Wiki How:Requests for adminship/Bahamut0013

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

Final (121/6/3); Closed as successful by The Rambling Man (talk) at 16:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Bahamut0013 (talk · contribs) – I would like the community to consider bahamut0013 for access to the admin toolkit. Bob was recently appointed to the Audit Subcommittee, but that doesn't really matter here—a bugzilla could easily add all the permissions he needs for that role to the oversight flag. Indeed, that should probably be done regardless. No, what we have here is a user dedicated to the project, and whose contributions show that rare quality: loads of common sense, as exhibited in his project space contributions. As for content contributions, although it was featured before he joined Wikipedia, his strong maintenance work has helped preserve the United States Marine Corps article at a high level of quality, and you can see far more here than I could summarise here. I think Bob would make good use of a few extra buttons, and I hope you'll agree. Courcelles 13:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob's work has been highly respected by everyone at the military history wikiproject for years, which is saying something; we're an ornery lot. He doesn't have a lot of edits to WP:UAA, but they all check out. He probably could have made admin years ago; I think you'll get the same impression from perusing his talk archives. He has a ton of userboxes, and I personally don't see how they could hinder his admin duties, but I did mention that userboxes are sometimes a problem at RFA, and he seemed open to listening to your feedback. I enjoyed talking with him at a meetup in North Carolina. Highly recommended for moppery. - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I thank my two nominators greatly for the honor they bestow upon me, and the handful of other editors who have strongly nudged me in this direction in the last few months. I used to subscribe so tightly to the "no big deal" mentaility about adminship that I was actually cynical about the idea of being a sysadmin... perhaps I was just young and going through an anti-establishment phase; and it's no big secret that RfA is often brutal. In any case, as I've matured on-wiki and off, I've come to appreciate the inner workings of the project more, and realize that even though we sometimes suffer from bureaucracy, the admins and other functionaries are quite essential and often under-appreciated. I was encouraged to submit for AUSC because someone thought I was trustworthy and cool-headed, and the positive response made me realize that I have a better reputation than I would have imagined. With my new duties, I realize that there is far more I could be doing behind the scenes; which fits in better with the lower profile editing I've been doing lately. There have been many a time I've come across an issue in need of admin attention, and if I had the mop, I could literally clean them up on the spot instead of foisting responsibility off onto another person. Additionally, it's been a small headache looking at deleted reversions for my AUSC duties, so this was the tipping point for me to say "yes, let's do an RfA"; I figure at the very least, there will be constructive criticism. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, I've changed the colors in my signature to better contrast for editors who might have visual impairments. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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: Primarily, I'd like the bit for my AUSC duties; as I said above, it's been a tad troublesome to view deleted revisions. However, I'm the kind of guy whom Stephen King described in The Gunslinger: straightening bad pictures in strange hotel rooms. I would rather clean up the messes I find than pass the responsibility on to others, and wouldn't often go hunting for trouble, since enough of it finds me on its own in the form of vandalism (reverting and blocking), speedy deletions, and the like. My primary admin contributions would probably be in closing XfDs, especially military-related ones. Some examples would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mk43 Machine Gun, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick J. Callahan, or a couple of non-admin closes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Martin O'Donnell and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zastava M70B. I will fully admit that I'm weak in the area of understanding the myriad aspects of copyright (my image uploads tend to be public domain), so I would likely have to swallow my pride and pass those issues off to more knowledgable editors. I've dabbled a bit in other places like UAA and SPI, but don't intend to make them my focus. Should I ever intend to branch out, I would test the waters slowly, seeking advice from the more experienced admins.

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

A: I tend to be a WikiGnome now, but I was once told that I excel at taking a crummy article written by a newbie and bringing it in line with policy, such as James M. Masters, Sr. I focus greatly on military-related (especially United States Marine Corps) articles, and my watchlist is full of them. It makes sense, given my profession, which I will be sad to leave this summer. I'm also proud of the "clerking" stuff I've done at WP:OMT, especially portal:Battleships. Still, I recognize that not many of the 6,845,708 articles on Wikipedia have much original text attributable to me, and that my best talents lie in organization and improvement, rather than prose authorship.

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: Goodness, if anyone ever said "no", I think they'd have to be a saint. We are imperfect beings, and conflict is quite inevitable. Most of my earlier conflicts were short-lived disputes based on misperceptions, such as the rivalry I used to have with BilCat (formerly BillCJ), but we've resolved our differences and are quite cordial now. I had a brief but fiery spat in 2009 (while I was deployed to Iraq) with an editor who turned out to be a higher-ranking Marine vandalizing my userspace to enforce a wild misinterpretation of OPSEC regulations; he inevitably got blocked for it and later apologized. Currently, I'm annoyed by the constant pestering of a POV-pusher who utterly fails to recognize Wikipedia policies, and earned myself an Armenian curse for the trouble; I'm now taking a "wait-and-see" approach, hoping he gets bored and moves on.

Generally, I'm a mellow guy, but I bristle when I think I'm being bullied (I'm sure Freud would have plenty to say about that). I've lost my cool a few times, like any human, but don't think I've ever been blatantly uncivil or done something that I really regret (well, maybe a couple of very slow edit wars). However, if there is one thing that my pending divorce has taught me, it is that sometimes you have to eat dirt and say "thank you"; I'm far more aware that a member of AUSC is going to be heavily scrutinized for interactions with others, especially in the off-wiki mailing lists. I also have a bad habit of cursing (another effect of my profession), but that's easier to manage online than in person; I generally try not to unless I'm corresponding with someone I know won't be offended (for example, EVula and I trade smack talk quite often; I think I gave him some guff earlier today).

Additional question from Lambanog

4. Since you are a military man: if you were determined to vandalize Wikipedia what would you consider the most effective way to do so? Is Wikipedia capable of robust response to such a threat?

