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

Czar[edit]

Final: (97/3/2) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 18:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Czar (talk · contribs) – I am glad to nominate one of our strongest available candidates for an administrative position in Czar. A Yale University alumnus, currently at Wisconsin, Czar has been in the project since 2005 and extremely active since October 2012. He is active in writing content, especially with Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games with four featured articles, over 40 good articles and dozens of did you know, finishing fourth overall in the 2014 WikiCup. He is active in WP:AFD, where he usually closes non-admin discussions, and also been involved in move requests. As we need more content oriented administrators, I feel that Czar will make an excellent admin. Thanks Secret account 22:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Co-nomination from TParis[edit]

I'd like to nominate Czar for the admin bit. Before I even start, I'd like to impress everyone with Czar's featured content work which speaks volumes to their talent and character. Please make particular note of this editor's reviews and mentoring at the bottom of the page as well. Czar is helpful and clueful in every way. Besides valued content work, they also spend a lot of time performing maintenance and deletion sorting at WP:AFD. And while the candidate doesn't have a wealth of experience in CSD, they have shown to be competent in both article and file space criteria. Besides maintenance work, Czar also had dozens of DYKs and although they haven't mentioned an intention to work that area, I hope they may see the need and eventually approach the DYK project to lend a helping hand. Here, we have an editor with competence with both content and maintenance and an even temper. I've read through his 2013 archives and I find him to be polite in all of his discussions and I even see current admins complimenting him on his non-admin closures. We've got a great admin right here, folks.--v/r - TP 08:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Co-nomination from Dennis Brown[edit]

For me, Czar is a familiar name, but I still had to do some digging. The reason being is that I see him doing sensible things all over the place, intelligent work at AFD that kind of thing, but we've never edited together, and he tends to not be all that flashy. I probably have paid a bit more attention to his opinions because they always insightful rather than bland hyperbole, so they were worth noticing. All and all, I assumed he was just a better than average editor. So I dig, and find 33k edits, experience with new editors, many Good Articles, and so on, and so forth..... Pretty soon, you ask yourself, "Why isn't he an admin already?" He has the skills, he has the demeanor, the experience; he simply lacks the tools. That is why we're here, to ask the community to grant the tools to someone who can not only use them, but use them wisely, and to the benefit of us all. Dennis - 2¢ 22:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I greatly appreciate your confidence, and accept with gratitude czar ♔ 18:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[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: AFD closures, technical moves, and history merges. I'm satisfied between writing articles and my AfD participation, in which I think I've shown sufficient discretion, understanding, and clue, and would like to return the favor for the help I've received. If I were to branch out, I would do so cautiously.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm proudest of my collection of video game assets released as free use and WP advocacy (teaching a WP class at a high school, running edit-a-thons, helping dispel educators' misunderstandings about how WP works) because I think they have the broadest reach. However, I am primarily here to write and I presume the more popular answer would be the number of "recognized" articles I've produced. Though I prefer not to keep stats, I accept that some find counting a reassuring act. For a list of my DYKs and recognized content, please see the talk page. I'm particularly happy with my work on Menacer, Fez, and the "education" topic sector of the encyclopedia.
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: Nothing particularly remarkable or more than to be expected. No disagreements that have flared up into a full-blown "conflict". I prefer to handle situations with a strategy of deescalation. This either means to align and work it out together, or to dispassionately extricate myself by bowing out. For two recent AfD dispute examples, see The First Book of Napoleon and Shemford (1, 2). In any event, I've never gone to war or even to a noticeboard, largely because I'm uninterested in letting it get to that point.

Optional question from Townlake

4. Why doesn't your signature include a link to your talk page? Do you think that makes it easier for inexperienced users to communicate with you?
A: Can't recall that ever being an issue, but I would certainly accommodate if I had any actual indication to that effect. I think it's nicer to be routed through a calming user page so that other editors may better understand where I'm coming from before leaving a reply. I'm not inflexible on this, but I imagine it's more of a talk page conversation.
n.b. I decided to forward my user page to my talk page and revamped my page/sig soon after writing the above czar ⨹ 15:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from Kunalrks

5. You are seen to be mainly active in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Would you like to remain active, similarly, for other Wiki projects as well, after you gain Adminship?
A: While most of my vetted content is certainly in the games space, I think it's important to remember that I have spent a great amount of time on non-games articles: dozens of DYKs and a half-dozen GAs in education, women's history, art, music, and other subjects (and that's not including the bulk of my contributions that, like most editors, I haven't brought to vetting processes). As for the WikiProject side of things, I only post more often at WT:VG than at other WikiProjects (education, visual arts, feminism) because there is much less activity at the latter. (I think this says more about the state of WikiProjects and the communal culture of certain WP editor constituencies than about my own interests.) I spend most of my non-wiki life reading and writing about the history and philosophy of education, and it was fully my intent to stick to art and education (two very underserved areas), but I have gradually found that the video games space has more activity and thus better editor resources (more capacity for quality peer reviews, better communal guidelines and support), so I spend more time and am grateful for the camaraderie there, as it has made my time here most enjoyable. I still edit in other areas, and my draftspace is full of difficult drafts from non-games topics that I look forward to finishing.

