Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/R'n'B

1137:. While more of the standard "admin path" type of experience might be desirable, the user seems to be reasonable, able to reason and communicate clearly, able to discuss and work toward a meeting of the minds. He has more than enough experience in the project, and seems knowledgeable. His request is related to and will support work he is already doing. Clearly a net positive. I would recommend making the sig clearer, as it could cause confusion. 439:

do engage in recent change patrol, reverting vandalism and warning vandals, and so I may from time to time be confronted with a vandal who needs to be blocked. I think I've addressed this in the answers to the earlier questions. As for deletion, if I see an article that meets the speedy-delete criteria, I may well delete it, although I've learned through experience that these criteria need to be interpreted very strictly.

303:

across a fair number of other users with sigs that don't match their usernames, and wasn't aware that it had ever been a concern. I haven't seen any actual cases of users who had difficulty finding me when they wanted to; if it does become a real problem, though, I'm certainly willing to make changes. And if there is a consensus or policy concerning user sigs that I should be aware of, please bring it to my attention.

463:

rather go through back channels (faster) or through public channels (more visible) to have issues resulting around your actions dealt with? Do you believe that cussing, negative characterizations, holding grudges, or the rest are appropriate during such a time as you would be trying to resolve the issue? (some links to demonstrate how you respond to criticism would also be helpful)

296:- When I was a new user three years ago, it caused me endless confusion and got me in trouble because I did not understand that a certain "mediator" had different talk pages, depending on what part of his signature you clicked on. Do you think that it is important to be transparent and "user friendly" to new users who often have trouble learning the basics of Knowledge (XXG)? 2544:- there is nothing about policy described above, definite reasons why adminship is needed, details on article work, and only a tiny hint at to what areas would be worked on. Perhaps I am missing this? Please, if no one is going to ask about it, at least provide -something- on the subject. Until then, there is nothing to actually support. 2676:

an admin dude to do it for him. As Ottava said, adminship is a packaged deal. It comes with blocking, deleting, undeleting, and (if you call within the next 10 minutes) we'll include page protection! The ability to correctly place misplaced disambigs doesn't seem to be at the top of the list for admin features. So I must oppose.

2616:

if he ever had the chance. Adminship is a packaged deal. I would remain neutral, but since there is nothing to really satisfy the trust issue, there is no ability for me to do anything but oppose. However, this is easily remedied (unless he answers in a really bad manner and shows that he can't be trusted).

2675:

Now I remember why I wanted to oppose this one so badly. In my opinion, he doesn't really need the tools. He's only stated one thing that he would use the tools for (something about disambiguations?), which really doesn't warrant having the tools. If that's all he needs them for, then he can just ask

2210:

for the stuff written above and the lack of an apparent burning desire to use the extra tools to go around blocking people, deleting stuff, and all that. The oppose by the flaming lawyer below prompts this: Of course people have to be blocked and stuff has to be deleted, but I sense that there should

1343:

I'm glad you asked Giggy. In reviewing Russ I've noted he is very active in legal articles. Given that legal articles are frequently BLP problems because of POV-pushers moving their RL disputes onwiki, having an extra set of blocking/deleting buttons roaming that area of pages will be useful to the

876:

He explained that in his acceptance - it says there that he started editing in 2005 under his real name, but "opened a new account in October 2006 after experiencing some creepiness from another editor". An understandable situation - I had to change my username some years back after experiencing some

345:

This question does not seem to me to be susceptible to a definite answer. So much depends on the circumstances, including the user's pattern of edits, the warnings the user has received, and the likelihood of repetition. In the case of obviously malicious vandalism where there is no evidence of any

233:

more experienced. In my view, the appropriate steps to take when stressed out over another user's actions are (1) take a deep breath or count to ten, (2) think about whether the issue is really important, and (3) if it is, try to get a neutral party to take a look at the issue. A lot of the time, I

132:

years; I started in 2005 using my real name as my username, but opened a new account in October 2006 after experiencing some creepiness from another editor. (And, at the same time, I announced my intention to significantly scale back my preoccupation with Knowledge (XXG), a goal that I still haven't

3103:

As I consider the "default" position for an RfA to be "pass" (hence we require users to justify opposing, rather than justify supporting), and the fact that he said he was leaning support, I opted to go with the first; however, I'm more than willing to budge on the matter. I've asked K50 himself to

