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

Amalthea[edit]

Nomination[edit]

Final (98/4/2); Ended Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:04:29 (UTC)

Amalthea (talk · contribs) – I've been watching Amalthea for close to two months now when SoWhy and I were independently looking at his edits wondering why he wasn't an admin. Amalthea is truly a unique candidate for me... he came to my attention as result of my foray into CSD, where I became EXTREMELY impressed with his work. When I realized that SoWhy was also reviewing his edits, I asked Amalthea, I've actually been reviewing your edits for the past hour or two with the same thought in mind, why aren't you an admin? At the time, there was a very strong push for article building at RfA, and this is Amathea's weak area. While he has contributed to a number of articles, he can't point to scores of GAs/FAs or even DYKs, but he does work on articles as he stumbles upon them. Why do we really want people who have experience building articles? Well, I look for it because I want somebody who knows what it feels like to be on the other end of a speedy deletion or an over eager tagger. Article building is often seen as a measure of "this person understands the reality of contributing to the project."

Amalthea may not have as much experience as some might like in "Building the Encyclopedia," (not to say that he doesn't help build it) but his edits and his approach clearly shows somebody who understands what our principle purpose is all about and has plenty of clue. Amalthea is always willing to assume good faith and is always very civil.

I've been watching him for two months now, and I'm convinced that Amalthea has what it takes to be a great asset as an admin.---I'm Spartacus! PoppaBalloon 06:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by SoWhy

I am pleased that my very first co-nomination is Amalthea. I know the phrase "I thought he already was an admin" is used quite liberally these days but this is a genuine case of it. I was fooled thrice by his great comments and contributions, each time checking his userpage - each time being surprised that he was no admin. The third time, I decided to ask him why that is and he was surprised I found him suitable. I think that counts as modesty, as you will soon see.

Amalthea may not be a perfect content creator but rather more of a WikiGnome. But he is none of those who cannot create - once challengend, he easily got a DYK for a new article (and he said it felt good, so I guess we can see more content creation from him). So yes, this candidate is not an article creating robot...but he sure knows how to do it and he certainly knows the value of content creation.

Amalthea's more active areas are CSD and the deletion processes. He is one of the few non-admin regulars at WT:CSD, providing CLUEfully to those discussions and he proved his knowledge of policy over and over again. He has more than 80% deletion at the AfDs he nominated and provides good arguments to delete articles.Most of the times where it was kept, he either withdrew himself [1], [2], [3], [4] or just fell victim to his helpfulness by nominating an article for someone else[5]. Only a single article was kept against his nomination, which I think proves he is pretty knowledgeable (nobody is perfect after all).

Amalthea is friendly and helpful on his talk page, where I have seen many users asking for his help. He has a high number of Twinkle-edits but while some may see such edits as something negative if too many, Amalthea is actually improving Twinkle, not merely using it. His Barnstar-honored™ work improves Twinkle for the benefit of us all (except those like me who prefer Huggle^^).

So, for the WP:TLDR-crowd: Amalthea is a dedicated, friendly and helpful user who works many areas and giving him the mop will benefit us all a great deal. Regards SoWhy 20:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Amalthea 12:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: The areas I plan to work in right away are CSD and to a lesser extent AfD. I'm very familiar with the speedy deletion policy, and even though we don't have a backlog at AfD at the moment, I can help out there if one were to build up again. I've also started assisting Ioeth maintaining Twinkle lately. It would be helpful if I could edit the scripts directly, and wouldn't need to ask Ioeth to make changes for me.
I know what I know, and I know what I don't know, so when I'll eventually ease myself into other admin areas I'll know what to read, who to watch and who to ask until I feel confident enough to press any other buttons there.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have recently written an article I'm quite proud of. I did this mostly because I myself would expect it from an RfA candidate, to show that I am here to work constructively even though the admin areas I mentioned above are mostly focused on deleting things.
My main purpose here has been to maintain the existing content, which I believe is just as important by now as creating new content. That includes fact-checking new additions and adding references, cleaning up after vandals, and comparing both old and new articles with our inclusion criteria.
I've also helped a number of new users with their first steps and articles here, and worked on some of the behind-the-scenes things, e.g. the CSD notification templates.
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: After mistaking a disruptive edit for vandalism and undoing/reverting thrice I was only-warned by Tiptoety for edit warring, three months ago. The two 3RR reports can be found here, and this is the exchange I had with Tiptoety afterwards. I have certainly learned from it to be more considerate with disruptive, but not vandalistic edits.
Other than that there were only minor differences, all of which can be found in my archive.

