Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Andypandy.UK


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

Andypandy.UK
Final(69/27/0) Ended 09:26, 2006-07-22 (UTC)

– As the format seems popular let's start by ticking off the basics:


 * Edit count - Over 5100.
 * Time around - 5 full months of editing.
 * Email enabled? - Yes, and answered.
 * Controversial userpage? - No.
 * Any blocks? - No.
 * Stupid signature? - No.
 * Edit summaries - 99% for major edits and 83% for minor edits according to Mathobot. Scanning recent contribs suggests Andy does usually use them pretty well, just occasionally not for genuinely minor edits.
 * Civil? No person attacks? - Yes.
 * Mistakes - The one he pointed out to me (via email, while discussing a potential nomination) was this 3RR report. Andy's response did show that a mistake had been made, but I'm pretty sure that is a mistake that won't be repeated. That is the sort of thing I want to see in an admin- we can't be perfect, but we can learn from mistakes to improve.
 * Any edit warring? - No.

Contributions review:

Please note that I have attempted to make this a fair and representative survey of the users work. Therefore some diffs may show 'bad edits'. Whilst I obviously want this nomination to succeed, I think giving people an informed and complete picture of the candidate is more important than 'skipping over' anything that might not be quite perfect in an attempt to make this happen.


 * Article: This includes removing/reverting spam , vandal reverting   , creating Gabe, creating articles in response to request for creations (e.g The Curiosity of Chance).
 * Article talk: Shows an understanding of WP:NPOV (note may be deleted soon, as article if up on AFD), WP:V, and WP:NPA . Does plenty of minor, but sill important jobs like  and . Vandal reverting here as well.
 * User: Mostly vandal reverts and to own page. Occasional other
 * User talk: Warning users, general editing messages, welcomes etc. Started off in a rather worrying way but that's sorted now with full archives (including posts originally deleted). In example of interaction with an IP while doing spam cleanup can be found at User_talk:84.75.130.173.
 * Wikipedia: WP:AIV is where I first spotted Andy. The number of times his username appeared on my watchlist against that page was too much (I recently awarded a barnstar for it) for me to resist investigating a possible RFA nomination. The vast majority of Andy's reports result in a block for vandalism   . There was one case when the reported user hadn't been vandalising according to policy . This was raised on Andy's talk page. It turned out that another admin blocked the user, and a block was certainly justified for disruption, if not vandalism. There are other edits to AIV to show that Andy does understand when users shouldn't be blocked , and generally demonstrate someone who likes to help with cleanup  . Good WP:AFD contributions   . This MFD vote shows an understanding of WP:BITE. Understands that AFD is not a vote . Member of WikiProject Spam  (as if you couldn't tell from contribs!) Articles for creation is another areas Andy has a large number of edits in. These focus on cleaning up spam/vanity articles etc. Also contributes to RFA, feature picture candidates.
 * Wikipedia talk: Only 3 edits, about warning templates.
 * Image: Uploads, edits. Some good additions to articles. One fair use image deleted because it stopped being used in article, another author request. Images appear to be correctly tagged as fair use.
 * Others: No edits yet.

Summary:

