Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/A Link to the Past 2


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

A Link to the Past
Final (33/32/11) ended 05:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

– I first met A Link to the Past when he made some edits to the Disgaea article way back in late 2004, and his passion for the project has always struck me as amazing. He's had a previous RFA, and we've discussed it and I think that ALTTP has seriously made an effort to address the objections previously brought up. His emphasis on improving articles to featured status also shows his dedication to Wikipedia. - RedWordSmith 05:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


 * Accept FTW (or L). - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support - first post (even while on a Wikibreak). BD2412  T 06:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Restating support in light of oppose votes cast subsequent to my initial post. This editor has contributed enough to gain my confidence that he will not abuse the tools - wikibreaks and occasional sarcasm do not dissuade me. BD2412  T 21:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, good editor, not likely to abuse admin powers -- T B  C [[Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif|18px|]] ???   ???   ??? 06:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Would definitely make a good administrator and is a great editor especially on video game related topics. Pegasus1138 Talk 06:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn due to attitude concerns both on wiki and especially towards voters who criticized him while voting either neutral or oppose. I think he'll eventually make a great admin and I'd even be willing to nominate him after a few months but I think he should work on his attitude before becoming an admin.  Due to the fact that he's a great contributor and I don't want to pile on I am going to leave this as a no vote by me and not change it to oppose. Pegasus1138 Talk  02:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) That's hot. Mike H. That's hot 06:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support This is a good editor, and would make a top-notch admin. His additions to game articles have been well-done indeed. Daniel Davis 06:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Just to be completely explicit, Support, of course. - RedWordSmith 06:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, great editor.  jaco plane  07:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I've seen ALttP around before, and I've found him to be a good editor.--Toffile 07:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support meets my criteria fine! - W e zzo (talk) (ubx) 08:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Extreme Adrian Mole support, he should have been promoted the first time. J I P | Talk 09:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support per above.  Grue   11:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Why are so many people opposing? It is as if the revert and block vandal button should only go to people who talk a lot on talk pages-- Exir  Kamalabadi Join Esperanza! 12:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. What do have declining edits with adminship? We have lots of admins that contribute once a month, like User:Joy --HolyRomanEmperor 13:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Looks good L e idiot 13:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support A good editor. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  14:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support --Ter e nce Ong 14:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Strong Support. &mdash; Deckill e r 14:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) --Jaranda wat's sup 15:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support.&mdash; The  i  kiro  id  ( talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話 ) 15:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support per above. Weatherman90 16:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Ral315 (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support -- Jay  (Reply)  18:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Great editor. Gflor e sTalk 18:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Good user. SushiGeek 18:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I think that the more questionable edits of A Link to the Past show that he is outgoing and headstrong. I realize that some people may not like that, but but we need more punctual admins on Wikipedia. --Clyde Miller 18:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Conditional Support: after speaking with you on IRC, based on you continuing to help out in the video-game articles, that you be a little more open and willing to change your ways, that you do a little more vandal fighting, and that for god sakes you play some PSP instead of that silly DS!!!! I think you'll be a good admin, and unlikely to abuse the priveliges, so as admin is no big deal, I'm giving my support, but understand that it's a little weak, and taking some of my suggestions would be a good way to shore up my vote for sure. &rArr;   SWAT  Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  15:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * FTW! -- Rory 0 96 17:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Changed to neutral
 * 1) Support (S). — FireFox • T [19:32, 3 April 2006]
 * 2) I am going to support this time. I believe LTTP when he says that the issues of temperment are behind him. Besides, Adamwankenobi and Copperchair were stubborn enough to drive many people to the brink of insanity. Coffee 20:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support; good, solid editor. Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk? ) 22:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support--Jusjih 15:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support The JPS 16:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Productive editor. I see no major problems with temperament and have worked with this contributor. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 21:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Moral Support Better luck next time. But you definetly deserve more supports than objects. Jedi6  -(need help?)  03:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Moral Support Per the above, you should not get this much opposition, IMHO. Best of luck for next time.  