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

Anomie[edit]

Final (163/1/3); Closed as successful by —Anonymous DissidentTalk at 13:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC) ; Scheduled to end 12:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Anomie (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, it’s my personal honour to be able to present to the community Anomie for your consideration as an administrator. There is a select pool of editors on Wikipedia whose names evoke a perception that they might already be administrators. Anomie, a Wikipedia member since 2005 and a highly trusted and respected member of the Bot Approvals Group since 2008, has been for me one such superlative editor. Anomie’s experience and contributions on Wikipedia since the past many years have been supremely advantageous to our project, whether in regularly reviewing codes of various bots at BAG or providing coding support to MediaWiki. Although Anomie does have a featured article too in the contribution list, I believe it’s actually AnomieBOT – a bot account operated by Anomie – that has touched the everyday editing lives of various Wikipedia editors in ubiquitous and expansive ways. AnomieBOT has been chugging along relentlessly since 2008 and may well have contributed to processing some of the largest chunks of procedural work across the length and breadth of Wikipedia. As per the last count, it had already crossed 521,000 edits, with contributions in areas ranging from rescuing orphaned references, dating tags, closing discussions to many other spaces across the project we rarely frequent. Ever helpful, supportive, and with a very good command of policy, Anomie has been regularly asked by editors in the past (and present) to stand for adminship. I do believe that our project would be greatly advantaged by entrusting the additional tools to Anomie. With these words, I conclude my nomination and hope that the community too trusts Anomie and views this candidacy as positively as I do. Thank you. Wifione Message 19:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

I am pleased that Anomie has finally agreed to accept the co-nomination I offered to write for them almost one year ago. I have been continually impressed by Anomie's contributions in bot-writing and operation; interpretation of local policies and guidelines; application of the bot policy in their capacity as a Bot Approvals Group member; and useful, relevant input to village pump discussions. AnomieBOT does excellent work clerking both the Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations process page and the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, and Anomie has been exceedingly responsive in fixing bugs and implementing new feature requests. It is my understanding that Anomie plans to leverage the administrative toolset as and when necessary - and this strikes me as an obvious net positive, as I am fully confident that the tools would be used appropriately and to the benefit of the project. –xenotalk 19:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you, Wifione and Xeno, for feeling that I should stand for adminship so strongly that you would nominate me despite my initial indifference. Succeed or fail, I feel honored that you have noticed my work and found it good. Thanks also to those others who've already posted on my talk page with variations on "It's about time!"

It has taken a while for me to get here. For my first few years on Wikipedia I had no desire to be an admin. After some time and experience I realized how the tools could be useful in fixing protected templates and interface messages, in protecting bot configuration pages, in blocking misbehaving bots, and the like.

And now here I am. I accept the nomination and hope the community will trust me with access to the tools. Anomie⚔ 12:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: CAT:EP—where I have already been asked to help out—will be the first area I look to. Given the number of ((editprotected)) requests for complicated templates I have made in the past, this would only be fair. Also, if there is an adminbot that needs running I could certainly be the person to ask. And since I have some experience in judging consensus through my work with BAG, at some time in the future (not right away!) I will probably become involved in answering the occasional call for an uninvolved admin to close a difficult discussion.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Most of what I do around here is behind-the-scenes work, possibly even more so than the typical WikiGnome or WikiElf.
Without a doubt, my greatest contribution to Wikipedia is AnomieBOT. I expect most of you have seen AnomieBOT rescuing orphaned references, closing FFD and PUF discussions to save humans the hassle after deleting a file, substing a few templates at AfD, clerking at WP:CHUU, dating maintenance tags when SmackBot Helpful Pixie Bot isn't doing it within a minute of the tag being placed, and the like. Some of you may even be familiar with AnomieBOT's less-public tasks, such as creating and updating the templates behind ((TFA title)). What you may not know is that the entire source for AnomieBOT is also available on-wiki, so if I get hit by a bus it would not be necessary for anyone to start from scratch to take on any of these tasks.
Second, I would point to my work with the Bot Approvals Group. I joined BAG almost three years ago, not long before Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking and the anybot mess. I took a lead in reacting to the resulting criticism of BAG, both in launching discussions and in directing potential bot operators to start discussion at WP:VPR and other fora to demonstrate community support for potentially-controversial tasks. I've also reviewed the code for a number of bots over the years.
Third, I like to congratulate myself for the patches I've had accepted into MediaWiki over the years, as minor as they may be in the grand scheme of things.
I haven't done a whole lot of direct content work, although I did manage to bring an article to FA before deciding that that isn't something I'd care to go through again. I do keep a few articles on my watchlist to guard them from vandalism, and I've done my share in keeping up articles such as ISO 3166-1 and List of country calling codes and updating sales figures on a few video game-related articles. I also have a fondness for converting simple images to SVG, and I'll occasionally do some straightforward gnoming such as how I recently cleaned up what the bots couldn't handle from Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month.
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: Has anyone ever legitimately answered this question "No"? I sure can't. I'm even involved in one right now. Another that particularly sticks in my memory is the various discussions with the IP user (69.226.103.13 and others) on Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 4.
