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

INeverCry[edit]

Final (101/8/1); Closed as successful by 28bytes (talk) at 08:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination[edit]

INeverCry (talk · contribs) – Hello English Wikipedia community. I am one of INeverCry's colleagues on Commons. Today I am delighted to nominate him for adminship here. INeverCry is a good contributor here with over 34000 edits and holds autopatrolled, filemover, rollbacker, reviewer rights. He has created 88 articles, writed 1 GA, 2 DYK. INeverCry is also an great admin on Commons with over 65000 edits and 50000 admin tasks in the last 6 months, which indicates that most of deletions are performed by him. I think he will work efficiently with files stuffs and transfer them to Commons when he has the mop. He has accepted my nomination here but I will leave him a message about this RfA on en.wiki. Thank all of you for your participation Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Hahc21

I first came across INeverCry when my interest in free image and the policy about images arose last year. Since then, I have only been pleased by the successful work he does at Commons, and his impressive record here on the English Wikipedia. As an specialist in files, I believe that entrusting Cry with the tools will be more than a net positive for the project. He is a solid user with very much content and admin experience and, with our shortage of administrators recently, I am completely sure that the mop suits very well for many of the tasks and things he does. Therefore, I am honoured to present this co-nomination. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm honored to accept this nomination. INeverCry 08:01, 31 January 2013 (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'm interested in moving files to Commons. My primary activity on Commons is tagging and deleting copyvio images and handling deletion requests, and so I have alot of experience with image copyright. I would also be available to help with CSD. On Commons I delete a considerable number of test pages, vandalism pages and talkpages, user requested deletions, and promotional pages, and believe I could help with this here. I've performed about 400 blocks on Commons of vandals, copyright violaters, socks, etc, and so I could help with that. I participate quite a bit on the various admin notice boards on Commons, and could help here in that area. In my role as an admin on Commons I deal with alot of users questioning deletions or reporting vandalism and other problems to me, and I always deal with these questions in a calm, respectful manner. I would do the same here on Wikipedia. If given adminship here I'm willing to help where needed, and would look at other areas of admin action as I gain experience. I would also note that when I'm not sure about an issue or how to go about something, I ask other more experienced users or admins for advice.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A:My best single article is George Crabbe, which I plan to bring to GAN once and for all after I'm able to update it with the new 2004 bio of him. I also helped my friend User:Antiquary clean up and promote The Story of Sigurd the Volsung and the Fall of the Niblungs to GA. Mary Lamb is pretty good, as is James Hogg. I've done some work on Elizabeth Gaskell and Wilkie Collins, and I plan to do big expansions of both in the future. I usually work on Russian lit articles with my Russian friend User:Evermore2 like Nikolai Leskov and Aleksey Konstantinovich Tolstoy, and shorter ones like Georgy Adamovich. I've done some small ones of my own like Lidia Veselitskaya, and Maria Arbatova. I'm proud of the List of Russian-language writers too.

Aside from that, I've done alot of Wikiproject assessments, copyedits, other gnomish stuff, and I've created 71 writer navboxes.

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 had a bit of a disagreement a few months ago with User:Dennis Brown over my reverting and warning an IP and his admonishing me about it. I had strong feelings about it, but the whole thing was handled in a respectful way by both of us. I do feel I over-reacted a bit though. I took some time off to think about it and I've taken it as a learning experience. Dennis and I have interacted a few times since then on Commons with no issues, and I would think he looks at it as water under the bridge just as I do. Other than that I'm usually very calm and collected no matter what the situation, and I do my best to be friendly and respectful with other editors. Over my 3 years of activity here, I've had a few minor arguments but nothing else I'd call a conflict.

Additional questions from Tito Dutta

4. I have already supported and I don't think I am going to change my vote unless something exceptional happens. I am aware of your work (both here and Commons) for a few months now, and actually I was thinking to ask you to consider to have yourself nominated for adminship!
My only question is, you are a Commons admin too, surely you can understand adminship in Wikipedia will bring extra workload! (yes, I know there are few editors who are admin in both Wikipedia and Commons) How'll you manage so much work? This is an unpaid work after all! I am quite sure, you have already thought of it and planned something! I am interested to learn your thoughts!

A:I do a high volume of work on Commons, but lately I've been getting a bit more help on the daily DRs, which has freed up some time. I usually do a large volume of DRs and Mass DRs of out of scope images, but I can cut down on these a bit if needed as they aren't high-priority like copyvio images are. In general, I have alot of time to work on Commons and here, and will do my best to be as efficient as possible.

Additional questions from 27.251.75.18 (talk)

5. You have mostly automated edits here. In past year you have identified only around 15 vandal edits. Also why would you call http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pussy_Riot&diff=next&oldid=507333928 as vandalism? Why would you tag http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Becky_%28television_personality%29&diff=prev&oldid=501177814 as vandalism? Please tell.

A:I've done about 15000 WP assessments, which are automated to a certain degree, but my edits to articles like George Crabbe, Mary Lamb, and Nikolai Leskov or Ivan Bunin have taken 100s of hours of time and alot of reading/research. I would say my edit count is just about even, with half automated and half not. In regard to the two reverts you refer to, I was mistaken in tagging them as vandalism, as one was a BLP issue and the other an NPOV issue as Kiefer says below. I've learned from these and will be more careful in future when patrolling RC.

