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

Note from closing bureaucrat: I have chosen to make a statement when closing this "RFA" to clarify my thoughts. It is my opinion that the outcome of this "RFA" is that it is an obvious success. It is reasonable for a bureaucrat to ignore votes that oppose the process but make no statement about the candidate; votes like this, while not invalid, make no statement on whether this user is still suitable to be an administrator, which is what this intended function of this process is. Ignoring such votes when determining the outcome of this "RFA" is no statement against the votes or voters themselves, as would normally be implied by ignoring a vote. Even without ignoring such votes, the percentage support lies within a range where bureaucrat discretion is encouraged.

For anyone who is interested or has any doubts, I encourage you to make a draft edit to this "RFA" where all the oppose votes which comment solely on the process are removed completely. This will hopefully resolve your doubts.

Any questions regarding this closure may be raised on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 00:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(154/39/22); Originally scheduled to end 00:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC). Closed as "successful", which in the context of this request means LHvU remains an administrator. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 00:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – LessHeard vanU Note; this is a Request for Reconfirmation of the Community's trust in my continuing use of the Administrator's bits. It has been two years to the date of filing this Request since the Community entrusted me with the sysop flags, and in that time I have grown into the role of administrator. I acknowledge that the learning curve has, and continues to be, driven as much by my mistakes as by my capacity to learn from my colleagues and in the application of clue as regards interpretation of policy. I am also aware that my views on appropriate adminship are not shared by all members of the community, and that perhaps some do not believe I deserve access to the tools. As regards the latter, I am not in the category Administrators open to recall so am using the mechanism of RfA to give the community the opportunity to weigh my contributions as a sysop and to conclude whether I should continue.

It has always been my intent to be a person of integrity and transparency, and to take those values into my adminship. I have not always succeeded, and once in a while succeeded only too well, but have striven to be honest and fair handed in my dealings. I am aware of my strengths and weaknesses, and I have concentrated my efforts into some areas and not others - I do not see that changing overmuch. While I understand the mechanisms of most area's of the administrators ambit, I feel most comfortable in the discussive and opinion area's of the role. I am still very much the vandal fighter I quickly became when I first got the tools, I have Wikipedia:AIV on my watchlist and still put in a bit of work there whenever I sign on. Likewise, I watch and comment frequently the WP:AN and WP:ANI pages (and am aware of some peoples disdain for the regular habitees of these "Drahma Boards"). My continuing content work continues to reduce, but my awareness of my limitations inclines me to consider that by limiting myself to a bit of copy editing and vandal reverting over a range of articles that I contribute much more to the quality of the encyclopedia than if I were to try and compete with the legions of excellent content builders that I try to support by my admin actions.

I ask for your approval and comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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: As mentioned above, I shall continue to work in the areas in which I am familiar. This is primarily the AN and ANI boards, WP:AIV, and also Requests for Arbitration (where I may have history, or where a principle is being examined), sporadic participation in WP:RfA, patrolling Recent Changes with a view to applying the rollback/delete button on major vandalism including BLP violations, and answering requests on my talkpage - or elsewhere - to the best of my ability.

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

A: I am not a content builder, really, and have no shiny FA or GA to point to. If I were to pick an article, it may be Usana - but there is precious little evidence in the history to indicate my contribution; you need to look at my participation on the talkpage to understand how I think I best serve the encyclopedic endeavour. I think I am pretty good as a facilitator and gobetween, especially where I have no strong opinion. Even where I do have a fairly strong opinion, like I have regarding Freemasonry (see the Freemasonry discussion archive on my talkpage), I think it is not easily discernable. As I said in my original RfA, my best work is likely to be on some talkpage somewhere. I hope that I am regarded as a good communicator.

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 am an admin, and am active in both vandal fighting and AN/ANI participation and am not a stranger at WP:RfAR. There are times when I think that all of my wiki life is mired in "conflict", yet there are also times when I seem to serenely progress through the hours, even though the situations may be considered fraught. I have not suffered stress regarding the interactions of others - I have found some individuals to be trying or otherwise annoying but I think it unfair to name them; this is my RFA/Reconfirmation, so it is my record that is to be examined and not theirs and, anyway, per AGF I assume that they were seeking the same thing as I was - a better encyclopedia. Earlier this year though I suddenly found that I was making mistakes at a much higher rate than usual and was concerned enough to take a weeks Wikibreak (I don't think anyone noticed...) to see if it helped - it may have, since my mistake ratio returned to its normal embarrassment factor.

I have been able to handle the stress, with the support of a few colleagues and the benefit of a certain outlet, very well in the past and have no doubt I shall continue to do so. I only have to remind myself, once in a little while at that, that we are working toward providing the best free access and open edited encyclopedia possible... and its voluntary, so why bother fretting?

Question by NuclearWarfare

4 Do you feel that the bureaucrats should have the power to post a note at m:SRP to request your desysopping if they close this request for reconfirmation as unsuccessful?

A. Yes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question by User:zzuuzz

5 What was the inspiration for this RfA?

A. Earlier this year in the space of a few days I blocked two accounts who were blameless of any wrongdoing, which not only shocked me that I could get it so wrong but also shocked me that I was so complacent about my admin actions. I took a wikibreak, and contemplated how I should try to ensure that I didn't become stagnant in my use of the tools. This is the end result. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC) ps. Both accounts were quickly unblocked by me, but one after a third party drew my attention to my mistake.[reply]

Question by User:CIreland

6 A quick review of your last 500 edits to project space suggests you are inactive or rarely active at WP:AN3, Arbitation Enforcement or on pages concerned with image policy enforcement. Arguably, administrators working in these areas will inevitably antagonise some, often very vocal, editors. Would you recommend this reconfirmation process for an administrator active in one or more of these controversial areas?

A. As, as you point out, I am very much the stranger to those areas of WP and it is therefore very difficult to judge the level and tone of dispute found at those venues, and I would then prefer not to make a definitive statement. However, my belief in the ability of the Bureaucrats to judge which opposes were based on personal antipathy or "revenge" and which ones are routed in problematic behaviour or policy misunderstandings would, I hope, allow admins in such situations to base their decision to request reconfirmation without regard to the type of sysop work they are involved in. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question by EdChem

7 What do you consider was your most contentious decision / action as an administrator? What did you learn from the experience? What (if anything) would you do differently if you encounter a similar situation again? EdChem (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. Contentious or bad? I have made "contentious" unblocks and a block/unblock with regard to Giano, and what I have learned from these instances is that there are sometimes no right or wrong, but only degrees of good or not good. As regards bad/poor, too many to mention - but I am not so wedded to my actions or decision to worry unduly if they are undone or varied, and I will explain myself if asked and undo my actions myself where there is consensus that my initial action was inappropriate. I cannot change the past, and the only way I can reduce the likelihood of making the same mistakes again is to continue learning and improving my understanding. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "contentious", I meant decisions or actions that have generated controversy and debate. I wasn't interested so much in whether you were ultimately right or wrong - other comments plus the rationale for this !RfA demonstrate a clear willingness to admit to and correct mistakes. Some situations are going to ruffle feathers and generate heat no matter what action is taken... and sometimes one might conclude there wasn't a better approach to take, or that one's actions had the unintended effect of adding to the controversy, or that it is best to look back on the situation as a learning experience. These are just some possibilities that occur to me. I was interested to see what which decision / action you would choose, so I could look at what others said at the time and how you think of it looking back now. Having said all of that, I have seen enough to make a decision on my !vote, so I don't mind if you choose not to add anything to your response. EdChem (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly every decision or comment outside of article space (and some good faith ones within it) is a learning experience - that is the Wiki method. I am aware that there are very few cases where a decision, comment or action is going to meet with universal agreement. For that reason I have as little investment in my decisions as I am capable of; I will explain why I feel my actions were appropriate but I will not re-instate an action of mine that is undone in good faith, and in most instances will accept a revision of a sysop action of mine and sometimes action it myself. Where I do not agree I will explain my reasoning but will not deny the revision. In turn, I will undo another admins good faith action in extreme cases where I believe it is of greater benefit to the community - after a consensus being reached - and accept being accountable for my actions. As regards generating controversy and debate, what little I have caused revolves around my comments and sometimes the positions I will take in a matter. Once a consensus is reached, I act according to it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

8. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what have you done, and what will you do, to uphold them?

A: Rights separate from human rights? Not so much, really. The rights to assumption of good faith, of being treated civilly and with respect, to hold views different from others and to have them heard, to conduct oneself as one pleases (within the law), to be afforded all possible help when required, are part of the basic freedoms of nations of the free world. As such, Wikipedia's rules and guidelines relating on how editors conduct themselves and should be expected to be treated is simply a re-iteration of that of the outside world - and I am an admin I am expected to uphold and act within them. I hope that I do. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions by Erik9

9. Why do you hold the biographies of living persons policy in such low esteem that you feel that users who engage in repeated, blatant, WP:BLP-violating tabloid-sourced defamation over a period of months [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10], despite multiple talk-page block warnings [11] [12] should not be blocked, but editors who dare to oppose the defamation should be blocked without warning? (further discussion of this issue is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive189#More_defamation_by_Twiddlebug and User_talk:Erik9/Archive_1#AIV_report)

A: I do not hold BLP concerns in low esteem; indeed, one of the reasons why I choose not to concentrate in that area of Wikipedia is that I do not feel that the project does enough to protect these articles, or assist those who are committed to ensuring that unsourced negative content is removed promptly and serial offenders discouraged or removed as I think I would very quickly burn out if I were to involve myself in either combating the problem now existing or attempt to change the consensus that BLP articles are sufficiently protected from the effects of negative or biased editing. I have supported every instance of the promotion of a policy or process to further protect BLP's that I have been aware of, and I err on the side of protectionism when I encounter any BLP violation query I come across.

I shall respond regarding the specific incident you refer to under your !vote. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10. Please review Durova's comment below. Why have you supported and socialized with the sockpuppeteer and female impersonator extraordinaire Poetlister?

A: I did not socialise with Poetguy, not here nor at Wikipedia Review. We were members of the same website, as you and I are of this one. I was civil with various socks of Poetlister, and was as taken in by by him as was many people. I would also note that Poetlister (who I never knew as Quillercouch) also had male accounts - but used mostly female identities as they were more effective. Not only did Durova attempt to convince people of the truth, but so did FT2 and some other people who were privy to certain information - unfortunately there was a rift of trust and mutual suspicion between some factions of Wikipedia and some lack of good faith. Notwithstanding the above, and the fact that I am embarrassed at being taken in, I would rather be known for being a little too ready to assume good faith than to be regarded as a cynical and hardbitten blowhard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions by Lankiveil

11a., what percentage/number of people would need to support this RFA for you to determine that you still had consensus to remain as an administrator? The usual 75-80% range? Or more? Or less?

A: The 'Crat makes the decision. Whether the 'Crat then makes the contact with a Steward should the Request have failed, or whether I am asked to do it, to effect the change I don't know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11b., if the consensus at this discussion is that you are no longer trusted to hold the tools (per either your answer to 11a or a bureaucrat decision), what will you do? Will you continue editing as a regular user and re-apply for adminship at some future point?

A: I believe I would carry on - I have spent a considerable time in the last three years here. I would still likely participate in the admin boards as a commentator, and issue vandal warnings and report to AIV instead of actioning them, but I may see if my content writing skills are as indifferent as they were prior to my devoting time to the sysop role. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions by Mattisse

12. - You blocked me without warning on the complaint of User:Zeraeph since banned. Subsequently I make you a peace offering and you accepted. Does that peace between us still stand?

A: I am aware of the recent/current RfAR regarding you, and yet have not involved myself to the extent that I do not know if it has been accepted or not. I think that answers whether the understanding between us remains, although I could ask the same of you given the tone of your question. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by the "tone" of my question. Certainly I count on the peace between us remaining, but since it was a while ago, I wanted to check and see if you remembered and still agreed with the peace pact. It is important to me, as you were one of the first persons I made a peace pact with. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one of the area's of dispute was whether or not I blocked you out of process - so you risk reopening it when you simply note your take on the situation. However, to make clear, yes, I remember the peace pact, and I have kept my side of it by not involving myself in any dispute you have been involved in had I been aware of it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Anonymous Dissident

13. – Please expatiate on your reasons for putting forth this RfA, in terms of how you thought it would turn out and what your expectations were. How did you think the community might respond to this aberrancy, and do you think you adequately considered other avenues for administrator review? How does the current direction of the RfA and the level of support compare to your initial expectations? Further to that, how well do the opposes you have received accord with your reasons for putting forth the RfA? That is, are you surprised by the opposition? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: "... this aberrancy"? ;~) I am pleased to report I have stopped beating everyone's wife, but then I am getting older and my legs are not what they used to be...

I hoped I had answered the first and companion points in my opening statement, my discussion statement, and my answer to Q.5 - I was unable to find a venue or process that was appropriate to have my general admin conduct reviewed where the voiced concerns (opposes) had the potential to be taken very seriously. I have been pointed to Admin Review by good intentioned respondees who have failed to notice that I was one of very very few to have commented at that venue prior to launching this Request. Despite one or two matters being raised here at this request, there has been no suggestion that my conduct had been poor enough to contemplate RfC (let alone RfAR). With respect to the many good admins who have signed up for AOR, I do not have sufficient confidence in a process that is so voluntary that you can resign from it or vary the requirements in the midst of it being enacted. To that latter point, I suppose I could withdraw my nomination here and risk the consequences - but retain my flags - but I am unable to change it should it run its course.