I try to keep a cool head in all discussions, although sometimes I can get a bit snarky when dealing with someone who is aggressively applying WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I normally start with an acknowledgement of the valid points raised and an explication of any factual errors. I try to reason from logic and to consider all sides of the issue, and to clearly explain my own viewpoint. This does seem to work for me much of the time. Sometimes, of course, a person will come along who seems to think that repeating themselves endlessly will somehow win them the argument or who descends into personal attacks. At this point I will disengage with that person, at least until something new can be said.
There have been times in the past where I've become too emotionally involved in a situation for whatever reason. When I find that happening, I take it as a signal to leave that area completely; once or twice this has led to a full wikibreak. It's my own personal variation of the corollary to Godwin's law: if I get that upset by something, I lose and it's time to end my involvement in that particular situation.

Additional questions from Kudu ~I/O~

4. Write a convincing oppose rationale against yourself for this RfA, and then write a convincing rebuttal on how you have addressed the concerns in your oppose.
A: If I had an oppose rationale I found convincing, I wouldn't have stood for nomination. Any oppose rationale I tried to write for myself would just be a straw man.
I can imagine some would oppose based on "lack of a need for tools". While it's true I don't need the tools as much as someone involved in NPP, anti-vandalism patrol, copyright cleanup, or the like, the tools would certainly make my work with fixing and improving templates much easier as I wouldn't have to wait for someone to respond to my many ((editprotected)) requests. Having access to the tools would also allow me to respond to requests for adminbots, if any come up or if any existing adminbot operators decide to retire.
I can also imagine some might oppose based on a lack of extensive content contributions. While an administrator should be familiar with the content side of Wikipedia, a more pressing question is whether the administrator is familiar with the policies and guidelines and unwritten community norms relating to content creation. Writing many articles and bringing many to featured status is only one way to gain this familiarity.
5. Under what circumstances would you block an editor who has never received a user warning?
A: A misbehaving bot needs no warning, although if the misbehavior is not actively disruptive it would be better to discuss the issue with the bot operator first.
As for human editors, there are not many I can foresee blocking for. WP:NLT comes to mind as one, as do admitted violations of an existing block or ban (i.e. they explicitly state "I am $BANNEDUSER!"). I might also block immediately for severe and numerous violations of WP:NPA (e.g. clear death threats) or WP:BLP along with a talk page message instructing them to withdraw whatever statement and promise not to do it again; for most violations of this manner, though, I would post a level-4 user warning or equivalent to give them one chance to desist.
6. When do you think it's appropriate to use IAR regarding administrative powers?
A: Most of the cases that I can think of where WP:IAR might apply to some rule constraining admin action are already explicitly spelled out as an exception. For example, WP:3RR has a counterpart in WP:EW, and WP:PREFER specifically notes that reverting to a version before the start of the edit war is acceptable.
IMO, the essay WP:SNOW explains the major situation where IAR might apply to an admin action: when consensus is obviously grossly in favor or opposed to an action and there is some urgency behind the action, there is no need to observe bureaucratic rules whose purpose is to ensure consensus exists.
In any application of WP:IAR to an admin action, the admin taking action should themselves start a discussion on the matter explaining why they applied IAR, should explicitly state that any admin can revert without fear of WP:WHEEL, and should be ready to self-revert if a non-admin raises a credible objection.
Additional question from Sp33dyphil
7. An article about a newly-coined word was created, under what circumstances would you nominate it for speedy deletion?
A: Just being about a neologism is not grounds for CSD, of course. But there certainly are cases where CSD might apply to the hypothetical article for other reasons.
If the article were an identical recreation of an article that already failed AfD (G4), created by a banned/blocked user (G5), an attack masquerading as a neologism (G10), obvious spam masquerading as a neologism (G11), or clearly a copyvio (G12), I would certainly find CSD appropriate.
If the article were a blatant hoax (G3) or a neologism related to web content with no claim of importance (A7), I might consider nominating for CSD if I failed to find any reference at all to the term elsewhere. If I had any doubt, though, I'd either ask others for advice or just put it up for AfD and see if anyone else closed it early as CSD. I might even just watch it for a day to see if anyone else beat me to it.
A more interesting question on an RfA would be what I would do as an admin if I came across such an article already tagged for CSD. If the reason were G4, G5, G10, G11, or G12 and actually fits the criteria such that I would have applied CSD myself, I would go ahead and delete it. G7 would obviously be a reason to go ahead and delete, too. If the reason were obviously wrong (e.g. G1 when it had coherent text, A7 that was not one of the specific topics listed), I'd remove the tag and point this out to the tagger; I would then do as above. Otherwise (and note this includes any G3 case), at this time I'd just leave it for another admin—probably more experienced in CSD—to come along and handle it.
Additional question from Surturz
8. Will you commit to a term limit, reconfirmation, or recall? If not, why not?
A: No, I will not submit to "term limits" or arbitrary recall provisions. In researching this issue in preparation for my RfA I came across Wikipedia:Administrators serve during good behavior, which explains the situation nicely as far as I am concerned.
