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

Evilclown93[edit]

Closed as successful by Cecropia 22:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC) at (77/0/6); Scheduled end time 17:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evilclown93 (talk · contribs) - I’m Evilclown93 and I’m applying to become an administrator at Wikipedia. I speak 3 languages fluently, for anybody interested, English, Russian and French. I’m requesting the tools because I believe I can use them well, and not misuse them, to aid Wikipedia to become a better encyclopedia. I’ll continue this self-nom with a quote from the first of five pillars of Wikipedia:



That is a highly important principle for me. The point of me editing Wikipedia is to make it a better encyclopedia. One of the ways I’ve made it better is by writing articles and maintaining it as well. To help me make it even better, I request the mop and bucket to help maintain it. There are many tasks that can be done by me (outlined a bit more specifically in Q1). I’ve done many administrative related tasks already, and if I become a sysop, it will merely be a technical extension of my maintenance abilities. That’s al the position means for me.

To round this out, I will explain my reasoning to not have a userpage. Firstly, I feel it can’t put anything more than I put in this nomination. When I had a userpage, it only had my wikistress level and my languages. It was getting constantly vandalized, and I never really maintained it or looked at it to boot. Now you may ask why don’t I have a redirect? Not having one is something I like to personalize my userspace with. For me, it’s not that hard or annoying to click an extra tab. Expecting a nice userpage and getting to a talkpage is annoying. To sum this up, I just don’t want a userpage, I don’t feel I need one, and a redirect annoys me. Evilclown93(talk) 17:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Evilclown93(talk) 17:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend, if promoted, to work a lot in CSD and AIV, and a bit in RFPP and 3RR. The CSD Category (I’m putting this in like this so nothing goes into the category) Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is a perennial numerical backlog, IMHO, and I plan to delete articles to reduce it. Without being an administrator, I comment a lot on WP:AIV; I comment on user there, I file reports, and I even remove users that shouldn’t get blocked. I’ve filed a few reports on WP:RFPP and WP:AN/3RR], so I might as well help out there because I’m quite familiar. On 3RR, I’ve been aiding administrators by posting information, like a block log, or marking reports as improperly formatted, and at times closing a report as not being a 3RR violation or when a noob is not fully warned. (for example, where there are only three reverts instead of four). 3RR also tends to be rather stale on some days, too, but it’s not a backlog similar to CSD at all. I also might close a :few WP:TfD's, as I have commented quite a bit, and I've already closed to TfD's deletable under WP:CSD#G7 as "Speedy deleted, deleted by "sysop", so maybe I'll do the deletion instead.
You can link to cats with a colon directly after the first set of brackets: [[:CAT:CSD]] produces CAT:CSD.--Chaser - T 18:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know that one. Don't work with categories much, anyways.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am involved with the ice hockey Wikiproject, and I’ve collaborated through the article improvement drive to raise Stanley Cup to A-Class level. I’ve created, but more importantly to me, referenced a lot of article related to the 2007 NHL Entry Draft.
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: I’ve had my fair share of conflict, but I’m not stressed about them. I’ve conflicted over a TfD once when I misunderstood something, I received a warning with no context, and the user warning me started making uncivil remarks. I’ve had users go after me and put blank my userspace or post uncivil remarks on my talkpage. I always keep cool on Wikipedia, and nothing has ever escalated. I realize, though, if I become an administrator, conflicts will increase greatly, but I feel I’m prepared for it.

Question from Spartaz Humbug! 18:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Have you previously edited with any other accounts? Have you stood for adminship before?
A: You probably knew me a bit as User:Mbralchenko, but I've seen decided that I needed a very fresh start under a new name. Yes, I withdrew a 285-editcount RfA before. I hope everybody is clear on that. I don't use the other accout at all. Reflecting on my move, I regret jumping on the new account so quickly, as I should have tried a WP:CHU request first.

Question from Chaser

5. The three-revert rule permits blocking for editors who've made under four reverts in 24 hours if their behavior is clearly disruptive and also says Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours. When would you make such "judgment call" blocks? What constitutes disruptive behavior in this context?
A: I would most likely make judgement call blocks usually in cases of previously blocked users, where there are major civility concerns, and meatpuppets where the behaviour is especially distruptive. Distruptive behaviour maybe include further attacking other users, and major incivillity, and vandalism. These behaviours may compound with edit-warring to lay a block to draw a bit more attention to the fact that that UserX's behaviour is disruptive, or to cease the edit-warring, and general distruptive behaviour. A model situation would be "User X has three content reverts on ArticleY, and is also posting personal remarks on UserZ's talkpage abd has vandalised his userpage, has made uncivil remarks on ArticleY's talkpage. Result:Blocked for 24h".

