Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/OverlordQ 2

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

OverlordQ

Nomination

Final: (72/15/4); closed as successful by Kingturtle at 17:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

OverlordQ (talk · contribs) – OverlordQ has been a Wikipedian for nearly five years now. In that time he has distinguished himself as a highly productive member of the community. I met OQ when I first became active in WP:BAG activities, as he was already a bot operator and member of the Bot Approvals Group. Over the last several months I've watched him continue to work and develop.

OverlordQ did have a prior RFA over a year ago. It cited his lack of communication when editing as a primary reason for its failure. Since then OverlordQ has been an active member of Account Creator, a task that requires communication and coordination among its members. He has also been communicative in the BAG.

OQ has been active for the long haul, has shown himself to be dedicated to the various maintenance tasks in the community, and trustworthy in applying policy judgment of things like usernames at ACC and bots at BAG. I think we can now trust him to apply similar judgment as an administrator. MBisanz ^talk 09:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I respectfully accept this nomination. Q ^{T C} 12:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: If it was as easy as saying "Go read my other RfA" this would be a short answer. However, my opinions have changed since then. The areas that MBisanz mentioned above are likely to be some of the main areas I would focus in. There are lots of little things that come up when working with ACC and BOTS that the admin bit would make easier. From cleaning up after errant bots, finding active vandals that slip through the cracks or finding WP:U violations in ACC. Also taking care of basic maintenance like G7 or G8's when I come across them when I take some time out to RC Patrol. It would allow me to handle these situations myself without having to add to any backlog or bother another person about.

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

A: I think some of my best contributions to Wikipedia have been in the area Mbisanz mentioned. I'd like to think I'm more of a enabler then a creator. I like to be sure that the writing geniuses have their room to work while I keep their space tidy. My style lends to writing about things such as an accurate list of cars in a movie to foods in a TV show. I know what Wikipedia isn't, but I find myself better at fleshing out specific areas, then creating the meat and potatoes.

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: In my previous RfA I mentioned this a bit, but in the meantime I honestly can't recollect a time since then that I would consider a conflict between myself and another users. The furthest point it may have reached was respectful disagreement, but nothing that I would consider uncivil. I'd like to think I have a cooler head then when I first started editing a couple years ago.

Optional Question from I'm Spartacus! (You knew me under my old name of Balloonman)

4. OverlordQ, about a year ago we hooked up as a coach/coachee. For those interested the coaching page and my assessment can be found here. I eventually ended up dropping you as a coachee because you never responded to numerous inquiries on both your talk page and the coaching page. I don't mind that you chose not to go through with coaching, and enough time has passed that even if I did I wouldn't hold it against you. The concern that I have is that you never responded to my queries. It's been 11 months since I terminated our "coaching" relationship, but could you share why you chose not to pursue it and why you failed to respond to my queries?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And I do apologize for that, I started out with good intentions on completing the coaching 'course' but I became mired in things that required my time off-wiki. My time on-wiki in late March, early April was relegated to pages I came across while I was doing coursework. When I came back on the 10th of April, after you left your message. I'll admit that it had slipped my mind as I had forgotten to watchlist the AC sub-page. Once I finally remembered, about a week had elapsed, and I realize I should have explained myself at that time, instead of now. Q ^{T C} 17:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

5. Follow-up: I wish you had shared the information above with me a year ago, I would have been willing to work with you and your constraints, it was just the sudden disappearance without any word from you for over a month that bothered me. I wouldn't mind it if you had said, "our personalities didn't mesh" or "this isn't what I want/need" but it was the lack of communication that bothered me. Like I said, this is a year old so it won't be the basis for an oppose, but it might hold me back from supporting. I'll take a look at your edits, I do remember having a generally favorable opinion of your potential a year ago. The question I have for you now, is how have you improved your game based upon feedback from your first RfA?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That's one of the things I think I've learned since the last one, communication is key. I'll admit that in the past, I've not communicated well, but everybody has their own little nits they have to work at, and communication is one of them that I've worked on and continue to work at. Q ^{T C} 05:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from roux  

6. I'm going to be asking this of all RFA candidates now. I personally feel that openness to recall is essential in admin; what the community giveth the community must also be able to taketh away. In my opinion, MBisanz has the most robust, streamlined, and intelligent criteria I have seen, and we have seen it work precisely as intended. What do you think of recall in general, MBisanz' version in particular, and should your RFA pass will you hold yourself to the same standard as MBisanz?