If I find that I have lost the trust of the community at large (e.g. via an WP:RFC/U closed as such by an uninvolved admin or other trustworthy user), I will almost surely resign. I could write this up into some toothless recall procedure, but why waste the time? If I'm going to resign, I'll do it regardless of any unenforcable procedure. And if a recall were to happen involuntarily, it would have to be done at the behest of ArbCom which again needs no written procedure from me.
Similarly, if I find that the community at large demands I stand for reconfirmation I would almost surely comply. But I don't see any real need to do it on a whim or to "test the waters"; that's what WP:RFC/U is for.
Additional question from It Is Me Here
9. In the Support section, someone linked User:Anomie/User non-admin (or, equivalently, see [1]). Could you explain (a) why you were of this opinion before, and (b) why it has now changed?
A: I've long known that the administrator tools would be helpful in being able to bypass ((editprotected)) for uncontroversial changes or changes that have consensus, for blocking unauthorized bots rather than having to go to WP:ANI (as I coincidentally just did earlier today), for protecting bot configuration pages that don't need to be edited by non-admins, and such. But I can continue to make ((editprotected)) requests, post unauthorized bots to WP:ANI, request protection at WP:RFPP, and so on, as inefficient as that may be.
When I created that userbox, I was under the impression that users who didn't do anti-vandalism patrol, new pages patrol, CSD, XfD, or the like wouldn't pass RfA; in other words, I was unaware that WP:NONEED was not considered a good reason to oppose. As an aside, when preparing for this nomination, I came across mention that this was actually the case in 2007 but is less so now.
Due to the above, once I got over my early opposition to being an admin at all I decided that I wouldn't seek it out but would accept a nomination if someone felt strongly enough that I should have the tools that they wanted to nominate me despite my indifference; I stated as much in November 2010 when someone seriously asked. In retrospect, User:Anomie/User non-admin didn't make this position as clear as it could have and I apparently could have been nominated earlier had it done so. I have no regrets about it though. I'm here now, and adminship is not a big deal anyway.
In summary, (a) I thought major XfD, AVP, NPP, or such work was required to pass and (b) nothing changed, Wifione just took my offer to accept a nomination if they wanted to nominate me and it turns out I was mistaken about XfD experience being required.
With all due respect, that does not really seem to answer the question, especially in light of your link [2]. What I am really getting at is why you did not want to be an admin before; your answer is mostly about why you thought you would not pass an RfA before. Could you please clarify why you "[did] not wish to be [an admin]", as I think you can appreciate that this is different to not believing you would become an admin, or not wishing to run the gauntlet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by It Is Me Here (talk • contribs) 19:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the miscommunication; I answered the question I thought was being asked, namely what I meant by that userbox and why I recently removed it and stood for RfA.
When I first joined Wikipedia, I was simply not interested in adminship. It just didn't seem like something I wanted to be involved with. As I learned more about Wikipedia, I realized how useful the tools could be in various activities I had become involved in (which are detailed in my acceptance statement and above), and my views therefore changed. Anomie⚔ 03:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Σ
10. On what occasion would you fulfill an edit request to a highly-visible template where you did not understand the code and sandboxing is impossible?
A: First of all, how would sandboxing be impossible? It might take a Special:Export of 1000 subtemplates and the entire MediaWiki namespace for import into a private test wiki, but I can't see how it would be impossible to test.
Either way, what I would most likely do is dig into it until I did understand the code. And if that failed, I would ask the proposer to explain the thing and dig in again. And if I still failed to understand it, I can't see why I would fulfill it. Anomie⚔ 03:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Keepscases
11. You learn that you only have one more year to live. How does this affect your Wikipedia editing habits?
A:
Anomie, please don't feel any urge to respond to such a question. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 20:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tofutwitch11, this question is fairly irrelevant to RFA. Alpha Quadrant talk 22:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As if the rest of Keepscases questions aren't. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 23:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A wise man once said "never give advice unless asked". I trust the candidate would be able to address the question without unsolicited feedback from the peanut gallery. Keepscases (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the candidate shouldn't feel called upon to answer this question, but my answer would have been, "My editing would be substantially reduced for several days while I saw another doctor for a second opinion." Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Isaac Asimov's answer to a similar question might work as well - "Write faster." UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Rohith goura
12. As an administrator how will you handle/manage edit warring by editors in a highly Controversial article?
A: Of course, we must first assume I am not involved in the topic area or I would be taking no admin action.
If this is a highly-controversial article, it is likely there is already a great deal of history to the dispute. I would hesitate to wade in beyond general warnings and enforcement of WP:3RR before I acquainted myself with this history. And until I gain experience in dealing with edit warring using admin tools, I'd very likely take the advice of WP:AFNN and ask some more experienced admins for advice before using the admin tools.