Additional questions from Rcsprinter (gossip) @

6. If elected administrator, would you be willing to provide copies of deleted articles to those who request it? If so, would you do this often at WP:UND or just requests made directly to yourself?

A:This isn't something I intend to do right away. I'd rather wait on this untill I've had time to become more familiar and experienced with the workings of AFD and PROD, and with the deletion and undeletion policies.

Additional questions from Fluffernutter

7 I read this position of yours with some worry. It's your right to feel that your privacy is so important to you that you'd resign from a position if the mere possibility of losing it came up, of course, but I want to make sure you're aware and that you've considered that being an administrator on this project can, and almost certainly eventually will, make you enemies who will make an effort to find your real-life identity. Are you comfortable with that possibility? How do you plan to cope with it if such a thing occurs - will you retain your adminship?

A:I see that as an accepted risk attached to adminship, which I'm aware of and am willing to accept here, and have accepted as a Commons admin. The expectation for OTRS is strict privacy for volunteers and the people they deal with by email, and this was why the proposal bothered me. I've deleted around 60000 images and pages as an admin on Commons and blocked around 400 accounts, including socks, so I'm sure I've already made some enemies. If I were bothered by someone or harrassed I would, if needed, get help and advice from fellow admins, stewards, etc, or follow the guidelines in Wikipedia:Harassment. I would definitely keep my adminship and stand up to any harassment or attempted intimidation.

Additional questions from Carrite:

8. On Sept. 21, 2012 you ran up a banner on your Wikipedia talk page announcing you had "Semi-Retired." DIFF. Now barely more than 4 months later you are back at WP and seeking the enhanced tool kit. What was the cause of your "semi-retirement"? What made you change your mind?

A:This was a result of the disagreement I referred to in question 3 about conflicts above, and which is mentioned in Dennis's support vote #9 below. During this time I took a break from editing here and was highly active in my work as an administrator on Commons. As I stated above, I think it was a bit of an over-reaction on my part, but in the end I wasn't able to stay away for very long.

9. You are, I take it, an administrator at Commons. What is your interpretation of the oft-repeated slogan "Wikipedia is Not Censored" with respect to images?

A:To me this means that images should be dealt with according to their educational value and potential use in articles, their compliance with image policies, and their copyright/licensing status, and not according to the personal beliefs or opinions of individual editors.

10. Do you believe that the arguments of some Wikipedia critics that Commons is (among other things) a warehouse of pornography with no plausible encyclopedic value has merit? If so, what have you done to correct this situation? If not, why do you think this criticism is invalid?

A.I don't agree with this at all. I've patrolled and reviewed tens of thousands of images, and I've found explicit images to be only a small part of the vast collection of images we have on Commons. I've seen great images of everything from sports and cars to nature scenes and buildings, from animals and plants to rocks and trees, from coats of arms and maps to drawings and paintings, and images of people ranging from celebrities to soldiers serving overseas.

11. Have you ever edited Wikipedia under any other user name or names? If so, what were these?

A.No. INeverCry is the only name I've edited under.

Additional question from Tryptofish

12. Let's say you are closing a discussion about an image file at WP:FFD. The nominator has said: "Non-free image. Used on [page] purely for decoration. I can readily understand what the page is talking about with text only." There has been only one responding comment, from the editor who uploaded the file, and this editor has also made numerous edits to the page where the file appears. The editor describes at length how a particular idea is an important part of what the page is about, and explains that, although strictly speaking it might be possible to understand this idea with text only, the image adds in important ways to the reader's understanding of the idea, and the editor goes on to name very specific things about the idea, that the picture illustrates, and makes a convincing case that there are visual aspects to this idea that the image does flesh out. There are no other comments in the discussion. How would you close it?

A.In a case like this I wouldn't be in a hurry to close if I even closed it. If the nominator hadn't responded to the uploaders comments, I would ask them to do so and give them some time to respond. After evaluating the case I would decide whether to put in a keep vote and wait for other opinions or actually close. Also, as I gain more experience in FFD my way of handling these would likely change a bit. I would certainly start with a cautious approach.

Thanks. I'm going to support your RfA, and I'll comment about this question a little bit more down there. Admittedly, this was a very difficult and technical question, one that I suspect most editors would have a tough time with. As a friendly pointer, I'll suggest that you take a look at WP:DECORATIVE and WP:ANYIMAGE. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Northamerica1000

13. Have you ever experienced significant conflict with another editor or editors regarding a matter on Wikipedia? If so, how did you work to resolve the conflict?

