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

Looie496[edit]

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) Final (112/7/3); Closed as successful by (X! · talk)  · @236  ·  at 04:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Looie496 (talk · contribs) – I am a neuroscientist specializing in learning and memory, with a focus on the hippocampus. I have been contributing since April 2008, and have co-maintained WikiProject Neuroscience since then.Looie496 (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: It is easier to say what I won't work on. I won't close deletion discussions, and I won't do deletions except for blatant copyvios and attack pages (I feel it is obligatory to delete those if I come across one). Beyond that I won't rule anything out. I am interested in dispute handling and have tried to learn how to do it effectively by participating at ANI, WQA, and various other noticeboards -- I believe that I have developed some skills in dealing with problem editors in a productive way. I feel that with a bit of hands-on practice I can handle AIV, UAA, and RPP if they aren't well covered.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Since 2008 I have been co-maintaining WikiProject Neuroscience -- I have nearly all the articles watchlisted and try to do a quality-check of every edit that doesn't come from a trusted editor, and make sure that every important talk page post gets a response. Content-creation-wise, I have worked mostly on essential neuroscience articles but occasionally make contributions to other things that catch my fancy. I haven't created much original content over the past year, but I have written most of the current content of Brain, Nervous system, Cerebellum, and Hippocampus, and added material to numerous other articles. I took Hippocampus from Start class to FA, and rescued Cerebellum when it came up for FA review by rewriting it from top to bottom. (It was already an FA, but didn't deserve to be.) I've done several GA reviews, and contributed to FAC a bit, although not recently because I dislike the process there. I've also participated pretty extensively on several noticeboards, including AN, ANI, FTN, and WQA, and I'm a frequent contributor to the Reference Desks. I am also a member of the Society for Neuroscience and have done some outreach at the last national meeting to promote Wikipedia.
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 have been involved in many disputes as a third party, as a result of participation at noticeboards, and also in numerous content disputes concerning articles I have edited. Most of them have been pretty low key. I learned very early that one-vs-one disputes are intractable unless one party botches badly by breaking a red-line rule, so I developed the approach of asking for outside input as soon as a situation starts to get fraught. I generally turn either to the appropriate WikiProject or the appropriate noticeboard. If nobody shows any interest in helping (as sometimes happens), I move on to something else. I subject myself to a voluntary 1RR/BRD rule, which I find greatly reduces the temptation to get sucked into edit-warring.
Concerning stress, many things cause it for me, but not usually disputes. The thing that makes me most unhappy is negative feedback from editors I respect. (Negative feedback from disruptive editors just bounces off me.) I'm not keen on mass-production editing, and disruptive mass-production editing, as happened in connection with date-delinking, especially annoys me. I dislike article tags because they are ugly — except in cases of deletion, merger, or hoaxes I feel that they properly belong on the talk page. I especially hate to see cases where a new editor puts a lot of effort into edits that show clear expertise in a topic, and then somebody comes along and reverts the whole thing because of some niggling policy violation — there could hardly be any behavior more destructive to the future of Wikipedia. I could go on, but I think you probably get the idea. I try to respond to these sorts of things with restraint, but I haven't always been 100% successful in keeping my emotions from showing. I have never "blown up", though. The most unpleasant dispute I have been involved in was in 2008 with OrangeMarlin. In an argument about sources, I invoked an ArbCom sanction that I didn't know had been vacated. OM decided that I was trolling and started an ANI thread asking for me to be blocked. I apologized, but I'm not sure that OM was ever convinced that it was an honest mistake. Perhaps the worst aspect of this is that OM and I actually had quite similar views about what belongs in medical-related articles.
Additional optional question from Groomtech
4. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?
A: In principle yes, but there are practical issues: bans are hard to formulate unambiguously, and they aren't systematically logged anywhere, making it difficult to know what bans apply to a given editor. (ArbCom bans are logged, so they don't have the second problem.) I would never apply a ban without getting a mandate to do so at AN or ANI.
