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

Fainites[edit]

Final 114/0/0. Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 11:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

Fainites (talk · contribs) – Faintes has been in the project since December 2006, where he has over 12,000 edits. He has three featured articles in his credit. He fights vandalism [1] [2], and is an civil expert in an area which is full of POV pushers and such with Psychology. We need more expert adminstrators and Fainites fits the bill. Thanks Secret account 15:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Many thanks to Secret for his kind words. I had not thought of doing this but having been asked I have reflected on it and decided to accept. I consider myself to be primarily a content editor. However, I have been involved from time to time in admin areas such as persistent edit warriors, sock-puppetry cases and vandalism, and I have been exploring pending changes and recent changes patrolling while busy in RL. I understand there is currently a concern about the shortage of applicants for the tools. I don’t anticipate spending all my time using all the tools or reducing my content work but I hope I would be a safe and sane pair of hands and believe I can make more of a contribution. Fainites barleyscribs 11:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I do some recent changes and pending changes patrolling and would extend that to being more active in respect of inappropriate content from misguided newbies, POV pushing IPs and vandals. Obviously I couldn’t use the tools in the particular topics in which I edit heavily, but there are many areas afflicted by POV pushing, including psychology, where being an admin could be of assistance. I am willing to look in depth into difficult disputes and assist in dispute resolution.
I also expect to get involved in unblock request patrolling for similar reasons. Blocked users can understandably be upset, confused and angry so it needs a reasoned, well researched approach. An important part of an administrators role, though not one that uses the tools, is giving advice, support and help to those who need it though I know any editor can do this.
One of the tools I am interested in is the one which enables you to see deleted edits as at times I suspect good content is lost in edit wars. Also for conduct and dispute resolution.
Page protection is another area I would like to get involved in followed by assisting in resolving the dispute and/or reducing the harm done by POV pushers and socks. One of the things I won’t be doing though is the drive-by, all round wrist-slap. If editors are locked in a tricky content or content/behaviour dispute, the last thing they need is for someone to descend from above, tick everyone off and disappear again. If one is going to try and help resolve a dispute, then you must take the time to do your homework and not assume without checking. Civil POV pushing is a significant problem which requires serious attention.
I have only very occasionally taken part in AfDs in the past. I may decide to get more involved in that as an extension of patrolling.


2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am most proud of getting Attachment theory to FA. I had some fantastic help from reviewers who were a joy to work with. I am fond of Truce terms (a GA) though it remains in obscurity. I have 3 FAs (one a generous co-nom) and 3 or 4 GAs. I have copyedited articles for people for whom English is not their first language. I enjoyed taking part in FAC reviews and PR in the past and mean to do more when RL calms down a little. I feel a sense of achievement over the removal of the attachment therapy sock mob that controlled over twenty articles in the area of child abuse, child therapy and attachment, maintained attack pages against opponents and peddled pseudoscience as mainstream for over a year. This was a long hard slog over many months and taught me a great deal, including during the process of cleaning up the articles afterwards.
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 try to avoid conflict and inflaming situations, and I discuss issues when they do come up, so I do not generally get into many conflicts. Some areas in which I have edited were sock-mobbed; attacks and bad faith were endemic. Disputes came from editing on these topics and supporting other editors who were being attacked. However I have tried to follow dispute resolution and to consult rather than causing a battleground. Surviving those kinds of editors calmly when I was quite a new editor shows how I handle stress. It has got easier over time. You get used to the same problems coming up.
On the whole I am civil even when attacked – though not without lapses. On occasions I have posted something when irritated, thought better of it and changed my post. As this can’t be done if someone has already replied I have learned to be more careful. The trick is not to get emotionally involved. This can be difficult as trolls and baiters are skilled at getting under peoples skins – but the more you come across it, the more quickly you recognise it for what it is.