A:The only significant conflict I've had is mentioned above in question #3. Dennis and I talked it over at first, somewhat heatedly, and then I took a short break from editing here to think it over, while doing an increased ammount of work at Commons. Dennis and I then had a couple chances to work together at Commons, and we were able to do so professionally and with courtesy. We've now put it behind us and have a good relationship now and for the future, as I plan on asking him for advice in future. INeverCry 20:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

• Links for INeverCry: INeverCry (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for INeverCry can be found here.
• Edit stats are on the talk page. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 08:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[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. Strong support: Excellent candidate! --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support experienced on Commons, and I've seen the candidate make insightful comments on the English Wikivoyage as well, so I'm sure they can understand the differences in local policies. --Rschen7754 08:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Strong support: of course, I'm the nominator Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. support. Administrative experience on commons and writing experience here. He misused "vandal" to refer to a badly POV edit to a badly POV article on Pussy Riot, noted in an above question; unless he has repeatedly made this mistake after having been notified about "vandalism" on en:WP, one incident is not a serious issue. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   At least when I started editing Wikipedia, calling an edit which contained "evil Putin conspired with other anti-Western Russians" and "Putin's Moscow, full of drunkards, homeless people, criminals and Russians" vandalism would have been completely acceptable. These edits are far more harmful than "asdfghasjfnaks" style vandalism. - filelakeshoe 14:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree. I stopped reading after the first sign of nationalist nuttiness and hadn't seen the ravings you quoted. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5. Support - Great candidate for admin. He has his admin experience from commons and have also been doing great work in english wikipedia. I don't see any reason to oppose this editor. Torreslfchero (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Being an admin on commons is a good reason for me to support, though you don't have to be an admin on any wiki to move images to commons. However you have lots of experiance, so good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 12:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support I have no problems - should be trusted with the mop! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 12:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. --LlamaAl (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support I have had a number of interactions at Commons with INeverCry a few months after we seriously butted heads here at enwp, an incident where neither of us were perfect but I accept the lion's share of blame. It would have been easy for him to take a different approach but he acted professionally towards me afterwards as an admin at Commons and I would expect no less from him here. Plenty of clue, obviously here to build an encyclopedia, and has good general experience as an admin already. Like the rest of us, he isn't perfect, but after interacting with him in both mundane and heated circumstances, I have no problem trusting him with the tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support, based on my generally positive interaction with the candidate, both here and on Commons.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support as co-nom. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Unusual to see almost a thousand edits to an article by one user (List of Russian-language novelists) and a lot of these should have been marked minor (really minor), but that's no reason to oppose an RfA. Commons experience and saying he'll walk before he runs are both points in the candidate's favour, and his talk page archives show frequent positive interaction, hence support Jebus989^✰ 14:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13. Yes, we definitely need more admins comfortable with image copyright. Support. - filelakeshoe 14:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support, excellent candidate. — Cirt (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. This candidate would provide an important bridge between Commons and EnWiki, and would bring this project some much-needed expertise on a subject many are unfamiliar with. Their primary goal in seeking adminship reflects this. On my one encounter with this person in the past, involving an image on Commons, they responded promptly and courteously to my request, and then followed up with me when the problem recurred - really going the extra mile. --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support per Dennis Brown. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 16:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
17. Yes.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support. I see no difficulty trusting that similar experience elsewhere will allow effectiveness here. GaramondLethe 18:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support I'm tempted to oppose, simply because he's so active with deletions at Commons and because so few other people are — I don't want him to be distracted by admin tasks over here :-) This many edits shows that he's gotten a bit of experience, and his record at Commons shows that he's quite capable of being an administrator. I do hope you don't reduce your activity at Commons, but you'll do a good job here and should have the tools. Nyttend (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support I see the candidate at Commons a lot. While I'm sympathetic to the observation of limited AfD involvement, I'm also aware that candidate is mainly interested in Commons related activity, and is unlikely to be active in AfD. While we don't put limits on such activity, candidates experience convinces me that any such actions will be only be done after getting fully up to speed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Dennis Brown's support following a dispute (and the candidate's admission that the situation should perhaps have been handled differently) are indicative of the candidate's suitability as an en.WP admin. Miniapolis 19:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
22. --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC) The underlying OTRS issue is a typical case where one can invent reasonable positions either way and the user was not the only support team member unhappy about it on grounds. Having considered that, I don't see any reason to oppose this request and therefore I'm with Dennis Brown this time[reply]
23. Support per Dennis Brown. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 20:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support because I see no reason not to. The issues raised on the oppose section do not concern me. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support One thing that I was happy to see was that you recognized that you may not have handled a dispute in the best way possible. I'm not saying that it was good that you may not have handled a dispute in the best way possible, but at least you didn't say that it was all the other editor's fault and you were totally okay about it. I am also pleased to see that Dennis Brown himself is fine with having you with the tools. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
26. Strong support As sysop on Commons INeverCry is very active, just see here. If he does 10% of the actions here, my vote will have already been worthwhile. Good luck. Érico Wouters ^msg 23:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
27. Strong Support Well I sort of expected to see Sven support because this appears to be a candidate right in his neighborhood. I disagree with Bwilkins on this candidate. This isn't an AFD candidate. This is a files candidate. So AFD !votes on notability should not have any bearing on the candidate. Files issues should. As a commons admin, I think this user is qualified to handle files on the English Wikipedia. Their assistance could be useful on WP:FfD and WP:CSD for files. It's nice to have rounded administrators, I think, but it's also nice to have admins with a specific niche. This one does and I think he'd be an asset.--v/r - TP 00:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If I ever become a single issue voter, please shoot me. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