I believe Andy is ideally suited as the janitorial admin, and will be a great mop wielder. In case this becomes an issue I will say this now: I have argued several times over various RFAs (including mine) that a good admin is not necessarily a good article editor and vice versa. Of course, prolific article makers can be good admins, but I don't believe this is a pre-requisite for the job. Having people around who can do a good job of helping clear out the 'grunt work' admin backlogs (or helping them avoid forming in the first place) releases those who have more of a talent for article writing to get on with the job. Article maintenance and cleanup is also vital in our goal of presenting a high quality encyclopaedia. I have found no reason to believe Andy will abuse the admin tools. He has agreed to let me keep a close eye on his admin actions if this nomination is successful (I think the 'mentorship' idea suggested a few times on the RFA talk page is a good one), so this nomanation is backed by more than just my rambling speech ;-) Petros471 22:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I happily Accept. Andeh 09:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support Hey I'm first for a change! TruthCrusader 09:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Nominator support. I guess this is needed for those who count !votes. As usual with my nominator support's it should be pretty obvious from the nomination why I'm supporting ;-) Petros471 09:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support :) --Ter e nce Ong (Chat 10:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) I was Andy once (Andy123) and Cliche support. --Nearly Headless Nick 10:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) M e rovingian (T, C, @) 10:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per nom. Mostly Rainy 10:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. It's cliched and predictable of me to say so, but I seriously thought you already were one. RandyWang (raves/rants) 11:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Andy has good social skills and will help retain a lot of promising new contributors with his sympathetic conflict resolution. Support. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - I would trust the nominator with my life. &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 11:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support A user that I run into quite often, a user that I respect, and a user that I would trust with the tools. Yank  sox  12:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 11)  Strong Support per nom and above Eluchil404 12:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I still think he'll make a fine admin but the Herostratus comment was, IMHO, silly. Creative responces to vandals do no harm.  Eluchil404 15:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support: I found you more amazing than your cow! Waiting to see more wikobatics from you. But, I found myself doing a bit of wikobatics on account of the edit conflict right now. --Bhadani 12:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Edit conflict Support Level-headedness and good judgement is amply demonstrated in his AfD contribs. Oldelpaso 12:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support My interactions with this user lead me to heartily recommend him for adminship. He will do it well. --Guinnog 13:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I've run across this chap several times and he seems like a good candidate for adminship.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)   13:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Why not? --T e rrancommand e r 13:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Should make a good admin.Geni 13:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Edit history shows user'll use the admin tools well. --Peripitus (Talk) 14:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Wow. I'm sold by that amazingly solid and thorough nomination which gives any potential commenter loads of info, and by the spot checking I did. I totally agree that we need different sorts of admins and that not every admin need do everything (I raised this point on my own RfA question list). I have a great deal of respect for Petros471's judgement as well (we are co coaching a couple of folk for adminship now) so... "More candidates like this one, please!TM Support. Should be a great admin. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9)  Strong Weakish Support I've seen Andeh around quite frequently during RC patrol and at AIV. I've also had discussions with the candidate on controversial football topics, and he's always discussed the issues in an intelligent, friendly, and calm manner.  The demonstrated experience in what he wants to do as an admin (Q1) coupled with his level-headedness leads me to believe that he will make a fine adminstrator who can certainly be trusted.   hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 14:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I still believe he's to be trusted with the tools, but due to some of the concerns raised by other editors, I'd like to slightly alter my two cents.  hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 19:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support It's about time. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 15:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Petros471's usual excellent nomination leaves little to say, but I've seen Andeh's work and its top notch. He'll make an excellent admin. The diff shown by Garion is nothing but a expression of his opinion which is a perfectly reasonable one. Gwernol 15:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Will use the mop well. --Alf melmac 16:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, what RandyWang said! Agent 86 16:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Nacon kantari  16:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Dionyseus 17:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Of course, the nom pretty much says it all. Contribs seem to be in order. Alphachimp  talk  17:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Please incorporate criticism Support This Fire Burns Always   18:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support per nom. Roy A.A. 19:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Weak Support I too disagree with the idea that there is no excuse for warning vandals without using the templates, but I don't think this will interfere with his admin duties. So he'll warn vandals with the standard warning templates instead of with beautiful prose. I don't see how that's a problem. -- joturn e r 19:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support No problems here. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  21:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. DarthVad e r 00:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Reggae Sanderz 02:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Whether or not he is a wiki-lawyer per below. I think that he can greatly contribute to the WP:AIV process, and do many things that don't require him to contribute lots of content to many articles. --Porqin 03:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - a fine user.  Kalani  [talk] 09:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Seems like a Wikipedian people can trust. I proudly support him. -- Tuspm  Talk 14:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support per nom.  the_ ed1  7   14:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Trustworthy User. Abcdefghijklm 15:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. I agree that the nominee's comment on Herostratus' RFA was overstated, but I think we should afford leeway on RFA votes. Extremely unlikely to misuse admin powers. —Caesura(t) 15:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support per Caesura. Good enough for me, minor mistakes are not enough to result in an outright oppose. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Excellent user who I've seen doing good work. Lack of major article contributions is not a major problem for me, and certainly not a factor that's likely to lead to the wiki being blown up unexpectedly. A diverse range of admin types is a positive thing, God forbid if there was a clone factory churning them out. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  17:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support per nom. A good and trustworthy editor. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 18:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support per nom. Editor could put the admin-ness to excellent use.  -- JD [ don't talk|email ] 19:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) digital_m e (TalkˑContribs) 20:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Weak support. It's weak because of the comment on Herostratus' RFA that I strongly disagree with, but then we all have opinions on what makes a good admin and I'll give you some leeway on this. That comment's not enough to overshadow the good work you've done. BryanG(talk) 22:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support; especially after dealing with someone from AOL leaving on random userpages the other day. What fun! CaptainVindaloo t c e 23:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. This user has made many, valuable contributions that are like a precursor to administrative duties. --Gray Porpoise 01:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. Will not abuse tools. The fact that an edit made over four months ago is cited as a reason to oppose is enough to convince me that nothing seriously stands in opposition to an adminship. bd2412  T 02:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. Oh dear, he has an opinion on treating vandals that differs from the norm. That's really not all that great of a reason to deny a qualified editor the mop. Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk? ) 04:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Support. --Klemen Kocjancic 07:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support Meets all my criteria, and appears to be a good editor. --Wisd e n17 12:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Support.-- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 12:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Support seems fine! Computerjoe 's talk 16:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Support: nice bloke. Thumbelina 17:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Support. Sure, my standards say 6 months but the rest is more than good enough to outweigh a difference of 1 month. Cynical 22:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Support per nom. Michael 06:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Support -- I'm sorry Andy did not appreciate Herostratus' fine poetry -- I guess you can't win 'em all. I've reviewed the comments of User:Blue Tie aka User:Anon 64 aka 72.13.168.149 aka (who knows what other user names) below at opposing comment #15. (I've also dug a bunch of the history that Blue Tie has obscured -- see the links I posted down there). I think Andy did just fine in the face of a confusing situation. If Blue Tie is indignant, I think he should look first to his own behavior and not try to scuttle Andy's RfA. (For what's it's worth, I never knew Andy or any of Blue Tie's personnae before this RfA).