I was somewhat naive about POV warriors and wiki-disputes at first but I read the past talkpages to gain an understanding of what was going on before engaging. The conflicts I have been in have mainly related to difficult editors as the area in which I edit is afflicted by advocacy, self-promotion and pseudoscientific treatments. In 2007 I tackled Attachment therapy and argued civilly for change on the talk page for about a month before giving up and pursuing various DR in the company of other editors. That ultimately resulted in arbitration and the banning of the sock ring (though he is still active). Then there was conflict with User:KingsleyMiller, an extreme POV pusher with some irritating habits like moving selected talkpage posts to a different page to create inaccurate versions of exchanges. I discussed the issues at length with him, posting passages from good sources in detail. He tried to take me to arbitration without success. We pursued 3PO and mediation. Ultimately he refused to take part in mediation unless he had certain assurances about the beliefs of the mediators and so was indef. blocked. With hindsight, on both those matters I would probably seek formal DR sooner. Finally, for reasons which I never fully understood, I found myself on Mattisse’s list. Despite all this I have survived 4 years with a clean block log and no personal RfCs.
If it is important in the context of the encyclopaedia, then I will stick with a situation, state my point, provide my sources and see it through. However, I do not seek out conflict for conflicts sake. I have chosen not to take part in certain areas because I do not want to get involved in conflict. I do not get involved in a situation where an understanding of content is required unless I am able to give the time to getting up to speed. In other cases where I can help, I may well try.
In terms of stress, I did find dealing with the attachment therapy socks stressful and felt like giving up several times. Wikipedia is just a website and I have work, family and other interests. But I kept going because in some areas people can be harmed by false or misinformed information. I found some of it pretty unpleasant and for a brief period felt despondent – but that wore off. Concentrating on an article is always a good fillip and that is unlikely to change if trusted with the tools.
Additional optional questions from Salvio giuliano
4. When, if ever, would you block an editor who hasn't received four warnings?
A:Four warnings is quite a lot if an account appears to be used for little other than disruptive or vandalistic purposes or in persistent violation of policies. Examples where either none or fewer than four are required would be; evading a ban or block, when there is reason to believe an editors account has been compromised, sockpuppetry account, persistant vandalism, un-withdrawn legal threats, personal threats, serious attacks/harassment, obvious bad faith, (persistent) BLP violations (negative, unsourced), spamming, that sort of thing.
Good faith or possible good faith editors are more complex. Much depends on context and the user concerned. If they have had clear warnings and explanations and continue with the behaviour, four warnings may be too many given that the purpose is to prevent imminent damage and disruption. On the other hand, if they are well meaning but upset or struggling to grasp the nature of the problem, 4 warnings may not be enough or indeed appropriate. More explanation or discussion may be called for. It calls for a degree of judgement which should not be rushed. There is also the option of ANI to garner other opinions or knowledge.
5. When, if ever, would indef an IP editor?
A:Never. Really you want to indef the editor and an IP never solely represents an editor, even if it does for a period of time. If an IP editor always edits from a discreet, identifiable IP, that IP can be blocked to enforce an earlier ban of that editor. Similarly if a discreet IP is persistently used over a period of time for nothing other than vandalism and disruption it can be blocked. But never indef. Even discreet IPs can be reallocated. In any event most IPs aren’t discreet and therefore the normal practice is to block for short periods only. The usage of the IP address needs to be checked. If a range block is needed checkusers need to be consulted in order to minimise affecting other IP users.
Additional optional questions from Beetstra
6. What are the Local spam blacklist and the Meta spam blacklist, what are they for, and which are the (core) policies and guidelines that they relate to. How do you think this functionality should be used (also in conjunction with the Local Spam-whitelist and/or XLinkBot)? What would you look at if you were (to handle a request) to blacklist an abused site (I'm using the term 'abused site' with he aim to span more than plain spam)? And what would you look at when you were (to handle a request) to whitelist a specific link on a blacklisted domain or (to handle a request) to de-blacklist the whole domain?
A.The essence of the blacklists is to specify the sites and URLs that the Meta-Spam and Local-Spam software blocks from being added to pages. These should be pages where there is little or no legitimate reason why Wikipedia would actively link to that site from any page and are also likely to be used or are being used in spam, enough to warrant a wiki-wide (meta) or site-wide (local) block. A “regular expression” can be used to blacklist related URLs by pattern rather than listing them all individually or prevent blacklisting of urls in an otherwise blacklisted range. I don’t pretend to know very much about regular expressions and would certainly list queries on the talkpage for comment. (Less experienced admins are asked to only add simple REs unless they know exactly what they are doing!)
The whitelist is the exceptions within an otherwise local or global blacklist area.