28. Yeah, sure, why not? ;) Kurtis ^(talk) 01:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. Sure, there are some animosities between en.wiki and Commons (though I've not been part of them myself). But the way to address that is by building bridges, not barriers. And from everything I see, I'm confident that INeverCry will prove an asset to inter-wiki cooperation and goodwill. Oh, and someone who understands image copyright is always welcome, in my view. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a comment about the resignation from OTRS. I really don't understand why that is even an issue - we have no minimum term requirements here, and no proscribed resignation reasons. Suppose INeverCry were to resign from adminship after six months for whatever reason. All that would have happened is that we'd have had six months help with admin work, which would have been welcome. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

30. Support as per Boing! said Zebedee – my thoughts exactly. Also, general breadth of experience renders INeverCry more than able to handle some extra responsibilities. Airplaneman ✈ 01:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support Competent user with admin related experience. No problems here. Commons and Enwiki are similar in their admin tasks per Boing! said Zebedee. Vacation9 03:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
32. Happy to Support; I am familiar with their work on the Commons and think they are ready to take on more admin tasks. This user is one of the people who gets it. -- Dianna (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support. Moved from 'neutral' based on the support from some of my respected colleagues. The concerns expressed in my neutral statement still stand, that is, that the candidate does not provide me with sufficient metrics to meet my criteria. On the other hand, as stated, I have no reason to believe this editor would misuse the tools or his privileges of judgement. As all admins probably do most of their serious learning on-the-job, I am confident that for what he does not know already or is unsure of, he will indeed either ask for advice or watch carefully how we do things here before acting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
34. +1 Support No problems here. INeverCry is an excellent admin on Commons and the user has a lot of administrative experience. I definitely think INeverCry would be an excellent admin on the english Wikipedia as well. Webclient101^talk 05:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support - I think his experience with files and on the Commons will make him a good addition to the admin team, and his answers to the questions are satisfactory for me. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Will make an excellent admin. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support – I know INeverCry from Commons. He is very friendly and well competent. He has willingness to put in the extra effort to resolve your requests/needs. He understands Wikimedia tools which are almost same on all the projects. Good track record here on English Wikipedia, if not exceptional. Honestly, I see no reason why he should not be admin. — Bill william compton^Talk 06:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support I've known INeverCry for a while both here and in the commons. He was always nice and encouraged me to do more work. I believe he would be one of the better admins rather than borderline. Mohamed CJ (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
39. Strong support. Willingness to help, full competence, lots of common sense, excellent track record, - all the good things abound. -- Evermore2 (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support; I feel comfortable with this user being an admin (and I would be happy to welcome them back to OTRS as well, for that matter!) Andrew Gray (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support I've dealt with INeverCry in his administrative capacity at Commons. Seems sane and reasonable. Based on his answers to questions, I have no reason to think he won't be sane and reasonable with the mop here. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support More than useful on Commons --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
43. Yes. Seems solid and reasonable. The only issue I saw in recent contributions was the reverting and warning an IP incident already mentioned, and INeverCry appears to have learnt from that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
44. We need more copyright experts for administrators. Secret ^account 17:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support has a clue and lots of experience in the area where he plans to work. That's what counts. We don't reject RfA candidates who have loads of experience at AfD and plan to work there just because they have limited experience with the files policy. Besides it's bizarre to pretend that the deletion policy is something so complex that two years of dutiful study are required to grasp it. When entering an area where they have limited experience, longtime, responsible and clueful editors like INeverCry don't come crashing in like a bull in a china shop. Moreover people who are admins on Commons and en.wiki can be very useful and very efficient at solving routine maintenance tasks that require some coordination between the two wikis. Pichpich (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Has always seen an honest sort. Ceoil (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
47. Not the easiest thing in the world, getting admin experience when someone isn't an admin. Their work at commons tells me all I need to know. Wizardman 01:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Go now and take the mop! Well deserved. No problem anyway with this user as he seems have learnt from his recent issues. Mediran (t • c) 04:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support. Welcome. -- œ^™ 06:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. I'm satisfied by his admin experience on Commons and his pledge to go slowly while learning the ropes here. The issues with the "vandalism" reverts and OTRS are minor and don't really concern me. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support. If this person isn't qualified, I don't want to be a Wikipedian anymore. The opposes I see here highlight what is wrong with RfA. Every candidate has their strengths and weaknesses, and it is ridiculous to expect every person who stumbles into RfA to be a god-tier expert in everything Wiki. Some people are never satisfied, though. I'm sure if this editor had a strong knowledge of deletion policy then he would instead be brought to task for... I don't know... never creating a featured portal or something. Trusilver 08:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support Temperament and trust are present, areas the editor can be helpful in are apparent, specific areas the editor might not be familiar with can be learned. --j⚛e decker^talk 08:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support I see no evidence he would intentionally misuse tools. I do see evidence that he admits mistakes and corrects them. Not perfect but none of us are; good enough and trusted trumps perfection. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 08:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