Optional question from CrispMuncher

4. Are you familiar with WP:EGG, and do you feel that your answers above reflect it?
A: The Manual of Style applies to articles, and being intuitive about links and their targets is of most importance there, especially if there is information in the link target itself that is hidden with a piped link.
I haven't been conscious about this in my communication with editors so far, as evident above. I agree that it is generally helpful to follow this guideline wherever one can, to ease communication, and will try to keep it in mind. However, outside article space there are certainly situations where such a link is appropriate, not the least of which is for comedic effect.
This really is a general web authoring guideline, linking anything with a "here" title has been frowned upon for quite some time. --Amalthea 00:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q's from flaminglawyer

5. In your own words, no copy-pasting: What's the difference between a block and a ban? Also, include a real-life analogy between the two.
A. A block is a technical restriction to prevent an anonymous or registered account from editing. A ban is a social interdiction, directed at a person.
Real life analogy ... a person can be banned from a pub either by a general feeling of the customers (community consensus), by the spokespeople of the customers (Arbcom), by the owners of the building (Foundation) or by the guy who had the idea to open up the bar in the first place (Jimbo). To enforce the ban, there might by a bouncer at the door (the block) to prevent the person from entering. They might still sneak in disguised (Sock), but if found out will be quickly thrown out by the bouncer. Sometimes, if a customer is thrown out one night for being particularly disruptive, they might be coming back to the back door (their talk page) and ask the waiters (admins) to let them back in (((unblock))). If no one is willing to tell the bouncers to allow the person back in however, they are effectively banned too. --Amalthea 00:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. How often (if ever) do you contribute to/express your views at RfA? What are your personal standards for what a person should have to be an admin?
A. I've hardly ever given an opinion at an RfA; I've supported two and opposed three candidates (two of them NOTNOWs). My standards are highly subjective, and comparatively very high I think. I'm looking for trust that an editor will try their best to always act in a way that improves Wikipedia. Judging such trust requires that I know an editor pretty well, either from regularly crossing their path or from a long look into their contributions. --Amalthea 00:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from OrangeMarlin

7. Please explain the difference between NPOV and science in medical and science articles?
A: First off, I haven't read any of the related RfCs, arbitration cases and rulings, and wasn't involved in any of the disputes. I also think that this is an editorial question, not an administrative one, and there is obviously no clear-cut answer with which everyone agrees here.
After thinking about this for a while I'd say that articles about scientific topics should be dominated by information based on accepted scientific research, i.e. by consensus of the science community. Neutral and verifiable information about alternative views (i.e. not based on scientific research) should be in appropriate sections or separate articles. This is doubly valid with medical articles, where such information can be actively hurtful.
I say "accepted scientific research" because I'm convinced that there are studies around that "prove" that urine therapy helps fight cancer, just as there are studies "proving" that cigarettes aren't causing lung cancer. Unless such studies are accepted in the scientific community, they mustn't be used to build an article on a scientific topic, and should at best be mentioned with the appropriate care and distance. --Amalthea 19:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Please state how you intend to manage situations where civil, but POV-pushing editors are in conflict with NPOV specifically in science and medical articles.
A: If it's a civil conflict then it is a question of dispute resolution, an area where I'm not going to seek involvement, and where I do not feel particularly qualified since I've only tried to mediate in very minor conflicts before. Knowing this I had already put WP:New admin school/Dealing with disputes on my reading list.
So, my short, sufficient, but cheap answer is that I intend not to. If you want to force me into such a situation I'd appreciate a more tangible example. --Amalthea 19:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Do you have any experience or knowledge in the various medical and science articles on this project?
A: My second edit ever was a revert at Selection algorithm, and might be the extent of my contributions to scientific articles. Possibly some others, but nothing concerted. My expertise lies with computer science and software engineering, and I have some knowledge in Mathematics and Physics. --Amalthea 19:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Shapiros10