As for recall in general, I think it's a policy which should be implemented on a wider scale. Once somebody is nominated the only real check they have is if they do something egregious and end up at say ArbCom. There needs to be a middle step and I think MBisanz' process fills that niche nicely. It allows established editors to bring up their grievances in a way that isn't quite so drama filled as RFAR. It also establishes some good criterion to limit who exactly can nominate and !vote, to keep out those who are new enough that they might not fully understand the policies involved and somehow feel they're being singled out. If my RFA does pass, I will put myself in the group of admins open to recall, as for the process it will be similar to MBisanz' but I'll likely look at the individual criterion and might adjust them as I see fit. Q ^{T C} 05:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Carlossuarez46:

7a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

A: First instinct would be to leave the article alone, I'm sure it would be irritating for the user to come back and find it deleted. However, both the template documentation and the CSD guidelines state that this is not the case. Since the only real content of the article is the external link it would qualify for A3 speedy deletion. If the original creator of the article was still active (last edit within say an hour), I'd likely drop them a note and see if they were still working on it. I'd give them a similar amount of time to reply before carrying out the deletion. Afterwords, I'd leave them a follow-up suggesting to work on the article in their user-space so they'd have time to improve it at their leisure.

7b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template; if so, what say you?

A: I would delete the article immediately per A3 as there hadn't been any material contributions to the article unlike the above case.

7c. Editor1 adds relevant properly sourced, but controversial, material to an article and Editor2 removes it; Editor1 readds it; and Editor2 removes it again, would a re-add by Editor1 be a 3RR violation? If Editor2 removes it again, would Editor2 be in violation of 3RR? Is anything different if one of the deletes was made by Editor3?

A: Well lets try to run these questions down one by one. First, E1 adds the text. There's an edit. E2 reverts, there's an edit. E1 re-adds, there's another edit bringing his to two. E2 reverts, bringing his edit count to two. Next, 3RR describes reverts as undoing the actions of another editor. Applying this to the above, Editor 1 would have only had 1 revert (re-adding the content, a 'revert' of Editor 2's removal). However both of Editor 2's actions are reverting Editor 1's changes so Editor 2 would have two 'strikes' against him. Now being pedantic, 3RR says more then three in a 24 hour period. As I counted, each of the editors had only made 2 modifications to the article, with the number of reverts at one and two respective. Although they might have violated the spirit of the policy, they have not violated the letter. If this involved a BLP I would likely get the opinion of one experienced in this matters at WP:BLP/N, in addition to suggesting the involved parties talk it out on the Talk page, or follow some of the suggested steps on 3RR before they did violate the letter of the policy and the edit war escalates.

7d. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?

A: Kind of? This is a tough question to really answer. Each must be judged on their own merits with the relevant facts involved. There needs to be a good faith effort to hear out every side in the case. You also have to consider that the prevailing opinion on that individual case might not mesh with the overall ideals of the wiki, and you must take that into account as well.

Additional question from JustGettingItRight (talk):

8. This is a "case study" question. I am a newly registered editor and I attempt to refute the theory of Evolution by editing the Evolution article. My sources come from Answers in Genesis, which I believe to be rock-solid sources on par with your secular "peer-reviewed" journals, which I personally view to have a closed shop bias. Immediately after I make my first edit, my edit is reverted in a very impersonal way. Not knowing the 3RR rule, I edit again in an attempt to insert what is factual information showing scientific dispute against evolution (this is what I believe anyways). After my fourth revert, I get a message from one editor on my talk page to quit disrupting Wikipedia by adding pseudoscientific information and I'm in violation of 3RR. I now perceive Wikipedia to be a bullying cabal of meanies and you gdt some sense of my frustration in my responses to complaints. You receive a complaint about my behavior, specifically I'm disrupting the Evolution page and I violated 3RR. How would you handle this situation? JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/OverlordQ
• Requests for adminship/OverlordQ 2

