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

AnonEMouse[edit]

Final (67/4/0) Ended Wed, 8 Nov 2006 20:04:33 UTC

AnonEMouse (talk · contribs) – A registered user since January and a dedicated contributor since April, Mouse has left quite a few of his little pawprints around this site. He has ~2,250 edits, of which almost a quarter each are in projectspace and various talk spaces. While that is admittedly not a lot, the edits are high quality: no padding. He has distinguished himself as an insightful contributor at AfD (I am unaware of any vandalfighting). I had initially met him via a vociferous disagreement at an AfD debate, in which he was thorough, thoughtful, and ultimately right. (Gasp!)

He is also a dedicated writer of pornography articles. (If my wife or my rabbi are reading this, no, I have no idea what's in them... ^_^) He worked hard on the WP:PORNBIO guideline and on getting Jenna Jameson to FA (in progress). That would make her our first porn FA, AFAIK. (No mean feat, btw!) I hope he tells you himself about his other FA exploits in Question 2.

But the best diff of all is this extraordinary RfA vote. This diff alone should tell you everything you need to know about the candidate.

"God grant us more editors like AnonEMouse." - crz crztalk 18:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Nishkid64

I only met this user a few days ago when he came to my user talk page to request a deleted page restoration and creating a redirect for it (I did it btw). The user asked permission in a very kind and civil manner (which is always gratifying). I checked out the user's last few hundred edits later that day, and I was pretty impressed with what I saw. I was considering nominating the user for adminship later this week or next week based on the user's stellar editing habits and contributions to the encyclopedia, but I guess Crz beat me to it. AnonEMouse has all the fine qualities that we seek in our administrators; he is calm, cool, levelheaded, all of which are needed in our administrators. I would like to nominate AnonEMouse based on his credentials and abilities. He will make a fine addition as a Wikipedia admin. Nishkid64 21:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you very much, I gratefully accept, and hope I can live up to the high praise. (And live down the opport.) AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC) By the way, I strongly support the concept of Category:Administrators open to recall, and would be adding myself to it. This isn't saying it's necessarily right for everyone, but it would be right for me. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: A bit of everything. There is a need, partly due to the regular, steady influx of editors, partly due to the stepping down of the prolific, if controversial, Tony Sidaway and Kelly Martin in a recent arbitration. I won't pretend to be able to fill their shoes, but I can at least do my bit to help (especially since I said a few words in the arb, and supported their gracious stepping down). I:
  • regularly browse AfDs, which there is a backlog on. I have closed a few uncontroversial keeps without being an admin, but being an admin is required to close the ones which end in delete.
  • regularly monitor Wikipedia: Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents and Wikipedia: Administrator's noticeboard. I've helped out a few times [1] [2] [3] [4] there without being an admin, but it's really for admin help requests.
  • quail every time there is a back log at WP:AIV, which I have seen some times. When something hits there, it's often important. Basically, whatever needs doing.
  • Also, I do spend time on the WP:P* area, as Crz mentions above. The main admin for pornographic articles, Joe Beaudoin Jr. had done an excellent job, but has been essentially inactive since August, and that is an area of the Wikipedia that tends to be controversial by its nature. I can only hope to try to continue his good work.
By the way, I have actually done a bit of vandal fighting, just by dint of having a few hundred articles on my watch list, including a fair number of porn star articles. This may be a shock to some, given how innocuous they are :-), but they do get vandalized. Here are a couple of examples (not to porn articles, strangely enough): one that was more serious: [5] [6] [7] [8] one that was less serious: [9] [10]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Lots, most of the ones on my user page have a story behind them. Here are a few:
  • Alice Barnham was my first article that got recognition. I saw it while browsing Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion, and thought I could improve it enough to be kept. It worked, and got high praise, I am especially proud of Sam Blanning's words, and User:Lar's barnstar. It was an early effort, I like to think my editing style has improved since then. I have tried to save a few others similarly since then: Monica Coghlan (AfD); Old Fashioned (AfD); Vicca (AfD) seem to have worked especially well.
