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

Ben MacDui[edit]

Final: (90/2/0); ended 19:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ben MacDui (talk · contribs) - MacDui, who hails from Scotland, has been a member of Wikipedia since September 2006. I first met MacDui when I became his admin coach in April 2008. He's made over 11,500 edits, across all namespaces. A geographer by day, MacDui has written a number of articles relating to the geography, geology and fauna of Scotland. Six of his works, four lists and two articles, have been recognized as featured content. Ten other articles that Ben has worked on have achieved Good Article status. On the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces, Ben actively participates in maintenance and discussion for WikiProject Scottish Islands and WikiProject Scotland, among other things. He wishes to participate at WP:AIV and CSD, both areas which he has plenty of experience in. Through my admin coaching practices, I believe Ben has sufficiently demonstrated a comprehensive knowledge of Wikipedia policy. Ben is a civil, level-headed user who's here to help improve the encyclopedia, whether it be through article writing or vandal reporting. I believe he's demonstrated both a need for the tools and his excellent abilities in dealing with admin-related issues. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am pleased to accept the nomination. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 18:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I realise I should probably try to impress with a blizzard of acronyms, but in truth my ambitions are fairly modest. I'd like to track unwatched Scottish articles, I occasionally go on new page patrol and would be happy to assist on speedy delete backlogs and other XfD issues. I recognise I have a fairly low tolerance for persistent vandals, and would probably aim to improve my skills in this area, but slowly. I have no doubt that there are numerous tasks I am not even aware of - I think the key issue is to engage with enthusiasm wherever that may lie.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: From an objective point of view my best editorial contribution is possibly Renewable energy in Scotland which reached FA in 2007, although I have a great fondness for the story of St Kilda and the Fauna of Scotland. I'd like to think that helping to create WikiProject Scottish Islands has been useful.
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: Watching and editing Scotland can be tiresome and controversial. I'd like to think I have learned to be patient - common sense usually emerges. I also takes long breaks from watching it every now and then. I don't think it's a secret that I have found the creation and use of Template:Infobox UK place something of a nuisance in a Scottish context. I'd like to think I have made my points in a constructive way, avoided unnecessary controversy, and remain on good terms with those I have disagreed with, but that's for others to judge. FAC & FLC can be stressful: I try to remind myself that I am volunteering to do something inspiring and useful that involves engaging with others with a similar intent. This even works sometimes.

Additional question from Gwynand:

4. In your answer to question one, you state "I recognise I have a fairly low tolerance for persistent vandals, and would probably aim to improve my skills in this area, but slowly." Could you further explain this, specifically addressing your use of "low tolerance". As a follow up, do you feel you are ready on day one to correctly use the block tool?
A: To answer your questions in reverse order, yes, I am confident I would be ready. I would probably choose to act cautiously at first and seek advice from the more experienced on the first occasion or two until I was certain of my ground. Thank-you for asking about my "low tolerance". This refers to my occasional reports to AIV, some of which resulted in no action being taken. My understanding now is that a "final warning" is sometimes a misnomer, in that if an Anon IP receives one, then sins again, they are not necessarily blocked depending on the length of time between the two. This is not the place to be discussing anti-vandal policy, but what I would wish to avoid is taking what others might consider to be an unduly harsh approach.

Optional Question from Diligent Terrier:

5. When should a cool down block be used and why?
A: Never, except of course on an unforeseen occasion for which the Fifth Noble Truth might apply.

Required ;) Questions from NuclearWarfare:

6. What is the difference between a block and a ban and when should either be issued?
A. A block, which is a technical means to stop an account or IP from editing, is intended to be preventative rather than punitive. Blocks are issued by administrators. A ban is aimed at a specific user and represents a community decision that they may not edit either all or a part of Wikipedia.
As I suspect this question is being asked to ensure that I am aware of WP:BP and it would probably bore other readers for me to quote from that policy at length in answer to the second part, I wonder if we could take that as read? I'd be happy to cut and paste if you prefer. If you would like a more elaborate answer I doubt I could do better than Ddstrech's bar trouble analogy.
7. Please answer two of the exercises at the AGF Challenge 2 and post the answers here or a link to your answers.
A. Answers to questions 2.5 ("How long is yours?") and 2.7 ("No original research!") from this exercise are here.
8. Please define notability in your own words. How would you classify a subject as "non-notable"?
A. To cut to the chase, notability in the context of Wikipedia is defined by WP:NOTE. This states that the requirement is for a topic to have received significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject under consideration.
In the electronic age, this allows for a very large number of potentially notable subjects and we will all have our interpretations and limits. My own bias lies towards the long-lasting rather than the famous but transient, and I therefore find myself starting stubs about obscure mosses and islands with millennia old history rather than sports personalities or TV sitcoms. Although I don't personally think of the last as being important (to me) I wouldn't argue that they lack present-day notability. I would personally classify a subject as "non-notable" if it had never received coverage in a national newspaper, an academic journal, or other similar publication, or if such coverage was likely to be ephemeral. I am aware that there are specific Wikipedia protocols for different subjects.