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

---

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

Discussion

• While I know others might have additional questions for me, I may be unavailable for a moderate period of time over this weekend. I will check back and reply as time permits. Q ^{T C} 13:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support. Most definitely. Malinaccier P. (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Yeeeeeeeeeessssssss I see no problems, would be a benefit to the community in that role. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 13:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Strong support. He has always been a very trustworthy figure to me. No qualms here, as any extra help from a trustworthy and clueful guy is always helpful. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 13:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support - Thought he already was one, etc. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. Looks good, and I can trust Julian's judgment on the ACC stuff and MBisanz's judgment on the WP:BOTS stuff. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Gazimoff 13:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Support I can speak from the ACC side of things, where I have never had a negative experience with him, and having another admin who is comfortable and responsible with bots would be an asset to the project. Never been blocked, and he has a better userpage than me too...--Terrillja _talk 15:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Strong support. Wizardman 16:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support: As a fellow member of the BAG, I have seen nothing that would make me think he was not perfectly suited to the role of administrator. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Support I'm happy with Q and his work. FlyingToaster 17:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Contributions to articles may be lacking, but is fine otherwise and is unlikely to be a problem. Majorly talk 17:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Support, there is clear evidence that OverlordQ is trustworthy, sensible and has a good use for the tools in areas he is competent in. He's amply demonstrated a commitment to improving the encyclopedia, even if that was not in the form of article building - it's all good. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Support No problems and a net positive.--Giants27 ^T/C 19:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Support - Won't break the Wiki, every time I have interacted with him he has been nothing short of a delight. — neuro^(talk) 19:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Support Looks trustworthy and I see no reason to oppose. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 19:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Support — At one point, I thought he was one already. After realizing that he wasn't, I wondered why he wasn't. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Support. bibliomaniac15 21:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
18. Support Looks good. LittleMountain5 ^review! 22:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
19. Support - Would have supported a long time ago. Xclamation point 22:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
20. Support As nom. MBisanz ^talk 22:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
21. Support No problems here. Good luck. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
22. Support No issues and good user.America69 (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
23. Weak Support Has done well with anti-vandalism work, but needs to do more encyclopedic contributions. -download | sign! 02:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
24. Support - wonder why he wasn't one already? Good editor in many ways, but also per download: more "meaty" edits. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 04:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
25. Support. I'd trust OverlordQ with the admin tools. wodup 04:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Looks good. Admin is no big deal, and the candidate has a good idea what he wants/needs the admin bit for. Ray^Talk 05:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
27. Synergy 10:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
28. Very Strong Support - I was considering nominating him myself! Macromonkey (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
29. Strong Support I was surprised he wasn't already one. :O FunPika 17:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
30. Support. User has demonstrated the capacity to be trusted with the admin tools. ERK ^talk 20:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
31. I seem to remember having a reason to oppose, but I can't think of it. Because of that, I'm applying the clue test, and OverlordQ passes. Stifle (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
32. Support Lack of article work isn't an issue, candidate has demonstrated trustworthyness and clue. He's not going to use the tools in any way that harms the project and there are many ways in which he can use them to benefit the project within his interests. What more do you want in an admin? Phil153 (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
33. Support - This user's work has been good. I agree with MBisanz on this! Best, Versus22 _talk 05:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
34. Support One of the sane BAG members. BJ^Talk 08:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
35. Support - Writing articles isn't the only way to contribute, and I see no reason not to support. Richard⁰⁶¹² 11:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
36. Support - Great contributor and will make a great admin. shirulashem (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
37. Support Strongly. Administrators don't need to be experts at article writing. That's why they're given a mop, not a pen. ThemFromSpace 18:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Unlikely to break the Wiki or delete the main page. Trusilver 18:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