10. What is your view on underage editors on Wikipedia, not as admin candidates but contributors in general?
A: My view is that maturity is more important than age, and that all we should judge and can judge are the contributions themselves. We should remember that the immature contributor of today could be the mature and valuable contributor of tomorrow. If we drive a good-faithed, but thoroughly unhelpful editor away with harsh messages or even a rushed block we might hurt Wikipedia in the long run. --Amalthea 19:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. In your opinion, is featured content something that should be required in an admin candidate? If so, how much?
A: I wouldn't be here if I thought that. --Amalthea 19:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from Deacon of Pndapetzim
12. Why do you think enforcement of WP:BLP is exempted from the 3-Revert Rule but WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:VER, and WP:IAR aren't?
A: Only reverting the addition of "libellous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material" from WP:BLP is exempted, not all of BLP, and that's the reason right there: having such material in pages is potentially very harmful for the people involved and puts Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. If it stays up for too long there's a higher chance that it will be seen, mirrored or cached.
With biased, unsourced or unverifiable material on other topics the time can be taken to discuss it if it is disputed, i.e. if the "bold, revert, discuss" principle fails.
WP:IAR is, by definition, potentially exempted, but I can't think of an example where consensus would find Wikipedia to be "improved" in such a case. --Amalthea 11:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Would unprovable but likely off-wiki co-ordination change your evaluation of WP:CONSENSUS on a particular article?
A: While consensus is not a vote, numbers do factor in. If I think that stealth canvassing has likely occurred (through the duck test, for example) then this will of course be part of my evaluation of consensus. --Amalthea 11:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Does the content of a policy page constitute proof of wikipedia policy? How would you prove or interpret a particular piece of alleged "wikipedia policy" when the content of its WP-space article is or could be under dispute?
A: The content of a policy page does not always equal policy, so the policy page is not necessarily sufficient proof. Policy is determined by consensus, but a policy page could have been changed unilaterally, against consensus or current practice.
Applying a disputed policy (in the sense that a previous consensus clearly is no longer valid, and no new consensus was found) is difficult. At times, an at least temporary solution can be found via common sense. Sometimes, like with date-delinking currently, inaction can be the best course. If by "could be under dispute" you mean that there is previous consensus for a particular issue but it is currently being challenged then it's a judgment call. If the previous consensus seems still to be valid then that should be applied, but as always common sense has priority. --Amalthea 11:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Smallman12q
15. If an anonymous IP requested to be permanently blocked, how would you respond?
A: I would ask them for their reasons. We do not block accounts or IPs upon a simple request. If they for example claim to represent a school's administration I will ask them to send an e-mail to OTRS from an official school e-mail address, and repeat the request in it. --Amalthea 11:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. What does it mean to assume good faith?
A: To always assume that the motives of editors are constructive and helpful, and that their edits are made in that spirit, unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. In a way, it's Wikipedia's version of The Golden Rule. --Amalthea 22:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]