  • Richard Pacheco was one of the first articles I wrote myself from scratch. It was prompted by the WP:P* todo list. I got it to where I liked it, then it was edited by ... Richard Pacheco. Yes, it was absolutely him, I found his email by a bit of research, queried, and he confirmed! Wow. A bit of star power. We've written back and forth a few times since then, just one of our exchanges is preserved on Talk:Richard Pacheco. Again, it was an early article, I think I've been citing sources better since then. Humphry Knipe is similar in the sense that I was able to contact the source himself about an issue, see Talk:Humphry Knipe. By the way, they each liked my work. :-) (bask, bask, glow, wiggle whiskers)
  • Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) was started by Joe Beaudoin, and had been quite useful the past 5 months as a proposal, but a pair of admins got antsy at such a long proposal time, and asked that it be marked a guideline or historical. I thought it should be a guideline, and did a bit of research to find out how things got made guidelines around here (apparently just from being used, then informal consensus), then some more research to show just how useful it has been, advertised on the Village Pump, gave it some time to gather opinions, and, well, marked it as a notability criteria guideline. See my argument for it on its talk page.
  • Jenna Jameson, as Crz mentions, is my secret push to get a WP:P* project to FA. That was prompted by a prompt from the Wikipedia 1.0 project - since we'll get some articles in 1.0, it seems a shame if not even one is a quality article. The article is not near ready yet, but a lot better than it was, in my humble opinion. I didn't start it, but I've been the main editor working on that article since August, following Joe's checklist. (It's had lots and lots of edits by others since then, but they've been almost all vandalism, on almost a daily basis; I couldn't have done anything with it without a large team of vandalism reverters, whom I'm very grateful for.)
  • To get myself familiar with the FA standards, I've recently become a bit of a holy terror to a few Featured article candidates. I saw two that complained on Raul654's talk page that they weren't getting any responses, and, well, gave them one. :-). Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kroger Babb -- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Empires: Dawn of the Modern World. The nominators seem to have appreciated it.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Oh yes, quite a few conflicts. For one thing, pornography and AfD articles are controversial by their nature. I hope I dealt with the conflicts civilly. I'm sometimes not the most assertive person - I call myself "Mouse" for a reason, it's not AnonELion. :-). I try to reach a compromise, rather than an absolute good. Here are a few, if I forget some it's not because I'm trying to hide them, but just because there have been many. How have I dealt with them? By trying to remain calm, remember that it's just a volunteer encyclopedia project, not the end of the world, and acting as if assuming good faith - it's not just the policy, but a good idea. I've found that in some cases, treating someone as if they're acting in good faith makes them actually act in good faith. That's quite useful.
  • Probably the most recent one has been about marking WP:PORNBIO a guideline, see above. After the marking, one person objected rather vociferously, take a look. It may even still be ongoing, let's see.
  • This one involves a big name tangentially. Before my involvement, Stephanie Adams was a Playboy playmate that got involved in writing her own article, had a big edit war, then Jimbo Wales deleted the thing to just a header with a strong message to reduce it to verifiable entries: [11]. And there it sat for months, until I ventured where angels fear to tread, to at least add the most verifiable thing I could find - the books she published.[12] Amazing how much conflict a dry, boring list of books can generate. The conflict on that still occasionally simmers up, see the edit history and Talk:Stephanie Adams.
  • Here is an AfD that turned unpleasant: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bayreuth_Circle - about a group that has been described as making a connection between Hitler and Wagner. The person arguing the other side is apparently a music scholar that I'm sure knows ten times more than I do about the facts of the matter, however that doesn't mean that there isn't such a theory. The Bayreuth Circle article itself is still around, and a bit slanted due to his efforts ... but it's enough for me that it's around, I didn't push it further. As I wrote above, this is just a volunteer encyclopedia, and I'm AnonEMouse, not a lion, not a tiger, not an angry mastodon.