The key to dealing with the vast majority of disputes (edit warring and otherwise) on Wikipedia is discussion, and getting the warring parties talking is the goal. This could involve starting the discussion section for them, giving a third opinion, reminding everyone to be civil and to remember that there is a human on the receiving end of whatever they post (no bots have yet passed the Turing test), pointing out that there is no harm in The Wrong Version being visible (possibly with ((disputed)) or another maintenance tag) for a short time while discussion takes place, suggesting a voluntary 1RR (as described at WP:AVOIDEDITWAR), and/or pointing them to WP:DRR and helping them get started in more formal dispute resolution. And while admins are regarded by some as being somehow more "trustworthy" in doing this sort of thing, in truth an experienced editor can do this whether they happen to have the mop or not.
The administrator tools can occasionally help in this process, but they play only a supporting role: they can bring a temporary halt to the edit warring via page protection, and they can temporarily or (with community consensus) permanently remove an individual who is actively hindering the process via a block. But neither of these actions can by themselves solve the problem (and, used carelessly, can even exacerbate it), and the main focus must always be on discussion and consensus building.

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Well co-nominators don't come much better than those two highly esteemed editors, but that might be because candidates don't come much better! Best of luck, and thanks for all your bot does at WP:ITN/C! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PumpkinSky talk 12:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Awesome nominators for an awesome candidate! I'm sure Anomie will find the admin tools useful in her bot and template work. — Kudu ~I/O~ 12:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. At one time I thought that he was already an administrator. Ruslik_Zero 12:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We're doing that again? — Kudu ~I/O~ 13:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. As co-nom. –xenotalk 13:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. My76Strat (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. I can see no reasons not to. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support for, err, touching my everyday editing life in ubiquitous and expansive ways Jebus989✰ 13:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. As nom. Wifione Message 13:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support No problems for him. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Anomie does a great job for the project, not only by his edits but also with his bots. I was disheartened when I heard some time ago that he didn't want to run for admin, thus I am more than happy to support him now that he finally runs. :-) Regards SoWhy 15:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Everything seems to be in order. Monty845 15:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Not seen much of Anomie him- or her- self, but seems to be an outstanding editor, with the support of some of the most trusted editors, plenty of experience and a good manner. Making such people admins will never be a bad thing. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Happy to support this hard-working, knowledgeable and highly competent editor. 28bytes (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Clueful, attentive, communicable individual doing a lot of useful work. Careful bot operator and great BAG member. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. per User:HJ Mitchell. Nominated by two admins who I trust and respect, combined with exceptional qualifications = an admin candidate that I don't even feel the need to spend an hour picking through edit histories on. Trusilver 16:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Easy decision, even if it were a one-sentence self-nom! Swarm u / t 16:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - About time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Por que no? Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 17:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Anomie appears to have a great understanding of Wikipedia policies. I don't see any reasons why he wouldn't make a great admin. Alpha Quadrant talk 17:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support No issues. --Nepenthes (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Adequate. JORGENEV 17:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. An absolute no-brainer. Happy‑melon 17:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I have broken my wikibreak to support this. Thanks a lot. :/ (X! · talk)  · @807  ·  18:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Over-qualified Secret account 18:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Many have commented on the importance of AnomieBOT for WP. The candidate's user page shows the candidate helping others, including experts, e.g. on technical issues. The candidate's mediation abilities have been on display for years, e.g., at Talk:Feminists_for_Life/Archive_1. Good luck and congratulations!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - Early Congrats! Stubbleboy 20:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support He won't misuse the administrator tools. WayneSlam 21:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  30. FASTILY (TALK) 21:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Anomie will make an excellent admin. -- Marek.69 talk 21:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  32. support per Anomie. --intelatitalk 21:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support As if it were needed... No problems for me. (Some day I might understand how bots work. Then again, why bother when Anomie is around?) Peridon (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Yes, solid editor, wants to contribute more, no compelling reason not to.--~TPW 22:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Weak support. Unconvincing reasons. However Anomie is a good editor. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please could you clarify why you think the reasons are unconvincing? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In his answer to question 1, Anomie indicates only one area where he intends to use the tools: CAT:EP. This is not a high traffic area where a backlog of admin work is generated. The other areas that Anomie mentions are vague and noncommittal. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, CAT:EP gets seriously backlogged at times, mainly because admins who have sufficient understanding of template coding and MediaWiki to confidently process requests there are in short supply. Anomie clearly has the requisite technical skill and is willing to work there; we should welcome them with open arms. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support No reason to oppose at this time. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 23:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support without hesitation. ThemFromSpace 23:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - I see no problems. James500 (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, great candidate. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support huge plus.--v/r - TP 00:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support complete, total no brainer. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)