Entirely optional question from EVula

6. Why do you not have a userpage? I think it's important for administrators to be approachable to newbies and whatnot, and having a userpage helps people get a sense for the editor. (even something simple like a babel box for English, French, and Russian, and hopefully in a few days you can put up ((user admin)) would be fine). Note this won't affect my support of you (userpages have nothing to do with an editor's ability to interpret policy, and I'm confident in your abilities there), I'm just curious. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A I explained this a bit in my nomination. It's basically that there was nothing there in the first place, and it was getting vandalised quite a bit. But, EVula, if you want to create one for me, you can by all means do that, and that also goes for any other user.
Haha, I didn't even read your nomination blurb... I recognized the name and knew that I'd trust you as an admin. Heh, egg on my face... :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Rory096

7. Why did you give a barnstar for vandalism? [1] --Rory096 12:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A In barnstar, I specifically ask not to do that again, and the user stopped for four days until going on wheels, I believe. The reason is because the vandalism was exceptionally funny, the funniest I've seen on Wikipedia. Here's a link. I didn't think the barnstar was a huge deal, though. It's simply an alternate way of asking a user to stop (which worked for four days).

Totally optional question by AldeBaer

8. You have answered so many questions already that I'm hesitating to burden you with yet another, so answer only if you feel like it: Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite reads on Wikipedia are (may be articles, or even policy pages, whatever you like), ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.
A I'll try to do my best here. My favorite article (and I've never edited it) to read before I became EC93 was probably Driving on the left or on the right. The closest I've been to a country driving on the left was Belgium... and that was for 3 hours in Brussels Airport waiting for a connecting flight. The notion of driving of the left always sort of mystified me, and I liked having so much information about it in one stop. I also enjoy, now as well, reading the featured article of day, because it's the first one I saw first thing. The DYK's are also a good read. Another little tidbit that you might want to know... When I was editing/existing under my old account, I only read articles, maybe making 3 typo corrections per month. I hope that sort of answers your question. I can't really give three precise answer, but I know one that I like a lot.

Question from Nat.tang

9. You were a bit vague with question 3 so here we go: If you ran into an extreme POV pusher and he/she was not committing any obvious, or "simple" vandalism, what steps or actions would you take to deal with this person?
A I will admit I was a bit too vague, and I forgot one thing for which I also need the tools. I enforce part of the Falun Gong arbitration case remedies. To sum the case up, User:Samuel Luo was perpetually inserting anti-Falun Gong POV, and all dispute resolution failed. Samuel was banned from Falun Gong-related articles. After, he started mass-creating socks, and he was indef blocked, and all his sockpuppets were reverted and blocked. The socks have very similar names (Free111, Free222, Free333) Right now, I do most of the reverting and as you may guess, no of the blocking, while the sock might be pushing it too much. That's one way. The other POV-pusher situation is for example, I'm working on ArticleX, and User:Y
starts to insert extremely POV material. Firstly, I'd actually welcome the user if not welcomed, because showing some policy helps a bit more then messages with capitalized gibberish to a noob. I'd hpe that the user reverts, because I'm a very strict adherent of 1RR. Afterwards, I'd revert and point out why there edit is, for a lack of a better term, "bad". If the user doesn't want to discuss, I'd lay off for a bit, and try to discuss the changes again. If it fails, I'll ask a third party to intervene, and most certainly not block the user I'm in dispute in. If the POV pusher is "extreme" as you outlined in your question, refusal to discuss could quite possible result in a short block from a third party admin. If it's not as extreme as to merit a block, but the discussion doesn't work, formal or informal mediation should most likely fix the situation. The last resort is Arbcom. I hope I have sufficiently answered your question in regards to POV-pushers. To sum my extremely lenghty answer up, I'd attempt to discuss the changes and point out why they're "bad", and I most certainly will not block a user that I am in dispute in.

Question (probably last) from NAHID

10. Do administrators hold a technical or political position? How can you define it?
A That's an interesting question. Admins have greater technical access, but they do have to be trusted, so there it's also a bit of a political position I'd define it more as this: Administrators are users trusted by the community to have access to technical feautres that help with maintenance of which three highly important tools are the ability to delete and protect pages, and block users. So it's both, but to me it's a bit more technical.