--A. B. 08:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) support Fine vandal fighter, and a good all round wikipedian. No problems. Th ε Halo Θ 10:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Support go process wonks!  Grue   11:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As silly as process wonkism indisputably is, that's not the problem here. The problem is Chinese Whispers process wonkism: Andeh didn't insist existing process/policy be followed; he insisted that his misunderstanding of policy is the way to go, and that's much more dangerous than your average, run-of-the-mill process wonk in my book. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. - Mailer Diablo 11:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support - A lovely man. Would make a good admin, for exactly the reasons above. HawkerTyphoon 13:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support - I didn't realize he wasn't an admin already. Support per nom.  --Vengeful Cynic 14:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. jni 08:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak support inasmuch as, troubled though I am about the issues many opposing raise, I am eminently confident, having taken a look at the body of the user's contributions, that he has the proper (measured) temperament for adminship and that the fact of the broaching of concerns here is likely to effect in the user such changes as might be necessary for him best to act with the admin tools (such that I'm not concerned about his judgment and think him unlikely to abuse or otherwise misuse the admin tools). Joe 22:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Doesen't look like you'll abuse the tools. -- негідний лють  ( Reply 09:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Held off voting but after reading Andy's (very quick!) answer to my question (see bottom of page) where he even admits the comment may have been an over-statement I happily support. - Gl e n 02:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Another RfA candidate with good credentials - Wikipedia would definitely benefit from this user being given Adminship.  Killfest2  (Talk)  03:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Plenty of edits. I must be getting editcountis :D --T e rrancommand e r 18:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Terran you seem to have voted twice (see support vote 16 above) - Gl e n 18:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Should be a great admin. SynergeticMaggot 08:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support: Less concerned about flexibility following responses. Plenty of experience. Stephen B Streater 09:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose purely on the Herostratus discussion diff'd below by Garion.  I could never back a candidate who had a mindset that saw a shorthand process as being superior to a creative, thoughtful, and imaginative solution to a vandalism issue. MLA 15:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Obviously you are entitled to vote how you like, and why you like, and I am not trying to argue with your vote. But I think it would be unfair to read too much into Andy's RfA vote; he too is allowed to vote how he likes, why he likes. He voted and explained why he was voting that way. He also has policy on his side. --Guinnog 16:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment To be clear, I'm not opposing because this user expressed a view against Herostratus. I'm opposing because I find the sentiments expressed in the diff to run so counter to my beliefs and to what I believe to be right that I could never support a candidate who held that mindset.  This isn't a technical infringement of some kind, it's not a failure of policy, it's a belief that I am fundamentally and implacably opposed to.  As this is a discussion of the candidate's suitability for admin status, and the comment was with regard to a wikipedia policy processes that an admin will have greater interaction with than most editors, I feel justified in expressing my opposition here. MLA 16:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Absolutely. Thank you for taking the time to explain. I'm sure Andy will benefit from your advice if (when?) he becomes an admin. --Guinnog 18:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to this dif. So your saying more time should be spent over warning vandals in unique and creative ways instead of just doing the normal procedure shown in the vandalism policy? It seems a bit silly to spend more time with vandals than is necessary. My response was to Herostratus’s edit here which I found totally inappropriate. Surely if we spent our time thinking up creative and unique ways to warn vandals depending on their actions we’d have little time to do anything else? Andeh 12:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess the main issue (for me, at least) about this diff is that telling others how to spend their time to efficiently deal with vandals, is a slippery slope, and can be quite counterproductive. Remember: Wikipedia is a hobby, not a job. If someone wants to spend their whole afternoon creating a poem, no one should stand in their way telling them that there's "no excuse" to do so. Herostratus' "inappropriate" edit made the vandal stop without a block (and thus without collateral damage) and it gave other people a laugh, making their wikiday a bit brighter. Effective? Yes, very. Efficient? Eh, who cares? --JoanneB 23:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose Based on my observations, Andy is not acclimated to some important aspects of Wikipedia culture. Appears that nom has rigid views about key Wikipedia processes. For example the statement, “There's no excuse to not use the warning templates for users vandalising, especially IP users. Each and every vandal should be treated the same depending on their type of vandalism, some don't require poems written on their page..”  shows a lack of understanding about key policy and processes that admins use daily.  FloNight   talk  16:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Continue to firmly oppose after noting that Andypandy changed the original wording of Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles by replacing the word bitches with complains. [] The explanation in the edit summary says, "we don't need 'bitches' in there now do we" FloNight   talk  17:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment you do know that was my 16th edit at the start of my 2nd week since registration..-- Andeh 20:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Oppose I am too uneasy about the diff Garion96 and FloNight have pointed out.  It makes me feel that this candidate is will stick too rigidly to guidelines and bite others for not doing the same.--Konstable 00:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I may be wrong, but as far as I can tell the only time he's "bitten" another user for not sticking to the guidelines as he does, was when voting on another's RfA. His RfA vote of course reflects what he believes is valuable in an administrator, since that's what the RfA process is explicitly designed to determine, but I see no evidence that he would attack other users for sticking less rigidly to policy in any other situation. RandyWang (raves/rants) 01:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I like this user, but I would have liked to have seen more substantial contributions to the content of the encyclopedia in order to be assured that he understands the appropriateness of content. I can be swayed: this becomes a support vote if he presents the articles to which he has contributed substantially in terms of content -- Samir   धर्म 02:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I think that this user is a good vandal fighter and janitor. However (and I've said this a million times), this is an encyclopedia, and a potential Admin should have atleast one developed article. Not only would this show that the user fully understands policies (Neutral point of view, No original research, Citing sources, What Wikipedia is not), but it would also show that the admin fully identifies with WP's goal of spreading free, infinite knowledge. Quite frankly (and this isn't directed at the candidate), I'm weary of people believing that spending endless hours rv'ing vandalism means that one can represent the face of Wikipedia, and is able to explain and adhere to the behavioural and editorial policies. Oran e  ( talk  &bull;  cont. ) 02:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per above. -- Will Mak  050389  02:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Per FloNight. Rigidity is not a virtue. We're dealing with people on this encyclopedia, not faceless, mindless entities. I heartily discourage the use of warning templates where appropriate and expediency is not required. They're there as a matter of convenience, not policy. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong oppose per what I wrote on Requests for adminship/Herostratus. Sydney's diff shows exactly the approach to administration that is the cause of so much stupidity on the project at the moment.  In that one moment, Andy cast his lot with those silly billies who play Chinese Whispers with policy and then insist on their views being enforced without regard to common sense &mdash; and anyone who does such a thing cannot be an admin.  If Andy proves, at some undefined point in the future, that he isn't actually as clueless as he claims to be, I'd be happy to support then &mdash; but as it is now, no way. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Cannot? You relise you have just described a significant number of traints required in order to inforce our copyright policy.Geni 10:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ... that made no sense whatsoever. Mark is perfectly correct, cannot; the fact that there are some admins who act this way is irrelevant. What that has to do with the copyright policy is beyond me.--SB | T 11:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The abilty to apply rules that apper to defy most popular coneptions of "common sense" is an import part of inforcing our copyvio policy.Geni 11:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Therefore what admins really need to know is what the rules are and why, to know when it's sensible to bend them and when it isn't. -- SCZenz 22:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have better things to do with my time than learn the history of international copyright law and the reasons for it.Geni 13:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You severely missed the point of my comment. Copyright policy must be ruthlessly enforced because it reflects the law,  whereas "rules" about warning vandals do not need to be enforced in detail because it's ultimately the purpose of such warnings that matters.  