Optional question from Nsk92

9. Suppose a user blanks their userpage that prior to the blanking contained substantial copyvio material. Would it be appropriate to speedily delete this userpage under any of the CSD criteria?
A. For the above answers I only needed to check on a few details. I'd like to confess right way that I really would have been guessing if I'd tried to answer this question without undertaking a little research first. I am assuming the infringement is blatant and that we are not dealing with an established user who has been the subject of a malicious prank or some other complex circumstance (which might involve additional problems).
Wikipedia:Copyright problems states at the top of the page "ATTENTION: For blatant copyright infringements: " action 1 is "If there is a clean revision in the page history, revert to it." Then as step 2, "If not, request speedy deletion". Thus, if there is no clean revision, the answer would seem to be "yes" per WP:CSD - although there are two problems here.
The first is an apparent inconsistency in the protocols. Lower down the page under "Instructions" it suggest that for blatant infringements a Speedy delete is appropriate and that. " An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to delete it or not. You should not blank the page in this instance." The "Attention" label notwithstanding it looks to me as if deletion/re-creation is probably the preferred route in any case. WP:CSD would seem to support this. However, this is the source of a second and less crucial conundrum.
The first step appears to be notifying the page's creator, then deleting the page, then re-creating the page "from earlier non-infringing page content if available". The suggested use of Template:Nothanks-sd would probably not work as there may be no way of informing the page's creator of the impending or actual doom of a page if the page concerned is a User page. (Not the kind of sentence you'd expect to see in a FA, is it?) I presume some post-hoc message of similar nature could be cooked up. Candidly, I wouldn't expect to embark on such a venture without some kind of experienced support. Feel free to use the Trout if I have missed something. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 16:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from BigHairRef

10.Regarding WP:CONSENSUS, when required to judge consensus, what weight do you give to a "Support/Oppose per X" or a similar !vote (X being another user who has !voted) without further explanation; assuming that the reason that X gave was not obviously applicable and the only likely reasoning?
A. The short answer is "not much". The longer answer is that consensus is not (supposed to be) a vote and that "your opinion is much more effective when you provide a rationale during a poll, not just a simple vote". This has to be doubly so if the "vote" appears to rely on an irrelevance. There might be a circumstance in which it would be worth trying to elicit a more useful contribution and I would in any case try to avoid making too many assumptions about a contributor's reasoning. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 17:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Bigvinu