54. Strong Support Helpful. Also has admin experience at commons. So I have nothing to oppose.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 09:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Great administrator on Commons; will handle administrative tasks here too. — Forgot to put name (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support He knows how to use scripts, can respond to questions well, can be trusted and has knowledge of tools, has done more than just edit, has a long and steady history and has article creations. I have no doubt he will be a good admin. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. I have to admit that I think there are too many questions for candidates at RfA, and I generally do not like asking them. I asked Q12 this time because I saw a request for such a question on the RfA talk page, and it struck me as a reasonable request. But the question I asked is a sufficiently tricky one that it can lend itself to being a "gotcha", which is something I generally disapprove of in RfA. All of that is a long way of getting around to saying that, for me, this RfA comes down to evaluating whether I trust a candidate who has a strong track record at Commons to understand how to deal with content, rather than files, here. I'm entirely satisfied. Q12 deals with a situation that actually comes up rather regularly at WP:FFD, pitting a nominator who is a stickler for limiting the use of non-free files (not permitted at Commons, and an important difference between there and here) against a content editor who sees the value of the particular image for the particular content. I don't want admins doing file work who fail to listen to the content editors. The cautious answer, along with the honest admissions elsewhere in the RfA of mistakes from which the candidate has learned, tell me that this is someone who is going to be careful to do no harm. Although a lot of the editing history here has been gnomish edits and work on list pages, I looked carefully at the editing history of George Crabbe, and I find clear evidence of actual sourcing and content work. Taking that all together, I'm fully comfortable that this is someone who can work administratively with image files while understanding what goes into serious content creation. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support Good admin on commons, his skills in image copyrights will be a great benefit to en-wiki. I see no reason not to trust him to use the tools correctly.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
59. Per TParis. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
60. Strong support: INeverCry has been working here for over four years, and after 30000 edits understands Wikipedia's ethos and standards thoroughly. He's helpful, courteous, hard-working, and willing to admit mistakes and learn. His record on Commons shows he's an invaluable admin over there, and I'm sure he will be here. We need a lot more people like INeverCry. --Antiquary (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support: Seems trustworthy, has admin rights on Commons and uses them effectively. And has made significant contribution to the wiki, SUPPORT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retrolord (talk • contribs) 22:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support - Garion96 (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support - en.wp work is good and the activity on Commons is just icing on the cake. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support per Sven Manguard's oppose below and for the following.... The candidate has strong experience on Commons and with OTRS, in addition to enough of a history on English Wikipedia. INeverCry was courageous enough to voice and act on his/her belief that identities of admins and other editors should be protected on wikipedia. I must commend the candidate for taking a stand on this rather long-held policy of wikipedia to protect users' identities. Since INeverCry was able to be strong about this opinion, I would trust the mop with him/her. - ʈucoxn\^talk 02:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Just based on what you said in your statement means that you clearly have no idea what Sven was talking about. Legoktm (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I take it he can't see the OTRS thread. My point is that if you don't like a conversation, you're never going to get what you want simply by leaving the room. INeverCry didn't like a conversation, and left the process. Didn't stay to argue, didn't stay to see how it would turn out, just didn't like the conversation and left. It wasn't a courageous stand against anything; standing and leaving are rather opposite things. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't leave "because I didn't like the conversation". I resigned because I didn't feel that my personal info was as secure as it should be. As I stated earlier, I joined OTRS with the direct understanding that my personal info would be kept private. The fact that OTRS admins mentioned the possible release of this personal info in a list made me feel uncomfortable about the safety of that info. I had the concern that there might be future proposals like this and that I would have to worry about the release of personal info down the road. I'm ok with the risks associated with being an admin because those risks are an expected and understood part of adminship. OTRS is the opposite, and so the proposal made me worry about the possible reversal of that expectation of privacy. INeverCry 04:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sven, consider reading Albert O. Hirschman's Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've read the summary on Wikipedia. Would you like for me to rephrase my continued opposition in terms of the terminology used there? I don't think that you realize how immensely miniscule the chances of OTRS revealing the personal information ever were/are going to be. If people left this project every time someone decided to put forth a proposal that editors edit under their real names (which has roughly the same chance of success), we'd have a barren project. My point is that I believe INeverCry freaked out and left completely unnecessarily and that I don't want admins behaving like that. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    One factor in my deciding to leave, or not to actually start with OTRS, (I never processed a single email), was my impression that OTRS admins had a different level of authority than admins here. I got this impression from the process used to select OTRS volunteers on Meta. At the time I applied, some people commented on my being a good candidate, and these comments were removed without discussion by an OTRS admin. This started a somewhat heated discussion on the talkpage there. I was left with the impression that OTRS admins have a higher level of authority/discretion than admins here or on Commons and some level of independence from discussion. I really didn't know exactly what the chances of that proposal succeeding were. And so I made the decision to step back because of my concerns, which I really feel/felt were legitimate. INeverCry 20:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