Question from Dirtlawyer1

6. Hi, Czar. This is the first time I have ever asked a candidate question during an RfA, and these are not intended to be trick questions, but a straightforward exploration of your present understanding of the Wikipedia notability and reliable source guidelines per WP:N and WP:RS, respectively. I'm looking for a two to three-sentence answer to each subpart that alleviates the concerns raised by Mkativerta below. So, ----
(a) Please explain the relationship of Wikipedia's concept of a "reliable source" to Wikipedia's concept of "notability."
(b) Please explain the relationship of Wikipedia's concept of an "independent source" to Wikipedia's concept of "reliable source."
(c) Please explain the relationship of Wikipedia's concept of an "independent source" to Wikipedia's concept of "notability."
(d) Please explain when you believe that it is appropriate to treat a non-independent source as a reliable source, and what additional precautions you might use or steps you might take when treating a non-independent source as a reliable source.
(e) Please discuss what you may have learned about notability, independent sources and reliable sources from the AfDs cited by Mkativerata below (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shemford, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trade In Detectives, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Directed Studies at Yale University.
Again, this multi-parter is not intended to be deceptive or "tricky," but to be an opportunity for you to address the concerns raised and to demonstrate that you fully grasp these important concepts related to AfD and other deletion work. Cheers.
courtesy collapse long answer czar ♔ 02:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: A source is reliable when its publisher has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Reliability is one prong of the general notability guideline (often shortened to just "notability" or N), which also requires distance from the source (independence) and enough material to write a substantial article (significant coverage). This is a formal way of saying that it's impossible for us to carry a neutral article if we can't find enough secondary, vetted (independent, reliable) information on the topic. Once we say we have enough secondary, reliable coverage for an article topic, we go write the article content using the secondary, reliable coverage we found, but can add passing mentions and self-published sources to fill gaps, though those links aren't of much consequence in the prior notability discussions.
I think that should be enough, but briefly: (a) A source can be both reliable and not useful towards notability if it comes from an editorially sound place but does not not meet the other GNG prongs (depth for sigcov, independence). E.g., a NYT article about something internal to the NYT is not independent and is not a useful component in determining the cultural impact of that internal event. Or a bunch of brief, passing mentions in various NYT articles but no in-depth reports shows a lack of sigcov. (c) Same for independence—a source can be distant from a topic but have too little editorial control to be trusted (e.g., non-expert analysis within a blog post), which makes it unfit for use in an article and unfit for notability considerations. (b) I think this follows, but unless it's being used as a self-published source, a source that is either too close to the subject (non-independent) or lacking a reputation for accuracy (unreliable) is not good for use in an article and unfit for notability considerations. A local newspaper can be independent (third-party coverage) to an event, but be unreliable due to lack of editorial control. A source can be reliable but not third-party, like the NYT example above.
(d) A non-independent source would never be "treated as" a reliable source because they are two different qualities... but affiliated sources can be used as a self-published source or source about itself for specific, non-exceptional claims about itself and in those cases would have some authority on the subject (similar to reliability). I personally only ever touch them for a company's descriptive information about a product of theirs, a person's own posts for biographical information, or personal claims within an (authentic) interview.
(e)
I think I've already shown my understanding of the above ideas in my AfD history. I usually refer to the individual prongs of the GNG in my comments. I wouldn't say that these were exactly learning moments, but I think they show some prejudices against certain kinds of sources. I'm not oblivious to overtones of promotionality, but I'd like to think that an actual investigation into the details of each questioned source will show the materials I've collected to be not promotional, but independent, reliable, and sufficient in quantity for the GNG.
  • Directed Studies: The issue of the Yale Alumni Magazine (YAM) is a nonstarter. Lists of sources at AfD are traditional put in order of decreasing usefulness: the secondary, independent, perhaps dedicated coverage first (to meet the GNG), the important (but briefer) mentions closer to the end, and anything else interesting last. In this case, I listed the YAM last (seventh) as interesting for the program's legacy (it was mainly about a similar program for alumni) but no one would actually interpret me as proposing that the YAM was the basis for a GNG claim on its own. While I wouldn't cite the YAM for laudatory claims either, it would be a mistake to call it unreliable. (I teach high schoolers how to use Wikipedia. Checking editorial policy is RS 101.) Its editorial quality is sky high, considered reliable by the most reliable of sources (a preferred metric for accuracy), and is editorially independent from the university. The source was never intended be used for anything more than describing a spin-off program. I still think this topic meets the GNG, and you can see the sourcing for yourself at my new draft. I have sigcov between the NYT sources and AfD links.