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

I was wondering when these would show up. :-)
4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: I really liked the principle behind Wikipedia:Ignore all rules since the first time I saw it, early in my WP "career". It's great that it's there for new editors and everyday cases. It's an important part of the Wikipedia:Policy trifecta that really does cover most of a new editor's edits: 1. write from good sources, 2. be nice to other editors, and 3. that's about it. If a new editor does run afoul of a rule, someone will tell or show them, and by (2) being nice to that someone the new editor will follow the rule, and that way learn it.
However, as an experienced editor, I do my best to avoid it, and worry whenever someone, especially an administrator, relies on it to do something controversial. Clear, established, understandable rules are essential during controversy, it's very useful to be able to write "Of course I agree with you that Martians really control the United Nations, but, unfortunately, we have this rule about verifiability, not truth, so ..." People accept it, or at least go off to campaign against the rule in general, instead of their pet issue in particular. I'm big on establishing rules specifically to make the arguments less painful - that's why I worked hard to get WP:PORNBIO to be something people agree with, then to get it formalized as a guideline.
WP:SNOW is a more specific subset of WP:IAR that reminds us that bureaucracy for its own sake is not required. If, and only if, there is absolutely no doubt that a decision will not be made any other way, then it may as well be made early. If you're not sure you completely understand what rules apply, don't do it. If someone seriously questions the outcome of a WP:SNOW decision, it was applied incorrectly.
If that's too vague, here are some specific examples in practice:
  1. Article subject asks if posting her school record, which is an important issue in her article, on her web site, would be a citable source in her article. I mention Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves, 2 reasons it may not apply, then say that in the end, if that's the only way we can get a reliable reference to the actual text, at least WP:IAR applies, so do it. [13]
  2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive125#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Coghlan Contentious AfD. I rewrote the article so all the delete voters agreed it should be kept, but the personal fight between the delete voters and the article author continued in the AfD, it wasn't really about the article any more. I asked that an admin close the AfD to cut the fight short. I don't know if that was technically WP:SNOW, but it was probably at least WP:IAR.
  3. On the other side, I endorsed a fair number of opinions in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin2 about how blocking or even threatening to block, which is inherently controversial, should be based on formal, written, undisputable rules. Never IAR.
Finally, I have to note Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules; when I first saw WP:IAR it was much longer than it is today, and incorporated much of WP:SIR in it directly. If I ever do use IAR as an admin, it will always be under SIR: knowing what rules apply, explaining why they shouldn't, and bending in favor of people, rather than rules. I think my example 1, above, is a good example of this.
5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A: No. Per Wikipedia:Blocking policy of course, but that's easy to say. Here are some specific examples of my views when I had to disagree with someone about it: [14] [15].
6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A: Heh. I was about to write that this is so new that I can't give an example about how I've actually reacted to this, but that's not true, I can! I can cite the legendary Arch Coal case, when the article was written as a clear ad, for pay even, however the business was notable. Here was what I had to say about it: [16] [17] Then the great User:JzG did what I hope I would be able to do whenever something like that comes up, he rewrote it. I made a few minor edits to the article, along with everybody else, but it was mostly JzG.
What would I do as an admin? I admit, I prefer not to outright delete articles whenever I can, I'm much happier if I can rewrite them so they'd be kept. I would spend a bit of effort to see if the subject meets WP:CORP otherwise - check the references if there are any, run a search or two.
  • If it clearly isn't a company we're interested in, no matter how the article is rewritten, sigh and delete it per "blatant advertising (CSD:G11)" (by the way, I like spelling out the reason in words, not just writing G11).
  • If I'm not sure (maybe it's not a company that would tend to have Web hits, being in Mali or something, maybe it has more references than I can look at), leave it for somebody else to deal with, there are over 1000 admins after all.
  • If it does, and I have the time, imitate JzG, and rewrite it so it covers the material, but is not an ad. Put it on my watchlist in case it becomes an ad again.
  • If it does, and I don't have the time or energy, yet for whatever reason I have to be the one to do it (maybe it's been marked for days, people are complaining, no one else is doing anything, maybe I know more about the subject than most other admins would), cut it to an NPOV stub ("Arch Coal is an American coal mining company. ((Company-stub)) "), put it on my watchlist, and get back to it tomorrow. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from JoshuaZ These questions mainly come from concerns raised by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.

Thanks for the opportunity.

1 Could you discuss in more detail the Brandy Alexandre incident from your perspective. What have you learned from that and what would you say to editors who are worried that such an incident might occur again and/or that it demonstrates very poor judgement in general?

It was a mistake. I'm sorry for it. I won't make it again. Ah, details.
Brandy Alexandre is a former porn star whose real name was released on Usenet about 2000; not by reliable sources, but widely available (see her article for details). She has a user account here that Jimbo Wales treated as hers. By June 2006, another user noticed that an Amazon.com reviewer page claimed to be "Brandy Alexandre the famous porn star", and asked for a "wish list", gifts from fans who remembered her. It gave her correct date of birth, resident state, and the last name and first initial, with Amazon.com RealName verification, which meant that Amazon had verified that this was the name on a credit card. I thought this meant that Brandy Alexandre had voluntarily acknowledged her real name on her personal page. To make sure, I tried to contact her and ask; she had no other official web site, and no email linked to her user page, so I asked on her user talk page. [18] Six days later, including a weekend, she hadn't responded, so I added the name with citations.[19] A week after that, still without responding in words, she removed the name, as well as a swath of other information that had been considered fine before. The Amazon reviewer page no longer claimed to be Brandy Alexandre the famous porn star. I read that as her not wanting the name publically released, and didn't restore it. That was it, no debate afterwards, no edit war. Jimbo came in three days after the matter was already settled. I asked him for permission to restore the other deleted information,[20] which he gave.[21] Talk:Brandy_Alexandre#Courtesy has most of the discussion that I don't individually link to above; note the name is not repeated.
What did I learn? To be extremely careful with controversial information. Also to consider the possibility of not just vandalism or harassment but actual attempt at criminal fraud: Alexandre later wrote that the Amazon impersonator had a different real first name on her credit card, which is why she had only put the first initial on the RealName.
It was a mistake. I was noticeably less experienced then. I've learned from it. I won't make it again, and I try harder not to make others like it. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 Could you please explain in some detail your part in the creation of the WP:PORN guideline?