65. Support – their experience at Commons indicates to me that they will make good judgements here, too, especially given that their stated area of interest is files. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support - a trustworthy and helpful candidate. I understand the opposes about not having much experience of deletion discussions, but at least the candidate has some. Also, from my perspective, it's perfectly ok to volunteer for a specific role - such as OTRS - and then later resign. Otherwise, I agree with Doctree that we should be looking for candidates that are good enough, but we shouldn't require perfection. PhilKnight (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support No evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 18:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support Image-related admins are always needed, and this user has a solid amount of experience and clue. Spencer^T♦C 21:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support Per Dennis Brown. In addition, this user has a massive amount of admin experience already.Tazerdadog (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support. Long-term editor with decent content contributions and useful image expertise. Although the editor's experience is limited in some Wikipedia areas, the responses suggest s/he will exercise appropriate caution where s/he is not expert. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support Vast amount of admin experience already at Commons, would be a good admin here.--5 albert square (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support I see no reason why not to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
73. I've come across him on Commons where he has deleted some of the images I've tagged for deletion. There is a lot to be said for having some closer links between what may well be our two larger projects and for that reason I welcome this RFA. I'm especially happy that rather than just focus on his Wikipedia experience, clean blocklog and so forth he mentions relevant Commons experience. Deleting testpages and user requests are really not that different between the two projects, and apart from fair use the copyvio aspects of files should be pretty much the same. ϢereSpielChequers 11:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support - some issues have been raised, but there is nothing of great concern, and I do not feel the tools will mis-used. GiantSnowman 11:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
76. Calm and clueful, particularly in the area that he's planning on working in: that handily counters the relatively low participation in FFD here on en-WP. And low FFD count is the only non-ridiculous reason ("doesn't hate Germans", "isn't happy with the notion of his privacy being traded away in a straw poll") given by anyone opposing thus far. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support - though I agree with the general sentiment that Commons needs work and I hope adminship here will not greatly diminish INeverCry's good work there. Stalwart111 12:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support per Dennis Brown. Having en-wp admins with significant Commons experience is always handy. My initial concern that this insertion of File:Seryozha.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) could be questionable has been satisfied after referring to WikiProject Books#Images (with which I was largely unfamiliar). -- Trevj (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support Long Term Editor and an admin in commons .Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools in particular with his/her expertise in images.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support Plainly trusted with the tools at Commons. I trust that he will understand differences between Wikipedia and Commons, and we can always use more help with files. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support —  dain- talk   03:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support he's shown sufficient caution in areas he doesn't know well on Commons, I'm confident he'll grow into the role on en-wiki as well. --99of9 (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support, trustworthy in my experience, and no suggestion that he would maliciously mishandle the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
84. Weak support - per my criteria; a likely net positive. Go Phightins! 18:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support - I don't see a convincing reason not to support this candidate. I trust them with the tools. James086^Talk 20:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
86. Strong Support. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
87. Stephen 02:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
88. support sounds good — billinghurst sDrewth 03:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support. I'm happy with the questions and there is enough general experience. I like to see conflict well handled or well reflected, and Dennis Brown's support says much for that. Tryptofish's Q and commentary suggest restraint. I'm not privy to OTRS, so I'll ignore that. I'm mindful of the opposes, and the AfD results stats scare me: small numbers, heavy delete, poor diagonal, not appealing to policy. Please don't close anytime soon. I'd also like to see candidates make WP:AIV reports. Image copyrights have their own special twists, so that is a plus. Talk page shows some appropriate initiative. Images are a mess on Commons, so opposing has a selfish benefit, but volunteers get to choose where they work. Glrx (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
90. No particular concerns. Swarm ^X 06:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support. I'd like to have seen more participation at AfD etc, but on the whole I think this candidate is a net positive to the project and can be trusted with the admin toolset. — sparklism ^hey! 13:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support No issues here.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support - No problems here. Mlpearc (powwow) 17:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
94. Per noms. - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support It appears they have plenty of relevant experience. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support - Qualified editor who I trust with the admin tools. The OTRS matter reflects well, in my view. Looking at the overall vote totals and current percentage, allow me to be the first to say: Have a great adminship! Jusdafax 23:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support no concerns -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support for many reasons well stated by others above, but especially because Dennis Brown in supporting. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support seems like a reasonable person so don't see why not. --regentspark (comment) 01:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support - no concerns. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support based on review of overall work. Kierzek (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