  • Shemford: DGG has said in our dialogues (linked above) that he is going to undelete Shemford in lieu of taking it to delrev. A few hours before it was deleted, I completely rewrote it to be an acceptable DYK, and expect it to be restored shortly. (It needs to be renamed "Shemrock and Shemford".) I asked towards the end of the AfD why the other respondents did not reply about my sources. They didn't check behind the paywall, so I linked a temporary PDF, which is still live and has more than enough for the GNG skeptical (there's more, though). I think they will appear promotional at first blush, say with a quick skim, but a closer look will show that the articles are (almost) all coming from reliable foreign newspapers independent of the topic and meeting the GNG. I credit any difference in expected tone to our regional differences in the English language, as it would be straightforward systemic bias to discount their main newspapers for their reportage style. I stand by my search.
  • Trade In Detectives: It's risky to be the first to take a stab at certain AfD topics. I found multiple vetted and reliable video games sources, and I think my "weak keep" !vote was appropriate. These sources cannot be both "spam" and reliable at once, and these publishers have been vetted (with consensus) as reliable. The correct venue for disputing that would be at the WP:VG/RS. Back to the GNG, there is enough (sigcov) from the small sources I listed to write a basic article for the company, at least approaching DYK length. I still think it could have been kept, but I said it was a "weak" case for a reason. While we should strive for consensus, we shouldn't be afraid of disagreeing when we have defensible rationales.
  • I'll also note that I've shown my understanding of the policies on verifiability and notability across hundreds of AfDs (where I either !voted, just commented, or closed), across dozens of GA/FA reviews (my own and others), and as a regular in WPVG's source vetting decisions. I try to treat those with whom I disagree generously and prefer to ask for clarification so as to guess and insinuate as little as possible. I've been doing AfD for a while and have confidence in my craft. For the sake of completeness, I want to add that the Wisconsin 1945–1971 source is not an alumni mag but a book in a highly regarded institutional higher ed history series (see reviews on JSTOR). There are plenty other sources more independent to prove the TAA's notability, if need even be. Also, the TAA clearly doesn't end in 1971 and all are welcome to continue to build the article.
Additional question from SNUGGUMS
7. Admins are often known to edit a broad variety of articles. It has been noted that you most often edit those relating to video games. If you had to branch out further, what types of articles could you imagine yourself working in?
A: I mentioned this in Q5, but I already do work on plenty of non-game content. I've written GAs on an experimental 1920s college program, a famous English professor, the historiography of slave children, a math professor and his number theory program for gifted children, a basketball statistician, a Czech senator, and a Chilean anonymous grave. And dozens of non-game DYKs (education, history, art, music, etc.) And I have dozens more in drafts. If you were to remove all of my games-related contributions, all of this would still remain. I edit in games mainly for the community, elaborated in Q5.
I should've been more specific; what types of non-video game articles would you work on more often if needed?
Not sure what "if needed" would mean, but I'm already very active in non-game article areas such as alternative education, education, and history. (E.g., see some of my recent, original drafts on big topics: A. S. Neill, Paul Goodman, The Demands of Liberal Education, Distinction.) Again, the main difference is that I get much less support when writing these articles, and am then less likely to take them to GA or through formal review processes.
Additional question from Salvidrim!
8. Is there any specific area or topic within Wikipedia that you plan on intentionally staying away from? For example, I avoid all race/religion/politics topics, and generally avoid working in administrative areas related to images, proxies and the Education namespace (due to lack of familiarity).
A: While I'm grateful for those who handle ANI, it interests me least of all admin functions. Otherwise, I see myself more limited by interest and time than by content/area boundaries. I believe I've shown my ability to branch out thoughtfully when so moved, e.g., I never thought I'd do hardcore template editing before ((GAN link)). (Though I'll repeat that I'm not particularly interested in admin areas outside what I scoped in Q1.) Between my demeanor and my preference for the quieter areas (on Wikipedia, at least), I'm not predisposed for getting into contentious debates. I'd sooner do anything else.


General comments[edit]

czar ♔ 01:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. Support He wasn't an admin already?! What?! --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. As nominator Secret account 18:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Strongest possible support - And, on top of everything that will make him an amazing admin, Czar is amongst the best content contributors I have had the pleasure of admiring. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support without hesitation (though not without a little investigation). Significant and effective contributor, demonstrates maturity. -- Scray (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support as co-nom.--v/r - TP 19:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support I think I was the first person to suggest to Czar, a year and a half ago, that he should consider adminship. I was impressed by his diligence and high degree of clue at AfD. He also has a ton of DYKs and a lot of Good and Featured material (which he is apparently too modest to list anywhere). (My mistake - the list is on the talk page of this RfA. That's still unusually modest; most of us keep a tally in our userspace.) He has good judgment and is clearly here to build an encyclopedia; he will make a great administrator. --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support Hail C-zar! The nomination statements and a look at this users history tells me we have another good admin on the way. Chillum 19:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support I'm happy that you decided to run. → Call me Hahc21 19:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support. czar has something depressingly few admins do: civility, with an ability to admit when he's wrong (or at least outnumbered in consensus) and move on without theatrics. While I don't personally concern myself with AfD, he takes an unusually active role there and appears to be generally well versed in all Wikipedia policies. Here's hoping the job doesn't ruin him, Tezero (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support I stumbled on prep for this RfA a week ago. Started digging through talk pages (archives at 2012, 2013 and 2014) and contribs early. I found many reasons to support and no reason to oppose. Clear, concise, helpful, enthusiastic and lots more show he will do excellent janitorial work. Please do put a link to your talk page in your sig (and not the tiny dot that was difficult to get a cursor over in an older sig). DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 19:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support Absolutely. With more people like czar, there's a good chance admins will have a good name! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support No concerns. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 19:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Happily Support - Numerous reasons to support! Quite experienced editor! - Kunalrks (talk), 07:56, 22nd November, 2014 (UTC).
