The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed due to withdrawal by candidate. Please do not modify it.

ImperatorExercitus[edit]

Final: (43/27/9); Withdrawn by candidate; closed by Roux (talk · contribs).

Nomination[edit]

ImperatorExercitus (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to nominate ImperatorExercitus for adminship. A very well-rounded user, he is both an article writer and a policy guru. So far, he has produced 19 Did You Knows, 9 Good Articles, and 2 Good Topics, and he has accumulated more than 10,000 edits over the course of 10½ months. Moreover, he is an active participant in Articles for Deletion discussions, giving well-reasoned rationales for keeping or deleting articles. I am sure that Imperator will find the mop useful for updating DYK queues, closing AfDs, and responding to UAA reports, among many others.

Imperator has certainly gone a long way since his previous RfA. These 4½ months, he has gained plenty of experience across a variety of areas. Also, he has not made any incorrect CSD taggings recently, which was a concern at his first RfA. Wikipedia would become a better, more friendly place if Imperator were made an admin. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I graciously accept :) Just a quick note/disclaimer first. I really don't intend to work with images and copyright, as I'm not very familiar with that. Should someone ask me, I would simply direct them to someone who has more experience there. On the brighter side, I've restricted my G1 use a lot more, which was one of the greatest problems at my last RFA. Thanks for the great nom, King of Hearts! :D Cheers, I'mperator 22:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone please close this RFA as withdrawn? I would do this myself, but I'm a bit too despondent...after learning exactly what a cruel and unforgiving place RFA can truly be, with accusations that appear to think good faith is a curse...Thanks to NW, KoH, Owen, and everyone who participated, for giving me helpful advice. I shall be taking a (wiki)break, and, depending on how I feel (and how much busier university will be), might come back. Cheers, I'mperator 13:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Well, I intend to take part in just about every field of administrative work that I'm currently involved in. First off, I'll increase my activity at UAA. Not only will administrative tools allow me to see deleted contributions, which are important in determining whether the account was made in good faith or is simply another spam account, but also allow me to block definite violations of WP:U. In addition to UAA, I intend to work more at T:DYK/Q. Without adminstrative tools, I can only move hooks to Prep1 and Prep2 (which I do very frequently). However, this only gets me so far; within minutes, I've filled up both queus with hooks, and I can't move them to the appropriate areas. Another area that I intend to concentrate in is WP:AFD. At AFD, I contribute in several ways: closing AFDs appropriately as "keep" or no consensus, relisting, voting, or adding them to correct categories. Though I'm not a regular, I also sometimes help out at CAT:PROD. Also, even though I'm not particularly active in WP:AIV anymore (I do have 100+ reports though), I do intend to sometimes go over there and, in the case of extreme backlogs, block a few vandals. Of course, it goes without saying that I will continue in my non-administrative work if I attain administrative tools ;P
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Well, King of Hearts covered it quite well, but I'll briefly reiterate. First, I have a few decent article contributions, including 19 DYK noms and creations (mostly articles I created about fungi or ships), a few GAs (2 reassessed, unfortunately), and a list I hope to get to FL soon (Note: I don't, and haven't, claimed that I was the one who was totally responsible for improving the articles, though I did do a fair share). In addition, I do extensive work at WP:AFC/R, WP:AFD, CAT:CSD, WP:AIV, T:DYK/Q, T:TDYK, and WP:UAA. I've also, too a lesser extent, helped out fellow editors when they request it.
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: Well, seeing as the areas I've been involved in don't really involve drama, I'll just provide the conflicts from the last RFA and one between the last one and this one.

From last RFA First, my biggest conflict was with Calton at UAA over a user who had created spam pages (which were quickly deleted without tags on his/her talk page). Consequently, as far as I could make out, the user had done nothing wrong; consequently, I marked the reports as "Non blatant". In fact, I had even checked contributions, which reflected nothing. As a result of my misreplies, I was quickly "put down" and spent a few weeks reviewing all the policies again that related to WP:UAA. Since then, I've learned a great deal: to this day, I have always requested a list of deleted contribs, if any, from an admin before reviewing a case at WP:UAA. Should the community decided me worthy of attaining these tools, I will be able to avoid such conflicts in the future.

(A link can be found here.) There was a notable incident with another well-intentioned editor, whom I accidentally reverted with Huggle (and giving him a warning). Although I reverted my revert and removed the warning, I was accused of "going in like a bull in a china shop." However, I calmly conversed with the user, and, sure enough, WP:AGF paid off. We finally ended with a cup of tea and apologies on both sides.