I am surprised at the vehemence of some of the opposition to the process; I knew there would be opposition, but more for the lack of discussion and attempt at getting consensus. I had not anticipated the level of antipathy, and I am still unable to really comprehend why it is (although I accept that it exists). I had hoped that there would be some recognition of the lack of general accountability to the community once an admin had gained the mop, and had not made mistakes so severe as to start dispute resolution processes, but this point has been taken up by only a few.

I had no idea of the ratio of support/oppose would be, but confident enough to put it in effect (I don't want to lose the tools, but was prepared for that consequence), although I can candidly state that I expected quite a reasonable volume; I realised that I was addressing an area of some debate within WP.

Some of the opposes - and one or two supports noting some concern - have been quite illuminating and will require me to do some rethinking in how I present my opinions, or make comments, when I am not speaking in an admin capacity - and the question of whether my admin actions and my viewpoints are as divorced as I had believed them to be. This is what I was looking for when I decided to run. Other opposes, of those based in conduct rather than the process, are fairly typical of RfA; a specific action, comment, or opinion conflated by the opposer (both to the Request and the action, comment, or opinion referred to) as evidence of unsuitability ("I oppose you because you deleted my article on X which clearly indicates you should not be an admin") which - with all respect to the individuals concerned - are only germane if there are concerns over very many different action/comment/opinions from unconnected editors being voiced, and the others which refer to a series of actions, comments, or opinions which they consider contrary sufficiently to the aims of the project as to make access to the tools problematic. Those latter I need to weigh against the supports gained for precisely the same actions, comments and opinions, while recognising that no-one person, group or even majority has sole property to "What is Right.

Good question(s) - I hope the answers were satisfactory. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Xeno

14a. Have you considered the possibility that the bureaucrats may refuse to render a decision in this reconfirmation?

A: I had not. I should think that it is unlikely that there will be a decision to refuse to review and decide at this stage, with so many views being expressed. I believe I would have been notified were this to occur, and I noted on the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard of my action within an hour of my starting it so I feel the opportunity to remove it has now passed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

14b. If this occurs, is there some minimum threshold you have in mind, that would cause you to step down if you failed to exceed it?

A:I think I would request some third party to review the opposes and supports and determine if it has succeeded or not - some of the opposes are based on process only, some may not have sufficient weight, etc but it would be inappropriate for me to determine this - and abide by their decision. Finding the person prepared to do this would start only if no 'Crat is inclined to process the Request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Ottava Rima

15. You asked below for me to point out specific statements in order for you to respond to. Thus, here is a list of concerns taken from just a random selection of topics that you contributed to at Wikipedia Review (mind you, this does not include the comments in private forums, including the Tar Pit which has all of the wonderful juicy bits). I would first note this is your profile at Wikipedia Review and I would draw attention to opposes like number 2 at your RfA which suggest a history of you having a problem in regards to your interactions with attack sites. 1) In regards to the above oppose, why would you feel that a comment like this passively endorsing the same attempt at outing would be appropriate? 2) This thread of SlimVirgin, could you explain why you thought it would be appropriate to create such a thread when you knew that there was a negative response towards SlimVirgin and that there were those in pursuit of stalking/outting (as the previous link demonstrates) on the site? 3) When you admitted that you were wrong about Poetlister "because it means that my trust in human nature allowed me to be so", why would you continue on a website which Poetlister was once a moderator on with others that have also made claims about having multiple accounts and doing the same thing Poetlister has done before, including MyWikiBiz who bragged about having a "clean" account? 4) What was the purpose of linking an attack against me with Jimbo and turning it to attack him? 5) Was this appropriate to attack an individual's "usual blend of arrogance, ignorance and cronyism", especially after stating that you weren't around to have any knowledge of the actual events of his time as an Arbitrator? 6) Do you really believe characterizing a person as a "moron" is an aspect of AGF? 7) When you posted this and emphasized the word "cabal", were you not identifying yourself with the circle of Wikipedia Review in an "us vs them" situation? 8) Why would you attack all of IRC when it is known that many members are some of our most prolific vandalism fighters, including those like j.delanoy? 9) Any explanation for this? 10) Was this attack on Jimbo appropriate? 11) After this banned user admitted to running sock puppet accounts, why would you offer to help them in any fashion? 12) Why would you close a debate on ANI and post about it at WikipediaReview after posting previous your opinion on the matter and showing a bias, thus admitting that your judgment was clouded? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15 part 2 By the way, could you explain this view of BLP which takes away the rights of mildly notable individuals to request not to have articles out of concerns? Also, could you explain these and these statements? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: Is that it? Really? My overall response is that I would be pleased to let anyone review those links (especially Durova regarding my comments pertaining to Poetguy - but maybe not so much where I speculated about her emailing other editors) since it is going to change no-ones mind; those who still perceive WR as an "attack site" will deplore the fact I even read the pages, and those who recognise WR as a legitimate arena for critical discussion of WP will note how moderate the tone of language used. My antipathy toward #Admins especially on IRC has been noted on WP, in ArbCom cases included, many times in the past; I do not care for a venue which is not publicly accountable (logs are not viewable by non participants) seeming to have decisions made there impactible upon WP space. Less so is my dislike of the David Gerrard personae - WP:Civil and all that. I have found that his attitude toward WP:Policy self serving and not recognising of the concerns of others, that he remains unaccountable for many of his actions and is not interested in consensus where it does not support his viewpoint. This is my opinion. Perhaps you don't like it, but that is not my concern since I air it off Wiki and outside of the gameable remit of WP:Civil. David Gerrard, should he ever become aware of my existence, is welcome to open a discussion, of course.

Specific points: 1.) Not an endorsement, but an acknowledgement that it exists and should be placed in one specific topic area - which is not searchable by Google. An example of me reducing the potential RL damage. 2.) Linking to a SV comment on WP? On Giano's page? That must have increased the potential readership by perhaps 2 or 3%. Or do you refer to the context, where I note SV's apparent change of viewpoint regarding the role of ArbCom in her editorial/admin decisions and actions? Or simply that I noted it on WR ("Attack site, yadda, yadda...")? 3.) (Durova, please read... indeed, all of my comments on that thread.) PoetGuy is removed from the site, so there is no reason not to be there now and at the time I was just as taken in apart from a very few - as many on WR as there were on WP, it should be noted. Greg Kohs/MyWikiBiz is, although I have little enough to do with him, is a different matter; those accounts that are clearly his are blocked quickly enough, some other accounts blocked as his quite possibly are not, and those accounts that are not found are usually creating good content - GK/MWB is not attempting to destroy WP, but to change/ignore how some material is obtained and under what reward. I believe that to be at the very least as honest as those "volunteers" who edit to specifically promote their idealogy or interest and deprecate those that oppose it. 4.) Absolutely nothing to do with you, just an excuse to make a joke at the expense of the "Sole Founder" - an area of some dispute even within WP. I am grateful for you noting an example of me being less than serious, though. 5.) I have previously responded re David Gerrard above. 6.) I should think that naming someone who uses Wikipedia as a vehicle for promoting their viewpoint and removing anything contrary as a "moron" is the epitome of AGF, since it infers that the individual is doing it in ignorance of NPOV or is incapable of understanding there is validity in allowing cited differing opinions - the non AGF terms would be "TROLL", "POV warrior" or "vandal". 7.) (Durova, this may not be one you will enjoy...) No. There are "cabals" or interest groups operating within Wikipedia, and likewise in WR there are divisions of intent and attitude toward WP. The Us and Them state of mind exists, witness this interchange between us, and is not specific to one site and another. 8.) Again, already responded. However, I specifically refer to #Admins and those participants who refer to consensus supposedly (how does a non IRC#admins editor know?) arrived at there for their actions in WP space. Either it is fully accountable or not at all, in my view. 9.) More DG. 10.) I have said worse on Jimbo's talkpage (as has been noted at this RecFA), and this site is not really a suitable arena if one wishes to discuss him in less than flattering terms without the mindless "ZOMG, this is Jimbo you are talking about!" responses. By reading below that thread you will note that my assumptions were corrected by others. Those vicious WR contributors... 11.) Not only is it a legitimate question, but one that was raised subsequently by Larry Sanger - and disregarded equally as MWB and others when they raised it. 12.) If you read what I said, I closed the debate because it was not generating any useful debate - a decision I came to upon realising that my intended comments would have merely inflamed the rhetoric; an example of me stepping outside of my viewpoint to enact an action that was of more benefit to the community. Since I closed that avenue of expression, I used WR to air my views. Part 2.) I stand by my comments, if someone becomes notable to WP's satisfaction in some media and they are happy to be included then their choice to renounce their former lifestyle should not impinge upon the earlier notability - and especially if they were known then under a different name. Where a persons notability is marginal, then the subjects wishes are important in the debate on whether there should be an article. And lastly, the Paedophilia stick; my refusal to express a desire to burn at the stake anyone who does not express a desire to burn at the stake anyone who does not express a burning at the stake desire regarding paedophiles. I recognise that WP has taken the view that no article may include commentary that may be seen as not condemning the abuse of children by association with the term. It isn't an encyclopedic decision, in my view, but it is likely the best way to avoid the controversy that the term attracts.

I would like to thank you for the links and questions. My responses are unlikely to sway any opposer, but it is possible that your comments were sufficient to sway the some undecided editors even before I replied. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Is that it?" As stated above, I took a two hour long sampling of your writing which you have completed since 2007. This did not include the comments found in private forums, such as the "Tar Pit" which is where most attack threads and the rest are placed. So no, it is not it. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Is that it?" referred to the supposed "toxity" of my interactions - obviously we differ in our appreciation of the role that WR can play, but I was surprised that you found the examples to be obnoxious. It is like castigating a supporter of the opposing mainstream political party for their views on fiscal policy - differences of opinion within the same framework is not the work of anarchists and revolutionaries (and I am neither for posting/reading at Wikipedia Review). From our shared time at WR you will know that most of my posts in the Tar Pit are strongly worded fights between members (you and I, for instance) and not attacks on non WR individuals - and neither are the rest normally, because there is no point if they cannot be viewed by non-members. Sometimes attacks on WP editors are placed in the Tar Pit for that reason, and sometimes they are removed - so while potentially WR could be used for harassment, the current practice is generally to not allow it to be. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15 part 3 1) In your above response to number 11, you stated "Not only is it a legitimate question". So, you believe that if a banned user running multiple socks asks for a "proxy edit" on Jimbo's talk page which is intended as an attack upon Jimbo, then it is okay to make said proxy edit if it is "correct"? 2) "If you read what I said, I closed the debate because it was not generating any useful debate" After you have already weighed on heavily to one side of the debate. Do you believe that you can make comments to one side of a debate while at Wikipedia Review and then later claim to be unbiased? How do you feel about responding to threads dealing with topics on Wikipedia and those threads possibly falling under the definition of canvassing? Do you feel that you can stay neutral if you are canvassed in such a manner? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: The question was and is not an attack on Jimbo - otherwise the article on the man may be deemed an attack piece because of the opening sentence. It was a request for clarification why there was the difference between the two viewpoints and when they diverged. There should be no reason for a question to remain unanswered simply because the questioner is banned if there is sufficient worth to it. GK/MWB is not a common vandal or troll, or his candidacy for the Wiki board recently would not have been permitted - his agenda, although contrary to the view of the WP hierarchy, is open to all who would read it. As for the debate, I concluded that my own viewpoint was not helpful and closed the thread - as unresolved - despite an initial intent to further labour my points. I consider that I was acting more in the interests of WP and not my own "principles" in doing that, an instance where I feel that I was able to divorce my viewpoint from the requirement of acting in the interests of WP. As ever, if the consensus then was that I should not have closed it then my actions could be reverted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add - In your response to part 1 question 1, why would you say that you were helping when your statement "Yeah, if was intended as a sort of FAQ default topic it may be time to take it down (until a fresh SV drama starts up)." makes it clear that the FAQ should be brought up again if Slim Virgin were to act in any way? Why would it -ever- be acceptable to have such a FAQ public or private, especially where you are participating directly and interacting with it? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: Not that it should, but that it would. I have no influence on WR so cannot effect change, but I can make suggestions that controversial area's might be contained within one forum and thus better managed. As it happens, there is a "SlimVirgin Nutty Conspiracies" subforum, which cannot be Google cached and may have been influenced by my remarks, where those inclined may indulge their curious habits. Pragmatism in action is quite as ugly as it looks on the page, I suggest. As such, I have no qualms in wasting my breath in such venues if it means the less savoury aspects are better managed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15 part 4: "I have no influence on WR so cannot effect change" Many say I have no influence here and many believe it. However, when I find things completely unacceptable and morally reprehensible, I make my opinion known to that. There are those who stand up against what they see as wrong and those that don't. Why would you think that you shouldn't have to? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: I do; I am a "Wikidiot" and a "Kool Aid drinker" for arguing WP's case. I obviously do it subtly enough that you have missed it. Did you know I successfully argued to get Fred Bauder off the "notable editors" subforum once he retired from ArbCom? Have you seen my habitual deriding of the latest blocked editor who turns up thinking that such a vipers nest will help them exact revenge by a campaign of vandalism and trolling? I could find some links for you, but this process has only another two hours to run and I am content to allow the final few other readers to register their endorsements/opposes or views. Unless there is something fresh, rather than we two detailing our known positions, that you feel needs discussing then I would rather not respond to more of the same. We have made ourselves clear, and let us allow others to be able to read it all and make up their minds. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite important to me, and why I am placing myself within this process! I want to know how the Community feels about my record over the last two years. If you intend to support generally but have some reservations, then please make those concerns known. Even if they don't qualify as reservations, please comment where you may think I would be better involving myself more or less. If you are opposing because of specific concerns, detail them! If there are general concerns, refer to them. If you simply dislike me or otherwise think I should not have the mop, well, reasons are going to give your views more weight. As it is, I shall be dropping over to the 'Crats noticeboard as soon as this goes live to give them fair warning of what I have done, and suggest that they consider how to approach a reconfirmation of a existing adminship over than the more familiar RfA's. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Links for LessHeard vanU: LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for LessHeard vanU can be found here.
• Soxred93 tool.

