Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Qwyrxian


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

Qwyrxian
'''Final (104/12/3); ended 05:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC) - There exists a consensus that questions about Qwyrxian's understanding of WP:CSD and similar policies, and Qwyrxian's inter-user interactions, are insufficient as to prevent Qwyrxian from receiving the English Wikipedia project administrator toolkit. However, it is always worthwhile to learn from the constructive criticism offered in an RfX. -- Avi (talk) 05:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC) 

Nomination
– Ladies and gentlemen, it is with pleasure that I nominate Qwyrxian to become an administrator. I first encountered him when we worked together to stop BLP violations from being inserted into the article on Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto. It turns out there was a whole group of articles centred around the NYC public relations firm of 5W Public Relations that were falling prey to the same treatment by a sockpuppeteer. Qwyrxian was instrumental in resolving the matter and assists to this day in watching for further disruption. He has recently been active, with User:Anna Frodesiak, in developing a strategy to fight the "TV station vandal", a mysterious IP-hopping editor who makes massive numbers of unsourced changes to TV station articles. Have a look in the black sandbox; this type of detailed work goes beyond ordinary vandal hunting. Qwyrxian has lately been delving into the complex world of our articles on India and Pakistan. He is not afraid to jump into difficult and complicated situations and try to resolve them; in fact he seems to relish the work. He is always very reasoned in his arguments, and has an excellent knowledge of policy. Admin tools can only be an asset in the hands of this editor. Diannaa (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I hereby accept this nomination. I've been editing Wikipedia seriously for a little over a year now (though I signed up in 2008), and, as my userpage says, I can't believe it took me so long to start. I believe that my work thus far has provided me with the knowledge needed to use the tools correctly, as well as demonstrated that I have the temperament to apply them wisely and appropriately. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I intend to start with WP:AIV, and WP:RPP, as those are the two areas I have the most experience with; plus, I know how frustrating it can be for vandal patrollers and others when a backlog or near-backlog occurs at those pages. I'll likely also work on speedy deletions, as I have done speedy deletion tagging in conjunction with recent changes and new page patrolling. Over time, I expect to turn my attention to weighing consensus on and closing deletion discussions (AfD at first, although I have no objections to learning more about other XfD). I expect that I will eventually find myself involved in a variety of other admin activities, but what those will be are beyond my current ability to predict. As a regular editor, I am now involved with topics that I never would have imagined myself editing when I started, so I expect that the same will probably true with administrative work.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My “measurable” best article is my one GA, Sea of Japan naming dispute, where I feel like I was able to transform a mass of competing and repetitious polemics into a single, coherent article which explains the dispute without violating NPOV. However, a lot of the article work I'm most proud of on is on a more basic level, such as transforming fundamentally problematic articles into acceptable start or C class articles, changing POV articles to NPOV ones, and even the act of significantly cutting unsourced problematic content from articles.  Overall, I consider my skills an an "editor" in the traditional (non-internet/non-Wikipedia) sense of the word to be one of the key things I offer Wikipedia. Just like every real book needs one or more people to produce content (to "write" it) and one or more people to trim, alter, and fix that content (to "edit" it), so to do Wikipedia articles.  As examples of this type of work, I'll point my work on Kitty Hart-Moxon (which I found while working on Category:Wikipedia articles needing style editing during the last Great Backlog Drive) altering it from a personalized, promotional piece into a tighter, NPOV version with a closer linking of sources and info (I know that it's still under-sourced, but it's much better than before). Similarly, I took Gegong Apang from an under-sourced BLP stub to a fully WP:BLP compliant start-class article.  Finally, I think that that my work in handling contentious issues is of value to the project; I often try to act as a neutral (informal) mediator in conflicts (see below), and as a mentor to new users. Many new editors have problems with our myriad policies, guidelines, and informal precedent, and deserve a chance to be drawn into the fold, even when it seems like they just don't fit.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: Yes, I have been in conflict, and yes, it has sometimes been stressful. The current atmosphere on a number of Indian caste articles is highly unpleasant, and it can sometimes be trying to have to maintain civility in the face of personal attacks, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and other forms of tendentious editing.   Additionally, I have been (and still am) involved in a long running dispute on Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute, which was recently the subject of a closed but incomplete MedCom mediation.  I have tried hard to travel a middle line between two sides that have, at times, been nearly unable to work together.  In both types of cases, I deal with the stress by relying on the help and expertise of other editors, by walking away from individual topics for a few hours when needed (whenever I suddenly hear my fingers banging on the keys at twice the normal speed and volume, I know it's time for a break), and by looking for incremental steps that build small bridges whenever possible.


 * Additional question from Dusty777
 * 4. What exactly made you choose to try and become an Administrator? Do you yourself think that you can handle the job efficiently without a problem?
 * A: Taking the second question first, yes, I believe that I can handle the job. I won't be perfect, but I will follow policy as best as I can, and, when I am wrong, apologize and fix the mistake.  As for why I am now choosing to try to become an admin, well, it's because I think that Wikipedia needs admins, and it's something that I believe I can do well.  I love working on Wikipedia, and I want it to work; one of the things it needs to work is a set of people with the tools bundled into the adminship right.  If the community agrees that I'm capable of using the tools, I'm happy to do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional question from My76Strat
 * 5. If you see an article for deletion under CSD A7 which also has a PROD in place, which had been posted prior to the CSD, what administrative action would you take regarding that article?
 * A: In footnote 4 of Proposed deletion, it states "When tagging a proposed deletion candidate for speedy deletion, the proposed deletion tag should be left in place in case the speedy deletion is rejected. A rejected speedy candidate is still eligible for proposed deletion, but a rejected AfD candidate is not. The tag may be restored if replaced with a speedy deletion tag." While the two processes are not elsewhere discussed together, the existence of this footnote implies that it is acceptable to do both. As such, my first step would be to check the prod rationale, any comments on the article's talk page, and probably the article history to determine if there is anything else going on that I need to be aware of (for example, seeing both on an article makes me wonder if the tagging is part of some sort of bad faith attack). Assuming there was no A7 compliant version in the history, no one had objected to either the prod or the CSD, and the article actually is eligible under A7 (no credible claims of importance/significance), then I would delete it under A7. If I felt that the article made a credible claim of significance, I would decline the A7 (notifying the nominator), leaving the prod on (unless I felt that even PROD didn't apply, in which case I'd remove it as well, notifying the nominator and opening an AfD if I felt that level of discussion was necessary). Also, no matter what I found, my guess is that one or both of the nominator(s) will probably need some help; it may well have been that one or both of the nominators may not understand both processes completely. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Sven Manguard
 * 6. Have you read everything at Administrators' reading list recently? Please note there is only one correct answer to this question, and that answer is "Yes". If you cannot truthfully answer "Yes", then go read the stuff there, then come back here and answer "Yes".
 * A: Yes. Prior to Sven asking this question, I had already read the vast majority of those.  Most I am familiar with in great detail, especially our key policies like WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.  Others I have read only briefly; for example, those pages that cover the actual processes for performing admin actions (such as Administrators' how-to guide), I have skimmed but not intentionally studied since, for me at least, learning those types of processes sticks better when I'm able to soon thereafter put that knowledge into practice.   Regarding the oppose that prompted this question, Logan is completely correct that the page in question was not eligible for A7; I had forgotten that schools have a special parenthetical exception to A7.  I'm glad that Malik Shabazz realized that and reminded me of that point. Moving forward, while I am certain that, just as I have made mistakes as an editor, I will make mistakes as an administrator, I do believe that the overwhelming majority of my actions on Wikipedia meet policy, that I've never made any truly dramatic mistakes (if I delete the main page, you can desysop me on the spot), and that I do my best to follow the best interests of the encyclopedia.  Qwyrxian (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional question from TCO
 * 7. (Meant as a serious question) Convince me you will not become mean after some time carrying the banhammer.
 * A: Well, I could tell you that in real life I'm a very mild-mannered person, extremely flexible, and always like looking for solutions to problems that don't require extreme positions. My job requires a lot of empathy and the need to listen to others as whole human beings, not just respond with policies and procedures. Of course, without actually giving away who I am in the real world, it's tough for such a description to be fully persuasive.  I can point to an on-wiki example.  A few months ago, User:Maheshkumaryadav had a variety of problems editing that people (including myself) felt were quite disruptive. A discussion at ANI (see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive696 nearly led to the editor being banned in May, but I decided to offer mentorship to Mahesh.  I crafted a set of editing restrictions which the community accepted in lieu of the ban, and proceeded with mentorship.  Unfortunately, Mahesh's editing trickled off, and, in June, Mahesh started socking to get around the community approved editing restrictions.  Once this was discovered and confirmed, the editor was indefinitely blocked.  I had put a lot of effort into trying to rehabilitate this user, and the user responded by throwing away that help in an unsuccessful attempt to do it their own way.  But, despite how saddened I was, I never became mean or spiteful. I believe my message to him when the socking was confirmed shows that, even in such a situation, I was still able to respond appropriately and not harshly.  I did later take the user to to ask for a ban, which was put in place; not because I wanted to hurt Mahesh (part of me hopes that he does work in his native language wiki and eventually learns the Wiki Way and asks for the ban to be lifted, once there's good evidence that he's actually "gotten it"), but because the disruption had to be stopped.  Ultimately, that's the approach I will attempt to maintain whenever considering blocking, banning, deleting, or what have you: it's not right to do it to hurt people--it's only right to do it when not doing it harms Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Monty845
 * 8. Suppose as an admin, you come across an article tagged for WP:CSD A7, the page is named Montydoodle, the contents of the article are "The Montydoodle is an attractive new breed of dog, it is a mix of one quarter Poodle, two thirds Saint Bernard and one twelfth German Shepard. The breed is known for its amazing looks.", if you google it, you get a couple blog posts from a personal blog, the page creator happens to have "Monty" in their username, and the only other edit to the page after the creator was the CSD A7 being added. What if anything would you do?