Optional questions from —M (talk • contribs) 19:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11. Do you believe the Wikipedia community has a set of shared ethical values?
A: Most likely. I'll try to do my best here, and go with my gut reply. What I believe over this is that users have their own set of ethical values, and with all the policies, guidelines et cetera, I think we are a bound by usage of common sense, also known as WP:IAR.
12. Do you believe that ethical values should be taken into consideration when crafting policy?
A: Yes and No. Similarly to my answer for Q11, I believe common sense ought to be taken, unless it's in relation to very volatile legal issues. This question also in my opinion (and Malber's opinion as well, I believe, but I'm no way certain) relates to WP:BLP and the Badlydrawjeff arbitration case, where common sense must be taken in, but other legal issues should be taken into account.
13. Do you believe it is appropriate for an administrator to impose their own ethical values when making administrative actions (e.g. deletion, blocking, page protection, etc.)?
A: In a way, yes. Taking some common sense and knowing the purpose of the action should decide that.


Optional questions from WooyiTalk to me?

14. In what circumstances will you use WP:IAR to delete pages (in whatever namespace) that do not belong to, or in the gray area of, criteria of speedy deletion? WooyiTalk to me? 17:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Quite a bit of redunant and unneeded templates will probably be deleted by me. At WP:TfD, we go through a lot of single-use, unneeded templates, and there is more common sense found in deleting it before letting 25 "Delete per nom" comments over 5 days, which is a waste of time and process.
Would you like to expand on that in terms of userbox templates, project space, and cats?--Chaser - T 03:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I might delete during a TfD discussion is an obviously unneeded template (foreign language, since a lot of the have been popping up), closing the Tfd early; such templatea are at TfD because there is no other avenue for deletion (unless it's author-requested). Otherwise, I wouldn't delete anything else out of the criteria with no discussion at all.