It's a common misunderstanding; I believe you mean Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors), (WP:PORN BIO). This is a Wikipedia:Notability criteria guideline, some rough rules to formalize whether a given porn star is notable or not.
The article was started in April, 2006, by Joe Beaudoin Jr., in an effort to reduce the regular confusion, inconsistency, and often contentious debate about porn star articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. (They came up even more often then, at least several times a week, and the nomination gives examples of some of the actual arguments to keep or delete that were regularly used in them, such as "I never heard of her"/"She's in IMDB"/"She has lots of Google hits...". It wasn't pretty.) Even as a proposal, the standards became used, regularly and often. I did a detailed count of uses, and found more than one every other day for five months. The article gradually adjusted to discussion and the actual results of AfDs, more than half of the notability points were added, deleted, or changed in response to discussion and actual use.
However, after five months of being marked as a proposal, in October, two different experienced and respected administrators, User:Aaron_Brenneman [22]and User:Radiant! [23] separately expressed their opinions that the proposed status had been too long, and the article should be made a guideline or failed. Joe, by this time, had become inactive, so I couldn't ask him. I both researched and asked both Brenneman and Radiant how to actually go about marking something a guideline. Brenneman didn't respond, Radiant did. He said that there is no formal procedure, it is supposed to be informal, but recommended advertising on the Village Pump. My research showed that he had, himself, only recently marked Wikipedia:Notability a guideline,[24] based on evidence of its being used, in the face of strong opposition, with support from another respected admin.
So I did the best I could following the advice and precedent I found. I gathered the evidence that it was used, that it was needed, wrote it up in a proposal, and advertised it as advised. I wanted to avoid WP:SPAM, but still get as many people as I could, so I put messages on 4 places: the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)[25], Wikipedia:WikiProject Porn stars [26], and the two admins (already linked above). Note that I had every reason to believe the admins would actively oppose the proposal: Brenneman had made this telling statement (especially see the edit comment) at the start of the article being a proposal, and Radiant had actually [marked it historical (though not objecting when I wrote it should be discussed). They don't mince words!
I fully expected the debate to be long and contentious, I even wrote as much in the nomination. Instead, I was surprised when the discussion was brief, unanimously favorable, and died down quickly - it got 4 comments the first day, and 2 more over the next 4 days. I would have much preferred 20 participants, but seemed this was as good a consensus as we were going to get. There were plenty of people who actually used the proposal that I could have contacted specifically - later I found 15 in a few minutes just by looking in as many AfDs from my references - but that would have clearly been WP:SPAM. I did contact Joe Beaudoin Jr. later, because this was "his baby" - you'll notice even that comment worried about spam.[27]
By the way, if this RfA leads to more people involved discussion about adoption of the guideline, I will be only too glad. I genuinely do think it deserves to become one, because of the detailed evidence that is is actually used. Please, if you are at all interested, read the evidence, and comment, one way, or another.
Note, however, as I wrote on the talk page of someone who opposed the way it was done a week later: this guideline deletes porn star articles, it doesn't keep them. Looking through the references that I've listed, shows, that when articles are kept in AfD, it is sometimes with this guideline and sometimes in spite of it. When articles are deleted, it is always in accordance with this guideline. So those people who want fewer porn star articles on the Wikipedia should properly be supporting the use of this guideline all the way. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 Could you address concerns that you have only edited with in a narrow range of articles? JoshuaZ 22:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easily. Articles that I have either mostly written or added a notable amount to are listed on my user page. That link is as good as listing them here. I count 21 somehow-pornography-related, 20 not, evenly split between those I contributed a lot to, or mostly wrote/rewrote completely. Probably the largest mostly-by-me article is Alice Barnham (1592-1650), wife of Francis Bacon. The latest 4 that I've worked on are ReganBooks, publishing house, Toronto Board of Trade, chamber of commerce, Louise Wightman, exotic dancer turned counsellor, and James W. Walter, millionaire conspiracy theorist. They're much smaller, partly due to being new, but even so, I doubt anyone will want to group those into any coherent narrow range of subject. (Err ... I guess they are all North American...) AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Dragons flight 1) When should a porn star's real name be included in their biography? Please give examples of situations where you believe it is appropriate to include that information and situations when you believe it is not appropriate.

When there are reliable sources documenting it, including the star having released it (their own site counts as reliable for undisputed facts about themselves). The best examples are Jenna Jameson and Linda Lovelace, whose real names are in their autobiographies, news articles, and documentaries. A less famous, but still extensively documented example is Marilyn Star (which I wrote).
Not appropriate where there aren't such sources. Brandy Alexandre of course, but also Wendy Whoppers, Dick Rambone, others. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Late) followup questions from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.