A: I'm actually a tad befuddled that you would connect "military" with "vandalism", but I'll take it from a wargame perspective. I'm not going to go into explicit detail per WP:BEANS, I'm probably not the most creative guy ever (so I'm sure that people have imagined better ways than I), and I've never really taken Sun Tzu's advice and tried to think from the enemy's perspective beofre (that is, to think like a vandal). I think the biggest theoretical threat would be multiple simultaneous organized sockfarm strike (I'm talking scale and skill, like the resources Anonymous can bring to bear) with an eye to fooling CheckUser, combined with sleeper agents with advanced permissions to cover thier tracks. The next one I could think of would be a concerted effort to manufacture phony refs and insert subtle vandalism. In either case, I think Wikipedia could weather it. I've seen some of the functionary checklists, and these guys and gals are very good at rooting out the issues and coordinating a timely response, so the main issue is simply how soon we detect an attack and how long it lasts. The WikiProjects are usually pretty good at smoking out false additions that look kosher on the surface, and although sometimes it takes a while, the damage will get cleaned up eventually. Also, if there were a large scale attack (or even a hacking), I'm sure that the Foundation's developers have a few secret tricks up thier sleeves.

You know, it's probably not a bad idea to actually run a wargame like this someday. We could copy a huge chunk of articles over to a test wiki, organize a Red Cell, and have at it. bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Chzz

5. What is your personal view of the current influence of systemic bias in articles, particularly politics-related? Please keep clear which parts of your answer are your views, and - where policies and guidelines may differ from your opinion - how you reconcile that issue. I'm not looking for a thesis here; a short answer is fine; mostly - as you'll probably guess - I'm interested in how you present your views, and reconcile them with consensus (which may differ from your opinion) - and yes, this relates to the 'userbox' opposition. I hope you understand why I feel asking this might help me decide; there is no need to "over think" this.

A:As I said before, I don't generally edit on articles or wade into edit disputes related to politics, so any views I have on bias there are not well-informed from experience. I am well aware that as a conservative, I'm in the minority on Wikipedia, but I'm frankly offended by people who have characterized my views as "fringe" or based on "hate" (especially since there is nothing in my edit history to indicate a problem with them); I also haven't really highlighted some of my more liberal opinions, like my support for the repeal of DADT. I've seen functionaries, admins, and editors in good standing bash the views I believe in without any reproach, and it is irritating to me to see the minority getting persecuted, especially since I happen to be in it. For example, even though I don't see Conservapedia as anything close to legitimate, I don't like to see Wikipedians bashing the editors there with redneck and moron stereotypes.

That said, the NPOV guidelines tend to be more or less effective in mitigating the issue. There are some places where I see pro-liberalism and anti-conservatism being over-representative, and that's because there are more Wikipedians and anon editors that gravitate to editing them. But overall, the encyclopedia has done a decent job of being fair, and without hunting for them, I can probably count the number of serious issues on one hand. Most of the editors that have expressed thier disagreement with my views have also expressed thier support, which tells me that the majority of Wikipedians are level-headed enough to put aside thier own views and cooperate for the betterment of the project. Despite some of the opposes, I'm not planning on wading in and blocking editors who disagree with me (and honestly, I don't know of any admins that have done this); I respect the opinions of others and have proven to be able to do so in the past. I know there is a difference between having an opinion and having a bias.

We have other systemic biases to be concerned with, but I think the Foundation is working on them, like the gender gap that's been all the news lately. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Cenarium

6. Why do you have on your userpage the infobox User:Twooars/Userboxes/Noadmin ?

A: Because I like Lord of the Flies; it's a good book. I know the name is a bit misleading, but all the same, I'm curious why you ask. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this meant, in a metaphorical way, that you didn't want adminship ? (Wp:admin is piped to conch.) If so, I was curious as to what made you change your mind about wanting adminship. Cenarium (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I hadn't noticed that piped link. No, I thought it was just about the book. Boy, do I feel embarassed. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Septentrionalis

7 Are blocks punitive or preventative? Please elaborate, don't just quote policy; in your view, what does it mean?

A: According to Wikipedia:Blocking policy, it's all preventative. The goal is to eliminate disruptions to building the encyclopedia, and not to police the editor corps unless they are interfering with the goal of free knowledge. This is why deterrance is preferred, and why the criteria for blocking all resolve around methods of damaging the encyclopedia (though some are rather more indirect than others). I believe this is why ArbCom is usually uncomfortable with being compared to the a court system, because they are around to resolve disputes and not to mete out justice for crimes. While blocks can easily be undone (which has led to more than one wheel war), the damage done to an editor by an unjust block is hard to recover from, so caution is key, and consensus should be made when controversial to avoid those wheel wars.

So what does it mean? It means that we give a lot of leeway for good-faith actions, even if they are ill-advised or even harmful. However, as an admin, one should not hesitate to remove editors that have made clear they cannot/will not improve the encyclopedia, assuming they've been given opportunities to learn and reform. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Deterrance" as I used it doesn't necessarily mean "fear of punishment", I think that "prevention" would have been closer to what I meant. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8 What term do you want as admin? When do you intend to resign or submit yourself for reconfirmation? If "never," why are you suited to adminship-for-life? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A: I've only rarely seen an admin restrict him or herself to a given time-period of holding the mop. I believe there is a big distinction between not setting an artificial term and deeming oneself as admin-for-life, however, as many of admins are open to recall given a set of standards to prove that they no longer hold the community's trust. And of course, there are protections against admins who go wayward and can be de-sysopped. I'm probably going to set up a set of recall criteria (reading User:EVula/opining/admin recall, I see good ideas), but not right now. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from SlimVirgin

9. I'm a bit concerned about the membership of the bathrobe cabal. Can you explain what that's about? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A: I first learned about the BRC when I met some of the members at the Raleigh meetup. To me, it's just a silly and light-hearted group of editors that know associate and joke with each other. I know a couple of the members are unpalatable to others, but I promise, we aren't really a cabal. Most of the other members aren't really very active on-wiki anymore, and some aren't active much of anywhere. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Ankit Maity

10 Why did you became a member of Wikipedia and served it for years?And please elaborate your answers and tell it truthfully. This is a matter of your own self-respect.