 * A: First, I wouldn't rely on only a plain Google search; in this case, I'd also look to Google Books (in case its the sort of thing that shows up in longer treatments of dog breeds) and Google News (in case its some new breed that is newsworthy in some way). But assuming that nothing shows up, it depends on how recently the page was created.  If it was created within the last hour or two, I believe that we owe the page creator a bit to add sources or respond to the speedy deletion request.  Note that this is only because it's an A7—an article that violates, for example, G10 (attack page) or G12 (copyright infringement) has to go right away.  If, however, it's been a little bit of time, and the editor no longer seems to be active, then I would delete the article.  Note that I would be receptive to discussing the issue with the user, including after the article is deleted; ideas like verifiability and WP:NOT (here, it sounds likely that Wikipedia is not for things made up one day applies) really are quite odd for many new users, so I'd be happy to help them, including user-fying or incubating the article if they showed that there really was an intent to make  policy/guideline compliant article.  Qwyrxian (talk) 07:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Followup Qwyrxian, under what provision of A7 does this fall? Is it " real person, individual animal(s), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools),[4] or web content " ?   DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * DGG is correct, here and below. I could quibble, and take the position that it's likely just one real, individual animal, but I won't, as that's not actually what I meant.  I made the same mistake that many users make: interpreting A7 the way that "makes sense" to me instead of actually how its written.  That is, to me, I don't understand why there are different rules for a single non-credibly significant animal and a non-credibly significant collection (smaller than a species) of animals; or a concept, or any other thing that doesn't fall under the specific listed categories of A7.  But that's not my call to make.  I should have suggested that the article either be PRODded, or, if the blog post made it clear that this was made-up, speedied under G3. If leave it to the !voters to decide if this mistake is "fatal".  Should I become an admin, though, I promise that I will remember this error every time I consider an A7...or any other speedy deletion candidate, to ensure that it meets the applied criteria exactly.  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Question from / ƒETCH COMMS  / 
 * 9. What is your opinion in the current four-level warning system? When (if ever) are those warnings not necessary before a block? How could the system be improved?
 * A: Let me answer each question separately:
 * (1) I think that in most cases the system works fine for vandalism, especially since the process does not strictly require giving every editor 4 "free" unacceptable edits. There are many cases where, when doing Recent Changes Patrol (which I usual do via Huggle), I skip a level (usually level 2 or 3), when the edits are absolutely unambiguous vandalism that the editor seems insistent in trying to make stick. But 4 is usually a nice number, because if someone reaches that level, it's generally very clear that they need to be blocked to prevent further disruption.  Using the automatic levels and warnings is good for routine vandalism, because we really shouldn't spend too much effort to revert obvious problems. The one time it doesn't work is when people use the system without clearly investigating the user's history, and the user is a regular but infrequent vandal.  Finally, I don't like using the system for more complex issues, like BLP violations or OR.  In that case, I think that personalized warnings are necessary, because you need to explain exactly what the problem is, and, very likely, the policy itself.
 * (2) There are numerous situations in which an editor can be blocked without 4 full warnings. An editor with a grossly offensive or imposter username can be blocked with no edits and no warnings.  A threat of violence should almost always lead to an immediate block (followed up with an emergency email to the Office). A legal threat can lead to an immediate block, although some discretion should be used as to whether or not the person really means an actual threat or is merely speaking with an exaggerated tone (and a withdrawal of the threat should lead to a rapid unblock). A particularly offensive vandal (say, one demeaning living people) can fairly be blocked after 2 or 3 warnings.  An account which seems very likely to be compromised can be blocked without warning, with unblocking coming once the security of the account is confirmed.  A user can be blocked for 3RR after only one warning.  Other discretionary situations exist.
 * (3) As implied in (1), I'd like to see the warning system be deprecated for more complex topics. First, hitting someone with an OR template is unlikely to accomplish the desired result, because it's fairly unlikely that the template is going to be sufficient to explain exactly why the user's edit was a problem (especially since what counts as OR can be a matter of interpretation).  Second, hitting someone with a "please AGF" or "harassment" template is more likely to escalate the feelings of anger and insensitivity that lead to the original problem.  Finally, what's the point, anyway?  Say you went through and hit someone with AGF levels 1 through 4; at the end of that sequence, it's not like you can go to the anti-AGF board, and post a request for a block. Instead, you'll have to take the issue to ANI (or WQA, depending on the exact problem), and explain everything in detail, and you're still likely to be criticized for just templating the user rather than talking to them.  As such, I feel like the existence of these templates often lead to more harm then good (like when a user uses them to "get back" at someone they're involved in a content dispute with), so I'm not certain that there is a benefit to keeping them. This position, however, is merely an initial position, that I would like to be discussed widely, and I'd likely refine my exact position and which templates are a problem over time.  Qwyrxian (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Keepscases
 * 10. Please explain "bag warfare".
 * A: Note: I'm waiting for some clarification from Keepscases based on an email that I sent xyr before handling this question. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If the candidate does not wish to answer this question, I have no problem with this. Keepscases (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies; the problem is that in order to answer the question, I have to provide information that would allow for easy connections to other things on the internet that connect closely to my real life. I'm not particularly adamant about being "anonymous" (my unique username makes that fairly difficult), but I'd rather not make the connection openly on Wikipedia. For fans of Keepscases questions, though, I'll tell you that I won't get a Wikipedia tattoo (I don't like physical pain), I dream about Wikipedia at least twice a week (especially if I'm editing right before bed; the best time is when I can "edit" my dream-reality in the same way that I edit Wikipedia), and my favorite element on the periodic table is Aluminum/Aluminium, because it's one of the rare US/UK word pairs where the difference isn't just in spelling, but also in pronunciation (while I was once scientifically-oriented, I'm now much more of a "word" person). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional question from B
 * 11. When thinking about our fair use policy, how do you evaluate whether an image complies with criteria #1 and #8? Consider these three scenarios for use of non-free content under a claim of fair use.  If asked to close FFD discussions, how would you resolve them?
 * A photograph of Miles Stadium (which was torn down in 1965) published in the Washington Post?
 * A photograph of a popular French politician who died last week used both in an article about him and about a company that he founded?
 * A photo of the largest watermelon ever (which earned that title according to Guinness World Records in 1986) in the article watermelon? --B (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A: First point: I have almost no experience with fair use discussions, and have only ever dealt with them in some fairly clear cut cases (like having a user remove non-free files from their userspace). I wouldn't even consider deleting an image under FUP without first observing what others have done (that is, looking for precedent), and, more likely, asking for help at Media copyright questions or from an individual user with experience in this issue.  This is especially the case since the policy itself has recently undergone several long and challenging RfCs, and it seems clear to me that the rules have been interpreted in various ways by various editors.  My own personal opinion is that we should do everything possible to minimize the number of non-free images on Wikipedia, but I understand and accept that this is not a universally held opinion, and that consensus (so long as it is consistent with the Foundation directive) on the issue is what is important. So while I will give answers I cannot stress enough that I would not actually delete anything based on these opinions without getting good help from others.
 * One things that applies to all of the answers--I presume that none of the pictures falls under any of the explicit prohibitions in WP:NFC, like being from a press or photo agency, or being of unknown origin, etc., that would automatically preclude it from being used under fair use.
 * Miles Stadium: Regarding NFCC#1, it is likely that a free version of this image does not exist. It is, of course, conceivable that someone took a photograph of the stadium with a personal camera at some point prior to 1965, but it's unlikely that such an image still exists, is available, and is in the public domain. Of course, we would need to make a reasonable search for such an image prior to passing NFCC#1 (I checked, and found a few pictures, but all of them appear to be copyrighted either to the university or to a newspaper).  Additionally, the exact look of a building is exceedingly difficult to convey in words, and so I believe this would also meet the "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all" question.  Similarly, it can easily be argued that having an understanding of the physical appearance of the building is a necessary part of understanding the topic of the building, and thus the image passes NFCC#8.  As such, considering only NFCC#1 & #8, I'm more than 50% confident that the pictures are okay, but I would happily bow to the wisdom of others.  In trying to get more information for this answer, I was searching through the archives of Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, and it is a morass of conflicting opinions, various levels of legal interpretation, and overall confusion, which only further reinforces my belief that personal intuition about what this policy means is no substitute for the advice of others.
 * French politician: This seems to immediately fail NFCC#1 to me. If the politician was popular, founded his own business, and only died a week ago, I find it inconceivable that no free picture of him exists.  The only way this could possibly pass NFCC#1 would be if the photo itself were about a highly iconic events which was directly discussed in the article, like if the politician had handcuffed himself to the speaker's podium as part of a political stunt. But if it's just a generic copyrighted picture of the politician giving a speech, then it doesn't pass. The same argument holds true for the article about his business--unless the event portrayed is itself discussed in the article (and this should be something related to the business) then it couldn't qualify.  Even if the image was highly iconic, we would still need to consider whether or not the image itself is necessary, or if words would be sufficient for an encyclopedic understanding (which would require some sort of consensus decision).
 * Watermelon: This fails, for me, both NFCC#1 and #8; I don't see how a picture of the world's largest watermelon is somehow more educational than a sourced textual description, and I don't see how one needs to see a picture of the world record holding watermelon to understand the encyclopedic topic of watermelons. If for some reason that world record holding watermelon had it's own article (without worrying about whether such an article would pass WP:GNG), then the picture might pass there, but it would still be questionable on the text alternative portion of #1. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 12. As you most likely know, administrators are not permitted to block users with whom they are "involved". What does "involved" mean to you?  Consider this scenario: You block a user for 3RR.  He immediately contests the block on the grounds that you are an "involved" editor, pointing to a debate from some time ago in which the two of you held opposite views.  (You had forgotten about the debate and did not make the connection until he pointed it out.) What would you do? --B (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A: Oops! It appears that "I" have made a mistake, since WP:INVOLVED says, "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute" (emphasis added).  Was my mistake done out of malice?  Based on your description, it wasn't, but that doesn't mean it won't appear that way to other users, and policy points out that the whole reason for this section is that taking administrative action while involved causes a perception of a conflict of interest, which is bad for both the admin and the encyclopedia.  Now, I need to fix this problem.  The first step is to raise the issue at WP:AN, to solicit the input of uninvolved admins.  The real question is, do I lift the block in the meantime?  This is an issue about which I expect users will have different opinions, but I believe that I should not, because of a combination of two reasons.  The first is that breaking 3RR is one of those cases where it's almost always cut and dry: if a user has been warned, understands the policy (note that we know that this is not a new user), and crosses the bright line anyway, then that person almost inevitably gets blocked.  Thus, it is highly likely that after I raise this at AN, the block will be upheld, even after I'm trouted for my lapse in judgment.  As such, we know that the editor is almost certainly likely to be reblocked, even if I unblock them.  The problem with unblocking them now is that doing so creates the appearance of an extra block in their block log. While it shouldn't actually matter, in practice it can ("That user's got a block log a mile log..."), so I'd rather not transform my error into any problem for them.  Instead, I'd keep the block in place, bring the issue to AN, and ask for others to review the block and, if the feel it was valid despite the involvement, communicate that to the user in question. As always, complicating factors may alter my response. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional question from ZoomTV (new username July 2011, contribs)
 * 13. Dear Qwyrxian, please explain how would you deal with a prominent Wikipedia editor, who would have contributed immensely, earned many Barnstar Awards for his contributions but have started to vandalize many Wikipedia articles based on his personal likes and dislikes, violating many Wiki policies, monopolize all related articles by not allowing anyone else to edit and if they do so, block them in the accusations of being Sock puppets. Please tell how would you deal with such a situation if presented to you?