39. Support No reason why not, while OverlordQ is not the most prolific article writer there is no reason to believe he can't do the job or would do poorly at it. —Nn123645 (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
40. Support - You have contributed a lot and I have not found anything that makes me think you will fail my criteria. Your editing patterns of using automated tools and not having overwhelming content contributions don't concern me. My thoughts on the AOR issue should be quite obvious with my membership and commitment to CAT:AOR. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
41. Support - per answer to my question & see no reason to think abuse of the tools is likely. I for one welcome our new OverlordQ...er...overlords. //roux   21:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
42. Support I see no big issues. The communication weakness has been acknowledged as a big learning point, and admins (especially!) need to be able to demonstrate willingness to learn. --GedUK  22:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
43. Support I don't see any reason why not Alexfusco⁵ 23:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
44. 'Support I think that he is qualified. Good previous edits, Coaching problem was resolved. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 00:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
45. Support - no probs here - Fastily (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
46. Support – I think many times Wikipedians overlook the efforts that go on at WP:BAG and all that automated mumbo-jumbo that those Wikipedians not versed in bots do not understand. User would make a good contribution as an admin at BAG and ACC. MuZemike 16:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
47. Support. Rami R 20:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
48. Support Everything seems to be in order for you to make a good admin. §hep^Talk 20:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
49. Support. Some people see a lack of communication. I see a lack of drama. Tan | 39 22:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
50. Support. Will be a good admin. Frehley^{Space Ace} 23:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
51. Support Whichever side a candidate takes on a policy issue such as a recall system for admins I don't feel it appropriate to oppose them for this in an RFA. I also see some opposers are citing communication issues, perhaps if the candidate had a clearer link from their talk page to User talk:OverlordQ/Archive 2 there would be fewer such opposes. WereSpielChequers 15:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
52. Strong support Very helpful and very resourceful when needed this user would make a great candidate. Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 16:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
53. Support I cant steal his UI then oppose =p §hawnhath 16:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
54. Support Erik9 (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
55. Absolutely.  GARDEN  23:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
56. Support Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
57. Support Prodego ^talk 18:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
58. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - long-time, safe User, awards from Users whom I respect, has used a Bot, and has rollback. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
59. Support. Appears trustworthy. Rosiestep (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
60. Support As nom from the first time around. GlassCobra 21:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
61. Weak support On balance, I feel he will be a User:Pedro/Net Positive 2 net positive to Wikipedia and the admin corps at large. There are several concerns, but anyone who has been around a while will have some faults, as I can attest. Enigma^msg 22:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
62. Oh hell yes. OQ is one of the most trusted users over at ACC, and has the highest access level possible over there. There have been no problems of trust, and he's technically competant, so I have absolutely no issues. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 23:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
63. Support You definitely seem to be sufficiently experienced in the areas you say you want to work in. Better mainspace contribs would make me more enthusiastic, but to each his own, and I trust the nom. Best of luck! Steven Walling (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
64. Support User has been around since April 2004 and had his/her last RFA in Feb 2008 and over 1 year ago and user has improved and overcame the concerns raised to large extent through some concerns do remain.After checking user track feel that the user will not misuse tools also trust the judgement of Mibanz.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
65. Support, user has clue --Chris 12:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
66. Accepted User has many helpful bots. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 19:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
67. Support I don't think s/he'll misuse the tools. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
68. Support A lack of encyclopedia-building is not an issue to me, as the user has demonstrated being trustworthy. hmwithτ 21:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
69. Support Will be a good administrator based on the positive work I've looked at in other areas. Camw (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
70. Support: During this critical juncture of wikipedia it is highly important that we elect this user, he will take us to places we cannot imagine and will oversee the successful expansion of wikipedia worldwide. South Bay (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
71. Weak support. There are some concerns, but overall, the candidate will be an asset to the community. DiverseMentality 01:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
72. No major concerns. Acalamari 15:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I appreciate the technical know-how of the user, but even a cursory look at the article contributions reveals a distinct lack of collaboration for the encyclopedia. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