The blacklist should be used as a last resort – only if protection or blocking the spammer(s) or the edit filter won’t solve the problem. User:XLinkBot is another method to be considered before the blacklist. This only allows established editors to add or change links. Admins can use XLinkBot and the Media-wiki:Spam-blacklist (the one for English Wikipedia). To use the meta list you need to be a meta-admin.
You can use XLinkBot short term – to see if the spamming dies down, or whilst considering the blacklist.
The relevant guidelines are WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT. Also, one should not link to sites that contain likely copyright violations. If a request was made I would be looking to see that all other avenues had been exhausted, (with links). You also have to remove all links from articles and their talkpages before blacklisting. Then you get someone to check you have the RE right.
For whitelisting you need to satisfy yourself that the site would be of use to the encyclopaedia.
Thank you for your answer. What would, in your opinion, be a reason to (request to) blacklist a link that was added by one user once .. ?? --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky. Automated spamming? Child porn? Fainites barleyscribs 19:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mwaagh, those might be two (though, from one single spam edit -> automated spamming is quite a step). --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thought of another one. An outing or harassment or attack site.Fainites barleyscribs 20:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Child porn, attack sites (though that one is controversial!), harassment site (probably goes with the same controversy as attack sites), malware, those have the same basis, and those are the simple ones. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are the complicated ones then? Shock sites? Anything viral? (Can that happen on wiki?).Fainites barleyscribs 21:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A not too complicated example (non en-example - I can't find something similar on en this quick): one edit -> global blacklist (and it is not that they just replace a legit link with someting porn related). --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Groomtech
7. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?
A:“Orders” is not an appropriate word or concept for what admins are supposed to do. They are editors with extra tools not army officers. They are no more worthy of special consideration or deference than any other editor. On the issue of banning a user from a page or topic – this is not a power admins have unless they are specifically enforcing an ArbCom ruling. I suppose there could be a situation with a difficult or disruptive editor where you might ‘’advise’’ them to give a certain page or area a rest as they are running into trouble but banning is either a community or ArbCom decision. For more obvious br.eaches, ultimately, after discussions, explanations and warnings haven't worked you have to say "stop doing that or I will block you"
There is also the situation where the community has discussed a ban and it falls to a closing admin to determine consensus (not just a vote). If I were in that position and the consensus was not obvious I would consult more experienced admins. It’s not something I would be rushing to do if I were a new admin.
I suspect your concern is abuse of power. I think it's vital for people to realise that a little bit of power (as in to block) doesn't turn you into a Very Important Person.
Additional optional question from SoCalSuperEagle
8. What is your interpretation of IAR, and could you provide an example of a situation where it would be appropriate to invoke IAR?
A: WP:IAR is the fifth rule which qualifies all the other rules. However, it is itself qualified by the needs and aims of the encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is governed by rules, guidelines and principles. Not laws. We are not a nation-state. We have a particular purpose and a particular aim and so all rules, principles and guidelines are subordinate to that. This does not mean anarchy. The rules, guidelines and principles adhered to by most of the community - and of which the community accepts enforcement - cover most situations, but only for as long as the community accepts their appropriateness and usefulness. However, there will always be grey areas, fuzzy boundaries, disagreements over interpretation and situations where strict enforcement of rules seems contrary to the needs of the project. Wikilawyering is a waste of everybodies time because it misses the point.
A specific example is difficult. It's more like "you know it when you see it". Take 3RR which seems like a strict rule, but of course an exception is obvious vandalism. This then begs the question - what is obvious vandalism? It is easy to spot on most cases, but what about the reversion of unsourced POV pushing for the Nth time by a frustrated content editor who considers it blatant nonsense? WP:CIV is another fuzzy area. Some editors are easy with a robust exchange of profanity whilst others are shocked. These situations call for judgement rather than strict interpretation. In general, avoid government by filing clerk.
Another big meaning of IAR is; don't get hung up on bureaucracy but just get on with editing. If you are honest in your endeavour, reasonably respectful of other humans and use your common sense you are unlikely to go far wrong.
Additional optional question from Gimmetoo
9. You find a non-admin account with a username similar to an admin account, with a note on its user page saying it is an alternate of the admin account. After some searching, you don't find any edits from the admin account to the non-admin account that would confirm the non-admin account as an alternate. The admin account has not edited in months. Do you block the non-admin account as a potential imposter until it is confirmed by the admin account? Explain why or why not with reference to any policies you think relevant. If not, state what you would do.
