Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Random Editor

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

(96/1/3) Final

The Random Editor (talk · contribs) - It is a honor to present to the wikipedia community The Random Editor. He has been with us since March of 2007, and has accumalated approx. 5200 edits. He has been very active at the Help Desk and reference desk. All though he tends to do gnomish work such as sorting, vandalism reverts, and welcome messages, he has a clear understanding of the policies, shown in various locations, such as Afd. We can also see his devotion to the project by creating the Portal:Roman Empire single handedly. His contributions should show better than I have described this hard working editor. --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 04:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom by Wizardman: Hi, me again with yet another guy I think would be great for adminship, The Random Editor. I asked him about a month ago, and found out that I was adding my name to a list of a bunch of others who wanted to nominate him. Of course, this group of people wanting him to be an admin is well-deserved. For those concerned about edit count, he's got 5k edits spread out across all namespaces (Including portal talk :P). In all interactions I've seen or had with him, he's been courteous, thoughtful, and eager to make this encyclopedia better. He also helps out at the help desk, to reprove both above points. Not sure what else to be said, if you've seen him around you know what I'm talking about, he'd be an asset to the admin team. Wizardman 18:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom by Húsönd: The Random Editor is a very fine candidate for adminship. For a long time I have witnessed his dedication to Wikipedia and his willingness to learn how to be helpful in many different rooms of this house. Just to mention a few of his achievements, he is an excellent vandalfighter, a frequent presence at WP:XFD and he has created Portal:Roman Empire (which I believe is striding on the path to featured status). Random is a very trustworthy, friendly, experienced and communicative user, and would definitely keep up his already excellent work if given access to the admin tools. Húsönd 20:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screw this, I'm nomming even if you can't wait for me, from Dihydrogen Monoxide (pre-written, for less contextual meaning!): It is with great pleasure that I present The Random Editor for your viewing pleasure. If the last few words of that sentence excited you in non-wikipedia ways, you should probably turn away now....

Now, before I go on, I must stress that Husond and me take RfA nominations very, very, seriously. That’s why we’re betting on which nomination is sexier; mine or his (feel free to take your pick whilst commenting in the RfA)! Husond mentioned all of his adminship criteria; excellent vandalfighting, great participation in admin areas, etc., in his speech, and now we will discuss my admin criteria. 28% sexier, guaranteed!

My criteria are brutal, oh so brutal. Amazingly, however, The Random Editor has surpassed them with ease. Basically, they are; a kickass signature, a groovy persona, and an amazing username. Think about it; could you trust an administrator named “Jimmy Wales” (not even going by the nickname of “Jimbo” is enough here), whose signature is simply “Jimbo Wales?” I’m not sure about you, but such a candidate would seem far too untrustworthy in my eyes.

On the other hand, The Random Editor meets all of my criteria much more successfully then Jimbo does. He has a non-default signature. In fact, his signature doesn’t even have the default font (ooh boy, I can spell a [[WP:100⁹⁹]] here). He also has a creative username, and one that summarises him perfectly. He’s an object, so the “The” is appropriate. Like all human life forms, his behaviour is not 100% predictable, so the “Random” is appropriate. And he edits Wikipedia, so the “Editor” is appropriate. Since he meets my criteria, it would be impossible not to nominate him, so here he is, the tastiest thing since Jimbo-jam on jelly beans - The Random Editor! Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Beat THAT, Husond :P[reply]

Co-nom by Maxim I knew the The Random Editor wasn't an admin; although for a very long time I believed otherwise. He is a kind and hepful user who will greatly profit from the tools. Guess I delayed in asking him. Rats. Maxim_(talk) 12:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nom and thank Hirohisat, Wizardman, and Husond for their well written noms. Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate Optional Statement: I would like to thank all of you who participate in my RFA no matter what way you go. Just remember I don't have as much time as you do so don't get upset at me if I don't answer your question immediately. I will answer it as soon as possible. Happy Editting, Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: If I’m promoted, I would like to try to become involved in several admin related activities. I would probably be the most actively involved would be at WP:UAA. I’m currently quite active at WP:UAA where I report WP:U violations and comment on questionable violations. I have been around that noticeboard enough to know that backlogs there are not uncommon, so I feel that this would be my primary administrative task. Dealing with reports at WP:AIV, Deleting pages that meet WP:CSD from C:CSD, and semi-protecting pages that have been excessively vandalized would probably take up the rest of my admin related work on Wikipedia.