  42. Support Well reasoned answers. Ward20 (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support – I've waited for this RfA for quite a while. Excellent candidate, with excellent nominators. No reason to oppose. —mc10 (t/c) 01:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - The only time I've thought that there should be a SNOW clause for RfA. The complete package for an admin, I have no reservations. --Deadly∀ssassin 01:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  45. I think yes. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Long overdue. -- Ϫ 03:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong support. I seriously thought he was an admin already! Graham87 03:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong support. Extremely well-qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  50. One of our most skilful template coders and bot programmers. Extremely responsible and conscientious; completely trustworthy. Would be a huge asset with extra tools. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support About time! --NSH001 (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, an excellent candidate. --Taelus (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - Do I even need to put a convincing support rational here? Actually, I'm just looking forward to seeing how high this thing climbs. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 09:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Jarkeld (talk) 11:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support: Why not? Give me a reason. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk
    Contribs     12:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support, This editor is not one I've seen around much, but after looking through some of the things this user has done, such as creating Anomiebot, it's clear to me that this user seems to be highly knowledgeable in their field and is someone who's won the respect of their fellow editors. Bailo26 13:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Almost two years since I've supported an RFA candidate and couldn't pick someone better. All the best. Khukri 13:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - Looks like he would make a great Administrator. -- Luke (Talk) 14:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  59. support I support you for the following reasons: Anomiebot is awesome, you have Xeno's nomination, I have seen you at the village pump repeatedly being helpful, you answered all the above questions in the best way, and you have consistently contributed to Wikipedia for years. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Quite right, I genuinely thought that you were already an admin. Support and good luck! ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 15:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Puffin Let's talk! 16:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support He definitely knows his policies, and he would make a great administrator. Logan Talk Contributions 16:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support – If it wasn't for User:Anomie/User non-admin, I would have nominated for adminship a while ago. –MuZemike 16:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support -- very sensible answers with regards to WP:IAR and admin recall questions; I believe that this user can be trusted not to abuse the tools entrusted to them. Moogwrench (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - Outstanding record on Wikipedia - dedicated and will surely be an asset. Responds well to conflict or difficult users/situations and can keep cool. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Yes, Yes, Yes! Minima© (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Hooray! Danger (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - Looks good to me. GB fan 19:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Master&Expert (Talk) 19:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  70. WP:RIGHTNOW as per nominators Cautious support. You state above "I could write this up into some toothless recall procedure, but why waste the time?" I find this worrying (at best), implying that you would stack a recall procedure into making it unenforceable were you to create one (n.b. that I'm not fussed if you do or don't create one and I understand that you won't). What it seems to me is that this is a statement that implies either you don't stand by your word, or that you will only stand by your word if you've deliberately made your word full of holes - not on the issue of recall but on other issues. Poliicians we don't need.Pedro :  Chat  20:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you may have misunderstood my position. As I see it, no one's voluntary recall procedure has any teeth when it really comes down to it. No matter what their intentions and no matter how "holeless" the procedure, if it goes against them and they decide to ignore it then the only thing anyone can do is take the matter to ArbCom. And as far as I know it's unknown at this point whether ArbCom would pay any attention to the voluntary recall procedure (thereby giving it teeth) or would adjudicate it as they would any other desysopping using whatever actual evidence was presented. I just acknowledge that fact, and don't see the point of expending effort to write a procedure beyond "Show me an RFC/U or other major discussion that shows I've lost community trust and ask me to step down, or take it to ArbCom to force it", which is the status quo. Read into my statement what you will, but know that the most straightforward, literal interpretation is usually the correct one with me. Anomie⚔ 21:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't read his position to be evasive or political in the least. It has been proven in the past[3] that the voluntary recall process is a poor one, and operates entirely on the whim of the admin who can simply decide to opt out of it the moment it becomes inconvenient... even amidst an attempted recall. I'm FAR more pleased to see a candidate call for real recall reform rather than pay lip service to a process that they have no obligation to follow the moment the mop is in their hands. Trusilver 01:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your reply. As I noted this isn't anything to do with recall - it's the statement itself that just sounds a tad lawyerish to me. That Trusilver parses it in a different way gives me comfort, and of course I'm still happy to support. Pedro :  Chat  08:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - Yes, this excellent editor will make a fine admin. Also, that's the best answer to Q8 that I've seen. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Baseball Watcher 20:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Would make a good admin -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. Sole Soul (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - There are times when users need upgrades. Shea McCormick 23:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - Candidate will not commit to term limit, reconfirmation or recall. A bit moot however, as the candidate is of such a quality that they will almost surely never need recalling :-) I also thought the response to Q6 was very good. Thanks Anomie for the candid response to my question and good luck with the mop. --Surturz (talk) 03:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - Most definitely. --Bryce Wilson | talk 03:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Stephen 03:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support I have often seen Anomie's good work and welcome this candidacy. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  80. I haven't participated in RfA for a while, but I saw this on someone's "Who's on RfA" widget and thought "It's about time!". --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support seems very familiar with Wikipedia and knows what's going on. No reason for oppose. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 04:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support We need more admins who understand and can edit protected templates. --Dianna (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support, absolutely, will make a fine admin! A fine and thoughtful editor. Dreadstar ☥ 05:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support though I don't think you need it. Qualified candidate, absolutely. Courcelles 07:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support —Ruud 08:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Not convinced by opposes. WormTT · (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support: About as trusted as they come. Sure, I'm sure Anomie could survive without the tools, but simply not to grant them on those grounds flies in the face of NOBIGDEAL. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 10:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Oppose For wasting other editors' time with inane and irrelevant talk page guff.[4] --Mkativerata (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments regarding this 'joke oppose' made after it was moved to the oppose column (in a good faith error) have been <!-- hidden -->. –xenotalk 13:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - Mop please! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 11:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support - smithers - talk 13:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support – No doubt for me that this candidate should get the adminsistrative tools. Anomie is a great user and will benefit greatly from having the tools. HeyMid (contribs) 15:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. We can always use more high quality admins.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. Rcsprinter (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Go for it. –BuickCenturyDriver 17:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. In my opinion, someone who has competently run an important bot for the past three years has clearly shown the level of capability, maturity, and trustworthiness that is required in an admin. Richwales (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - per all the above! No reason not to really. Mjroots (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support MBisanz talk 18:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Frankly stunned you aren't one already. N419BH 18:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  99. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 19:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support No problems here! HurricaneFan25 20:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support I can't see any compelling reason to oppose or remain neutral, and I'm confident the candidate will be a solid admin. As for the issues raised in Oppose 1, I appreciate the editor's POV but we all have our own ways of expressing ourselves, and I have don't believe the candidate's tone is a serious issue. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Wait, you aren't one already? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support —stay (sic)! 21:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support Huh my first Rfa vote of the year. Good luck. --Chris 00:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Another mop to be dished out.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Duh. T. Canens (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support. See no issues here. Jayjg (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support: I thought they already were an admin. --Carnildo (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Strong Support: I also thought Anomie was an admin. Hand out the mops and t-shirts. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support I don't usually pile on these things, but I've been very impressed with Anomie whenever I see his work. Cheers.--Kubigula (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support. Really liked the answers to questions. Lynch7 03:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support - The whole "I thought they were already an admin" thing is a bit cliché — this is the first time that it literally applies for me. —SW— prattle 05:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Sorry for the pile-on Support. EngineerFromVegaDiscuss 06:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Yes. Straightforward, trustworthy, stable, intelligent, reflective, an asset to the project, and someone who clearly has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Over qualified candidate. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support very longterm active user with a clean block log, near perfect answer to Q8, and deleted contributions look good too. I've read the oppose section but do not consider incidents from 2008 to be relevant at a 2011 RFA. Especially as said incidents didn't even merit a block. ϢereSpielChequers 12:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support He will be a good admin. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support, why not? --John (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support - well known to me and others; good editor; passes all my usual standards. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support - Yeah this is another one of those "I thought you were already an admin" votes. I honestly did. -- Atama頭 17:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support. An extraordinarily strong candidate. I've looked carefully at the candidate's interaction and communication skills in the context of the one oppose, and I'm completely satisfied. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support May as well shovel some snow here too. --RA (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  125. For sure. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 21:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support — Status {talkcontribs  22:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support - Per Fastily. MJ94 (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support - First candidate in a while that I've had that "he isn't an admin already?" feeling about. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support - experienced user running useful bot. Very funny MJ94. Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 04:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Finally! Amalthea 08:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Absolutely. Jafeluv (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Piling on. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 11:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Wow. Honestly? My first thought here was "why has such an excellent, friendly, knowledgeable admin stooped to the drama which is a reconfirmation RFA?". We're only four days in here: I suppose it's nice that we'll get to blow the dust off WP:200 at the end of the week. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support and about time too. Like so many others, I always assumed Anomie was already an admin. Yunshui (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support, if only for their responses in this RFA. Their edits elsewhere, their bot work, and their contributions as a member of BAG are icing on the cake. Good luck, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support - Absolutely, order another mop. Mlpearc powwow 19:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  139. NW (Talk) 20:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support per question 11 -- Agathoclea (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support I have seen edits from this contributor, this contributor has made over 15,000 edits since 2005, Is very active in the community, doesn't seen to bring an agenda, doesn't raise COI concerns which in my opinion is something lacking with the few admins I have experience with. The community needs more active admins like this.0pen$0urce (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  143. No Regrets. -Guerillero | My Talk 03:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support It's about time. Already trusted at this level by the community with the highly-utilized bot. Royalbroil 04:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support, strongly. AGK [•] 08:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support - no concerns.  