Ban  e  z  22:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support A Link to the Past would be a good admin -- A dam1213 Talk + 05:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose # of edits have been declining lately, what's up? Another is he has a lack of communication with editors through thier talk pages. My final reason for opposing is his responses to the admin questions aren't very promising. M o e   ε  06:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * oppose - I think you have the stuff to be an admin, but not yet ready. its not your temperment, its the way your respond to critisism. While you dont seem "mean" in any sense, your being sarcastic, and that can translate into sounding rude. i think you'll get there eventually Vulcanstar6 01:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This user voted twice, see #19. Jedi6  -(need help?)  03:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per above. --Masssiveego 06:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh? Number of edits has increased in the past two weeks, and I've been working on creating a WikiProject and featuring some articles. As for lack of communication, I had contacted people to discuss things plenty before, and any decline in contacting people was on account of my edits declining. As you can see, March was my sixth most active month in my history as a Wikipedian. As for my responses, what exactly is wrong with them? The articles I featured are varied (real-life, movies and games), my answer to the sysop details didn't seem to have any problems, and the conflict question only includes conflicts months onld. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I suspect the people who have mentioned your declining edit trend are referring to the monthly totals listed by Interiot's tool. It shows an outstanding number of edits for July thru October (ranging between 915 and 1553), however in the five month after your first RfA was withdrawn, it only shows 670 edits total (November through March).  Many of your edits have been absolute top notch and everyone deserves a wikibreak every now and then, however some may feel this is a worrying trend, especially for a prospective admin. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I contact Wikipedians plenty on #wikipedia on FreeNode if I can avoid having to message them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, Number of edits have been declined after month of october and response to standard questions are not satisfactory. Shyam  ( T / C ) 07:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * For one, I was technically on Wikibreak (playing Phoenix Wright, Castlevania DoS and Trauma Center). Clearly, my Wikipedia activity has increased greatly. For another, I do not understand why my answers are unsatisfactory. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't prefer such long wikibreak for being an admin. In the second standard question you did not explain why did you choose contribution in that particular field. On the other hand, answer to third question is totally unsatisfactory because it is asked that did other users have cause you stress in the past? It is not asked whether you have created stress to other users? Shyam  ( T / C ) 08:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It was not like I inteneded to go on a Wikibreak. I merely got caught up in the new games. If I become an admin, I will be sure to balance out my editing and my game playing. Also, I answered the second question adequately - it did not inquire why I chose to edit video game articles in particular. However, I explained why I was satisfied with some of the articles I listed. As for the third one, I clarified why I got wordy and commited personal attacks, which was in response to those who have caused me stress (in particular Adamwankenobi and Copperchair). - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - I'm worried about this candidate's temperament. I'm very happy for him to continue as an editor. - Richardcavell 08:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Temperment? I haven't lashed out at anyone since the time of my last RfA. Honestly, that is in the past now. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - I don't care so much about the edits, but the temperament issue seems pretty large. Most remarkable are the answers to question 3 below and the response to RichardCavell above.  We should never be hearing the words "I've not lashed out since..." from an admin candidate. Moreover, the candidate admits below to committing personal attacks several times. If these aren't indications that a candidate has potential to abuse admin tools, what would be? --Deville (Talk) 17:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You've essentially stated that anyone with any negative record should not be an admin. Any personal attacks made were made many months ago, and I'm confused as to how many people are focusing more so on what someone did then than what they do now. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose 5 months is really not a long time, the "I have not lashed out since..." isn't terribly encouraging to begin with. What has the candidate given us as a track record since then to prove he won't make personal attacks again, etc.? Basically just 2 weeks of recent active participation, the bulk of which seems to be creating redirects. I'm not convinced. --W.marsh 17:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I just worded it that way. Should I have said "not gotten testy with someone since"? As for my recent history, as evidenced by my edit summaries and discussions I've participated in, I have been cooperative, friendly and helpful to other users. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I appreciate your honesty with regards your temperment. I believe that everyone can change themselves for the better. Step up your involvement and interpersonal skills for a few more months, and I will be happy support your nomination. Covington 17:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Since editor's last RfA, his activity level is low. It is thus reasonable to wonder if we have sufficient evidence of his improved temperment yet.  Fewer edits here mean fewer reasons to become angry here. Xoloz 17:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And I HAVE been in discussions (not merely little discussions). The discussions that I HAVE been in show that my temper has been improved significantly. I really think you should be taking into account that fact as much as you are the fact that I once had a bad temper. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. A very good editor, but like Christopher Parham (Neutral #2), there has been too little editing and interaction in recent months to assure me that his "nasty temperament" is gone. I am not encouraged by histories like either, despite the fact that he did eventually try to start a discussion on the talk page. ×Meegs 18:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there was not much else I could do. I couldn't force him to discuss it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Has been involved in some bitter disputes before, and lack of edits doesn't show an improvement in temperment as far as I'm concerned. --InShaneee 18:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose 1) Low number of edits between December and February (as well as the not-so-high number during November and March); 2) Responding to so many (legitimate) oppose votes displays inability to accept criticism; 3) Informing users about your RfA in a way that appears to lead them towards supporting ; 4) The edit summaries, as brought up by someone else, for Thank you Mario... border on incivility; 5) The answers, especially to question one, are vague. I don't mean to pile on; I just