Support[edit]
  1. Support Certainly. — Aitias // discussion 12:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support pending no problems discovered by anyone else. I haven't got the time to check right now, but I fully trust both nominators and every encounter I've had with Amalthea in the past was fine. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Helpful and clueful, two things that make for an excellent admin. Richard0612 12:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support of course. :) Though I'd ask SoWhy to get the admin-highlighter or something. ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I considered that but like the username highlighter, it does not work with most people's signatures. ;-) SoWhy 13:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support a good candidate. --Kanonkas :  Talk  13:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Co-nominator support. Wish I could make it stronger than that ;-) SoWhy 13:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support 9,000 edits, no blocks, sensible user page and I get a very good feel from the talk page. WereSpielChequers 13:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Reviewed the RFA per various relevant threads and upgrading to strong support. WereSpielChequers 01:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's over 9,000, actually. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yep.  GARDEN  13:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Will be a good admin. -- Mentifisto 13:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support No reason to oppose.--Giants27 TC 13:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I think that Cyclonenim said it best. Sam Blab 13:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Amalthea has demonstrated their trustworthiness and will make an excellent admin. Rje (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - thought Amalthea was already, actually. //roux   14:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - no reason not to. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support On strength of nom statements and my review of CSD work makes me think user knows it's better to improve than delete. Not that the candidate lacks empathy, but I've never seen empathy as a requirement for recognizing CSD candidates-- the template messages exist for a reason, in so far as the feelings involved are concerned. Nor have I seen a connection between being a super article creator and understanding what it's like to have your first article deleted per CSD. (Kinda lack a slap in the face, if no one bothers to let you know why. Like I said, those template messages exist for a reason.) Dlohcierekim 15:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. SoWhyNot --Tikiwont (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    :) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support: Seen him around Wiki numerous times, always well impressed. — R2 15:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support. Many contribs like this one that show precise, broad, guideline- and policy-based knowledge about what does and doesn't belong in Wikipedia articles. The lack of extensive work on "his own" articles is not a problem for me; in fact, I'm more impressed that this editor is confident enough to apply what he knows to other people's articles, especially people who need a helping hand starting out. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may, this is actually a rather sensitive situation, tied in with this ANI report. I'm not usually that verbose when it comes to discuss myspace and facebook links. In this case however I'm happy that the editor in question has started to discuss at all. --Amalthea 16:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, decent all-round editor. --Aqwis (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. "Thought he was already" indeed. I was surprised to see their name up here. Give this guy the mop and be done with it. Master&Expert (Talk) 16:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support User has been around since September 2005 and great track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak support. Support as candidate has never been blocked and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Cunningham (Tony & Friends) (deleting per lack of verifiability is indeed the right call; however, one bit of caution is that WP:N is NOT our “inclusion guidelines” plural. We have multiple inclusion guidelines. Notice that Wikipedia:Inclusion guidelines is a red link and where Wikipedia:Inclusion criteria redirects to (some place other WP:N. And WPN is currently disputed in terms of should it be demoted, renamed, etc.), but neutral per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ugnaughts (a call to merge is not unreasonable, but subsequent reply to another editor cites WP:FICT, which is of course a disputed essay) and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ssi-Ruuk (again, merge not totally unreasonable, but well, y'all know how I stand...). Anyway, almost meets User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards, so weak support. Happy Valentine's Day! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - without question. J.delanoygabsadds 17:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strongly: I've interacted with Amalthea on more than one occasion, and my interactions have always been positive. Amalthea is an excellent editor, is a good voice in discussion, and a friendly person. Had I been more aware of them being interested in becoming an admin, I would have been a nominator. Acalamari 18:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - Don't remember where I encountered this editor, but the interaction was good IIRC. Reviewed contribution history, edit count, block log, etc. and it seems to satisfy my personal criteria. Could use more article work though. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - I trust this editor & welcome the inevitable pax wikipedia his adminship would surely usher in. Incidentally, his account was created on 9/11... I'll be working on my conspiracy theory in sandbox. FlyingToaster 19:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - Very nice. Trust BM when it comes to someone wanting to work in CSD. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Good editor. --Carioca (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Have come across this editor before and liked him. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Hell Yeah. What started off as a indifferent and distracted search through talk pages and contributions to get an idea of who this candidate is quickly just left me with the question "Why has nobody nominated this editor before now?" Trusilver 20:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Icewedge (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Should make a good admin, any time I have seen Amalthea around my impression has been positive. Davewild (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong support - All the way. Dedicated contributor, any every time I have seen them they have constantly had a positive and productive effect on the discussion. I trust Amalthea with the tools, and therefore support. :) — neuro(talk) 22:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Looks good. Best of luck, Amalthea. Malinaccier (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support LittleMountain5 Happy Valentine's Day! 23:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support trust the nom, trust the user.