---

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

• Edit count and admin actions posted on the main page. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 00:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You're a good admin (actions look good, I haven't observed anything objectionable, and all that jazz) but I wish you'd edit articles a bit more instead of AN/I (1528 edits O_O). Editor Review would a better venue for this. On another note, you've edited at the same, steady rate for over three years. That's pretty impressive, but don't get burnt out. Maxim_(talk) 02:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  There is also the recently minted Administrator review. Though not much traffic there =) –xeno ^talk 03:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js — neuro^(talk) 12:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I wish Ryulong would do something like this. 211.30.23.232 (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I see people saying all the time that they wished admins were more accountable. Thank-you for taking the time to see if the community still trusts you. RfA is a stressful process and I respect that you would face it a second time. Seraphim♥ 19:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Not an ounce of reservation, honored to be the first to support - An editor review might have sufficed, however. :) Everywhere I've seen you, you have shown diligence, responsibility, and a firm ability to be trusted. Keep up the astounding work. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 00:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Not sure what the point of this is, but I support nonetheless. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support I thought you were an admin already. OH WAIT. Nonetheless, your work is great and I've had positive interactions whenever I run into you. FlyingToaster 00:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Honest answer? If this was a "normal" RFA, I'd probably oppose you on lack of significant mainspace contributions (although might well have made an exception on seeing The Raincoats on that list). But judging you by your admin actions, I can't see anything to fault you. As I've said before (usual suspects, don't bother replying to this – I've heard them all already), I think the default position in any Wikipedia process should be the status quo, and the onus on those proposing the change to make a case for change – so default to "keep" at XfD, "no action" at RFAR, AIV etc, and "oppose" at RFA and proposed policy changes, unless someone can make a convincing case for change being an improvement. In your case, I see nothing to warrant a desysopping, so go with support. – iridescent 00:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support You've always been helpful to me. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. What Julian said. — Jake Wartenberg 00:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. You've done fine. AGK 00:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support - solid admin. An inspiration to new moppers. Why are we here? Toddst1 (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Strongly Support Complete no-brainer. Isn't he? I've removed my somewhat flippant comment on the basis that LHVU deserves better, even in a support !vote. His willingness to walk into the lions' den and put himself at risk of losing his bit is commendable. I wouldn't have the nerve to put my ass, or my nuts, on the line in that way. For one thing, it's entirely likely that my ass would eat the nuts. So he goes to Wikipedia Review to defend WP against the various banned malcontents who seem to gather there. So what? It's his time, and his choice. So he occasionally loses cool and tells it like it is. So what? Find me an admin who hasn't. So he stands up to Jimbo and says "You're not God". So what? Who is, here? Nobody. Apart from the occasional glitch, to which we are ALL subject, I see little but the wisdom of experience and some detachment. (He hasn't paid me for this, BTW) Rodhullandemu 00:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support - I see no reason for his use of tools to be taken away. Great admin all around. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read the nom. LessHeard is an admin currently. Killiondude (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Corrected from the previous version before I realized this was a reconfirmation. My apologizes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11. Support of course. Echo the "why are we here" sentiment, and yet...I think it's WP:BOLD to do this. Somebody's got to be first. I support that as well.  Frank  |  talk  00:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. In the words of Bertie Wooster: "Well, I say, what?" --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 00:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support -download ׀ sign! 00:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Are you kidding me? I wondered when LHVU stepped down the adminship as soon as I set my eyes on "LessHeard vanU 2" from the RfA list. Well, this is not a right venue for reconfirmation on your adminship, but if you want my opinion, I'll say I consider you're one of fine administrators in the Wikipedia. --Caspian blue 01:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. I supported you two years ago with the rationale of "Support an excellent self-nomination. No issues here. Acalamari 23:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)". Guess what? I get to use that same rationale for you again, with the addition that I congratulate you for wanting to be accountable for your actions. I have no problem with this. Acalamari 01:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. LessHeard vanU is a civil, level-headed and straight-shooting fellow, and one of the site's more active administrators/vandal-fighters. Yes, he's been involved in drama every now and then, but always as a voice of sane and he isn't afraid to cut through crap. He has performed his job well over the past two years, and I see no reason not to let him continue on. Also, excellent nomination statement, and I applaud him for his willingness to be held accountable. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support This isn't necessarily the proper place to get input from the community, but nonetheless LessHeard is doing a fine job as an admin. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 02:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. I see where Durova's coming from. And yet, I haven't substantially changed my view from Number 9, Number 9. I sometimes couldn't agree "less" with my esteemed colleague, but I always have believed he acts in good faith and acts to correct his errors when brought to his attention... We are none of us perfect, and I cannot ask for more. ++Lar: t/c 02:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. I've always admired your work in dispute resolution, and I think much of what you say in these venues is entirely on point. Speedy keep, imo. –xeno ^talk 02:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support I have seen nothing to suggest that my support of two years ago was misplaced; LHvU has proved a fine admin. Joe 03:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support I'll have a go at a bit of a "review" here I think. My first impressions of you were not particularly great; you appeared to be cold, calculating, and unemotional in your posts. A statement of dislike for fluffy kittens and soulful eyed puppies didn't really make me feel particularly "warm" towards you either. I learned once again not to judge a book by its cover. After further observation, I believe you to be thoughtful and considerate editor, and always willing to AGF. Your admin actions indicate that you're willing to review your own work, admit mistakes, and work to make things right. I'd much rather have an admin who is willing to consider the possibility of a mistake, than "bot" admin that can do no wrong. I've also noticed that you're willing to help anyone who would ask (and I will follow up on that RIP thing in the near future). I appreciate the work you're doing, and even if I don't agree with you on something, I hope you continue to serve the community for many years to come. Regarding "this" second RfA: My initial reaction (as an American), would be "why?". Having gotten to know a more global community, I believe I do understand a bit more now than I would have when I started. I don't know if there is a particular word or phrase for it, but I've seen it before - and all I know how to refer to it as would be: "British integrity" or "British dignity". Good form I believe, and I support your request of adminship. — Ched :  ?  04:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Administrative actions have been excellent without any exception that I have seen. I caution that a recent highly intemperate post to Jimbo's talk page might have caused me to oppose if this were an initial RFA, but as long as such displays of temper don't affect admin work, I can support. Looie496 (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 04:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support User is not a crook Arma virumque cano (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    comment: account is involved in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TomPhan NVO (talk) 05:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

25. Support - Obviously, one of our better admins. Generally a very nice editor. We can all make mistakes and he seems to be trying his best to rectify any errors. — R² 04:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support A very nice editor who deserves to be an admin. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. I thought you were already an admin support. Keeper | 76 05:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. A couple editors more or less, who cares, it's shrinking anyway.NVO (talk) 05:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support on grounds of dislike of fluffy kittens. Peter Damian (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support - You are doing a good work as an admin. AdjustShift (talk) 08:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support - Oppose process, support candidate. — neuro^(talk) 08:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support - Dureo (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Really pointless this, but anyway support. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 10:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. I don't see this as disruptive, and I don't really see what the problem is. RfA exists for the community to express trust in a candidate. If an admin feels that the community trust needs to be reaffirmed for whatever reason, this seems as good a place as any to receive it. The nomination clearly lists the reasons for the request, and while I'm against drive-by reconfirmations, this one isn't. In any case, support. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Yep. One of the good guys. I had some argybargy with this user a few years back, and though I was very much in the wrong, he was good about it after, and no hard feelings were held. I generally find him to be a voice of reason and calm when following treads, and find my self agreeing with his position far more often than not. Ceoil (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support: Yes! seicer | talk | contribs 15:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support - of course, from what I've seen, he looks like a good admin. Being characterised as anti-BLP is ridiculous - IMO the block of Erik was a little harsh, but to characterise it as standing up for BLP-violators is erroneous, as is made clear, that was not the reason for the block, nor did any other admin feel that the points being raised by the user were due any further action. – Toon^(talk) 16:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, you believed that my last report on WP:AN merited further action: giving Twiddlebug his last, final, we really-mean-it-this-time warning [13] [14]. Erik9 (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I meant administrative action. Specifically blocking, which was what you suggested, although the user was inactive. – Toon^(talk) 17:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

39. Support- From what I can see, you've been a good admin. Posting here is pretty bold, but you probably should have gone to WP:RFC or WP:ADREV. However, posting it here shows that your are not afraid to be bold. I believe that there should be a mandatory administrator review every 25,000 edits or every year(whichever is shorter). It support your notion for reconfirmation and only wish that certain admins would also do the same.Smallman12q (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Wikipedia needs more people with the balls to say this sort of thing in response to outrageous hypocrisy, prudery, and dishonesty, and a lot fewer of the other kind. I also admire the candidate's integrity in submitting to this process, despite the certain knowledge that there would inevitably be a number of opposes based merely on the principle of the thing, and nothing to do with the candidate's record as an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support - Garion96 (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 19:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Done nothing wrong, no reason for this to even take place.  GARDEN  20:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support, has always appeared reasonable to me. Everyking (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support - Sensible, which is high, though not flowery, praise. // BL \\ (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. I'm pretty sure you're one of the last admins that need to be here, so it makes sense that you are. It's preaching to the choir. Keep up the good work. Keegan^talk 20:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support - I have seen no behaviour from you that would constitute abuse of the tools. The occasional mistake, but admins are human too. I also support this because every admin should be this self-aware and this quick to seek significant and binding community input. Kudos. //roux   21:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support: This Admin is honest and well meaning. Can't ask for anything more. Giano (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support I think I have disagreed with LessHeard vanU a fair amount of occasions. Nevertheless I do trust him as an administrator. — Aitias // discussion 21:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. No reason to believe this user can't do well with the tools. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  21:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Absolutely. Majorly talk 21:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support Will be able to do alot of good with his new tools. --Abce2|Howdy! 22:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a reconfirmation RFA. But, hey, don't let the fact that you apparently haven't read very much of this RFA prevent you from participating :) Erik9 (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    LHvU might consider making the "this is a reconfirmation RfA" portion of his candidacy statement more obvious, as a number of people do seem to be missing it. (Maybe some oh-so-loved <blink> tags? :-)) I do wonder whether the tendency to not read the opening statement is indicative of the average Wikipedian's attention to detail? AGK 22:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

53. I don't think you have done anything that would warrant a desysop. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support Because I didn't get to support your last RFA. Amerique^dialectics 01:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Yeah, might as well. DS (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. wasn't going to participate but thought I had better counteract some of the ridiculous oppose reasons (yes he still has my support) Viridae^Talk 02:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. I've only had minor interactions with him but from what I've seen, LessHeard is good at helping out around here doing admin stuff. Keep up the good work :-) Killiondude (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. I find it rather silly to come to RfA to validate a continuing adminship, but if it's meaningful to LessHeard vanU, far be it from me to criticize. (I also never understood the practice of married couples "renewing their vows", but I refrain from telling that to people who renew their wedding vows.) I can testify that LHvU has made mistakes (such as blocking me once by mistake). However, I believe that mistakes will inevitably happen when someone is working hard to make a difference, and I can testify that this user conscientiously admits mistakes and corrects them quickly (such as removing the mistaken block to my account after 3 minutes). I am glad to add my support. --Orlady (talk) 04:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No, he doesn't "conscientiously admit mistakes and correct them quickly" - that's why he's still defending his completely bogus block placed upon my account to this very day [15], despite the fact that no one else participating in the discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive189#More_defamation_by_Twiddlebug and User_talk:Erik9/Archive_1#AIV_report found the block to be even remotely justified. Erik9 (talk) 04:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Erik, you've presented evidence which you believe makes LHvU unsuited to continuing as an administrator, and you've also made many comments in response to Support comments, could you please now just leave the RfA to run its course, leaving other users to consider the evidence you have presented along with the other diffs that are available to users in order for them to decide how to comment. Everybody has their own thoughts on these issues and to chide people for not exactly agreeing with you, that's really not fair. Could you also cease making pointy comments in your edit summaries, if you feel the need to tally the number of comments in this RfA, then fine, but please don't use the opportunity for more commentary - it's not very good form. Nick (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

59. Support, decent admin. I would actually support making reconfirmation a requirement, but only after something like 8 years as an admin. Cardamon (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a comment, you do realize that Wikipedia is roughly 8 years old as of this year, right? Most of the admins who've been admins for 8 years aren't even active editors anymore - some haven't been active in over 5 years. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I am aware of those things. Cardamon (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