A: Well, I'd dabbled a little bit as an IP editor for about a year (minor changes, like spelling or noting a change of command on a unit's infobox) before I came across my first semi-protected page. A while later, I figured I ought to make an account, so I did, and that's when the bug bit me. I started diving in head-first, and my love of history and military science was reawoken. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Links for Bahamut0013: Bahamut0013 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Bahamut0013 can be found here.

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

• 100 supports! Now we can list your RFA at WP:100. —mc10 (t/c) 01:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. strong support As an editor, Bahamut showed great levels of competance and sofar is unlikely to betray our trust 01001010101010010101001 (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Beat the nom support 'Nuff said.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 11:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Strong support. As an editor, Bahamut has demonstrated unsurpassed diligence and dedication; I have no doubts he will do the same as an administrator. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 11:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Clueful & sensible. No issues that I can dig up :) That's all I need to see --Errant ^(chat!) 11:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. Many positive qualities that I like to see in an admin. The two nominators' endorsements also carries weight with me. -- œ^™ 11:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. I trust the co-nom. - Dank (push to talk) 11:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. support logs look OK, deleted content shows candidate has mainly tagged images for deletion, rather than articles, but what is there looks fine. The only dubious activity was all those secret pages that were found in November 2008! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Strange Dank, I trust the nom ;) Courcelles 12:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. I trust both. More importantly, I trust the candidate - there's no indication whatsoever that their adminship will be anything but a net positive to the project. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. No concerns. –xeno^talk 12:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Had a long look at your contributions during the AUSC appointment process. My approval from then is still valid today. Amalthea 13:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support I can't see anything wrong. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 14:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support (sigh) As much as it pains me to ruin the status of the only non-admin on the AUSC, I can find no reason not to support this candidate. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. I think you should have done this before the AUSC appointments, because now the community is put in the strange position of either throwing sand in ArbCom's face and having a CU without a block button (among other strange things about a non-admin functionary) or making you an admin. However, I would have supported a month ago and you certainly haven't become less qualified in that time. The fact that you have two sitting and highly esteemed arbs in the first ten supports and that I can't think of two editors I respect more than Dank and Courcelles eliminates any doubts I might have had. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Strong Support If he's good enough for AUSC, he's good enough to be a sysop, in my opinion. Contributions look great. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 14:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. Duh. T. Canens (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. In the nearly-week since I've had the pleasure of serving with him on the audit subcommittee, this user has displayed every bit of clue I would expect in an administrator; he's actually exceeded my expectations in his analysis of and commentary on the handful of matters that have required his comment. Jclemens (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. Previous encounters at wp:OMT have given me confidence that Bahamut will be a good and responsible admin. I must admit I find the timing of this RFA somewhat akward, but this does not change my full support of the candidate. Yoenit (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support - I don't need to add a comment here because anything I could have/would have said has already been said, so the answer is most definitely YES! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. Easiest decision to make all day. Bahamut has the perfect balance between experience and humor that is necessary for administrators. I very rarely participate in RfAs these days, but Bahamut is the sort of candidate that deserves an exception. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support - Recently reviewed in relation to AUSC, and was impressed with what I saw and the way he handled himself. I share Jclemens' opinion about Bahamut's AUSC work to date. Risker (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Definitely. 'Nuff said. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23. Strong support - Most definitely he is a good candidate. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
24. Strong support - Agree with Logan above. He's trusted enough to be on AUSC, he's trusted enough to have the bit. Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 16:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. I was impressed when I had a look at AUSC nom time. And besides, a mop would look good next to the Armenian curse -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Essentially, what Kirill said. I have seen this editor around MILHIST pages and he is always diligent and dedicated to his task. He is not afraid to get stuck in when he needs to and that is a quality we need in admins these days. I have absolutely no doubt that he can be trusted with the tools. Woody (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Based on a review of contributions, as well as the co-nominations. Have run into the editor a few times around the pedia (AfD, at least one legal case article) and have always been impressed. --joe decker^{talk to me} 18:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support I know we've had some interactions in the past and I'm having problems hunting them down. But as I attempted to do so I read a fair bit of your contributions and find you very reasonable. Hobit (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
29. Y Go ahead... --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support I've not had personal interaction with him, but the place is so big that's not surprising. I do have great respect for the two nominators, and the answers to the questions look good. Obviously a lot of people trust him already, and he looks to be busy. If you want a job doing, find someone who's busy. They don't have the time to think up excuses for not doing it... Peridon (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
31. If this fails, then there is something seriously wrong with the community's expectations vs. its trust. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
32. nods —GFOLEY FOUR— 20:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support I've seen you around but have never interacted with you directly before that I know of. That being said, I've only seen you in the right places so I think you'll be a good administrator. Good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support Seen his work; always well-reasoned, follows up on feedback. Won't disappoint. (E/c & moved from below) Dru of Id (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support – I see no issues with bahamut gaining the sysop bit. —mc10 (t/c) 21:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support I don't share WSQ's concerns. Best of luck Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 22:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support This editor appears to be a responsible contributor who can be trusted to use the mop. The minor user box issue does not detract from that in my opinion. Monty₈₄₅ 22:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Baseball Watcher 22:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support: Why not?Jasper Deng (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support For Sure! -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support — Great candidate. mauchoeagle 01:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support. Tiderolls 01:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