Questions from User:Strange Passerby
5. Please describe your view of WP:IAR. Do you think it is one of Wikipedia's better, or less effective, policies?
A: I find it difficult to discuss IAR without making jokes. For example: I obey IAR rigorously, by ignoring it. But more seriously, maybe I can illustrate my attitude by giving an example. According to Wikipedia's sourcing rules strictly interpreted, you can't write that the sky is blue without giving a source. Following that rule strictly makes writing broad-topic articles impossible, so I just try to do the best I can. What IAR must not be used for is as a justification for battling against a clear consensus of other editors.
6. Given the chance, which policy or guideline on Wikipedia would you modify, how would you do so, and why?
A: There are several that I think could be improved, but the one I'll mention is 3RR. Experience shows that an editor who has reverted three times is usually in full-out battle mode and finds it difficult to back off. I would like to see this changed to 2RR, or even better, to 1RR -- I believe this would substantially reduce the level of edit-warring. (Let me make it completely clear, though, that I would never try to change a policy by unilateral action.)
7. Have you ever worked with a WP:BLP article? Could you describe your involvement?
A: Yes, although it hasn't been a major focus for me. My heaviest involvement has been at Lester Coleman, an article that has repeatedly been disrupted by socks trying to insert dubious material for which no sources could be given. My role has been to help defend the integrity of the sourcing. Precisely because it is a BLP, I don't think it would be appropriate to go into a deeper discussion here. For the record, I generally am satisfied with the current BLP policies.
Additional optional question from The Utahraptor
8. If you were to participate in WP:AIV, how many warnings must a vandal be issued before a block is suitable? Why?
A: This will vary depending on the nature of the vandalism, but with the exception of "hate speech"-style vandalism or rapid-fire mass-production vandalism, an editor must have received at least one explicit warning that the next vandal edit will lead to a block. Normally this means four warnings of increasing severity. (I personally think that's too many, but as I said above, I won't try to change policy unilaterally.) It is very important that editors be able to predict the consequences of their actions.
Question from /ƒETCHCOMMS/
9. You wrote above: "I am interested in dispute handling and have tried to learn how to do it effectively by participating at ANI, WQA, and various other noticeboards -- I believe that I have developed some skills in dealing with problem editors in a productive way. I feel that with a bit of hands-on practice I can handle AIV, UAA, and RPP if they aren't well covered." How will the sysop bit help you in resolving disputes? Also, how much experience do you have with AIV/UAA/RPP currently? Are there any "admin areas" in which you do not require "hands-on practice" currently to start helping out in regularly, or do you plan only to use the tools on occasions when you see a backlog, etc.?
A: I believe that in dealing with difficult situations, the single most important factor is that editors be able to predict what the consequences of their actions will be. In some cases a statement is needed such as if you continue to do X, it will be necessary to place a block on your account, but I am rarely willing to make a definitive statement if I can't personally see to it that there is follow-through. Regarding the second part of the question, I feel that I am ready to contribute at AIV/UAA/RPP already. However, my experience of everything I've ever done has been that when I start to actually do it, my preconceived ideas of how to do it get modified to some degree, so I would start slowly and be very open to feedback about anything I might do inappropriately.
Additional optional question from Ais523
10. How experienced are you with respect to the technical side of administrative behaviour (as might be involved in, say, editing MediaWiki: namespace pages, granting/revoking edit filter modification privileges, closing certain sorts of TfD, doing history merges, etc.)? Are you planning to be active in these areas of adminship as well, or to restrict yourself to things that require judgement and diplomacy, but where it's difficult to press the wrong buttons by mistake?
A: I'm a pretty competent programmer so I think I'm capable of dealing with technical stuff, but these are all things I would have to learn how to do. (I said above that I won't close deletion discussions; that applies to templates as well.) I can easily imagine getting involved with edit filters, which are a very powerful and flexible tool, but because mistakes there can be extremely destructive, I would be very careful about that.
Additional optional question from Wifione ....... Leave a message
11. You wrote, "I especially hate to see cases where a new editor puts a lot of effort into edits that show clear expertise in a topic, and then somebody comes along and reverts the whole thing because of some niggling policy violation — there could hardly be any behavior more destructive to the future of Wikipedia." Could you kindly give one or two examples of the same? Thanks and best regards.
A: Um, that's a tough one. I haven't seen a strong example for some months, and I'm baffled how to go about searching out an older one.