1. With regard to the WP:PORN BIO guideline proprosal. You point out that you followed the same procedure as that followed by User:Radiant for the general notability guideline proposal. But that procedure ended up in an edit war and the "de-guidelining" of that proposal after it was originally declared a guideline. Does this give you pause about following that procedure on the porno bio proposal? Especially given your surprise at the light response?
Actually, if you look at the history Wikipedia:Notability had been marked as a guideline through November 7th, yesterday, and until that time had seemed to be stable for a month. (I know neither you nor I have participated in that discussion.) Especially since Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) is only a subset of Wikipedia:Notability, that did look like that was the model to follow. Note that as a notability criteria guideline, WP:PORN BIO explicitly depends on WP:N - if WP:N isn't a guideline, neither is WP:PORN BIO.
As I have stated in other places here, I would be only too glad if there were a more formal procedure to follow. Since I genuinely believe that it meets our criteria, I believe it would pass such a procedure, and made my best attempt at following one. If you have any suggestions on how to do a better job at it, please do say. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. With regard to sources and verifiability. (1) Don't WP:BLP and WP:RS serve different functions? (2) Even if a personal web page source meets WP:BLP and protects us from libel and such claims, why does it automatically meet WP:RS? (3) In many AFD discussions, personal/promotional web pages for writers, professors, journalists, artists, activists etc etc etc are rejected under WP:RS. They aren't enough to establish notability. (4) Do you think the RS policy for porno stars should be different? If you do, why? (5) How can we even know the individuals approve these pages or have even checked them (maybe created by agents/producers/whoever)? Especially about "real" names and birthdates.
A lot of questions - I took the liberty of numbering them for easy reference. (1) Yes. (2) Because WP:RS specifically says self-published sources may be cited in articles about the writers of those sources. (3) You're confusing notability with use as a source. Having a personal page often isn't enough to establish notability, but once notability is established, a personal page is quite useful for information. (4) No. Porn stars lie, actresses lie, writers lie, scientists lie; politicians, businessmen, and preachers lie even more more. We still take their word about themselves until specifically disputed. (5) In general performers actively try to maintain and promote their personal site, the same way a company tries to promote its, and for much the same reason. That's not to say that every site with a performer's name in the title is their personal site - many are fan sites, others are unrelated companies trying to cash in on a performer's name. User:Tabercil has been doing a good job of cleaning out a series of the latter lately, check his edit history. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Does this article, List of gay porn stars, raise issues for you about WP:RS, WP:BLP, or requirements for citing sources? In particular, do you think that a controversial ID like "porn star" should be cited only with a "look-it-up-here" link to an external commercial site of unknown trustworthiness?
I haven't participated in that article, I'm afraid. Let me look.
I see that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay porn stars (second nomination) seems to have ended with requiring sources. I also see that you participated extensively in that, so you probably know more about it than I do. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to reply on my talk page when you have time if you think this is a policy argument not relevant enough to your (unstoppable :-)) RFA. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 16:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. First Support - This Mouse is a good contributor who brings a lot to the project, including some much needed levity and goodwill. Especially since the little furball has gone out of his/her way to pick up some of the Admin slack, I say give him the mop-and-bucket and make him really work for his kibble. WP will only benefit in the long run. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hardcore support. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I have a number of RfAs watchlisted that have yet to exist. This was one of them, which means that AnonEMouse had apparently done or supported an action that I found incredibly vile and unfit. I cannot for the life of me remember what it was for, and much of it is due to the great experiences I've had with this user recently, especially over the last week. A hell of an editor, one of the most helpful people I've recently encountered, and, assuming nothing crazy pops up during this RfA, I'm more than glad to support --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What if I pop up, BDJ? - crz crztalk 15:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This RfA is an exception to the "If Crz is for it, I must be against it" rule. IAR and such. d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Nom support - crz crztalk 19:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I recently had a good impression of him at Talk:Fiona Mont, his answers and contributions seem good, and I've seen him around the place doing good work. I'm sure he will be fine. --Guinnog 20:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support — Yuperz.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support My first impression was a lack of quantity, but on further checking it became obvious that the quality and depth was far beyond anything I've done. It takes a strong character to handle controversial topics with a level head. Also like seeing good, thought out answers on the standard questions. Support to the first most intelligent species on earth from the third. --StuffOfInterest 20:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, I'll bite ... who's second and why? Newyorkbrad 20:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. I'm pretty sure this means: mice; dolphins; people -- a reference to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And again you prove why the mice are on top! --StuffOfInterest 21:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. (Edit-conflicted) Support Good user, deserves the tools. Hello32020 20:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per nom and answers. We don't edit much in the same content areas, but I see no issues or reason to think user will misuse the tools, and he made good contributions to the discussion pages in the recent so-called "Giano" arbitration. Newyorkbrad 20:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support -- Tawker 20:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support per past experience with user. Good luck! --Alex (Talk) 21:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - appreciate the detailed responses to the questions, nom's comments stand up well; looks like a good addition to the admin ranks. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Support as co-nom. Nishkid64 21:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak Support I certainly feel that this user would do well to have some extra buttons, as would Wikipedia, for it would have a more productive user. My support is "weak" largely based on the answer to Q1. Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoopydink (talk • contribs) 21:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per nom. Rama's arrow 21:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Looks like another good nomination for adminship. I don't think that the tools will be abused. (aeropagitica) 22:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Good contributions and solid answers to questions. Jcam 23:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Eeee, a non-mouse! Excellent temperament and helpful, level-headed editor. -- nae'blis 23:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Two things: A) I honestly did believe AnonEMouse was an admin, and B) For some odd reason I thought you were a girl. Yanksox 00:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, now I don't feel so bad... --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hilarious! For the longest time I thought the same, until Mouse kindly pointed out to me the wealth of his Porn contributions as irrefutable proof of gender... - crz crztalk 00:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - That just proves how hard it is to determine gender of a mouse. Next time, use a magnifying glass :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So, possession of vast amounts of porn a good admin make? Yanksox 00:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Grahh... me too, actually. And I didn't even know about the porn thing until this RfA. -- nae'blis 15:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL you sexist pigs, associating the mouse with self-effacing behavior with femininity! You must undergo sensitivity training post-haste! I am certified sensitivity trainer, I charge $300 per hour per student for my workshops. - crz crztalk 15:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I'm for it. I've seen him around, but even if I hadn't the excellent nom and answers would have convinced me quickly. Seems like exactly what we need. --Allen 02:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong support Everything I've ever seen from AnonEMouse (mostly AfD-related activities, as that's where I spend so much time on WP) has been superb. He absolutely deserves the mop. -- Kicking222 02:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Lots of meaty edits and talk postings in which you can seen his reasoning, which is what I normally want higher edit counts for. Clearly knowledgeable in policy, cordial, and active in an area in which another admin will be helpful. - BanyanTree 03:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support A very good understanding of policies and a great editor as well. An inspiration to myself on a personal level. (And I am one week his senior in terms of editing on this project too!) --Siva1979Talk to me 04:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Standing on a chair and shrieking support KrakatoaKatie 05:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. - Mailer Diablo 06:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I've had the pleasure of at least one disagreement with A E Mouse. At the end of it I still tended to think that AEM was wrong and I was right, but I went along with him anyway as (i) I wasn't so interested in the issue and (ii) he had been so civil that it seemed churlish to continue to disagree. If I'm going to be in an argument with anybody, I hope AEM's the one. (Who knows, next time I might actually win.) -- Hoary 09:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, this unknown rodent is known to me from many places around the project, I have seen nothing but good from him. Guy 10:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Seen him/her around, and impressed. utcursch | talk 12:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Mmmm.. Porn is good. Thought he was an admin already — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I've too seen him about, and I'm glad to have the opportunity to support him.-- danntm T C 14:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support User has an adorable username :), and fantastic demeanor. Obviously trustworthy. Xoloz 15:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support ;) --Terence Ong (T | C) 15:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong Support - getting a guideline approved takes vast knowledge of policy --T-rex 15:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Thought he was an admin already. Eusebeus 16:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, no-brainer. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, not only a valuable contributor, but a pleasure to deal with him. Has shown good judgement and maturity, and above everything else, his unfailing kindness is nothing short of of a delight. Go Mousey! -- Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 00:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support looks good. -- Samir धर्म 00:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. support keep up the good work Mjal 02:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Don't see any admin-related issues. Jayjg (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per previous encounters and observations, welcome this mouse to the admin house. :o) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per above.  Doctor Bruno  07:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Everyking 08:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support per high quality contributions ˉˉanetode╦╩ 17:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support His answers to my questions adequately handle the issues raised by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The user also seems to have a large variety of edits to article space and has experience in the areas he wishes to use admin tools. JoshuaZ 19:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support per JoshuaZ after edit conflict. History of edits shows that this person can be trusted with the sysop tools. Silensor 19:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support per nom. Michael 20:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Need more admins. Haukur 20:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support as per aeropagitica. Olessi 23:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support per nom. Spark* 14:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support per nom.Mustafa AkalpTC 15:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. "More candidates like this one, pleaseTM! Support (obviously!) ++Lar: t/c 15:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Good contributor to articles even though it is porn. BTW, has any porn editor become an admin--Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 16:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. I was very confused about the porno incident, and once Anon defended his case, I changed my mind. Sharkface217 17:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. "Support' - User is honest and learns from mistakes. I believe they would use the tools well.