43. Strong Support I have worked with Bahamut0013 for a long time, and I have nothing but praise for the Sergent. As one who has observed Baha's work for the Majestic Titan project I have no reservation about strongly supporting him for the position of admin here on Wikipedia. He will be a good man in the storm, and a good admin for the encyclopedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Go for it ... Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Has been of great assistance to my past, and has edited in a manor that keeps with WP:NPOV. Hooah! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RightCowLeftCoast (talk • contribs)
47. Support - I don't see any problems here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support: I see no issues holding this user back from being an admin. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
50. STRONG Support. Has helped me dozens of times and has always been fair in his re-edits of my work. I have always valued his input. Semper Fi, Marine! from your Coast Guard shipmate on Wiki. Cuprum17 (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 02:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support - good luck! Monterey Bay (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
53. + Keegan (talk) 04:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support. Agree with some of the neutrals' points on the userboxes. But not enough to keep me from supporting. MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support - From what I can see looks good to me, and as far as the userbox issues some have expressed...I don't have an issue with them. Enfcer (talk) 06:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support 1) per a couple Noms I respect. 2) A brief look indicates a good edit history 3) "Enough" edit history 4) Seems to be pretty clueful in policy knowledge 5) Looks as though he could be quite helpful with a few extra tools. OK, Now, in regards to the userboxes - yes, normally I think it's best for an Admin. not to put too much of their personal view right out there on their user page ... But first, the two boxes I saw, didn't seem to be pushing any type of POV. Yep, I did see the userbox page, which I don't have a problem with because first, it's a sub-page in his space; and second, I don't have an issue with a user having their personal thoughts on-wiki. I like the ability to go see what a person is all about, and how they think. I believe it's actually a benefit to be able to assess a person so that I can formulate a way to communicate with them in the best means possible. Not that I'm a huge "box" fan, but it's nice to see what a person is like w/out 101 questions sometimes. — Ched :  ?  07:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support I trust the nominator's judgment and this user shows experience, knowledge and above all competence, would make a good admin and would do well with the tools. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:33pm • 08:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support Bahamut is a good editor who can be trusted to use the admin tools wisely. That said, I do agree that political user boxes (and especially lots of them) are inappropriate for admins, and they should be removed. While I trust Bahamut to use the tools in a neutral way, the problem with admins having user boxes advertising their views on controversial topics is that it may cause some editors to feel that their actions as an administrator are motivated by personal views, which could lead to them feeling that they were treated unfairly (it's important to remember that admins will inevitably deal with troublesome editors and controversial articles). Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support. Limited content contribution, but otherwise looks good. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support; the userboxes don't violate any written or unwritten rule or principle in existence. Indeed, the fact that they've essentially disclosed any possible conflict of interest is something the community should be supportive of. Swarm ^X 09:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support Going through your edits, I've found nothing but good work, good temperment and good humour. I may not agree with your political ideology, and I share concerns over some userboxen - but without a doubt you'll make a good admin. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support per the removal; neutral is neutral, and while each of us is entitled to our private positions and beliefs; here we are expected to be balanced and neutral. Best of luck...Modernist (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support - but don't forget to warn those vandals! ;) ;) ;) ;) Orphan Wiki 14:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
64. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support good candidate, userboxes could do with further trimming but nothing to warrant an oppose/neutral Jebus989^✰ 18:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support An experienced and trusted user. Looking through his contributions, I see many good things and no red flags. (Portal:Battleships looks good!) As noted above, he's been appointed to AUSC by ArbCom; if he meets that higher bar of trust, then surely he is trustworthy enough for adminship. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support Good track record at AfD, no reason to oppose. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 22:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support I have no comments. They have already been used. He deserves the mop. Buggie111 (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - over 12,000 edits, high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, autopatroller, reviewer, rollbacker, and even checkuser (which I don't have and want right now, gosh darn it!). We registered as users in the same month (February 2007), so he's an old hand here and has proven his record. I have never made it a habit of denying the mop to anyone who is ideologically on the other side of the aisle from me, and this is not a good time to change one of my few good habits. Bearian (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
70. Strong Support A level headed editor who seems to do excellent work. Your answer to question 4 shows that you are clueful and can think your way out of tough situations. The fact that you are a CU and Oversighter only add to the reason why you should be an admin. I saw the userbox so here is an arrow: <-W-W-W-<< --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 22:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
71. (moved from neutral) thanks for culling the userboxes I was concerned about. I have no other strong concerns, warning of vandals is optional, the important thing is that you cleaned up the vandalism. ϢereSpielChequers 22:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
72. Contribs look pretty good here; certainly trustworthy. –MuZemike 00:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
73. HJ basically says what I was thinking. sonia♫ 00:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
74. Trustworthy and well-rounded. ceranthor 02:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support No red flags. --Banana (talk) 05:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
76. Dank beat me to it :). Support. AGK [•] 10:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
77. Semper Fidelis - no problems here.--NortyNort (Holla) 15:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support. Sound candidate,  Roger Davies ^talk 15:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support - Most of my interaction with the candidate has involved tag-teaming to revert vandalism on a couple of articles that we both have watchlisted. I've seen his work elsewhere, though. I have seldom seen any reason to question his actions. My one gripe with his work is with something he doesn't do: he seldom issues user-talk page warnings to vandals. This is a gripe because an absence of warnings (1) reduces the chance that various bots will notice subsequent vandalism and (2) makes it harder to justify blocking the vandals when the vandalism persists. Maybe some admin experience will help convince him that it's often worth the effort to issue warnings. --Orlady (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarification. My comment "I have seldom seen any reason to question his actions" relates to his actions at Wikipedia. Although I don't share most of his political views, that has not been an issue for me in his Wikipedia work. --Orlady (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