Chzz  ►  09:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Green tickY Sounds fine. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Per the flawless answer to question 11. On that note, it's an inditement on our current admins and Arbcom that not one of them has had the backbone to deal with an issue which from what I can tell stretches back years. —WFC— 17:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support per AnomieBOT. CityOfSilver 21:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe that AnomieBOT has voted for his operator yet :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but if it did, I would most likely agree with it. Although, like most robots, it would probably reply in ALL CAPS, which I would find awfully irritating. CityOfSilver 18:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support a prize for editor with 150th support !vote. VictorianMutant(Talk) 21:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support Rjwilmsi 22:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support. No issues. Already well-trusted. BusterD (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support - Clean block log, no indications of assholery, obvious janitorial temperament. Perfect candidate. Carrite (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Suppport the obvious.--Milowent • talkblp-r 12:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support. Shows clear wisdom and good judgment, for example by not responding to Keepscases question. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support after a modest review of contributions and having seen the editor's work before. No concerns. --joe deckertalk to me 17:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support - Congratulations...Modernist (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Strong support Extremely well-qualified, long-time veteran. A legend at hunting down wayward and wanton bots.--Hokeman (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support Phew, good thing I made it here in time - love me some pile-on voting! m.o.p 02:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support Long overdue! Sysop tools would greatly assist his work! —James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:35pm • 09:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  162. For. I see this one whizzing around a lot. :) ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 11:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support Anomie would do much better with the additional tools. Suraj T 11:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose: I was initially going to support, approving of the candidate's bravery in giving a negative response to Q8, content with their eventual answer to Q9, plus the fact that they are experienced with intricate templates and the like. However, what initially concerned me, oddly enough, was the one area I said would not influence my decision, which was a little question in the Discussion about linking to a maths article which seems to have got the candidate inexplicably upset, their answer implying that I was accusing them of/mocking them for being autistic. If such an innocent question was prone to so upset the candidate, I thought, they may not cope well with the scrutiny they may come under for the administrative actions they take. A little more digging, and, what do you know: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. It Is Me Here t / c 13:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one of those is from 2011. What's your point? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer to Q8 was a brilliant piece of nipping RfA drama in the bud. Why replace it with new drama by serving up expired issues, some of which date back to 2008, on an otherwise immaculate RfA? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It Is Me Here, it's unfortunate that you chose to oppose this candidacy. While you should have been looking at the sincerity of the applicant who has contributed more to Wikipedia than most other editors I know of, I fear you've searched and some, simply to find out a reason to oppose. I'll be honest - I've rarely known candidates who're as honest as Anomie; yet, I suspect that unknowingly, you may be using that same honesty of Anomie (which is clearly displayed in Anomie's answers to you) in bad faith. If these dated diffs are what have convinced you to oppose, then I have to say that the way you assess admin candidates — who have singularly been the reasons for some of the most beneficial facets of our project — may be structurally faulty. What you've summarized is basically this: all the positive things that Anomie has done for this project on one side, and your diffs on the other - and your diffs win! There are editors on Wikipedia who use narrow criteria to assess candidates. I did not expect that of you. Wifione Message 15:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything wrong that last diff linked to by It Is Me Here. It's a perfectly valid -- and common -- argument. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree wholehearted with User:Kudpung. This kind of thing does nothing but highlight what is fundamentally wrong with the RfA process. This editor is apparently implying that someone who has (amidst thousands and thousands of edits) been uncivil a few times, is somehow unfit for being an admin. If we were to go all Night of Long Knives on every single admin or admin candidate who has ever committed the ultimate sin of "not being nice" to someone, I have a feeling that by tomorrow morning we would only be left with our friend User:It Is Me Here, who I'm sure is a paragon of upstanding morality who has NEVER gotten angry or frustrated with anyone. Seriously... if you have to go back three years to find dirt to throw at the candidate, it doesn't weaken my support in them, it only strengthens it. Trusilver 23:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In an attempt to reply to all the concerns raised above: my point here is that there are some examples in the candidate's interactions with other users of their employing a sarcastic tone (unnecessarily and unhelpfully, IMO), and other interactions which indicate an unwanted level of emotional involvement in an issue. Regarding the first issue, whilst it is conscientious to link to Wikipedia policy in discussions, I feel it is unnecessary to do so in a manner which belittles the other person (using links like "Other crap exists" or "Too long; didn't read"). Nor do I feel it helpful to write things like "the new mediator is either missing the point or is very biased", "[my bot] lacks the capacity to care about your dispute" or "you might want to check your reading comprehension". In each of the examples linked above (this time all from 2011, note), the candidate's point would have been made equally clear were those sentences to be removed: they serve no purpose but to humiliate another editor. My main concern with regard to this issue is that, especially if the candidate should start interacting with new users on a regular basis, their at times sarcastic comments will scare away new editors, an issue which is discussed at WP:BITE, but has also been raised in other contexts in essays like WP:WIHS. Regarding the second issue, I have seen evidence in the candidate's edits of their getting, at times, unnecessarily emotional/melodramatic in WP discussions (for instance, with sentences like "If you're implying that I sound autistic, you wouldn't be the first" [in the Discussion above; paraphrased, not verbatim] – something which I feel was not remotely implied by my question – or "Here are my contribs: do with them what you will" [diff 6, paraphrased]). Here, my main concern is that the user may not cope well with the scrutiny that they may face as admin (scrutiny which, dare I say it, I am facing right now). I'm