  15. Support Looks chill, smart, accessible, and drama-free. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support Meticulous, experienced, civil, and has strong article contributions—I'm confident Czar would be a great admin. Altamel (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support but please do provide a link to your talk page in your sig. It's a courtesy to make it convenient to talk to you, without having to go through your user page every time. --Stfg (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support very diligent editor who has made fine contributions and who I have no doubt will use the mop well. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support No concerns. Rcsprinter123 (collogue) @ 22:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Strong support clueful editor who probably won't be afraid to make unpopular decisions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support one of the best non-admins on the 'pedia today --Guerillero | My Talk 23:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support Hafspajen (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support. Epicgenius (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support with no qualms. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support my interactions with him were positive. Qualified candidate. ///EuroCarGT 02:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support Jianhui67 T★C 03:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support – Well qualified. But I support User:Stfg's request that Czar should provide a link to his user talk page from his signature. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support Wait, your not already an admin? In all seriousness though, I support this user. I’ve seen Czar performing NACs and relisting quite frequently, and in my experience his judgment is sound. Some concern has been risen that Czar is too focused on video game articles, but I'm not worried about this since it demonstrates that he has had extensive editing and content creation experience. Plus, he’s written several good articles on topics with no relation to video games (some of which are listed here (mainly at the top of the list), so I don’t think its accurate to state that he has a “lack of broader experience”. As for the AfDs in the oppose section, Czar may have debatably made a mistake or two. But if you look at his total AfD record, you’ll see that he has voted in over 100 AfDs and that his vote matched the result over 85% of the time. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support. The lone oppose (at the moment) is reasonable, but I think Dirtlawyer has given a good reply. - Dank (push to talk) 04:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support I see no reason to oppose. Some issues about experience have been raised below, but learning never ends for anyone on Wikipedia and I believe the candidate is fully aware of this fact. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support Latest AfD log shows clue. Has the necessary content experience and no issues found with communication.  Philg88 ♦talk 09:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support Experienced user no reason to oppose.... All good! Good luck with this RFA! George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 13:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support - I have encountered Czar in a number of places, but most prominently on Sega Genesis related articles, partly in helping the subject reach featured topic status, but also in helping to control the never-ending POV pushing on the name, including a revised edit notice. I realise that video games is not considered a "highbrow" subject worthy of traditional encyclopedias, but WikiProject Video Games seem like a sensible group all working towards a common goal with a good understanding of policy, and from my experience with Talk:Sega Genesis/GA2 are willing to listen to and welcome outsiders like me (although Czar wasn't directly involved in that GA review). And as he said, he has done work outside of his chosen field of expertise; such as taking University of Wisconsin Experimental College to GA status. In all situtations his conduct has been civil and polite; I can't think of any flare-ups beyond maybe the odd blunt "go to the FAQ" for Sega Genesis / Megadrive wars. Provided he knows when to defer to an expert (I sporadically ask DGG for advice on academic-related articles myself) I don't forsee any obvious problems. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Fantastic editor. I knew he wasn't already an administrator, but I always felt that he should be one. Kurtis (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support per my statement above. Dennis - 2¢ 14:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support, echoing Stfg's suggestion to link to your talkpage in your signature. Miniapolis 16:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Support - no concerns whatsoever. GiantSnowman 17:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support per perfectly reasonable and reassuring answers given to multi-part Question 6. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support, largely based on long observations of the overall quality of this editor's participation at AfD. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support Seen Czar around at AFD and they always seem to hit the spot. No concerns. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Support The contributions to AfDs made by Czar that I've seen (relistings and non-admin closures) suggests he has a clue, so see no reason he can't handle the tools. Number 57 23:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Support - I've had first-hand experience of his excellent work at AFD and I trust all three of the nominators. St★lwart111 23:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support I see no indication, in fact the quite the opposite, that this editor wouldn't be able to comprehend and adjust his position based upon policy in situations where they are informed about the standing status quo. That puts me solidly on this side of the fence. Mkdwtalk 00:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Stephen 00:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Support per noms and answers to questions. Appears to be willing and able to learn in areas where knowledge is less than... encyclopedic. Not seeing any red flags indicating anything other than net positive. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Support - This editor received good nominations from strong nominators and answered the additional questions well. I encountered Czar in several circumstances, including at AFD and in other parts of article writing and promotion, such as DYK. I've often been impressed by this editor's writing talent, diligence and tenacity. This editor seems like a clueful and cool-headed person and should make a strong addition to the admin corps. I hope the candidate continues his trend of good content production if this process provides him with the admin bit. - tucoxn\talk 05:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Support Seen around even though we work in different areas most of the time. Never seen any problems. Like answers. Peridon (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Support --No concerns here..