2615:

I cannot ethically support someone without these answers. Administrator position grants someone the power to delete, the power to block, and other such items that require trust. It doesn't matter if he claims to plan on using these powers or not, I still require knowledge of -how- he would use them

2577:

I rather thought I'd covered that in the nomination. R'n'B is very active in disambiguation, including fixing misplaced disambiguation pages, and he expressed to me his interest in adminship precisely because of the frequency with which he has had to bother admins to effect page moves and merges in

2244:

with a note - If you ever feel that your action should be undone in regards to blocking someone, it is best to post at AN, ANI, etc, and state why you blocked and that you feel it should be undone. Don't do it yourself, because others in the community may think that the block should still stand. It

472:

More seriously, I think my answer to question 3 above largely dictates how I answer this one. If another user disputes something I've done using the admin tools, the first step (after taking the deep breath) would be to consider whether I ought to reverse the action myself. Maybe I made a mistake

462:

I don't ask questions, nor do I like to do such out of principle. However - As an administrator, how would you deal with conflicts that result from any use of your admin tools? What kind of response would you give the individual? Who would you contact? What noticeboards would you post at? Would you

438:

There seems to be a misunderstanding. I have never said I would refrain from using any of the admin tools. It is true that I don't expect to participate much in AfD or page protection (which, incidentally, I really dislike as a user, and think should be reserved for the most extreme cases); but I

208:

which is largely my work. (I made these contributions under a different user name, several years ago, you won't find them in my contributions now....) I think, though, that my many smaller efforts in terms of article cleanup, vandalism fighting, spell checking, and general maintenance have made a

99:

R'n'B is also a master disambiguater, a particularly useful undertaking given the vast number of thoughtlessly added links to disambiguation pages. This makes his potential adminship of particular value, as he is active in moving misplaced disambiguation pages - a task which sometimes calls for the

2723:

In principle, that would be optimum. However, sometimes there are areas that are lacking. Not every admin stays in their original area, or keeps to their original promises. We do need specialists, but we also need to know that people can be trusted with the whole package until there is a time that

2598:

See below - I require an understanding of how he would deal with other uses of the tools that make up the larger portion of what he will be granted and what he has no actually defined any feelings on. A few sentences about his feelings on the matter, possibly some analysis or philosophy of how the

431:

be using your admin tools in deletion, protection, or vandal-fighting efforts. As having a delete button, and in my opinion, the even more powerful protection button are tools of trust, can you comment on this? With little to no evidence on how you will handle these tools, I find it hard to grant

103:

He is also, I should mention, the maintainer of RussBot, an authorized Bot which is responsible for over fifty-thousand more little improvements to the encyclopedia. In sum, this is a trusted user who knows his way around the 'pedia, and who will benefit us even more if given access to the tools.

2011:

wanted to oppose this one (I don't know why, I guess he's too gnome-ish?) but I couldn't find a reason for it, and I didn't want to be that guy who doesn't give a reason for votes. He's just too... good. The barnstars he's gotten are great, and he got pretty much the same ones on his old account

442:

You also seem to be asking whether I can be trusted. I can only point to my record of constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) over a long period. I have had the 'rollback' right for a while now, and no one has ever suggested that I've misused it. I've made a few mistakes in my day, and

302:

Yes, I do think it's important to be "user friendly" to newer users. A lot of Knowledge (XXG)'s processes and policies can be confusing to newcomers. I take it, though, that the thrust of this question goes to my signature. I guess I'm surprised by the interest in this topic, since I've come

366:

Again, it depends on the circumstances. If a particular account has a history of persistent vandalism with no good-faith editing at all, I would take it all into account no matter how old it was. If the account had been used for good-faith editing, however, I would give less weight to old

386:

says 24 hours for a first block, although I notice a lot of admins applying 31-hour blocks instead. I've also noticed a lot of cases of indefinite blocks on the first offense for registered accounts that have been used purely for vandalism. If I were looking at a repeat offender, I would

184:, double-redirects that are move-protected, categories that need to be deleted or undeleted, and so forth. My major motivation for asking for the tools at this time is that I have been feeling guilty about creating more work for the existing admins because I can't fix these issues myself. 1425:

I've become very, very admin-inclusionist. But if you want a further rationale, I'm very impressed by his templates with red links work. I did that for a little while and it is pretty time-consuming, but very valuable. He appears sensible as well based on his and the nom's statements.