A:Firstly I would WP:AGF until there is sound evidence not to. Secondly, how quickly I acted would depend on what the account was doing. Can I assume from the way your question is drafted that this non-admin account is not acting as an admin but merely stating they are an editor who is one? There is no immediate reason to suppose he is not simply an admin taking a rest from the mop and quietly minding his own business. There is nothing wrong with open alternate accounts (provided they are not indulging in WP:SOCK behaviours). At worst, he is passing himself of as another editor and perhaps trying to give himself more clout by claiming to be an admin. If he is not being disruptive or troublesome in any way there is no great urgency and it is more important to get it right.
It is very difficult to imitate another editors editing and communication style so I would go through both editors talkpages and recent contribs to get a feel for whether they were the same person or not. If I thought it likely they were different editors I would post a query on the admins page. If the admin did not answer, despite the alternate account being active on wiki, I would e-mail the admin. If still no answer I would enquire of the non-admin what the position was. He could confirm he was the admin by logging in at that account. If he said, for example, that he had changed accounts because he lost the password and therefore could not do so, but seemed otherwise unconvincing, or if just didn't respond at all, I would explain to him my concern that he was stating he was the other editor when it appeared the admin was no longer on wiki and ask if he could confirm that he was the same editor. If I was troubled, if there was no response or if he was behaving in a way that implied he had admin powers, I would raise it at WP:AN where no doubt other admins and editors who know the admin concerned could quickly resolve the matter as to whether or not it was the same person. I wouldn't block beforehand unless it was obvious it was an imposter AND they ignored attempts to resolve the matter and warnings (in a pretty short space of time).Fainites barleyscribs 22:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from TeleComNasSprVen
10. Have you ever taken a wikibreak? If so, how often do you take the breaks, for how long on average do they last, and what do you do during one of them?
A:Not specifically. I have had periods of intense editing - such as participating in an arbitration or taking an article to FA - and periods of little substantive editing. I haven't really got stuck into any particular article since finishing that attachment theory FA and have been pretty busy in RL this year. Occasionally I work away from home and have dodgy internet access and occasionally I am on holiday abroad and have no access at all. But not a specific wikibreak, no. What I mostly do when not wikiying in the evenings is read.Fainites barleyscribs 20:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Have you made any contributions to Wikipedia as an IP? If so, how many?
A: Only when my account logs out and I don't realise. Sometimes I notice this and mention it in the next edit. Sometimes I don't until later but it is usually pretty obvious it is me as it continues talkpage conversations or work on a particular article. I have never deliberately edited as an IP.Fainites barleyscribs 20:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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 Seems fine. Experienced with a good personality. Epbr123 (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support IMO people who edit content are deserving of admin tools. Anyone who can make it through FA especially on a controversial topic is definitely bright enough to figure out how they work and wise enough to know when not to use them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Longterm user, clean block log, deleted contributions check out OK, and has a nice combination of vandal fighting and FAs. ϢereSpielChequers 12:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, though had better not work in the picture area until has had some more practice! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Per above: I do not see any reason to oppose. --Leyo 15:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, Fainites is an exemplary and knowledgeable contributor, most unlikely to abuse tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "A safe and sane pair of hands" indeed, from what I have seen. sonia♫ 15:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - Plenty of experience, solid content contributions and good answers - works for me. AlexiusHoratius 16:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Good, wide experience and contributions seem intelligent and collegial. I see no reason why admin tools would do anything other than assist this candidate to contribute even more. Support as net positive.  Begoontalk 16:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. I think your responses so far show your knowledge of admin-related areas. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 16:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Seems to demonstrate a good knowledge of policy, has done good content work. —fetch·comms 16:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Solid civil editor. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support – A long-term trustworthy editor. Net positive for the admins. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support Excellent answers and contribs. Tommy! [message] 17:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Definitely: Strong content creator with in-the-trenches experience in handling conflict maturely and productively. These are the kind of qualifications we should look for in admins. MastCell Talk 17:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. No worries at all - experienced, knowledgeable editor with good understanding of WP stuff. Answers to questions are good and thoughtful. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - great content contributor, and per MastCell. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Excellent contributions to this project; they will make great use of the sysop tools. Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - no visible problems here - great contributions. Connormah 17:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Keepscases (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 18:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Wonderful long-term editor - very good at keeping a cool head in heated discussions. Dana boomer (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Simple: Support. Though I'd like to discuss on above about the question I asked, I am simply impressed by the answers (also to other questions). --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Support Excellent, experienced content editor with a remarkably cool disposition. Per MastCell, these are indeed the kind of qualifications we need. --RexxS (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support No reason to not trust him. Fainites appears to be a net positive to the Project.