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

A: I would like to say first of all that I feel my most rewarding edits are those at the Help Desk and helping out new users. As stated by Hirohisat and Husond, I created and maintain The Roman Empire Portal, which I believe is nearing feature status. I unfortunately have to say that I have not been the greatest article writer there is. However, I'm working the Bank of New York Mellon article which I have turned from being a stub into the beginnings of a future WP:GA. I have been quite a active unconstructive edit reverter, something that many editors avoid since it is less clear cut the vandalism. Overall, I quite pleased with the majority of my edits.

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: Conflicts, yes unfortunately I have been involved in some. Perhaps, the "worse" one I have been involved in was one concerning User:The way, the truth, and the light's username. The initial discussion can be found here. After that, I suggested that we bring it to WP:RFCN, as we did, and that was the real beginning of my mistakes. Well first of all the username was allowed, as it should have been. Second, I did not WP:AGF, quite the opposite, I WP:ABF. I also violated WP:CANVASS, and also WP:BITE. It was overall, a very depressing experience for me. However, it taught me the real meaning of a violation, and also has helped me down the road with other conflicts which I have handled much more appropriately.

What, precisely, did this teach you and how will you handle potential username violations in the future? 198.203.175.175 14:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Phoenix 15

4. An AFD has been open for six days and a fifty users have voted delete, while non have voted keep. The article in question is definitely notable (A capital city , for instance) and meets no criteria for deletion. In your opinion, should the article be deleted or kept? (I know this is never going to happen but I would like your opinion)

A. Nice question Phoenix 15. Well first of all, a admin would have to look into who was !voting delete. Was it a bunch of new accounts. In that case I would suspect we had a case of Sock-puppetry on our hands. Also, In my opinion this would have been closed from the start as Speedy Keep by some other admin. However, to answer your question if all the editors were legit, and there reasons sane, and they were not making a point, I would have to say that I would keep it.

4a. Optional question. Imagine that a scientist at Pedigree has developed a special type of dogfood—if consumed by dachshunds it allows them to think at human or at least near-human intelligence. They cannot speak as their vocal chords are all wrong, but they can read rather well, and with specially designed keyboards can type and surf the internet. Despite the intelligence, however, they still have canine-level emotions (the amygdala is almost completely unaffected by Pedigree Brainchow®). How do you feel WP:NPA would apply if one of these dachshunds became an editor here, and I casually referred to him as a "wiener dog"? --JayHenry 22:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. Interesting question. Well, first of all you have to take into consideration that it is a dog, and "wiener dog" is essentially just a nickname for dachshunds. You must also take into account the fact that emotions of the animal have not changed, so I would have to say that this is not really a personal attack as the dog would not respond to that kind of statement. However, if the dog was capable of having human emotions, then this could potentially be seen as a attack. That all would depend upon if the dog took offence or not, though.

Optional question from Spebi

5. Why did you think that having 37 edits to a particular article will gain you "some opposes" on an RfA? ( [1] ) Do you think that having 32 edits to a different article will affect the outcome of this RfA?

A: I think it potentially could. I have seen it bring up a few oppose votes such as at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Magnus animum. I don't personally vote oppose for that reason, but other editors have been known to do that before. Hope that answers your question satisfactorily.

Why exactly does it have the potential? Having a high amount of edits to a certain article I think shows dedication to that article, that you're committed to improving it. Your thoughts? Sebi _[talk] 01:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well first of all as stated, some editors have a problem supporting people who have not shown a large amount of actual 'pedia building. I'm not sure it shows real dedication, because some editors don't real make article writing edits because they are not exactly top notch article writers. See Wikipedia:Editor review/The Random Editor for Acalamari's review informing me of potential opposes. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 02:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Majorly

6. I was looking at your earliest edits [2] and was wondering if there was a reason you joined and immediately knew what infoboxes/edit summaries/categories/redirects were. Unlike most new users who are very cautious, you seemed to dive right in and know things it takes more time normally to learn. Have you ever edited Wikipedia prior to creating this account?

A: Yes I have as a matter of fact. I previously used the account User:The Random Editore which was originally titled King of Anonymity. If you wonder why it was editing articles at the same time I was editing under this account, it was because when I was teaching my sister the ropes and so he could see how to do it I logged her on under my previous account. She did not enjoy wikipedia as much as I did and made the decision not to edit anymore, so I decided to change the name of my old account to The Random Editore so I could use it for security purposes. I know it seems like a crazy answer but it is what happened.

Could you expand on what you mean by "so I could use it for security purposes". I dont have any issue with the username change itself, but I don't understand the sentence or how/what security purposes would motivate a username change. John Vandenberg 01:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, mentioning security purposes could just be a polite way of saying "don't ask." If Random proves me wrong, so be it, but I get the feeeling this isn't something he wants to tell the world about. Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off DM. It was late when I answered that question last night, so it wasn't remarkably clear. The purpose of the account is to provide a way of confirming that if my account was hacked into, highly improbable, the potentially unconstructive edits were not made be me, but by some other person. Sorry for the confusion--Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 02:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk · contribs)

7. What is WP:DENY, do you think it's important to apply this essay when dealing with trolls and other persistant trouble makers, and why?--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 20:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: I apologize for the long delay in answering. Well the first thing you have to do in my opinion is to attempt to identify the the motivation of the vandal/troll/unconstructive editor. In a perfect world we would know immediatly, why the editor was being unconstructive. Were they screaming for attention? Did they have a political, religious, or other sort of agenda? Were they kids just playing around? If we knew the reason, we could properly apply WP:DENY to the situations that call for it. Since we don't typically know the motive, I would say the wisest move is to as a general Deny recognition to vandals, trolls, etc.

• See The Random Editor's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for The Random Editor: The Random Editor (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/The Random Editor before commenting.

• This looks to be getting dangerously close to the point where "user uploaded a non-free image and it was deleted" is actually a valid reason to oppose them. There was a time when adminship requests at least aimed at, if not succeeded in, judging the suitability of the candidate for adminship. If you don't think there should be non-free images in Wikipedia, the correct course of action is to propose a change in policy (or give up and go elsewhere), not oppose every user who ever uploaded a non-free image -- 86.142.251.120 13:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Strong support I really did think this user was alredy an administrator. He is always civil and has displayed excellent judgement. He does not have the super-high edit count of some admins but I really don't see any reason to oppose him--Phoenix 15 19:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Might as well throw my support in early, since he should accept momentarily. Wizardman 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support I don't usually agree with TRE, but I've never seen a post of theirs that I couldn't understand a sound reasoning behind — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support as co-nom.--Húsönd 20:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support I have run across him/her a few times, and have found nothing wrong. A good, all-round editor with participation right across the project. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. (Edit conflict)Finally! I've been waiting for this for a while. I thought you already had an RfA though. Whatever. TRE has been a pleasure to work with closely in creating the CVU taskforce. No reason at all to believe he will abuse the tools. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 20:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support good candidate, although I don't know you, other than coming across your comments in random discussions. --Isis4563 20:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support I don't normally participate in RFAs but this is a user I have come across many times across Wikipedia, particularly in counter vandalism and I am confident that TRE would use admin tools sensibly. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 20:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. Good candidate. Majoreditor 21:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Absolutely Excellent candidate for the admin tools. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Wait a sec... - I honestly thought he was an admin! Random is very sensible and I'm sure he will do a fine job! Good luck! Neranei (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. I thought you were already an admin as well. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Doubly conflicted support – I know Random and he is the embodiment of the temperament and judgment needed to be an administrator. Good luck! —[[Animum | talk]] 21:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Strongest support ever possible - the man has got excellent communication skills, and always helps out new users. He is also active in admin-realted areas. Good luck :-) --Boricuæddie 21:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support This user deserves adminship. If I could, I would love to co. nom., but anyway, I wish you luck!! I also beat a few of the noms. Pat^{Politics rule!} 21:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Been waiting for this Rfa...of course! Jmlk17 22:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Strong support A very civil and friendly user who would never abuse the tools and would certainly make a great admin. ♠TomasBat 22:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support - always impressed by 'pedia builders. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak Support, but a support nonetheless. Good luck mate! · AndonicO ^Talk 22:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have any specific concerns with the user? --Boricuæddie 22:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but only minor things: no FA, quite new, and a bit of negative over-enthusiasm in the username dispute with The way the truth and the life. Aside from that he's a great editor, which is why I supported. · AndonicO ^Talk 00:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Switching to Neutral, per Dihydrogen Monoxide. · AndonicO ^Talk 00:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19. Support - good contributions, civil editor and always helpful to others. Knows policy well. Yup! - Alison ☺ 22:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support No reason not too. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support - I'm going to support. Good editor, a lot of experience. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Strongest support ever - Hell, School is evil. I'm supporting so late because of that; and as nom. --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 23:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Damn! That's another editor I forgot to nominate! bibliomaniac15 Two years of trouble and general madness 00:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support To put in short, TRE is a great Wikipedian. -Lemonflash_{(do something)} 00:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Weak Support ~ Wikihermit 01:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Weak Support - low project namespace edits concern me a little - but until someone points out a substantiated reason why not I'll go with support. --Ben^complain 01:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Supoort An excellent contributor, vandal fighter and civil editor. I see no reason to oppose. Random deserves an admin position. GeneralIroh ^{(Leave a message after the beep if you gotta problem.)} 02:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support Seen him around, consistent, civil, helpful, lots of editing goodness; I think he'll make a fine admin. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 02:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well DUH! Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC) (Changed to neutral)[reply]

29. This user absolutely deserves the mop (I swear I thought he already had it... I don't know much, do I?) and H2O's nomination absolutely is sexier (sorry, Husond). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madman (talk • contribs) 04:54 8 September 2007 (UTC)

    I totally agree with this statement. Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to admit, DM has a pretty sexy nom. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 14:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Husond wins any day with that nomination. Nobel Prize for Literature... almost. · AndonicO ^Talk 21:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well perhaps DM's nom was a little over the top. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. Over-the-top = non-sexy. ;) · AndonicO ^Talk 21:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    *leaves Wikipedia again* :P Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

30. Support I thought you were an admin, I even thought I remembered your RFA! Faulty memory aside, a great, reliable editor with trustworthy noms. ~Eliz81^(C) 06:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Strong support Very consistent, great editor. GDonato (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Strong support per the co-noms. Maxim_(talk) 12:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support. Another great candidate; no reason to oppose. Walton^One 12:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. I am confidant that giving this user the tools will be of benefit to Wikipedia. --Mschel 13:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. He wasn't one already? Kwsn(Ni!) 15:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Excellent candidate, consistently calm and thoughtful. Acroterion _(talk) 15:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support Will not abuse the tools.--Oxymoron⁸³ 15:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support per all of the above. Thanks for serving. --A. B. ^(talk) 16:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Holy Cow! Like most users I show support for, I thought he was already an admin >.< -Flubeca^Talk 16:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support, he is a great editor who has no reason not to receive the mop. Marlith ^T/C 17:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. support the fair use etc guildlines have changed quite recently so it's understandable if someone was temporarily confused or not sharing the views of some others. I like his signature font, and he seems to already do a lot of admin-like work at AfD and other such pages. (sorry I put this in wrong place earlier) Merkinsmum 17:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support with no concerns, can be trusted. Bearian 18:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support though I really don't think it's much of a surprise at this point. I've never seen The Random Editor do anything that was bad, either considered by myself personally, or the community. And, obviously, most other people agree with that statement. And the username itself respects the true meaning of the project, that anyone can edit. I'm sure that this will be successful, and I hope to see TRE cleaning up the encyclopedia (sorry, but I couldn't make another mop pun) --HALtalk 18:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Strong,Strong Support Would have loved to co-nom, but missed the gun. Perfect Proposal ^{Speak out loud!} 19:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. support. From what I've seen, TRE has a use for the tools, and I trust that TRE won't abuse them. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 19:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Strong Support This user is always incredibly civil towards everyone and is willing to help out whenever he can. I've always seen very well-reasoned edits from TRE, and honestly cannot believe that he hasn't been made an admin already. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Strong Support Great user, I see no reason to oppose him, and we need more admins.--†Sir James Paul† 21:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Good editor, no problems with giving him the tools. --Hdt83 ^Chat 21:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support —DerHexer (Talk) 22:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support - No problems, I trust this user. As an aside, I find multiple noms (above much more than two) annoying and unnecessary, but that's certainly not something I hold against the user. All of my interactions with The Random Editor have been positive, and I am happy to support. - Philippe | Talk 23:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support seen him around plenty of times, always thoughtful and polite. Melsaran (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support Based on comments I've seen on Wikipedia pages and on contribs. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 00:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support - has all the experience in the right areas and is due for a mop by now. Despite his mention of a bite conflict, he seems as cool as a cucumber to me, so I have no worries.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support - Good candidate, well-rounded editor, no history of controvertial actions. — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Seen this editor around many times, would be a great admin IMO. Mr.Z-man 03:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support It is time to give this user the mop. A great editor as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 07:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57. Love. If I were 10 years younger and a woman..... Dfrg.msc 09:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support. Excellent level-headed editor with great contributions, will make a fine admin. Dreadstar † 10:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
59. Husond nominated. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Nothing I've seen shows me any reason this user would abuse admin powers. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
61. No problems here whatsoever. —AldeBaer 16:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
62. Support—Contributions look good; no reason to oppose. --Paul Erik 18:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support Great contributor, no concerns here. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 18:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support Belated, but strong. No need to add to the nominators comments. Pedro |  Chat 
65. Support. Not only a fantastic contributor, but a bright, beautiful person who has much to teach us when it comes to treat others with kindness and respect. With more people like Random around, I know our project can only become better and better. Phaedriel - 20:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
66. Strong support He wasn't already an admin??? I thought he was! Jonathan Fall down go boom. Light fireworks go BANG!® 20:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
67. Surprised Support You mean he isn't already an admin? The travesty! VanTucky ^(talk) 20:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support listens to advice and works to improve himself. That's the sort of administrator we want. Acalamari 23:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support -- this user will apply the tools fairly, and intelligently. That's all I really ask for. --Haemo 02:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support User will not abuse tools. --Banana 04:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support - the Random editor will become a certified admin! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support the editor has been around a long time, showing reasonable character and judgement. I see no reason not to support, the evidence suggests that the editor can be trusted with the tools, eh? WilyD 14:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
73. Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong (Ooh...) support- well, comments all made.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfc1864 (talk • contribs)
74. Support. If Phaedriel thinks that well of you, you're either a master of mind-control or you'll make a great admin. Or both! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
75. STRONG Support Great editor. LaraLove♥ 19:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support will be good with the tools. Carlossuarez46 19:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns. Newyorkbrad 19:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
78. Baleet Support, though I don't like random things. Chickens are cool. Oh, and great candidate and all that. — Malcolm (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support - TRE is trustworthy. Also a good person. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support I have seen Random around a lot, and he greatly deserves the mop. Reywas92^Talk 23:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
81. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support More than qualified. --Sharkface217 00:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support. I see no problems. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 00:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support Impressive track excellent editor.Pharaoh of the Wizards 00:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 04:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 08:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
87. Per sock. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 09:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support - I see The Random Editor around now and then, though I don't remember any specific direct interactions. It seems clear to me from these times that The Random Editor would use the mop conscientiously. Nihiltres^(t.l) 19:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support, good experience and contributor. I hope you become a good admin too. Good luck. Carlosguitar 01:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
90. Random support. A good contributor who should make a find admin. Also, I find the candidate's choice of username to be exceptional: The Random Editor. In the context of Wikipedia, we are all editors, after all, scattered randomly across the globe, separated by distance, lifestyle, and beliefs. Yet, when we converge in this one place, we work in (relative) peace and harmony toward a common goal. Human nature is such that ... oops, philosophical theses belong at WP:RFAR not WP:RFA. My mistake! Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
91. Easy. You'll do great, I see you everywhere- you're always doing an exceptional job. Cheers- CattleGirl ^talk 08:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
92. Ready - he is ready for the tools. He should use them well. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support a good user who will use the tools wisely. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support I am confident that this user will act with the best intentions in mind. He has earned the mop. Phgao 17:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support No evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 19:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
96. Slade (TheJoker) 20:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose -- I am impressed by what The Random Editor has done. However, because of his sometimes questionable decisions on identifying vandalism/assuming good faith, I think it would be better for him to continue as a normal user. Sweet Winged One 19:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Let me begin by saying that I respect your decision. In my defense, the reason I ocassionally make mistakes, is because in the course of my daily reverts I often revert unconstructive edits, different from vandalism, and as a result more difficult to discern as they are more borderline edits, such as POV junk. I have certainly made bad calls before, but we are all humans. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 20:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you. Sweet Winged One 20:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Your welcome, Happy Editting. By the way, this is only your 10th or 11th edit, have I come in contact with you before so that you know that I make mistakes? --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 20:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose Sorry for switching from support, to neutral, to oppose, but I'm having trouble with both this: [3], and your explanation for it: [4], especially the explanation. Maybe it's just me, but I find that slightly arrogant. I don't think it's a proper thing to say about your own RFA. · AndonicO ^Talk 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   "What was arrogant. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 01:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Mainly this: "When I stated that "Here comes WP:100, any day now and we should hit it," I was simply stating a fact." · AndonicO ^Talk 01:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   You realize I was speaking about Pedro's and not mine. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 01:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   *blinks* Why didn't you say that before? :P Now I have to change back to Neutral... *grumbles* · AndonicO ^Talk 01:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

While I think your a great, civil user, you don't seem to understand wikipedia's fair use policy.[5]. Neutral for now. ~ Wikihermit 23:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How? This one's fine. So is this one, and this one, and this one, etc. Which one of these images cause you to believe he doesn't understand the fair use policy? --Boricuæddie 23:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, Wikihermit, I find it particularly amusing that this comment was made, considering you've just nominated Betacommand and been far more forgiving in that review. I've had a look over those diffs and the contribs and can't really see any concern at all. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 00:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those logos serves to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic"? None of them. Not that I think this in itself is reason to oppose, but the rationales are clearly insufficient when it comes to criterion 8 of the non-free content criteria. Picaroon (t) 00:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah OK - I can accept that. I just suppose for me at least, if I would otherwise be putting in a comment in support, I'd not really put in a Neutral one instead just because of this. Wikihermit is well entitled to that choice however. I retract my comments. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 00:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Picaroon; none of the images actually provide any information about why the image "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic"; a majority of the images are logos, and I can't see how including a logo in an article increases understanding of the topic at all, unless the logo has been heavily criticised, or if the logo was under some controversy, or was offensive in a certain country or something similar. Sebi _[talk] 00:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(←) The images' fair use rationales are fine. Read WP:FURG#Necessary components; the logos are used to illustrate and identify the main subject of the articles. Again, they're fine, IMO. --Boricuæddie 00:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The one I saw failed to identify which article the image is allowed in, among criterion 8. Anyways, changed to weak support after being mobbed by the RfA crew. ~ Wikihermit 01:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're the RfA crew now... thanks. Sebi _[talk] 01:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute Wikihermit, are you going to cross out your neutral. If not, I understand your concerns and respect your decision. I will answers those questions shortly Spebi and Majorly. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 01:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'm part of a "crew" now. AGF, 'hermit. Just trying to make sure we don't make the wrong choice here... --Boricuæddie 02:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly not part of any mob. We must plot his downfall tonight. Entirely kidding of course, your opinion is your opinion. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 02:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The hoops the Image Police makes everybody jump through in order to justify a fair use image can be quite annoying and mystifying at times. *Dan T.* 18:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to users: I don't mean to nag, but when a user raises a good-faith concern, I don't think other editors should come to the defense of candidate until he/she addresses the concern. The spirit of the RFA process is for the candidate to answer all questions and concerns personally, either by presenting evidence to contradict such concerns or prove their correction, or by promising to answer them in the future. Other users can assist in the discussion, but they shouldn't substitute the candidate's responses. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 00:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I totally second that. Watching the Rfa crew was a bit of a pain. --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 01:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with that, Marcos. I agree that the candidate's explanation is worth the most, but Rfa is a discussion, even if it doesn't appear to be one. Here, we are discussing if Mr. Random can be trusted with administrator rights. Our duty as participants in this discussion is to evaluate if comments made here by others are truly valid concerns that may cause us to not trust this editor. In this case, we (the "RfA crowd") responded to 'hermit's opposition, as should be done, and reached the conclusion that it wasn't really such a concerning point. I encourage all editors to discuss oppositions raised at RfAs. --Boricuæddie 02:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we might be starting to get off-topic. Just a comment, RFA is a discussion, and the candidate should respond to a oppose personally, but other editors certainly are capable of doing so as well and should not be chastised for doing so. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 02:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic, indeed. I'm continuing the discussion on the talk page. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 12:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment, Hermit changed to weak support awhile back, so the count should be (60|0|0). --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 13:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't know how we missed that. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 17:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, erm, why didn't anyone update it before me? Am I missing something...? — Malcolm (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, never mind. — Malcolm (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. You may find this surprising considering I nommed, but I've changed to neutral. This irks me too much. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 00:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   All, I stated was that I thought he would hit WP:100, why is that a reason to go neutral. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 00:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   It's not what you said, it's how you said it. "Here comes WP:100, any day now and we should hit it." - You make it sound like RfA is a game about gaining as many votes as possible. It's not. A user who gets 20 supports and 0 opposes can make a better admin then one who gets hundreds. Gracenotes got 200 supports, but he isn't an admin. Getting a huge number of votes means nothing. I'm sorry to have changed to neutral, but I have to be honest to my opinions. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 00:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I respect it but that is not how I meant it. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 00:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   May I ask how you meant it? · AndonicO ^Talk 00:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Okay let's address this. When I stated that "Here comes WP:100, any day now and we should hit it," I was simply stating a fact. I was not implying that it was trophy to be won, or something. Hirohisat suggested the my nom might make WP:100, I was of course reffering to pedro's in my statement, but I responded that there was a chance. I see it as no trophy, but as passing point into a list. There is no addtional glory recieved from it. Why our own Husond recieved 82 supports. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 00:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I understand what you're saying, but I'm going to (respectfully) remain neutral on this. You'll get through anyway, most likely. I'm glad to see that you acknowledge that there is no additional glory, in any case. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 04:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Just thought it worth mentioning that I was opposed for a similar comment in my RFA: [6] · AndonicO ^Talk 00:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral, leaning towards oppose, per DM right above. I'll switch back if you can satisfactorily explain why you said that.· AndonicO ^Talk 00:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Switched to oppose. · AndonicO ^Talk 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   You do realize my intial comment at Pedro's RFA was regading his RFA, and not mine. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 01:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   You should have said so: I have to switch back now. · AndonicO ^Talk 01:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral I've been watching this RFA wondering if I should take part or not. I think the diff in H₂O's oppose sort of sums it up - RFA is not a game to try and win the most points on. Good luck if you pass, which you almost certainly will, but I can't support this. Majorly (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Read my response above. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 00:48, 12 September 2007 (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.