere please? We all know what happens when an RfA becomes a policy dispute. Please? :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 20:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

   Kumioko, there is sometimes a backlog at WP:CFD which is why I'm asking for the key to the toolbox. As I'm sure you know, the way wiki software works is to entrust admins with the whole kit. For what it's worth, I'll be open to recall, so if I am perceived to abuse another tool from the box, I can be stopped. But hey, it's your !vote. – Fayenatic (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Personally I couldn't care less whether this editor is appointed an administrator. However, since I am the editor referred to in answer 3(i), and have been specifically invited to comment, I will say just this: others may wish to decide whether the exchanges on his talk page, and at an SPI, of which this and this are the last comments respectively, demonstrate the level of sound judgement required. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

   moved to oppose Neutal The acceptance statement confuses the heck out of me. "It's about time I did some of the hard work instead of leaving it to others and just doing the interesting bits" ... noooo, article creation is the hard work. In the second half of the statement, why would you want to stop "doing the interesting bits"? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

   Could be sarcasm but, that's not deterring me from voting support.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 14:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

   Apologies for my lack of clarity. I said that in the context of helping at CFD, where I have made some closing decisions but had to then refer them to one of the admins who have offered to implement them (instructing the bot to change/remove the categories from the articles, and deleting the old categories). As I also said re Q4, I intend to carry on being mainly a contributor. There are various series of articles that I intend to create or improve by adding sources, and I'm always picking up new trails. Nevertheless I do enjoy helping out at CFD and my work there seems to be appreciated, hence my request to use the toolbox. – Fayenatic (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

   Just to clarify the above comment for those not aware of the minutiae of CfD: The "interesting" part of a CFD close is reading the debate and making a decision, which Fayenatic can (for the most part) do now. But there's a page called CFD/Working that non-admins cannot edit. On that page, a lot of "non-interesting" tasks are done, such as listing categories for the bots to delete and rename. This nomination, if it passes, will give Fayenatic the tools to do the routine CFD stuff that the rest of us do. Hope that helps.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

   Neutral - pending time to read the content of the talk page, but I don't like all this stuff happening as a result of this RfA, though one can't really turn apologies into a negative. Mato (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)(moved to Support) - Mato (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It's only an indirect "result of this RfA", because it was this RfA which triggered me to proactively set out the fact of this recent dispute before this panel of admins, and a better editor than me then made the effort to help me see where I had gone wrong.[6] I thought about waiting until after the close of the RfA, recognising that some people might perceive my apology as an attempt to change opinions here, but having realised that I needed to apologise, I decided to go ahead without waiting longer. I do not expect Cusop Dingle to take any action as a result. I meant to do the right thing, but motives are always more mixed than we admit to ourselves; judge me as you see fit. – Fayenatic (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2012 (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.