60. Support, Overall, he's decent enough when he's dealing with people who are not me. Let's just leave it at that. -- Noroton (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support. All administrators should go through this process of gauging community trust every two years, at least. Drawn Some (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support, you've already been through this and shouldn't have to go through it again. If theres a real problem with any of your actions it should be brought up at WP:ANI. Matty (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support. No overall concerns with your use of admin tools. I'm not sure if I think this RfA's a great idea, but to answer the question posed: Yes, I am happy for you to continue as an admin. ~ mazca ^t|c 07:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support. Over time, I have found myself on the opposite side of LessHeard vanU on almost every topic and discussion we've ever had (not many actually, I only remember 3 or 4) but more to the point, several incidents have made me question his judgment. But, at the end of the day, one has to come to terms with the fact that LessHeard has a reputation for fairness and for at least trying to see the POV from the other side (even if he does need glasses) and that counts for something. FWIW, the serious oppose votes are bordering on absurd humor and will likely bring in more supports. Viriditas (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support. A glutton for punishment, and coming back for seconds, so let him have it! --Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support LHvU retaining his adminship; I've seen nothing to suggest any reason he shouldn't and I find the opposes highly unconvincing. Oppose this unhelpful method of doing this, though. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support You look like a good admin - but please don't do this again. RfA is messy enough, we don't need to add administrators looking to buttress their PR positions to the mix. Ray^Talk 12:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support LessHeard vanU is one of the admins I admire the most on wikipedia, he does not hesitate to take responsibility for his actions and he is always very open minded, a brilliant administrator Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. I do not think it was necessary to open this discussion, but here we are. An insufficient level of support will result in removal of the tools, and that would be wrong in this case. To be clear: I trust LHvU to continue not to abuse the tools. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. Again, not necessary, too much drama, but Support. The comment he posted to Jimbo cited by one of the opposes was what finally pushed me over the line to support. That and WR, which I think is a necessary gadfly and I only wish they did their work better. He seems to have done his job well here; I gladly give him my vote to reconfirm his use of the tools. Don't expect me to follow, though, dude.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. Lower % than I would have thought, so I'll take the time to comment. LHvU has (IMHO) occasionally made mistakes, highlighted by a few of the diffs supplied in the oppose and neutral sections. However, until we find scores of people who never make mistakes, we don't have the luxury of desysopping experienced, clueful admins because they aren't perfect. Usually has pretty good advice for people. It appears, from some of the diffs, that he should probably make more of an effort to not edit/comment/block while annoyed. Overall, LHvU continues to have my complete confidence. -Floquenbeam (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support I think that this is really the wrong place to go seeking re-confirmation of adminship, but I do understand LHvU's reasoning as stated in his self-nom. I also understand that nobody is perfect, and all admins make, or have made, mistakes. Recognising them and correcting them is fine, and he has done that. Agonising over them is not always necessary, but LHvu's doing so is, in my view, a plus score in his reconfirmation. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. This is an unecessary excersize but I support the "candidate" in his continued capacity as administrator. Shereth 20:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. Disagree with system, don't see a reason to lose a good admin over it. ϢereSpielChequers 21:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
75. The first one was before my time, and I happy to be able to support this reconfirmation, unorthodox or not. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support Make mistakes, get it pointed out, fix, apologise and move on. If it all gets a bit too much, take a break, find a crap article and fix it, stay away from the drama boards. --Stephen 23:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
77. LHvU is a fine admin, no major concerns, seems to be learning from his mistakes as we all aspire to do, and so on. I've never been able to reconcile the drive for more accountability from admins with the parallel hostility toward reconfirmation RfA's, but I'll just add that to the growing list of things about Wikipedia that make me go Hmmm.... Anyhow, enough digression. Consider this a support. MastCell ^Talk 00:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support An important contributor, and an important asset....Modernist (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support A very helpful and committed admin. This process that he has initiated, although out of process, shows courage and a deep sense of accountability to the community. I can see no drama in this initiative. This is a risky move on his part which enhances admin accountability. It is thus profoundly significant and useful. Drama, well, is useless and many times risk-free. Therefore this can't be drama. Dr.K. logos 01:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support The very first editor support said it best ""Everywhere I've seen you, you have shown diligence, responsibility, and a firm ability to be trusted""...Early in my WikiPedia journey I had occasion to require advice from an administrator. I chose LHvanU because of those factors. At the time I was a bit "soured" in dealing with admins. LHvanU changed my mind. I take this opportunity to thank him..--Buster7 (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards in that candidate has never been blocked but does have many awards listed at User:LessHeard_vanU#Make_of_This_What_You_Will. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support - I've read some of the opposes, but overall, it seems you're a good admin. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support Thought he already was one. (Couldn't resist, sorry.) Aware of own mistakes, hence this (somewhat ill-advised) process. Next time try AOR, please. --John (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support per Q5... Ow wait, wrong RfA. -- Luk ^talk 06:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
85. Changed to support because seeing myself on the same side of the debate as SlimVirgin and Ryan Postlethwaite made me throw up in my mouth a little. If he's earned their opposition he's doing something right. TAway 06:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just as a note, don't let the fact that you're on the same side as people you don't like change your opinion. If you have an opinion on something, then have an opinion - people are going to agree or disagree with something no matter what you think of them, and you shouldn't let their opinion matter so much to you. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bottom line, my willingness to trust someone who has earned SlimVirgin's opposition outweighs any concerns I have over occasional incivility. That is my sincere and genuine opinion. TAway (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I find it odd how you attack SlimVirgin for opposing someone who helped support a notorious sock puppet, troll, and person who also stalked members of Wikipedia. No matter what SlimVirgin may have done in your eyes, Poetlister has done far worse. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    SlimVirgin and Ryan Postlethwaite (I take perverse pride in not needing to check how to spell that surname) are both very effective admins - was/will be re SV - and contributors to Wikipedia with whom I have had disagreements over certain issues on and off WP to a greater or smaller amount. I suspect that they do what they do in pursuit of what they believe is best for the project, and they therefore have a right to express opinions even when they viciously and possibly maliciously concur with mine. It is a cross I bear easily. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86. The language and tone on Jimbo's talk page from the rant cited was pretty poor. The mistakes you've made with the tools, whilst bad, if looked at in terms of a percentage of your actions overlookable. My knee jerk reaction was to oppose based on the Jimbo diff and this whole RFA - but on balance I think you're doing it for the right reasons, and you've at least made it clear cut that you will accept whatever the community's will is. I am far from perfect, and perfection is optimistic at best anyway, so on balanace the benefit to Wikipedia is that you keep the tools. FWIW I disagree that you can seperate your comments as an editor against your actions as an admin. Pedro :  Chat  07:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support. Cla68 (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support. Certainly can't say I'd endorse his every action and opinion, but that's only to be expected. On the whole LessHeard vanU has generally struck me as the one of the more level-headed admins on the project. I see no reason to take the tools away from him, and indeed I think to do so would be a net detriment to the encyclopedia. Personally I have no problem with this process and indeed see it as being in the best tradition of WP:IAR. For one thing it has drawn my, and presumably others, attention to Wikipedia:Administrator review, the existence of which I was unaware. More importantly it draws attention to the fact that we really have not yet developed effected methods for evaluating admins' performance over time and holding them accountable, to at least some degree, for their actions. I think we need to work on that (it's part of why I'm in the category) and perhaps this is a step in that direction. Finally part of what compels me to support here is that I see too much process wonkery in a number of !votes in all three sections. I think it's rather easy to assume good faith of LHvU and his reason for being here, and as such we should simply approach this RfA in the spirit in which it was opened—i.e. as a way to provide feedback and perhaps start a larger conversation about adminship. I'm not sure there is really an "appropriate place" other than here for that (at least not one that would get a lot of feedback), and in my view this reconfirmation is, at the least, no less edifying than what normally happens here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
89. Kusma (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC) (but I don't think RFA is really a good venue for this)[reply]
90. · AndonicO ^Engage. 10:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support - I thought you were already an admin... oh... wait. Never mind. After reading the other supports, I realize how totally unoriginal my "joke" was. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support - I think it's admirable to seek peer review. I think LH should continue to wield the admin tools. —Archon Magnus^{(Talk | Home)} 14:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support - Of the nine legitimate opposes, only one presented evidence of possible abuse of tools or position. The comment on Jimbo's talk page could have been more softly put, but not all of us are inclined to sugarcoat the truth for those with delicate sensibilities. Crying about WR is pretty much old news. It's publicly viewable, so at least anything he said wasn't behind the person's back. It's sort of pathetic to whine about that. It's also not against any policy to voice your opinion of others wherever you please off the project. That said, for the abundance of lame opposes of the process, it's beyond ridiculous that it is so obvious we are in desperate need of a way to remove the sysop bit from admins of questionable suitability, yet when such a way is presented, people bitch about it when they could more easily just ignore it. Instead, they cause disruption by falsely claiming the process is disruption. O, the irony. لennavecia 15:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Since you are a member of Wikipedia Review yourself, you would know that there are multiple forums that are not "publicly viewable". Ottava Rima (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Cry about it more, Ottava. You weren't whining about WR when you were an active member. Just like you weren't whining about IRC until you dropped out of it for a couple weeks, then you bashed it, but then you came back. If you weren't one of a handful of users so disruptive that they had to be banned from WR, you'd probably go back and stop bitching about it, too. Do you have any evidence that LHvU has posted negative comments in non-publicly-viewable forums, or are you just assuming that he has? لennavecia 19:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Pointing out your blatant deception is now crying? Such reactions are what makes Wikipedia Review such a hostile website. It attracts people who are quick to characterize in such manner, spread half truths, and attack others. I always attacked Wikipedia Review and attacked it while a member. Everyone knows that my membership there was to attack them for their attacks on Wikiversity and others. And there is tons of evidence provided about LHvU attacking people already, so your question seems rather moot. Your bias is revealed. Your lie above was exposed. Now, you can attack me all you want, but unless you want to strike and correct above, you have no grounds. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Uh huh. لennavecia 03:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    More mind bending anti-logic and seemingly limbless leaps of reason from Ottava, now a banned member of WR, who at the time of his banning from WR hung on a tread as to wheather he should be banned outright from WP for endless disrupption and belligerance. Yet, amazingly! -Ottava says- the past is dust, only distorted semantics and tight decietful parsing of heavy words so lightly thrown matter now. Wow. Ceoil (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

94. Support - Keep up the good work! :) Willking1979 (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support - Regards, Huldra (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support - Sometimes he seems to be the only sane admin around. He should continue what he is doing. Tex (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
97. Strong support — LessHeard vanU gave me some advice in my own RfA ("never change clarity for brevity") that I have carried with me since, as a result of which I have always noticed him when we wind up in similar neighborhoods. I have always been impressed with him when I have. That doesn't mean I imagine he's got a perfect track record; who does? Some of the material in oppose is concerning (given my particular personality, the comment to Jimbo makes me cringe). But I believe he has competence and integrity (imo, this RfA is a sign of that), and if he hasn't managed to reach perfection by even his own standards (hence, this RfA), I believe that his contributions as an admin are a benefit to the project. I think he should carry on. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
98. Yeah, sure. All things considered, LHvU with tools is more of a benefit to the encyclopedia than LHvU without tools. I'm confident you will consider all things said here. I don't know whether you agree (and hope you don't resent me for making this categorization), but you seem to fit the category of eguor admins. An ideal pedia would do without the rouge/eguor dichotomy, but as long as there are admins who perform bad blocks cuz they can, and then explain per "I have to justify the red flag somehow", I guess we need their counterpart as well. Trying to understand the underdog's position is commendable. Rooting for the underdog on principle (note I didn't say dogmatically!) can be problematic though, especially when based on a less profound grasp of the situation. This edit and the whole thread, albeit no biggie, bothered me at the time. I think several reviewers have made this point now, and like I said, I hope you take some of their advice aboard. As for choosing this venue, I see it as a potentially valuable experiment (depending on what we choose to learn from it) and not as "moral grandstanding", "drama mongering", or even asking for a "pat on the back". There's nothing wrong with being experimental and bold. No one is forced to voice their opinion here. Good luck and all the best to you. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
99. Of course Opposes seem par for the course for a reconfirmation RfA. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support. The comment on Jimbo's talk page was probably ill thought out, but hey, free speech and all. I like this- I think all admins should have to rerun RfA after a certain time- after all, adminship is about community trust. HJMitchell You rang? 19:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support. First off, this is a completely appropriate venue. If the user wants to use it they can. The jimbo diff is somewhat concerning, yes, but if that's the worst that one can find then I'm not too worried. Wizardman 20:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
102. Whack LessHead vanU around with a large trout, then hand back the mop. The adminship so far has been a net positive to Wikipedia, even if it wasn't perfect. The reconfirmation RfA, though, is unnecessary. SNOW, please! ((Nihiltres|talk|log)) 20:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Unnecessary perhaps, but a good precedent to set. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