Since last RFA (Discussion here) On the article Towelie, I added some information that I happened to read on the web; seeing as this was not backed up with a source, it was reverted by Nightscream, who then gave a templated warning to me and proceeded to fully protect the article (he later reverted himself). However, after the protection was taken off, I readded the information, with a general source; Nightscream again reverted. Instead of reverting again (and having the situation escalate into a WP:3RR, I added the sources that I found that directly backed up my statement on my talk page, thus narrowly avoiding unnecessary drama.

From User:Harej:

4. On a recurring basis, you seem to be getting in minor conflicts while successfully averting drama through cooperation, concession etc. If, as administrator, you make a decision that others disagree with (to the extent that you are probably wrong), what specifically will you do as a response? What would be the likelihood of backtracking on your decision?
A: Could you please be a bit more specific? For example, what I did wrong, and such. For now, I'll give a more general answer: I'd first try to justify my actions (assuming that I think I'm right) by looking at the policies. If I see in the policy contradicts what I've said, I'll issue an apology.
I am referring to what you posted in #3.
Ah (assuming you mean the last bit). I'd probably do the same thing, as 3RR applies to everyone, admin or not. However, I'd might also not do the second revert, vying instead to add the information I'd want on the talk page of the article.
Additional optional questions from S Marshall
5. The essence of this question is: when can a local consensus (e.g. on a talk page or at an AfD) decide to suspend a global consensus (e.g. a guideline or policy)? I'll give various examples; please assume that the consensus is closely-argued, gives the best possible reasons in the circumstances and involves plurality support from editors in good standing.

a) Can a consensus at AfD decide to suspend the notability guideline in the case of one particular article—say, a full professor at an accredited university whose work is not visible on google?

b) Can a talk-page consensus decide that it is appropriate for a living person's home telephone number to appear in their article, assuming the living person has given permission via OTRS?

c) Can a talk-page consensus decide to suspend the biography of living persons policy and allow unsourced criticism and/or praise of a living person to appear on Wikipedia?

d) Can a FfD consensus decide to retain a copyrighted image of a building in London that is still standing, on a fair-use basis?

e) Could a Village Pump discussion agree to mark the IAR policy as historical?

A: Assuming that the actions do not establish a precedent, I've replied how I would act below.
a) Hmm...this is an interesting case, but I'd allow it, assuming their is no unsourced defamatory material (which I would definitely remove, seeing as there are no sources). I'd assume that the information from the non-google source(s) is accurate. In a sense, this is similar to what we do at DYK; if we ourselves cannot see the actual source, we assume good faith and allow it.

b) No, as the information about someone's telephone number shouldn't be on any article anyways, i.e. "Wikipedia articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted." BLPs are one of the few things that are beyond local consensus, and, imho, is even outside the grasp of IAR (even with my opinion in part e). See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_personal_information

c) Definitely not. WP:BLP is currently one of Wikipedia biggest problems; we need to make it stricter, not more lax. Besides, a consensus allowing this is pretty unlikely for this. A similar (albeit not identical) example in which BLPs are the opposite of the norms is at AFD; no consensus is a default keep, except for BLPs, for which the end result is delete.

d) I'm not that good with images (see acceptance statement). I’m tempted to allow it, but I'll get back to you on that one.

e) No. IAR isn’t so much of a policy as it is use of common sense; sometimes, we can’t do an action without violating one guideline but following another. Even though misinterpretations of IAR are common, the main goal is obvious: to help the encyclopedia.