-Localzuk(talk) 18:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Lol, pr0n support. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support If the porn incident had been part of a pattern then that would be different. Everything else looks good and there's solid community support (plus the mouse cited an essay I started). Durova 04:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong Support (was Oppose) -- I've spent about 45 minutes going though all the links and diffs. I feel much more comfortable with the amazon/Brandy Alexandre incident and I can understand how someone would make that mistake acting in good faith. In the process of all of this, plus looking at a bunch of other edits, I am very impressed with AnonEMouse. Good luck, --A. B. 18:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. SupportEMouse, my experiences with this mouse have been good. >Radiant< 23:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Admits to and learns from mistakes. Sounds like some people around here have never made any! ;) --Steve 01:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Was slightly uncomfortable after reading the diffs below, but I think you're more than capable of moving onwards and upwards. riana_dzasta 05:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support with cheese - learned from initial mistakes and shown good judgement since. Shell babelfish 06:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Yes--Docg 16:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Merovingian ※ Talk 00:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I have seen this contributor several times in action and was impressed by his professional actions and reactions. I believe that he will be a good admin. gidonb 02:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support I think the Pornstar/Jimbo incident was a good learning experience, which will make him an even better admin. Crum375 02:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Last day support - For those tough and pertinent questions asked to the Arbcom candidates :) -- Lost(talk) 08:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Bucketsofg 19:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Reluctant oppose. But very very strong oppose for now on policy issues not personal or competence qualifications.
    Let me begin by saying that my interactions with "Mr Mouse" have always been cordial and civil and worthwhile. I think this is the first time I have voted oppose in an Rfa. Maybe the first time I have voted in one at all. So I am sorry to do this. But I do not think the nominee meets the standards we should require for "trusted members" of the community entrusted with administrator powers. The main reason is this.
    Less than four months ago, he was one of a very small number of users strongly criticized by Jimbo Wales for bad behaviour in connection with a WP:PORNO article. [28] . He was not the most culpable offender. But he was one of several who saw nothing wrong with taking advantages in flaws in the Amazon.com web site security to find and publish personal information about a Wikipedia editor he believed to also be a porno star whose article he was debating. I agree 100% and more with what Jimbo said:
    I am very disappointed in the display of poor judgment shown here. Tracking down someone's real name based on a credit card verification of an amazon profile is the very definition of original research, in addition to being borderline stalking, and in extremely poor taste.
    Let me explain: no original research is a fundamental bedrock policy on Wikipedia. This means: unless you can confirm a controversial fact with a cite to an independent mainstream publication, you must leave it out of the article. This means: no attack blogs, no personal webpages, and for god's sake, I do not know why I have to explain this, it means no trying to make assumptions based on hunting down someone's profile on another website.
    If "Mr. Mouse" had reported this very unhappy incident in his answers to the standard questions above and explained his reasons for what he did, I would probably not be opposing him (unless he said something really inappropriate, which would be very out of character for him.)
    I am also disturbed about the sudden and not publicized enough adoption of the WP:Pornobio guideline. I think thge way it was done does not show the respect of consensus and discussion that administrators must possess. I edit articles in this area regular to check they mee t WP:RS and WP:BLP. This is not a very pleasant thing to do. I don't do much of it at a time, but I have done a lot of it. But hardly anybody else is willing to do it. While "Mr. Mouse" alerted editors who he knew were sympathetic to him about the guideline, he did not alert me or others whose comments showed them to be less sympathetic. This was pretty much campaigning (although I don't think "Mr. Mouse" thought of it that way.)
    The bigger problem is this. There are no clear rules for establishing a notability guideline. This one had been controversial. Mr. Mouse did not ask for any comments on the process should be done. He just went ahead. He dreated his own process unilaterally. He set his own rules for deciding whether to consider older comments. He set his own rules for deciding when and how consensus for the guideline was proved.
    I hope I do not have to remind people about how unpleasant a place Wikipedia has been over the last year or more because of disputes over admins who create "rules" (policies or guidelines or anything else) this way. Userbox battles. Picture galleries. Wheel wars. All the unpleasantness that comes about because admins go forward this way. I don't like the pornobio guidelines, but they don't mean much to me. But we've already got at least one big public display of nastiness and rudeness from She-who-must-not-be-named which probably would have been avoided if there hadn't been this big rush to finish off a debate running for months on very short notice. Not very good notice, either. When a candidate has been this unilateral and implies Tony and Kelly are the admin models he wants to follow, i'm really worried, no matter how nice a guy "Mr. Mouse" has been.
    Last of all, I don't see what "Mr. Mouse" really needs or wants admin powers for right now. The whole set of WP:pornobios is a god-awful mess. Most of the articles don't meet WP:RS and WP:BLP. Even one of the articles "Mr Mouse" lists as an example of his good work, Vicca (I picked it at random), is cited to anonymous comments at IMDB, various advertising sites, personal pages, dressed up blogs but to none of the independent thirdparty source that Jimbo Wales so importantly pointed out were essential for articles in this controversial area.