wanted to be clear about my complete reason for opposing; the first one alone would have earned an oppose, but the others pushed this toward a strong oppose. joturn e r 20:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What? So because I don't consider something that occured months ago as a legitimate reason to oppose, I show inability to accept criticism? I accepted criticism when I did it, I shouldn't have to accept more for something I am not doing. And what about it? I message three people, and suddenly it's spam? And how am I being incivil in Thank you Mario? I opened a discussion, and the only times I was incivil was when I was responding to a threat of being blocked if I reverted his change. And what is vague about my answers? You seem to include all of them, so I'm curious how I am being vague about question three, or ESPECIALLY question 2. And question 1 - what's vague? Block when necessary, should I detail what I think is necessary despite no question being asked as such? Anyway, I do not think that lack of edits constitutes objecting - I don't see some admins with only one edit in a month on the RfAr. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I dislike the candidate's tone in response to criticism. --Ryan Delaney talk 21:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Oppose Answer to question #1 is too vague, and you haven't been able to clarify it yet despite several invitations to do so; I'd like to hear specific examples of what you want to do, not generalities. This is an important questions that deserves a detailed response. I am concerned by phrases like "I usually try to not bite the newbies" - why "usually"? when do you consider it okay to violate WP:BITE? I just see too much evidence of not listening to others and getting defensive very quickly in your answers here. These are not good attributes for an admin. Sorry. Gwernol 22:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose As many above, I am afraid his temperament hasn't changed. Instead of assuming good faith, he directly speaks about vandalism, warning the editor that he will be banned instead of a more sensible approach. I don't think he will give the warnings as he told Nichalp below. -- ReyBrujo 23:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ban? One, I was not threatening a ban. Two, the editor was not cooperating.
 * Oppose Changing from neutral to oppose per ReyBrujo. JoshuaZ 23:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, I agree with User:Ryan Delaney. --kingboyk 00:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, thought he was one (but that's besides the point). — Apr. 3, '06 <span class="plainlinks" style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">[03:54] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>
 * 3) Oppose, as the tone of the responses to above oppose votes suggests to me that ALttP's temperament may not be currently suited to administrative duties. And vote-pimping (diffs spoted by joturner) is always a negative.    <font color="#007700">Proto  <font color="#555555">||   <font color="#007700">type   11:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) "Temperment? I haven't lashed out at anyone since the time of my last RfA. Honestly, that is in the past now." I don't think so. — Encephalon  18:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) oppose - I think you have the stuff to be an admin, but not yet ready. its not your temperment, its the way your respond to critisism. While you dont seem "mean" in any sense, your being sarcastic, and that can translate into sounding rude. i think you'll get there eventually Vulcanstar6 01:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - responses to criticism right on this page put me off. &mdash; Kimchi.sg | Talk 07:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose I find candidate's conduct on this page to be a worrying sign and bodes badly for a potential admin. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong Oppose. Tone towards oppose voters very argumentative; some things just don't come across well in print. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 12:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Concerns over temperament TigerShark 00:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose, activity concerns me. <font color="#0000FF">Roy <font color="#FF0000">boy cr ash <font color="#FFFFFF">fan [[Image:Flag of Texas.svg|30px]] 01:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong Oppose. I won’t deny that this is partially based on personal experiences with this editor. But please don’t think I haven’t also fairly reviewed his overall and recent history. In fact, that’s part of the problem. As others have stated, the user’s edits dropped off dramatically after his first RfA, and there simply haven’t been enough to prove that his temperament has truly improved. In short, to be an admin, I think he needs to acquire and display a great deal more maturity than his past edits have demonstrated( heck, to be an admin, I think he needs more maturity than I have thus far demonstrated on the Wikipedia). -- WikidSmaht (talk) 04:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. The first notice I took of ALttP was his edit-warring in the Mario article, with only the most cursory attempts at discussion. Although I agreed with his opinion on the AfD, I feel his methods displayed a disregard for other editors which I wouldn't want to see in an admin. --Sneftel 06:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose per all above. Hiding talk 21:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Strong oppose. From what I've seen of him, he causes lots of trouble.  I would make a better admin. Marcus2 02:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't help but think that this post is less concerned about me "causing lots of trouble" and more of me, on several occasions, reverting edits he has made. I would not agree that you would make a better admin - if I recall, you edit war far more than I, and you refuse to cave to a large group of people showing evidence that Mario and Baby Mario are one in the same. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Ral315 (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. The answers to the questions are weak, I am not comfortable.--Adam [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px| ]] [[Image:Flag of Brazil.svg|25px|  ]](talk) 00:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Joturner and Ryan Delaney. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Candidate's tone and revert war history honestly aren't terrible, but admins should strive to behave beyond reproach. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif">Vslashg  (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * Neutral for now. What is the point of this edit? Or this one? Do you edit anything other than video games? - Richardcavell 07:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, the first was an edit in response to him editing my user page to say I hate bears, while the second one is just prose-improvement. As for the final comment, I edit them on occasion, but I don't think the articles I tend to edit has any relevance to how good of an admin I can be. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Ordinarily, four-five months would be more than enough to allay the concerns that caused me to opposed last time; but you have barely edited in that time period. Not really enough recent information to make a qualified judgment. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I AM starting a WikiProject, and most of my last 500 edits have been in this month. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But it's still only about 500 edits since you were last at RfA. Anyway, I'm not going to oppose, but I think you should have waited until you were better reestablished. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why in the world should his edit count even matter? Aside from a bad case of editcountitis, I am seeing no logical reason for, to be honest, any of these oppose votes at all. Link to the Past has shown a good, honest temperament and he contributes significantly to the project. It shouldn't matter whether or not "it's only been xxx" edits- it's the QUALITY of his edits that matter, not how many he can stuff into the course of a day. LTTP isn't a rulebreaker, the edits he makes are of good quality, and he has been shown to be honest and fair in dealing with people. Really people, why oppose solely based upon the number of edits that a person has made? It doesn't determine a person's worth, nor their dedication to the project either. I could understand if we were talking about someone who was a new user with maybe a hundred edits or so, but LTTP is a well-established, respected individual on Wikipedia who has contributed significantly to the goals and standards set forth. Daniel Davis 08:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me explain -- last time, I opposed on the basis that LTTP had a poor temperment and did not stay cool under fire. Since that time, I assume that he has solved these issues, but because he has been mostly inactive, he has not had an opportunity to demonstrate that the problems pointed out at his last RfA have been remedied. Edit counts are merely a proxy for his obvious inactivity over the time period since his last RfA; feel free to ignore the mention of any numbers. The point is that there is insufficient evidence that the problems shown last time have been solved. Consequently I feel unable to support. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And frankly, histories like and  are not very encouraging. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral leaning support lots of experience, but too specialised for my liking. Continue editing. Computerjoe 's talk 09:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, as that extremely long period of time with no edits is worrisome, and even after returning, the number of edits per month (for March) is quite low. Not extreme enough to oppose, but enough to not support. — Cuivi é  nen , Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 13:51 (UTC)
 * Neutral (changed vote based on canidate's response), mostly because of Thank you Mario, but our princess is in another castle!, there has been no discussion on the talkpage, all arguments have been thru edit summaries. Even though nobody from this debate bothered to post a statement on the talkpage (making them all guilty of poor communication) I'd expect a budding admin to go the extra inch or mile to try and resolve the issue through discussion. It's not enough to warrant an "oppose" vote, but it puts a blot on his record large enough that I'm inclined to refrain from voting "support".--<tt> The </tt> i  kiro  id  ( talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話 ) 15:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I opened a discussion on an improperly moved page, so it would not have been moved. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, so I see. Well, I suppose I'll change my vote to support then. My bad.--<tt> The </tt> i  kiro  id  ( talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話 ) 15:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Leaning towards support. The candidate seems sincere and qualified but I would prefer slightly longer to verify that the candidate has reformed. JoshuaZ 17:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Back to neutral since the cited diffs were from december.
 * Well, personally, I think people should focus on how I've acted as much as they focus on my activity. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Per answers to questions. Rob Church (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, seems a bit lackadaisical in regard to admin duties. Can't support on that basis, but it isn't a reason to oppose. Stifle 20:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral, per Computerjoe and Stifle. &mdash; Rebelguys2 <sup style="color:#CC5500;">talk 21:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral. - Mailer Diablo 02:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral — A1 below is very vague. Also has seemed too defensive on this RfA—RfA is no big deal, remember. ;) Support in a month-ish if better answers to questions are given. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral, as I know realize this is the guy who saw Sean Black talking about Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle! in #wikipedia and then redirected it (I thought as a joke) saying it wasn't notable, then when reverted kept going and never brought it to AfD. -- <i style="color:orange;">Rory</i> 0 <b style="color:orange;">96</b> 03:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not bring articles to the AfD with the intention to merge. The AfD is NOT for finding consensus on whether to merge/redirect an article, and someone on this "AfD" of yours said so. On top of that, you have absolutely refused to discuss this like a civilized Wikipedian and have continued to ignore me. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You did not merge, though, you simply redirected (effectively deleting it), even re-redirecting over objections. You then called me a vandal rather than discussing it calmly on the talk page (though you commented on the talk page later, while still redirecting whenever reverted instead of waiting for consensus).  You then redirected a REDIRECT to the article to Super Mario Bros. BTW, I do not own AfD.  Hell, I didn't even nominate that one. --24.46.201.42 21:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There was nothing to be merged. The only thing that needs to be mentioned on the Super Mario Bros. page is its popularity. And you should not call the kettle black. If I recall, you've absolutely refused to even attempt discussing it on the talk page. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't feel there was anything to discuss. I thought you were joking the entire time! -- <i style="color:orange;">Rory</i> 0 <b style="color:orange;">96</b> 04:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - Last time around, I did say I would support in the future. But, there hasn't been enough activity since then for me to support now. FreplySpang (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments


 * Edit summary usage: 97% for major edits and 90% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 06:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See A Link to the Past's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
 * You'll delete when necessary, block when necessary and protect when necessary. Could you expand that a bit? A case study: What would you do if a newbie/IP adds unnecessary (but not false) content to a page and continues to do so despite reverting those edits? (He refuses to use a talk page). =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll give the user a few warnings, and if they does not stop, I will block the user. I usually try to not bite the newbies. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you please specify an email address? This is a very important mode of communication, particularly for admins, who may need to be contacted by users who are blocked from editing. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 00:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Zeldaalttp@gmail.com . - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Erm, I mean can you specify that in your preferences so that others can email you with the "email this user" function? Thanks. :) Dmcdevit·t 08:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * To editors questioning dropoff of edits: ALTTP is a hardcore Nintendo DS player, and around that time some games considered to be very good for that system came out (heh sorry ALTTP, not going to say I like them). As ALTTP edits a lot of videogame articles, I feel the drop off in edits to play some of these games is more than justified: ALTTP needs to be up to date in the genre he's chosen. This little break helped him do that. &rArr;  <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  02:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I would have liked to have heard that from A Link to the Past himself. And that certainly cannot explain only sixteen edits in February. joturn e r 03:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My birthday was on the 31st of January, and I had been playing Animal Crossing: Wild World, and got Dragon Quest VIII plus Ape Escape 3 for my birthday. - A Link to the Past (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: I'll delete when necessary, block when necessary and protect when necessary. I'll continue on fighting vandalism as I do now, and not abuse my power to get my way.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: Wario, Henry Fonda, Lakitu, Cat and Katamari Damacy are all articles I helped feature. I am pleased with Wario, Lakitu and Katamari Damacy becoming FAs because few would even bother attempting to feature them.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: In the past, I have had a nasty temperment. I would get mouthy towards some people, and I would sometimes commit personal attacks on people. Users such as Adamwankenobi and Copperchair are two of those who have sparked my temper, because of their bad faith edits. However, in the past several months, I've improved my temperment. I have also not been blocked before.