 * A: Well, first of all, I believe that no editor is exempt from our policies, no matter how prominent they are. That being said, if an editor has been behaving very well for a very long time, and one or more people start accusing that person of some pretty fundamentally bad behavior, that criticism has to be investigated very carefully.  It is possible that the criticism may be warranted, but it’s also possible that those leveling the criticisms don’t yet understand how Wikipedia works and thus accuse the veteran of problems when there are none.  It’s even possible that the accusers may themselves be a part of a concerted attack to undermine the neutrality or quality of Wikipedia.  So, when we review these claims (this would be done via some sort of community investigation, like at WP:ANI or an Request for Comment on user conduct), the most important thing is to actually investigate and see if the claims are valid.  If they are, then that veteran editor needs to be counseled and/or sanctioned.  If they aren’t...well, Wikipedia has a thing called WP:BOOMERANG, which means that those making the accusations may themselves fall under scrutiny.  One might ask, for example, why an editor such as yourself, with only 5 edits, would know about RfAs, and actually come to one to ask a pointed question involving such a deep knowledge of Wikipedia practices like sock puppetry and barnstars?  One might be extra suspicious since I am a known associate of a “prominent Wikipedia editor” who is currently being falsely accused in a number of different places of the exact same things that you describe here; an editor whom I deeply respect and who is doing xyr  best to resist what appears to be an attack coordinated off-wiki to damage the neutrality of a certain category of articles.  I’m willing to assume (a little bit of) good faith that your question is a serious one to elicit how I would handle potentially problematic veteran editors; but please note, WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Phoenix7777
 * 14. Does tagging a POV-title to a title of geographic name make sense? I listed the relevant Policy/Guideline/Essay for your convenience: WP:NPOV, WP:Title and WP:NCGN and WP:NPOV dispute.
 * A: Speaking abstractly? It might. A geographic title would be POV if it did not reflect the widely accepted English name, and thus the article name were trying to assert some sort of point of view about what the place "should" be named.  For example, it would be wrong to have an article named Syonan-to describing present day Singapore; instead, that name correctly redirects to Japanese occupation of Singapore, which describes a particular historical event, including the renaming of that physical location to Syonan-to during the occupation.  Does that mean that every article about a geographic place that is currently the subject of a real-world political dispute should be tagged with POV-title? No. Only those articles where there is a legitimate concern that the current title does not meet the policies/guidelines you listed above, and those concerns have not yet been fully addressed, can the tag remain. When one name is overwhelmingly used in English, we use that name.  For example, our article is at Florence, not Firenze, which is the local Italian name (and the name used at it.wiki), or with Japan rather than Nihon or 日本国.  The problem, of course, occurs when its hard to tell what the widely accepted English name is. Then we have to do a lot of hard work/dispute resolution to try and figure out what title meets our policies and guidelines.  The tag can not be used to undermine that work, nor can it be used as a sort of consolation prize for the side that doesn't get the name that they want.  It could legitimately be used during portions of that dispute resolution, though not indefinitely.  At some point, a decision must be made, somehow, at which point consensus is determined on what the article should be named and thus the claim that the name is non-neutral is no longer valid.  I offer no opinion here about whether or not it belongs on the article you and I are both involved in where the use of the tag is disputed.  Qwyrxian (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 14.2: I would like to hear your opinion on tagging POV-title to Senkaku Islands by User:Penwhale. User:Penwhale clealy is ignorant of policies or guidelines.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A: I'm afraid that I must decline to answer that question; this is not the place for me to express such an opinion, as it could be seen as using my special position in an RfA as a chance to further my position in an ongoing content dispute. I believe that my views on the tag/article title in general are already clear (though not 100% fixed) if you look through the archives of the various discussions we've had at the talk page, ANI, mediation, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Wikid77
 * 15. There have been concerns about improper canvassing for this RfA, so per WP:CANVAS, when is it permissable for a user to notify other users about a discussion where those users are likely to oppose the debated decision? -Wikid77 10:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A:: The basic summary is that any canvassing must be done neutrally. That means that the messages have to be placed in "neutral" places (for example, notifying all Wikiprojects interested in an article of substantial proposed changes to that article like a deletion discussion or a controversial move/merge). When individual users are canvassed, they must be chosen in a neutral fashion, not pre-selected for the likely opinion they will present. For example, the second time an article undergoes an AfD, it would be acceptable to notify everyone who participated in the first discussion, but you must notify everyone on both sides.  When canvassing, the tone of the message used must be neutral.  Finally, canvassing should be done only on-wiki (not via e-mail, etc.).  Qwyrxian (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional question from I Jethrobot
 * 16. What are your thoughts about users following WP:BEFORE when considering nominating an article for deletion? Are there any steps you feel are absolutely necessary?  Are there any steps that are optional, or not typically necessary?
 * A: Only a few hours to go, let me be brief: as far as I read current consensus, WP:BEFORE is necessary in principle, with the exact steps one takes dependent on the situation. For example, I think almost everyone agrees that failing to do a basic Google search along with any other relevant search (GNews for current topics, GScholar for, well, scholarly ones, etc.) would be violating BEFORE; doing so repeatedly could easily draw reprimands from the community, and possibly even a topic ban on opening AfDs.  As to following every single step, there is disagreement.  My own opinion is that one should do at least a reasonable search, and, if you have any questions, raise the issue on the talk page before nomming (consider a Wikiproject as well, if there is a good one).  In certain cases, check with other resources (books, for example, I've learned from DGG, really deserve some special searches that aren't freely accessible on the internet, so I am very hesitant to nom those w/o having him help me check those resources).  Note that even after doing a good faith search, reasonable editors may disagree on whether or not something is notable, and thus an AfD may be appropriate even if it is not certain to succeed.  Further, note that a lot of editors hold a lot of complex positions (even my own position is more complex than I have time to explain here)--just take a look at Village pump (policy)/Archive 88.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Bobthefish2
 * 17. In a hypothetical future scenario (not relating to this) where an editor is being nominated to be an administrator. Suppose the editor has friends as well as enemies in Wikipedia. As it happens, one individual with an agenda would like to stack the votes in a particular way by poisoning the well. What he planned to do was to deliberately canvass those with opinions that were opposed to his (which would, in turn, taint their opinions). To add another layer of complexity to this circumstance, this individual may also deliberately hide his real opinion of the nominee. What can you do, as an admin, to deal with basic psychological tactics such as this?
 * A: Again, time is short, so I will just give a quick answer. First, assuming I somehow know about the plan, I inform the user not to do it; if this is all done secretly/last minute/off wiki, there's nothing I can do to prevent it. If the user does not respond, it may be appropriate to raise the issue on a noticeboard (probably WP:AN).  If possible, we want to prevent the disruption before it happens, but its very very difficult to do so.  However, RfA is a somewhat political process, and, as such, cannot be made fully immune to such deviousness, assuming that the user really is hell-bent on disrupting the process.  Instead, we do our best, and we try to hash out a consensus. To me, this is part of the reason why RfA is not technically a vote--a crat has the ability to interpret the results and take any alleged malfeasance into account.  If the well is irrevocably poisoned though, I have to say that I do not know what we should do.  I'm sure there must be precedent (I can't believe I'm the first candidate to have someone canvas their RfA, either way), but finding it would take me more time than I have right now.  This is definitely a case where no one admin should work alone, and, instead, look to achieve a community consensus.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

General comments

 * Links for Qwyrxian:
 * Edit summary usage for Qwyrxian can be found here.