--The herald 12:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Support Thanks for volunteering. benmoore 14:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Support another editor whom I already thought was an admin :) Dusti*Let's talk!* 15:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Support Sure. Eurodyne (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Support per noms, should make an excellent addition. Yamaguchi先生 20:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Support—Yep. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Support Rzuwig► 21:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. A blessing for Czar? Of course. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Support. It's always nice to see someone who is not only level headed but is humorous is debates: "I read the sources (wasn't worth it, don't recommend it)"[1] "Pepper" @ 01:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Support I am pleased to support another excellent candidate. I appreciate the thorough answers regarding sources and notability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Support - I worked with him a bunch over the years, and I think he'd make a great admin. In my experience, even when we've disagreed on things here and there, his viewpoints have been valid and he has acted reasonably. I've never had any interactions with him that would make me think he'd misuse the tools. Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. At least two people here have invoked the term "badgering", so the candidate is certainly worthy. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Mesa back Czar Czar for admin...--Stemoc 02:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Stemoc: Hahaha, I think that's the best thing I've ever seen at RfA! --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ???? Peridon (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    An oblique reference to a cultural low point in the Star Wars saga. -- Scray (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Reply[reply]
    Ta. Peridon (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Support. I don't always agree with Czar at AfD, but he's batting a pretty good average. Given the concerns expressed here over his performance at AfD, I think he's also demonstrated patience and a willingness to explain himself. These are good qualities to have in an admin. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Support. I had very pleasant interactions with the candidate at Template:Did you know nominations/Depression Quest and Template:Did you know nominations/Crawl (video game), and I don't see any causes for concern. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. Support - I see nothing that concerns me, and the answers to the questions are all satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Strongly support He does deserve to be a admin. Wikipedian 2 (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Looks OK. Solid, hard-working and keen. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Support. A great contributor. Faizan 13:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Pleased to support this trustworthy candidate. Thank you for altering your signature to make it easier for inexperienced users to reach your talk page. Note to your nominators: It's always more impressive to let your candidate's record speak for itself than it is for you to jump in and start wall-of-text battles over oppose rationales. That said, good luck to Czar, and thank you for volunteering for this role. Townlake (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Support, per nom, and per the fact that nothing in the oppose or neutral sections concerns me enough to oppose this solid candidate. LHMask me a question 17:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Support Trusted user; no issues. Wifione Message 18:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Support - Really deserves the tools, I don't see any issues with this candidate. StevenD99 21:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. Support No evidence they will abuse the tools or postition.--MONGO 21:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Support A lot of great work at AFD. Could do with a lot more like you.--5 albert square (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. Support Fine AfD justifications, trusted co-nominators, reasonable behavior here. --GRuban (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. Support Good fit. — MusikAnimal talk 07:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. Support - NQ (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. Support - Oppose votes are unconvincing. Czar has regularly showed devotion to the project, in both contributing text and media. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Support - One of the oppose votes and one of the neutrals make some valid rationales for not being up here in this section, and they are expressed with dignity. I won't comment on the others. I am confident that Czar will take those two votes on board and perhaps reserve his judgment while taking his first baby steps in other admin areas. I trust him not to abuse the use of the tools and that is the most important thing of all. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. Looks like another good editor. Good luck VegasCasinoKid (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  80. Support A clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  81. Support No concerns. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  82. Support Good to go - "Mop please" Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 10:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. Support Mkativerata and DGG raise some valid points, but I am sure that this excellent editor has heard them and will learn from them. --Randykitty (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  84. Support gobonobo + c 12:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  85. Support: Looks like he could use the tools and has a strong edit history. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  86. Support - I am glad to support this well rounded candidate.—John Cline (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  87. Support Everything seems in order here. — xaosflux Talk 16:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. Support Very happy to support. Sam Walton (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  89. Support I've changed from neutral to support. I think there are areas tgat need more experience, but everything indicates that the candidate would be able and willing to learn, and that's sufficient. No new admin knows everything, and I think thecandiadate understands WP well enough to go slowly at first, and will always be careful. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. Support Czar looks to be a great candidate for the mop.