2558:

I don't want to "badger" you (as it seems to be called these days) but your reason to oppose is that he does not really plan to use the tools? Am I understanding that correctly? I am truly confused what your reasoning for this !vote is, so please clarify. Regards

487:"Do you believe that cussing, negative characterizations, holding grudges, or the rest are appropriate during such a time as you would be trying to resolve the issue?" No, and I'd be unhappy if the user did any of those things. But I'd try not to respond in kind. 3014:

leaning support. In oppose #1, it was said well that there wasn't many adminy areas this user intended to work in, and that is true. I can't oppose for this because I strongly trust the user however I don't think I can support until I get more information.

319:

I'm not aware of the case to which you refer. By analogy, however, it certainly makes sense that one would present oneself differently in particular contexts; I would not address a judge in court the same way I would if I met her in a restaurant, for

2211:

be a much larger number of trusted people who become admins to do this incidentally while attending to their regular editing business and perhaps more care about candidates who seem to be waiting for the time when they can say "Make my day."

443:

probably will make more, but I've always tried to correct those when they have been brought to my attention. All I can promise is that, if given admin powers, I will try to use them as responsibly as I have used my editing privileges so far.

258:

As a matter of fact, I got a comment on my User talk page a couple of months ago from someone who expressed confusion over just that issue, so therefore I suppose the answer has to be "yes." However, I don't believe it is a serious issue.

844:— Honestly shocked that this user isn't an admin already. Masterful bot operator, does amazing work in a very gnomish area (which makes me feel warm in my funny places), will definitely be a net benefit for this user to have the tools. 861:

Don't see why not. Also, it seems (from his editing record) that R'n'B has only been aroung for two years. Could he please clear up whether or not he has had previous accounts? This will not affect my vote, I would just like to know.

92:, for example). When it comes to generating usable information for projects his Wiki-fu is sublime to the point that he is my go-to person with requests for assistance. It is no understatement to say that without his help, the entire 1111:

Yep, when I read "R'n'B" I was kind of confused who that user might be but seeing how he signs his posts, I understood that this was one of the best WikiGnomes I encountered, so I do not see a single problem with this candidate :-)

313:- A newly elected arbitrator was requested to remove the "Cheers" from his signature by the arbcom. What is your understanding of why such a signature may not be appropriate in certain situations, such as in arbcom statements? 426:

There is no mention of AfD, AIV, RFPP, blocks vs. bans, or any of the usual stuff - yet you're running at about 95% support. Clearly people are taking you at your word - an extreme rarity in RfA, I might add - that you will

3126:

Another view, of course, would be that a person who makes multiple votes should have none of them counted. In which case, both should be indented until the voter chooses which one he intended to have stand.

2507:- Does not have any downfalls in any administratorly areas that I can see right off the bat and this user has done great work for this Knowledge (XXG) so far. No issues means no reason why not to support. 79:

for adminship. He has been an active contributor for well over two years, having over twenty-thousand quality edits to his name. He has been quick to revert vandalism to both low- and high-profile articles

2703:

By that logic, all new admin nominations should be denied, as anyone who wants to be an admin could just as easily ask an existing admin to carry out whatever tasks come up that require the tools.

2690:

Does it cost anything to have an admin that does not use the tools? I know, you said you really wanted a reason to oppose this user above, but, 'Doesn't really need the tools' is really weak IMO.

1961:. R'n'B isn't an admin already? (Specially for Giggy: I've had nothing but good encounters and seen nothing but positive work from the user, and I have no concerns about the user being an admin.) 2316:

Support - As a protest against the standards at RfA, I am no longer bolding my supports for any candidates. Bureaucrats, please interpret this as exactly what it is. Or something like that. :) ~

1848:: Excellent editor. And also it's nice to see someone without any opposes - if nobody could find nothing against you, then you are pretty much the perfect candidate for the mop here, I think :) 484:

I'd prefer to go through public channels to resolve issues. I guess there might be an exception if the discussion might invade someone's privacy, but that seems like an unusual situation.

2578:

order to get those disambiguation pages where they are supposed to be. He also readily reverts and warns vandals, and so is clearly in a position to block the ones that persist. Cheers!