Additional question from Keepscases
12. If you had to pick one userbox to add to your user page, which would it be?
A: An invisible one. Sorry, I have an aversion to glitz.
Additional optional question from Alpha Quadrant
13. What are your thoughts on administrator recall? Would you be open to it?
A: I am strongly in favor of having a mandatory recall procedure, but I am generally opposed to roll-your-own procedures. Nevertheless, until there is a universal procedure, I will be open to recall using MBisanz's procedure, as described in User:MBisanz/Recall. If this RfA passes, I will create a personalized version of that page in my own user space.
Additional optional question from Minimac
14. Why is the Username: Addicted to Account Creation a violation of the username policy?
A: This falls into the category "suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia". Chances are 99% that an account with this name is the creation of one of our flock of prolific puppeteers, so I would want to deal with it quickly, efficiently, and with minimal drama. If I encountered this at UAA and the account didn't yet have any problematic edits, I would be (barely) open to the possibility that this is a potentially good editor who is just testing limits, so I would send a message saying that the name is not permissible because it creates a presumption of sock-puppetry, and that it must be changed. (However this is the sort of thing where one gains assurance as a result of actual experience with the buttons, and I certainly wouldn't object to an admin who simply blocked indef, as happened here.) If the editor didn't respond positively, and there were no dissenting opinions from other participants at UAA, I would indef. Let me note that in this actual case there was additional information available: when you reported this name, you also reported Horses dead from adimin abuse (talk · contribs). It's pretty obvious that those were created by the same person, since they were created almost simultaneously, which reduces the chances of good faith pretty much to zero. Sorry for the complex answer, but I thought it would be best to mention all the factors that come into play.
Additional optional question from tofutwitch11
15. What (if any) authority does becoming an administrator give you? What does being an administrator mean to you?
A: The second question is easier to answer. I want Wikipedia to be something that people respect and admire and want to contribute to, in part because I like it, and in part because the more people respect and admire it, the more proud I can be of my own contributions. Being an admin would allow me to do a little bit to help manage the chaos that is Wikipedia's worst aspect.
The first question is much trickier. I think it is necessary to distinguish between what ought to be the case and what actually is the case. As a practical reality, many editors look to admins for leadership. This is largely a result of the RfA process, which is a very demanding test that culminates in a public vote of approval or disapproval. Anybody who survives such a process automatically gains some authority from it, like it or not. Furthermore, blocks function as a form of punishment, even if they are not intended to (people don't like being blocked), and anybody who has the physical capability of inflicting punishment automatically derives authority from that, like it or not. I would actually prefer a process that does not give as much authority. If I had my way, there would be an "admin committee" of 10-15 members who would be elected in the same way as ArbCom, and who would be in charge of managing admins, including opping and de-opping. That way the community would still be in charge (because they would elect the committee), but individual admins could function more as civil servants than as politicians, and bad admins would be much easier to remove. I would probably have applied for adminship a year ago if the process were less political. So bottom-line, the answer is that it actually gives more authority than I want (at least until I get some practice), but my goal in using any authority I have would be to do whatever I can to reduce the overall level of drama, definitely not to cause drama myself by acting controversially. My intention is to start out by behaving like an apprentice, and only gradually work my way into difficult issues. (Please note, if you don't like this answer, that I could easily have given the standard response that an admin is simply a user with some extra buttons, and walked away unscathed.)
Additional optional question from Tommy2010
16. Just out of curiosity, what's your username mean? It is like a pun on the French pronunciation of "Louis"? I had to ask.