80. Support In vetting him for AUSC I found no red flags, and subsequent reviews of his contributions have convinced me he will be a positive admin. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support. Impressive nominators, impressive answer to Q3, and valid rationale for using the tools. I looked back through your talk page, and at some early edits. (Very nice newbie comments at your first AfD discussion!) With respect to those user boxes, I take the position that I support candidates who have strong personal opinions so long as I trust them not to insert those opinions into their administrative or editing actions, and I'm satisfied there. Please do warn the vandals, though. I easily trust this user with the tools. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
82. No concerns whatsoever to any stretch of the imagination. Admins are not neutral, nor are they expected to be; we only ask they pretend to be to the end of a good cosmetic appearance. Juliancolton (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support. While his now-deleted boxes may suggest it would be wise for him to tread lightly in using admin tools in those areas in which he may have a strong point of view, I see much reason to support and none to oppose.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support As best as I can tell he is a tremendous asset to the project. I sincerely doubt that he will go on a spree blocking pro-Obama editors or vandalize the main page with pro-Republican slogans. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support. This candidate is obviously bright and talented, judging from their contributions; there is no valid reason why this user should not become admin. Everyone has different opinions on Politicians etc., I don't see you as a type of editor that'll force their opinions onto someone else. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 06:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support The user is a good candidate. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 12:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support No concerns; candidate seems level-headed, knowledgable and experienced.  Chzz  ►  16:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
88. Trusted user, no reasons to think that you wouldn't make a good admin. BigDom (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support already trusted with something more important it looks like.  jorgenev (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2011
90. Support - I'm a fan. - Haymaker (talk) 05:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support - Looks like he can be definitely trusted with the mop. Yes Michael? •^Talk 05:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support – Some concerns about main article building contributions not being more recent and answer to question 7 is a little iffy—deterrence I would think would be more associated with punitive actions—but am reasonably confident the candidate knows what it is to be a content contributor and has enough relevant experience to appropriately deal with their issues. Lambanog (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support - Although I have been editing articles frequently from Feb 2011 I feel that his conributions to Wikipedia are excellent enough to give him the admin rights. And I am confident enough to tell he's trustable.Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 12:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support Looks fine. We're all biased. User A removes or tones down userboxes that others say are too partisan. User B throws a notcensored-first amendment-I will because I can shitfit. There's a difference. AlexiusHoratius 14:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support My political point of view couldn't be more different from the nominee, but he looks to be fair in his edits. I trust him to be fair in the future. --NellieBly (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support Bahamut0013 has been a solid editor and works well with others. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support fine editor. Glad to show my dues Pass a Method talk 20:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support He'll be a good admin. WayneSlam 21:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
99. Strongest Possible Support - I am not a citizen of the United States, I am British. But my goodness - the man cheerfully provides his real life identity as a member of the United States Marine Corps. There is absolutely no way that I cannot support him. There is no practicable way in which he can be more trustworthy, which is my sole criteria for administrators. Furthermore, and while it is entirely irrelevant to Wikipedia, I wish to thank him for the service he has given to my country's interests as well. No man is an island... Great Britain is, but the United Kingdom isn't. Thank you, Sgt. Lemiszk Egg Centric 23:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    "There is no practicable way in which he cannot be more trustworthy"?! Keepscases (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hehe, woops! Corrected - and bed time :) Egg Centric 00:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, I'm a stickler for grammar. I don't like this candidate's political views one bit, but I'm okay with him passing even if I don't cast a vote. Keepscases (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    We all are, we just don't notice the same things ;)

    As it happens, I don't particularly agree with a great deal of his political views either, being a sort of mushy libertarian-ish (yet pragmatic and with human rights my priority) chap, but that has nothing to do with whether I trust him. And his views could be anything at all but I'd still be thanking him for his service :) Egg Centric 20:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Even though you think my signature is in league with Satan? bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

100. Support Clearly. upstateNYer 03:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support Responsible editor, civil when opposed here. Julle (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support. The right man for a tough job. Top quality interactions and objectivity. Binksternet (talk) 05:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support - So long as it's understood that the editor doesn't use administrative tools in controversies in which they're involved, directly or indirectly. It's ultimately a trust issue, but then again a single admin shouldn't be making content decisions unless it's clear anyway. The supports above indicate that level of trust and I don't see a place where that was violated. I'm a little bothered we're using politics to dq admin candidates now... irrespective of my own personal opinions. We already dq too many qualified candidates based on internal wiki politics... I can't imagine the RfA where we disqualify candidates based on their real world politics when there's no indication it has bearing on their judgment for admin purposes. Shadowjams (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support though after wading through the most massive collection of user boxes I have yet seen (to see what the mini-controversy was about, and see if there were any I could swipe), I must express some very mild concerns. Still, I agree with those who say that this editor can be trusted, after looking over the impressive number of people who vouch for him. May your adminship be firm yet fair, and best wishes to you! Jusdafax 08:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support Think he can cope with a mop! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 11:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support - I'm very disturbed that this individual's political views are being brought up, given that if they were more liberal or libertarian we would likely not even be discussing them (I'm not crying conspiracy here, just being realistic about the makeup of this community). It's not as if he's promoting offensive viewpoints such as Nazism. The real questions relate to whether he is a knowledgeable editor capable of unbiased editing and judicious use of the tools. I see the answer as a clear "yes". Kansan (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
107. Obvious support Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support. Carrite (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
110. Strong Support - Sorry I'm soo late Bahamut0013 but, doesn't seem you need much help :P. This is a "No Brainer" Mlpearc powwow 03:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support. Quarl ^(talk) 04:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support. Brianherman (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support Excellent, neater, trustworthy, happy wikipedian with big contributions in the wikipedia namespace and full understandings in wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also he is using the edit summary almost always. Easy support from me.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 16:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support May try for 200. Sound in each area I have run across him. Collect (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support, no issues here. Though I'm fairly certain the last word of the nomination is not actually a word... Jafeluv (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     I present this unimpeachable source in evidence. - Dank (push to talk) 22:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