263:

is an inactive account, so I'm not going to be confused with him; and it's really not all that unusual for users' signatures not to match their usernames. If you don't believe me, ask

151:

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

3083:

Not to undermine my own nominee (who I think will do fine whether this voter supports or remains neutral), but I would think that the most recent vote would be the one that counts.

1698:—no concerns. Many of my interactions with him have been through editprotected requests, where he consistently requests useful, well-thought-out changes and explains them nicely. {{ 473:

or was too hasty. If so, I would do it. If not, I'd probably explain my reasoning to the user and invite them to seek a review by another admin (depending on the issue, at

219:

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?

3167: 1344:

project. Also, he contributes at a rather steady rate for a long period of time, which gives me faith he will not burn out quickly from the tasks of being an admin.

1643: 140: 1615:

I have an idea for that - get a 'crat to usurp the existing blocked account, then let R'n'B sign up for the freed account and redirect it to his current account.

229:

getting into conflicts with other users. And I'll admit that I haven't always handled these conflicts perfectly, although I do think I'm getting better as I get

2763:

Weak. Just weak. Can't you at least give a reason? A user who is undertaking an RFA would want to know what there fellow editors think they need to improve on.

531: 650:

My first Beat the Nom! Anyway, since eco has retired I will contiue the queue jokes, even if they are rubbish. :) Anyway, I cant see any problems here so

3185: 1483:

Very impressive. I'd write more, but Giggy seems to be hell-bent on haranguing supporters for the lulz, so I think I'll stop here just to spite him.

177: 1592:

I haven't found a reason not to. Good contribs, just one thing... you may want to change your signature because it may lead to someone typing in

638: 346:

mistake or any attempt to comply with policies, and where the user has persisted after being warned repeatedly, I would think that even one act

128:

I accept your nomination for next administrator of this great encyclopedia. And, just to correct the record, I've actually been editing almost

2650:

I'm leaning to support, but I will wait until my question is answered. Its a softball, so I don't expect anything scary to come out of it. :)

1635:

A brilliant idea, but it won't work because there is a very active User:Russ on some other Wikimedia projects. So, here's my new signature:

818:— Seems like a fine candidate for adminship with reasonable answers to the questions and good contributions from a quick browse over them. — 93: 518: 469:: How about if we agree that since you don't like asking questions, and I don't like answering them, we'll just forget the whole thing? :) 180:, and new pages/recent changes patrolling. In the course of this work I come across pages that require admin assistance; for example, 164:

I expect that I will do administrative work that is closely related to the maintenance projects that I already participate in and that

33: 17: 81: 1083:- Seems like a good contributor, no reason not to trust with the tools, and therefore no reason not to support, as far as I can see. 561: 404: 1012:

because this user has no problems that I have seen YET. If someone brings one up, I may change my !vote, but until then, I like ya!

555: 2925:

Well do you think this vote will actually count in the final closing from the b-cat? It's no big deal if it won't count anyway :-)

1658: 481:, or some other forum. If the user doesn't accept this, I'd take the initiative myself to get a third party to look at the issue. 1779:

This user is civil, mature and unlikely to abuse the tools. Thanks for all you have done to date and good luck for the future --

1255: 612: 525: 1886: 225:

Yes, of course I have. I can't imagine anyone being involved in editing Knowledge (XXG) over a significant period of time and

3023: 2933: 2832: 1835: 1287: 1020: 1445:

Support; RussBot is excellent and I have been impressed by Russ' work in numerous areas. I trust him to use the tools well.

397:

Would you give shared IP addresses that have been used for vandalism more lenient treatment than is given to other vandals?

583: 511: 72: 1762:. Beginning to feel the issues is a bit snowy. Well established user, obviously hardworking, and no legitimate concerns. 204:, the first half of which I largely rewrote including adding citations to multiple sources, and the "History" section of 616: 2794:

Well I wouldn't say weak, it's better than a blank oppose. I mean, at least the 300 reference catches you off guard.--

1940: 1251: 633: 1521:

I find nothing that would cause me concern to choose in giving R'n'B the trust to carry out the duties responsibly.

360:

For how long should previous acts of vandalism be taken into account when deciding what to do with the most recent?

2428: 2066: 2164: 1723:. Good editor, good vandal fighter, good article writer, lots of experience—all-around asset to Knowledge (XXG). 936: 2478: 2232: 2060: 867: 659: 2113:

I think Russ has made constructive contributions to WP and I think that he'd make a fine admin. Good Luck. —

1134: 569: 2346: 1206: 1177: 1143: 1100: 764: 679: 173: 2461: 2392: 1732: 1222: 628: 1879:

Having looked around this morning, I can't find any clear or obvious reason to not trust with the tools.