--Pattont/c 23:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. seresin ( ¡? )  23:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, yes yes yes yes yes. The fact that you are not already an admin says bad things about the RfA community (well, more bad things). Ironholds (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support No issue. America69 (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - trustworthy and has clue. Matt (Talk) 04:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Appears trustworthy as this is a long-time editor, with thousands of edits, and no blocks. Rosiestep (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 08:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I see nothing of concern, per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 09:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support net positive Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Very pleased with the answer to my question. Covers all the points I had in mind. CrispMuncher (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Absolutely. Nothing but positive interactions (mostly at AfD I believe), contribs show has been ready for the mop for some time. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Wha...?? Amalthea is not an admin? It's not April 1 is it? Chamal talk 12:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - Only see good things from this user. SimonKSK 17:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support seems to be a no brainer :) fr33kman -s- 18:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Looks good to me. --Chasingsol(talk) 19:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support I think that this project needs more editors as admins who may not be the ones with all the featured articles, and other such content creating things. --Neskaya talk 20:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support My observations of this editor's work have been positive. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Strong support. Wizardman 22:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Sure. After a review of contributions and log, as well as the answers to questions, I don't see a problem here. Active in the right areas, good quality contributions and actions. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support I like the thought put into the answers, and while I don't subscribe to the "won't break the wiki" argument, I do believe in the intent of the candidate to "improve" the wiki. That seems to be the case here. The contribs seem to be in order, and the intent genuine. — Ched (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Lectonar (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Fully qualified candidate; no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support No reason not to. Razorflame 17:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - seems as if the user knows what the tools of admin are intended for and will be able to use them in good faith.--TRUCO 19:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support- The edit history shows that the candidate is civil in his interactions with other users and has knowledge of our policies. --J.Mundo (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Syjytg (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support: Knowledgeable, intelligent, level, dedicated, able to learn, able to think, does really good work. Everything to say yes. Maedin\talk 13:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support See no problems. Spinach Monster (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Per oppose #2. Bsimmons666 (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support on user's own merits, and, yes, oppose #2 smacks of pure bigotry. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - meets my standards; being an atheist is not a disqualifyer for me. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a shame the two users (administrators!) above seem to think my oppose is based on the candidate's atheism. I don't know what on earth I can do to explain myself more clearly. Keepscases (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You could ask a completely unrelated, nonsensical question and hope to get an answer; seems to be your usual procedure. Tan | 39 20:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone questions your fellow administrators' reading comprehension, you're not doing them any favors to claim my questions are nonsense. Exactly which ones didn't you understand? Keepscases (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We understand you're criticisms - but they're still senseless. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're logic is impeccable. Keepscases (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If understanding what someone is saying is WP:Don't feed the trolls/WP:DENY. Bsimmons666 (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar . Keepscases (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support I know it's overused, but I seriously thought the bit was already on. Will definitely be an asset to the project. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Very, VERY strong support - Wow, I thought you already were one for sure! --Dylan620 Hark unto me · Ping me @ 15:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Pile on Support still scratching my head, as I thought you already had the bit! Mayalld (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Utter and total 100% way over the top support I couldn't actually think of a better editor to be an admin that isn't already. Balanced, helpful, trustworthy, communicative. --Ged UK (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. Absolutely. Tan | 39 20:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:14, February 18, 2009 (UTC)
  76. OPPOSE I trust this editor not to abuse the tools. Also, gnomes are good. Partial disclosure: I may be a gnome myself. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - an experienced wikignome, and adminship is primarily about wikignome-type activity. Cynical (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Seems reasonable enough. No blocks, many edits, no drama (so far!). --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 23:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - I wasn't going to pile on, but then I saw the Opposes below... OK, the first one is somewhat justifiable, but opposing over a userbox that was removed six months ago (and wasn't even offensive to begin with) is totally unfair. I have little doubt that Amalthea will make an excellent admin, regardless of his opinions on the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Robofish (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Was borderline because of the lack of natural encyclopedia building, but answers to questions show candidate capable and ready, and otherwise there are no concerns. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Definitely trustworthy. Keep up the good work! Steven Walling (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support with pleasure. I've seen Amalthea at various points and been impressed. I don't find the incident referred to in oppose a matter of major concern. Dealing with tendentious editors can be difficult for anyone, and I believe Amalthea's claim to have learned from the incident. In fact, that experience could well prove useful in handling the tools, as it will serve to remind to seek feedback when cases are less clearcut. I believe in general Amalthea demonstrates patience and plenty of clue, and I think those are among the essential elements of an admin. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - Looks good to me. The 3RR doesn't bother me too much (we all trip over that one at least once), and I'm not even going near that userbox discussion. I think this candidate will make a fine admin.    SIS  17:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And the 18 RR that happened on February 3rd while using Twinkle improperly. Does that not bother you also? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously not. Using Twinkle to revert good faith (or non-vandal) edits is not abusing it. (The script offers 3 revert modes. Revert good faith edits, revert edits, and revert vandalism. Wrote more about that in your oppose vote). Second, it's not an "18RR", these are 18 separate edits.    SIS  17:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good faith might be once. Reverting -twice- "good faith" edits across 9 pages is called edit warring. They are 9 pages of 2 reverts each. When done to the same person for the same function across multiple pages, they are cumulative. I would recommend you rereading the edit warring definition. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, thanks. I don't see a problem with these 9x2 edits, period. Besides, I though this was about Twinkle abuse?    SIS  18:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    AS I explained on my talk page, the policy explicitly reads The rule applies per page; reverts spread across multiple pages so that an editor does not revert a single page more than three times do not violate the rule. Your interpretting his action here as a 18RR is a complete misread of the policy and unfair to the candidate. By the evidence you provided on my talk page, the candidate did not come close to violating 3RR.---I'm Spartacus! The artist formerly known as Balloonman 18:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit warring is edit warring regardless of the letter of 3RR is met. 1RR has been deemed edit warring before. -You- know this. Unfair to the candidate? This candidate wants to pursue vandalism. They don't understand appropriate actions in doing that. You should train your nominees better to respect WP:CONSENSUS and the Consensus based process. Admin are not supposed to think its appropriate to revert users constantly who are here to work on the encyclopedia. This is at least a violation of WP:BITE and easily a violation of most of our editing guidelines and principles. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Generally good contributions, and a good understanding of policies. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. Great candidate. I have no reason to believe Amalthea will abuse the tools. DiverseMentality 20:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Artichoker[talk] 22:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Seems good to me.Smallman12q (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support per nom. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. I like the answers to the questions, particularly #7 and 8, and Amalthea seems like he'll use the tools to good effect. Also, opposes #1 and 2 are so unreasonable that I would support this candidate simply to counteract those opposes. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, seeing as how Tiptoety stated that he edit warred the first time and abused rollbacks in doing that, and seeing as how he did the same thing with Twinkle across 9 pages twice, which is double what is needed to determine it edit warring, your support shows a severe disregard for standards. Counteracting an oppose based on someone being a clear edit warrior? Wow. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Strong Support. I've seen you before around Wikipedia, and thought you were already an admin... but that is still not the main reason. On my failed RfA which was some three months ago, you used very good words to describe something I did wrong, instead of just saying WP:NOTNOW like almost everyone else. Much more adminy. Good luck with the mop! K50 Dude ROCKS! 16:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support - iMatthew // talk // 18:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Per Akhilleus. --Folantin (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Everything I see leads me to believe you'd be very trustable as an admin. Themfromspace (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support, gnomish admin ---> –xeno (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Someone trout me if I had already supported; I meant to do this ages ago. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Indirectly dealt with this user while dealing with a particularly problematic user; Amalthea's patience and professionalism displayed to me a cool mind that would be perfect in an admin. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support per nom. —Eustress talk 05:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support None of the opposes concern me enough to oppose. • \ / (⁂) 11:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Strong Oppose (current statement) - After reading through the diffs for the reverting and discussing the original warning, I believe that the user in question reverted improperly, avoided the process of consensus, and possibly abused rollbacking ability. As such, I believe that the rollbacking should have been stripped and that the warning means something serious, even if it was not followed by a block. Admin should be held to a higher standard, and 3 months distance is not enough time for the lessons of this event to have sunk in and trust with the community re-established. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (previous statement by Ottava Rima) - Edit warring is one of the things that I think are the worse abuses an admin can make. Doing this in the past 6 months is very problematic. We are a community based on consensus and this is the most flagrant violation of that. I will mark this as an oppose unless I hear from Tiptoety that his warning was over something completely trivial. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not wanting to badger you, but I was just wondering, did you ask Tiptoety to comment on this matter? SoWhy 20:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to do it privately. Normally he is around but I haven't had a chance to talk to him lately. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Warnings, especially for 3RR, don't bother me... sometimes people get carried away and others need to step in and say "did you realize" that you are coming close to violating the policy and are in danger of being blocked. Now if they continue to do so, after the warning, and get blocked that is a different story. But we have warnings for a reason, they should be viewed as reminders, unless a consistent pattern of "warnings" appears, and isolated "warning" shouldn't IMO be overweighted. (Block yes, warning no.)---I'm Spartacus! The artist formerly known as Balloonman 16:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been blocked for "edit warring" when it wasn't even close to the case. It is obvious that blocks on such have a high double standard. Thus, we can easily ignore the result. Was it edit warring? Yes. What degree? I'm going to find out. If it was a blatant case of this, then that is a strong oppose. Admin shouldn't be edit warring, and edit warriors shouldn't be admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A short answer: As I said, I believe that I have learned from it, and I have made a conscious effort afterwards not to make the same mistake again. For example, when I noticed an anonymous user (IPs 71.244.* and 70.106.*) on List of German Americans removing all Jews from the list, I expressed my disagreement on the talk page, reverted exactly once per WP:BRD, and after the anon continued I invited editors from WP USA and WP Germany to a show of hands, to see an explicit consensus.