103. Support I would love to see some of the oppose admins doing the same to see what the community feel about their actions keep up the good work and as regard the Jimbo comment I don't see anything wrong with it. Bloody political correctness is a pain in the hole. BigDunc^Talk 22:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
104. - Support There should be a better place, but I see no reason for you to not keep the tools.--Res2216firestar 00:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support I think it's a truism that no admin who would do this does this voluntarily really needs the result. Can't LessHeard just quietly wear a cilice instead? SBHarris 01:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support of course ! — JoJo • Talk • 02:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support Solid; continues to have my trust. --Dynaflow babble 03:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
108. Strong support I have interacted with this admin on a number of occasions and have always found him to be helpful and fair. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support. Never given me cause for concern; frequently impressed me. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support. How dare you even think about giving up your role, or to even suggest that the community thinks nothing of you, Your work here has been outstanding, and you should keep it up, Remember! you can only get better at what you try! all thumbs up at this end :D Jamesööders 11:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support. I don't believe this is what RFA is for but I do appreciate your honesty (and courage) in asking for re-confirmation here. I've come across you a few times and you always seemed fair and helpful. The oppose votes don't bother me too much. You've obviously made mistakes, like everybody, but I see no reason for confiscation of floorcleaning equipment. Yintaɳ  12:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support - He still has my trust, and I consider him a reference point for common sense in admin issues. I don't see that reconfirmation RfAs are worth the time of those called to participate, unless it is part of the editor's idea of a recall system and *if* there is credible outside opinion asking him to step down. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support - Based on the integrity shown in standing for reaffirmation and missives on Jimbos talkpage. Unomi (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support per lack of a reason not to from my POV.--Koji† 19:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support. No real concerns before now or after reading the oppose section. As far as reconfirmation RfAs in general go, any admin who's willing to voluntarily subject themselves to this process again should be commended IMO. BryanG (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support - after weighing the answers here, I think that - potential drama aside - its about time someone grew a pair and opened themselves up. Were that there were a process for admins to be periodically reviewed. Of course admins aren't going to like such a process. For all of its thankless tasks, being an admin is a privilege. It isn't a lifelong appointment, and shouldn't be. More on topic, LV and I have disagreed on a few occasions, and he kept a civil tongue and a cool head. Someone ought to buy the fellow a series of flammable drinks. There simply aren't enough good admins around to let one like this fade away. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
118. SupportSumoeagle179 (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support, this second RfA in itself shows LHvU is worthy of ongoing overall trust and I can recall only helpfulness from him, even when our notions on content or method have not been the same. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support Certainly does good job, keep doing what you do. I find it ironic that a major complaint about admins is that there is no way to get rid of them once confirmed. Yet, when someone does offer the opportunity to have the bit yanked, they are beaten up for "wasting our valuable time". It's only drama if you let it be drama. King Pickle (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
121. support Issues with being uncivil and drama prone (listed by opposes) concern me, but I didn't see anything seriously wrong in the difss. It looks like on the BLP issues raised in the oppose section the blocking of the reporting user was probably unneeded (forum shopping is rarely a reason to block), but not utterly out of line. The "redo RfA" seems reasonable, and might actually be a good idea in some very rare situations. As it is plain this admin won't burn down the house as he hasn't yet and no issues were raised which greatly concern me, I support. I do suggest the LHvU2 takes the issues raised by the opposes about civility and drama to heart however. Hobit (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support He is at times rough round the edges, but is a person of integrity and principle, who is a net asset. There have been many complaints for a long time about the lack of any community de-sysopping process, so I find it surprising that his giving the community this opportunity to (re)evaluate him would be a reason to oppose. I don't see any reason to doubt his stated reasons for doing it. Ty 02:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support A fantastic editor. He addresses topics with a cool head, always attempting to keep a situation from escalating into an edit war. He is an editor of great principle, working hard to counter vandalism and show new editors the way. Ono (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support: per above. South Bay (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support, disagree with this method of getting feedback, as it seems unnecessarily drama-prone. However, I see no huge issues that warrant desysopping here. Sure, they've made mistakes, but willingness to admit to them is a good sign, as far as I'm concerned. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
126. Flip-flopping. Whilst I do have a concern about LHVU's civility, I've just had a check of his logs and I think he does fine. We all have a tendency to lose it once in a while when we're debating something we care so passionately about and I can put the comment to Jimbo down to that. As I said in my previous oppose, I don't question LHVU's dedication to the job - he cares a lot about several different issues here and his perspective is second to none. Whilst I don't always agree with him, I do value his opinion immensely. Try and stay calm in the future, that's the only advice I have. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
127. Support Very trustworthy and long-term contributer. Deserves adminship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous the Editor (talk • contribs) 13:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC) — Anonymous the Editor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
128. Good admin for the most part. Mike R (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
129. Support, of course. I must say, LHvU, this was unnecessary, though. You clearly still have the community's trust. GlassCobra 14:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
130. Support I've had only limited dealings with LHvU but found him courteous and helpful. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
131. Support Let me join the chorus of people who think this RfA was a stupid idea. But Wikipedia is better off with LHvU as an admin. He's not perfect but he's been around and knows how to handle the mop. The only positive of this RfA is that the opposes give LHvU food for thought and hopefully he'll reflect on that. Of course, that feedback could have been obtained in more appropriate ways... Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
132. Hate the process and the Wikidrama, but support the admin. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
133. Support - honest and accountable - Josette (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support - has brains, and doesn't take them out to edit in Wikipedia. Also - support the process. Recalls should be mandatory. Their lack is lack of accountability. Lack of accountability turns this place into an ugly dictatorship. Ninguém (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
135. Support - not quite as many edits as I'd like to see in Template talk space, but I think LessHeard vanU can be trusted not to abuse the tools. Jehochman ^Talk 20:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
136. Support -- Ankimai (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
137. Strong support No problems with his use of the tools. Daniel Case (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
138. Strong Support a quick return just to say to the opposers - you try working in this sort of area and you'd soon realise that your opposes are worthless. The funniest bit was people claiming that LHvU is a drama magnet - ha, if you want drama magnets, look down the list of opposers. Does mote and eye ring any bells? Black Kite 00:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
139. Support. To be honest I think that although some of the opposers are pots calling a kettle black, they're nonetheless right that LHvU is something of a dramamonger. I think LHvU should reduce the drama doses he's prescribed himself. But that said, I can't get past the fantastical wrongheadedness of the opposers who are upset at an admin who makes a concrete effort to be accountable. The management of this project is almost crippled by editors admins (it's primarily admins, who know that accountability for LHvU means they could one day be held accountable too, god forbid) who believe that they should be unassailable, unimpeachable wikigods. That attitude is a plague. We are desperate for accountability. Saying an accountability RFA is pointless is a smack in the face to the community. For shame. Dramamongering aside, LHvU cares about accountability and is therefore more than a few levels more advanced than the majority of our disgraceful admin corps. --JayHenry (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
140. Support per everything above me. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
141. Predictably, but subject to what I said below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
142. Support. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
143. Support I can't recall ever having had a problem with your use of tools. rootology/equality 14:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
144. Support > all the "oppose" comments because of the wrong-venue issue are just being a bit silly. Your use of the tools has been good, and there's no reason you shouldn't continue. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 15:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
145. Support Having seen you around the wiki, your use of tools is good, and you've proven to be a competent editor, if a bit dramatic at times. I have no problem with you as an admin. just a little insignificant 17:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
146. Support I have never seen or heard about anything that suggests you may misuse the tools. The comment on User talk:Jimbo Wales doesn't suggest that you are doing a bad job handling the tools; you simply spoke your thoughts. Also, I don't see a problem with this venue being used as a reconfirmation page. Too many are getting upset about something so minor here, it's disturbing that one could care so much.  iMatthew :  Chat  18:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
147. Support   JJ (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
148. Support I do not approve of the method, but you're a good admin and wouldn't want you to lose the bit over people procedurally opposing. FWIW, consider your ego sufficiently stroked. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
149. Reconfirmed - Keep it up. MelissaC1993 (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Note:Blocked user. MickMacNee (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

150. Super Human Support if for nothing else than this! That made my day! - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 15:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
151. Support — I support both the person and the procedure. It seems like all admins should go through a re-verification process every two years or so. Maybe RFA is not the best place, but I think it beats creating an additional discussion area for doing essentially the same thing. As to the admin bits, I think they are in good hands. It's easy to make mistakes, but you learn from them. I was especially impressed with the self-imposed wikibreak, and also with this re-validation of your adminship. It shows humility and trust in the community, just as we are showing trust in you. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 15:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
152. Comment. Just a note to say I don't mind reconfirmations in the slightest, and anyone who is complaining about it can just ignore this one...no wait, that would be asking too much. :) I'm putting my "comment" in the support for the same reason that many opposer's are "commenting" on the idea that RfA shouldn't be the place for reconfirmations (essentially I'm supporting the reconfirmation, not the admin). Its a very silly idea to oppose someone just because they are willing to risk loosing their bit and allow the community to present real grievances. If he retains the bit, he can work on some of the many perceived flaws in the oppose section (the real issues). So many people complain that its difficult to remove an admin yet when the time comes, that an admin put himself at the mercy of his peers and this is how you all act!? Hmph. Syn 19:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
153. Support, I've see this editor around about and trust them to do the right thing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
154. Support A committed and honest admin, who on balance is a net postive for Wikipedia by a very long way. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I oppose the existence of this, though I don't oppose his adminship. LessHeard vanU, though a bit of a drama-lover, is a very good admin in practice. This however looks more like an attention-seeking stunt than anything else. There are other ways to place one's name on the lips of everyone come ArbCom nomination time than this kind of thing. :) If you really want feedback, open a page in your userspace. This is not what RfA is for. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Then you're in the wrong section. Synergy 00:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   See my response to Neutral#1 - there is a definite end result if there is not the confidence in my use of the tools. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Very brief bit of meta-discussion, even though LHVU said he didn't want it; as we don't have a formal reconfirmation or WP:Requests for de-adminship process, only RFA has the "balls on the railroad track" element. Quite aside from the general lack of participation and "preaching to the choir" element of RFC/Editor Review, even a spectacularly negative RFC, editor review, AOR recall process etc never results in change; I'm sure we can all think of instances which have ended with the admin in question going on as before. Things like this only cause drama if people let them. – iridescent 00:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   It is not accurate to say that AOR never results in change. See the past requests... not perfect, by any means but does sometimes result in change. ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   For some reason, the reference section (and cats) aren't displaying in the article Siward, Earl of Northumbria. Can someone fix this? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC) --Hey, if we're gonna make use of venues because of traffic rather than relevance, I might as well ask it here. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   CNR... current version works for me. (firefox3, WinXP) Do you have a diff to one that doesn't work? ++Lar: t/c 15:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Erm... ;) ... using the same browser. It sometimes works, sometimes doesn't. At this moment in time, viewing this, it doesn't display. Can't work it out ... ?"/ Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose, this is not the proper venue. Nakon 00:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. I oppose, not this user's adminship, (clarify: quoting EVula: "the candidate's mere action of putting himself back up at RfA is grounds for lost faith," I believe this user should not be an admin due to his actions) but the practice of putting forth a reconfirmation RfA for no reason. It should have been an editor review and I've half a mind to close it now as disruptive posturing. Andre (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I also disagree with this, but I would contest that Q5 confirms that it is not for 'no reason'. — neuro^(talk) 10:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I say no reason because I am assuming good faith. I know of no legitimate reason to do this and Q5 does not provide one. Andre (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Reluctant Oppose I have no reason to question this admin's abilities, as the record of achievement is positive. However, I am in agreement that is an inappropriate vehicle for seeking feedback on admin performance, and only for that reason I am putting my chips here. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. pointless drama I oppose all needless reconfirmation rfas. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   So far, there is no drama but that of the opposers. Well played. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 12:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Strongest possible oppose One of Wikipedia's worst anti-BLP administrators, LessHeard vanU actively obstructs the enforcement of the biographies of living persons policy and supports the defamation of living people using material gleaned from tabloids such as the National Enquirer [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25], going so far as to block editors for daring to uphold WP:BLP's source quality standards (further discussion of this issue is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive189#More_defamation_by_Twiddlebug and User_talk:Erik9/Archive_1#AIV_report). Erik9 (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Er… what? Of those 10 diffs you've posted, not one is either from or about LHVU. – iridescent 16:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   The diffs describe the misconduct of the user who LessHeard vanU refused to block, but blocked my account for reporting. Erik9 (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Blocking was unnecessary as the user had already stopped; he blocked you for forum shopping, I unblocked you. The user didn't BLP-violate again, which, for me, indicates that a block for the user was indeed unnecessary. – Toon^(talk) 17:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   That's Monday-morning quarterbacking. Since having precognitive abilities is not a requirement for Wikipedia editors, I could not have been expected to predict with certainty what User:Twiddlebug would or would not have done if his account were not blocked. Erik9 (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Odd American sports metaphors aside, it remains true. Describing LessHeard vanU as "...actively obstruct[ing] the enforcement of the biographies of living persons policy and support[ing] the defamation of living people using material gleaned from tabloids..." is clearly a stretch; the latter statement is potentially defamatory in itself, ironically. You were blocked, but this cannot be honestly construed as supporting defamation. – Toon^(talk) 17:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   To refuse to block a user engaging in repeated, blatant tabloid-sourced defamation despite multiple talk-page warnings while simultaneously blocking the editor requesting administrative action against the slanderer on the pretextual grounds of "forum shopping" which no administrator or other editor reviewing the block actually believed to have occurred (for example, see [26] [27] as well as the discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive189#More_defamation_by_Twiddlebug and User_talk:Erik9/Archive_1#AIV_report) is most reasonably construed as "...actively obstruct[ing] the enforcement of the biographies of living persons policy and support[ing] the defamation of living people using material gleaned from tabloids..." To take wholly unjustified administrative action against an editor making a legitimate request for the enforcement of the biographies of living persons policy produces a distinct chilling effect on future editors' willingness to participate in WP:BLP enforcement, as they may reasonably fear that LessHeard vanU will find some pretext for blocking them if they post a report on WP:AN. I stand behind my statement completely based on the evidence presented. Erik9 (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   In short, you are protesting that I did not block someone after they had ceased making the edits which were in violation of WP:BLP that you had reported, but did block you as you were, in my view, violating WP:BATTLE by shopping for the same block in different venues. The warnings worked on the BLP violating editor, yet comments to you did not (the denied report to AIV, with forum shopping warning, being conspicuous by its absence). I recognise that you are incensed that you have a block record - even if it notes that you were swiftly unblocked with my agreement - but note that you are indifferent to the sensibilities of the other editor who you wished to have punished. Had that editor continued to violate BLP they would have been sanctioned, and by me if it had been brought to my notice as I noted in my block rationale, but they didn't. Can you provide an example of another editor whom I have blocked for pointing out vandalism? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   You're blatantly misrepresenting the situation. I made the report on WP:AN for which you blocked my account [28] only after the administrator who responded to the report on WP:AIV [29] asked me to bring the matter back to WP:AN [30], and, in the same talk page edit, repudiated his prior claim that my post on WP:AIV was itself "forum shopping", since he conceded that the WP:AIV report concerned edits that User:Twiddlebug had made after the initial report on WP:AN was closed. To claim that it's "forum shopping" to make a report on WP:AN when an administrator expressly instructed me to bring the matter there defies any reasonable construction of the term. Of course, you're simply rehashing a block rationale that was already found to be bogus per the discussions on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive189#More_defamation_by_Twiddlebug and User_talk:Erik9/Archive_1#AIV_report -- the fact that you're still defending this block suggests a proclivity to issue more inappropriate blocks that will further injure WP:BLP enforcement on Wikipedia. That you claim in response to my question above "one of the reasons why I choose not to concentrate in that area of Wikipedia is that I do not feel that the project does enough to protect these articles, or assist those who are committed to ensuring that unsourced negative content is removed promptly and serial offenders discouraged or removed as I think I would very quickly burn out if I were to involve myself..." while performing actions that cause other editors to be "burnt out" on WP:BLP enforcement (finding pretextual reasons to block an editor who is seeking administrative assistance in enforcing the policy, then defending the block to the death) is deeply disturbing. Erik9 (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I also find your comment "you are indifferent to the sensibilities of the other editor who you wished to have punished" to reflect excessive solicitude for an editor whose sole mainspace contributions have been tabloid-sourced slander. Administrators who seek the most bizarrely and illogically justified excuses to block productive, valuable contributors for the putative protection of users who have done nothing but cause trouble need to seriously re-revaluate their priorities. Erik9 (talk) 04:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. As with Spartaz, I oppose pointless (or pointy) RFAs. In every interaction I have had with you, I'm sure you are a fine admin, but there are more appropriate fora for being patted on the back than an RFA. Except for those resulting from a community recall proposal, I really don't like reconfirmation requests at all. --B (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Did you mean except for those stemming from a community recall proposal? –xeno ^talk 17:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, corrected. --B (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8. Per Erik That seemed like an abuse of power to me. Dlohcierekim 15:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose Per Erik, very abusive indeed.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 16:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Per others above, not seeing the reasoning for this (seemingly) arbitrary "confirmation". RfA isn't for pats on the back or getting feedback. That docks points right there. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Presently, those "pats on the back" are being aimed a little bit lower... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You're getting the pats in the section above. This section is where we kick you when you're down! --Stephen 22:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11. Oppose Too many administrators currently. ^{see here} - DougsTech (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose. Quite frankly, I'm surprised why you weren't desysopped on the spot for this ridiculous comment to Jimbo - that is probably the worst bit of incivility I've ever seen on this project and I don't want an administrator acting that way. I've seen you losing your cool quite a bit over the past few months, using expletives when they aren't needed at all - whilst I don't question your integrity, I don't think you're currently in the right mind set on-wiki to admin effectively. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Calling for a desysop over that indicates a little bit of over excitement on your part I think; perhaps his post was inelegantly put overall, but still, the gist of the first para was spot on. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, the first part of the comment was spot on, but the second comment left a lot to be desired. If an aspiring admin came here on the back of that comment, they wouldn't stand a chance so I make no exceptions here. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Your a hard man. Best to hold onto small, isolated things and let them cloud your overall openion of this editors performance over the last number of years. I suppose. make no exceptions is circular, self-fulfilling ,and indicates a reflexive absence of thought. Ceoil (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If an aspiring admin came here on the back of that comment, they wouldn't stand a chance, but in this situation we have someone who we've seen act as an admin for years, so the situation is different; people look at nonadministrative actions with candidates because they seldom have an administrative record to look at and they're trying to figure out what kind of administrator that person would be, but here we have that record. so I make no exceptions here -- why? making distinctions and weighing good and bad points is what these discussions are supposed to be about. -- Noroton (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel I have kept my admin actions and my "contributors comments" separate - however, that a perception of how passionate I may be in commenting on matters might alter another editors wish to interact with me in my admin capacity does bear consideration. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12. Oppose. Does not understand WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Incivil. Seems to participate in ANI drama to the neglect of more productive admin tasks. Skinwalker (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Strong oppose - highly incivil user, prone to drama, likes to attack people on off-site message boards, and shows little understanding of our important policies and functions. This user should never have been made an admin to begin with. If there was ever justification of DougsTech saying there are too many admin, this user is that justification. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note, Ottava, who is so concerned with off-site messages and, would you believe, drama <cough>, emailed me to influence my vote here[31]. How about that. Ceoil (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Wikipedia Review is a site that bashes people, and he has participated in that. 2. I never challenged anyone's right to contact people or talk to them personally. 3. I didn't hide that I emailed you, and I didn't state anything that would influence you. Quite the contrary, I pointed out that we have definitely separated in philosophy and view-points from the time that we stopped being friends. The intent was obvious from the line (in the email): "If you think he is one of the good guy's, then I think the gulf between us has definitely widened." I have no qualms against stating this in public, nor do I care if people know how I feel about him. However, the email was how you (Ceoil) and I have differed. If anything, it expresses disappointment in what I see in you as a decline. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Your lack of self awarness never fails to amaze. My point, however, is made. This is not the first time you approached me in this way, and absolutely shows how the back channel, canvassing IRC mob, works. You can rationalise all you want, but dont underestimate the rest of us. You were quite happy to parcipate on WR yourself while an outcast on WP. Ceoil (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Canvassing means to contact people who haven't weighed in. Your use of definitions only compounds with your inability to judge character. The "rest" of you can like him all you want, but it is obvious that he was friends with Poetlister and other trouble makers, and if those are the kind of people you want, why are you even here? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and it may make you happy to know that LessHeard is a prominent member of Wikipedia Review, which also posts links that actually fits the definition of canvassing. So, on that rationale, you would be putting your anger towards him. And I was -never- an outcast on Wikipedia. I only participated at Wikipedia Review in order to defend Wikiversity from attacks during and after we banned Moulton. So, next time you claim something, try not to lie so blatantly. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    By "prominent member" I assume you mean "ignored by almost everyone most of the time over a long period"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Prominent member is a polite way of saying that you use the website to attack people. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Who have I attacked when posting from WR, and in what manner? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Am I to have the courtesy of a reply? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy is not Ottava's game, sadly annoyingly. He relies on fluster and the support of thoes with short / uniformed IRC memories to acieve his 'mud stick' tactics, all the while obnoxiously denying a history (and present) that would make Caligula blush. Ceoil (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want, we can go through all of your edits at Wikipedia Review. But see, the thing is you aren't shy about being incivil, as you are willing to make such comments here. Sure, Giano gets a 3 week block for something you receive a pat on a back and a "good job", plus many supports above for. Hypocrisy disgusts me. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh boy. Is that a treat or dare? Free popcorn at my talk. Gather round, bluff has been called. Ceoil (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