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

Discussion

 * Stats are on the talk page. Logan Talk Contributions 00:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Technicolor Hyper Support as per nomination statement. --Diannaa (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Amending to Technicolor Hyper Support. --Diannaa (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. I have watched the development of Qwyrxian's replies to the standard questions above but need see no more. Our mutual involvement has tended to be in the often very contentious area of India-related articles. I had already indicated that I would support, as a non-admin, because this contributor has time and again demonstrated to me some of the key points for anyone aspiring to the mop: clarity, throroughness, fairness, a recognition of where to draw a line, civility, policy/guideline knowledge, commitment to the project and, well, you name it. The attempt to mentor a recent contributor,, failed but it was not for want of trying and Qwyrxian had no problem recognising when the end had come. Is Qwyrxian perfect? Of course not, but xe is well in the zone that admins inhabit. Xe could make good use of the tools and has expressed a considered approach to using them. What's not to like? - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Watchlisted support I've been waiting for this! Qwyrxian is a very discerning editor whose edits display a thorough knowledge of policy and consensus as well as good communication skills.  I have no doubt that he would put the mop to good use.  Them  From  Space  00:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Enthusiastic support - Between my nothing-but-positive interactions with him at Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute/GA1 and the glowing nomination statement from an editor I have nothing but respect for, this is an easy one.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  00:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Your answer to Q6 is 203 words too long, ( 204 - 1 = 203 ). Ah well, no penalty for being thorough though.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  06:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Strong support - Easy one here given Diannaa's nom, and my one interaction with him has been positive (creating the anti-sockpuppet filter). Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Amending to strong support due to the use of sockpuppet and canvassed oppose votes. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support – has a good head on his shoulders. Airplaneman   ✈  00:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Qwyrxian has the skills and the temperament. To me, what is most important in an admin, is a level head and thoughtful decisions. Qwyrxian demonstrates this in every edit. I have worked with Qwyrxian on many occasions, and have been constantly impressed. I think Qwyrxian would be a model admin. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Shows calmness, clue, and civility in contentious areas. I trust they will use the new tools in the right way. First Light (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) I've been waiting for this one. Solid candidate, only have good things to say. StrPby (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - I will not withold my support on the basis of one erroneous CSD tag. James500 (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Lots of attempted consensus building and restraint were shown by the editor on Senaku and SSCS pages. I cannot say that anything I have seen is other than what I would expect from a well-balanced admin. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support A qualified candidate with good judgement. We don't have enough admins with a username beginning with Q (There are only 4 at the moment). Minima  ©  ( talk ) 05:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. I was mediator during the Senkaku Islands case to which Qwyrxian was party, and was consistently impressed by his patience, evenhandedness, writing skills, and desire to reach genuine consensus during a period of intense cultural conflict. He was in many ways almost a co-mediator, and I heartily endorse him for adminship. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - seems like a rational, logical editor who would make a capable administrator. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Support based on who nommed, answeres to questions and the GA.TCO (reviews needed) 07:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Easy decision - I've seen Qwyrxian around the place a lot, and recently we've started working in the same area (articles related to India) where there has been a lot of unpleasantness. If Qwyrxian can handle that and stay focused and calm, I have no doubts about any other areas. Oh, and general Wikipedia knowledge looks fine, overall experience looks great, etc -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. A level headed and fair personality around the Japan-related maritime disputes, a patient mentor to Maheshkumaryadav, a ravager of backlogs; Qwyrxian is an ideal candidate. Quigley (talk) 08:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Support The candidate's talk page displays calmness, clarity, and accuracy. Others have made similar assessments. (Inspection of articles revealed nothing especially interesting or easily accessible to me, so I inquire no further.) The candidate has contributed to content and helped the project in a number of fora, and so gets my support.  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 12:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - great work on WP, and you deserve a promotion for it. Always best regards - Bryce 53  &#124;  talk  14:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Editor appears to have good judgement and shows understanding of policy.--EdwardZhao (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) Support hard-working and patient editor, good for administrative tasks! Wandering Courier (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Hardworking and clueful editor. The Interior  (Talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) Very Strong Support Seems like a great candidate for the job. Seems very knowledgeable. Answered all questions very thoroughly and satisfactorily. If he thinks he can handle it, understands all the policy's and stuff, enjoys Wikipedia.... Seems like he would work out great as an Administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusty777 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) Support: The effort this Gentleman puts in to clarify the doubts of the Users is definitely worth making him an administrator. Sincerely: Abstruce (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) Support with the caveat to be careful with CSD. Otherwise, candidate is a good contributor, and a level head in one of our nationalist hotspots. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 21) Support- absolutely. Meets my criteria, seems clueful, thoughtful, civil, level headed, etc. Put admirable thought and effort into the questions. Seems like he would be an ideal administrator.  Swarm   X 20:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) Support If there's a reason for this candidate not to hold the mop, I haven't spotted it. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and now reaffirming support per answers to questions 14.2 and 15. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support &mdash;SW&mdash; verbalize 23:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Suppport - has good intentions. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support – Good, clueful editor; the answer to the A7 question was fairly thorough, and touched on the right spots. — mc10 ( t / c ) 02:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Per nom statement. Good luck! America69 (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Although I feel the need to express my view that the answer to question 12 was over-egged. Holding opposite views in a debate (which is what the question asks) doesn't, in and of itself, constitute a dispute giving rise to an involvement issue or a "conflict" (the word emphasised by the candidate). When barristers move to the bench they don't recuse themselves from every case involving their former "adversaries". If it would be a nonsense in the courts it's a nonsense here. If the block arose from circumstances relevant to the debate (ie the same topic area), there would be an involvement problem. If the past debate was personal in nature, there would also be an involvement problem. But not just because there was, at some time in the past, a debate in which the editors held opposite views. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support -- seems fine to me. --B (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support thought he/she handled the Maheshkumaryadav case very well, especially the willingness to go the extra mile to retain the user. About the A7 stuff below, I'm not worried. CSD is an area that a few people understand very well while the rest of us muddle along, occasionally straying onto the wrong side of the line. But that is the wikipedia way, if we never strayed then consensus, policy and guidelines would never change (which would pretty much be the death of this fine project). --rgpk (comment) 15:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Net benefit. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 20:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Support- Appears to me to be well suited for adminship. Reyk  YO!  20:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Support I believe that Qwyrxian is fine admin material. Xe is a clueful editor and thoughtful communicator who appears willing to pause and clarify when unsure of how to proceed in a given situation. I also hold the nominator's judgment in high regard, which is icing on the RfA cake. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) —Kusma (t·c) 20:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Support; it's always good to have admins who understand the morass that is NPP. I think he nailed Q8; NFT exists for exactly this sort of "claim of notability".  I also saw the job he did cleaning up after (now banned) Maheshkumaryadav, and the work he did there alone is enough to support. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 22:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - No 20 questions bullshit from me. Clean block log and no indications of assholery. Has been around a while. The end. Carrite (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Rational and experienced, but a little verbose. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  07:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Despite a minor quarrel which could have been worse in a few cases, you did well in communicating with me at my talk page and wherever discussions were needed; in fact, especially in communication with me and Anna Frodesiak. The communication between you, Anna, and me were not limited to problems that I may encounter or done wrong, as well as the development that was stated in your intro page. Although it was a very tough decision for me when I noticed that your candidacy was posted for becoming an administrator, I say that you are good to go. Even if you are an administrator, I will continue to communicate whenever you want to do so, and will still try to ask if I need to clarify (along with Anna). CHAK 001 (Improvements? Please let me know!) 08:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. I think that Qwyrxian is hardworking, competent, and can be trusted with the mop. The work on the Mahesh issue was impressive - helpful, thorough, firmly backing a position that supports the project but able to recognise when circumstances change and their old position is no longer viable. More admins like that would be a big net positive for wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 11:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) Support per Q8. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 17:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) Support I've seen the editor keep such a cool head at times. Cptnono (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) Support - A7 is one of my pet-peeves and is one of those really problematic areas that comes up now and then at RfA. I love it when a candidate seems to have a great grasp on A7 (few do), it worries me when they completely fail to grasp the nuances of it (confusing "importance" with "notability" for example") and plans to work at CSD as an admin. In this case, where Qwyrxian seems to mostly get it, but is a bit shaky (for reasons outlined thoroughly in the oppose section), I don't really have a problem because it doesn't look like he's going to jump right into speedy deletion work. Everything else (good communication, article building skills, general experience, clean block log, ability to handle disputes well) looks good to me. --  At am a  頭 19:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) Support per Q6. mabdul 20:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Should make a better admiistrator than many around.Shyamsunder (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. I like what I've been seeing from this user, and hope to see a lot more in the future. -- &oelig; &trade; 21:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) Support I don't see any reason to distrust you so you have my full support! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. Candidate might want to double-check any A7 speedies for a bit, but overall appears to be a solid contributor with good answers to most questions and a proven commitment to improving the encyclopedia. --RL0919 (talk) 02:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 25) Weak support - there are certainly areas in need of improvement, but the answer to Q13 is excellent. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 26) Support &mdash;Terrence and Phillip 08:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 27) Support.  Very calm editor, good at negotiation. If he accidentally deletes the odd Firefox kitten, it's easy enough to put it back, and he'd be so polite about it that the creator would probably be a friend for life. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. Even with a couple bobbles in his answers, Qwyrxian reads to me as the sort of thoughtful, cool-headed, willing-to-explain-but-also-to-correct-his-mistakes person who is well-suited to adminship. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Well, that was embarrassing. Thanks for fixing, Reaper!