A: Yes, a sort of crudely Americanized version, as in the Dr. Seuss story King Looie Katz. It has a personal significance that I think I'll keep to myself. The number 496 I chose because it seemed like a perfect choice. Looie496 (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. yes. Clear net positive. Has the 'pedia's best interests at heart and happy to discuss issues and negotiate. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Good contributions and good common sense. --Talktome(Intelati) 05:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Brains, what else can I say. East of Borschov 05:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Seems to be conscientious, thoughtful, and careful. --TeaDrinker (talk) 07:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Clean log, supporting due to ref. desk involvment. Long standing editor. plus one Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Established and experienced user, talk page archive oozes clue. No hesitation to support him. --Pgallert (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Looks like a great contributor with plenty of experience in admin-related/interaction areas. I like the answers to the questions too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support, looks great. Nsk92 (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Upgrading to strong support, per answers to the questions, the answer to Q12 in particular. Nsk92 (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support A trusted contributor. Deserves my support. Good answer to Q14 (even though I didn't expect the answer to be full quality!). Minimac (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Support Looks solid to me, why not? Tommy! 12:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Upping to strong support per answers. Tommy! 18:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I think he should get his own mop! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 12:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support The candidate appears to be dedicated, trustworthy, clueful, cerebral --Hokeman (talk) 12:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Has a WP:CLUE. Buggie111 (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Good Track and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Sure. No problems with this one. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Mature, level-headed, common sense editor. No problems supporting. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Looks great in every way. First Light (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Won't abuse the tools Secret account 15:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support appears clueful and reliable to me. I like the work in dispute-related areas; the desire to deal with conflicts and awkward editors, and still work towards a nice resolution rather than nuking from orbit is - I think - useful preparation for working with the mop. (But I'm not an admin, so what do I know?) bobrayner (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong support. An excellent candidate, level headed, easy going, civil, knowledgable and experienced with wikipedia's policies, guidelines and proceedures, very productive content contributer and good at handling disputes. I had previously tried to persuade this candidate to run for adminship about a year or so ago and I am glad to see they are now running. Also per Quartermaster.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Seems positive and level-headed; good to have a content contributor who is also active in other areas (noticeboards, talk pages, etiquette board, reference desk, etc.). Drmies (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 17:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Here's a candidate where I can truly say that I have worked closely with them many times! I am solidly confident that Looie will be an administrator who is clueful about both content and conduct, and who has Wikipedia's best interests at heart. This is someone who thinks critically for himself, and who knows how to behave like a grown-up person. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support – Will be a great addition to the admin group. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Your contributions are good, as are your answers to the optional questions. The Utahraptor's sock (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Weak Support Strong Support Would do a great job as an admin. Excellent answer to my question, I can rethink my previous thoughts. Best of luck. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 19:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - trustworthy editor. Agree with Salvio insofar the responses to Q4 and Q8 aren't perfect, but to my mind that's offset by the cautious answer to Q1. PhilKnight (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support The answer to my question wasn't what I expected, but it's fine. Keepscases (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, in the case of a user with a grand total of 8 edits to his own user page, you should expect an answer like that ;) --Pgallert (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Substantial editing record, thoughtful answers to RfA questions... looks good to me. 28bytes (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. No problems here. ~NerdyScienceDude 20:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. From the record and answers to the questions, it is clear that the candidate is a skilled, mature and responsible editor who'll make for a very good administrator. Thank you for nominating yourself. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Seems fine to me. --Inka888 21:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Stephen 22:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. excellent candidate. ϢereSpielChequers 00:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I see no problems :) —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 11:45am • 00:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support --Addihockey10 02:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Some of the answers are iffy to me (5, 8), but I don't think it's a major issue at this point. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support You seem to have the trust of others even though we have knowingly never interacted. Good luck. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please correct me if I am mistaken, but that support sounds like "others are supporting so I will as well". Is that analysis incorrect? NW (Talk) 03:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Expert in the field they edit in, solid editing history, no major concerns with answers to questions. NW (Talk) 03:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Will do fine. Pichpich (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Reasonable answers to questions, no issues raised that worry me. Hobit (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - Good answers to the questions. I don't see any problems with any of the edits. --Alpha Quadrant talk 04:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Well experienced and qualified. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Whenever I've encountered the editor's work I've been impressed, and based on what I can see of their contributions I have no trouble supporting. - Bilby (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Good contributions. Trustworthy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Answers are fine, edit history looks competent, response to oppose below was encouraging, levels of head-screwed-on-ness are manifestly high. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. I see nothing that suggests it would be unwise to support, and plenty to suggest it would be positive to give this intelligent, productive user the tools.  Begoon•talk 10:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - Kind-of confused with the opening statement at the beginning, but really a great editor who will mop well :pepper 10:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, builds content, seems sensible. No major concerns here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  53. Support I have no concerns. — Scientizzle 13:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support No valid reason to oppose at this time. Vodello (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. concerned about lack of recent mainspace contributions, but no that concered to oppose. -Atmoz (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Passable. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong support great content and copyedit contributor, diplomatic and sensible. Boghog (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support – Appears sensible and communicative. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support – No red flags that I'd be concerned about brought up yet. Content contributor to an important article. Lambanog (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support No red flags. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 15:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - Seems like a reasonable editor. SnottyWong chat 03:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - I'm convinced. AniMate 08:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Yes, of course. Trusted long-time contributor. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Good candidate. Aiken (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - Great work on Wikipedia. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Anyone that can take a major article to FA knows what they are doing. And more importantly, how to keep there noses out of what they don't understand until they do understand. (That would be me not touching neuroscience, for the record.) Courcelles 18:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Generally clueful and a strong editor; I think I have disagreed with you in the past, but your positions tend to be reasonable and clearly expressed. I particularly like your answers to Q#9 (admins as a body should be predictable) and Q#15 (it is important to be aware of perceptions and potential ramifications). Q#4 almost puts me in the next section, though; the explicit promise not to apply a unilateral ban and your approach to problem solving reassure me that you will not make a big deal of the position. Also, we do have WP:RESTRICT for central logging of ArbCom and community imposed restrictions. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support per objections raised in neutral comments 1 and 2 and opposing comment 3. I often skip straight to opposing and neutral comments when I come to a new RfA; I was pleased with what I read this time. Personally I like that "this just seems to be a really generic RfA; I can't think of anything unusual at all about it. I suppose a completely formulaic RfA is a sign of a good candidate" (neutral comment 1); we need all the drama-free admins we can get. Likewise, I disagree with the objection to Looie's statement he ""especially hate[s] to see cases where a new editor puts a lot of effort into edits that show clear expertise in a topic, and then somebody comes along and reverts the whole thing because of some niggling policy violation" (neutral comment 2). We need more editors that can add great content; a good admin (or any editor) will work with the new editor to fix the policy issue. As for opposing comment 3 4, "I can't support someone who starts off their RfA stating areas that they wont work in" -- it doesn't bother me; some specialization among admins is a good thing in my experience. I know I better serve Wikipedia sticking to a few areas I really understand well (like spam) and that others may not. Note that these objections by others were thoughtfully made and I don't mean to criticize them; I just draw different conclusions from the same data. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support No issues. Good editor. Mattopaedia Say G'Day! 04:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - good to see neuroscientists on the rise. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Adminship is no big deal. I can't find a single reason to suggest you'd abuse it or that you'd make it into a big deal. Basket of Puppies 04:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support: Great editor which will not abuse its powers.--Garrondo (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Unreservedly. Looie is modest, helpful, collaborative, no-dramas. Excellent candidate. Anthony (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support The wiki pages that the user usually edits could need another admin, and a quick look through the scope revealed no major drama, so yes. --MoRsE (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Looie496. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 10:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - Although I have a few reservations regarding this candidate (it isn't the job of an administrator to boss anyone around), they appear in the overall sense to be a very competent editor who knows their own strengths and weaknesses and plays to them superbly. Please keep it up. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - This user will make a good admin. ---kilbad (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Oppose #4 still doesn't sway me: etiquette warning was fine imho and a little exasperation in the face of having to issue multiple warnings to vandalism-only accounts is excusable. He now sees that it was a (small) error in judgment to have phrased it so. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support This is the type of admins we need. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - with his strong involvement in high-need content area, it's clear that he's the type of editor Wikipedia needs, and I saw nothing on the oppose section that really swayed me. Kansan (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - Looks like a good candidate, take your time and take care using your tools in your main contributory area. Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Raised eyebrows just a little re the Opp#4 issue but agree with Shawn@#78 re context and response. An experienced, intelligent and dramah-free candidate. Most pertinently, IMO, for Looie496 the tools will provide valuable assistance with his content contributions (substantial and of excellent quality) rather than status in some MMORPGesque peergroup. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Good content contributions, clueful responses to questions (8, 12, 15, etc.) --j⚛e deckertalk 22:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Our paths have only crossed a couple of times. However, in the few dealings I've had with Looie, I've known him to act with reason and maturity. I have no doubt he will use the bits responsibly. Dave (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support looks good to me. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 01:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Strong support. Fully qualified candidate. I find the opposers' concerns to be completely unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support no issues, good candidate - IQinn (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support good history, good attitude--ClubOranjeT
  89. Support, helpful, knowledgeable, will be an asset. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Looks good. Nolelover 14:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Appears to be a very good editor and the project will benefit if he becomes an administrator.--PinkBull 16:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Suggested it a long while ago... excellent candidate. ceranthor 19:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Looks like a good candidate. No problems that I can see. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 20:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Edits look great. Answers to questions are generally excellent (the one on IAR misses the point a little bit, I think, though I agree about the urge to joke about it). All in all, you look like a great candidate.--Kubigula (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support From everything I have seen should make a very good administrator. Ward20 (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Good editor with no red flags for me. looking at Looie's comment at oppose#5, I'll happily support someone who's so aware of their own limitations; it demonstrates clue. --RexxS (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support I generally agree with Lou's overall philosophy; I especially like the answer to the last question: Authority is demanded from the RfA process. Xurtio (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support No real issues here.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 14:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support: not seeing any problems. We're all volunteers, and can choose not to work in certain areas if we want to. Not wanting to close deletion discussions seems reasonable, though I agree with Black Kite that it does call into question the candidate's willingness to "get their hands dirty". But it's entirely possible for an admin to mop up quietly behind the scenes. TFOWR 15:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support: Of course. (WP: 100)! Gfoley4 | Need to chat? My track record 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support: No concerns. I am glad that he explained why he doesn't want to close AfDs. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support: He's done a lot for Wikipedia. Wayne Olajuwon chat 16:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support—a knowledgable and capable user. I see no evidence saying that they will be anything but a competent and able administrator. Airplaneman ✈ 21:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support overall, yes.Fainites barleyscribs 22:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support: I like his honesty. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support: - without any reservation. I trust this candidate, who most certainly has far higher levels of civility and maturity than those I have come to regard as major criteria.--Kudpung (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  108. Support Seems fine to me. --John (talk) 04:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support I think this candidate can do the job...Modernist (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support Absolutely! This user can clearly be trusted to think and keep a level head when using the tools. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  111. I don't see why not. T. Canens (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support He is clear about content issues when others aren't. Glrx (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Weak oppose. I'm sorry to be the first to oppose, because I think that you're a great editor. That said, I don't particularly like your answer to question 4; more importantly, however, your answer to question 8 is the real dealbreaker, since you'd like to work on AIV. There are some cases where a block is warranted even if an editor has not been warned (such as legal threats, cases under WP:CHILDPROTECT, ducks, inappropriate usernames, open proxies and others). Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    She He did not answer wrongly, please read the question again. Question 8 specifically asked about blocking individuals engaged in vandalism. Legal threats, sockpuppetry itself and child endangerment issues are not vandalism.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, I'm a "he". Allow me to express a wish that opposes be left unanswered unless there is an absolutely compelling reason to do so. It just isn't worth the chaos that results. Looie496 (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, sorry, I thought Looie was short for Louise. :) Ok, sorry, I shall not reply to opposes and I hope others respect your wishes.