14. Oppose - If you don't have confidence in your own abilities (ergo, this RfA), then why should the rest of us? If someone had a legitimate issue with your admin abilities, there are avenues available to start such a discussion. If every two years we have to go through this exercise to "reaffirm" our support for you, we're probably better off with someone else. To borrow a phrase from above, starting such a thread shows a lack of self-awareness and raises questions about your judgement and priorities. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose. I dislike this sort of grandstanding to begin with, but it's a fairly foolish thing to do when one has done things which would derail a new nomination - the examples of bad judgement listed here are not on in an admin. Rebecca (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, that is the point, isn't it? Unless there is an incident that rises to the level of a AOR, RfC or RfAR then there is little one can generally do with regard to an "established admin" if there are concerns. However, and further to my response to Ryan's oppose, until when someone has the ability to program an adminbot then there are going to be instances of less than stellar decisions, actions and behaviour from the sysop community. Stuff happens, but there are those who would hide it to protect "status" and there are those of us who believe in integrity/prefer grandstanding. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I wonder how many of the opposers are willing to stand for reconfirmation, or be in WP:AOR, or submit to admin review (whichever, any of those are fine) themselves? I can see a few finding fault with you that I am pretty certain wouldn't dare stand in front of their peers this way themselves. Which tells one something, does it not? To those that are in one of those groups, bravo, and thank you. To those that are not... perhaps your opinion isn't quite as valid, at least to some of us, as if you were, hmm? ++Lar: t/c 04:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A process cannot be both voluntary, and then also a signal of "gravitas" or worthiness over those who chose not to. AGF, and all that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That comment was targeted at those who oppose you but are not willing to put themselves at risk of negative feedback from their peers. It's kind of (like a knight in armor choosing to take whacks at an unarmored man), not really fair. To your point: A process certainly CAN be voluntary and yet be a worthy signal of merit. In the US, no business is forced to become a member of the Better Business Bureau, but doing so is a sign that the business has merit. ++Lar: t/c 13:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So, only admins have the right to vote? I have no intention of ever being an administrator on en.wiki, but I don't think that that removes me from being a member of the community who can voice an opinion on who should or should not be an administrator. This caste power without knowledge of responsibility among en.wiki administrators is, in my opinion, getting to be too much. --KP Botany (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The business world is different from this project, and AGF means something here I hope. A supporter has confided in me that they would not take this route because of the nature of their adminning may result in a Request far more hot tempered than this one. By sheer numbers and results this person is a more "effective" admin than me, but I am supposed to have some advantage (and where?) because I have run this process? This process is intended to break down barriers between perceived factions within WP and not create ones within a sub-community. I recognise and appreciate your own efforts to bring better accountability to the project, but there is still room for the disdained to continue to work for the project without needing a popularity contest* to continue to use the tools. *No, this is not a (un)popularity contest - but there are those with a lot more enemies than I have collected who could make a Request into a revenge platform. I would not hold that consideration against them whether I were a potential supporter or opposer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

16. Oppose, switched from Neutral. Too many issues raised: in particular, the block of Erik9, the support for Poetlister, and this remarkable piece of incivility on Jimbo's talkpage.[32] Robofish (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose. I've been concerned for a long time that LessHeard is sympathetic to people causing trouble, but not sympathetic to their targets (his support for Poetlister is an example); that he has posted negatively about several people on WR (in the interests of full disclosure, that includes me); and after that post to Jimbo, [33] which I saw for the first time today, I honestly don't feel he should be an admin. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Symbolic Oppose if for no other reason that he thinks that he needs to undergo this.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose.Biophys (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rationale, please? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20. Oppose Pointless waste of time. Admins should be working for the benefit of wikipedia, not drama mongering in this way. This is an abuse of this page. Nick mallory (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose—Erik9's evidence/diffs seem pretty damning. I don't know LessHeard vanU, but if this was a regular RfA I'd very strongly oppose on the basis of the given evidence. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Strong Oppose While I don’t think he has violated any policies, I’ve seen and experienced myself his lack of neutrality. He blocks without doing a thorough investigation, ignores advice from other administrators and makes sarcastic remarks on serious[34] issues[35]. Likeminas (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose. I have waited to see what response you could offer to User:Erik9 above that might explain your decision there, but with none apparently forthcoming, and after going through the timeline of those events, I have to agree that your block there is very troubling. It does appear that User:Erik9 was simply seeking assistance with an important concern, and was only following the (reasonable) guidance of another administrator when you blocked him. The concerns re: wp:point and this whole process aside, I believe that an apparent error in judgment of this magnitude, coupled with your lack of any response above, compounded by the lack of any apology or, at the very least, expression of concern towards the negatively affected editor, is very disconcerting, and I would oppose your continuing as an administrator, at this point, on those grounds.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Reluctant Oppose editor is a wikidrama magnet and rather than reduce such behavior, the editor often appears to enjoy basking in it. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose Too many drama magnet admins at the moment, also what Erik raises is very troubling. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 19:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose Sorry, I'm reluctant to oppose but the evidence and this very process, which does seem to abuse community energy, seems to support that your questioning your own ability to be an admin means you're likely needing to take a break from it. We need admins to rise above the drama, not be the vector or cause of it. -- Banjeboi 02:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How can anyone "abuse community energy"? Before you reply let me make it quite clear that I'm not a great fan of word salads, and if you reply with another one I may not be responsible for my actions. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the warning. This is a community of volunteers with limited time and energy. Someone who is taking up time and energy, apparently to make a point, IMHO, is abusing the community's resources. -- Banjeboi 08:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

27. Oppose. User seems to be creating a lot of controversy which is not helpful in an admin . The ability to admit you were wrong would also be useful . The dispute with eric ( you are still defending your actions over eric here ) and the post to jimbo and general incivility push me away. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
28. Oppose per SlimVirgin and Erik9. User enjoys the drahmaz too much to be a neutral admin. Oh, and his harassment and personal attacks on me in 2008 certainly don't show he has the disposition to be an admin, IMHO. This highly-offensive and vulgar attack on Wales's talk page shows that this leopard hasn't changed his spots[36]. There's just no room for that kind of temperament with the tools.-->David Shankbone 15:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    To recap: David Shankbone is opposed to: 1. drama, 2. harassment, 3. personal attacks, 4. highly offensive attacks; and 5. vulgar attacks. Meanwhile, Ottava Rima also has been showing strong support for the Civility Pillar and opposition to incivility, drama and personal attacks. There's just nothing like an RfA. (Revival tent meetings come close.) Somehow I haven't seen evidence of anything more than occasionally over-the-top comments in situations where I think most people would find LHVU was shocked and scandalized by the behavior of the people he was commenting on -- not the best responses by LHVU but not terrible. But perhaps I'm biased because the candidate is such a very close buddy of mine. If these two gentlemen are shocked and scandalized by LVHU, I guess I'd better rethink my support. -- Noroton (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    lol. So...you're saying that LessHeard's drama, harassment, personal attacks, highly offensive attacks and vulgar attacks are no problem-o for an admin, as long as the are a F.O.N.? Nice way to agree with the factual accuracy of our statements, while, um, sort of supporting him based upon nepotistic zeal! ;-) -->David Shankbone 00:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What I'm saying, Brother Shankbone, is what I said in my "support" comment when I !voted. What I disagree with you on isn't the facts but your spin, as I explained. As one famous convert put it, We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. I don't think LHVU is that deep in the gutter, and he's got his face up. Keep your eyes open, Brother Shankbone! -- Noroton (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I don't know if I would consider the diffs provided by myself and others to be spin, but let me put it in terms that perhaps you would more readily agree with: the same reason why I should not be an admin is the same reason why LessHeard should not be an admin. Some of us just don't possess the temperament to engage in the admin responsibility in the most optimal manner that this site requires. The difference between me and LessHeard is that the vast majority of my contributions on Wikipedia are to articlespace; whereas the vast majority of LessHeard's contributions are to Talk pages and arguments. As Durova pointed out in more diplomatic language, he gives very little to our readers, and a lot to our drama. That makes him a net negative. -->David Shankbone 03:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Somewhere after the first 3,000 mainspace edits (and LHVU has 5,000), the proportion of mainspace edits vs. other edits gets close to meaningless, and calling them "lightweight" as Durova does or "gives very little to our readers" as you do is unfair. The phrase "net negative" is for indef blocks and community bans -- way over the top here. For reconfirming an admin, his record in using the tools is all that counts, unless he's scandalized the encyclopedia in some other way. -- Noroton (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

