Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EyeSerene

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

EyeSerene

Voice your opinion (talk page) (85/1/2); final Andre (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

EyeSerene (talk · contribs) - After a particularly frustrating search for candidates, I believe I've found a user who can be trusted with the tools to better our encyclopedia. EyeSerene is active when it comes to article building, with 3 FAs and 4 GAs. He is most active in the GA realm. When it comes to admin-related fields, EyeSerene displays great judgement when it comes to AFD, with a good grasp of policy. And best of all, EyeSerene is always civil and helpful when discussing things with other users. In a time where we are losing more admins to the stresses of the Wikiworld, I hope I can bring one more admin to the team. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 02:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Note about this RFA: If you are not EyeSerene or an allowed alternative user of the forementioned user, DO NOT answer the questions! Whether it is a good or bad question, the ultimate decision to answer or reject it lies with EyeSerene. If you have reservations about the questions, use the RFA talk page. I apologize if I'm being offensive, but I am very disturbed by the extra commentary that has nothing to do about the user. Please, everyone, just support, oppose, or comment about the user as with any other RFA. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 02:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Thank you! EyeSerene^talk 20:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Candidate statement: To be honest, this caught me rather by surprise, as adminship is not something I've either sought or would have put myself forward for. Deciding whether or not to accept Bibliomaniac15's kind offer of nomination was difficult, and forced me to evaluate my time here on Wikipedia. From one perspective, I have little need for the admin tools, and if the community chooses not to entrust them to me, my editing will be unaffected. However, there have been times where the mop'n'bucket^(TM) would have been useful... and there will again. The quality of our encylopedia is something that's very important to me, and the possibility of being in a position to both more closely supervise that quality and to guide and help other editors more effectively is the reason I decided to accept. It's not without some apprehension that I throw myself open to the community's scrutiny, but I'm on Wikipedia because I believe in what we're trying to do here, and if others think I can better serve our community in this role then I'm happy to step up. If not, well that's OK too ;) On a technical point, I would have no problem in being available for recall—it's only right that a trust-based position should be withdrawn if that trust is called into question (although to prevent frivolous recall nominations I'd probably ask for second opinions from admins I know and trust). EyeSerene^talk 20:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I hope it doesn't seem trite to say "whatever presents itself". It's hard to give a definitive answer, because it will depend on where I am at the time ;) As Bibliomaniac15 notes, I'm heavily involved with the GA WikiProject, mostly at present in the quality sweep. This can throw up a number of admin-type issues, such as page moves/redirects/merges, rollback, image copyright problems and rarely page protection/unprotection. However, I edit in other areas too: I contribute to WP:AFD (although not so much recently as I'm a bit swamped until the current FA-Team project ends next week), and would anticipate taking on closures and consensus deletions there. I occasionally patrol recent changes and run across vandalism elsewhere, where obviously the admin tools would be useful. I don't intend to abandon the areas I currently work in, but if awarded the tools I would also watchlist and respond to requests on some of the admin noticeboards around the project (such as WP:ANI, WP:AIV and WP:CV).

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

A: Another difficult question! I'd love to be able to take credit for those FAs and GAs on my userpage, but I was just the copyeditor ;) I'm still fairly proud of them regardless, and I'm pleased that my help enabled other editors to get recognition for their hard work. I think this illustrates my best contributions—improving and maintaining article quality, and where I can, guiding less experienced editors to do the same (such as with the WP:MMM's current 'experimental' project to improve Wikipedia's Latin-American literature articles). It's been immensely rewarding to see articles (such as El Señor Presidente) go from non-existence to listing at WP:FAC, and to mentor new editors that will hopefully be enthused enough to stay with us.

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 fortunate enough to have avoided any real conflicts, although I've been involved incidents that had the potential to escalate. One example was when, as a relatively inexperienced editor, I responded to a request to copyedit Sino-Indian War... without realising that it was the subject of a prolonged POV edit war. I started copyediting, and my prose was unacceptable to one editor but became the 'offical' version to the other; I had inadvertently provided ammunition for their dispute. When I realised what was happening I recused myself from the copyedit to avoid fuelling the fire (the page was subsequently protected). I generally find that polite, respectful communication with editors goes a long way to defusing potentially difficult situations, but I've had dealings with editors who refused to respond and carried on with their disruptive behaviour. The most intransigent was User:Socialdemocrats, who indulged in a particularly insidious form of disruptive editing until he eventually got himself banned. I'm disappointed that he couldn't be salvaged, as he was certainly enthusiastic, but Wikipedia just isn't the right place for some people ;) The most controversial article on my watchlist is probably Holocaust denial; I'd rather assume good faith and be proved wrong than the the alternative, so I'm sure I've fed some trolls there in the past. I don't get stressed though, and unless dealing with persistent vandalism I refuse to serial-revert. I believe communication is the key in dealing with other users—not only explaining edits, reverts etc, but taking on board any responses too. Of course where policy is concerned there's little room for argument, but a friendly explanation can still go a long way toward smoothing ruffled feathers!

Questions from ArcAngel

4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A. A ban is a "formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia" (from WP:BAN), and can be awarded (if that's the right word!) by the community, ArbCom, Jimmy Wales or the foundation. Blocking is, among other things, one means of enforcing a ban by technically preventing a user from editing Wikipedia (definition at WP:BLOCK).

5. What is your thoughts on CAT:AOR and will you add yourself to it? Why or why not?

A. I've covered this in my statement above. I'm aware it's a controversial area, but I would see adding myself as an indication of my awareness that Adminship is a position of trust, endowed by the community, and the right to remove that privilege also rests with the community. However, I would probably seek second opinions from admins or other established editors I know and trust before standing for a new RfA.

6. When should cool down blocks be used and why?

A. Cool down blocks are counterproductive, specifically against policy, and should never be used (see WP:CDB).

7. Do you feel blocking a user who has vandalized your userpage is a conflict of interest? Why or why not?

A. This may or may not be a genuine COI; I think it would depend on the circumstances... by which I mean whether or not a block is warranted by the user's past actions, previous warnings etc, and also my own history with that user. I would treat vandalism to my user page as no different to vandalism elsewhere on the project, and would certainly not issue a block in a fit of pique. However, while I might not regard a policy-based block as a COI, I believe that it's important to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, so I would pass such a case on to another admin.

8. What are/is the most important policy(s) regarding administrative functions?

A. As a general behaviour, I think it has to be to strive for exemplary conduct in all things. Although admins are just editors with a few extra janitorial functions, they are also role-models for the community, and as such should uphold policy in a civil, communicative, neutral and well-judged manner. As a specific, I believe wilful misuse of the admin tools (such as protecting POV edits or wheel-warring) is a serious abuse of the community's trust and sanctions should follow.

Question from RyRy5

9. If you come across a vandal-only account that has recieved their last warning and they had to be blocked, how long would you block that user and why?--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 23:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A. Identified vandal-only accounts should generally attract indefinite blocks to protect the encyclopedia, although there may sometimes be a case for a more lenient approach in the case of shared (eg school) or dynamic IPs.

(edit to clarify my answer): From WP:BLOCK#Duration of blocks: "accounts used primarily for disruption are blocked indefinitely". However, according to WP:IP this does not apply in the case of IP accounts, where a short-term block may be just as effective and is less disruptive to legitimate editors. To quote the policy, "IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked". I apologise for my lack of earlier clarity!

It's okay. I think that was a good answer. Good luck!--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 02:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Question from Black Kite

10. The article List of characters in Grand Theft Auto III does not comply with our non-free policy WP:NFCC. How would you make it compliant?

A. The major problem I see with this article is the use of non-free images to illustrate some of the characters where different non-free images are also used in the character main articles. This is strongly discouraged by WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles (item 4). To bring this into line with policy I would contact the editors of both articles (for example, List of characters in Grand Theft Auto III and Claude (Grand Theft Auto)), explain the situation, and ask them to come to a consensus decision as to which image stays for use in both articles, and which one goes. The image that stays would then need a detailed WP:FURG for each article, and the other (presumably now orphaned), could be tagged and deleted seven days later (per WP:FUC item 7). In the article's favour, it has to be said that some of the images used are examples of good practice (per WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles, item 1), and only the "major characters" section is illustrated in this way (per WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles, item 6). I should also add that, if in doubt, I'd seek a second opinion.

Questions from Daniel

11. The following two questions relate to your answer to Q1, where you indicate you are interested in getting involved with AfD closes. I would like your opinion how you would close the following two discussions. For the purpose of this hypothetical, please pretend that the discussion has been open for six days (they actually have been open for four). If you could answer by posting your exact rationale that you would use in the AfD (ie. "The result was [...]", including or not including additional comments, as you would if you were closing the discussion), it'd be much appreciated.

If there's any reason why you wouldn't close on of the two following debates if you were already an administrator, eg. conflict of interest in the subject area, please feel free to say so. I think it'd also be useful to link to the permanent revision for the version of the debate you ultimately review, for context. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

a. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saskatoon royal connections: The result was [...]

Per this revision: The result was keep. The content is verifiable and notable, and although I can see why WP:NOR has been cited, the article does not make a synthesis in order to "advance a position". I would however recommend a rename along the lines of List of Royal visits to Saskatchewan (as suggested by User:Royalguard11) to more clearly describe the purpose of the article and prevent this confusion in future.

b. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enchanted Dreamz Car Club: The result was [...]

Apologies - I didn't get here in time. However, I agree with the delete closure and would have chosen this option. Notability was not established by the article's sources, and the weight of argument for the delete !votes based on this was decisive in my view.

Question from Jeandré du Toit

12. What are your thoughts on admin Viridae's April 1 edits? -- Jeandré, 2008-04-07t10:06z

Optional Questions from Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

13. Suppose over a dozen accounts were blocked as socks or puppet masters and the block logs indicate that these accounts used sockpuppetry and harassment of editors in order to get over two hundred popular culture related articles deleted from Wikipedia, including those indicated in a list that one of the banned accounts wrote. Even if you personally want those articles deleted, do the ends justify the means? What if anything could or should be done to reverse what they did and to send a message that sockpuppetry and harassment will not succeed on Wikipedia? Suppose these accounts were used in hundreds of AfDs and in many cases in was not determined that they were socks of each other until after the AfDs had closed. Consider an AfD that closed as delete with 7 for delete, 4 for merge, and 3 for keep; however, at least 2 of the deletes were determined to be sock accounts. So, my question is in part what now? Just leave the AfDs as closed deletes, which means that their tactics "won," or should we revisit any AfDs in which a number of the sock puppets participated and likely influenced opinion?

A.

Optional Question from Useight

14. Would you support a proposal to give a free toaster to editors that surpass 10,000 edits? P.S. - I'm supporting your RFA regardless of your answer, I just wanted to ask this question to someone. Useight (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A.

General comments

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

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

---

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

Discussion

Candidate comment: From some of the comments below, there's clearly some mixed feelings regarding these questions. I have no real objection to answering them, but more seem to have appeared every time I check back here, and I'm really busy with both RL and other Wikipedia areas at the moment. Please don't regard this as an unwillingness to participate; I do appreciate the time editors have taken to ask the questions, and understand their desire for an answer. However, it also takes me time to draft a response that I really can't spare at the moment—if I have to choose between the increasing list of questions on this RfA and helping some of the WP:MMM editors to get their article through its GAN by the deadline, there's no contest ;) I will, time permitting, try to fill in the questions above, but I apologise if I'm unable to do so.

Just to respond quickly to a couple of the votes, I went back over my contributions to AfD debates. You have to start from July last year (as I mentioned, I've recently been rather busy elsewhere!) but I stopped counting at about 120. I hope this helps to clarify my experience in this area. EyeSerene^talk 11:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong Support I know EyeSerene from helping out the student editors over at WP:MMM and he has done a fantastic job. I couldn't possibly think of a better canditate Acer (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 20:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. I'm sure that EyeSerene will make a great admin, and I trust the nominator. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Absolute support - There's not much more to say than that. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Support An excellent user whose work with the FA-team is something all Wikipedians should be aware of and considering whether or not they're doing anything so valuable. --JayHenry (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Support - Weak in the project space, strong in the mainspace. However, quality over quantity. WP:MMM by far was the selling point for me. I can trust this user, and that's the most important criteria. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
7. -- Naerii 23:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Support Article builder admins are always welcome. --Sharkface217 00:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Support. Excellent work. Keep it up! Tan | 39 00:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
10. Support. I can trust this user with the tools. Singularity 00:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    Support Solely on the basis of the cool down block question. Great answer, god forbid we allow a little nuance while answering these questions. RxS (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    The candidate didn't answer the question : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, I see that now. Never mind me, just an idiot passing through. RxS (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

11. Strong support. I've been involved with EyeSerene on the WP:MMM project, and he does indeed have much to be proud of there. Above all, he's an astonishingly patient and effective mentor. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
12. Support No problems here. Spencer^T♦C 01:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
13. Support though I'll switch to oppose if the candidate wastes his time answering question 9. And FYI, answers to questions 4, 5, and 6 can be found in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cheatsheet. Mr.Z-man 01:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
14. Strong support per FA/GA. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
15. Support, civil, courteous, collaborative content contributors are exactly the kind of editor we should be giving the tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
16. Daniel (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
17. Support, same disclaimer as Mr Z-Man, and looking at the diffs from LGRDC below, I'm struggling to see any concerns, all the comments made at AfD have been sensible, backed up by policy and look to be well thought out. Nick (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    It's as simple as why would I support someone with whom I disagreed in practically every AfD we both participated in? Plus, in all of those instances the candidate voted to delete. It is important that admins be neutral and objective. I cannot see from those examples any indication of what would be worthy of keeping to the candidate. For me to support someone, I need to know that they will not just close AfDs as delete, but that they are willing to argue to keep at least sometimes. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

18. Support. From what I've seen of EyeSerene, I trust his judgement. He's an asset to the encyclopaedia and will make a fine admin. Mike Christie (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
19. Support, great contributions, seems like a trustworthy editor. I looked at all the discussions linked to by LGRDC below, and I'm equally baffled by this oppose. EyeSerene's comments all seemed carefully considered and were based in policy. No reason to think he can't judge consensus based on this. Darkspots (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    As is the case with the withdrawn AfD, it's another instance in which had the nominator taken the steps made by those who improved the article in the first place rather than start on AfD only to withdraw it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

20. Support Strong editor. No indication that he'll abuse the tools. Lara❤Love 04:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
21. Hell Yes Support although I will switch to oppose if he doesn't answer #9 by 24 hours before this ends...no particular reason except I like to force people to choose rather than just sit on the fence. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 05:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
22. Absolutly not trite to say "whatever presents itself." Nice to follow Kurt in a support :) Keegan^talk 06:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
23. Strong support. An absolutely brilliant editor who will be an excellent administrator. No concerns whatsoever. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
24. Support – As I stated in my original Neutral opinion, I would have come out in support for this candidate from the start. A user since early 2007 with no civility issues or bad judgment calls. An article builder, not an edit count engineer. Listens to advice, and more importantly takes it. And, most of all NOBIGDEAL. The only time it should become a big deal is when a candidate has shown some inclination that the use of the tools will become a big deal. This editor has shown no such sign other than they are a hardworking –-dedicated – levelheaded editor. As to my original Neutral position, sorry to say it was done to make a point, not a supposition of the candidate’s qualifications. Thanks and good luck to you. ShoesssS ^Talk 10:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
25. Excellent article builder, good nomination. Rudget (review) 10:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
26. Support - trustworthy editor. Oppose reasons aren't especially convincing - it appears he has a life outside Wikipedia, focuses on articles, and is prepared to withdraw deletion noms if the article is improved. PhilKnight (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
27. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
28. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
29. Support After careful consideration of this candidate, I have nothing to offer but support. Good answers to the questions, and great patience with my asking the one about AOR, I thought I had substituted another question in its place. ArcAngel (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
30. Support Calm knowledgeable and very civil editor who knows the ropes. No reason whatsover to suppose he'll misuse the tools. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
31. Support Sure. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
32. Support - Excellent contributions in the form of articles, review work and interaction with others; helpful, knowledgeable and amicable. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
33. Support--This user deserves the tools --- good luck! --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
34. Support I see no cons. Húsönd 15:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
35. Support We definitely need an admin who knows so-called "bold delist" actually works and isn't afraid to be bitten when delisting a GA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
36. Yup. You do it right. Great answers above, great contribs, no civility issues, clean talkpage. Excellent candidate, happy to support! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
37. Support Looks good. Fun to see Kurt in the support column as well. :) GlassCobra 17:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
38. Support, looks great and love the above comment!!! Dusti^{talk to me} 18:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
39. Support per JayHenry and others. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
40. Support As per Keilana.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
41. Support. I actually thought about adding a conom, but I just arrived too late and it took to long to look into the details. So I will waffle a bit here instead. I think I first encountered EyeSerene at the GAR for Holocaust denial. Although we did not engage directly very much, we effectively disagreed, because I supported the approach of Balloonman. However, the interaction between Balloonman and EyeSerene was high quality respectful discussion, despite the heated atmosphere of name calling and questions of good faith. This positive impression I had, despite some disagreement, has been greatly reinforced subsequently: first, at GA, where EyeSerene has been a voice of thoughtful reason; secondly, at the FA-Team, where EyeSerene has been a fantastic contributor. The most important asset of an admin, in my view, is judgement. That doesn't necessarily mean knowing all the rules for every possible situation, as some of the increasingly pointless optional questions suggest. It means judgement about knowing when to act, how to act, what guidelines to read, and when to admit you made a mistake. In my view, EyeSerene possesses this judgement to a very high degree, and the opposes fade away in the light of this. I have absolutely no doubt in supporting his candidacy. Geometry guy 20:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    I am going by my own experience in which the candidate voted to delete every single time (if you notice below, I did not only argue to keep, but did at least once argue to delete). If I am going to trust someone to close AfDs, I need to know that they are willing to close as keep at least occasionally. If the candidate has indeed been willing to also argue to keep articles and I somehow overlooked it and just happened to only encounter him on delete ones, please do point that out and I'll gladly reconsider or if the candidate indicates that he would be willing to close as keep if the discussion seems to have moved in such a direction, even if the candidate personally wants the article deleted. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    I think you misunderstood my point. There is absolutely no reason why anyone closing AfDs should have a balanced portfolio of "keep" and "delete" decisions. Each AfD should be closed according to consensus, and if mistakes are made, then the closer should admit the misjudgement at DRV. It is perfectly fine for an editor to close only articles with a consensus to delete and leave the "keep" discussions to others. That involves the judgement about when to act. A good admin will not close to delete when they support the deletion case unless the consensus is clear. I believe EyeSerene has that judgement in abundance. Geometry guy 21:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    Seeing a spread of "keep" and "delete" rationales reveals what standards are held for article inclusion. Seeing only one or the other, in this case all deletes from my experience with the user, does not reveal the full spectrum of judgment. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    So are you saying that you don't have the full spectrum of judgment, LGRdC? You certainly couldn't claim a "spread" of keeps and deletes either. I think perhaps you're !voting, which I've agreed with before mind you, could perhaps be becoming a bit pointy? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    While I probably argue to keep more often than not, I do have a sizable spread of arguments for deletion (and occasional redirect or merges) over the past several months, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insane Pro Wrestling, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butt harp, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Screambox 2 (those are NOT the only instances either and are used to show that I have argued to delete over a long span of time). In cases where I have argued to delete, they were usually snowball deletes, so you probably did not see me as vehemently defending the article as I more apt to do in keep situations. As pertains to when I do argue keep, I have increasingly made a solid effort to also improve/rescue the article in question by not only doing Google searches, but checking J-Stor and Academic Search Primer and in some cases (such as the Weapons of Resident Evil 4 AfD, actually buying a published source and using it to better reference the article. I would not expect everyone to devote that much effort to articles (and I have done so far articles that really mean nothing to me), but I have seen time and time again editors turned off from Wikipedia, because articles they find relevant are deleted by others who admittedly just do not care for those kinds of articles and so are unwilling to make any effort to improve them. If I know that any good faith contributor or donor finds value in an article, I am just more apt to humor them, because they just might be willing to help out elsewhere as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    I understand your point of view User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, and have no wish to change it. I continue to have confidence in EyeSerene's judgement. Geometry guy 22:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    Fair enough; have a pleasant evening! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

42. Support Garion96 (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
43. Support —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
44. With pleasure. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
45. Support candidate will be a fine admin. – Zedla (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
46. Strong Support - An outstanding editor, and should deserve the mop. // A Raider Like Indiana 00:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

    Support great editor. Spencer^T♦C 01:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

    Duplicate. (correcting incorrect removal by user RyRy5)[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

    (Changed to neutral) Sounds pretty much ok, particularly LGRdC's concerns. Dorftrottel (ask) 05:14, April 8, 2008

    While my concerns were pretty serious as neutrality is incredibly significant for admins, I think he has done a constructive and polite effort addressing them and depending on the answer to my question above, I think there's a reasonable chance I may change my stance. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

    Believe me, I absolutely do take your concerns as serious as the rest of your content-related opinions. You've have proven to be so consistently dead wrong that your opposing is actually a bonus for a candidate. Some things are simply not on. Dorftrottel (ask) 06:33, April 8, 2008

    Fortunately a lot of editors disagree as I have been proven consistently right more times than not and a good deal of editors have opposed per my rationales or supported as well. Whereas some of your comments in RfAs have been detrimental to the candidates and caused people to oppose as nearly happened here, by contrast, in any RfA in which the candidate politely addressed my reservations as Redfarmer and Tenpoundhammer did, I changed my stances as I have an open-mind. Being sarcastic or caustic to me or to anyone else is not what gets people to want to support the candidate under consideration; if anything it's more apt to make editors dig in to an opposite stance. You really should re-look at Wikipedia:Civility if you haven't yet and reflect on what does and does not persuade people. As for content, there is a lack of consensus on many issues, so it is not really accurate for either of us to declare "right" or "wrong." As a final note, I know you don't like me, even though I thought I might make a peace offering with this edit and I thought I had a pleasant interaction with the IP you also edit with, but I am seeing a trend of sarcastic votes in RfAs ([2], [3], and now here), so I hope you will have the maturity to not just oppose Sabine's Sunbird, Bedford, and Davidgothberg just because I supported them. It is not fair to the candidates. Rationales should be based on the candidates and not on a dislike of one of the supporters or opposers. In my initial oppose, I paid the candidate some compliments and expressed where I disagreed with him. He replied to my post pleasantly and I am looking forward to his answer to the question I posed. I am feeling more toward neutral now anyway and so he knows, I will NOT take any commentary from other users into account when/if I do change my mind. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

47. Support, no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools, has a level head with regards to AfD and from what I've seen consistently makes good arguments with a solid basis in policy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC).
48. Support. Have seen him around at WP:GA where IIRC he writes detailed, sensible rationales. Another article writer candidate! What is this, Christmas? --Relata refero (disp.) 12:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
49. Support: --Bhadani (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
50. Support. Collaborative, supportive, helpful, encouraging, good editor, thoughtful and trustworthy. Has to be a teacher! Clearly the ideal material for an admin. SilkTork *^YES! 17:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

    Ufff. Does it show? :( EyeSerene^talk 18:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

    That's cool if you're a teacher; I am too! :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

    I suspect there's something about WP that attracts us - the tug of the marking gene maybe... :$ EyeSerene^talk 18:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

51. Support. Switch from neutral. Epbr123 (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
52. Support Strong experience, absolutely trustworthy. VanTucky 21:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
53. Support Per Kurt. MBisanz ^talk 22:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
54. Support - Tiptoety ^talk 23:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
55. Support Seems to be trustworthy and reliable. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
56. Support - he meets my standards, and I can't see any concerns. Bearian (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
57. Support - civil and thoughtful; looks like they'll be good with the tools. Shell ^babelfish 04:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
58. Support with pleasure, per MMM work, graceful diplomacy and devotion to Wikipedia. Willow (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
59. Support Looks good! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
60. Support Clearly meets my criteria and is trustworthy and very solid in article space. Good luck! :) Orderinchaos 14:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
61. Support. Excellent candidate, can't think of a reason to oppose. Spinach Dip 18:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
62. Support. An excellent editor; will do well as an admin. Useight (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
63. Support - User is OK. No major reasons not to support. Lradrama 08:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
64. Support - iMatthew 2008 10:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
65. Flukey Support - Believe it or not, I had actually bookmarked your userpage with the intention of nominating you one day, as judging by your contributions and ethic, I reckoned you were definitely admin potential. Good to see someone else shared my thought, and I anticipate you will be a sound admin. WilliamH (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
66. Support - a good editor who will use the tools well. Can see no evidence of future problems.--BelovedFreak 18:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
67. Support TheProf - T / C 20:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
68. Support Krashlandon (e) 23:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
69. Support Per Le Grand Roi's switch to neutral (Man, my RFA contribs just keep getting weirder and weirder...) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
70. Support Community trust in this user appears warranted. -- Avi (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
71. Support. In trying to get up to speed at WP:GAN, everything that EyeSerene has said has seemed very level-headed to me. I have read all the comments; they make sense and don't give me any cause to worry about the candidate. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
72. Support a little uneasy with the Afd discussion highlighted by 'Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles', but overall enough to keep it positive. SunCreator (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
73. Strong Support Yes, a good article writer. I also like how EyeSerene answered his/her questions. I see very, very few reasons why to oppose. Good Luck. Cheers.--RyRy5 ^{Talk to RyRy} 00:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
74. Support I couldn't remember if I had weighed in on this RfA or not, so I did a name search and saw Geometry Guy's post where he reminded me of where I knew EyeSerene from. Geometery Guy is 100% correct, we had a good discourse. The name calling that he referred to wasn't between me and Eye, but rather a few others who were very (overly) concerned with the article itself.Balloonman (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
75. Support - good answers to questions. No indication that this user will abuse the tools. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
76. Support See nothing to sugest will abuse the tools or be anything but a good admin. Davewild (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
77. Support nice answers, no concerns. Good luck. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 23:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
78. Support; qualified and competent; will be an excellent admin. Antandrus (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
79. Support. Per the nom from bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs), some excellent content contributions, and contributions in many other areas of the project. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
80. Support. A worthy candidate and good encyclopedia builder. Majoreditor (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
81. Support a strong editor who can be trusted with the mop. No worries here. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
82. Support No qualms regarding trustworthiness, and anyone experienced in getting articles through the GA process must have an understanding of WP editing policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
83. Support - Good user, won't abuse the extra tools and the edits are great --Kanonkas :  Take Contact  15:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
84. Support and thanks for the answer to my question. Black Kite 16:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
85. Sure. Acalamari 22:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I examined EyeSerene's contribution history and it makes me a little uneasy. EyeSerene averages 11 edits per day but it is heavily skewed to main space edits. EyeSerene has hardly engaged in Wikipedia discussions (policy) or activities (deletion). For example, EyeSerene has only been involved in five deletion debates. Almost all Wiki space edits have been in the Good Articles project. I think EyeSerene has not experienced the dark side of Wikipedia enough to demonstrate their 'stuff'. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

   I've replied on your talk page here. EyeSerene^talk 17:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

   I am more concerned that once EyeSerene becomes an admin and meets the dark forces that pounce on admins, he/she will leave Wikipedia. This is selfish of me but we have had a number of really good editors who have left shortly after having their switch toggled. I can't determine EyeSerene's effective response to the dark side of Wikipedia from the limited exposure he/she has had and would like to see more evidence. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

   This dark side? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

   Yup, that is a fair description of the dark side. Cheers! 17:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks for your reply Wassup - I understand your concern better now. I don't really know how to answer that, other than to assure you that I'm here for the long haul, I don't get stressed, and although I know it can get intense on here sometimes, my various RL jobs have involved lots of dealing with the dark side (see my user page!) that make WP seem tame ;) EyeSerene^talk 18:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

   I know about RL! But it is easier to just say 'good bye Wikipedia'. Just a note for those who don't know there Wikipedia history: Durova was an admin and is not because of wiki-drama. And, I'm thinking of Rudget (talk · contribs) who stepped into something unpleasant once he/she became an admin which led to a wiki-break: User talk:Rudget/Archive/14 Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

   Fair enough! I'll take your objection in the spirit it's meant, and I do appreciate your thoughtfulness (I think!) EyeSerene^talk 18:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

   I can maybe add some personal insight here. I was reluctant to become an admin because I didn't want it to change my editing pattern. Thankfully, it hasn't. My point of view is to use the extra tools as little as possible (they are restricted to admins for a reason!), and only to get involved in admin activity when I would have been interested in getting involved anyway (as a neutral party). In the last 6 months I've mostly used the tools for noncontroversial housekeeping deletions and page moves. I've closed one AfD and, as I stated in my RfA, I haven't got involved in blocking vandals. That's not great value-for-money in terms of the admin backlogs, but it represents the best use of my limited wikitime and I think Wikipedia needs both admins with my approach, as well as admins who will work on the backlogs. I think EyeSerene, like me, will not be overawed by the tools and eager to apply them, and I think he is very capable of avoiding situations which might encourage him to leave. Geometry guy 20:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

   Weak oppose. Three featured articles, four good articles, and two barnstars are all positives (hence the "weak"), but I disagree with the reasoning here (an AfD unfortunately marred by sockpuppetry from Burntsauce), here, here (an AfD unfortunately nominated by banned account Eyrian), here, here, here, and here. In this AfD that the candidate started, the candidate ultimately withdrew the nomination after it improved. I would feel more comfortable in such scenarios if the nominator just went ahead and made these improvements rather than expecting others to do so. On one hand I give such nominators credit for being open-minded enough to change their stance during the AfD, but on the other hand had they just gone ahead and made whatever improvements they felt the article needed themselves the AfDs would not have even been necessary. Fortunately the candidate did withdraw, because banned account Eyrian had marred that disucssion as well. I do agree with the candidate here, but as a whole, I don't believe we've agreed enough where I would be comfortable with AfD closure judgment. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

   It's unfortunate that I've given you the impression I only want articles deleted - this really couldn't be further from the truth. I do take notability and verifiability seriously as policies, because I care very much about not only the quality of our articles, but the academic credibility of what we're trying to build. However, I'd much rather see articles improved than removed. I hope I can go some way to easing your concerns with a sample of AfD diffs: this, this, this, this, and this (although the last was ultimately a delete !vote). To address your other concern, I have also improved articles during their stay on AfD (though I can't for the life of me find the diffs now!), and will often do the same during GA-sweep reassessment to help save an article from being delisted (see User talk:EyeSerene#Joking Apart GA sweep). I believe problems should, where possible, be solved by those who see them. If the only issues are prose, neutrality and layout, for example, I'm happy to pitch in. Where I can't generally help is in sourcing, and you'll notice that most of my delete !votes are related to this (ie notability not established by reliable sources, original research, and verifiability concerns). In some ways, though, even this shouldn't matter. Even if I was the most rabid deletionist on Wikipedia, AfD closure rests on weight of argument and consensus, not the personal opinion of the closing admin, and should be judged neutrally from that perspective. I hope this helps - I do feel you've 'got me wrong', and I'd hate to leave things that way ;) EyeSerene^talk 22:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you for the polite reply; I'll definitely consider switching my stance, but I would like to give you a chance to answer my revised question above before I decide. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

   Very Strong Oppose no this guys a retard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikester1234 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

   First edit from this user. Meatpuppet, perhaps. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 23:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral - I would have come out with a Support – However, when advocates of the candidate start answering questions for the individual posed by other editors, that leads me to question the process. In that I question the process, I start questioning the candidate. You are doing him/her no favors by your behavior. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 00:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a reflection of an ongoing discussion at WT:RFA. The candidate shouldn't have to suffer for that. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right – that is why I voiced a Neutral opinion at this time, and will wait for their answers to the questions. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Understood Shoesss. Quite fair. I did not mean to undermine your RfA judgment. Just reading your neutral made me uneasy that's all. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never come across the candidate before today, sadly I can't say the same for the people copying and pasting the same silly questions at every RfA, who I find myself coming across all too often for my liking. Nick (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Shoessss on this one, I do not like others answering questions for the candidate. Obviously someone thinks that questions is (or was) important, because they asked it. If you do not like the question then bring it up with the user who asked it, but do not screw with the process. Tiptoety ^talk 01:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the users asking the same old crappy questions who are screwing with the process. Majorly (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Then like I said, bring it up with the user asking the questions and do not ask them yourself. But do not disrupt the process to make a point. Anyways they are optional, and if they are so crappy, then they will be easy to answer, right? Tiptoety ^talk 02:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Great editor who certainly wouldn't abuse the tools, but a little more AfD or vandal-fighting experience would be preferable. Epbr123 (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to address your concerns on your talk page here. EyeSerene^talk 18:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you've more AfD experience than I thought. Switch to support. Epbr123 (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral at this time, but I reserve the right to change my stance. I question this user's inexperience with antivandalism work, i.e. AIV, RfPP, etc. I also wonder about the user's answer to question 9, which seems to indicate this user finds it acceptable to indefinitely block certain anonymous IP's. Changed to Support per below discussion. —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that also, and i suggest the candidate check policy and reconsider the answer. DGG (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the question was worded as "vandal only account". When someone says account, I assume (as EyeSerene may have as well) that the vandal has an WP:ACCOUNT, and it's not an IP. Answering with "indef" is therefore correct, although I can see the allusion to IPs in the answer given. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In any case, it wasn't that that caused me to place neutral here. If I had to fall on one side of the fence, this wouldn't have changed a thing. If I change my mind about this neutral, unless something shocking and scandalous comes up (which I find unlikely), I'll probably end up supporting the candidate. —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this kind of concern and subtle debate rather irrelevant in the light of the fact that any block can be undone? If an admin blocks a user/IP for too long, the user/IP can be unblocked by another admin. Judgement and a willingness to admit mistakes are the the keys to avoid wheel wars, not perfect application of policy in every case. Guidelines are anyway a reflection of consensus. Geometry guy 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I completely agree. I retract my earlier statement. —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, but I'll post this anyway!) I apologise for my unclear and poorly-phrased response to question 9 - I hope I have clarified things now? Regarding vandalism, for the reasons mentioned above my WP:RCP efforts are sporadic at the moment, but hopefully diffs like this page can demonstrate that I'm no stranger to vandal-fighting. I have no specific plans to become involved in RfPP as I'm not particularly familiar with the area, but if asked to perform this function I would make sure I became familiar with them! Of course, as a new admin I'd also seek advice or oversight from someone more experienced before diving in ;) EyeSerene^talk 21:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Switching to neutral following this edit. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Switching to neutral following this edit. Dorftrottel (troll) 04:19, April 13, 2008

This is getting pretty boring Dorfy. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You should explain to User:Balloonman how your comment is constructive, otherwise he might call it disruptive and remove it. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 14:50, April 13, 2008

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.