Further Q: A well-reasoned answer in general, but I'm deeply concerned that you said "BLPs are the opposite of the norms is at AFD; no consensus is a default keep, except for BLPs, for which the end result is delete." Please could you explain why you believe this?
A: Oh, sorry for the miswording. What I meant to say is that, unlike various other articles (in which unsourced material, while not encouraged, is tolerated), unsourced, defamatory information on a BLP is always removed. I attempted to use an analogy at AFD (which wan't exactly very clear :/), but the gist is that unlike other topics, the end decision (assuming no consensus) would be tilted to a deletion. If the only issue the a bit of defamatory information in the article, though, and not the notability, then only the defamatory information should be removed (and the topic not at AFD) Hope this clarifies :)
Last Q from me: It does, to a certain extent. Here is an example of a BLP taken to AfD, where the result was "no consensus". In your opinion, should the closer have deleted the article?
A: Well, this one is actually a little bit trickier, seeing as there are five previous nominations. Some background info (for me and whoever is reading this)
In light of the three points above, I would probably relist the AfD, with the comment that someone really should address the concerns from previous AfDs; this would give an opportunity to make the article better rather than simply delete it.
Additional optional questions from Protonk
6. What is your favorite Simpson's episode and why?
A: This is a hard one… it’s either Cape Feare or Brother From Another Series, if not just because I love Sideshow Bob :)
Questions from ArcAngel
7. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
A: Never; they serve no purpose other than to inflame the situation even more, as the blocked editor will be more irritated than ever. The best solution is to have a discussion on the user/article talk page.
8. What are/is the most important policy(s) regarding administrative functions?
A: WP:BLP. While I’m not exactly a major contributor (I’ve probably only removed 4 or 5 blatant violations) to WP:BLP, I strictly believe that ‘’any’’ unsourced derogatory information pertaining to a living person should be removed on sight…and this includes deleting a defamatory article, one of the many administrative tools.
9. Why are edit summaries important?
A: They provide some insight as to the circumstances/reason behind an edit. Edit summaries are especially important for controversial edits, as a perfectly reasonable controversial edit might get reverted if the user did not post an explanation.
10. Could you please provide examples of inadequate reports to WP:AIV (that you would decline and remove from that page without blocking the user reported)?
A: A case I recently declined If you want, I’ll explain more. :)
Questions from Seddon
11. What is the difference between a cool down block and a block given due to personal attacks against editors?
A: (See appropriate policies here and here). Cool down blocks are blocks made against an editor, though angry, is not being disruptive (ie, in this case, attacking other editors). As stated in 7, they should never be used. However, personal attacks against editors shows that not only is the editor irritated, but also is disruptive. Hence, after the appropriate wanrning, (s)he should be blocked.
Blank bit of paper from Nick
12. This isn't a question, I just want you to write a little essay (two or three paragraphs will be fine) about image and media copyright discussing licenses, potential copyright problems and how we deal with them, basically, I'm looking for you to demonstrate an acceptable understanding of our copyright policies.
A: This certainly is an odd request :D I'll start at User:ImperatorExercitus/Images, and hopefully finish by the day after tomorrow. This will also help me answer A5 (d) (I'm still researching it, btw, Marshall; I haven't given up :P)
*Update* I've finished 3/5 policies that I intend to cover (I still have to do NFCC and FU); even though it's not done, it's a start :) Cheers, I'mperator 21:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB
13. Please choose one policy or guideline of your choice and explain in detail why you think this is good policy/guideline to have.
A: Meh...I'd have to say either WP:BLP or IAR. I'll go with WP:BLP for the explanation: imagine a world without a policy controlling BLPs. There would be slanderous information on most, if not all, of the BLPs; however, we could not possibly remove this information without sparking a load of drama, debates, and edit wars (not necessarily on all of the articles, but definitely some). People would be able to add, for example, "Brad Pitt was cheated on Angelina Jolie" with relative ease. Lawsuits would be flying left and right. Now back to the real world; see how it's so much better? :P
14. Are there any policies or guidelines that you feel should be changed? Explain.
A:
Additional optional questions from Bwrs
15. In follow-up to your answer to question #2: of which Good Article contributions are you most proud?
A:

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. As nom. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Works for me iMatthew talk at 23:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Looks good to me. - 154.20.253.177 (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    People who are not logged in cannot vote. @harej 23:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that was me, I forgot to log back in when I switched from secure server. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 23:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that's fine, then. @harej 00:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Your last RFA didn't succeed because of some CSD issues, and I remember only giving weak support then. I noticed a month ago that your CSD tagging had improved and I liked this, (sorry admins only) when you made sure the author got their ((hangon)) in even though you stopped them removing the tag. ϢereSpielChequers 23:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Supprot No problems.--Giants27 (c|s) 00:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You spelled support wrong... Until It Sleeps Wake me   21:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Opposers seemed to be in agreement at his last RFA that he was almost there, he needed to take a little more time and learn CSD. He's done that, and also participated helpfully at RFA and done a lot of article work. - Dank (push to talk) 00:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Tempodivalse [talk] 00:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Imperator is a productive editor with a decent demeanor who will likely do fine with the mop. KoH is right, he's greatly changed since his last RfA, and while I'm not sure if I participated in that one, I have no concerns at this RfA. Looks like he's got a good knowledge of CSD/deletion, so I'm happy to support this time. JamieS93 00:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    After some thought, I've moved to the neutral section. JamieS93 23:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Alan16 (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Joining the unanimous support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards in that candidate has User:ImperatorExercitus/Awards, which shows appreciation from colleagues as well as DYK and Good credits (candidate is here indeed to build an encyclopedia), the candidate was trusted enough by an admin to get rollback, seems reasonable at AfDs even though probably argues to delete more frequently than I do, and has never even been accidentally blocked. So, nothing really jumping out as a negative here. Most of the opposes back in April seemed to be about being inexperienced and I believe that the additional months since then has been sufficient as evidenced by the DYKs, etc. and thus far no one seems to be identifying any serious issues since then. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Looks good :). Airplaneman talk 01:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support; no convincing reason to oppose. I've dealt with Imperator before and I've never found him to be anything but an experienced, enthusiastic and highly competent user. Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC) moving to oppose. Ironholds (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support provisionally. Longer comment for later. Answer to q6 was shorter than I would like, but it's right. :) 02:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    Oh. The above support was me. Protonk (talk) 05:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I've seen Imperator around AfD a lot with valuable contributions. I was surprised when I realized he wasn't an admin. Jujutacular talkcontribs 03:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Candidate seems knowledgeable on policy per answers to my questions. ArcAngel (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support The user looks knowledgeable and trustworthy, although he could use some more work with copyright. It can come with experience. He seems like he has enough clue to know not to work in those areas for now, like he has stated. hmwitht 05:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support With the CSD issues in the past, I no longer see any reason not to support.--Res2216firestar 05:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Weak Support - Image problems are of a concern, but seems fine elsewhere. Aaroncrick (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support User has improved considerably since their last RFA, most notably in the CSD area, with only one mistagging in the past three months (this G11 which was not really unambiguously advertising) I could find. Since I can notice the candidate's ability to reflect and improve on criticism and mistakes, I see no reason to oppose. NW's oppose is concerning at the first look but I am assuming good faith that they just made a simple mistake as claimed. Regards SoWhy 07:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Improved since last rfa. P.S. Please assess based on area the user wishes to work in! We need as many people working at DYK as possible!  Francium12  10:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, no problems here. People make mistakes, and small ones shouldn't hold back an RfA. Switching to oppose. –blurpeace (talk) 10:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Good usre. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 13:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol. I can tell you guys are never going to let that one rest XD :P Cheers, I'mperator 13:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - I have collaborated with ImperatorExercitus on a few GAs and he's been very helpful and friendly. NW's oppose is a bit worrying but I'm sure it was just a simple mistake (see here). Also, great answer to Q6. :) Theleftorium 14:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Looks great. Since working with copyright is not required or essential to most of an admin's tools or the candidate's proposed role, previous problems with copyright policy carry no weight with me. RayTalk 15:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Strong candidate with quality contributions to the project, and growth and experience in other areas as well. Cirt (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Keepscases (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Looks good to me. Answers to questions convince me.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 16:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to Oppose.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 11:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. I trust him with the tools. ƒ(Δ)² 17:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Good editor, seems reliable and helpful. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - Trusted editor with a nice variety of experience. Shadowjams (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support I almost opposed, but you seem to have learned your lesson. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Per Ktr101, also I see no intent to break rules or be dishonest. WP is a complicated place, and it is not required of an admin that he know every bit of it, just that he be trustworthy.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support An excellent all-around editor -- with an emphasis on all-around. I am very happy to support IE. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Weak support The previous image problems are worrying, but he has stated that he doesn't intend to work in that area. He does great work in other areas, so I can only support, if weakly. Until It Sleeps Wake me   21:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, we need more admins and ImperatorExercitus has repeatedly demonstrated that he's sensible, dedicated and willing to improve. I am not convinced by the opposes over image copyright: while undoubtedly mistakes were made, I personally find bandwagon opposing over an area the candidate specifically intends not to work in to be highly counterproductive. Imperator can clearly make many productive contributions to many areas, and I trust him not to wade inexpertly into the wrong ones. ~ mazca talk 22:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you going to claim that he wont work in article space either? As his GAs all reflect the same problem that his images reflect. His understanding of copyright and sourcing was a failure all the way around and not just in one area. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Looks good except for the image problems, but it is fairly obvious that he has learned to at least be extremely cautious when approaching images (if he even choses to approach them at all). Other than that there are no problems, and he has a strong track record in article writing. Malinaccier (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support – Without hesitation. --Aitias (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. There are many admins who get along fine without knowing the first thing about image policy. Opposing will achieve nothing more than a kick in the teeth - he admits his errors, he has said he won't work with images, so what's the issue? Therefore, opposing for this reason is nonsensical. Majorly talk 23:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Images weren't the only things revealing copyright problems - all of his GAs had problems with these issues. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See discussion on talk page. Cheers, I'mperator 00:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you were. In taking credit for a Good Article, you are saying that it meets all of our standards. That means that you take credit for every single line there. If you didn't add in the copyright infringement, you surely didn't bother to remove it. That is a major issue. I think it is disgraceful that you still list those GAs as part of your accomplishments. Your accomplishments violate our policies. As an admin, you are supposed to uphold our policies. If you didn't do that for your own Good Articles, who is the say that you would do it for the rest of the encyclopedia? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support a trustworthy candidate who has worked hard on making Wikipedia a better place, especially as most opposers seem only to be attempting to make Wiki-political points. rspεεr (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I find the opposition unconvincing: It's mainly about one bigger mistake, from which the candidate obviously learned, in an area in which candidate said he isn't planning to work, and one or two extremely minor ones that are blown out of proportion. (The fact that he candidly wrote he hesitated before making the right decision is, if notable at all, rather a sign to trust the candidate.) In short, I see no reason to fear that candidate would abuse the tools. — Sebastian 08:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. I support, as while copyright issues may be important, we need good admins and this is clearly one. Nobody is perfect or can have an understanding of everything. Irbisgreif (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Copyright concern is a bannable offense, and we have both OTRS and OFFICE to ensure that we are not filled with such things. How can someone possibly be a good admin when they are violating our ethical policies? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Simple, the user has realized he doesn't quite get copyright and has stated he intends to avoid such issues as a result. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please link to where he promised not to ever write an article again. Otherwise, strike your comments as being wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Image copyright issues are worrisome but the user has otherwise demonstrated a good understanding of policy and would, I believe, make a valuable addition as an admin. Shereth 15:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    His actions have proven that he doesn't understand WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR or WP:Plagiarism. Where is this good understanding of policy? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing these egregious failings of core policies. Can you elaborate? Shereth 17:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It was proven that just using one source to check (and not checking any of the others), that every one of his GAs had either plagiarism, false claims to information being in sources, or blatantly incorrect per the source. Plagiarism is a bannable offense. Claiming sources say something that they clearly do not is an egregious violation of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. How can you not see that? Lying about something as serious as that in all of your articles is not appropriate in any form nor does it show a correct understanding of our policies. Fraud is unacceptable at Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I am missing something, the sense that I got from reading the talk page was that these were sins of omission, not comission - the candidate had nominated some articles for GA without properly verifying the information contained therein. Unless I am missing something and the candidate has been the one actively plagiarizing, I don't see this as quite the dire problem. Sorry. Shereth 17:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    These are his "best contributions" to Wikipedia and show that he either put those problems in himself or he failed to make sure they did not exist there. That means that multiple policies were ignored. There should not be -any- of these problems in any article, especially not Good Articles that you are bragging about as demonstrating your contributions here and your knowledge of content related issues. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support per SlimVirgin and IronHolds. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Looks okay to me. Keep up the good work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support My experiences with IE have been positive and I appreciate his thoughtful (and knowledgeable) answers to the questions asked. I don't consider the lack of copyright knowledge a problem, I've seen other recent RfAs where even established admins have commented that they don't understand all the copyright rules, and IE has expressed a desire to avoid those areas anyway. -- Atama頭 19:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide a diff to where IE says that he will not be participating in article editing, as the copyright concerns were found in many of his articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My reference is to image copyright knowledge. As to article copyright concerns I see no evidence that IE has willfully committed plagiarism, supports plagiarism, or is unaware of what plagiarism is, and I believe your tendentious arguments to the contrary say more about you than IE. -- Atama頭 21:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Check the talk page of this RfA for a discussion of possible plagiarism. J Milburn (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you are saying that an individual who works on an article, puts it through GA, and claims it as his best work is not responsible for 100% copy and paste of a source in that work? If you want to say there was no malice, you cannot claim that he did his job correctly. WP:V and WP:RS apply here. He cannot pass these off as his "best contribution" when they violate our content policies. This was not one article. This was -all- of the articles, and I only checked -1- of the sources. There are many, many more sources that have yet to be checked against. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support I don't see any major problems with this. Go for it. WelcomeAtlas (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support I should have !voted sooner. I think IE would make a great administrator and it's a shame to see how this RfA is going (but 62% isn't really that far from passing). -- Soap Talk/Contributions 13:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. I'm concerned about the images you have uploaded and their licensing status. You've had images deleted, images that contain contrary licensing information, and images whose license tag doesn't seem to match the source given. — RockMFR 01:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong oppose per File:Agaricus_benesii.JPG (and possibly more; will update). I cannot support a candidate for adminship who is willing to falsify copyright information in order to use images on Wikipedia. Feel free to respond here if I made some sort of mistake. NW (Talk) 01:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Other examples (administrators only, sorry): File:Agaricus_lilaceps.JPG, File:Borgia.JPG, File:Agaricus lilaceps veil.JPG, and File:Agaricus praeclaresquamosus.JPG. NW (Talk) 02:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That was an honest mistake (I've explained a bit more at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_September_7#File:Agaricus_benesii.JP and User_talk:ImperatorExercitus/Archives/2009/August#Agaricus_benesii). Cheers, I'mperator 02:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note, at the top of the RfA he says, "Just a quick note/disclaimer first. I really don't intend to work with images and copyright, as I'm not very familiar with that. Should someone ask me, I would simply direct them to someone who has more experience there." iMatthew talk at 02:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)::I have deleted the images for you per request (and per copyright violation issues), but I still will stick with my oppose; I cannot support an candidacy, even if the candidate do not intend to work with images, if the candidate shows a basic lack of understanding of our copyright policy. NW (Talk) 02:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But if he's saying that he doesn't understand images and won't work with them, why does that mean he shouldn't get the tools to help out in other areas? We're losing admins by the day, and holding them back because they're inexperienced in an area they don't even plan on working in seems unfair to me. iMatthew talk at 02:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    May have to return to the basics and remember: "Wikipedia the free encyclopedia" Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What relevance does that have to the discussion? The discussion being his lack of experience in image copyright, an area that he will not be working in. –blurpeace (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Graeme is suggesting that image issues are so fundamental, users need an understanding. Would you be happy to support a user who said "I don't really "get" this "improving the encyclopedia" thing, so I won't be doing any of that. But please don't oppose me! My admin tools will be very useful elsewhere!" J Milburn (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Still staying at my position regarding images, and I completely agree that this closure was...not exactly the best one. Why exactly was "keep" a hard call to make here? And if was a hard call, why were you, as a non-administrator, making it in the first place? NW (Talk) 03:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per NW. JPG-GR (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per NW. Moreoever Admins should be prepared to work in all areas of the encyclopedia. I don't think you're serious about the task at hand. Crafty (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, we're opposing somebody over inexperience in an area they fully intend not to work in!? iMatthew talk at 13:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The voting user has been indef blocked.Abce2|TalkSign 00:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It would appear so. Crafty (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What the? I'm confused. Abce2|TalkSign 00:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Crafty replied to Matthew before he was blocked. You must have put the block notice above his reply by mistake. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)help us! 01:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the timestamps show that he put the block notice above his reply on accident.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 11:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose: I was ready to oppose with a hammer due to the copyright violations. However, I see you have learned from your mistakes, and genuinely mean it about keeping out of image issues, and have not uploaded/edited any images since. However, I still lie very, very uneasy due to that, and certainly cannot support. In anticipation of iMatthew's response, if a hypothetical admin hopeful does not intend to deal with civility issues, that doesn't mean that anyone opposing based on the fact he is abusive and aggressive is behaving illogically. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that ImperatorExercitus will not drift into areas other than which he professes an interest. If I'm honest, my current actions have nothing to do with what I discussed on my RfA. J Milburn (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    After further consideration, consider this a strong oppose. The general lack of interest in/respect for our image policies in this RfA is worrying. Take question 5- I like how in part a, what Wikipedia is not and biographies of living people (why's this relevant here anyway? Reread the question, if you don't follow...) are completely beyond ignoring all rules if consensus deems it necessary, but how it's fine to just completely ignore our non-free content criteria in part d (yes, the question's vague- if the photo itself was famous, yadda yadda, but I think it's pretty safe to assume ImperatorExercitus gives the wrong answer here...). In any case, if ImperatorExercitus is genuinely serious about avoiding image issues (and we're ok, as a community, with giving someone the tools when they're effectively topic banned from a very large part of the encyclopedia) what's he doing answering this question? J Milburn (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick comment: I'm actually not done with (d) (you'll see that I said in the answer "I'm not that good with images (see acceptance statement)." and that "I'll get back to you on that one"; seeing as I don't know the answer, I was reading WP:NFCC, WP:FU, and such; could you please give me more time to answer the question? Cheers, I'mperator 15:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'll strike that bit, but my strong opposition still stands. I'm sorry, but I'm not comfortable with supporting the promotion of yet another admin who is clueless about our non-free content criteria. Regardless of your research, the fact your initial response is that it is probably ok shows you have the wrong attitude towards non-free content. J Milburn (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per concerns raised on talk page. There are problems ranging from faking sources to down right copy and paste of sources. These are articles used to show off the user's knowledge of content and content policies, but show many violations of standards and serious policies. I cannot support such a user at this time, as I have no confidence in their ability to understand the core policies that admin are supposed to uphold. A person should be judged against what they consider their best work, and I do not think this work gives a favourable view of the user. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See discussion on talk page. Cheers, I'mperator 15:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - I'm sorry, man, you're a good guy, you really are. You do a great job around here, but I consider basic copyright knowledge essential for all prospective administrators regardless of where they intend to spend their time -- it is too important of an issue not to be particularly careful of it. Supporters, feel free to try to persuade me otherwise, this is a discussion after all -- it's pretty much only this issue that is drawing me away from supporting. — neuro(talk) 15:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Attempting to persuade per request. Well, after this RfA, you can bet IE will have thoroughly reviewed all copyright policies. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 17:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be wary of correlating review with comprehension -- I'd like to see evidence of the latter more than the former. — neuro(talk) 17:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also concerned with the lack of knowledge that putting a phrase like "No wiki rules apply" into the header of your sandbox implies. — neuro(talk) 00:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The AfD close seems like a bad call to me. All in all, I simply think that this is the wrong time to apply for adminship, if you can resolve the issues that have been brought up and come back in a few months, I will happily support the next one, but I'd rather see that improvement in judgment first. — neuro(talk) 05:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. This AfD close tells me all I need to know. This editor saw an even split between "Keep" and "Merge", and had a hard time deciding on how to close the AfD; the obvious "no consensus" didn't even occur to him. Also, while I'm not a deletionist, a comment such as "I believe that this encylopedia is based off the fact that we should improve an article, rather than do away with it." says more about him than any of his answers to the questions above. We need admins who know, understand and apply our existing policies, rather than come up with their own. Owen× ☎ 21:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD has two possible outcomes; delete and keep. Editorial decision (merging, redirecting, userfying) default to keep, so while IE's closing rationale was a bit off, it seems like an entirely reasonable closure. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. As a non-admin close, he had no choice but to close as Keep. But by giving us a glimpse into his flawed reasoning, he made it clear that in a future case where opinions are evenly split, we might not be so lucky to have the outcome of his decision coincide with the correct one, once he has access to the "Delete" button. This isn't WP:DRV; we're not discussing the correct fate of that article. We have an editor who makes closing AfDs one of his main tasks, and declared he'll continue doing so if promoted, and yet as recently as one month ago didn't have the most basic understanding of deletion criteria and AfD closing guidelines. Owen× ☎ 22:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Nuke. Perhaps this is just the battle-in-the-trenches hardened mentality one gets after sifting through image reviews at WP:FAC. I fully believe that the candidate won't intentionally traipse through image issues as an admin with all the subtlety of the bull in the china closet. But I feel that for an admin, an overall base level of competence in all areas of the wiki should be required. This falls under that umbrella. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This closure mentioned above shows particular cluelessness. Friday (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Candidate states that he intends to work as an administrator in the area of deletion; but the discussion closure linked above makes me doubt his ability in this area, or at least his ability to consistently do the right thing. It's not that the closure was incorrect, it wasn't - but the rationale made no sense. Nathan T 03:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose, one month is too early for me. Please review our deletion policy and related pages, if you have not already done so. –blurpeace (talk) 03:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Per NW, Friday. → ROUX ₪ 03:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. General concerns with regard to judgment and understanding of policy. In particular the problems with copyright are a dealbreaker. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Sorry, but for an admin who works in AfD this just isn't good enough. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose, per NW and \/. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. Not comfortable that this candidate will be able to work successfully or communicate clearly in his chosen area of interest: deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TenOfAllTrades (talk • contribs) 13:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per Owen. Ironholds (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I have doubts about Imperator now, thanks to the good points brought up by NW. Even if you don't plan to work in an area, you should at least have a good knowledge of core policies. There aren't that many, it's not too hard to read them all. I don't doubt that you've looked over the copyright policies now, but I would like to see proof before I support. Additionally, as a non-admin closer, you need to understand that NAC's are for non-controversial closures. I appreciate that there's a rationale, but taking action in a place that non-admins are not intended to work shows a lack of clue. I'm sorry, but I just can't support you this time 'round. (X! · talk)  · @950  ·  21:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Per the concerns raised by NW, Friday and, X!. Regards, Javért  |  Talk 23:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per copyright and AfD concerns. Sorry, but right now I can't trust you to correctly close AfDs, and I feel that a basic, elementary knowledge of copyright policy is essential in an admin. I think it may be prudent to read up on the related policies, guidelines, and essays. Timmeh (review me) 23:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. We don't hand out partial adminships, and the candidate's demonstrated thickness with regards to copyright policy is a dealbreaker. The AfD close mentioned above is, additionally, pretty bad. I'm also not a fan of "cultural reference" sections (the Towelie contribution the candidate mentions in Q3) - if a cultural reference cannot be elegantly mentioned in the main article text, it is all but definitely a superfluous association of the Tarantino variety. Badger Drink (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose While there have been problems with images and copyright, I concede that they have been a learning experience. But in my view, while it is accepted that non-admin closures of AfDs exist, they should only be performed if the consensus is quite overwhelmingly obvious. To look at an AfD, state in the posted rationale that it is a difficult one, and then to go ahead and make a decision indicates to me a lack of judgement, and perhaps a tendency to go beyond the limit of delegated authority. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 15:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Contra bad feeling at this point of time. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose per NW, X!, and most of all, Friday.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 12:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose too many recent issues to support at this time. Hopefully by RfA #3 Imperator will have a good understanding of our copyright policy, and a better understanding of policy in general. The "BLPs default to delete" comment in particular leaves me with the impression that he is relying on things he has heard people say rather than reading our actual policy documents. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Per Ottava and NW. Don't be too discouraged, should this not pass these mistakes are correctable, given time. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  13:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. I am not sure on Imperator, though he seems capable of stemming drama before it gets out of hand, which is why this is a neutral and not an oppose. @harej 00:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not neccessarily a bad candidate, though I'm not entirely convinced either.--The LegendarySky Attacker 04:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not familiar with candidate. Pending further look at contribs.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 15:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    After further review, me decision is support.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 16:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I have some concern about the candidate's record on image permissions, but I am prepared to accept that he will not work with images for the time being, so I won't oppose over that. I'm prepared to overlook Ottava Rima's concerns on the talk page. But I'm more seriously concerned about the candidate's apparent belief that AfDs for living people default to "delete" on a "no consensus" outcome, which I think speaks to a failure to understand WP:BURDEN; XfDs of almost all kinds default to "keep" on a "no consensus". (There was a proposal that such AfDs should default to delete but it failed to gain consensus.)