29. Asking for it. Not sure whether this is a publicity stunt or a social experiment or an emotional hunger strike, but it feels like one of these things. Reminds me of something like my grandmother used to ask me—"What do you want now, a pat on the back? Ok, go stand in the doorway and wait for the wind…"—I'll always miss her. What I really mean is: if you want to resign, go on and do it, and if you don't, then don't. I'm a little perplexed that you'd need or want other people to decide that for you (or be naïve enough to trust them), and suggest that it casts doubt on your sense of judgment. Threats to jump or not to jump off a certain ledge if certain conditions are or aren't met within a certain time frame are a common plot device—I've written about them before—manipulative, yes, but equally prone to counter-manipulation. Can't you do better than that? — CharlotteWebb 17:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I miss my grandmother, too. Not so quick on the soundbite quote, but a patient and steadfast women who believed that one should always stand up for what you believed in and never mind the hubbub. Great cook, as well. In answer to your point, it is experimental - but otherwise as I have described it, a request for confirmation/affirmation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Odd way to characterize an attempt to be accountable to the community. Why you think your description of his motivations is better than the obvious one I just gave in the last sentence is puzzling. -- Noroton (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

30. Oppose. Sorry, I have seen LHvU's participation in many sorts of wikidrama and have often found his judgments poor. I don't trust this user. Colchicum (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Oppose. Admins should be peacemakers. LHvU may have many sterling qualities, but that isn't one of them. IronDuke 19:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oppose due to concerns about temperament. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 20:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose. This [Wikipedia Review] is also likely one of the most honest sites on the 'net hosting some of the most honest and morally credible people you are likely to meet.[37] Gag me with a spoon. I have no problem at all with participation in Wikipedia Review per se, but a comment like this shows a dubious sense of perspective. It raises doubts regarding your ability to use your administrative tools objectively where fellow WR participants are involved. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

33. Oppose. If LessHeard_vanU is sincere in this RfA, then I have to approach this the same way as if he were not an admin and were applying to become one. If that were the case, I would oppose, due to his sporadic incivility and his tendency to attract needless drama. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see this response to the same point when Ryan Postlethwaite made it. He later changed his mind after reviewing LHVU's admin actions. Shouldn't admin actions be what this decision is about? -- Noroton (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

34. Oppose. Sorry, your block on Erik9 was highly disputed, in addition to the failure to observe WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Strongest oppose per membership in lame hate-fest. What's stalking and obsession got to do with contributing to the creation of knowledge? Ask yourself that some time, why you support the stalking and harassment of en.wiki editors, while asking yourself exactly what stalking and harassing en.wiki editors is contributing to the universe. When you come up with the answer, maybe you'll then also ask yourself how anybody could support your being an admin here. This comment will probably earn you some supports, just like SV's opposition did. Please enjoy those supports for precisely what they are worth. Then consider what of value you could have done instead of perpetuating hatred. --KP Botany (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I presume you refer to Wikipedia Review? That site does not support the harassment and stalking of en-WP editors, and has removed some editors who have attempted to do so from those pages - I know this because as a member I have seen it happen. The site does offer criticism of various contributors, some policies (and their application), and matters arising - and it allows discussion including viewpoints opposed to the criticism. To claim it as a "hate fest" site is to devalue the use of it to question my membership, and therefore my suitability as an admin. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Precisely my point: your using, belong to, and promoting a hate site devalues your suitability as an administrator on Wikipedia. The site's criticism of anything is entirely lost by its use as an attack site for certain wikipedia editors: "Perhaps Somey still has that diagram comparing the size of Durova's head to objects like Arcturus, Antares, Betelgeuse, etc., for scale. Astronomically funny." Is there something about Durova's editing that is bad for en.wiki that must be discussed by mocking her ego? If I have to criticize a contributor for my newsletter at work, I'm required to stick to the problematic issues. There's never an opportunity or right to simply mock another human being. Possible you could explain to me how mockery of a human being improves problems at wikipedia? Or, maybe, it's providing a place for venting that's important? In which case, it's a hate fest. Under an advertisement for adult diapers: "Do you piss your pants? David has the answer for you!" Is there something funny or critical about en.wiki, LessHeard vanU, that is encased in urinary incontinence that I'm missing? "See! The power of his radioactive breath exceeds Bishonen's." Is there something about bad breath that hits the mark and clarifies not only what is wrong with Bishonen's editing, but how to correct it, so that WR is providing a service with these comments? Then, of course, there is the thread all of this is contained in, or the series of threads, devoted to locations for pot shots at individual en.wiki editors.[38] Which includes such useful criticisms as this found in David Shankbone's thread: "Dick, meet Butt. Butt, Dick." Could you explain the useful critical meaning of this thread? Here's one on JzG, "I'm really saddened by the number of sycophants Guy managed to gather as his retinue." Please do include a disclaimer about WR's obsession with Slim Virgin, also.

    But, yes, you are correct, the intent of my post is to question the value of your membership here in light of the value of your membership there. --KP Botany (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a pretty myopic view of that site, LessHeard, and like many WR contributors you only see what you want to see. Leave aside the hand that site played in revealing the IP address of Newyorkbrad to Daniel Brandt, which the head of the WR has admitted to doing; how about a thread entitled "David Shankbone, goat piss and more kiddie porn" Do you support threads like that, which now show up, under that title, in Google search results for my name, when the only contribution to a page about urination that I made was of a goat peeing (and I even agreed with the main objection to photos--not mine--that thread had issues with)? It's a roiling, incoherent, unfocused thread, full of accusations of Israeli bias, child porn, etc. It's title is defamatory, and this is the website you are championing as a serious criticism site? It's a site that caricatures people it dislikes, with people such as yourself never really having the balls to confront the editors you criticize directly with these accusations to get their POV. Why? It's not fun! It's much more fun to sit around and come up with your own theories, right? You've done this yourself, have you not? Some of their most prominent contributors go out and lie publicly check out the last two comments here. Frankly, KP Botany is pretty accurate in what she describes. The difference is that you tend to agree with them about the people they hate, so you don't see it as much of a big deal. -->David Shankbone 14:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia draws all sorts of criticism, from defamation to hosting pornography to being riddled with serious errors. Not long ago a man was even detained at customs because of false claims of terrorist ties in his Wikipedia biography. We can agree, then, that much goes on here that we don't support. As a long time contributor to Wikipedia, should you be held personally responsible for what happens here? Do the wrong things that happen here render the good things irrelevant? Nathan ^T 15:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That was a good response. No, of course not. However, at WR you have many of their top brass--and even adored Wikipedia contributors like User:Alison--taking part in the Shankbone/Piss/Kiddie Porn thread. I am one of the most vocal supporters of Flagged Revs, and it bothers me to no end that we haven't instituted it for BLPs. I am a published critic of Wikipedia and its community both on- and off-site, despite my obvious love for the place. I have little tolerance for our damaging flaws and the ambivalence we show, as a community, toward them. But I'm a content contributor first and foremost. I often am not aware of the politics of our site and what's happening in discussion forums. I don't have time. The inverse is true with LessHeard. He is primarily focused on the politics and policies of our site, and the discussions that go on about them and our editors. He likes the drama, and engages it. I wouldn't be raising this argument if it was Newyorkbrad, Casliber or CoolHandLuke's name at the top of this page, all of whom are WR contributors. -->David Shankbone 15:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User enjoys the drahmaz too much [...] David Shankbone 15:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry, David, I'm confused. Are you for or against the drahmaz? Or is it only OK for you to be a drahma bull but not someone with the tools? And the word "I" appears six times in your theatrical 15:45 post just above but there are only three references to LHVU -- could we please stay on subject here? As for WR, I think it should be enough that LHVU doesn't support (and has been known to actively oppose) the bad actions of some of the other participants there. But this page should be about how well or poorly LHVU uses the admin tools overall, unless he's somehow brought great scandal on Wikipedia. Shouldn't that be the criteria here? Have you found that his WR participation tainted his admin record enough to reject him as an admin? If so, how? -- Noroton (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Noroton, on one hand you say I'm discussing myself too much (in relation to a question), and then you ask me a question about myself. To answer it, read this current discussion on Jimbo's page about standards for admins and their personalities. That discussion also applies to the rest of your questions about my oppose, and I've already stated my reasons and given diffs. -->David Shankbone 16:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As I asked of Ottova Rima, you will need to post links to substantiate your claims if you want a specific response. Otherwise, it seems that you are engaged in a campaign of propelling excreta toward flat sided vertical load bearing structures in the supposed desire that some of the toxic matter will continue to adhere to the surface (thus marring its aesthetic aspect). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

36. Oppose. Wrong venue: this isn't a request for adminship, it's a request for administrator review. — Athaenara ✉ 04:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Oppose per many arguments made above. Not everyone is perfect (and I know I've made mistakes on-wiki), but his general attitude isn't compatible with being an administrator. He seems to have trouble being objective and making good judgments, and he has a drama-mongering attitude, which is one thing for which I'd oppose an "actual" RfA (I have very low standards, as seen at user:hmwith#rfa). Although LHvU could be a good contributor, I'd prefer him without the extra tools. hmwithτ 18:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Oppose The comment accusing Wales of 'castigating someone you don't know' is well, castigating someone you don't know. I feel the entire comment would better have been left unsaid. Law _{type! snype?} 20:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Oppose. I don't much care if the crats discount this, it needs to be put on record if this is to become part of the admin reform series. The latest example of double standards, where admin Bishonen is not dealt with by admins, and has to be dealt with by Jimbo himself, for calling someone a little shit, something that in part means admin applicant Beeblebrox cannot even get out of the starting blocks in Rfa for, is the last straw for me. Other admins backslapping LHvU and encouraging a pointless exercise of voluntary reconfirmation 'with teeth' is a giant waste of time, and ignores the real problem you are all failing to deal with as a corps. The peons can do nothing, only the Turkeys can vote for Christmas. Some will no doubt say it is unfair to punish LHvU for something Bishonen does. Tough noogie. It is the only avenue you leave us. The peons can seemingly do nothing about admins like Bishonen, who already have the bit, and are not open for recall, and would never voluntarily stand for any precedent of voluntary reconfirmation that encouraging this would bring. RFc's on admins like Bishonen are pointless. An arbitration case would no doubt be laughed out of court. Yet quite obviously Bishonen would never get the bit if applying today. And don't even bother refuting that assertion if the premise can never be tested. The concept in play here is collective punishment for individual failure. You want to keep good admins, then you deal with the bad ones yourselves. Applying the apparent admin corps entrance standards at ANI would be a good start. And how does this relate to LHvU personally? Well, he is an admin, and he seems to have thought that, as well as the obvious good faith pursuit of feedback, this exercise was somehow a step in the right direction in reform. I call that a general failure of judgement. I leave it him to ponder whether he would pass an Rfa if applying from a position of situations vacant, and what part if any he and his admin colleagues have played in endorsing any double standard that exercise might, or then again might not, highlight. MickMacNee (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow! If there wasn't the risk of upsetting you and your obvious good faith in posting this, I would be tempted to thank you for the best backhanded support for me and this process I could have received. Your issues with instances of sysop incivility (and I would be one of those who would support Bishonen in any process) and lack of accountability for perceived "small" abuses or general lack of trust is exactly why I co-opted this process, even if I am more familiar with the pressures of adminship (which is why peer review isn't appropriate - not enough perspective) than those who have not had the mop. I really do not understand how my attempting to be accountable is indicative of the systemic lack of same within the sysop community (which may of course be a failure of mine) that you complain of, and is therefore a failure of judgement. That is, I respect that you have your reasons but I do not understand them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You think Bishonen's actions were minor? MickMacNee (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Me, who was censured by ArbCom for telling an editor to "fuck off"? Once? Bishonen's actions were bad, and she has too much emotional involvement regarding Giano to permit her to act impartially, and she took the consequences (I gather, I am too much involved in this - and my connection issues - to have allowed me to keep tabs on what is happening in any detail). I made a mistake, once, and Bish makes a mistake; we take the consequences and continue, as best we can and according to our understanding of policy, to make this place somewhere where volunteers can produce encyclopedic content. I will support the removal of the bit from an admin who makes the occasional mistake (including conduct) just as soon as WP invokes a policy of blocking an editor for an hour for every third spelling mistake or grammatical error in article space; why not, there will be no need for admins once all the content editors pack up? If people were not so prone to over-reaction (and especially where it is their pet subject/opinion that is being "adminned") then sysops may be more open to accountability. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize there are other ways to elicit feedback? EditorReview? RfC? Invite those who partook in your last RFA to evaluate and comment? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but none of them comes with a clean result of desysop should the community decide that the candidate does not deserve the tools. This one does. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what are we talking here? If this does not pass you had back the mop? This is risky and ill advised. I've seen these not go well due to some !voters protesting the whole thing. Dlohcierekim 01:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