Questions from JoshuaZ


 * 1. Please expand on question 3 above, with difs if possible. Also please explain in more detail how your behavior in such matters have changed since your last RfA.
 * Well, in all discussions I've had since, I haven't had any outbursts, commited any personal attacks, and I've kept multiple reverts down.
 * 2.' Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without prior direction from Arb Com?
 * I would attempt to not indef. block people without going through the process, unless the user is a constant offender that is commiting serious offenses. Even then, I'd try to get advice from long-time administrators. Now, I demand cheese puffs and girls.


 * Additional questions from Rob Church


 * 1) A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
 * Well, as evidenced by my recent edit history, I have been mostly calm towards edit wars and uncooperative users, so I think that even with the power over them, I think I could control myself. I was an op for fifteen seconds at #wikipedia and I didn't ban anyone. :P
 * 1) Why do you want to be an administrator?
 * Absolute power over all (kidding). Such minor reasons are to be able to fix redirect things (where you can't move an article to a certain page because of an improper redirect), protecting pages when necessary, and helping out with closing AfDs.
 * 1) In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
 * Well, if you mean do I think that admins have power over others or just have power to use, then I believe the latter.

Thanks. Rob Church (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Addtional question from John Reid:


 * 1) Would you care to explain in detail the dramatic decline in your participation from November 2005 onward?
 * I was caught up in a flood of DS games (I got Advance Wars DS at the end of September, Phoenix Wright and Castlevania DoS at the middle, Trauma Center at the end, and Meteos/Mario & Luigi 2/Animal Crossing WW for Christmas). Phoenix Wright is a pretty addictive game, and it caused me to neglect my editing duties. At the moment, I'm playing Dragon Quest VIII and Ouendan, both addictive games, but am editing regardless.


 * Additional question from Vulcanstar6 22:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) may i ask how old you are? I notice you mainly contribute to video game and fictional character articles.
 * I'm not sure why you wish to know, but I am nineteen.
 * Comment/Question: is this question relevant to anything on this page, or is it a generalization probe? &mdash; Deckill e r 22:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The above 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.