 * 29) Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 30) Support Baseball   Watcher  19:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 31) Support per nom. Oda Mari (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. Gave reasonable answers. Writing is verbose, but better than short/snippy replies to users, and experience being verbose can make replies as fast as snippy. Re Opposes: I cannot penalize a user based on disputes about WP:CSD which is obviously a "shaggy dog story" of deletion criteria. WP:CSD is the main problem (shave that dog), not the candidate's ideas of deletion. -Wikid77 12:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 33) Support because of his characteristic approach to contexts which are like "a chicken talking to a duck" (鸡同鸭讲 or 雞同鴨講). --Tenmei (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 34) Support. I like the way this candidate has had experience dealing with content where there have been POV disputes. I'm very satisfied that s/he has the needed cluefullness to navigate those seas. I'm also impressed with the record of working with and even mentoring troubled users. And frankly, the objections over what I regard as quibbles about CSD stuff make me feel more inclined to support, not less, because I think these oppose comments are making mountains out of molehills, and because this is the kind of thing I think can be learned on the job, especially since it won't be in an area of early concentration. (About Q13, I wonder whether some of the scenario might make one ask about account compromise, though—just a thought.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 35) Support He's a good user.  Wayne  Slam 19:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 36) Support He's a level-headed editor who is open-minded and has a good grasp of Wikipedia policies. While he can be quite naive when it comes to dealing with inter-personal disputes, he appears to have as much admin quality as anyone can possibly have. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 37) Support Certainly goes out of his way to find amicable solutions to difficult problems. Definitely worthy of being an admin. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 38) Support Very calm and collected editor who will make a good administrator. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 39) Support Worked with this very patient editor on the 5W mess, I completely trust him with the tools. Dayewalker (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 40) Support I was recently nonplussed by the extent of this candidates politeness and helpfulness during a content dispute with a newer editor. The candidate was clear about his own belief abut what should happen on the article but found it necessary to make sure the newer editor had the tools to express their differing opinion also. Qwyrxian offered to show the other editor the process for expressing what they thought should be done and to help them get that process started at the proper board even though he disagreed withwhat they were trying to pursue. It went so far beyond being polite during a disagreement that I got curious and started exploring what else he did on the project. I liked everything I saw. Cloveapple (talk) 07:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 41) Support - We have interacted a few times, disagreements, but always professional. That along with my reviews of contributions believe this will be a net positive.  GB fan please review my editing 12:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 42) Support - Level headed editor. Giving him admin tools will be a net positive to the project--Sodabottle (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 43) Support Minor policy quibbles aside (and disagreeing on the exact meaning of a word is minor), from my perusal of his contributions, this editor seems level-headed and articulate, both of which seem to be useful interpersonal skills for an administrator. Also, while it's important for administrators to not be complete douchetards, and that they should have a basic grasp on both how and when to use the tools, being one just isn't that big of a deal, particularly if the first part of the equation--I should really write a new essay called WP:NOTDOUCHETARDS :)--is present. LHM 18:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 44) Support Answer to question regarding the ridiculous CSD candidate does, indeed, tell me Qwyrxian understands CSD, Steven Walling's (still) confusion of process with results notwithstanding. --Calton | Talk 19:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 45) Support Agathoclea (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 46) Support This editor seems to hold a strong knowledge of policies and guidelines and so I feel they would make a good addition as an adminitrator. Good luck, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  19:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 47) I've thought about it long and hard, and after reviewing answers to your questions and all the comments above, I'm going to leave my comments here, because though some concerns that have been raised below I agree with, I still think you'd be a net positive as an admin, and frankly that's enough for me. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  20:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 48) Support Dedicated, cautious editor. --John KB (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 49) Support No major concerns. Mjroots (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 50) Support per reasons above. My interactions with Qwyrxian have always been positive, and his answers above give me further confidence he'll do the job well.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 51) Support A good, solid editor who can be counted on to use the tools appropriately. Qwyrxian's behavior on the Cheney Mason talk page was proper, in my opinion. I am sure that Qwyrxian understands CSD better after this process, and I have no concerns in that area.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  21:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 52) Support Impressed at his efforts to tackle and stick with difficult areas like caste and Seneku Island type disputes. So he read A7 wrong. He's got it now. Just one thing - where can I buy a Montydoodle?Fainites barley scribs 21:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 53) Support No candidate is perfect, but Qwyrxian has show an willingness to listen and learn. Rklawton (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This user is among those canvassed by Diligent007. --Diannaa (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support- Why not. Monterey Bay (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Level-headed, good author, with good answers to questions posed. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support y not?  Diego  talk 01:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support The questions asked in this RfA are extremely varied and Qwyrxian has answered them extremely handily and in a manner that shows deep understanding of the proper workings of policy. Silver  seren C 02:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support — I've read through Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute/Archive 5 and it shows Qwyrxian has some skill in resolving conflicts. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support — Although I can't recall interacting with Qwyrxian personally, his edits and interaction with other editors have shown up on my watchlist more than enough for me to form an opinion of the editor. I believe he'd be make a fine administrator. - SudoGhost 04:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong Support I'm terribly impressed with the editing style and objective evaluation of the situation by this user. I wish him all the best. - Altruism  T a l k -  Contris. 05:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I am heavily involved with Qwyrxian and there were many disagreements with him. Nevertheless, I strongly support his adminship. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - The opposes are incredibly unconvincing. I see no issues with the CSD minutia brought up. Shadowjams (talk) 09:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - can't see any reason to oppose - give him a mop!  Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere!  (Whisper...) 13:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Nothing compels me to oppose. Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 13:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong support Opposes are trivial matters that ever editor is bound to deal with.  If you have 50+ edits, you're likely to have been in some sort of conflict with someone.--v/r - TP 14:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Support I've bumped into this editor a few times and found them to be clueful and helpful. Having read the opposes, they range from things I feel are not major issues to things I outright disagree with, but I see nothing that might waiver my support. Will certainly make a good admin.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Per the fantastic phrase that is "my RfA has exploded in a paroxysm of technicolor hyper-drama" . And also because I see no major reason to oppose, seems like a good candidate-- Jac 16888 Talk 15:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) The opposes aren't convincing me; their rationales don't seem enough to oppose.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 17:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) This user and I have bumped into each other when we have worked on the same projects. I found Qwyrxian's edits to be meaningful and trustworthy.   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   17:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) Seems to be a reasonable editor, I can't think of any significant interaction I've had with him/her but a look at contributions show a grounded and reasonable approach. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) Opposes are either mostly unconvincing, or canvassed non-votes over a minor issue. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) Support - 100 people can't be wrong. Plus all the other good reasons that have already be named above. IQinn (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 299 people were once wrong on an RFA, so it's definitely possible. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  03:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd venture to say the odds are fairly high against it, though. "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong...but that's the way to bet!" --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support  per review of a selected contributions, as well as A6, A14.2.  --joe deckertalk to me 00:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Gladly Support The administrator shows a clear reputation for fighting vandalism, and page protection, where they would like to begin their work. Despite not participating nearly as often in AfD, the admin also seems to have a clear understanding of proper WP:BEFORE behavior, and seems to go the extra mile by checking in with others users who have access to sources that are not available online. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support albeit a little late! I have seen nothing but good work from the candidate and cordial discussions. I trust the candidate will use the tools well and exercise caution in areas such as CSD.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Being very familiar with the BLP incident mentioned by the nominator, I am more than satisfied with the candidate's ability to deal with difficult situations in a calm and effective manner. The concerns about interpretations of CSD categories are of very minor relevance in my view. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose due to CSD concerns.  Fairly recently, Malik Shabazz notified Qwyrxian that the school article that he had tagged as A7 was switched to a PROD because A7 does not apply to schools, as it states at WP:A7.  However, Qwyrxian didn't seem to know this, replying, "As a school, it is necessarily either an organization and or corporation; it had no assertion of importance (unless you consider the mere claim to be a school of some type to be an assertion of importance), and, as such should qualify under A7." This worries me, as all admins should be almost perfect in their CSD tagging/knowledge, and not knowing a fundamental part of A7 doesn't cut it for me. Logan Talk Contributions 03:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, two and a half years ago that was slipped in after a convoluted discussion with very low participation somehow reached that exceedingly counter-intuitive result. I fail to see how one perfectly understandable slip up becomes "CSD concerns". "CSD concerns" is indicitive of widespread problems, not a small number of minor errors.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  03:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully his answer to Q6 will appease you. If not, well I'd certainly hope this RfA would pass anyways, as I happen to think highly of Qwyrxian.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  04:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per the vague, confused answer to Q8 and the incident noted above, I don't trust this user with the delete button quite yet. I'd hate to see articles about animals and schools (What else? Public parks deleted as A7?) being CSD'd more.  Steven Walling  16:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, from the prompt given, deletion by A7 is a valid answer. CSD A7 allows for the deletion of individual animals (see ). My reading of the prompt is that this is some dude crossbred himself a frankendog and is passing it off as a new breed. While A7 says "This criterion does not apply to species of animals", there is no evidence that this is anything more than one pet. A7 also demands a "credible claim of significance or importance", key word being "credible". I think Qwyrxian recongnized this in invoking "Wikipedia is not for things made up one day".   S ven M anguard   Wha?  19:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that dog breeds aren't species - all domestic dog breeds are the same species. So the "This criterion does not apply to species of animals" bit is not relevant anyway -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought his answer to Q8 was perfectly clear and perfectly reasonable, but on top of that I can guarantee that many RfA candidates would simply say they'd delete the page after said Google search. His response tells us that he wouldn't be quick to delete even a ridiculous article like that. I mean, he's saying he thinks newly created articles should be given a chance to be developed before simply deleting them. That's an admirable- nay, ideal quality in a CSD reviewer. He recognizes that a CSD tag doesn't mean it has to be deleted right away. I find these things immensely reassuring!  Swarm   X 20:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This badgering of opposes is annoying. I said that I personally do not trust this user with speedy deletion based on his answers here and elsewhere. That is my personal opinion, which you're welcome to disagree with. But clearly I thought about it carefully and have made up my mind based on the diffs readily available. Drowning every oppose in replies is not helping anyone here. Steven Walling  21:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe the RFA reform committee should consider less badgering of opposes. ;-)  They could also eliminate non-supported or insightful pro votes.  After all if "RFA is not a vote, but a discussion" what does a pure vote add?  If it was all already said in the nom statement, fine.  LEave the vote off. ;-) TCO (reviews needed)  22:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're presumably being sarcastic with by saying, "RfA is not a vote, but a discussion," but that's the truth. I can't help the fact that some users frown upon replying to comments, incorrectly use the expression "badgering", and rhetorically exaggerate the "damage" or "disruption" that such replies cause ("drowning opposes"? really?). I don't subscribe to that view, those who do are sure as hell not going to prevent me from doing so on occasion, and sarcastic comments like the ones you repeatedly make are, IMO, more unproductive and problematic than civil ones that try to offer additional perspective are.  Swarm   X 23:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The right of response is part of discussion. It just so happens that people tend to respond to oppose votes, especially oppose votes they view as misguided, in large numbers. At the same time, however, there's nothing preventing people from "badgering" or commenting on support votes. If you want to do so, go right ahead.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  23:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * One response to a vote is not always badgering. Multiple responses creating a pileon or hostile or very defensive "discussion" are very unhelpful. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  07:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I disagree with the answer to question 8. The statement "The breed is known for its amazing looks" is a credible claim of significance. Thus CSD A7 is not valid.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  23:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't you confirm whether a claim of significance is credible via a google search? In this scenario, a google search yields nothing credible to support the claim of significance, so I don't understand how you would consider the claim to be credible.  Swarm   X 01:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the credible part of A7 is not at all about verifiability, all that is required is that the claim be facially plausible. By applying a Google test, your also requiring that the claim has coverage, but that is for other deletion processes. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  03:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While verifiability and significance are not the same thing, they are related. The Google search reveals that the only coverage is this guy's personal blog. As Qwyrxian alluded to, this is indicative of something that someone just made up. Aside from the fact that this would mean that it fails in both notability and verifiability, it also means that the claim of significance pretty much falls flat on its face. The claim of significance, "The breed is known for its amazing looks" fails because the breed is not well known outside of Monty's house. It would be like trying to pass off an imaginary friend as having a credible claim of significance, except in this case, the friend was created not from imagination but from dogs... doing it. The underlying principal is the same, the claim of significance is transparently bogus.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  04:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A side note, since it seems like there's no "correct" answer here: Monty845, if your question was posed right back at you, how would you answer it.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  04:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that Monty845 is technically correct. A claim of notability is sufficient to decline an A7 request regardless of whether it fails the google or google books test. The criterion clearly excludes "verifiability" and "reliability" and explicitly states The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Blindly applying A7, a speedy on that exciting new breed of dog should be rejected forwith. That said, in this particular case, if I may venture into the canine world for a bit, I would have no bone to pick with the candidate if he/she deleted that particular article. --rgpk (comment) 15:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sven is correct; you can't just make a "claim of significance" to invalidate CSD A7. That would be ridiculous. That's the purpose of the word "credible". If a Google search returns nothing at all, its credibility would be unclear and A7 wouldn't apply. But if it only returned a personal blog, the credibility goes right out the window.  Swarm   X 17:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What are we doing, here, peeps? I mean really, step back and think.  Let's kick the Montydoodle poodle.  Feel like we are academic scholars arguing that Homer did not write the Oddysey, but it was a different poet with the same name. ;-) TCO (reviews needed)  18:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A dog can't be "two-thirds Saint Bernard". The various contributions to its ancestry can only be something over some power of two. In a borderline case, a bit of illogic like this could and should allow a responsible editor to make a judgment call that speedy should apply. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  20:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno. Using a spreadsheet, I was able to pretty quickly make a dog that is 66.65039% Saint Bernard.  I couldn't take issue with someone saying that dog is two-thirds Saint Bernard, although admittedly it doesn't look to be the most sustainable dog breed. Keepscases (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoa whoa whoa! Since when is "known for amazing looks" considered a claim of significance?  I better go undelete all of those "Jenny is known for her amazing looks" articles right away.--v/r - TP 22:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No disrespect to any of those commenting here, but I hate to think that this question, my answer, and Axl's resulting oppose are causing (more) conflict. Different people have different interpretations of words like "credible" and "significance"; some people further believe that being a good admin requires certain interpretations. If Axl wants to oppose based on my interpretation of those words, I accept that. I doubt any amount of arguing here is going to change Axl's !vote.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. My fault actually - I just couldn't resist responding above. Apologies.