--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 20:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, though remember not start using the new buttons constantly; keep up the writing. Courcelles 20:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. I have seen this editor around and appears to be someone who can be trusted. I was particularly impressed that this editor reports that they read over article talk pages to gain a background, context and understanding of content disputes before engaging. This quality is most important for an admin in order to get to the root of entrenched drama and come up with the best remedy.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Sure. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. I do hope you will make use of the tools consistently, but every little bit helps. -- Ϫ 22:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support good level of experience. Can be trusted with the tools. Polargeo (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Sure. Seems fine. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - No issues here. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 00:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. NW (Talk) 02:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong support Solid content work (incl. 3 FA in his body of work); ample experience; cerebral answers--Hokeman (talk) 03:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Trustworthy editor. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. temperamentally well-suited for adminship. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - the psychology/psychiatry articles on Wikipedia need much work. I believe that Fainites, as an administrator, will help us with them. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Good record. Top answers. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Just one note: please use edit summaries, especially on your own RfA :) --Mkativerata (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support definitely here to build an encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, nothing leading me to oppose. --Taelus (Talk) 08:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, perfectly good candidate docboat (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support no concerns. Minimac (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - "concern" below under Neutral addressed. Ben MacDui 16:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Even the concern about a lack of opposers has been addressed - outstanding! TFOWR 17:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Superb article contributions, and familiar with user's temperament. ceranthor 17:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support – Good content contributor; good communicator. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. I see only positives. I look for trustworthiness, and I see it here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Esteffect (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - well-trusted editor. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Weak support - too content focused in my book, but seems trustworthy, just afraid we'll burn out a good content editor with adminship Triona (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - could do with some more Project participation but otherwise I'm happy. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 22:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support, while not a ton of project space participation to date, the thoughtful and thorough answers to the questions give me no concern at all that the candidate will be an asset there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - Good answers. Mlpearc Public (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Connormah 07:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC) See 20 [reply]
  56. Support I like the account name which indicates a high level of erudition and wit. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In the area of Swansea where I grew up the term "fainites" had been corrupted into "bayonets". SilkTork *YES! 10:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that's interesting. Swansea was reported to be a bar area in the 1950s. Maybe the two got combined.Fainites barleyscribs 12:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support definitely. By the way - and I don't blame you for getting this wrong, because it's rarely discussed anywhere - as regards Q5 we do indefblock IPs - the usual reason is for open proxies, by request (i.e. from schools), for legal threats, spambots etc. See Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses#Indefinite_blocks and Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely blocked IPs. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Thanks.Fainites barleyscribs 09:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Groomtech (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Duh... Doc9871 (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - Meets all my criteria for experience, stability and content focus. I especially like this: "I learned early on that what POV pushers do is bait and troll until you lose your cool and then report you for violations." I haven't heard that put into words before, it's so true! I also sympathize with "From my point of view I feel like I've spent at least half my wiki life in conflict", it does feel like that sometimes. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - no red flags. Airplaneman ✈ 01:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Great answers. ~ Qwerp ♫ ♪ ツ 02:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Good article work, good answers, see no significant concerns. Jayjg (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Strong support Knows what the point of WP is, ie building and not politics and ladder-climbing, per actions, which speak loudest, and the only thing worth listening to YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - I'm shamelessly piling on, and will sleep better in the near future knowing Fainites is mopping up. Jusdafax 04:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - I'm not sure if this candidate really wants to be an admin. he has however clearly demonstrated the level of maturity that is expected from an admin and whether he uses the tools or not when he gets them, I certainly trust him to use them correctly. Fainites promotion would thus clearly be a net benefit to the project.--Kudpung (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support on the basis that he is not only a good "policeman" but has actually contributed to 3 featured articles. If only we had more amdin who actually write articles. Dr. Blofeld 09:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. SilkTork *YES! 10:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Awesome content work, trustworthy and helpful. 2 says you, says two 13:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - Seems like a good candidate all around. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 13:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Of course. BigDom 14:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - Very good candidate. Will do well. --Sulmues (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. No reason not to support. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. I've been impressed with what I've seen of Fainites, and I trust that he'll be an excellent admin. Karanacs (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Obviously, as per the good doctor just above. Malleus Fatuorum 18:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. Good answers to the above questions; I can't find a reason not to support. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support His work at Attachment theory and his calm, collaborative attitude at its two FACs impressed me. Psychology is a difficult subject to deal with in Wikipedia, and Fainites does a fine job. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Hard worker...Modernist (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - Just seems like a great candidate all-around. Another pile-on support. -- Atama頭 23:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support I often see this editor doing good work.   Will Beback  talk  00:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support No problems here. AniMate 00:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Fully qualified candidate. The concerns expressed in the neutral section are completely unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Tiderolls 03:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Have been positively impressed by whatever I have see of this editor, and trust themto use the tools wisely. Abecedare (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support wiooiw (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Nice edit count. ( ;) )  f o x  12:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. Kablammo (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support – Looks good in my view. –MuZemike 15:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Jmlk17 16:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support—I have no doubts that this editor will make a fine administrator. –Grondemar 16:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. Bwrs (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  92. You poor, poor fool. Go ahead, become an admin. You'll regret my support. DS (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Should be a net positive. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Bejinhan talks 11:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Clearly trustworthy. Rje (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support I see no problem with supporting this candidate. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 14:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Sure. And, if my experience here is any guide, I don't think Fainites is a pushover or will run away from conflict!--RegentsPark (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. A congenial and capable editor.--PinkBull 19:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support - somewhat familiar with the editor in question and have not seen anything problematic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support. Everyone else is supporting. I just want to be popular. SwarmTalk 22:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's bees for you. Just wanting to be one of the crowd :) Fainites barleyscribs 22:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Risker (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support - Seems to be a decent and patient person. This is something we need more of. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Bit of a pile on, but yes, no alarms here. GedUK  11:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support, looks good. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support - great answers, great attitude, great everything... ••Pepper•• 14:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support. Just in case one more voice is needed to push this one - that's really on the edge number-wise - over the top. Looks to be sensible and articulate, and plays well with others. Fladrif (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Master&Expert (Talk) 16:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Diego Grez what's up? 23:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support He'll certainly make adminship! :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support No issues here. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support, 111 Wikipedians can't be wrong! Seems level headed enough. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  113. Strong Support:Wrong. 111 Wikipedians can be wrong but not this time! - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support, yes, have seen and experienced lots of great contributions from this well-qualified candidate. -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Corrected - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See 113. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Oppose Not liking the fakeness; "too nice for your own good..." -- I agree, so oppose. --A3RO (mailbox) 18:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion of this editor at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dabomb87. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for disruptive editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The block aside, I do not consider this opposition to be meaningful contribution to the discussion and have discounted it. WJBscribe (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]

Neutral Although I should say that I respect the RfA judgement of some of the supporters in this particular one, I'm going to stick to my guns. X!'s edit counter was a good place to get ideas of areas where we can be reasonably confident of suitability (by "areas" I'm talking deletion, blocking and protecting in general, rather than CSD#TF8-2) and pages and areas where closer scrutiny is warranted. As such, I will not support any candidacy started between the 13th and the 17th, because doing enough research to be confident that a candidate passes would involve an unreasonable amount of work. If it were disabled permanently I would obviously have to reconsider my position, but my belief is that doing so would enhance the weight given to diffs that may or may not be isolated incidents. In answer to the rationale for the pause, I would say that even as a regular in the unpopular column, opposes based solely on editcountitis can be, should be and are already ignored by crats. --WFC-- 18:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Striking neutral. --WFC-- 18:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was a bit surprised to see that page closed down like that. Aren't there any other edit count systems that can be used?Fainites barleyscribs 18:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see Heymid has put some temporary stats on the talkpage.Fainites barleyscribs 18:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are other tools out there, see Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters for a full list. NW (Talk) 02:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This disgust me. This is not why I disabled my edit counter. I disabled it so people would actually bother to look at the contributions (god forbid) instead of just making a snap decision with an edit counter. Actually making a decision based on the lack of an edit counter? What if the database was down? What if my account expired? You really cannot rely on this tool like this! There must be other ways, and I hope that you see the light before I reenable the tool next Tuesday. (X! · talk)  · @932  ·  21:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I have a pretty robust record in the way I handle remarks like that. Take it as a sign of the immense respect I have for what you've done on this site that the following is detailed and relatively mild.