    I am sorry to go on for so long. But I think this is important enough. "Mr. Mouse", please withdraw your nom, take the time that is really needed to clean up your project and its articles, and come back here next year with a real track record of improving Wikipedia. Not just creating lots of artciles -- some very good, many pretty bad -- about subjects that interest you. Explain that Amazon credit card mess to us. I'll be happy to support you then..Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 21:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that articulate and well thought out opposition. In short, I was inexperienced when Jimbo criticized me, and my action was done with best effort and intentions, see Talk:Brandy_Alexandre#Courtesy for the details. I didn't list the incident because it was shorter than the conflicts I did list - one edit, reverted, never restored. I did write there were lots of other conflicts, there are even more if you look. I did the guideline the best way I knew how, after researching, asking around, and notifying only 5 places: Village Pump, the 2 admins (whom I thoroughly expected to be against), the policy creator, and the Wikiproject; and not any of the dozens of people who actually used the guideline in AfDs. Vicca is cited with porn sources, but that's who writes about porn. However, they are not talk pages or message boards; and note that the facts in the article are not disputed or controversial. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Notwithstanding that I think AnonE to have been at least partially wrong as regards the use at Brandy Alexandre of the biographical subject's real name in view of the sourcing thereof, and irrespective of the substantive questions underlying the matter (which appear to be settled in view of AnonE's confession of error but which I'll leave to others in any case), it should at least be observed that, with respect to the "Amazon credit card mess", AnonE, IMHO, was exceedingly cordial and, having appreciated the absence of a consensus for the inclusion of certain text and the disfavoring by Jimbo of such inclusion, immediately undertook to discuss, consistent with WP:BRD. Indeed, whatever may have been Mouse's failures to comport his editing with policy (about which I haven't a firm opinion), it cannot be said that he ever sought to act against consensus and or failed to remain wholly civil and logical even as others (e.g., Jimbo, especially here)—perhaps not unjustifiably—didn't meet the latter standard. (On another issue: I do, though, as Hullaballoo, hope that Anon means to suggest that, whilst he hopes to help the project by assuming some of the work previously undertaken by the surely prolific Tony and Kelly, he doesn't intend to act in the unilateral and magisterial (cf., ministerial) fashion for which each has expressed a preference.) Joe 20:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: Tony and Kelly - exactly. Thank you, Joe. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz --A. B. 19:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I now strongly support; see above
  2. Oppose. The candidate may have learned from the incident outlined by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and the criticisms from Jimbo. But it was still pretty recent and raises certain trust issues. I'd prefer to see more time pass before this candidate becomes an admin. Zaxem 01:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. I share many of the concerns of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Zaxem. While I don't deny Mouse acted in good faith and behaved fairly well throughout the incident, this doesn't change the fact it was (IMHO) a very serious incident. It hasn't been long enough so I still feel there are trust issues etc. The simple but sad fact is, sometimes no matter how well meaning we may be, we can make mistakes which can seriously affect other people. When we make the mistakes, often we have to live with the consequences of them. IMHO, one of the consequences of this is that Mouse is not suitable for adminship at this time. Perhaps in 6 months - a year but not now. Also, I share the concern about Mouse not raising it. There is AFAIK no limit on the number of issues you can raise. Obviously you should not mention every single incident you've been involved in. However this incident is serious enough that IMHO anyone who truly understood the seriousness of this incident would have mentioned it. Yes you probably should mention other longer disputes you were involved in as well but this incident should have beeb mentioned for sure. The fact it was not mentioned means IMHO that Mouse still does not truly appreciate the seriousness of this incident. Sadly therefore, I have to oppose. Nil Einne 12:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Unless I'm mistaken, the edit should be removed completely. I'm planning to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight and have it removed however I wait until this RfA ends to avoid confusing matters. Since it's been there for quite a while I guess there's no harm in leaving it there for much longer. Also, there are some other issues that I'm concerned about so I will be mentioning this elsewhere. I won't bring up the adminship thing. I just wanted to mention this so people don't think I have a vendetta against mouse. It's just that, having looked into the issue, there are some issues I feel may need to be addressed (primarily not to do with mouse anyway) Nil Einne 12:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I cannot find it in me to support someone who Jimbo has been critical of in the past, and given the past lapses in judgment I fear for the potential if this spills over into administrator-ship. -- ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 15:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yikes. I can't speak for your insides, but I can say that they seem different from mine. For I can certainly find it in me to support somebody who the boss has been critical of in the past. Whatever the boss is, he's not a mufti, a pope or a demiurge. -- Hoary 15:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral I want to support AnonEMouse, as I have seen he is a solid Wikipedian who has made valuable contributions in his time here. However, I am Neutral per User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I know, it is in the past and he has apologized for it, but it still is a somewhat major offence. Anon exploited a website in a possibly illegal (or at least, amoral) act in order to verify the identity of a fellow Wikipedian. When accused of stalking by Jimbo himself.... I'm afraid I'm going to have to vote neutral. I'm sorry Anon. Changed to support. Sharkface217 03:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait a sec... are you sure it was AnonEMouse who did the weird Amazon stuff? It sounded to me from Wolfowitz's post like Mouse just said it was okay when someone else did it, not that Mouse did it himself. I'm not familiar with the incident, though. --Allen 05:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your kind words, and I can certainly understand your uncertainty supporting someone Jimbo censured - I was wrong, no argument. However, from your later words, I suspect you may have misunderstood the incident. It sounds like you think I tried to defeat some kind of security measures or something; I just read a user page, much like our user pages here. Here are a bunch of them: [29]. Unlike WP, though, where anonymity is assumed, Amazon will vouch for your RealName if you want them to. I was wrong using it as a reliable source, but no "exploit" was involved. There are more details at the top of the RfA. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:45, 4 November 2006 (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