General comments[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Evilclown93 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Support good luck! The Rambling Man 17:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Let's get this going the right way. A good editor. Best of luck! Majorly (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Looks like a good editor, according to recent contribs and edit-count. ♠TomasBat 18:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. support - I've actually got half a nomination written here that I wrote for Evilclown93 on Thursday so I might as well use it.... Evilclown93 joined the project in February 2007, and has since gained nearly 4,000 edits. He is an excellent vandal fighter, always warning appropriately after fighting vandalism, responding with extremely good reports to AIV after a level 4 warning. He has shown that he has a firm understanding of the blocking policy by helping remove non-violations from AIV [2], I am positive he will be helpful in clearing the backlogs there that often arise. He is active on the 3RR noiceboard, offering helpful remarks to administrators to assist coming to a conclusion as to whether or not a block is appropriate [3]. All in all, I trust this guy to not abuse the tools, and I'm sure he will certainly be a help Ryan Postlethwaite 18:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the "half-nom" : ) Evilclown93(talk) 18:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per 1.5 noms. —AldeBaer 18:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support - Good candidate, impressive answers to the questions, good experience with policy (he's a clerk at the 3RR noticeboard, where I saw his comments just a minute ago). Just as long as none of the I don't support anyone with fewer than 106,393 edits, with at least 1500 in Category talk crowd turns up, this request should pass unanimously. Waltontalk 19:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Shit, I forgot to look like that... I guess I'll have to change my !vote. Only 1 Category Talk edit? Obviously underqualified! :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support This user was an easy choice to support with its impressive nom and nice answers. Captain panda 19:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Great editor and good answers to questions. I have seen him around a lot and he always seems sensible and knowledgeable. Will (aka Wimt) 19:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - Significant experience, demonstrated knowledge of process, trustworthy, respected, and generally an all around good person. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I've seen Evilclown93 around before, and I've always gotten the sense that he has a strong grasp of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I have no hesitations about allowing him a more active role in the enforcement of said policies and guidelines. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Evilclown is a perfect candidate for adminship. His strong and solid contributions and his demonstration of knowledge in policy make me feel very confident that he will make an excellent admin. —Anas talk? 19:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - Yep. No problems here. Oh, you can't have too many clown admins! - Alison ☺ 19:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong support Evilclown93 has been doing great editing since he joined; there is no reason to oppose. Acalamari 20:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per Walton. I've seen him out and about Wikipedia and he looks like a good editor. Tim{speak} 20:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I am supporting him for a number of reasons. The first being that he seems reliable, the second, because we need more admins, and the third being that I think he would be a active admin. Good luck!:)--†Sir James Paul† 20:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Understands policy, has a need for the tools. Just a suggestion, but if you succeed in your RfA, could you create a userpage? As EVula noted, userpages usually make a person seem more approachable to newbies. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support- per Ryan. Eddie 21:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Support I think this user would be a great admin! Just look at what work he has done. I wish you luck! wikipedialuva 22:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Have come across this editor from time to time, always favourably. Good range of edits, good range of experience, good range of knowledge. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. After you promote, you can unprotect your userpage yourself!--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I don't usually support editors with less then 1.5 million Mediawiki edits and no user pages and with the name "clown" located in their username, but I'll make an exception. ~ Wikihermit 22:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Double-edit-conflicted Support Great editor, will be a great admin ;) –Sebi ~ 22:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Will make a fantastic admin; all communications with this user have been positive and productive. Cool Bluetalk to me 23:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support- Never came across this candidate yet, but I REALLY like their answers very very much. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 23:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Good candidate... --Dark Falls talk 00:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, a user I've seen around quite a bit. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 00:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong oppose for not having 300000 MediaWiki talk and 1400000 Category editsSupport - Who says there is no need for more clown admins? Great candidate. --tennisman 01:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - Yes indeed. This user seems ready for the tools --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 01:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support No reason(s) not to...will be a good admin. Jmlk17 02:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Very good answer to the questions, and does a satisfactory amount of work in admin fields. I find the "no userpage" oppose to be one of the worst arguments, as evidenced in this RFA. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 02:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - Good answers, good contributions, great editor! Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 02:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support I normally do not support nominees under 10,000 edits - but after viewing your contributions, talk page (and archives) and katewannabe results I feel confident you can handle the responsibilities of the mop. --Ozgod 04:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Moral oppose We don't need any "evil" administrators." In all seriousness, I support giving Evilclown the tools - he has sufficient experience and a helpful attitude, and this formality is long overdue. YechielMan 04:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then again, WP:NOT EVIL was rejected by the community, so perhaps some evilness is in order... Joe 05:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. I've crossed by this candidate at least once before. His answers to the questions and his invaluable contributions convince me that he will be an improtant and active admin. Bonne chance! Sr13 08:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Double edit conflict support, certainly. Have seen this user around and he'd make a great admin, and certainly has the experience. - Zeibura (Talk) 08:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Full support- the guy is brilliant. Very friendly, cooperative. Ingenius, I was planning on nominating him myself. But looks like someone beat me too it :)). Francisco Tevez 10:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I like the idea of a mild cannon getting sysopped. LessHeard vanU 11:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong Support - Good answers, good Contributions and one hell of an editor ..--Cometstyles 12:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Nooo, no userpage! Yes, seriously awesome userpage! Riana (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support--Jusjih 15:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support 'No big deal' as per Jimbo, and no reason to oppose Stwalkerster talk 16:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Evilclown93 is an assett to Wikipedia, personally I dont believe its right to ask a candidate to create a userpage as it is optional but if its OK with you. All the best. The Sunshine Man 17:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, which is why I stated that his answer had no bearing on my opinion; the existence of a userpage is irrelevant to policy interpretation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ,s>Support, 40+ others can't be wrong. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 17:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Switch to Oppose perhaps they can be Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 03:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Excellent all-round contributions, strong answers to the questions, and frankly the barn-star bit made me laugh - a lot! Pedro |  Chat  18:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support per candidate's strong overall record. Minor (and completely non-serious) caveat: per your username, please avoid any troublesome interactions with this user. Newyorkbrad 20:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support can't see any problems with the promotion of this user. Nick 20:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. WjBscribe 21:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. I've seen you around, definate support :) You'll be a great admin. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support EC is already "clerking" most of the admin pages he plans to handle, and his contribs there make clear he'll be a competent sysop.--Chaser - T 22:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Page after page of contributions show this user to be courteous and to have a great understanding of policy. — OcatecirT 00:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Great Candidate! Politics rule 04:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support a good candidate. --Steve (Stephen) talk 05:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support of course seen nothing but good. ViridaeTalk 12:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong Support --BozMo talk 12:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I usually prefer a higher overall participation, but I can clearly open an exception for this outstanding user.--Húsönd 14:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Switched to oppose, sorry.--Húsönd 02:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Per the answer to my question, as well as other factors. Nat Tang talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me! 16:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Send in the Clowns. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Bucketsofg 21:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support No quarrels here. KOS | talk 22:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support —DerHexer (Talk) 22:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support ~ Dreamy 22:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support a very good and strong editor, would make a great admin. -(lemonflash)talk 22:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Strong support - Long overdue to become an admin! Cheers, JetLover 23:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support-Seems good based on contribs, interactions, and everything else RFA people obsess over :) --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support – But of course. Had assumed he already was one. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 03:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Terence 03:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support great editor will make great admin. OysterGuitarst 03:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Would make a great asset as an admin. He has a solid understanding of policy; good interaction is an important part as an admin and this guy's got it. Sr13 17:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Double vote, see above. —AldeBaer (c) 19:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, forgot that I voted already... Sr13 19:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Strong support excellent candidate for the tools - good knowledge of policy; effective interaction with users and often seen around. ck lostsword • T • C 18:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 00:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support answers to the questions are good and their contributions show understanding of policy. Needs the tools and seems trustworthy to use them.--Sandahl 03:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support No need to worry about administrative misuse here. —« ANIMUM » 14:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support No evidence will abuse the tools. Davewild 18:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support after he clarified to my question. WooyiTalk to me? 17:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 00:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. per above Peacent 10:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support The barnstar issue is not funny but I really don't think it should disqualify him from using the tools. JodyB talk 12:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support of course. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Every time I see a comment from this user it is always filled with common sense- trustworthy. GDonato (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support I trust you with admin status and I think you will use the position and powers to improve wikipedia and not abuse them.
    Bureaucrat's note: while Cecropia pushed the button, I will note that this support was cast by Yamaka122. The account is one month old, but I had decided against discrediting this one, in the spirit of AGF, after taking into consideration that the account's contribs history is ok and that this was a unanimous result. Redux 22:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