 * Does it matter? I can't believe people are wasting time picking and arguing over a little technicality and interpretation. This is a freaking website, don't we have better things to do in our free time? / ƒETCH COMMS  /  07:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Woah, there's no need for self-righteous, emotionally charged comments like that whatsoever. Qwyrxian's above comment is a fair point and virtually put the debate to bed, so I don't really know what you thought that comment would accomplish.  Swarm   X 05:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose on the basis of continuing misunderstanding of speedy deletion. It's not a question of the interpretation of "credible" and "significant", about which people can reasonably differ, but a continuing refusal to limit A7 to the types of articles for which it was intended. The schools problem has been mentioned, and the dog problem is also either not perceiving that this is not an individual animal, or  deciding it didn't matter and A7 can apply to whatever one might want it to despite the continuing strong consensus that the categories are meant as a strict limitation. I'm open to changing my !vote here if there is an adequate explanation.    DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would expect any admin to understand the basic reason why A7 is limited to specific classes--that it is easy for any admin to judge if the typical non=notable animal is hopelessly non-notable, but telling whether a breed or the like is hopelessly non-notable, requires discussion & searching. The proof it does is the discussion above, and the many long AfDs we have held on various breed mixtures.  Similarly for things like books, computer programs, and so on. Experience has shown that these need to be looked at by the community.  Speedy is only for things for which there is no possible valid argument, and the very long archives on   WT:Speedy give the discussion of many proposed speedy criteria. I don't expect anyone to read through them all, but the question of why the classes in A7 are limited frequently recurs, and is frequently explained. I don't expect precision in ordinary admin work, but I do expect it in the answers here. If someone is not correct here when everyone is looking, what is the reasonable prediction?    DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that you are pointing out the correct application of A7, although this presentation of an obviously made-up dog breed and hypothetical question would fool many current admins if it started barking at them. I don't think I'm alone in considering everything else going in favor of this candidate: civility in contentious areas, bending over backwards to help clueless or troubled users (see: Maheshkumaryadav), and a serious commitment to Wikipedia without pushing a POV. Those qualities alone put him way ahead of the majority of current admins, in my opinion. And I believe he has an understanding of policy that still puts him well in the pack of current admins. That's why my own support isn't swayed by these arguments, though I do respect their validity and your right to oppose based strictly on his interpretation of regulation A7. First Light (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am aware that Qwyrxian will be confirmed; I wish him well, and I hope very much he will learn the necessary. There are four things the basics of which every admin must know how to handle: deletion, copyright, BLP, and vandalism. My reason for continuing to oppose is to make it clear how seriously I take this.     DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Qwyrxian has done a lot of contributions to wp and I would say he (or maybe she) is a very productive wiki editor, and even may be more, an industrious wiki Online Ambassador. But I do not think he is qualified as an administrator now. He is still far away from wiki adminiship because he has quite often misconstrued or misinterpreted wiki's important policies and guidelines, particularly the most important the NPOV one. The maybe-well-known-disputed page Senkaku Islands and its relative pages was led to a mediation recently for its name/title dispute and debate. Based on the spirit, policies, and guidelines of Wikipedia, I raised that "Wikipedia shall not be forced to take side when involving international territory dispute". His answer was "Of course Wikipedia takes sides". When the precedent Liancourt Rocks, which is demonstrated as a typical example in the wiki guideline WP:NCGN, was mentioned, he indiscreetly asked "Please drop it" and then actually shut a door or way as a possible dispute resolving approach. The naming disputes over the page Senkaku Islands and its relative pages have lasted so long (a couple years) and Qwyrxian has actively played an important role there. Qwyrxian's "contributions" including tricks like "penny wise and pound foolish" on these disputes bear important responsibilities for the disputes last so long including the recent failed mediation. As for his such atitude towards wiki's NPOV, I am afraid if Qwyrxian is empowered with adminiship, he may make Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, becoming, at least in some parts or aspects, the pro-Japan or pro-whateverbiased encyclopedia. Qwyrxian should learn more in this important aspect from other administrators including admin Magog the Ogre. --Lvhis (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Closing bureaucrat, please note this user was amongst those canvassed by Diligent007. First Light (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, First Light, please be aware my "Oppose" vote was made before Diligent007's one below, and before he left a message in my talk page even it is counted as canvas. Please correct your comment and do not be away from AGF on me. --Lvhis (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, my apologies. I've stricken my comment above. First Light (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Lvhis (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose on the bases expressed by all other editors/posters who have opposed Qwyrxian. The foregoing posters who oppose have done a great job of justifying why Qwyrxian should not enjoy the privilege of becoming an administrator.  Speedy deletion, among other issues, is a serious flaw of Qwyrxian.  This is very much a public issue, and, with that in mind, I must be at liberty to say that the kind of actions described of Qwyrxian, and as personally experienced by me in the course of editing articles, make him/her unbecoming of a serious administrator candidate.  This is about trying to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, and, with that in mind, I must oppose and urge that someone who is seriously qualified to be considered. In my experience and opinion, Qwyrxian overzealously fended off anyone from undoing the deletion of certain content he simply did not like attributed to a person--even though it was factual and had significant public interest--and he did so by seeking to expeditiously foreclose the possibility of a thorough discussion by deleting the subject content without allowing it to remain for others to view and comment, specifically the editors who actually had a vested interest in the article given that they had actually created it.  Aside from the few editors that came to his aid, Qwyrxian really took control over the future of the article irrespective of the discouraging effect it had on other editors who may have contributed to the discussion, but, in my opinion, did not in fear of being berated.  I pleaded to have the subject content remain for the time being in order to give a full opportunity for others who had worked on the article to comment, but, instead of compromising, Qwyrxian hastily sought to have me banned from Wikipedia when I sought to preserve the subject content in the foregoing vein of my good-faith intention.  Fortunately, an administrator, notably, REFUSED to block me at Qwyrxian's request.  Of course, expressing a high degree of professionalism and respect towards the administrator, Qwyrxian quipped about the administrator as follows, to wit: "Now that Master of Puppets has chosen not to block you..."! The administrator came in to do his/her job, and Wikipedia is not about puppet shows and censorship, but about an open source of free media, and, in my strong opinion, this is in jeopardy with Qwyrxian's nomination.  (Yes, I do have a conflict of interest, if it is not clear to all, but it accrued from my dealings with Qwyrxian, which I think is necessary to have in order to be able to make a useful opinion in such a pubic debate of nomination.)Diligent007 (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that has interacted with  recently, in the form of a WP:ANEW discussion. I can't help but conclude that the previous interaction is coloring the !vote. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln)  (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because I wouldn't want people to think that I call others names, I want to clarify that "Master of Puppets" refers to User:Master of Puppets, the admin who declined the 3RR report I made because while Diligent007 went over 3 reverts in 24 hours, xe wasn't aware that undoing the content manually rather than doing it with the "undo" button still constituted a revert for purposes of 3RR. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think that, in the context of Qwyrxian's having quipped Master of Puppets (even though the administrator may have signed off as mop) was inappropriate--it may not have been interpreted by Qwyrxian, but it was definitely interpreted that way by me as the recipient of the message (and perhaps others who would have received the same--Qwyrxian seemed to have poked fun at the m.o.p. user name in his/her usage of it, since, again, the administrator signed off as mop, not utilizing the time to write out Master of Puppets); I felt that if I were to engage him further after that, the relationship would continue to deteriorate. His/her serial deletion mentality without allowing for a full and robust discussion to take hold (causing deletion to occur and the potential banning of others if they seemingly were to contest such premature and haphazard deletions) are inconsistent, I believe, with the sound, moderate mindset an administrator should have in effecting a balancing act of maintaining Wikipedia.  I understand that Qwyrxian may feel that what I said about him/her is inconsequential, but I feel compelled to bring such pertinent information to everyone's attention. Diligent007 (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To make a long story short, Diligent007 is referring to his desire to include a tabloidish factoid in a WP biography—namely, that an attorney gave the finger to some reporters (probably tabloid reporters) after the Casey Anthony trial. Consensus was unanimously against him, and Qwyrxian handled it quite well. In fact, his handling of the issue is what brought me here to support his adminship. Anyone interested can read the discussion at Talk:Cheney Mason. First Light (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First Light, it could not be more obvious your deep affection for Qwyrxian, which understandably clouds your aforementioned comment, which you dub as your "To make a long story short"; forgive me for being blunt, but your story is just that--your personal narrative manipulated to be spun in the most favorable light of your colleague, Qwyrxian. Anyone wishing to understand the actual circumstances of my encounter with Qwyrxian should review all of my extensive comments found in the discussion page of that article and then found on the talk pages, as I recall, of Qwyrxian, etc.  