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Legal threats, sockpuppetry and child endangerment belong on their appropriate noticeboards, ANI, SPI etc. I don't see how the user answered wrong. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 11:54am • 00:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Salvio actually has a point. It could easily happen that a vandal-edit shows up at AIV that doesn't call for an immediate block on the basis of the vandalism, but where the user name obviously requires an indef. Shipping something like that to UAA would be pointless. I just didn't think about that when I wrote my answer. Looie496 (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Q5. "The sky is blue" is either 1) exactly the kind of fact you can state without giving a source per WP:V, or 2) you're being so scientific in having us ponder whether the sky is actually blue that you're unlikely to communicate effectively with us common folk. Townlake (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Look who I find opposing with their idiotic rationales, none other than Townlake... do you have nothing better to do than oppose candidates who'd make great admins? If you aren't going to vote reasonably you shouldn't do so at all. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 10:33pm • 11:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That was uncalled for. You might disagree with Townlake (I certainly do), but he/she is entitled to their opinion. If it's really baseless, the 'crats will weight it accordingly when they close the discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    Reasonable people may disagree. Like the candidate (I assume), I've written to academic standards where every fact, obvious or not, must be sourced. I'm concerned that the Q5 answer indicates Looie considers Wikipedia's rules similar... they're not. Townlake (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That was nothing but an unambiguous personal attack. As Lankiveil said, they is entitled to their opinion. (X! · talk)  · @540  ·  11:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I know he is entitled to his opinion, at least his response provides an insight into his oppose, I've no objection about it now since he has provided a basis for his oppose. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:19am • 22:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first response was a tad too strong there; be careful! Airplaneman ✈ 23:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per my criteria. I can't support someone who starts off their RfA stating areas that they wont work in. That's a quickfail for me. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to elaborate on my reasoning here. When someone is in an RfA I'd like that candidate to theoretically be able to handle the whole range of tasks that admins can do. I want fully qualified people to get the tools; that is, they're willing to work anywhere even if they plan to specialize. If the candidate doesn't think he can or is not willing to work in those areas, it raises red flags for me. People might vote with the understanding they wont work in these areas, but once they have the tools all bets are off. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I didn't arrive here without a lot of consideration. Looie seems to be someone primarily interested in content, and writing an encyclopedia, not drama. That's always a big plus. However, one big flaw seems to be the misunderstanding of the way authority works around here. Administrators have access to additional tools, not additional authority (for the most part). Edits like these raise concerns in my mind: [1] [2]. A final, more subjective, concern is that I'm afraid of what Looie will become. With such ill-specified reasons given for pursuing adminship, I wonder if getting the bit will indulge the side of his editing that is not as interested in content contribution, and is more interested in exercising authority, real or imagined. Gigs (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This oppose makes more sense to me than the others. For the record, I completely stand by the first of those edits -- note that it's from WQA, where people come to get third-party opinions about etiquette. The second is a rare instance of petulance, due to realizing that there was nothing I could do with that vandalism-only account except add one more warning to the talk page. Note that five hours earlier the same account had done this. There are half-a-dozen other things worth discussing here, but I think I had better avoid writing an essay. Looie496 (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to add that the tone of the WQA edit is a result of experience. I have found, working at WQA, that people are more receptive to messages delivered in a formal, lecturing tone than to messages delivered in a friendly, informal tone. I don't know why that is, but it's pretty consistent, and so any time I have to deliver an admonition I try to be very formal about it, although that doesn't come natural to me. Looie496 (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ouch. That second diff is unfortunate. Glad to see Looie496 recognizes that in retrospect. But the first diff seems perfectly fine to me, whether it's at WQA or anyplace else. There's absolutely nothing wrong (IMO) about advising other editors to be less confrontational. I've had to do that a couple of times today myself. 28bytes (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The second is inappropriate but if that's as bad as it gets I think we're okay. The first seems fine--could have been written better--but fine. Hobit (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This is a technical oppose, because this is going to pass and I actually think Looie will be a fine admin, but seriously, if you don't think that you're qualified to close deletion debates, then it does sort of bring into question your judgement on everything else. AfDs are the most contentious area of Wikipedia, and by saying that you give the impression that you aren't willing to touch anything that might be controversial. But that's what admins have to do, unfortunately. As I say, this is only technical, and good luck, but it might be worth bearing in mind. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not fear of controversy so much as knowledge that I'm incompetent in that domain. If you look through my record on deletions you'll find relatively low involvement and a substantial number of technical errors. The one time I got heavily involved in a controversial AfD, concerning Susan Boyle, I made a hideous botch of it. I think the policies concerning deletion are as complicated as everything else put together, and I just have never been interested enough to get them all straight in my head. I feel that I can contribute in other areas, but you wouldn't want me adminning there, honestly. There are plenty of other admins who want to focus on that area. Looie496 (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Frankly very concerned about an admin candidate not intending to understand deletion policy. This is the very basic minimum knowledge and experience level required of an admin, and I am actually a little shocked this adminship appears as it will pass considering this basic requirement seems to be fail in this case. Nothing personal Looie, but well-honed skill in deletion debates, reviews and the accompanying discussions are paramount for access to the admin tools. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not see anywhere on this RFA that the candidate stated he would not try to understand the deletion policy. He expressed no interest in working for that area, but nothing about ignoring policy. I apologize, but stating that you are "shocked" that this RFA is highly likely to pass gives me the impression that you're being just a tad bit dramatic here. Vodello (talk) 05:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per the airy response to Q1. -Regancy42 (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
I'm going to vote neutral for now. While this user's contributions look good, they haven't answered any of the additional questions. I expect candidates to be ready to answer at least the first additional question before I consider supporting. If the candidate's answers to the additional questions are suitable, I'll move my vote to support. The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions 12:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your question could be misleading.. Tommy! 12:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions 12:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have editors in all sorts of timezones, so criticising a candidate for not yet answering an additional question that has been asked less than 10 hours ago is jumping the gun a little. I would tend to go 48 hours before criticising a candidate for ignoring an optional question. ϢereSpielChequers 14:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know, "optional" actually means "not compulsory"... Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 14:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, there's nothing in the rules that states that additional questions must be considered optional, although most of the editors who've added such questions here have specifically classified them as such. Keepscases (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, and sometimes only the person who asked a question will be bothered if it is not answered. But as Utahraptor asked a question it is reasonable to assume that he will be amongst those who expects that question to be answered. As for whether additional questions are optional or not, I would suggest that the reality is that the RFA crowd judges that by many criteria including relevance and timing. I doubt if a candidate would pass if they left a relevant, probing and awkward question unanswered from the first day to the seventh. Whilst a sixth day boilerplate question that could have been asked of any candidate would be unlikely to alter anyone's !vote - compulsory or otherwise. ϢereSpielChequers 15:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to read "optional" as an expression of the questioner's attitude, not as an objective property of the question. No question is really optional if ignoring it would give rise to doubts. Looie496 (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be an unhealthy new trend in posing multiple pile-on questions, not all of which appear to come from editors who fully understand the system. As far as I am concerned, optional must be interpreted according to its dictionary definition. If not, then we must change the RfA template through recognised process.--Kudpung (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I've been looking over recent contribs, question answers, etc., and this just seems to be a really generic RfA; I can't think of anything unusual at all about it. I suppose a completely formulaic RfA is a sign of a good candidate (per WP:DEAL, etc.), but I generally don't support RfAs without a reason to, so here I am in Neutral. --ais523 19:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. I appreciate your considered responses to my questions. Normally I'd support based on your answers but when you say you "especially hate to see cases where a new editor puts a lot of effort into edits that show clear expertise in a topic, and then somebody comes along and reverts the whole thing because of some niggling policy violation — there could hardly be any behavior more destructive to the future of Wikipedia," and can't provide examples of it happening, I can't support. More often than not if a policy has been violated, policy is more important (IAR aside); the good parts of the edits can be reinserted if those meet the policy guideline. So I'm neutral. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 00:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to badger, but policy is not more important than improving the encyclopedia. That is the whole point of IAR. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to badger :) but it is better to remove the policy violation part of an otherwise reasonable edit than to do a wholesale revert. It is unnerving for a newbie editor to see their work rejected wholesale. Which is, or that's my reading of it anyway, what the candidate is trying to say.--RegentsPark (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think this is the first time I've ever found myself in the neutral column, but I felt motivated to point out to the candidate in response to his answer to question 4 that it is most definitely not the role of administrators to issue orders to anyone. Had this RfA been in the balance I would have opposed. Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be me, but I don't read it like that. The question is Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic?. And the response details the dificulties of banning a user. I can't parse the respone as relating to what I think of as "issuing orders" which is, in a nutshell, telling people what to do - and thus I'm not clear if that was the point of the question, or if there is another "issuing orders" that I'm unaware of - e.g. carrying them out. Pedro :  Chat  21:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I responded to this on Malleus's talk page a few days ago; you can look there for my thoughts. Looie496 (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category