That's the kind of difference admins need to understand. -- SCZenz 22:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I have no reason to question Andy's dedication or motives, facts that I am sure will make him a good admin in the future, however I also concur with the views already expressed regarding his relationship to policy. Admins who regard policy as a straighjacket often end up causing problems by failing to recognise that all situations are different, and that any set of policies can never fully account for the human element of our project. I will support a future request if Andy refines his attitude to policy. Rje 07:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per MarkGallagher. The words have been taken out of my mouth, so I'm glad he knew how to use them. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 08:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) I must be firmly opposed to this candidate until such time he admits that his previous statements regarding vandalism warning templates were utterly asburd. Having said that, he seems to be a good editor in general; if he is able to demonstrate that this one inexplicably clueless statement was simply a fluke, then he may have a stronger case for adminship in the future. Until that time, no.--SB | T 11:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Per avove - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Fuddlemark. 1ne 18:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Journalist, while I agree with Caesura that you learned from the Herostasus RFA incident and you are an excellent vandal fighter, this is an encyclopedia first and you should have more major article edits. Find a subject that you know about and start doing some article writing, and I would happily support a future RFA. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 19:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose I have found his thinking regarding the rules to be dogmatic, narrow, rigid, thoughtless and uncooperative.  Not a good attitude for an administrator.  In fact, had he been an administrator, I feel pretty confident he would abuse the privilege.  He has also been in error on important facts  in formal Wikipedia policy and made bad assumptions.  Finally, per Journalist, he does not have any formal edits (which may be a lesser concern for me).  Sure he is tireless in reverting vandalism, which is a good thing, but he does not need to be an Admin to do that, particularly when he shows a lack of reasonableness or normal courtesy.  However, I do not question or doubt the integrity of his motives.  --Blue Tie 22:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this based on any more than the diff mentioned by others above? If so would you mind saying what? Petros471 22:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You've come out with an awful lot of bad points there, it would be nice if you could post some difs to back up your view so I know where I've gone wrong.-- Andeh 22:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the gentle invitation. I feel somewhat conflicted.  The whole problem was an issue that I wanted to handle quietly but you made it a problem then.  I would like it to be quiet now, but it cannot be.  Here is the deal.  I started on Wikipedia with one name.  I decided to change names.  When I edited using my new name on a page that only recognized my old name I re-edited and replace my new name signature  with the old one that was recognized there.  Andeh repeatedly reverted this even after several explanations. The first time was only annoying - but I understand fighting vandalism.  However,  after I explained it to him twice, he continued to revert, without any effort to understand or cooperate. He could have taken several different approaches but he chose to be utterly rigid and thoughtless.  He was completely uncooperative and would not even listen to reason.   Finally, I suppose he became convinced, but then he dogmatically insisted that I block one of the names as a sock puppet which he believed was the proper implementation of policy.  In short, he was uncooperative, resistant, unhelpful and he misinterpreted wikipedia policy which does not reject multiple names but only the abuse of them, which if anything, I was seeking to avoid.  It bothers me a great deal to bring this up again and I would have preferred to ignore it but I do not think it is fair to raise the objection without giving a history once it is requested.  So, even though I find it personally undesirable to recount this history and am unhappy to do so, I nevertheless feel strongly enough about this to provide this support.   I wanted to keep this quiet because I intend to abandon the other old name eventually and do not necessarily want any of the mistakes in my approach on that name (whatever they may be) to follow me to the new name (where I will have more experience), though I do not think I have behaved badly under either name. Nevertheless, I prefer to separate them.  --Blue Tie 23:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some diffs please? Also, can someone who knows how please repair the formatting here? Thanks X2 --Guinnog 23:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh I think I've discovered why Blue Tie is unhappy with me being admin, I discovered he was using two accounts so I referred him to WP:SOCK on his talk page. It appeared he wanted to remain anonymous whilst discussing something. Though I didn't take any further action after that.-- Andeh 22:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It was the difficulty in working with you that causes the problem for me. Not what you were trying to do.  You were unnecessarily rigid and difficult.  This concerns me for an administrator.  And ... note that I expect you to be one, so I am also stepping out and offending a future administrator.  It's that big a deal for me. I just do not think you have the right grasp, though I do believe your heart is in the right place and I value the work you have done.  I would encourage you to continue that work, but without admin powers.  --Blue Tie 23:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand why you changed your username, you claimed that it was your edit but you didn't provide any evidence or reason for it. I stopped reverting after you logged into your other account and prooved it was your account here. If you changed to a new username why do you still use both? I'm sorry but i'm quite confused here.-- Andeh 23:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, my reasons are personal. But to be clear, I intend to abandon the old one eventually. I am mainly continuing discussions that I started with it.  I prefer my new name and am using it for new things.  This is not a problem per wikipedia policy.  I realize that you were confused by it. But right away, when I told you it was my name, that should have immediately alerted you that you were not just reverting vandalism.  You could have at least talked with me a bit.  But no, you refused.  That is my problem with the way you approached this.  Having said that, I know you will find this hard to believe, but I actually like you.  I have been to your userpage and I find you amusing and I think you ascribe to values that seem to match my own. You seem to be a genuinely nice person.  I also value what you do in policing.  But I think you have a sense of efficiency that has overwhelmed a sense of diplomacy.  I think that for someone who polices vandalism as much as you do, this may be an occupational hazard.  But it needs to be resisted more.  That is why I oppose.   You ran somewhat roughshod over me after I gave you reason to pause.  I worry about how you would treat others when you had more power and less cause for restraint. --Blue Tie 00:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Andy, Blue Tie is politely telling you that it not your concern. No policy has been broken. Please assume good faith -- FloNight  talk  00:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In general, you're absolutely right, but I disagree re: good faith in this case -- the record (see the links below) seems to indicate something less than good faith in the case of Blue Tie and his two other personnas.--A. B. 14:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You simply said it was made by you, I didn't know why you just said it. You didn't give me any particular reason so that's why I reverted it twice. Basically, I couldn't see any good enough reason for you to replace the signature apart from you stating you made the edit, I wasn't given any proof of this until you logged into your other account. You didn't confront me and say why or how the edit was yours, so I was clueless of the actual situation which is why I reverted it.-- Andeh 01:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As you said "I couldn't see a good enough reason". I gave you a reason, but rather than at least consider it and, if necessary, request clarity you dismissed it and reverted. Probably you were too busy reverting a bazillion trolls.  But.. I do not think this is the way of someone who seeks to be an administrator. I will not belabor the point.  I wish you well.  If you do not succeed this time as administrator, I may support at some future time, but I would like to see no one complain of similar situations.--Blue Tie 01:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, so I made the mistake because I didn't believe there were any possible scenarios where one user should legitimately change another users signature. The trouble I caused you at that time must've been very annoying and stressful for you to bring it up here, though I'm glad you explained the full situation to me and discussed it.-- Andeh 01:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can one of you share some diffs so I can see what Blue Tie is referring to? Also, Blue Tie, I'm confused -- I could not find your name in the username change archives; can you tell me about when you changed it? Thanks--A. B. 06:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm still confused. We've got one user editing similar articles on religion and homosexuality using two different usernames, User:Anon 64 and User:Blue Tie. I look up the Wikipedia policy on multiple accounts, WP:SOCK, and it talks about making it transparent when you edit with two accounts, going so far as to provide a template to advise other editors. But I don't see any of that stuff. In fact I really have to dig around to even find Blue Tie's other account. Then I see a few cases where this person is editing the same article but with two accounts (well, actually three, when you include 72.13.168.149). I'm glad we've got a potential admin that's watching for odd stuff. I'm inclined to discount Blue Tie's criticisms based on the doctrine of clean hands".