don't like you much u banned me for editing information i knew was wrong, and turned it to right.
IP's can't vote [4] Please log in.--Chaser - T 19:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For anybody curious, I reported this user to AIV after repeated vandalism to an article. Check the contributions. --Evilclown93(talk) 20:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry. I'm frankly disappointed with this. Such hostility against a user who was simply expressing a perfectly valid opinion is not what I look for in an admin candidate. Apart from that, I'm also not pleased with you saying that "[Hiberniantears]'s got 24 reports/comments to AIV. If he would have the tools, that'd be 24 less vandals", which sounds as if you think that any report to WP:AIV will equal to a block. Bad omen for some who intends to work a lot in WP:AIV. Again, sorry.--Húsönd 02:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to neutral.--Húsönd 01:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evilclown's answer to BH is not a hostile all-out attack on BH. They are the words of an editor who's (rightfully) dismayed by the triviality of BH's oppose !vote on that RfA. As for the matter of the 24 reports to AIV, the fact is that 24 reports by responsible editors who understand the blocking policy do lead to 24 blocks and I think that was the point Evilclown was trying to make. Pascal.Tesson 05:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't endorse the way the oppose was made; it was thoughtlessly provocative. But this was a single stupid remark in some 4,000 edits, which is minimal risk that Evilclown is a bad apple.--Chaser - T 07:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had absolutely no intention of making provocative. I just disagreed with BH over an RfA. --Evilclown93(talk) 11:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 03:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC) User apologised to me, so I switched to nuetral. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 13:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose changed to support after clarification to my question. good editor, but I asked that question because recently there were lots of massive deletion sprees of userboxes, categories, and project space pages by admins. The answer does not convince me that the user will not act like those admins. WooyiTalk to me? 03:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That 'protest support' was not only uncivil towards the opposer, but showed particularily bad judgement in how it was expressed. I have strong doubts about whether you will be a good administrator. Daniel 06:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had no intention of making it sound uncivil, and I apologize to everybody if that happened. --Evilclown93(talk) 11:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to neutral. Daniel 05:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Though I virtually always support RfAs, I'm going to have to stay neutral on this one. The answer to question 7 is not satisfactory, in my opinion. Comparing good faith users to terrorists is not funny, and giving barnstars to vandals and telling them their vandalism was funny is encouraging them, not convincing them to stop, even if you say "I don't condone it in any way shape or form, so DON'T DO IT AGAIN!!!" I refuse to oppose RfAs unless a user is clearly contributing in bad faith, but if I did, I'd oppose this one. --Rory096 19:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sorry I agree with the above comments and can not support even though you are otherwise a good editor. Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral leaning to oppose. I was all ready to support until I saw the vandal barnstar which was only one week ago and per Daniel's concerns. Sarah 12:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Nuetral see my other comment. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 13:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WP:AGF Neutral (from oppose). Evilclown apologized. Although I believe that it was not his intention to make that comment sound uncivil, it's a fact that he should know that hostile comments are always uncivil. But this seems to have been an isolated incident, user appears to be a nice person (according to talk page).--Húsönd 01:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I find Evilclown's actions since that RfA !vote to be demonstrating a good character and one who isn't above apologising for potential mistakes. Although I don't feel ready to support totally, and still have some nagging qualms, I won't oppose this RfA. Daniel 05:24, 29 June 2007 (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