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. Support See no reason at all to oppose. Wizardman 19:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  92. Support; clearly will be a net positive with the tools. The opposes are not concerning to me. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. Support. Wow, what an excellent candidate! I read with interest the first oppose, about reliable sources, and I think that the comment was reasonable but, given that we are talking about administratorship rather than editing here, I don't think that it will be a problem in closing AfDs. (And as for the other opposes, well, let's just say that I read them with a lot less interest.) The nominations and answers to questions impress me highly, and I think that this is a very clueful candidate who can be trusted to use the tools constructively. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  94. Support. The opposers do have valid concerns, but I don't feel that Czar will misuse the tools. A nomination from admins like Dennis Brown carries quite a bit of weight, as well. --Biblioworm 04:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. Support -- largely on the strength of the answers to the questions (including the long one in sourcing) and a flick through the non-game GA's. Also has high-trustworthy nominators, which is a good head start. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  96. Support per Biblioworm, who echoes my own thoughts quite nicely. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 11:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  97. Support Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Sorry. I recognise I'll be a bit of a loner here but I've seen too many red flags in terms of the candidate's lack of understanding of reliable sourcing and lack of recognition of promotional material. I recognise the candidate has a significant amount of audited content. But it is in a very narrow area: video games. The lack of broader experience shows when the candidate has ventured into other areas. First, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shemford, the candidate throws up a range of hits from ProQuest and LexisNexis to support keeping an article about an educational institution. I've seen a few of them through my own access. The candidate says "some are a little press release-y", which is an understatement. Kudpung and DGG rightly school the candidate about it here, which is an illuminating discussion. It seems the candidate pretty much !voted keep for spam, and justified the !vote with spammy sources. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trade In Detectives is another example where the candidate !voted to keep on an article that two far more experienced editors described as "a blatant spamvert" (Voceditenore) and "pure promotionalism" (DGG). And at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Directed Studies at Yale University, the candidate plumps for a university alumni magazine article as a reliable source about an academic programme run by the university itself. I think this is part of a general trend for the candidate to be far to ready to use sources without checking their reliability or their capacity to be used in context. An article space example, not about reliable sourcing but editorial judgment: Teaching Assistants Association is an interesting article, written by the candidate. The candidate seems to have had principally one book available to use for the article: "University of Wisconsin: Renewal to Revolution, 1945-1971". So the article gives us a very detailed history of the Teaching Assistants Association, up until 1971. And pretty much nothing after that. More discernment is needed in how the sourcing was used in this case, because the article is completely unbalanced. Did the TAA do very little after 1971? That's the impression the reader gets, but I suspect it's not true. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    First, I don't say this to undercut your argument, which is obviously in good faith and is well thought out and researched, but I DO notice a common theme: schools. We had a policy initiative on schools fail, and there are opinions all over the place, making this one of the least clear cut areas of notability on Wikipedia. One I'm intimately familiar with as an AFD regular for years. It is quite common to see many people, including admins, have vastly different ideas on what makes or breaks notability on schools. While some of the sources were lacking, many others were not. Pushing the limits of WP:RS, but doing so in plain sight at AFD where it is subject to review is not the same thing as being ignorant of the policy, in my opinion. This doesn't invalidate your concerns, but it is true that schools have always been a fuzzy problem at AFD for all editors and admin. Dennis - 2¢ 20:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My concerns about these AfDs have nothing to with the notability of schools. Whatever you think about the notability of schools, (a) we don't accept unreliable sources, and (b) we don't accept spam. Also, the Trade in Detectives AfD had nothing to do with schools. Other examples are about tertiary education institutions. So "schools" is not a "common theme" of my oppose, and notability has nothing to with it. Please don't mischaracterise and narrow the scope of my oppose; it does not look good coming from a nominator. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I couldn't have been more respectful in tone, nor did I mischaracterize. I'm saying that RS, N and Schools have always been a contentious and ill defined area in spite of many efforts to clarify, and this seems to demonstrate that. Dennis - 2¢ 21:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Your comment was very respectful. But both your comments suggest my concerns are about the notability of schools. They are not. My rationale is very clear: it is about the "lack of understanding of reliable sourcing and lack of recognition of promotional material". There's far less room for community disagreement on those matters. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Dennis, I don't think the issue is the notability of the universities or colleges; Yale University and the University of Wisconsin clearly are notable. However, when alumni magazines are used as sources for alumni bios, academic programs of far less notability than the universities, or, in Mkat's example, the UW TAs' association, then such sources must be used with far greater caution, and should not be used to establish the notability of the subjects because the magazines are not independent of the subjects of the Wikipedia article. I'm not ready to oppose on these grounds because I recognize that an RfA can be a valuable learning experience for the candidate. In any event, I think Mkat's concerns deserve clarification from the candidate -- don't you? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Mkativerata: I would generally accept a professionally written alumni magazine from a major university as a reliable source per WP:RS. I receive regularly published alumni magazines from four major universities as well as several additional alumni magazines from their respective constituent colleges and academic departments, and I would generally assert that their factual accuracy is equal to or greater than that of most daily newspapers. That having been said, if you are suggesting that such magazines are not independent of their subject matter for purposes of establishing the notability of the subjects covered per WP:N, I agree wholeheartedly. I would also agree that it is not appropriate to source an article mostly from references that are not independent for exactly the reasons you cite above. (I do support the use of such sources for basic facts and gap-filling, however, separate and apart from establishing the notability of the subject.) If there are issues regarding the candidate's understanding of these distinctions, I would suggest that you raise such issues directly in the questions section above. If you don't, I would be happy to seek clarification from the candidate. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think the fact that something is professionally written has anything do with the reliability of the source. Reliability comes from a combination of professionalism and independence. An alum magazine might get its facts right. But will it present all the facts? In context? --Mkativerata (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Per WP:RS, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." That's why we require multiple, independent, reliable sources to establish notability, and why multiple articles from the same publication still count as a single source. I would also suggest, in an abundance of caution and in support of your proposition above, that non-independent sources should almost never be the sole source regarding anything of a controversial nature or that is factually disputed. That being said, non-independent sources may be treated as reliable sources in accordance with the guidelines, but not as independent sources for purposes of establishing notability. Hence my request for clarification regarding your concern above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Alumni magazines vary widely. And the different components in them vary even mioe widely. The class notes section, for example, of any alumni magazine is thoroly untrustworthy for notability, and borderline even for the facts of the person's life. Editorially written bios of really prominent people can be another matter. Articles by notable alumni which they publish or reprint are as good as anything else that person has written. History of the school can be usable also. Components of the school, much less so--such a magazine is expected to describe everything ,and whether it's quality is more than a pure press release, depends on the magazine. For the one I know best Princeton University Alumni Bulletin, I would accept as a RS even for BLP everything except the class notes and class-secretary-written obituaries. Even here, since others may not realize the quality of the publication, I would avoid using it if better sources are available. It does not help an article to add more sources if the additional ones are of lower quality. Essentially, I'm saying the same thing as Dirtlawyer1 does in the paragraph above., and pretty much the same thing as Mkaiverata. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Strong oppose – candidate basically gamed the system in order to reach this year's WikiCup finals. Although he had been active all summer, he only updated his submissions page a week before the semifinals ended, effectively hiding his points from fellow competitors until the last possible moment and ensuring there would be no way for them to overtake the new 685 point deficit. He did this even after the WikiCup newsletter reminded everyone in the comp to "update submission pages promptly". Even if his actions were done in so-called "good faith", this demonstrates extremely poor judgment from the candidate – most certainly not the kind of admin material WP is looking for. If he can't be trusted in small matters, how can he be trusted with important responsibilities like the mop? —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hatted discussion moved to the talk page so as not to break the list numbering. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose per Bloom6132. Poor judgement doesn't bode well for adminship. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The oppose rationale Bloom bought up was a grudge against the editor with no difs that shows it was "poor judgement". And now we are stack opposing because of that. Editors like you are the reason why RFA is broken. Secret account 02:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Given that the RfA is at 61 to 3, I don't think the phrase "stack opposing" needs to be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Stack opposing"? That's going too far (but I still agree with what you're saying), but an unopposed RfA is just rare these days... --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I removed "stack" as it was one oppose vote and not multiple but my comment stands. Secret account 03:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Secret – I actually already provided a diff demonstrating the candidate's poor judgment above in my first reply to Ritchie – I'll assume it got buried so deep in the discussion that it wasn't noticeable to you or anyone else. The candidate admitted here that he "thought it wouldn't be a problem to just do it at once so I didn't miss anything", and that he "wouldn't have done it that way had [he] thought it would bother anyone". The notice to update promptly was placed in the newsletter sent out to the competitors, so even when assuming good faith, this severe lapse of judgment that is a poignant example of imprudence. As much as I respect you as well in this project, Secret, please do not dismiss this as merely a "grudge". Otherwise, it would be no different from the contempt and disrespect I've received above for voicing my views and legitimate concerns. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Bloom6132: You provided a diff, it just didn't show anything IMO. "Thought it wouldn't be a problem to just do it at once so I didn't miss anything" seems reasonable to me. Now let's drop this for good instead of repeating what all happened above with your !vote. --AmaryllisGardener talk 04:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wow, you're either unable to detect poor judgment, or you're just very dense. The fact that you continue to defend the candidate blindly by saying that it "seems reasonable" is another example of poor judgment. Then again, I'm not surprised – the candidate must have something in common with his core brigade of supporters. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Bloom6132: My support of Czar is not a personal one, I hardly have any association with him. I know I don't have poor judgement in this case, and seeing that the RfA is currently 67/3, I find it amusing that you think I'm an idiot for supporting him. The supporters above have not been influenced very well by your oppose, as you can see. --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    AmaryllisGardener – Of course no one would dare to oppose. They'll see how you and others in the candidate's tag team brigade badger those who do oppose. You guys have dished the same treatment to Mkativerata and Chris troutman, so rather than not being influenced by my opposition, voters would be influenced more by the desire not to be abused in a similar manner. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Bloom6132: "Abuse", "tag team brigade", I'm trying not to laugh at this hyperbole. I'm not in any kind of "tag team brigade" because I haven't had many dealings with Czar. Also, This oppose !vote discussion is mostly directed at you, not Chris. I wasn't even involved in Mkativerata's oppose discussion, because I didn't see anything ridiculous right off. --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "I'm not in any kind of "tag team brigade" because I haven't had many dealings with Czar". Then why are you defending him so vehemently then and slighting anyone who dares to oppose him? Dealings or no dealings, your constant unjustified barrage is abuse, and none of this would have escalated had you and the rest of his defence brigade been so keen in interrogating me and any other opposers. If there's anyone who needs to "drop this for good", it's you guys. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Bloom6132: I wasn't going to say anymore, but Secret replied to this !vote, I agreed but said that "stack" was going too far, then you start it all up again. Don't want to leave it, then fine, as long as you want to argue, I'll be here. --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm flattered that Secret thinks I'm "the reason why RFA is broken". I always figured I was a late-comer nobody on this project. Not that my opinion matters, but I think arguing with "oppose"rs is in poor form at best. Is the candidate so weak that their supporters can't ignore dissent? With the !vote count so heavily in support you'd think the opposition was making legal charges. After having seen so many RfAs go well I'm stumped everytime I see experienced Wikipedians screw the pooch. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Yet another example in an ever increasing trend of over anxious nominators and supporters piling on to "correct", "respectfully" the genuine, documented concerns of an editor who dares to oppose their last protege. If the other 2 nominators have the sense they will steer well clear of O#1 - although I have serious doubts whether at least one of them will be able to restrain himself. As for the candidate, they are clearly broadly acknowledged and respected for their work. Clearly not the greatest content contributor of all time or whatever hyperbole was used to describe them somewhere above, but nevertheless more than competent. Sitting here until a few more sensible contributions are offered outside of the histrionic "I thought he was an admin already" standard typical of early voting. Leaky Caldron 21:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    changing to support I do not think the candidate yet understands the details of reliable sourcing in the field of education; it takes experience here, for one can only properly learn over time what is accepted here by observing multiple discussions. And other fields are different: I don't understand the details of what is or is not accepted for video games, and rather than make foolish errors, I'd never close a discussion in that area or delete an article in that area, unless it was utterly obvious. As nobody can know everything within the scope of WP, people need to tread very carefully where they are unsure, and take careful note of opposing comment, rather than assume that what they already knows is applicable everywhere. I don't want to oppose, because I think the candidate can learn this, but I would not have nominated at this point. But of course when one does nominate one is expected to defend one's candidate, so I wouldn't hold that against the nominators. The proper defense in a situation like this, is to say something like, yes, he doesn't know all this, but I trust him to learn. Fortunately, most people do. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Reply[reply]
    You have a terrible habit of being right. Dennis - 2¢ 14:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Can I add that the thread currently in the oppose thread makes it look like any prospective opposer is in for an intimidating gauntlet of their own? I think it demonstrates that many editors other than the candidate have a good grasp of "sources that show notability vs sources that are good for content", but I don't think that sheds any insight on the candidate himself at this point. The candidate's answer in the questions is worth of ten supportive counter-arguments in any case. The thread opposing the opposer could now be politely hatted or moved the talk page couldn't it? It seems like distracting overkill now.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Elaqueate: That would definitely be a misimpression -- at least regarding my follow-up comments to Mkativerata and Dennis Brown. My intention was to clarify Mkat's perfectly valid concerns and to provide the candidate with a reasonable opportunity to respond. I think we've accomplished both with Czar's answers to Q6. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I wasn't talking about intent; I can see everyone is trying to be helpful all around. But the thread is mostly about interpretations of policy not from the candidate. Interesting, mostly applicable if we were trying to determine where to go with policy, but mostly distracting if trying to evaluate the candidate. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. neutral - I would actually like to see some evidence of the candidate dealing with Dennis Brown and his incessant badgering of anybody daring to have a contrary opinion, before deciding where to finally cast my tedious comment/vote. Nick (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It looks to me as if Dennis made one comment and one followup comment to one of the two "oppose" !voters. And one "you may be right" comment to one of the "neutral" !voters. It's a little hard to see how that qualifies as "incessant badgering", or how exactly you are expecting Czar to "deal with" it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I expect the candidate to be a calming influence, stopping discussions getting out of hand and generally keeping the peace on what is, after all, their RfA. Nick (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Moved to support I am slightly dissatisfied with the answer to Q4; enough to end up neutral.—John Cline (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @John Cline, for what it's worth, I changed it of my own accord a day or two later—didn't update the answer to reflect that czar ⨹ 15:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I consider it quite worthy. Enough that I am gladly moving to support.—John Cline (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[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