--A. B. 07:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me help clarify - I have tried NOT to edit the same articles under different names. The only instances where I have done so are either -- by mistake, or when I have decided to abandon the old name for the new name -- and after waiting a few weeks on pages that are not frequently edited.  There is no requirement to make it transparent that you are using SockPuppets.  There is no need to do so if you are not doing anything wrong.  And I am not.   There is nothing about my behavior that I am ashamed of or anything that I did wrong.  I just wanted to separate the accounts.  There are legitimate reasons for doing so.--Blue Tie 04:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See talk page for response.--A. B. 21:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I found the diffs myself. Editing the talk page of Homosexual agenda, Blue Tie wrote and signed: "As for God hating you, I am sorry for you on that account. But thats just how it is. If you are a Calvinist there is nothing you can do about it.". Then he changed his signature to Anon 64. A little while late, Andy reverted the edit, commenting "(don't edit signatures please (replaced correct sig))". Blue Tie changed his signature again (without any edit summary). Once again, Andy reverted the change, writing "(don't edit signatures please (replaced correct sig))". Blue Tie again reverts with no edit summary. Andy reverted again, saying "(the comment was left by Blue Tie, please stop claiming you made it)". Blue Tie reverts again, with no edit summary. Anon64 then left a message on Andy's talk page saying:"It was my signature that I edited. Please do not revert". Andy left a message for Blue Tie telling him to just use one account and referring him to WP:SOCK. Blue Tie removed the warning, saying "(You are wrong. Read the Policy)". During this time, nobody else knew that Blue Tie, Anon 64 and 72.13.168.149 (who were all working the same article that day) were the same user.--A. B. 08:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You have have misrepresented me in at least two areas: first, in your history you did not include the other comments I made to andeh. You presented it as though I did not make any and that is not true.  Second you claim that "no one knew that  Blue Tie, Anon 64 and 72.13.168.149 (who were all working the same article that day) were the same user.  This is false.  Only two of those IDs were working the article and I had already made it clear that the 72.name and my Anon 64 name were the same.  I did not hide that.  I used 72 by accident when I failed to log in.  That is all.  It was not an effort to misrepresent.  And Blue Tie was NOT working the article.  Only one edit as Blue Tie, which was an accident and I tried to put the Anon 64 name on it.  You have misrepresented me. --05:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blue Tie (talk • contribs).
 * See talk page for response.--A. B. 21:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your hard work AB. Seems like Andy was doing the right thing then? --Guinnog 08:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently Andy has many friends who are upset with my opposition.  However, A.P. has misrepresented things, somehow.  He claims that I was editing at the same time under multiple names. Never on purpose. Only one time by accident. That I know of.  Is it really evil to make an error and then seek to correct it?  I never knew that to be a wrong thing before. --Blue Tie 05:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think he did the right thing based on what he knew. I still don't really understand all that was going on with the three different accounts and why this person was using all three on one article and often two on others.--A. B. 09:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I also think he did the right thing based upon what he knew at first. However, when he knew more, he refused to pay any attention to it. --Blue Tie 05:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm also unimpressed that User:Blue Tie - User:Anon 64 - User:72.13.168.149 has selectively presented information to give a bad impression of Andy while also scrubbing some of this from his own talk page. The scrubbing is his perogative since it's his talk page; it's also part of a broader pattern of behavior, both with regards to this RfA in particular and his dealings with other editors in general.--A. B. 14:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not intend to selectively present any bad information. I presented it as well as I know how.  I am a new user here.  I do not know about a broad pattern of behavior.  I opposed.  I was asked to go into detail.  I did.  That is what happened.  Now, my honesty or integrity are being questioned -- when I have done nothing wrong. It leaves a bitter taste in my mouth when I have done my very best to be a good wikipedian. Even if I have not achieved it, I have tried and done my best.  I certainly have not lied or misled anyone.  I do believe that AB has misrepresented a bit.  For example the quote about Calvinism and God hating you was a joke.. but he has expressed it as though I was being unpleasant.  He surely knew it was a joke though if he read and researched all of the edits. --Blue Tie 05:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See talk page for response.--A. B. 21:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per great concerns about rigidity above. -- SCZenz 22:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose for right now, per Orane and FloNight. Based on the examples presented I believe Andy is currently a bit too inflexible, but his last response to Blue Tie, acknowledging distress, is good. Learning to prevent such distress is important, but I'm not sure that Andy can 'go with the flow' regarding exceptions and mistakes. A bigger problem for me, which I think clearly illustrates his zeal and intensity, is the edit statistics. If they are correct, he is editing at the rough rate of one edit every 2-3 minutes (3 minutes between edits if he's spending 8 hours/day editing, 2.5 minutes between edits if he spends 6 hours a day) is... nuts. No wonder he has only 3 notable edits in the article namespace. I think someday Andy will probably be a good admin, but right now he's just way too fast. One can't help being inflexible at these speeds. He will burn out and leave if he doesn't slow down and smell the roses, and that would be a shame. - Baseball,Baby!   balls  •  strikes  06:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, inflexibility diff in interaction with Blue Tie shows candidate hasn't learnt to interpret all rules. Kimchi.sg 10:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, per fuddlemark and SCZenz. Proto ::  type  11:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Not-quite-ready-yet-oppose. The only thing I would add is that policy is a means to an end.  It's the end that we're after.  GChriss 13:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) He just sounds like a process wonk to me (no offense). I don't like dealing with process wonks as fellow admins.  Process ends up getting valued more than product, and you get absurd situations like someone who knows something should be deleted restoring it and relisting it at XFD.  -- Cyde↔Weys  13:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, offense or none, Cyde hit the jackpot in his comment above. The diff cited by FloNight also suggests a hid penchant for knuckleheadedness. My suggestion: go on, keep doing whatever it is you enjoy doing on this site, but stop approaching it so goddamned parliamentarily. Life's too short for that. There is no libretto. Use common sense, at least until somebody coughs up a plausible reason to question it. If discussion fails, then seek further opinions, rather than jumping to that stage by default. — Jul. 17, '06  [15:07] < [ freak]&#124;[ talk] >
 * 8) Strong Oppose. The kind of admin who would seek to stamp out creativity and adhere dogmatically to a rigid interpretation of policy - for everything save copyvio, which I agree needs to be stepped on, hard- is not the kind of editor I want to have admin powers. Process exists to serve the product. Captainktainer * Talk 15:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per Journalist. -- Steel 18:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. The comment on Herostratus' RFA, but moreover his comment above, saying that he still thinks that that edit was 'highly inappropriate' makes me very, very hesitant in giving him the tools. He's entitled to his own views, but in this case, I think that the combination of those views and the admin tools are a lot of problems waiting to happen. --JoanneB 14:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose : Admins should be able to provide a flexible response to situations. I haven't seen evidence that this editor is incapable of this, but the oft quoted vandal edit shows a lack of willingness currently. Stephen B Streater 16:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Evidence of required flexibility creeping in in the responses below. Plenty of experience too. Changed to support. Stephen B Streater 09:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, lighten up a bit. --CharlotteWebb 19:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Oppose. I think he is a good editor and vandal fighter, but concerning policy and process I don't think he is ready yet. Process and policy are important but shouldn't always supercede other solutions. Garion96 (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral
 * Neutral for now. I really do not agree with the first part of this edit . Seems too much wikilawyering. Feel free to convince me otherwise though. Garion96 (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment As I said above, the above comment was placed on another's RfA, in which every other voter was invited to express their views on the candidate. His vote was determined by his opinion of how a good admin should behave, as was every other vote. There's nothing wrong with his opinion here, since he has the guidelines on his side and applies them in a perfectly appropriate manner. Does this even really fall under the definition of wikilawyering? RandyWang (raves/rants) 01:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually I think it does. To quote "Asserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express". In this case, policy/guideline is to use warning templates but the principle they express is to stop vandals (and perhaps changing them into good editors). Garion96 (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral per FloNight. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Candidate seems to have uploaded same image twice under different names (from upload log):
 * 15:18, 11 June 2006 Andypandy.UK (Talk | contribs | block) uploaded "Image:Wonderboy in Monsterworld MonsterWorld Final.png" (Wonderboy in Monster World screenshot - Monster World)
 * 15:16, 11 June 2006 Andypandy.UK (Talk | contribs | block) uploaded "Image:Wonderboy in Monsterworld MonsterWorld.png" (Wonderboy in Monster World screenshot - Monster World)