   Basically there is no improvement from the last RfA. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose No improvement to the encyclopedia. (i.e. no article creation, improvement, DYKs, GAs, or/and FAs). I said that I would support on the last RFA if he contributed to the encyclopedia, but I don't really see a change. miranda 17:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose Use of talk pages is very poor. On article talk pages there are only three edits so far this year and only 10 since last August. On user talk pages, it's almost entirely warnings and templates. Admins need to be able to talk to people, to reason with them. Dean B (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose I've been thinking about this heavily tonight, and I initially stated that I wouldn't oppose this RfA, but I have since changed my mind—not because new evidence has come to light, but because of reasons already stated. I have general concerns, as stated in my neutral below, but I'm also struggling to get past the fact this user has no experience just improving articles. I'm usually fairly lenient with regards to this, but no article creation or improvements per Miranda is really worrying for me. I know everyone isn't in this camp, but I am. Regards, and best of luck. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose We need to end this bot centered madness before they rise up and overthrow humanity.... but seriously, I don't see enough adminy related experience nor anything to really trust you over. I don't really see much to be honest. I will keep an eye and if anything changes that really makes me feel as if there is any experience, sure, but it would have to be something new than what is provided here. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

   Note - I don't count script based actions when considering experience. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

6. Oppose per all reasons stated above by others. There's not much article improvement/creation and just not much experience in the areas considered necessary for adminship. Timmeh! 20:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose. I cannot support any candidate who claims to be open to recall. Recall promises are made ad captandum vulgus, are unenforceable, and have a vanishingly small chance of removing problem admins given the historical record. Skinwalker (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not entirely sure what you are expecting from the candidate here. While I agree that being open to recall is an arbitrary and useless gesture that can be then ignored and discarded whenever you feel like (User:Elonka sufficiently proved that), I don't see what the answer would have bene that you would find acceptable. Would it have been better if the candidate instead said they would not be open to recall with a detailed explanation why? Trusilver 18:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

   Well, I don't want to put words in candidate's mouths, but something simple like "I decline to be open to recall" would suffice. A detailed explanation would be nice too. Acknowledgement that voluntary recall is an unenforceable mess would earn additional brownie points. I don't think the issue will swing an RFA either way. Skinwalker (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

   Talk about a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. These !votes should be banned, but hey, I know this won't alter anyone's opinion. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

   The problem is that this question has already been debated back in August and at Ani Wherein the community loudly decried the practice of asking this question, to quote Dragons Flight, It has a divisive and destructive influence at RFA, since one can't refuse this "voluntary" process without some people assumming you are unfit to lead. The only good that came out of that discussion was how unpopular the question in question is and a general consensus that it should not be asked at RfA's.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   There's a current discussion on the talk page of Ironhold's RFA. Link? I don't need no stinkin' link - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

8. Oppose -- Due to the lack of article contributions, the techy stuff is great for an admin, but they must know how to edit articles when they must face edits that they need to address on articles, and lack of experience won't serve them well.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose Per the reasons already stated above. Just doesn't seem to be much communication, created articles, DYK, FA, etc.Fredrik • Wilhelm ^U|_T|^C 04:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Regretfully - you mention wanting to be involved in CSD, but I don't see too much recent experience there. Also, reviewing your contributions, it seems that perhaps 75-80% are vandal reversions. I'd prefer to see more demonstrable experience in admin-related areas. However, aside from these things, you seem to be a productive user and have a fine record here, so I'd consider a future support. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose "I won't support a candidate who is open to recall because it doesn't work." Hipocrite (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose Would prefer to see more content contributions from the user. Juppiter (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Mediocre articlespace content contribution. Limited collaboration with other editors. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose per Wisdom89 and Fredrik Wilhelm and a lack of communication with others. Effectively communicating with other editors in a civil tone is far from making drama.--Caspian blue 17:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

    With Wikipedia growing everyday and the everlasting administrative backlogs, more administrators will only benefit the project. There are never too many. DiverseMentality 01:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

    I disagree. Old admins need to be removed if new ones are to be added. Too many admins = problems. I think there are enough already. DougsTech (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

    However, with administrators retiring more often now, old admins are being removed. Xclamation point 10:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral My only contact with OverlordQ has been at Requests for Bot Approval. Suffice to say that I think the bot approval group is about as useful as a chocolate teapot, with problematic bots regularly approved against protests from the community. Have a look at OverlordQ's contribution to the approval of Betacommand's last bot task Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/BetacommandBot_Task_9 (You'll need to search for "Q T C"). I will not oppose, because maybe you've improved in the last year, but I'm not impressed by either the judgment or the communication. AKAF (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

   I see some disagreements with you (which I agreed with you on), but I don't see anything uncivil or "wrong" with OverlordQ's comments during that discussion. Do you have any diffs, by any chance? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 17:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