116. Jujutacular ^talk 18:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
117. Very sensible user, well cut out for the mop. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support, this user seems capable of fulfilling administrator responses capably. Opposing on the basis of the candidate's religious and political beliefs is absurd: please note that we political and religious conservatives aren't a fringe minority. Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
119.  Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support - Fellow member of the cabal. - TRANSMISSION ENDS - — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 06:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support—all clear. Happy mopping, Airplaneman ✈ 13:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Oppose Withdrawn I'm opposing on the grounds of extremism of some of the userboxes. Before you all yell, please note three things:

a) In most every case, opposing because of userboxes is incredibly stupid and is something I would fully expect the 'crats to ignore. This oppose may or may not be part of that majority.

b) This RfA is going to pass anyways. (Well, it's about as likely as possible, with RfA you can never be 100% sure.)

c) I really only take issue in the extreme tone of the boxes, not that he has strong views. For example, I am of the opinion that Eisenhower was a wonderful general but an awful president. I think that MacArthur caused more damage to East Asia than any other single American in history, and that had he retired after World War II, North Korea wouldn't exist today. These are possibly extreme views (I have others, but there's no need to list them.) Normally I don't share those views. If I feel compelled to, I rarely do so without context, and I try to be tasteful about it. You could easily have used an infobox that says "I don't support President Obama's policies" or "I believe that the 111th Congress was poorly run" but allowing the hatred to seep into the message is something that I find worrisome. (By the way, the 71st Congress was much worse, in my opinion).