This one is an orphan: Image:Wonderboy in Monsterworld MonsterWorld.png.

Any comments? - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've requested the duplicate which currently isn't used to be deleted. Seems I didn't spot it myself.-- Andeh 10:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, no problem. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I found this image on your userpage. Also, the owl one doesn't specify which two (free) images it is derived from. &mdash; Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The golf ball image is inside a userbox I added to my user page, but I don't make user boxes. So I wasn't aware of it's copyright problem. And the owl is from Owl which states it can be used for "any purpose" so I guessed there wasn't any problem in editing it a bit and putting it on my userpage.-- Andeh 10:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User's last 5000 edits. Voice -of- All  01:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC) --Viewing contribution data for user Andypandy.UK (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ) Time range: 71 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 1hr (UTC) -- 16, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 10hr (UTC) -- 5, May, 2006 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 97.8% Minor edits: 86.73% Average edits per day: 147.21 (for last 500 edit(s)) Article edit summary use (last 305 edits): Major article edits: 99.6% Minor article edits: 98.11% Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown of this page): Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.06% (3) Significant article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 2.52% (126) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 9.06% (453) Superficial article edits marked as minor: 27.78% Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 2459 | Average edits per page: 2.03 | Edits on top: 10.34% Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 50.34% (2517 edit(s)) Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 9.94% (497 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 24.36% (1218 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 11.52% (576 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 30.64% (1532) | Article talk: 3.76% (188) User: 8.06% (403) | User talk: 22.7% (1135) Wikipedia: 33.58% (1679) | Wikipedia talk: 0.5% (25) Image: 0.34% (17) Template: 0.24% (12) Category: 0.02% (1) Portal: 0.08% (4) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0.08% (4) 's edit count using Interiot's Tool 2: Username Andypandy.UK Total edits 5249 Distinct pages edited 2528 Average edits/page 2.076 First edit 18:34, January 27, 2006 (main) 1669 Talk 198 User 406 User talk 1171 Image 18 Image talk 4 Template 12 Category 1 Category talk 2 Wikipedia 1736 Wikipedia talk 28 Portal 4 --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 15:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * See Andypandy.UK's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