1. Unfortunate oppose 21 !votes in AFD's does not give me the ability to see their understanding of en-Wikipedia's deletion processes. A lack of activity at the admin-ish areas here (AN/ANI/etc) concerns me, as it's significantly different than at Commons. The edit count here on EN is quite low over the last few months - a significant drop (likely due to duties on Commons). Speaking of Commons, it's a festering cesspool (based on the number of complaints at Jimbo's page), and something that needs significant work to bring it up to scratch - that is where I would use my skillsets if I were INeverCry. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't understand. INeverCry has done some wonderful work at Commons supporting such respected luminaries as Russavia, mattbuck and Cirt. He has an excellent grasp of Common's copyright standards.101.119.29.36 (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Dedicating time to editing certain projects is not obligatory. You contribute there if you are so inclined, but don't force others to do your bidding. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose. After reading the nomination describing INeverCry's Wikimedia Commons work, and the answer to question 1, I was expecting a strong history of contribution to WP:FFD. I found one proposed deletion, one AfD !vote and (I think) a CSD tag in August 2012. There were a number of AfD !votes in July 2012 and a handful of earlier AfD !votes. I believe that WP:FFD would be the best place for INeverCry's admin skills. However he has little experience with deletion in Wikipedia. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Regretful oppose The conditions around the candidate's recent resignation from OTRS lead me to oppose. The candidate chose to give up his/her access because he/she did not like a discussion that was happening on the OTRS wiki; even though the action INeverCry disagreed with has no chance of happening, that there was even a discussion on it was enough for the candidate to decide that he/she no longer wanted to be a part of the OTRS community. While INeverCry did not to anything objectively wrong in this case, and most certainly did not break any OTRS rules, if a toothless discussion is enough to make the candidate leave a project/process, that doesn't really make me comfortable with his/her general mindset. The OTRS wiki is only accessible to OTRS members. The thread being discussed is here. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I see the resignation, but where is the discussion that led to it? NW (Talk) 16:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi Sven. That there was a proposal/discussion involving OTRS admins in which the possible making of a list containing personal info, and most importantly real name info of OTRS volunteers, is something I feel was atleast partly inappropriate, regardless of the possibility of implementation or lack therof. I don't feel that OTRS volunteers should have to worry at all about the possibility of such a release of personal info. INeverCry 16:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Having seen the thread, I think it was more miscommunication than anything. --Rschen7754 17:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Except it's not. INeverCry just made that clear. Leaving OTRS because of a belief that a conversation shouldn't happen is exactly the reason I'm opposing. I'm not saying you have to agree with my reasoning, but it's not just miscommunication. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for raising the candidate's involvement and strong beliefs about this issue. - ʈucoxn\^talk 01:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Cry is a good editor, but since he had health issues recently, I feel that all possible disputes will damage him physically and perhaps even psychically. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 17:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi GOP. I appreciate the concern, but my health is much better than it was 6 months ago due to medical treatment. I think my steady work on Commons in the last 4 or 5 months will show that I'm strong and able to handle the kind of situations you're referring to. INeverCry 18:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Ok, fair enough. I have stricken out my oppose. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 18:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose - no confidence, sorry. --A.Savin (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Why not? GiantSnowman 11:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   In the absence of any further clarification, can we assume this is relevant? QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 11:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Hmm. If I was braver I'd strike A.Savin's vote. GiantSnowman 12:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Being wiser, 60 editors didn't strike the vote. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I would think A.Savin is probably unaware of the damage such voting has been doing to RfA as a process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I firmly disagree with the idea that voicing the opinion that you have no confidence in someone can be deemed inappropriate conduct during an RfA. Adminship comes down to trust; and, so, if I don't trust someone, I have to be allowed to oppose him on those grounds. And trust is not something which can be proven using diffs. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Agree with Salvio. Honestly, I think it's escalated when people start badgering for reasons. A closing 'crat can make the call regarding the validity of a "no confidence" vote without a whole slew of badgering that often quickly becomes personal attacks on the person casting the !vote. THAT, IMO, is the bigger problem with RfA (battling badgers, if you will). If it's ok to vote "total confidence" with no further comment, it should likewise be ok to vote "no confidence" with no further comment. Intothatdarkness 17:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   No, I don't think that a simple "Support" !vote is acceptable either, and I have previously commented at WT:RFA to this effect. GiantSnowman 17:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Just simply stating 'I don't trust him' is as empty as saying 'I don't like him'. DIStrust can and should be qualified and it's easy enough to do if valid.Fur such a vote to be valid, it needs a rationale. Unqualified support votes are in support of an argument that has been made by the nominator(s) and further qualifed in the candidates answers to the three set questions. A.Savin's vote has created unnecessary drama here (yes, and I'm necessarily adding to it), and badgering , if kept polite, is in no way a PA, but is a fully admissible statement of distrust or GF in the voter's motivations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   You just proved everything I have thought about RfA reform for the past year. RfA is not a thread at /r/CircleJerk and comes down to nothing more than trust. Not trusting someone is a valid reason to oppose. Guerillero | My Talk 17:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Saying "I don't trust him" is neither uncivil nor a personal attack. It's a !vote that may probably be weighed less by the closing 'crat, but it's a perfectly acceptable one to cast, nonetheless, in my opinion. And I'm rather worried that such a an oppose was included in the list of the ones that are inappropriate; I agree that it's necessary to improve the climate surrounding RfAs, but this should not be used as a way to silence perfectly acceptable opinions. Then again, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose for now: The candidate's experience in admin-relevant en.wikipedia processes is simply, and rather clearly, insufficient. I don't agree that any of the minor issues that have been raised with regard to alleged mistakes, attitude/temperament, etc., are of any consequence, and I see no trust problems in the larger, most important senses that relate to honesty and integrity. However, WP administrative knowledge and competence are important and complex, and when absent, resolve to a trust issue of a less personal but no less pertinent kind. I would happily support in 6 months if I saw a lot more involvement in XfDs, AN/ANI, etc., not just content work and things relating to moving images to Commons. That the candidate has a good track record as Commons admin is very promising. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 17:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Concerns with experience in administrative areas. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 23:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose per SMcCandlish, and also because of some of the neutral comments. I agree, the wiki specific privileges shouldn't carry over, and I think there's an anticipation of some of that here. I'm ok with what Candlish has said so far on this subject overall. Shadowjams (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. after looking through Special:Contributions/INeverCry. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Can you be a little more specific, please? MJ94 (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose The whole OTRS thing doesn't reflect well on INeverCry (and others). INeverCry volunteered to help with OTRS, and through no fault of his own ended up starting a great big dicussion about OTRS and OTRS admins transparency and accountability. This resulted in among other things, a proposal to the current volunteers nowhere in which was there ever a suggestion of revealing OTRS volunteer's private information such as their real name. Without requesting clarifcation or taking part in the discussion, INeverCry resigned. This doesn't inspire confidence in me that INeverCry won't just simply storm off instead of taking part in a discussion if things get heated. KTC (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I can't access OTRS Wiki any more, but there was a page or a part of a page where pros and cons for the proposal details were listed, and release of real name info was mentioned along with atleast 1 con about this kind of release. I'm pretty sure what I'm referring to was written up by OTRS admin User:Rjd0060. INeverCry 04:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I hope you don't mind if I try to address your overall concern. As a highly active admin on Commons, I've participated in many discussions, including some heated ones, and I always see things through. I also address editor's concerns fully when brought to me on my talk, even if the editor is upset or confrontational. If this RFA is successful, I'll do the same here. INeverCry 04:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   OTRS can be a strange place. No one knows what it's like there until they become an agent, after which, working there might prove not be everyone's cup of tea. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   In the preceding section to the one you mentioned on the OTRS wiki, was a statement of clarification the first line of which stated that no private information would be released. There were a number of responses that mentioned real names, but that were never part of the actual proposal. I am willing to assume good faith that this was an unfortunate misunderstanding and strike my opposition. KTC (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   As a former OTRS volunteer who found that the process made me uneasy, I believe that I understand INeverCry's concerns, and believe the resignation reflects well on this Rfa. Jusdafax 22:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]