   Depends what you mean. His comments were not uncivil, but it is clear to me that on the point of Betacomand's problematic behaviour he was part of the problem, not the solution. At that point it was extremely clear that Betacommand was a problematic editor, but this was neither communicated by OverlordQ nor reflected in his judgement. AKAF (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not sure if I'm willing to support this or not yet, but I certainly won't be opposing. My only encounter with OverlordQ has been on ACC where he blocked my access because of one mistake on there, which was a genuine mistake rather than a blatant or even slight attempt to abuse the tool. I'm not convinced whether or not this rash judgement will spread onto the encyclopaedia as an admin, and I certainly don't want an admin who is willing block users without much thought. I'm not sure whether this is the case, and I'll be looking more deeply into his contributions. Also, because this happened off-wiki, I'm not convinced this is worth any weight, so don't worry yourselves with it. Just consider this the ramblings of a uncertain voter. In addition to this, he lacks what I seek in most candidates, the ability to actually edit the encyclopaedia. Please don't badger this vote, I'm still considering supporting, I've just got more thinking to do. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Switched to oppose. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

   Cyclonenim, I was around when Overlord blocked your ACC access. I believe that OverlordQ temporarily blocked you because since ACC has only one function that isn't exactly a critical matter, it would be best for you to show up in the right place to explain your action and allow him to explain to your mistakes so that you would not make that mistake in the future. I might have just left a note on your talk page reminding you that AOL uses very few proxies, so I can see where you are coming from, but I just wanted to explain what OverlordQ was thinking. (OverlordQ, please feel free to correct me if you feel I misinterpreted your action.) NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 18:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

   Me and OverlordQ have discussed the matter on his talk page afterwards, and it's a resolved issue and I understand why he did it. I just don't agree that a block was necessary for a long-term user, with an otherwise flawless record, making a genuine, non-damaging mistake. As you said, I think a talk page message would have been much more appropriate. I mean, what if I didn't have access to IRC? Also, the block message left no note of who conducted the block, which made it hard to discuss the issue even when I did show up to IRC. In the end, I had to find out from Stwalksterer. Anyway, I'm still thinking this through and will let you know when I've come to a conclusion. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

   The ACC tool unfortunately lives in this strange limbo area as far as policies go. It is a tool for the English Wikipedia, but exists on the Toolserver which is a WMDE entity. So there's a strange amalgam of policies/laws regarding private user information, so on there we (tool admins) tend to err on the side of caution and with a heavy hand. And as you pointed out, one of the things we're (tool devs) working on is to allow better communication regarding requests. Since as it is now the only way to be sure somebody gets your message is to suspend them and chat about it. If anybody is wondering the incident in question, it was regarding a request for an account from an AOL proxy. Wikipedia has an exemption from AOL in that they receive the X-Forwarded-For header which contains the real users IP, the toolserver does not have this exemption so we only get the Proxy addresses which are (likely) all banned with prolific amounts of vandalism. (Correct me if I'm wrong) Cyclonenim dropped this request due to IPs contribs/banned status without knowing about the technical details behind it. Which is why I the temporarily suspended him so I could have a chance to talk with him before any more AOL requests came through. Q ^{T C} 05:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral From glancing at OverlordQ's editing history (using wikichecker), I noticed his/her activity seems very sporadic...there are weeks at a time with no edits or only a couple edits, then several-day-long bursts with hundreds of automated HG/TW edits. That isn't necessarily something to oppose for, since it just means the user has a life (and, besides, if he/she is planning to use admin tools to facilitate bot work and things like that, there's still a good case for giving him/her the tools), but it does at least make me wonder. I know admins aren't required to devote their lives to Wikipedia or to even use the tools at all, but at the same time, should there be a certain level of dependability in when you can expect an admin to be around? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

   Why do you think there might? It seems to me that there are few cases where other admins can't step in. Skomorokh 03:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

   I agree with you that it's probably not a problem, which is why I only made a comment rather than !voting. I just wasn't sure if it makes a difference or not. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

3. I can't support someone who's barely touched newpage patrol. DS (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate has some nice barnstars, but oppose per [1] (it is a discussion, not a vote and this article eventually reached Good status). Thus, some positive, one cause for concern. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:23, 17 March 2009 (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.