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:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 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’d be watching the category – candidates for speedy deletion and ensuring the ones tagged do meet the criteria for speedy deletion then deleting any that appear to meet the criteria. I’d also always be keeping my eye on AIV for user reports of vandals which have been warned sufficiently and blocking them depending on the severity of the vandalism they’ve committed. I’ll occasionally be new user patrolling to block any obvious vandals before giving them a chance to strike. I may examine RFP for any pages that need protecting or unprotecting. I’ll take part and try to deal with any issues at the admin’s notice board where need be. I’ll close any AfD’s which I feel have gained a reasonable consensus but also continue to offer my input in the discussions there as well as nominate articles I come across which may meet the criteria for deletion. I also find this very useful to find AfDs which are long over-due.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I currently don’t have any articles I have contributed to considerably yet, as most of the work I carry out is janitorial work such as RC patrolling, reporting vandals to AIV, reviewing AfC’s, taking part in AfD’s amongst other things. I occasionally clean up articles using AWB, remove spam, improve punctuation, fix typos and so on.


 * 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: So far I haven’t come into any major edit wars or heaty arguments. Most disagreements I’ve had I’ve resolved quite civilly. Whenever I do feel a discussion is getting a bit hot for me I refer to WP:COOL which I find very useful! If the person I’m discussing with still feels they are right and I feel very strongly and I don’t think we’re going to come to an agreement any time soon, I resort to WP:DR. I have requested a third opinion at WP:3O which by surprise did work quite promptly. My talk page is archived and kept if you do wish to view my past discussions and disputes with other Wikipedians.

Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)


 * 1) You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
 * A If I am very certain that the user is using a sockpuppet in nasty ways, I’d try to contact them privately and plead them to stop. If the user continues and doesn’t seem to show any signs of stopping I’d contact a well known active admin. Or possibly post it at the Admins notice board.
 * 1) An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
 * A Depending on the language and the nature of insults, I’d hope the blocking admin had blocked them for just the right amount of time to allow them to cool off. I’d also refer them to WP:COOL as I find that very useful myself. I’d discuss the matter with the admin which blocked the editors and try to come to a solution with the issue.
 * 1) If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
 * A I’d allow semi-protect to be used more often on website articles that have been built by communities outside of Wikipedia. For example a large forum. Many of these kinds of articles are vandalised and thus only creates extra work for RC patrollers. Of course I’d always try unprotecting the article to see how long it lasts before it gets vandalised again by the same group of people.
 * 1) Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
 * A If the users vandalism is on today’s featured article and it matches the vandalism of other many other users in the history of the article, then it’s most likely a vandal only account only created to attack wikipedia. I’d also consider indefinitely blocking an account if it appears to be have only been created to vandalise and the user has been warned repeatedly. Of course blocking IP’s is a whole different situation, you must check if it’s a school IP, AOL IP and the IP’s block log. I believe it involves a lot of common sense, such as blocking prolific vandals e.g. WoW, PS, Commy vandal etc.
 * 1) Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain comments / discussions that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
 * A I wouldn’t close the AfD, I’d relist it to try and gain more input from other editors. I’d also investigate the suspected sockpuppets contribs and logs.
 * 1) Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
 * A I don’t believe there a specific number of votes required to close an AfD, if the arguments appear to be strong and appears to have gained a consensus. Unless the majority of the votes are speedy delete then it is probably important to have at least 6 editors agree that it should be deleted. If there is a keep vote which I believe is quite reasonable then I’d leave it open longer for discussion.
 * 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?
 * A I would probably be able to justify myself under pressure, but as I’ve said in my other answers I’ll always have a quick read up of WP:COOL to make sure what I’m doing is the best course of action.
 * 1) Why do you want to be an administrator?
 * A Apart from my answer to Q1, I hope to try and clean up Wikipedia, keep everything running and deal with malicious users, which I could do much more effectively instead of waiting for an admin to notice my report at AIV.
 * 1) In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
 * A They do sort of hold a unique position as they’ve been here quite a long time and should understand the policies, though this should definitely not be considered when in a discussion or that’d be bullying the non-admin user and intimidating them. Admins must act in the same way as any other editors in discussions and not seemingly have the upper hand just because their an admin. I would consider this bullying of newer editors which is likely to damage Wikipedia and scare off users.

Optional question from Lar:
 * (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of Category:Administrators_open_to_recall? What do you think of it? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in this category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of Category:Rouge admins? What do you think of it? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here, my comment is already recorded...) ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A: I have seen the admin recall category but never really had a look into it, I understand why it exists and I think it’s a good idea. I’m surprised it’s not compulsory, maybe it causes a little pressure to stay active as an admin? I would possibly place myself in the category in the future. As the rogue admins category seems to be only for fun, I wouldn’t mind being in that category at all. Looks like a place that vandal fighters that block many vandals end up.

Optional question from GIen
 * Q: Okay, I understand from your comments above regarding this well documented diff that you believe your time is better spent warning than creating warnings. However, your comment on that page states There's no excuse to not use the warning templates for users vandalising, especially IP users. as if this were policy not your opinion. Do you stand by this as a "rule" for all editors with the same conviction as you did then?
 * A: Pretty much all warnings that are required have been made by the community as a template already, I’m not saying that using is always going to be better than a small message. That comment was simply in response to the poem Hero wrote on a users talk page, which I strongly disagreed with, so it was a bit of an over-statement to try and get my point across.
 * 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.