So please, tone it down or clean it out. I'm not asking you to change your views, but I am asking you to express them less confrontationally. Congrats on getting the mop regardless, you are a good candidate, this withstanding. (To those of you that disagree, I won't be changing this or responding to it, as I won't be around for a few days, and I don't expect it to matter much, so please let's not badger... or at least not much. No need for such ugliness here.) Sven Manguard Wha? 05:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should I take this as a request to remove them, then? Per my offer to remove, it is done. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew my oppose. Everyone has biases. Many people have strong biases. Some people make a public display of their biases. A few people make those displays extreme. The first of those four does not bother me. The second draws my attention. The third makes me examine. The fourth causes concern. Ultimately, as the candidate a) adopted premade userboxes as opposed to having created them himself, b) had the whole collection on an out of the way subpage, and c) removed the most extreme boxes when it became a point of contention, I no longer am concerned enough to oppose. Anything worth having a strong opinion on is something that people will disagree over. I don't aim to end the disagreement, but I'd like for the discourse to be less contentious. The candidate has displayed a realization of this and taken corrective measures. My interpretation of this is that the candidate is capable of modifying his engagement for the good of community relations without compromising his actual ideals. This is a positive trait. I am writing this at 4:00 AM, I hope this isn't too confusing. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Weak Oppose although I'm not concerned about the userboxes, I took a look at some rollback contributions and I've found a couple of mistakes. He was using rollback to remove some good-faith content [1] (and probably this) but most importantly, he needs to warn the vandals which is also an essential part of the rollbacker's job which quite frankly, I see very little of that. I hope he respects this oppose, and steers clear of the rollback department when he does get the admin tools, because further rollback mistakes would lead to a desysop (I do know that the rollback button is included in the admin package) and a loss for rollback. Minima© (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   "An essential part of the rollbacker's job" – really? It's not required by WP:RBK or even WP:VAND, and I personally don't think it accomplishes very much. Personally, I used to issue warnings, but now I usually just quietly revert vandalism I come across. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Just to hook in on this specific comment: Warning DOES accomplish a great deal, since users cannot be blocked trough WP:AIAV if they have not at least been warned a few times. There are some exceptions if the user is truly disruptive, but in general no warning = no block. I would also point out that tools such as huggle interprets previous warnings, and bases future warnings and block prompts on their presence. Warning may not be required, but it certainly helps. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm pretty sure you won't be desysopped for failing to post a warning on the talk page of a user whose vandalism you rolled back, even if you do it 100 times in a row. —SW— ^comment 21:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   "found a couple of mistakes"... really? "Found" means you had to look, "a couple" means they're minimal in frequency, and "mistakes" mean they were simple slipups (if that). Juliancolton (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   But I assume we can agree that, at least if seen out of context, use of rollback for those to edits was improper? Amalthea 09:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   The real problem here is, I suspect, that Minimac has a poor understanding of the rollback and administrator tools generally. AGK [•] 10:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Possibly they were. I'm trying to think back, and my memory is imperfect; but I believe I considered the first one to be a bad faith edit because he deliberately reverted a cleaned-up reference and the information it cited. I really can't recall the circumstances of the second one... I know that I have on occasion meant to click undo and hit rollback, and since there is no confirmation, it went on accidentally. Sounds like an excuse, but the responsibility for an accident is still mine. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Strong Oppose The userboxes indicate a high level of bias. We already have enough non-neutral admins, I wouldn't want this user trying to solve a problem in the Obama article. Or George Bush. Besides, a lot of the military articles are a total mess, and I've seen the nominee help clean a lot up (just scratching the surface, since every anonymous IP has to throw in some unsourced comment about their unnotable dad serving someplace). Anyways, the nominee has all the tools necessary, and should just edit articles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Is it really unlikely to assume that bahamut wouldn't involve himself in any problems with Obama's or Bush's article? I'm less concerned with personal bias (c'mon, we're all human, of course we have biases). Of his 21k edits, are there any where he obviously lets his personal opinions interfere with WP:NPOV? If there's a track record of him trying to twist articles, yeah, he shouldn't be an admin. But if he just has personal opinions, well...
   Not trying to hound you, I just personally disagree with your opinion about bias. (and this is coming from someone who would consider bahamut an on-wiki friend, but almost entirely disagree with him politically) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   The closest I've come to editing controversial political articles is biographies on Marine who have entered politics, like James L. Jones, Obama's former National Security Advisor and former Commandant, and Nick Popaditch, a losing candidate who was the "Cigar Marine" in 2003. Frankly, I don't have much interest in wading into the messy articles or disputes around those issues precisely because being a conservative is a minority on WP, and I'm not really active politically anyway (aside from voting). I'm warmed by the number of editors who have said "I don't agree with you politically, but I like you anyway". bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Everyone has biases. In a way, I like it better that he wears them on his sleeve for all to see. My opposition was more on the tone he was setting than it was on that he had them there. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Not sure what you mean by tone. Can you be specific? The three boxes that were causing the main strife are gone, so if there are others that still give you pause, let me know. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I forgot to place my standard disclaimer that I dislike discussing my "vote". Since I failed to do so, I suppose I should answer all these comments. I am an atheist, socialist, anti-Republican, pro-welfare, anti-gun, pro-single payer health care, well-educated, hockey and baseball-loving, pro-science, blah blah blah former military officer. You'd probably figure it out if you watched my edits, or have known me for the five years I've edited here. Other than the above statement, I don't make it a point with userboxes. But I'm not running for admin on the "sure I'm NPOV platform," because I don't have to prove I'm NPOV to anyone. I do not criticize bahamut's intelligence, his work ethic, or his editing skills. Those are great. He apparently has all the tools already, except for blocking, so why bother? But I just don't like his politics, and I wouldn't want him adjudicating any POV battle, except maybe in military articles. We voted in an admin who supports Fringe theories and unblocks his fellow fringe editors, so based on that experience, why should I trust a right winger with what appears to be hatred of people I kind of respect? Should we have admins who have shown such a level of hatred? Our past experience is that with admins, eventually their bias shows up, like the Pro-Fringe admins. I find his userboxes to be bigoted and hateful. But he's going to get his admin tools, despite his excessive bias. And Yes EVula, damn straight I wouldn't want someone with his biases to be an admin.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   So... you're basically opposing because you disagree with him politically? Swarm ^X 07:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I think you are more offended by the userboxes than anything. Could you point out what political userboxes are "hateful"? I don't see any, even before some were removed. The political userboxes are also few compared to the rest and not prominently on the user's main page. I don't think it is right to judge the editor based on a few user boxes, especially when they are not involved in POV disputes.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose Per userboxes, even though removed, they still show your bias by attacking Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and Obama. Now, before someone points out my clear bias in support of all 4 of these people, you'll note since my anti-Bush ubx, I haven't had any negative BLP related userboxes on my page...I'm surprised more people aren't opposing because of this. CTJF83 21:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Everyone has biases, you have them too. You still have the "myths or superstitions" userbox on your page, despite the negative response you received for it. The issue shouldn't be "do people have biases" or "what biases do people have", it should only be "how do people express their biases" and "how do their biases affect their work". The key here is that when it became clear that his expression of the his biases was casuing issues, he changed the expression to avoid further conflict. Ultimately that is the difference between whether userboxes cause one or two opposes or whether they cause dozens. I disagree with most of his views, but I struck my oppose because he did the right thing when the problem became known. I wouldn't invite him over for dinner, but I don't have an issue with him becoming an admin anymore. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I would be much more apt to support or at least be neutral if admin wasn't a life time thing...he or anyone could be extremely bias, and then guess what, we are stuck with them as an admin cause it is near impossible to desysop someone. CTJF83 22:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   LOL @ the two of you. Keepscases (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose per question 8. I know a term limit is rarely done; but it ought to be done; recall is ineffective - especially since the admin is judge in his own case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I know a term limit is rarely done; but it ought to be done; uh, no, it is never done to my knowledge. The admin bit is granted indefinitely (by community agreement). Whilst it is a valid viewpoint that that there should be a term limit it seems rather disingenuous to oppose a candidate on the basis that there should be one... --Errant ^(chat!) 17:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Term limits for admins have been proposed and rejected often enough to be a perennially rejected bad idea. Arbcom has proved a pretty effective way of dealing with rogue admins. But there is a broader reason why this sort of oppose is unhealthy for RFA. We expect admins to enforce policy not to make policy, so even if an RFA candidate is on the other side of you on a contentious policy issue it is inappropriate to oppose them for that in an RFA. What matters here is whether you trust this candidate to use the block, delete and unprotect buttons in accordance with policy. If we were ever to elect a policy making committee then it would be relevant to vote on the direction you expected the candidates to move policy in. Whether or not this candidate becomes an admin they will have the same influence on any future RFC about term limits for admins, so why raise the issue in their RFA? ϢereSpielChequers 20:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   So this is what I take from you, PMAnderson: You ask a question, and then when the user doesn't give the exact answer you want- and I can't imagine many people ever giving you the answer you want- you oppose them? Even though the issue has nothing to do with their qualifications as a possible admin? For the record, I don't know of this user's work and am not !voting on his candidacy, and I completely disagree with his political views (I'm a liberal, but regardless... even if you despise Obama, he's never done anything that could be legally defined as an impeachable offense), but if Bahamut has done good work for the community over a long period of time and meets the standards most admins uphold, why shouldn't he get the mop? "Because he won't give himself a term limit, something nobody has ever done" is not a valid answer; using that logic, there would be zero admins. -- Mike (Kicking222) 23:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   No, there is a wide range of answers I would have accepted, from a reasonable term (I would have accepted several years; a century would be excessive), to an answer explaining remarkable virtues, with evidence, to a recall plan which would actually work. Nor did I ask for a term limit; I support admins running for re-election; I asked for a term.