Neutral (for now) Movig to support. INeverCry appears to be an excellent contributor and admin on Commons, and has impressive content work on Wikipedia. However, what a candidate does on another Foundation project is only part of the assessment and I need to know how he would perform if given the set of admin tools here. Hence, his contributions to the traditional admin related areas here, whether those that would require the use of tools or those that require the judgement entrusted to admins, fail to meet my criteria. This is not a statement in any way of mistrust, but I need sufficient metrics to be able to apply to make an evaluation at least on aggregate, and that especially demonstrate an understanding of CSD, PROD, AfD, and AIV. I am also concerned with the vandalism reverts mentioned by the IP user (who incidentally has only made a total of 32 edits to Wikipedia). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With CSD, we have something similar on Commons, which is the creation of galleries, userpages, and file talk pages that are promotional, tests, vandalism, etc. I delete a large number of these and do alot of patrolling of new pages on Commons, and I think that experience would help me here. As for AFD, and PROD, I wouldn't be at all heavily involved in those in the near future. My usual practices are to observe how other more experienced editors/admins handle things and be careful to learn from them, and to ask for advice if I'm not sure exactly what should be done in a certain situation. With AIV, I would be careful handling cases, and at the start leave anything I had doubts about to more experienced admins. I do have a good ammount of experience on Commons with responding to concerns at ANV and concerns brought to me at my userpage. INeverCry 17:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, for what it is worth, my experience with Commons shows that he can be decisive but not reactionary, hesitating when he wasn't sure. Based on my experience with him, I don't think he will go maverick, and his experience in files and coordinating with Commons is sorely lacking in the enwp admin corp, so obviously he will be a net plus in that area. Commons isn't enwp, and the policies are very different but I'm confident he will ask first when he isn't sure, just as he does at Commons. My perception is that he has good clue, and that is enough to stop him from doing really dumb things until he is up to speed in new areas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral leaning Support for now while I further investigate the user, per Kudpung and some of the opposes. Vacation9 20:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to support. Vacation9 03:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral - I'm gonna sit in the neutral camp for now. 60,000 deletions at Commons with an expressed desire to do File work here combined with extensive use of automated tools gives me severe pause. We've had "shoot from the hip" File volunteers before and a great deal of stress and controversy has resulted. I'm not seeing hardcore activity at En-WP after the "Semi-Retired" banner went up either, and that also bugs me at some level... Leery. Carrite (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm very careful with the deletions I do, and, while I've made mistakes as we all do, they have been very few considering my high volume of work. Any mistake I make I do my best to fix as quickly as possible. I would do the same here with any deletion work I take part in. As for my editing, I do alot of work on Commons, and so I don't think I'd be a high volume editor here. Anyways, I appreciated the 2 questions you asked about censorship and my view of Commons, and I was glad to be able to state my views on those topics. INeverCry 20:32, 1 February 2013 (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.