I have discussed this matter with others involved in the creation of the article, and they, like me, have grown apathetic of having to constantly attempt to maintain the integrity of the article we had created by attempting to reinsert the factual statements of one of the infamous incidents for which the subject of the article will be known.  I used this word before, "hijack," and I still find it applicable in my encounter with Qwyrxian and his posse of a select-few fellow editors who team up to discourage fresh and diversified discussions about the issue of dispute in the subject article.  First Talk's biased statement of there being "[c]onsensus was unanimously against him" is the shrewd outcome of causing a vacuum of lost discussion from critically important editors by forcefully seeking the deletion of pertinent information from the article without allowing others the opportunity to review such as it was originally drafted--you know, the ones who actually expended the time and effort to create the article.  And with the elevation of Qwyrxian to administrator, the degree of such conduct that has others, such as myself, being hesitant in getting involved in further editing/creations of articles, etc., will only increase to the detriment of Wikipedia users.  So, know your editors/posters:  First Light (among a select-few others) will back Qwyrxian and vice versa, unequivocally. Diligent007 (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just need to add that Qwyrxian posted a retaliatory message on my talk page by stating I was forbidden from informing others, who possibly would want to give their opinion, from weighing in on his nomination as they probably would otherwise not know about such an opportunity. Importantly, I NEVER told--recruited--anyone to say a PARTICULAR thing (i.e., to oppose or favor Qwyrxian), but just informed them of their opportunity, again, to say what they thought--that is all.  I believe it is perfectly legitimate to inform others of this opportunity, just as I was informed about it (so long as I don't tell them to take a particular side).  Nonetheless, Qwyrxian got on my back, figuratively speaking, posting the following on my talk page, to wit:  "[Y]ou may not go to the talk pages of people who you believe share an opinion about you to solicit comments on a process like RfA. If other editors want to give their opinion, they may do so, but specficially [SIC] recruiting others is forbidden. Qwyrxian"  As one can see, Qwyrxian erroneously accuses me of having sought people to post an opinion like mine on here, but that's not what I said to anyone to do, and Ihardlythinkso's opposition below is proof-positive of this:  I just informed him of his opportunity to weigh in, I NEVER told him HOW to weigh in (i.e., to oppose or favor Qwyrxian).  At this point, I'm not sure I want Qwyrxian to continue to write crass, retaliatory comments on my talk page, as I can't control how others will weigh in on his nomination.  So, I guess what I have to say to Qwyrxian is this: Qwyrxian, stop it--stop repeatedly posting retaliatory messages--in a consecutive fashion--on my talk page with your fallacious objections about my having informed others (just as I was informed about it from another editor in turn) about their opportunity to voice their opinion, whatever it may be of Qwyrxian (as I am not dictating to them what to say, again).  I guess, in this respect, more and more of Qwyrxian's intolerable, senseless and self-serving censorship is being shown.  It's a conflict of interest for Qwyrxian to have done what he did, and, what is more, you don't want a candidate for the administrative job to already seem to have gone full throttle on censorship before clenching the required votes.  Should I receive more unwelcomed comments from Qwyrxian in being a poor sport about others opposing him/her, I'll let this forum know, since it should be known before a vote is made.  Diligent007 (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, Diligent007. There are three oppose votes right now, and three of those are you and two other editors you solicited opinions from, knowing they had clashed with Qwyrxian in the past. Q informing you of WP:CANVASS is perfectly within the rules of WP, because that's what appears to be happening. Dayewalker (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, Daywalker. I was made aware of the opportunity to voice an opinion by another editor, and, just as a matter of a reciprocal courtesy, I attempted to make others aware of the same opportunity.  Just look at Ihardlythinkso's opposition below: I did NOT tell him to oppose Qwyrxian; he made up his OWN mind on what he would say.  So, in this light, stop stiffling an open process.  What are you afraid of?  That when more interested parties become aware of the opportunity to voice their opinion, your friend, Qwyrxian, will receive more opposition? Just let the chips fall as they may.  Furthermore, it is NOT because of my doing that three opposing views have been made against Qwyrxian:  Steven Walling made his opposition on July 19, and I contacted him only afterwards, on July 23rd!  So, please stop MISLEADING people.  It's unethical--I don't know if Qwyrxian is putting you up to it, but it doesn't reflect well on you.  It's an embarrassment on your part to insist that I stop telling others about the opportunity to voice their opinion--whatever it may be.  Don't taint the process by your attempt to tell me to keep quiet about the opportunity for others to voice their opinion.  Diligent007 (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Headsup, Qwyrxian has just "FORBIDDEN" me from informing others about the opportunity to voice their opinion, whatever that opinion may be. He's not an administrator yet, but he's already acting like one who can rule roughshod.  Let common sense guide others about the kind of mentality that predisposes one to act in such an audacious manner as to attempt to shut down a free and fair process.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diligent007 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is turning into a drama worthy of a full-on WP:ANI discussion. Diligent, I suggest you review WP:CANVASSING. I think 's point regarding your actions is well-taken. Further, your statements above give the appearance that you intend to turn this RfA into a WP:BATTLEGROUND, which is both unwise and unwelcome. If this discussion is to continue, I'd strongly suggest it be moved to the Discussion page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Diligent007 has been blocked one month for canvassing and block evasion (socking) stemming from this RfA. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have placed a list of those editors canvassed by Diligent007 on the Talk page. --Diannaa (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Was asked by Diligent to weigh in.  (I've no prior contact w/ Diligent, not familiar to any degree w/ any of Diligent's issues or experiences.)  If I give opinion, I have to say oppose.  (IMO Qwyrxian needs to mature before becoming Admin.  I feel he has a fatal flaw: predisposition to value policy over article quality.  Policies are good things.  But when valued to extreme in-and-of themselves, it becomes a bit manic and destructive.  For example, I've seen Qwyrxian go out of his way to basically invent fact and theory to maintain a policy view – essentially force-fitting a situation into the policy for the sake of the policy. I feel if he feels the need to go to that extent, something must be wrong.  Policies should be kept in mind always, with vigilance for opportunities to make them better.  But I don't think Qwyrxian carries that mindset.  I think he values policy to such degree, the article becomes in inconvenient nuisance to the policy.  If you promote him to Admin, which looks like will be the case here, I suppose he will eventually mature.  But I think there will be a cost, disheartening editors who must face this predisposition, too.)  Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC) p.s. 1) this is my first-ever vote in an RfA, 2) I was aware of the RfA prior to hearing from Diligent, 3) wasn't sure I was eligible to vote (I had assumed RfA voting was for Admins and above), 4) didn't research voting eligibility further for two reasons: a) approve looked unstoppable, so what's the point? and b) Qwyrxian is currently working on something of value to me (i.e., building possible exception language to WP:COLLAPSE) and I didn't want to risk teeing him off w/ a negative vote, 5) I thought about the ethics of that, deciding to speak up outweighs my own personal interest. Last, I think it's interesting to witness Qwyrxian during this voting period.  (Look what he did! ... He used policy to stomp down on Diligent, even there isn't anything fathomable he could possibly gain from doing so.  [To stop an influx of oppose votes which might tip the voting balance!?  Nonsense. To dispense helpful, corrective education to Diligent at an opportune moment for learning?  I hardly think so!]  So what explains Qwyrxian's interest to bring policy to the attention of Diligent, instantly and during the voting period?  I see only one answer that makes sense:  an overriding affection for policy, for policy's sake.  His answers to the vetting sample questions could all be perfect, his conduct might be friendly and polite as heck, but IMO, those things don't matter, if a predisposition rules.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Closing bureaucrat, please note this user was amongst those canvassed by Diligent007. First Light (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First Light, I learned here thru reading that there are some Support votes which were canvassed. If true, why haven't you appended your special comment to those votes as well?
 * Also I'm curious about this theoretical question, to anyone feeling canvassing is something "absolute": 1) a user cannot control if someone edits their Talk page, 2) a user cannot control if Diligent edits their Talk page, 3) RfA voting is valid any day thru close of the voting period, 4) a user may vote any day up thru close of the voting period.  ...So!  What if Diligent had canvassed a user on day "x", and the canvassed user had planned or was planning to vote on day "x+y"?  (How does that user avoid receiving your appending comment, presumably designed to bias the closer to dismiss the opinion in the vote based on canvassing?  Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add your comments to those who supported. The reason I put them here is that traditionally, it only takes about 1/3 oppose !votes to stop an RfA, and so Diligent007's canvassing was effective in that regard, just not widespread enough. I personally don't feel canvassing is an absolute. I fully support your right to come here and express your opinion, and would oppose any effort to stifle your voice. I also stand by my own right to point out that you were part of a mass-canvassing effort by an editor who is now blocked. It's entirely up to the person closing this process to decide how much weight to give these things. But in both cases, everyone's voice should be heard. First Light (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I'm not going to do that. (Don't know how to dig for the proper info, don't want to, and I think it's tacky anyway.)  Don't you see, that by selectively appending comments on Oppose votes meant to attempt to bias the closer to dismiss the opinion in the vote based on canvassing, but not doing the same for canvassed Support votes, you are yourself involved in attempting to bias the effective voting – fundamentally no different from the same complaint about canvassing?  This seems hypocritical to me!