   If we had done this when admins were first selected, we would have fewer problems with overbearing admins now. I intend to go on doing so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose! This person seems bias towards certain topics. I know this from the userbox things on his user page. Puffin ^{Lets talk!} 20:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I fixed your vote, you're supposed to use a hash (#) with no colons to cast a vote, and a hash with colons to comment (#: or #:: or #::: etc.). Also, no offense, but I find it a bit strange that you're here. You've never participated in an RfA as far as I can tell. Please read my response (above) to Ctjf83. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Edit: I didn't go back far enough. He did in fact participate in an RfA before, six months ago. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   No offence Sven, but I find it a bit strange that you found it a bit strange that Puffin was here. Is it not the done thing for editors with a few thousand edits to start participating at RfA?. This makes it sound like there is an unwritten prerequisite of having participated previously to participate now. I guess I am I misinterpreting something?--ClubOranje^T 11:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   There was a subtle message in there, yes, and it wasn't aimed at Puffin. I'd elaborate, but one does not leave subtle messages when speaking normally would do just as well. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose I'm afraid this editor has such a strong bias that his possible involvement as an administrator in articles pertaining to right-wing politics, US military, and the like, would not be subject to an impartial evaluation. The candidate already has expanded editing powers, and at this point I don't really see any need for giving him even more. Likeminas (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(striking neutral) In many ways a good candidate with a clean block log, has been around a while and has a nicely diverse set of edits. I'm not concerned at the amount of userboxes, most of which are amusing or uncontentious. But I am concerned that the political ones drift from merely disclosing a Political view to deprecating certain individuals. these two Userboxen are somewhat soapboxy and the sort of POV that I would hope Wikipedians would try and leave at the door. I'm not comfortable with an admin displaying them and would request that you review your userboxen. ϢereSpielChequers 16:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another person suggested that they could be an issue. If I get a request (on my talk page, preferably) to remove them, I will do so. I declined to do so preemptively because I've seen a couple of successful RfAs where the editor had similar boxes of an opposing political nature, and was hoping that RfA wasn't going to be politicized. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really an issue as far as adminship goes - quite honestly, I never would have looked into your userboxen had it not been mentioned here. But the instant you have to take any action involving Barack Obama, for example, someone's immediately going to call you on your bias - whether that bias is real and an influence on your actions or not. Block a pro-Obama editor? "Well, of course he blocked me - look, he wants to impeach Obama." It's the appearance of bias that causes the concern, I believe - which is what ϢSC was pointing out. And, given the shenanigans we see every day, it's not that unreasonable a concern. Props for your willingness to take the boxes down, if and when. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally prefer that someone with that (or similar) opinion have the box on their page. It does indicate a bias in the subject area, and that's good because it keeps people from using the tools in areas they have strong opinions. Hobit (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not American, I have a somewhat jaundiced view of Bush-style "Give war a chance" politics (while at the same time having only admiration for the people who actually go and risk their lives in places like Iraq), and I really cannot understand why so many Americans seem to see Obama as some kind of antichrist. But having said that, I think I'd prefer to see admins being open about their political opinions, and recusing themselves from judgments where there might be a conflict of interest -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically didn't mention the userboxen where he supports a party in American Politics. I don't currently disclose my political views on the Pedia, but I can see the case for doing so and may disclose my views in the future. The two userboxes I mentioned go further in that they disparage individuals on the other side of American Politics. ϢereSpielChequers 22:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That number of uboxen would get a quick 'oppose' from me for anyone with less maturity and contributions to the project. Here, it's not the slightest concern for me - there are so many that I think the real meaning behind any of them is diluted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did go a tad overboard in my early days, no? Anyway, per Sven's request in the "oppose" section, I've removed them. I hope that will end the concerns about politics in this RfA. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my neutral per the requested Userbox pruning. ϢereSpielChequers 22:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Agree to a large extent with WSC's viewpoint. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 22:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   See above, they've been removed. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. This is likely to succeed due to the overwhelming support and I don't think that's a huge deal considering this user is already being granted many permissions, but this diff regarding AfD closures gave me some pause, considering this user indicated above a desire to get involved in AfD. I would caution this user to tread lightly in AfD given some of the points he stated in that link. Edit: I think I may have misunderstood said diff, could you explain? Did you mean RfA not AfD? Andrevan@ 05:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I know I've written AFD when I meant RFA before, and I've seen it done more than a few times, too. Given there are no optional or form questions at AFD, or any logical reason why anyone would liken AFD to a job interview, I'm certain this is a mixup of the Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! variety. Courcelles 05:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually, yes, that's exactly what it was, I meant "RfA" (AfD is usually not so painful). Acronyms upon acronyms make an alphabet soup that can cause brain farts. It's rather embarassing that I confused the two, considering what page I posted that on. Like I said before, RfA can be very painful, but I'm suprised that this one is going so smoothly. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Oh for God's sake, don't jinx it! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I think many of us have made that particular mix up with the acronym soup - I know I have ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   This AFD is confusing. Where do I vote delete? --Errant ^(chat!) 13:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   That'd be WP:EfD... but I don't see Bahamut listed... Worm^TT · (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   But April Fools' Day has been over for a while now! bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral. Moved to Support. Haven't been able to look too closely at the candidates edit record but would have hoped for more obvious content creation from someone who plans on working at XfDs. Still I see some there and ref additions. May come back and take a closer look and support if needed but it currently looks as if that won't be necessary. Lambanog (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Have you seen User:bahamut0013/contributions yet? You'll see that most new pages were created around 2008, which is why you'd have to dig pretty deep to spot them in my contribs log. I'm also not listing there articles created as redirects, since most (all, I think) are still redirects. I don't want to engage in hubris, but I think most of them are in good shape, B-class or so. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   That contribution page helps yes. Sorry I didn't see it earlier. Lambanog (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral, with regret. What I've seen of this user's contributions is favourable, but I cannot endorse an editor with inflammatory fringe views being put in a position of authority. Sorry, Bahamut. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:21, 9 April 2011 (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.