    I think it's pretty much essential that a prospective admin should have a clear understanding of the deletion criteria for articles, so I don't feel I can support at this time; but I'm happy enough with this candidate not to oppose.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  4. neutral - comments about UAA are worrying. Why do you need to see deleted content to make a username block? Either block for the username, or block for the behaviour, but don't issue a username block instead of a ehaviour block. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    From Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Listing instructions: "Usernames that are clearly unacceptable for use on Wikipedia, but have no obvious disruptive editing may be blocked indefinitely, however, you should allow the blocked user to create a new username. To do this, when you are on the block page, disable the autoblocker and uncheck "Account creation blocked", or click on "softblock" when blocking" versus "Disruptive usernames that have clearly been created only to cause trouble should also be blocked indefinitely, but in such cases it is usually also desirable to block anonymous editing and prevent further accounts being created (enable autoblocks, and enable "prevent account creation"). Such disruptive usernames may contain harassment or personal attacks, or be easily identifiable as a previously banned user or vandal." :) Cheers, I'mperator 23:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted contributions can be important. If a user named J.R. Higgins creates a page called J. R. Higgins Co. and it is deleted immediately with no talk page message the account will appear to be benign to someone who can't see the deleted edits, but an admin can look and see that they in fact have created a spam page. This doesn't happen very often, but I've seen it before. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 15:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The is no problem with J.R.Higgins as a username, even in the above situation. We don't want to say "Keep doing what you're doing, but under a different name", we want to say "Don't create spam, avoid coi," etc. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - per Ottava Rima. I want to support, but the knowledge about the copyright issues are important. AdjustShift (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Hmmm, very tough, opposes are valid and concerning, with the image problems, but particuarly the dodgy AFD's here too. However, I do trust imperator not to misuse the tools, and these are minor concerns on a very good user. However, they are big enough to stop me supporting. May change either way, but I will have to consider further. AtheWeatherman 19:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral (from support), possibly leaning toward oppose. Sorry Imperator, in general I like you, but the opposers raise some definite concerns. Not enough for me to oppose by right now, but I can no longer support. JamieS93 23:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral. None of the individual concerns would be enough to sway my support, but altogether, they can not be overlooked. I'm thinking of the image issues, controversial NACs, and in particular the notion that BLP defaults to delete. decltype (talk) 07:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral. The image issues and the AfDs are problematic but ultimately insufficient to justify an oppose, IMO. Everyone makes mistakes. But I'm not prepared at this time to support. In a few months, perhaps. Tim Song (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2009 (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