If the 'Crat decides it has failed then it means that the result is that I should not be an admin. Per the last paragraph here I then get the keys to the mop cupboard taken away. Not sure how it would work, but it would be done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reconformation RfAs is the possible future but not the present.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 00:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral per Dlohcierekim. One^twothree... 01:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. I almost never oppose any RfA, yet in addition to the procedural doubts about this undertaking there are more serious concerns. LessHeard vanU is a prime example of a lightweight mainspace editor[39] who invests more effort into determining who passes RfA[40] then in actually building the encyclopedia. I've never known him to misuse the tools, yet he has a track record of assuming the best of troublesome users and too little good faith of established ones. Despite an open offer toward administrators to share my portion of the offsite evidence that led to Poetlister's 2007 siteban, LessHeard vanU never asked to see it and welcomed Poetlister's return a year later.[41] LessHeard even appears to criticize ArbCom for not giving Poetlister a full vindication.[42] He was notably silent at the request for comment that later revealed Poetlister had acquired three admin accounts on a sister project including a bureaucrat sock and a checkuser sock. Similarly toward Moulton, LessHeard was ready to unblock[43] but I was unable to find any participation in the discussions that decided indeffing was indeed necessary. LessHeard vanU can suppose good faith of experienced users, but he has to be talked into it in dialog that can be both delicate and exhausting. I'm sorry to say that after this generous gesture, but this is a request for honest opinions. Brace yourself when you ask that question. Durova^Charge! 01:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   In addition to the above, LessHeard is a member of Wikipedia Review and had contact with Poetlister at that website. Moulton is also a long term member there. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Wow... he supports and pals around with the sockpuppeteer and female impersonator extraordinaire Poetlister? And I though his block of my account for trying to exclude tabloid-sourced slime from a biography of a living person was bad. When we have a candidate at RFA, it's good to know which side they're on :) Erik9 (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Probably not worth coming out of my hole for stupid drama, but LessHeard vanU was far from the only person who got fooled by Poetlister. Alison and Lar also expressed serious doubts; I recall Iridescent confessed to me that she got fooled; and there must be a few other names I've forgotten by now - oh yes, Firsfron of Ronchester. I take much of the blame for what transpired in May 2008. I did consult ArbCom but didn't believe them. I didn't consult you (Durova) probably because I didn't take notice of your offer, and anyway it was a year later, and anyway I was not an admin. My point is, you really can't fault the guy for that. By the way, if I'm here anyway, let me say that Ryan Postlethwaite's reason for opposing is a reason why I would support - it's time that Jimbo got some honest, uncomfortable feedback. I would say it more respectfully, but it was within bounds. Shalom. 129.49.7.125 (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Agree with everything Shalom said there. No, really. (Add SlimVirgin to the list of people who got fooled by PL, too, and no doubt plenty of others.) – iridescent 23:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I just need to add here that I was at no time fooled by Poetlister. That, indeed, is why he started attacking me. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   LessHeard's membership in WV is not a cause for concern, but failure to step back from the Poetlister debacle is a serious lapse. Lar and Alison did the right thing once the facts were really in; LessHeard appears to have swept the matter under the rug. Considering how Poetlister's actions had real world dimensions (people got impersonated in very damaging ways), a former supporter as active as LessHeard really ought to have followed up. I really can fault a guy for that, and I do. Imagine if the young ladies who had been impersonated were your sisters. Would you want a fellow like LessHeard in an administrative position? This is absolutely the sort of thing administrators ought to be held accountable for. Durova^Charge! 20:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   You've given the same diff twice in your first post after "a year later" and "full vindication". I don't see that any particular blame attaches to LHvU here. There was strong support from a number of established editors/admins for Poetlister.[44][45] I did email you, but the reply did not add anything to what was already apparent, and did not shed any light on the things that weren't. I don't see where LHvU "swept the matter under the rug". Few people contributed to the RfC you mention, which was on Meta, not even Wikipedia. There was no reason to comment, when the case was by then cut-and-dried. Ty 03:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Wikipedia:Administrator review. Let me know if this goes pear-shaped, and I'll probably bump it up to a support. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral - I have no objection to LHVU retaining the tools, but I agree with the view that RFA shouldn't be used for this. As well as Administrator review, linked above, there's also Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall. I'd suggest that administrators uncertain about whether they have community support come up with a set of requirements for recall and list themselves there, rather than re-submitting themselves to RFA. Robofish (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Switching to Oppose. Robofish (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   In LHvU's defense, Administrator review is a fledgling venue that is pretty low on everyone's radar right now and AOR requires one to come up with recall criteria; a painstaking exercise in precision (if one doesn't want to leave themselves open to abuse of process). –xeno ^talk 04:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   AOR, and AdminReview possibly, are triggered by egregious examples of conduct, and RfC/RfAR by long term abuse. What process allows review on a time served basis, with the potential of dignified de-adminning if problems are found? LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Indenting changed !vote. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 20:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Pft! LHvU, you've put me in a position where I don't know how to vote, so please do suggest how I should, based on my following criteria and reasons. :) I support your adminship and have 100% trust in you. Yet, per Deacon, I oppose the existence of this, and users who've potentially furthered horribly wrong precedents. Help me. :( Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Indented my vote. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Suggestion: "Support - Oppose process, support candidate. — neuro(talk) 08:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)" (except don't sign as neuro). Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   weak support/neutral LOL reconfirmation. I think you are a decent admin. Unfortunately there is no easy way to get bad admins desyssoped and they will never come here for reconfirmation ever. :(--PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 12:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   What if this is the first step toward getting to that? Suppose we started asking all RfA candidates if they'll stand for reconfirmation? Suppose we later on made it automatic? It could happen.  Frank  |  talk  16:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   That will never happen. 95% admins will oppose any such process of automatic reconfirmation. Switching to support by the way, Support% seems to have dropped below 80 PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 19:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Competent enough admin, however disapprove of using RfA in this way. PhilKnight (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Same as above — try Wikipedia:Administrator review. —Animum (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral per PhilKnight. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 21:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Wrong venue. Stifle (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per above. America69 (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Neutral Being not open to recall yet attempting to solicit the support of editors for a sort of moral boost gives me the impression that the editor has a guilty conscience or has lost confidence in themselves but still wants to be "part of". But as this is a "reconfirmation" and since I wasn't around for the initial RfA I guess I would have to be Neutral. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 04:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Based on contributions (i.e. no evidence that the tools are likely to be misused) I would support if this was a genuine request. However, this looks for all the world to be moral grandstanding. As someone who thinks WP:AOR is a nonsense and actually weakens accountability rather than improves it, I have no wish to encourage the development of another system, especially one that combines the defects of AOR and RfA. I think this is a silly request, but not one worth losing the tools for, therefore I am Neutral. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Neutral I wish I could support, but I can't, sorry. :-( Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 11:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. WHACK!!!

    

    Whack!

    I believe that sums up my position on this nonsense. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13. This really drives home how desperately we need a proper venue where the community can reconfirm or desysop admins. One with teeth, not Wikipedia:Administrator review. This is not an oppose to the candidate's adminship, hence my placement in the Neutral category. -kotra (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Why??? Grandmasterka 01:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Neutral. I honestly believe that Editor Review (or, potentially Admin Review) would have been a better venue for feedback. Majoreditor (talk) 01:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Neutral. Good idea to solicit broad input from RFA people; bad idea to use RFA to do it. RFA is too important to Wikipedia to futz around with it. I have no illusions that WP:Administrator review is going to be the perfect answer or last forever, but it seems to be working for the moment, so let's see if we can get a critical mass of impartial feedback and push a number of admins through the process who have good-faith questions about how they're being perceived, before it (inevitably) turns into a dramah board and dies a natural death. - Dank (push to talk) 13:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This comment really applies to a bunch of people, but I'm replying to you because you submitted your AR two days ago and have three participants. Do you really think that's a viable alternative for someone who's made a pledge to step down if the community no longer trusts him? What a joke. AR is nothing. Informal requests for review mean nothing. This is just stunning that so many people are getting all uppity about an admin who wants to know if the community still trusts him. So many lost confidence in AOR because of admins not upholding their promise when recalled, and this admin basically initiates one on himself and rather than not participate for lack of opinion on LHvU as an admin, or supporting with the opinion that he should remain an admin, he's getting these pointless and disruptive (and yes, they're disruptive for people who want to participate in the RFA to have to read through so many kb of worthlessness) opposes and neutrals. Guess what, this isn't the appropriate venue for complaints of process. There's nothing that says an admin can't initiate a reconf RFA, so people should be complaining on a talk page somewhere. WT:RFA would probably be the spot. لennavecia 20:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, nothing except for the first sentence of the page, "Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators", and many years and 1600 precedents. Apart from that, nothing at all. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    One sentence is easily changed, if there's the will to change it. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm voting neutral because I like bold moves; Wikipedia isn't fragile, and we've all learned something about how each other is thinking. So far so good. I understand that you feel that admins are not sufficiently accountable. (I have to plead ignorance; ANI and ArbCom are not my thing.) If the whole community votes for reconfirmation RFAs, or if ArbCom asks for one in a particular case, that's fine with me. But otherwise, now that we all know there's no consensus yet for a spontaneous reconfirmation RFA, I'll oppose any future candidate that tries one, on the grounds that they can't either can't read an obvious and long-standing consensus, or don't have any respect for the community's judgment, or don't mind launching a giant LOOKATME, or all of the above. Concerning WP:ADREV: nothing's at stake, so I don't see how it can be any better or worse than WP:ER. Wikipedia has always had these temporary watering holes where people talk about each other; it's harmless. - Dank (push to talk) 02:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You misrepresent my position; I don't think that admins are accountable at all, much less insufficiently. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 02:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reconf RFAs such as these are equally as harmless. لennavecia 04:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I got a whole bag O' trout for anyone who thinks this is a valuable use of our time, as well as for anyone who thinks pointing out that it is not a valuable use of our time is a joke. This is as obviously pointless as AR or AOR. Saying so is simply stating the obvious. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Neutral Two years as an admin and he still doesn't know what Rfa is for? MickMacNee (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC) switched to oppose. MickMacNee (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't RfA the forum to find out whether you have the community's trust as an administrator? If it isn't, then where is? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: your edit summary ("Everywhere else is toothless"): technically, this excercise could be argued toothless as well; even if a bureaucreat closes it as unsuccessful, they can't remove the bit from LHvU, I doubt ArbCom would either per their rejection of the RFAR related to Elonka's refusal to step down after she was recalled, so LHvU would have to go to Meta and self-req the removal. Not saying that he would renege, but it's still voluntary (and thus toothless). –xeno ^talk 22:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps, but I prefer to take LessHeard vanU at his word, and if others follow his precedent then perhaps the status quo may at last be changed. It's absurd that a body empowered to bestow the bit is not equally entitled to take it away. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I too gather LHvU would do the right thing, but still that doesn't make this any more toothful than AOR. –xeno ^talk 23:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I take your point, but this is a "toothful" venue, which make "toothfulness" more likely than at other venues like AdminReview. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "Teeth" can be applied. An unsuccesful RecFA can be advised to the Stewards by the closing 'Crat with a note to the effect that resysopping to be only considered on a succesful subsequent RFA (or Jimbo/Office action). In this application, I would ask for an ArbCom motion that adminship was removed "under a cloud" with again RFA being the only process by which it may be regained - should this Request end as unsuccesful. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

17. I cannot support the user, as Erik9 brought up big issues. The info and sources were highly questionable, and probably shouldn't have been added without other reliable sources, and probably BLP violation. The block was a total abuse of power. With that being said, this is an improper reconfirmation, and therefore I won't oppose. American Eagle (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Neutral: I believe we have precisely the right number of admins at this moment. Jonathunder (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    but... but... but... if this RfA fails we'll have one less admin? Surely if the number of admins is precisely right then a support vote would be better?! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, I agree whatever the "right number" of admins is, Less Heard should be included in them. I am just strongly nuetral about the practice of reconfirmation RfAs. I don't see why this is needed. Jonathunder (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    #Neutral. I just don't get this. I don't think the community really needs to be reconfirming the admins every so often, if an admin abuses their tools and position then there are enough eyes on them for their actions to be reviewed and they can be warned about such actions and so on .. if poor behavior and abuse of position and the tools continued then yes this would be a way to go , but not just to confirm ..yes you are doing ok. It seems like unnecessary drama to me. (Off2riorob (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    Neutral is just not good enough. User has asked for an opinion so he should have one . Moving to oppose. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    Neutral to post my opinion on the situation. I echo the top neutral comment by Dlohcierekim. hmwithτ 14:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Move to oppose. hmwithτ 17:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

19. Neutral I have no problems with this user, but upon reading the oppose's messages, I'm not really inclined to support. Plus, there are multiple other ways for you to find out who likes you or not. All RfA's are just popularity contests. But using an RfA to find out if the community likes you is just a waste of time. Renaissancee (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Neutral. I don't know that this is the right venue for this. I don't see any evidence of abuse of the tools (a couple mistakes, yes, but I don't know of any admins who haven't made a mistake here or there). I don't think there is anything here which shows evidence of anything requiring desysopping. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. SMACK!

    

    Whack!

    per Hiberiantears, not the proper venue. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

22. Neutral. The first sentence at the RfA page: "Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance." This "RfA" should not be here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:26, 23 May 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.