sorry if it looks like I am acting in bad faith or just looking for a reason to oppose, but I do feel that I have legitimate reasons to be concerned about Anomie's interactions with others, and their ability to keep cool. It Is Me Here t / c 17:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarcasm is a hazardous thing to use in a print medium (such as e-mail, USENET, or Wikipedia discussions), since factors like tone of voice and facial expression aren't there. I would certainly advise anyone to be careful and sparing in their use of written sarcastic witticisms, since they can so easily be misunderstood. Having said that, I will add that I do not view the given examples (most of which date from two or three years ago) as being sufficiently troublesome to dissuade me from supporting this candidate. Richwales (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I sincerely appreciate your finding this, It is Me Here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wifione, respectfully, I don't think calling It Is Me Here's assessment of candidates at RfA 'structurally flawed', nor implying that his oppose is narrow-minded, is particularly helpful. It seems to me like opposing on the basis of the candidate being too bite-y or sarcastic from time-to-time (regardless of positive contributions to the project - extremely good editors shouldn't get an allowance for misbehaviour) is a perfectly good rationale. Mato (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not bicker over something like this that will have little/no impact on the RFA. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 00:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Mato, I'm absolutely with you on the fact that even extremely good editors should not get an allowance for misbehavior. But it also strikes me as conceptually and structurally faulty - even strange - that while It Is Me Here asked multiple questions from the candidate on userboxes, invoked Anomie's response even in the additional discussion thread with respect to Anomie's number orientations, they chose to never discuss with Anomie these issues that have been invoked quite suddenly. That is bad faith !voting in my personal opinion - more so given that It Is Me Here is not a new editor and is one whom (and this may surprise you given what I've written till now) I trust. Shawn In Montreal is right - It Is Me Here can !vote on these issues in any RfA; and there are some other editors who follow a similar process too. But an experienced way of !voting would have been to question the candidate on the issues that may matter to It Is Me Here, give the candidate a chance to respond, and then !vote appropriately. I also fear this !vote of It Is Me Here may have been made with a presupposed decision to oppose - rather than to logically weigh Anomie's outstanding positive contributions against the diffs. Should Anomie respond at this point? I hope not - as Tofutwitch's statement above holds strong still. But I do wish that It Is Me Here reads these views of mine and in future !voting starts questioning candidates on criteria that they would use to !vote than invest time on flank issues. Wifione Message 01:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's important to remember that we're discussing Anomie the human editor, not the computer program bot. Humans have emotions, every once in awhile they come out here. In 6+ years of editing, it's not going to be difficult to find a few examples of the candidate having a bad day and letting a clueless editor irritate them a little more than usual. To oppose an RfA based on such minor events is extreme in my opinion, and only perpetuates the notion that editors need to act like politicians before their RfA, ensuring that they don't upset anyone and don't speak their mind too often. If we held every admin candidate up to this level of perfection, we wouldn't have any admins. —SW— confabulate 05:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    These diffs link to a discussion where Anomie is working with Japanese editors so that AnomieBOT works with Japanese characters. To me the diffs show an extraordinary editor and hero at work, whom WP is very lucky to have and who deserves to be treated with the greatest respect.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Anomie's explanation of "almost surely" was precise and informative, and was followed by self-deprecating remarks. There is no reason for User:It Is Me Here to infer that the Anomie was upset.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The opposition to the reference of such helpful essays as WP:TLDR and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS sounds like a superficial objection to the names of the essays, without any sort of consideration for either context or motive. Also, overall I'm getting the impression that IIMH is objecting less to the candidate with this oppose, and more to the culture of Wikipedia. Which is okay, really, there's plenty of room for editors to disagree with the status quo, but it does make this oppose into a sort of backwards support. Honestly, reading this oppose and the rationale behind it strengthens my support of the candidate, simply because some of the actions you object to actually show a good amount of clue from Anomie. -- Atama頭 00:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I hate to oppose a candidate with these nominators, but questions shouldn't be ignored. Keepscases (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Switching to neutral. Keepscases (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Extensive discussion of this vote moved to talk page WormTT · (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. I don't know if I could vote for a candidate (I have only 67 edits) and I don't know this user. But the user's contribution is great and I believe it will be better if Anomie become an administrator. --Brateevsky (talk to me) 17:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone with an account can !vote for a candidate. Remember, this is not an election but a discussion, so feel free to participate however you like (as long as you stay civil of course ;-)). Also, you don't need to know a user in order to support or oppose them - as you say yourself, you can make up your mind based on the candidate's contributions. Regards SoWhy 18:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Keepscases (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, neutral for no reason. Puffin Let's talk! 16:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral from oppose, following discussions on talk page. WormTT · (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Doing the minimum possible to stave off a block, several would suggest. —WFC— 21:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, in fact let's call it a Neutral, Leaning Oppose because it turns out the reason the candidate did not answer the question is because Kudpung told him not to. Keepscases (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @WFC, please stop attacking the good-faith of Keepscases. (Keepscases has shown his willingness to stand alone, despite mumblings of blocks, on several occasions.) @Puffin, your comment is unfair, because Keepscases has stated a concern. Let us try to be kind, especially to minorities.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusation of attack on my part/suggestion that Keepscases is acting in good faith dealt with on my talk page. —WFC— 10:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Can't see any reason to oppose but some of the answers to questions seemed a bit abrupt and the language this user uses is too formal. Not really good oppose reasons though.--ЗAНИA talk WB talk] 23:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On serious pages such as RfA, I find the language is often not kept formal enough. But that is probably my personal generation gap problem, and being a linguist. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category