2912: 2878: 2729: 2655: 2621: 2604: 2549: 2495: 2421: 2367: 2271: 2250: 2216: 2132: 3166:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either

1543: 1138: 579: 3142: 3121: 3098: 3078: 3053: 3035: 3006: 2971: 2945: 2916: 2902: 2882: 2868: 2852: 2838: 2807: 2789: 2758: 2733: 2718: 2698: 2685: 2659: 2645: 2625: 2608: 2593: 2572: 2553: 2527: 2499: 2482: 2465: 2447: 2435: 2412: 2383: 2373: 2352: 2329: 2311: 2293: 2276: 2254: 2245:

would cut down on any possible complications if the individual is reblocked. Cheers and good luck. :)

2236: 2220: 2202: 2176:

Shows a need for the tools and the competency to use them responsibly. Good Contributions. No issues.

2168: 2151: 2136: 2119: 2105: 2088: 2071: 2038: 2021: 1996: 1987: 1973: 1965: 1953: 1931: 1914: 1898: 1871: 1840: 1813: 1784: 1771: 1754: 1738: 1715: 1690: 1681: 1630: 1610: 1582: 1564: 1547: 1527: 1513: 1496: 1475: 1454: 1436: 1420: 1406: 1386: 1372: 1352: 1338: 1324: 1307: 1293: 1259: 1240: 1226: 1210: 1196: 1162: 1148: 1125: 1103: 1094: 1073: 1059: 1032: 1004: 977: 952: 938: 911: 892: 871: 853: 836: 810: 785: 771: 748: 723: 709: 693: 681: 663: 645: 620: 119: 2516: 2320: 2160: 1525: 1490: 1368: 1099:

I knew Russ by his original name some 2½ years ago, and I thought he as an admin even then. Hmmph. —

920: 907: 903: 803: 608: 273: 242: 201: 85: 2284:- I can not see a reason to not give this user the tools. The opposes are just plain silly, IMHO. 377:

For how long would you block vandals (registered or IP) on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th offences?

2848: 2813: 2491: 2474: 2228: 2054: 1962: 1951: 1892: 1706: 1509: 1268: 863: 828: 655: 264: 252:

Do you believe it causes confusion that your signature and username do not match? Why or why not?

89: 1922:

Great editor, after looking at his contribs, I think he would be a great sysop :). All the Best,

1171: 3028: 2938: 2822: 2339: 2289: 2101: 1869: 1831: 1570: 1277: 1025: 993: 758: 672: 671:

I haven't seen a whole lot of page-protection work from him, but I still think he'll do alright.

432:

them to you without a some sort of statement. See Ottava's oppose below for more of how I feel.

383: 1639: 1593: 505: 260: 137: 66: 2681: 2457: 2408: 2309: 2114: 2084: 2034: 2017: 1983: 1750: 1724: 1676: 1504:

I feel that this user would make a good admin, and I see no red-flags on anything. Good luck.

1218: 705: 689:

Established editor, trusted with a well-used bot. No indications he will misuse admin tools.--

2012:(which wasn't too hard to find, actually...) and did the same thing, with the same accuracy. 3137: 3114: 3093: 3071: 2964: 2908: 2874: 2786: 2725: 2713: 2651: 2640: 2617: 2600: 2588: 2545: 2363: 2263: 2246: 2212: 2199: 2128: 1927: 1803: 1625: 1578: 1560: 1052: 887: 849: 743: 451: 415: 114: 2400: 2396: 1535: 478: 474: 181: 169: 3110: 3067: 3002: 2960: 2895: 2861: 2566: 2508: 1767: 1649: 1601: 1522: 1484: 1450: 1416: 1382: 1364: 1334: 1303: 1236: 1119: 1087: 1069: 948: 781: 719: 603: 205: 2844: 2444: 2378: 1943: 1880: 1780: 1699: 1687: 1505: 1427: 1397: 1158: 819: 690: 3179: 3043: 3018: 2928: 2795: 2746: 2696: 2285: 2149: 2097: 1849: 1823: 1597: 1473: 1015: 986: 798: 286: 268: 1411: