Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sven Manguard

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

Sven Manguard

Final (19/10/3); ended 19:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC) - Withdrawn by the candidate. 28bytes (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) – Ladies and Gentlemen, my fellow Wikipedians, it is with with great pleasure that I present to you, Sven Manguard for the role of administrator. As an editor with a total of over 28,000 edits beginning in September 2010, a clean block log, a great deal of cluefulness, and a long history of experience, civility, and dedication, Sven Manguard has proven himself to be a valuable asset to Wikipedia over the past 16 months. While Sven does have superb DYK, Faery: Legends of Avalon, and a top-notch GA, Architecture of the Song Dynasty, under his belt, content contribution is not his main focus on Wikipedia. Sven spends the majority of his time on Wikipedia working in the administrative aspects of the project, an area in which he is well-versed and experienced, particularly so with regards to Wikipedia's complex media file and copyright policies. As can be seen from even a brief glance at Sven's contributions, one will observe that he has an outstandingly sharp eye for detecting and correcting copyright issues, as well as a talent for making textbook-perfect CSD taggings. In short, Sven's file work is excellent in all respects.

When not diligently working in the file namespace, Sven can be found helping out at various admin boards, as he is a seasoned all-rounder when it comes to the management of the project. He frequently performs or partakes in a vast number of processes and discussions which include, but are not limited to, active anti-vandalism work, contributing indispensably to various XfD discussions, and helping to mediate or defuse heated conflicts at noticeboards such as ANI.

Overall, I believe that Sven has proven himself to be a knowledgeable and sensible editor worthy of a few extra buttons. The addition of this user to Wikipedia's administrative team would be an absolute net-benefit to the project. I hope you agree with me that Sven Manguard would do well with the mop and bucket. Sincerely, FASTILY ^(TALK) 12:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for your kind words, I accept your nomination.

Two comments before I get into the questions: First, I have advocated in multiple places that potential admins read the entirety of the Admin's reading list before running. For that reason I feel it prudent to mention that I have read (for many pages reread) ever page there, cover to cover, over the past 48 hours. Secondly, it is only fair that I state publicly that this is my second account on this project. A number of Arbs, a few CUs, and a handful of other users already knew that this is my second account (not all of them know my old username though), and I made sure to follow the policies that apply to second accounts. The previous account had a tiny fraction of the edits that Sven Manguard has, was only active for a few months, long before this account was started, and never did anything major, good or bad (no misbehavior blocks, but also no particularly noteworthy contributions). I left because I didn't ever really find a niche I felt right in, and eventually realized editing Wikipedia wasn't something that was making me happy at the time. When I decided to try Wikipedia again, I decided against resuming with the old account for two reasons; one, I didn't really feel there was anything worth coming back to in the old account; and two, the account name, to me, represented a different stage in my life, one I outgrew and didn't want to pick back up (i.e. it was a name I used when I was younger and haven't used recently). I'll ask that you respect my privacy on the matter, although I'm willing to answer additional questions in private, if need be. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm that User:Sven Manguard contacted the Arbitration Committee in 2010 to disclose his former username and advise of this clean start. –xeno^talk 19:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Withdraw

There are three messages to be taken from this RfA.

• First, I need to work on how I say what I say. I have strong opinions and have never really had any trouble expressing them, but I have been more bombastic than the community would like to see in a user. I can make excuses; I certainly would disagree with Fluffernutter, I don't think I'm an angry person, but I was a little on edge, and was edgy, while I was abroad. That really dosen't matter though, circumstances don't change that the ultimate responsibility for what I say and what I do rests solely on myself. I need to change how I communicate, so over the next few months I'm going to work hard to do so.
• Second, there are concerns about Sven Manguard being a cleanstart. Part of this has to do with a recent incident which I had only barely heard of, and apparently had a bigger impact on the community than I had thought. Part of it has to do with the large amount of trust that granting administrator privileges requires. I think that cleanstart is an important concept that should be protected and respected. That dosen't mean that it should be ignored at RfA though. I'm not sure how to handle this should I run again. I might just throw up my hands and reveal the old account, it would certainly make this process easier. It's a decision that I'll have to make later.
• Finally, it is abundantly clear to me that I am, bombasticness aside, still valued and appreciated by the community. I have no intention of writing an angry essay and running off, and I have no intention of crawling into a shell and becoming a once a month editor. I might spend a day or two playing Skyrim, but I'll be back before you all know it. I have every intention of sticking it out, changing what needs to be changed, and running again in a few months.

Thank you to everyone who commented, no matter where you fell. I'll be seeing you around. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I do a lot of work in the File namespace that could be aided by having admin tools. Revision deleting old versions of non-free files after they've been resized comes to mind. I'd also close FfDs and PUFs, which are areas that I'm very familiar with, monitor requests for the file mover permission, and work on speedy deletions that fall under the F# codes, especially F8s, which have historically had needlessly large several thousand item backlogs, and get bigger every Transfer to Commons Drive (there's one this month, which is part of what prompted me to run now.) This is not to say that I would avoid other namespaces, if needed I would be both willing and able to work in those, however I do consider myself a file specialist, and since there are so few file specialist admins, I feel that I could do the greatest amount of good working in those fields I listed above.

I'll also note that I have experience in vandal fighting. It's not a primary activity, but I believe that I have enough experience to handle just about any vandalism fighting situation if a call for help goes out.

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

A: I was the one who originally pushed for the creation of the file mover user group. In terms of having a positive impact on the project, I'd place that at the top. Many images that could and should have been used in articles never were because they were named things like File:DSC123456.JPG, and no one knew they existed. Being able to put these files into circulation, and into good use in articles, has been a real plus. More recently, I also pushed for the creation of the File namespace noticeboard, which I think has the potential to be useful once it catches on. In terms of day to day work, I do a lot of image copyright work, both fixing licenses and answering MCQ-esque questions that come to me from time to time.

In terms of article creation, I've written two articles, Faery: Legends of Avalon, which made DYK, and Magic: The Gathering – Duels of the Planeswalkers 2012, which missed out on DYK because I put it up in the middle of a rather busy time. I also helped get Architecture of the Song Dynasty back up to GA status, which brought the Song Dynasty itself back to FT status. I do media reviews and occasionally full reviews at WP:FAC, so even if I haven't wrote an FA article, I do know what they entail. I also write for the Signpost; a different type of writing, yes, but one where policies such as NPOV are still relevant.

Finally, I co-founded two WikiProjects, WikiProject North America and WikiProject East Asia. Unfortunately they're not particularly active, but they serve as excellent resources regardless.

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've been involved in two rather major conflicts, both of them originating out of the now inactive Featured Sounds project, (I ended up leaving Featured Sounds right around when the second conflict occurred, because I didn't like the amount of hostility that I was getting involved in while I was there). The latter of the two conflicts happened in May, and I haven't had any major conflicts since. The important thing, I believe, is to come out from such conflicts having learned from them, and to not repeat the mistakes that led to the conflicts in the first place. Without going into too much detail, the first conflict rose from and was escalated by a lack of clear and open communication between myself and another user. It ended when a third party stepped in and got everyone talking. The second conflict rose from me airing my grievances with a user publicly, when it would have been a better idea to talk to him in private. Looking back on it, airing them in the way I did was a terrible idea. While the blame for these conflicts was not mine alone, I acted poorly in both of them, and I have tried to learn from those incidents and avoid repeating them. In the past six months, I have made a conscious effort to try and close down fights before they escalate. Most of the time, I've found, it's as simple as making a statement that moves towards a middle ground, with a mild or even conciliatory tone, takes the heat right out of a discussion. If that fails, getting additional eyes on a conversation calms the initial parties down, both because it brings in new points of view and because (at least in my personal observations) once a fight starts, people tend to mellow down faster in multilateral talks than in bilateral ones.

Statement on CLEANSTART

I thought it was covered when I said above "I made sure to follow the policies that apply to second accounts.", but in order to be explicit, I did in fact email the Arbitration Committee disclosing the old account, all the way back in 2010. I will try to have an Arb come by and confirm this.

I realize that the recent case (which I am only marginally aware of) has placed a number of people on guard about the entire process, but I am willing to engage the community about the issue. There are a few people, the Arbs from 2010 and two other users, that know the identity of my old account. I'd be willing to identify the account to a few other people that I've had long and positive working relations with, and therefore feel comfortable trusting the information with. I will try to get these people to state here (if they believe it to be the case using their own judgement), that there is dissembling in my past. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: I wanted to make clear that the reason that I am not comfortable with revealing my old account has nothing to do with what the account did, it has to do with the name of the account itself. It is a username that I used starting when I was much younger, all over the internet, and I while I have little concern with people connecting Sven Manguard to the old account, I am a unsure if it is possible to connect the old account to my real life identity. The reason why I didn't state this explicitly from the beginning is that I'd rather not invite a guessing/outing game. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm that User:Sven Manguard contacted the Arbitration Committee in 2010 to disclose his former username and advise of this clean start. –xeno^talk 19:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Optional questions from Hipocrite

4. Please list all of the disputes your earlier account was involved in. Was your earlier account ever warned by an administrator? If so, for what? Was your earlier account ever blocked? If so, for what? Please use the wikistalk tool located at [1], inputting all of your accounts. In areas where Sven Manguard account overlaps with your previous account, detail all of the disputes that the Sven Manguard account has been involved in. Thanks.

Realisticly, if I were to do that to a level of specificity and completeness that would satisfy the requirements set by this question, it would be tantamount to identifying my old account publicly. Please see the statement I just made above; I am more than willing to find a middle ground in the form of the suggestion you made in your oppose. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Answer what parts of the question you can - for instance, Was your earlier account ever warned? Was it blocked? Hipocrite (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Or just email me the account name in confidence and I'll respond either in public with a statement that I am comfortable that you have not violated cleanstart, or a series of diffs I need explained in private. Hipocrite (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I would advise waiting for an arbitrator to confirm this rather than trying to squeeze it from the candidate. — Joseph Fox 18:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Questions from Skinwalker

5. Have you discussed this RfA off-wiki before submitting it? If so, can you briefly summarize each discussion? You need not include any personal information, of course. You can also omit any exchange about your previous account since it appears that is being covered elsewhere.

Yes, I have discussed this RfA off wikipedia, in three cases.

First, Fastily wished to nominate me several months ago, and approached me in private about that. Because I was in the People's Republic of China and was having near daily issues connecting to Wikipedia at that time, I told him that I was not ready to start an RfA until after I got back to the United States. I got back right before the holidays.

Second, I spoke to a number of Arbs over the last few months (after Fastily asked to nominate me), making sure that there wouldn't be any problems with me running (although I botched mentioning it in the RfA, I have been very careful to make sure every step of the way that I was following cleanstart policy). No one I talked to said that there were any rules against me running, and all of the Arbs I talked to were around when I identified my old account to the committee in 2010.

Finally, there were two users (not on ArbCom) whom I recently identified my old account to and told them about my plans to go through RfA. I asked both to look though my old account. One didn't find any red flags when he looked, and the other agreed to look, but got sidetracked by the holiday season so I told him he not to worry about it, since the first person had already got back to me.

6. This is an intentionally open-ended question. For the sake of expediency, let's stipulate that the situations listed at Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy should be handled privately, since there is broad consensus that these cases should not be discussed on-wiki. Excepting these specific situations, what are your thoughts regarding transparency on Wikipedia?

Wikipedia aims for transparency but it is in an environment where compromises have to be made, and sometimes the ideal is sacrificed in favor of increased workability of the system. I am in favor of cleanstart. Creating a permanent online identity is a major think, and people should stick with their accounts as long as they feel comfortable doing so, but as humans, we err, we age, and we change ourselves over time. If someone did something egregious enough that their presence on Wikipedia would no longer be welcomed, they would be banned. For the rest of us, the ability to shed an online identity should be preserved. I would modify it so that people would be required to take a year off from Wikipedia in order to do a cleanstart (which I did, although the timing was not intentional,) thus preventing people from discarding identities in a carefree manner. At the same time, I'm opposed to the idea of right to vanish (RTV). To me there's a difference between leaving the identity behind and having it moved to a false name. Both have been abused, but it's more difficult to track and remedy abuse of an RTV.

IRC is another issue entirely. I believe that is serves a valuable purpose. Offering advice and alerting admins to problems ("will someone please go handle the AIV backlog" type comments) is valuable. However I do not, for the life of me, see why it isn't logged. I'm in favor of having all Wikimedia IRC channels logged by WMF bots which would record only comments (and not login information), and transclude the logs to read only pages on the WMF servers daily. Mind you certain channels like #wikipedia-en-spi should not be logged, but there's no reason not to log #wikipedia-en-help. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from 24.177.99.126

7. If you are approved, will you show more care in dealing with IP editors than you did only a month ago, where you warned me for vandalism after blindly reverting a series of constructive edits to improve USS Arizona Memorial in advance of Pearl Harbor Day? And why didn't my use of an edit summary (contrary to what your warning said) prompt you to investigate further before reverting this series of edits?

I occasionally make mistakes when I use Huggle, usually because of misreading the tool. Often I catch them and fix them. Occasionally I don't. It's one of the reasons that I very rarely use the tool. It is unfortunate that I reverted your edit in mistake, and I apologize for it. Had you brought your concern to my talk page, I would have made every effort to fix the mistake; however since you did not bring the edit to my attention, I did not know that there was an issue. As for showing more care to IP editors, this had nothing to do with you being an IP, and owing to very good relations with IPs in the past I often defend their right to edit when discussions come up. It was just a bad revert. I will try to be more careful in the future with all of my Huggle edits. In all honesty though, I don't see myself picking up Huggle very often unless ClueBot goes down again. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

8. Now that it has been raised can you please clarify whether you give up your old account for the sake of Privacy(Like using your real name) or give it up due to conflicts ?Has your old account ever been blocked?

Additional question from Katarighe

9. What about reviewing unblock requests to blocked users?

A:

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats on the talk page. →Στc. 10:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• I trust an arbitrator is being contacted in regards to your previous account? — Joseph Fox 18:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

  I can confirm that User:Sven Manguard contacted the Arbitration Committee in 2010 to disclose his former username and advise of this clean start. –xeno^talk 19:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support As nom. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 12:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Strong support - I've seen Sven around and he is clearly clueful and knows what he is doing. Also per nom. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Sven Manguard has been sensible and reasonable in my interactions with/observations of them. I think they would do well with the tools. Acalamari 12:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Support because I see no reason not to. Deb (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Overdue. Pedro :  Chat  13:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Support, thought he was an admin already! Robofish (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Support Trust the judgement of Fastily and As per Acalamari. User has been around since Sept 2010 and knows the project very well and see no concerns as per track . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Support I see a budding mop handler. Mrlittleirish 13:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Support Bulwersator (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
10. Support I see great things from this editor and I trust Fastily's judgement.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 14:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Support. I'm not going to go through this editor's good contributions - because there are too many. There's also no evidence to suggest that this candidate would be anything but a skillful and clueful admin. Good luck. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
12. Support - no reason not to, with what I've seen from him around WP. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
13. Support – Have seen a lot of his work, will be a fine admin.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
14. Strong support - A lot of hard work. --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 14:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
15. Support Don't see why not. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 16:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
16. Support I have seen this user active in so many places, particularly on Wikipedia Talk pages where he participates in policy discussion. He knows what it means to admin and even has a great essay related to adminship here. I read the oppositional objections and I do not find them persuasive because in this account this user has demonstrated a long history of deep involvement in editing, conflict resolution, and policy discussion with no trouble. Even if he made mistakes in his previous account he has made enough contributions and been awesome enough to demonstrate a sound commitment to making the Wikipedia project better, but he said that he did nothing controversial in his previous account and I AGF. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
17. Strong support. One of the most hard-working and knowledgeable editors we have. I've considered the points brought up in the oppose column, but in my view the sheer volume of positive contributions this editor has offered outweigh any reasonable concerns people might have. Hang in there, the week is young. 28bytes (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
18. Support I have known Sven for over a year and we have talked about his past account before. I am confident that he is doing everything right and he is a valuable person or the project. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
19. Strong support. I am well acquainted with Sven's work and know him to be a clueful editor with a working knowledge of wikipedia policy. The cleanstart issue doesn't bother me at all, and I don't feel it falls into the category of sockpuppetry. I feel he will be a net benefit to the project as an admin. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
20. Strong support per discussion in Neutral section. Achowat (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Sockpuppet admins not needed. Disclose the prior account. "No misbehavior blocks" does not equate to "never sanctioned." Interference with Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#Borderline-obsessive_hounding.3B_continued_baiting_by_User:ThatPeskyCommoner was exactly what we need admins to not do. Hipocrite (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

   PS: budding civility policeman like this also unnecessary. Hipocrite (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

   WP:CLEANSTART is not a violation of WP:SOCK. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

   When running for an admin, a user is "expected [to] disclose past accounts openly, or to the arbitration committee if the accounts must be kept private." No evidence has been shown that the account was disclosed to the committee, but rather to "A number of Arbs, a few CUs, and a handful of other users ... not all of them [the] username." Hipocrite (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

   As he as said, if you have questions about old accounts he is willing to discuss privately. Mrlittleirish 14:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

   If I were emailed the old user name, and I find that there was no dissembling, or an individual who I implicitly trust says they know the old user name and there was no dissembling, I would consider modifying my !vote. Until then, Archtransit. Hipocrite (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

   I can confirm that User:Sven Manguard contacted the Arbitration Committee in 2010 to disclose his former username and advise of this clean start. A record of this exists in our internal records, so any sitting arbitrator who cared to check could verify that the recommended disclosure has been made. –xeno^talk 19:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

   Just on Sven's "inteference with the AN/I" - Jehochman had used a template which at the time implied that a longstanding user was a WP:DUCK, which Sven removed. Jehochman did not mean to imply that and actively fixed the template documentation when he saw it. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

   That was not his only action in that boondogle. Hipocrite (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

   Indeed. That AN/I was hardly anyone's finest hour though. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose WP:SOCK guidelines not followed. Also, candidate has taken pride in being uncivil in IRC. Keepscases (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

   To the best of my knowledge, the candidate has appropriately complied with both the WP:SOCK and the related WP:CLEANSTART policies. –xeno^talk 19:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

3. Oppose. I'm very sorry, because I really wanted to support you; however, after a recent case, I feel uncomfortable supporting an editor who has edited under a previous account and does not want to disclose it. I respect your privacy and will not ask any questions which might jeopardise it, but I cannot support this candidacy. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose I'm afraid I have to oppose Sven Manguard - User is not civil.There is a complain against the user for making personal attacks here.Dipankan ^{In the woods?} 16:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

   If that's a personal attack (six months ago, no less), then I'm a helluva lot closer to being banned then I though I was...Sorry, but that needed to be said. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

5. Oppose. Sven has some temperament issues that I don't find to be consistent with non-dramatic adminship - he tends to be excessively strident when unhappy with something, occasionally edging from "strident" toward "abusive". His behavior on various Betacommand-related pages this year has been the most notable instances of this stridency (unfortunately, the way the Betacommand subpaging was set up on ANI, I'm finding it very difficult to pull out actual diff links, so I'm settling for a quote and thread link). "You should all be ashamed of your downright pathetic, bad faith, and at this point not at all concealed campaign to change policy by axing anyone that enforces it" (within Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand_2011#Propose_topic_ban) was simply the worst of the worst of his comments on that page, though to his credit Sven seems to have realized that he'd crossed a line and consciously backed off. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to have completely worked. In more recent examples, I was quickly able to find this, this, and this, all comments which, while containing valid points, are phrased unacceptably aggressively and/or dramatically to my mind. Sven reads to me as just sort of an angry person, and I think that's a temperament we're better suited in avoiding in our admincorps. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
6. The old account almost certainly has some issue that would influence opinions of the candidate's judgment; if it were only mildly embarrassing, there would be no reason to not disclose. And the suggestion that I need to expose my email address to him so I can respect his privacy is laughable. Getting into content, it looks like 19% of candidate's edits are to article space. 19%! And the talk page has some concerning entries from November; this exchange and the note that sparked the exchange stood out. Townlake (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

   In response to the "if it were only mildly embarrassing, there would be no reason to not disclose", I added an addendum to my statement up top. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

   Thank you. I read your addendum, and it indeed raises judgment / maturity questions. We all made decisions when we were "much younger" that influence the options available to us now; c'est la vie. Townlake (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

7. Oppose Per recent history I oppose any candidate who can or will not identify past accounts. Even if you have someone vouch for you there can be no assurance that they're not minimizing issues may affect fitness. In addition some of the diffs cited show some temperment concerns.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Moral support, but oppose this time - Sven is a motivated and passionate editor, and he is clearly here for the best interests of the project. However, some of the diffs provided above (as well as the diff in Q7) are concerning, and show that Sven still needs a bit of time to mature and mellow; and essentially slow down and make better decisions rather than making snap judgments. He's got the edit count and the experience for the mop, now he just needs to concentrate on quality over quantity and show us that he is capable of stepping back from a situation, analyzing it rationally, and dealing with it unemotionally. I have no doubt that Sven will eventually be a useful admin, just some minor issues to clear up first. —SW— ^verbalize 17:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
9. In addition to the diff provided in Q7, this isn't vandalism. I have been burned as an anonymous editor by an admin who didn't seem to know what vandalism means, and it is very frustrating. When it is an over-eager vandal fighter, that is bad enough, but it is very hard for an IP editor to get a fair hearing when an administrator is convinced the IP is a VOA. Why was there no response to 24.177.99.126's reply to this candidate? I would like to note that I don't understand the opposition here regarding the other account; I find that very surprising. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

   To sum up without dragging in names, recently the previous account of an admin revealed. Although limited assurances had been given by selected editors, many editors on realizing who it was that had been made an admin were unhappy, as they would never have supported had they known. The response was basically "Tough luck, it's your own fault for supporting when you didn't know who the previous account was." I for one feel that there's some truth to that, and therefore anyone with a mystery account, I feel I must oppose. To risky when adminship is for life.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

   Who says adminship is for life? A person can ask for the tools to be removed, or if there's a clear history of abuse with the tools, ArbCom can desysop the user (like in my case) Secret ^account 19:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

10. Unfortunate to have to rest in this section as I get on well with Sven, but it has to be done. Sven's personality is far too abrasive to be able to fall into line with what is expected of administrators - he has proven this on a number of occasions by diving into already-complex situations without fully thinking his reasonings through, and often the scenario winds up more complicated than it needs to be (or indeed the wrong conclusions are reached). I would advise Sven work on his conduct, avoiding involving himself in discussions which do not require his input, and instead focusing on areas which do. One can prove their worth as a potential admin in many, much better, ways. — Joseph Fox 18:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Pending support - While Sven has been a more than capable editor, specifically in the 'traditional Admin roles', exemplary I might say, the issues regarding WP:Clean start give me pause. If, and only if, the User presents the old account information or the User informs the entirety of the ArbCom of the change and a 'Crat confirms that the new account is in keeping with the Clean Start policy, my position will easily be switched to a Strong Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achowat (talk • contribs) 16:38, 5 January 2012‎

   User:Sven Manguard contacted arbcom-l in 2010 and informed the entire committee of the clean start - a record of this disclosure exists in the committee's internal records for any sitting arbitrator to review. –xeno^talk 19:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

   Per above, moving to Support Achowat (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

2. Neutral I think Sven does a fantastic job maintaining files, and we do desperately need people who are au fait with file policy to become admins and handle FFD/PUF and file-related CSD. I really do want to support because of this, but the diffs Fluffernutter has identified give me cause for concern. The CLEANSTART issues don't bother me too much (I've supported candidates before who have had a clean start), but the issues Fluffernutter raises do concern me quite considerably to the point where I can't wholeheartedly support. If the RfA doesn't succeed, I'd be happy to support in the future if that kind of activity stops. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
3. I will not oppose under any circumstances, because I know just how productive you could and would be in dealing with the black-and-white, knitty gritty element of the tools. That said, (and while I'm certainly no saint) what I've seen of your interactions with others has generally not been good, and would single out those with Adam as an example. Thus, I think there are considerable risks associated with you judging consensus or getting involved in disputes, but can't decide whether or not the positives that you will undoubtedly bring to the role will outweigh those concerns. —WFC— 18:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

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.