If RfAs are failing based on the behavior you are speaking out against, I see that as a reflection on the bureaucrats that are allowing them, and by extension on the wider community for expecting 'crats to allow them. But it has nothing to do with me. While some will wish that I opposed less, I never do so based on "editcountitis". When I withold support, I do so based on a lack of confidence in their ability to use the block, protect and delete buttons, with an explanation of why. The tool was/is the quickest way to get a cross-section of their edits in different areas, and an idea of what contributions I might want to scrutinise in more detail. If an editor has 80% edits in namespace, sure, I'll take a look at their contributions, but it's worth looking at the few project-space edits they have made to see if they have demonstrated a bit of knowledge and/or WP:CLUE. Conversely, if they're a wiki-gnome, sure, it's good to see the work they are doing in keeping the wheels oiled, but it's also worth evaluating their significant mainspace contributions to see if their editing history can at least show some understanding of our basic principles. In most cases I look for evidence that they have some level of understanding on BLP, whether that's editing, AfD, RFPP or AIV participation. The tool is usually helpful here.
All I have done is make this point explicitly in the neutral column. It has no bearing on the "count" at the end of the RfA. --WFC-- 23:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the well-stated and calm reply. It does extremely irritate me that this is happening, as there are quite a few people who seem to be taking this whole thing the wrong direction than I had intended (i.e. actually analyzing the candidate vs. making a decision based on what my tool says). However, your reasoning is rational, and I respect your neutral now. Sorry for any trouble this has caused. (X! · talk)  · @070  ·  00:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No sweat- you're right to be irritated by that sort of behavior. Regards, --WFC-- 23:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will not support a candidate until I can fully analyze their edit count.  ℳono  07:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And this is exactly why it should be disabled for a while. —fetch·comms 20:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply to WFCForLife. (X! · talk)  · @932  ·  21:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I am suspicious of RfAs with 100 supports and no opposes. It suggests that you are too polite for your own good and perhaps even avoid conflict, your eloquent answers above notwithstanding. Adminship often involves aggravating people and I wonder if you have enough experience of this. Why don't you have more enemies making controversial remarks about your shortcomings? Ben MacDui 12:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC) PS Delighted to see Attachment theory made it. thanks! Fainites.[reply]
I just wondered if all my enemies were on holiday. From my point of view I feel like I've spent at least half my wiki life in conflict - what with the AT business, User:KingsleyMiller and Mattisse. I'm old enough and wise enough to avoid abuse but I daresay you could find comments falling into the categories of "waspish" or "blunt" (in the northern sense) in my contribs.Fainites barleyscribs 13:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ben MacDui, Fainites had plenty of conflict with Mattisse, and handled the extreme aggravation quite well-- perhaps you'll take another look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I learned early on that what POV pushers do is bait and troll until you lose your cool and then report you for violations. The AT sock crowd used this tactic successfully against many a good content editor. Good editors then get discouraged by being repeatedly wrist-slapped or even sanctioned by well-meaning admins. Hence, if you are going to edit in controversial areas you do need need to cultivate a rather painful degree of calm civility. Otherwise you can't actually deal with the substance of issues because everything gets derailed by side issues and cross-allegations of petty violations. Fainites barleyscribs 13:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also looking at your comment again - I don't agree being an admin involves aggravating people. Challenge people certainly - but this should and can be done in a polite but direct and straightforward manner. The essence of wikipedia is collaboration hence the emphasis on dispute resolution with sanctions as a last fallback resort for those whose aims or methods cannot be accommodated by a collaborative project.Fainites barleyscribs 14:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean that the aggravation should be deliberate, but I fear you may find it is a not infrequent result. I hope you don't mind my largely-in-jest remarks. One's enemies as often as revealing as one's friends. I am quite satisfied and have changed my note accordingly. Besides, I can't afford to aggravate SandyGeorgia. Ben MacDui 16:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good Lord no.Fainites barleyscribs 16:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This would be my favorite series of comments in the past month. Bravo all! Jusdafax 01:11, 16 August 2010 (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