    I assure you, it sunk in. --Amalthea 02:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Time is more important than simply thinking that you "learned". There is the waiting aspect. Normally, people are told to try to wait at least 6 months since their last major problem in an area that contradicts the ethics required to be a good admin. Otherwise, rushing into it so fast shows that you prioritize the "power" more than doing what is right. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    From this to this, you made 18 Twinkle based reverts of a data formatting change. This is an inappropriate use of twinkle as delinking of dates is not vandalism. Thus, you used an automated script to push a POV that would require discussion first instead of just reverting. Reverting over multiple pages against one individual can be seen as edit warring again. This shows that you edit warred to push a POV in a situation that is not vandalism and this proves that you did it across multiple pages in a manner that should have resulted in a block (or, at least, a second warning). You have abused rollbacks above and now twinkle here. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you use Twinkle? Twinkle offers 3 revert modes. Revert good faith edits, revert edits, and revert vandalism. All are accordingly tagged in the reverted article's history. Using Twinkle to revert good faith (or non-vandal) edits is not abusing it. The script offers these three options. And judging by the descriptions of the edits you're referring to, they were reverted 'normally' and not labelled as vandalism. In short, I don't see any Twinkle abuse here.    SIS  17:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You further used twinkle to aid you in a dispute that seems to be more based on personal judgment than vandalism hunting here and here. You admit that it is possibly a single, so that removes any claim that the individual is "Introducing deliberate factual errors". Your use of Twinkle seems to promote a personal view point instead of handling things in a proper function. Your comments to the individual seem to be bitey and inappropriate. "We are not a rumor mill." seems to be something that will only cause problems if this happens as an admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid that this has to be lengthy now. Ottava Rima, WP:ROLLBACK, WP:UNDO, and both manual and tool-assisted reversions that merely say "revert" in the edit summary and nothing else are only to be used in cases of blatantly non-productive edits. I understand that, and I do that. Tool-assisted or manual reverts or undos that explain or indicate in the edit summary why an edit was undone is acceptable. Just because an edit summary contains the word "revert" does not mean that the undone edit is to be considered vandalism.
    As I just explained on my talk page, you will notice that I did add a link to WP:DATE in my edit summaries there, both times I undid those changes (see the edit history of Call Me a Mack for example), and have left the user welcome messages and informative messages at the same time, first at User talk:65.10.154.245, and then later at User talk:168.221.157.196. I do consider those reversions appropriate since they were well explained, both to the user and to fellow editors, and reflect consensus about date style. The change was not about the linking or delinking of dates.
    Similarily in your second pair of edits: Yes, I use tools to assist me in editing. I know Twinkle well enough to know what it does when I press a button, and as explained above Twinkle is not only useful to revert vandalism. My edit was not based on opinion; I had listened to the interview that Kelly Klarkson had given, twice, before I removed the information. I quoted that interview in my edit summaries, I quoted it on the AfD I started, and I quoted it in my message to the user. It still would be incorrect to add that information as a fact since it still can't be verified. --Amalthea 17:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You reverted -twice- on the different pages. You should have been blocked and stripped of your right to automated tools. Your actions are not excusable. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you don't mind me quoting your own words at you, but "The fight is pointless, the matter is pale". Amalthea hasn't broken the 3RR policy or abused the Twinkle tool during these reverts.    SIS  19:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Edit war "For instance, edit warring could take the form of 4+ reverts on a page in a day, or three, or one per day for a protracted period of time, or one per page across many pages, or simply a pattern of isolated blind reverts as a first resort against disagreeable edits." Read it. Its right there. You are simply wrong on this. Amalthea edit warred. Amalthea abused tools. This is pure and simple corruption. Amalthea lost all rights to use Twinkle and Rollbacks. There is no excuse for this. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The page you're quoting from starts with "Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute." In my opinion that doesn't apply here at all. And this really is my last word on the matter. I dislike circular walks.    SIS  19:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you missed this clause then - "simply a pattern of isolated blind reverts as a first resort against disagreeable edits". Blind reverts would not have "an end" as you seem to imply as necessary. Furthermore, the very first line goes against what you are saying: "An edit war occurs when contributors, or groups of contributors, repeatedly revert each other's contributions." Ottava Rima (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Oppose based on userbox history and nomination from SoWhy. Enjoy your upcoming adminship, just know that some of us think there are too many of you around here already--and just to be clear, I mean the smug atheists who want to unnecessarily put down others' long-standing beliefs for the sake of looking very very intelligent. Yes we know--your flying spaghetti monster is just as likely as the biblical God. Charming. Keepscases (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone has a right to religious beliefs. How do you know that this user will put down others' beliefs? Please remember to assume good faith and not to assume all users with a certain religious belief are not the same. Sam Blab 15:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that he is suggesting that the presence of an inflammatory userbox (and yes... as covert as it is, it's inflammatory) suggests a tendency to put down the beliefs of those who don't agree with him. I have opposed RfA's in the past because an editor has the tendency to attack the religious and quasi-religious beliefs of others, but I don't think this candidate is much of a risk for that. One userbox does not a bigot make. Trusilver 16:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously. What a low point we'd be at if we were to the point of assuming bad faith on the presence of userboxes, which are only indications of the actual mental context editors work in. You could even make the argument that people with religious userboxes are more honest than those witout. The idea that if someone stating a belief is automatically a religious bigot would be a fairly unworkable. Fortunately, Keepsakes' view isn't widely shared here. FlyingToaster 17:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is no more inflamatory than a user box describing somebody as a republican, a democrat, a Christian, a Catholic, a Hindu, a... there are User Boxes that Keepscases has opposed and I've agreed, the user boxes were inappropriate. (Eg the one that do put down other peoples beleifs.) But simply stating that one is an Athiest is not a sign that the user is a "smug athiest who want to unecessarily put down others' long standing beleifs." It is simply a statement that Amalthea doesn't beleif in God, which is his perjogative. Again, I've supported Keeps opposes in the past, when the user boxes were offensive, but a neutrally worded position of faith does not fit that mold. (See Nuclear Warfare's last rfa, where NW actually changed his UB's based upon my support of Keeps criticism.)---I'm Spartacus! The artist formerly known as Balloonman 19:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For the discussion that Balloonman/Spartacus was talking about, see WT:Requests for adminship/NuclearWarfare. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 05:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a userbox that says I like winter. Perhaps I should be desysopped because I might offend people who like summer? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need to rehash an argument that we've already had, but I must clarify that the userbox I take issue with states, "This user believes that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is as likely as creationism." And the user's rationale for taking out this userbox was "too many userboxen", which I find rather questionable given that the removal took the number of boxes from five to four. Draw your own conclusions. I would never oppose a candidate for having a userbox that states "I am an atheist" or something along those lines, but it *never* seems to stop at a simple statement of belief. Keepscases (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    From five to three, actually, over 6 months ago. I removed that particular user box because it was unnecessarily confrontational, so in this respect I agree with you. I never found it to convey a smug attitude however, and that was certainly not my intention. --Amalthea 20:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, I struck my comment above, I didn't see the one you were point to, and agree it was uncalled for. But, for what it's worth, as Amalthea points out it was 6+ months ago.---I'm Spartacus! The artist formerly known as Balloonman 22:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I'd rather have an editor who states their religious/political views and then strives to edit neutrally. That way I can better determine if their biases are affecting their edits. And the encyclopedia will be more balanced if we have a variety of political and religious views, especially among admins.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very surprised at you people. It's obviously offensive if someone is offended by it. You can't argue with that, so don't bother.--Pattont/c 20:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a fine line between "I am offended by that" and "that is blatantly offensive." This is much more the former than the latter. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Anything can offend somebody, the test shouldn't be "is someone offended by this" but more "was this intended to be offensive, or could anyone with the common sense of a garden gnome tell it might offend a bunch of people". Regardless, we're not a court of law and deciding "when something becomes offensive" isn't in RfAs remit, but my point is that "if it offends anybody it is obviously offensive" is nonsensical and leads us down a long, slippery slope. Ironholds (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish someone, *anyone*, who thinks these userboxes are a good idea would have the courage to say "yes, I display these userboxes because I think it's funny to ridicule others' beliefs. Yes, I like to pat myself on the back about how very intelligent I am. Deal with it." Instead we always get a lot of hemming and hawing and "OMG YOU'RE STEREOTYPING ME BECAUSE I'M AN ATHEIST". See you all at the next RfA. Keepscases (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the spirit of Keepscases argument, if not the exact situation that it was employed. There are a few things that you simply do not do in this world. First, you never mess with another man's fries.. Of equal importance is that you never mess with another person's religious beliefs (or lack thereof). A person's religious beliefs are a central component of their self-identity, thus you don't ridicule them unless you are prepared for a strong reaction. The userbox was meant for a single reason alone: to ridicule other people's religious beliefs. However, the fact that this candidate saw that it was a poor decision and removed the box before it turned into an issue, shows me good judgment rather than bad. I would caution the candidate to be sensitive to the beliefs of others in the future, but every single thing I have seen from this person suggests to me that it won't be an issue. Overall, this is a very minor negative blip that doesn't even come close to shaking my already strong support. Trusilver 02:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess this has been hinted at above, but are people seriously this worked up over a userbox that Amalthea removed over 6 months ago? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Ottava Rima, abusing rollback only results in hurt feelings. Also, I'm not thrilled with the answer to question #12. For one, the question answered "why", not "what". You answered part of "why" on the first part (why is BLP exempt from 3RR) but only answered "what" on the second part (NOR, NPOV, etc, can be taken to talk. Why?) But that aside, the answer bothers me that you are being too literal on BLP. BLP, if anything, should be broadly interpreted (see special enforcement). If, for example, you are considering a 3RR complaint where one user has reverted a sourced, but tangential rant about a person (ie, Bob was a member of organization X in college last year. Organization X's leader was convicted of a crime last year. Here are 37 other things organization X has done over the years), that doesn't fall under "libellous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material" (because we're presupposing that every individual statement in there is sourced) but it darn well should be removed and no wikilawyering should result in it being a part of the article. Wikipedia:Coatrack is a good read. The point is, we should err far on the side of protecting BLPs. That's where IAR comes in. That's where the special enforcement provisions come in. --B (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Two things:
    • I've explained myself to the editor I reverted on his talk page, urged him to discuss before I undid his changes for the the first time, only the second of my three reverts was done with rollback, and I left him a message in parallel. It still shouldn't have been used, but no feelings were hurt through it, and I am generally verbose when I undo an edit.
    • Point taken about BLP material in coatrack articles, if it's sourced it's not something I've considered being exempt so far, even if it clearly doesn't belong in an article. Of course, all that WP:3RR says on it is "what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial". --Amalthea 15:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amalthea, you do know that none of your reverts should be done with rollbacks in that situation, right? That doing such a thing warrants the removal of rollbacks? That such removal would have completely destroyed any major support that you found above? You should be lucky that you slipped through the cracks at the time. But it does not diminish the seriousness of the problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I'm afraid I must oppose for the exact same reason as Ottava Rima. This just worries me a tad bit too much, especially since it was so recent. If it were, say 3 months ago, I wouldn't have thought about it, but it's too soon for me to support. Until It Sleeps 22:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]

(moved temporarily) I have a lot of respect for Tiptoety and trust his judgment. I would like to see more if this user can be trusted after the run in. This happened too recently to just ignore, and warnings are still important. We have enough admin who revert too casually and get into warring. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Neutral Name recognition is a big thing to me. I haven't even heard of him (her?), although I don't get out much... Answer to block/ban Q is good, but no mention of a topic ban. flaminglawyer 00:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per nominators' introduction; "While he has contributed to a number of articles, he can't point to scores of GAs/FAs or even DYKs" and "Amalthea may not be a perfect content creator but rather more of a WikiGnome." Am I the only one thinking that in recent RfAs, WikiGonmes have tried to acquire an adminship rather than content creators have? Even with the nominator's humble introduction does not convince supporter's claims like "Fully qualified" --Caspian blue 17:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you raise an interesting question about wikignomes and RfA. But as a discussion on that would be tangental to this RfA, I'm going to respond at WT:RFA instead.---I'm Spartacus! The artist formerly known as Balloonman 18:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Could you elaborate why you think it's a bad thing that more WikiGnomes have requested adminship than content creators and why this does not allow you to support this RFA? SoWhy 18:19, 18 February 2009 (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.
Category