11 Will you answer Questions for RfA Candidates —Preceding comment was added at 18:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
A. No - or at least not in this context. It is not that the questions lack value (although I think there is an unfortunate typo in the first one) as that even if it is only a minor conflict of interest I would feel a little uncomfortable answering a series of questions from someone who is also a current candidate. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 19:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support as nominator. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support active editor especially in Scotland related articles. Good luck! --Cameron* 19:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Active editor, looks like he would make a great admin :). --Mifter (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support A good editor. Ready for the mop.--LAAFan 19:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support honest answers in questions Keegantalk 19:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. From Scotland :D weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Why not??? America69 (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Excellent editor and has been through admin coaching. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support RMHED (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. per WBOSITG. Nick (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support—superb mainspace editing. I'm slightly concerned at the AfD comments here (a "delete per nom" when sources are easily available on Google News) and here (if an article is salvageable, improvement is a better course of action than deletion); that said, his comments at AfDs are generally sound and well-judged. His excellent work around the wiki leads me to believe that he will use the sysop tools judiciously and without abuse or misuse. EJF (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support A trustworthy editor with lots of main space experience. I am sure he will use the tools well. GameKeeper (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Ready to be an administrator Gary King (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Trustworthy, detailed nom and solid, honest answers to the questions. Mainspace contribs look stellar. Absolutely a net positive to the project. GlassCobra 21:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support good user. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - seems like a very trustworthy Wikipedian :). And there is some brilliant article work there. Nothing to suggest he wouldn't make a fine sysop. :) Lradrama 21:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Signature follows: Naerii 21:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Will be a great admin. LittleMountain5 22:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 23:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter. PhilKnight (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - Seems to be to be a good editor —Preceding unsigned comment added by My Account (talk • contribs) 23:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. No obvious trust issues, great with mainspace-editing. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 23:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support from my experience and looking through contribs - trustworthy and has the bests interests of Wikipedia at heart - Peripitus (Talk) 23:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support as candidate works on good and featured articles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - Superb. I can definitely see a mop in your future. ;D L337*P4wn 00:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. He is a very good editor, he will make a good administrator. --Carioca (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Like your articles, like your answers to the questions above. Best of luck. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Glad to see you as a candidate! I've had some small interaction with Ben before, and he's a friendly, knowledgeable, and dedicated encyclopedist. VanTucky 02:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, per KurtWeber (I figured one pointy !vote deserved another.) Seriously though, strong support based on my view that there is currently a dearth of "writing admins" and this candidate would definitely be one of those. Also, I saw no red flags in the contributions, and per my belief that good editors should get the mop and bucket when they ask, I have no trouble supporting this candidate. S. Dean Jameson 03:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. user:Everyme 05:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support: I think Ben MacDui would make a fine administrator.  DDStretch  (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Writes articles (zomg). —Giggy 05:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Articles"? What is it about that new fad? user:Everyme 05:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. His content work is top-notch, and I sincerely hope he continues to produce such content if and when he is promoted. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - Already seemed like a strong candidate, and the slight concerns I had over preparedness for tools were quelled by intelligent answers to the questions. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 11:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Definately. I came across this user when I was very green and he was kind and helpful. Will make a good admin. (Yes my space bar is broken.:).Harland1 (t/c) 11:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Candidate is very well qualified for this position; there seem to be no concerns with his editing or conduct. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Excellent nomination, competent user. Rudget (logs) 16:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Good addition. MBisanz talk 16:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Sure. I examined your talkpage editing as you edit in areas that can become rather heated. I was very impressed with your composure on Talk:Scotland and other pages and have no worries that you would misuse or abuse admin tools, and will only benefit Wikipedia and other Wikipedians by having them. Easy support. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. I like his mainspace edits. Oy! Support Scottish admin, mates! - Darwinek (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support per Q5 and Q6.--Koji†Dude (C) 17:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support A fine candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - satisfies my personal criteria for adminship, don't see any particular reason to oppose. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support — seems clueful. –xenocidic (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - looks great. Bearian (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. What Nishkid64 said. Pure dead brilliant candidate, by the way. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Strong support I have had the pleasure of many interactions with MacDui and have no doubt he will make a fine admin and is eminently mop-worthy Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support per Q&A. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support based on answers to questions and high level of community respect. Townlake (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support definately! As per nom and contribs. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Dedicated contributor and, most importantly, a skilful content creator. "Mop and bucket to checkout 1" --Cactus.man ✍ 10:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support fully. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Strong Strongest possible support: A reasonable, articulate, and intelligent editor whose contributions as an admin would be most welcomed. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Upgraded to "strongest possible support," for the same reasons that I first gave "strong support," plus the fact that he's probably in the 99th percentile when it comes to all of these reasons. Superb response to the Astrotrain situation below, by the way. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. An excellent editor with a cool head and judicious temperament. Will use admin tools carefully and will not make rush decisions. Nsk92 (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Good editor. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 21:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support, so long as it does not stop him contibuting! MacDui is a great asset to Wikipedia. Finavon (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - Is it acceptable to close this under WP:SNOW ;) ? NuclearWarfare (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support A good editor, and trust worthy. tabor-drop me a line 00:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. He's a good candidate. Axl (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support :) Midorihana みどりはな 11:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support good candidate who should make a good admin. Should take no notice of the tiresome nonsense of people like Kurt. --Allemandtando (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support, looks like a good candidate. No concerns here. ~ mazca t | c 13:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Aye Whereas I share some of Kurt's concerns in principle (see his Opp below), I'm entirely confident they do not apply to Ben MacDui, whom I think quite excellent. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - Low tolerance for persistent vandals is just what we need. I also like this editor's views on notability.--Michael WhiteT·C 17:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support He is very dedicated to Wikipedia. My Account (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indenting duplicate vote Gary King (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - Excellent mop potential. Good luck! gidonb (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Thought he was one. Haukur (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - even though he's not a sassenach. jimfbleak (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, he seems to have many great qualities of an administrator: calmness, enthusiasm, respect, politeness, and willing to look things up when he doesn't know them. -- Natalya 15:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. support JoshuaZ (talk) 17:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. I'm sort of familiar with the user (just from seeing him around), and coaching makes him an even better candidate. Just keep up the good work! Malinaccier P. (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Per answer to Q7 (the AGF challange one). Hobartimus (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support An excellent wikipeidan would make a great admin --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Great content-writing contributor, no issues. —dima/talk/ 03:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support good 'pedia builder. net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support — Level-headed, good communication skills. --Van helsing (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support more than a few great articles under his belt. would make a great admin in my opinion.--Celtus (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support often encountered this editor on Scottish articles. A good editor, satisfactory answers to questions, should make a good admin. (Oh, and I still have to climb Ben MacDui) NSH001 (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - I will, however, change to oppose if oppose #2 is diffed and I agree.  Asenine  19:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  80. Support - net positive, an asset to the project. Tiptoety talk 03:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - why not? Deb (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Some of the answers are v. good. It's also rare that a Q1 answer is both impressive and amusing; most attempts at humour there are catastrophic. So a well-qualified admin candidate with a nicely judged sense of humour... hmm, let me think about this one... --Dweller (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. See no issues here. Jayjg (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support: I dont see any issues with him. Good and well qualified admin candidate. I like people who works actively on WikiProjects..Keep up the good work. Best wishes -- Tinu Cherian - 04:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Go for it!--Poetlister 11:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Clearly clueful and beneficial to the project.  Frank  |  talk  12:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support seems well prepared...Modernist (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support met this user only briefly on Talk:Scotland, which seems a pity as he has a calm collected approach to editing. Welcome. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Great mainspace editing, can be trusted with the tools. Good luck mate! Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 13:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support: --Bhadani (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose — RFA gamer. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's an RFA gamer? Do you know offhand if he plays on the Xbox, Nintendo Wii, or the Sony Playstation? And is an RFA game anything like a first-person shooter? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 23:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more like an MMORPG. Naerii 23:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kurt has a right to his views, even though he opposes every RFA, they still pass. Don't worry, his one !vote won't keep Ben from passing. America69 (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kurt, I don't want to badger you and I actually share to a certain extent your concerns about admin coaching. But I don't see how it applies here. I'm afraid of trained admin monkeys. But admin coaching certainly couldn't spoil the natural cluefulness of a candidate like Ben MacDui. In cases like this one, I actually endorse admin coaching as a means to the end of shortening the learning curve. You see, the training thing doesn't in itself worry me at all; it's the combination with a preexisting monkey aspect that does in some cases. But clearly not here. user:Everyme 05:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose- has WP:OWN issues with relation to Scottish articles Astrotrain (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you elaborate on that? That's a very valid reason to oppose, I just haven't seen any particular evidence of it myself as yet. ~ mazca t | c 22:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I will change my upcoming support vote if you provide some diffs for this, when you give them please message me. Thanks.  Asenine  19:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
    I would like to see diffs to back up this accusation or else have it withdrawn. I have watched MacDui's talk page for well over a year and have never seen any accusations of ownership on it. I am not familiar with Astrotrain, but note that his or her talk page is full of warning, probation, and block notices. To me this suggests the editor with OWNership issues might not be MacDui. Your mileage may vary, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that this diff which is indicative of a disagreement over content in Scotland, and made only a few minutes before the oppose opinion was posted here may be relevant. Taken together with the discussions surrounding this on Talk:Scotland the context becomes clearer. My own opinion is nothing would have justified an oppose opinion from myself on the basis of what I read in that disagreement or talk page discussion.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Yeah, something smells fishy about this oppose. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, thanks for the info guys. I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything dodgy about Ben MacDui that might change my vote on the RfA, but I don't see anything there that worries me at all. :) ~ mazca t | c 20:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the grounds for this opposition quite untenable. I have seen many of MacDui's edits and have always found him to be tactful and diplomatic when challenging edits. He is entitled to a degree of satisfaction from the vast improvements he has made - he has nurtured WP:WPSI (virtually single-handed), but has welcomed the contributions of others. The edit history of the Scotland article is littered with vested interests, and many weaker editors (myself included) appear to have given up on it. My only fear in supporting his nomination is the transfer of his skills away from editing at the chalkface. Finavon (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank-you for you kind remarks and I trust your fears are groundless. Astrotrain and I have crossed swords on a few occasions. It would be wrong of me to speculate as to his specific reasons for opposition, but whatever they are, he is a dedicated Wikipedian and I consider his input as a form of compliment. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 19:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless Astrotrain explains his aversions with cause, no credence need be given to these. I have been in some colourful discussions with Astrotrain and although I can conclude that he is a good editor, I found him (in my opinion) to be quick to jump to conclusions about the motivations of other editors. While I think he is entitle to his opinions, I do not think these opinions need reflect the true actions of another. Yours Czar Brodie (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
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