 * On my second, theoretical question, I don't see any answer in your reply. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think it's hypocritical. Canvassing to subvert the outcome of a !vote is against Wikipedia policy, period. People shouldn't be encouraged to do that, which is what would happen if we all ignored it. I'm not going to ignore it, even though it hasn't influenced the outcome of this RfA, except perhaps to garner a bunch of sympathy votes for Qwyrxian. Regarding #2, you are correct that you have no control over Diligent007 editing your talk page. I'm sure that people closing RfA discussions are aware that some of those who were canvassed may have come here on their own at some point. As I said on the talk page, "This is a good example of how an extremely disruptive editor can sow confusion, discord, and hurt feelings among good faith editors—probably no matter what course of action was taken." I've taken the action that I think is the most appropriate, by pointing all of this out to the closer of this discussion. First Light (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Amazing. You're engaged in fundamentally the same biasing to effective vote count as cavassing – appending comments designed to influence the closer on Opposes, while intentionally ignoring the Supports. What difference between your engagement in that biasing activity from that of canvassing?  As far as contributing to bias goes?  And the theoretical question ... you seem to admit you might be appending to a vote by someone already planning to vote regardless receiving an invitation from Diligent.  But you are relying on the closer to dismiss your comment?  Then, why append one?  You are relying on the closer to dismiss your comment "sometimes"?  On what basis is "sometimes", versus "other times"?  That argument makes no sense to me.  How is what you are doing any better than canvassing as far as engaging in biasing activity?  It is just a different way to engage.  (Maybe even worse.)  Your comments have the single and only possible purpose of attempting to influence the vote.  Against canvassed Opposes, but not applying equally to canvassed Supports.  As long as you are in the garden sowing seeds, you might as well sow both rows.  You're trying to restore an un-biased vote, yes?  By introducing your own pet bias?  (That is not hypocritical?!)  Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You should not be doing what you're doing, for two reasons: 1) appending to canvassed Opposes but deliberately ignoring canvassed Supports, is obviously unfair and engages in your own kind of biasing activity, 2) you can't know the user wasn't planning to vote regardless getting a canvass from Diligent, and your appends&mdash;which have as their only hoped-for intent of that of influencing the closer to discount the vote&mdash;if effective (and effectiveness is your wished-for result) then assumes the analogous role of "condeming an innocent man/woman to death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihardlythinkso (talk • contribs)
 * There is one person amongst the Supporters who was canvassed: User:Rklawton. I am going to mark it with my next edit. Any further discussion of First Light's behavior should probably be taken to some other venue, as this page is for discussing ‎Qwrxian's potential as an administrator. Thanks. --Diannaa (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding that comment to the single Supporter who was canvassed. I should have done so myself, to be honest, and in all fairness. I've responded to the last questions from User:Ihardlythinkso at his talk page (User talk:Ihardlythinkso), in order not to bog down this page any more. First Light (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I was asked to weigh in on this. Based only on my own previous interactions with Qwrxian, I do not believe he is an appropriate candidate to be an administrator of WP at this time. I found that Qwrxian was more interested in policing Wikipedia than editing it. In his zeal to voluntary enforce WP guidelines, I found that the user came off as brash, simpleminded, and authoritarian. This is because the user appears to have a very narrow and rigid understanding of WP policies and guidelines. I'm afraid that if he was given the position, he may potentially abuse it. Wikipedia does not need more administrators, it needs better editors. This is an encyclopedia, not a bureaucracy. mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Closing bureaucrat, please note this user was amongst those canvassed by Diligent007. First Light (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm very new to this. However, I know enough from life experiences and have read Qwyrxian's interactions with many of those who have commented here to come to think that I cannot fathom favoring a person whom I have strong reservations about going overboard in editing to the point there is no room for others to freely write what is true.  I mean Qwyrxian seems to suffocate the potential of articles in dictating what he seems to find suitable to be included in the articles, and, in an attempt to save face, his friends side with him when someone like Diligent007--who has been banned, notably, after taking a stand here--speaks up about it.ChrismanUSA (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that this is one of only 4 edits made by this user. The account was created today, and is a pretty blatant sockpuppet of currently-blocked Diligent. LHM 21:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that, as of this writing, has made a grand total of FOUR edits to Wikipedia...three of which involve this topic. Based on that, I find it incredulous that he could possibly arrive at such a conclusion, except through direct interaction with . I'd prefer to assume good faith, but in this case, that would require extraordinary suspension of disbelief. That said, he is (of course) entitled to his own conclusions, and therefore, his own !vote and rationale for same. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In the event that this is a sockpuppet, then I should remind everyone here that taking an inappropriate approach to criticize the nominee will only weaken the overall position of the OPPOSE side. If there are legitimate concerns, voicing them in the proper manner will suffice. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * is a checkuser-confirmed, now-blocked sock of . Oppose indented. &mdash; Scientizzle 22:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I have very limited interaction with this editor. I thought better of a comment I made and chose to remove it to avoid escalating an editing dispute. Qwyrxian not only restored it, ensuring it was read but templated me for removing my comments. This demonstrates to me that he has poor judgement in managing disputes and doesn't have what it takes.  Wee Curry Monster talk 22:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The comment left by Qwyrixin (here) was not actually a template but a hand-written note (as explained here), so WP:TEMPLAR isn't particularly applicable, in my opinion. That said, reasonable editors can disagree on the the utility of WP:REDACT when reverting commentary later regretted. Wee Curry Monster should also note that s/he was one of many canvassed by Diligent007. &mdash; Scientizzle 22:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I oppose the candidate because my interaction with the guy indicated poor judgement not because somone bugged me about him. I ignore canvassing and rarely comment if ever at RFA. The haranguing of anyone who opposes this candidate and the attempt to belittle any oppose votes merely re-inforces in my mind that this guy should not be given the mop.  He and his supporters want it too much and that should be sufficient reason to oppose.  Wee Curry Monster talk 23:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're barking up the wrong tree--I haven't (and probably won't) register a vote here; I have no known previous interaction with Qwyrxian. It was not my intention to "harangue" or "belittle", and I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of my comment above. I merely saw this oppose when checking on the follow-up to the socking issues above and thought I'd look into your statement. Since you didn't, I provided what I think are the relevant links for everyone else who wants to evaluate your claims. &mdash; Scientizzle 23:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Respectfully I disagree, if you felt I should have mentioned that someone had contacted me, then the correct thing to do was to politely ask me about on my talk page first. Posting here in the manner you did appears to me to be an attempt to have my comments discounted.  For the record I was not influenced by Diligent and registered an oppose vote on the basis of my limited interaction with the guy.  Frankly the way everyone is going at anyone who registers an oppose vote is not doing the candidate any favours.  Wee Curry Monster talk 19:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Strongly oppose. This candidate has very poor judgement. STSC (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Closing bureaucrat, please note this user was amongst those canvassed by Diligent007. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think everything from Oppose #5 #7 down was canvassed ; except for Diligent himself .--v/r - TP 14:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Diligent was just giving appropriate notifications to other editors. STSC (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that is incorrect, as he was blocked for improper canvassing. You might wish to review the actual policy. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See Canvassing. If this were allowed, en.WP talk pages would be awash in "discussion spam." Given that it's not allowed, when it does happen, it harmfully skews the outcome of a discussion because the canvassing is sent to a skewed sample in that very hope. It doesn't matter that the votestacked editors who come to the discussion post in good faith. As an aside, I think it highly likely that Diligent was wholly unaware of the policy. He was not blocked for the canvassing as such, but for his behaviour after being told and warned about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, some of the candidate's supporters are just trying to suppress the opposition on here. STSC (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, TP, please be aware my "Oppose" vote (Oppose #5) was made before Diligent007's one, and couple days before he left a message in my talk page even it is counted as canvas. My oppose vote was nothing to do with D's canvas. Please correct your comment and do not be away from AGF on me. --Lvhis (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC) (modifired)
 * Corrected, my apologies.--v/r - TP 18:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Lvhis (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose An acceptable editor, but it would be dangerous to give Admin rights/tools to someone with such history, who has shown their inability to edit without bias. Sorry. Sennen Goroshi !  (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Closing bureaucrat, please note this user was amongst those canvassed by Diligent007. First Light (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I found this nomination while noting this editor throwing his weight around. While I am awaiting a response to what issue in the WP:MOS opposes the edits he is dominantly making, the intense activity for this kind of repetitive edit, without discussion, alone tells me THIS IS NOT the kind of person we need having advanced power here on WP.  Its an attitude of his way or the highway and is bordering on POV.  We need admins who work with a situation, not wholesale delete or revert everything that they disagree with. Trackinfo (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * # Neutral but will support if you can just unequivocally say that you're not going to delete things like schools under A7. We have already far too many trigger happy people applying A7, but you seem to be a great editor. Steven Walling  04:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Moved to oppose.  Steven Walling  16:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral The candidate seems to still be having trouble with WP:CSD A7. In light of the previous concern raised about the proper scope of A7, I would have hoped that the candidate would have been careful with the scope of it in answering any questions, however the answer to question 8 fails to demonstrate that. The criteria only applies to an individual animal or animals. Normally an entire breed of dog would be outside the scope. That said, there are certainly ways that the example in Q8 could be argued to be validly speedy deletable, even under A7, but the issue of it being ostensibly about a breed, and how that impacts application was not addressed in the response. Otherwise the candidate looks great, and I don't think the edge case CSD issue is enough for me to outright oppose, but likewise I don't feel comfortable supporting given the issue. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  17:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I am utterly dismayed that you ignored the appeal from Steven Walling to earn his support. Honestly I anticipated a prompt equivocation that lessons had been learned (a rather small penance). In spite of your strong answers to many questions, I had resolved to see your reply to Steven before giving my own full support (perhaps as others). In keeping with my own resolve, I am more comfortable commenting from here. My76Strat  talk  00:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What appeal? Steven said "I thought about it carefully and have made up my mind" - seems pretty clear to me. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also it was a pointless 'appeal' for support anyway. One can clearly see from the example that I presume Steven is talking about (here) that the candidate understood this part of A7 by his "Thanks!" in that section and that "lessons had been learned", as you put it. Clearly the candidate now understands this point and wouldn't knowingly tag an article incorrectly. I don't see why you should be utterly dismayed. Mato (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are probably right that "utterly dismayed" is a bit stronger than I necessarily felt. I apologize for the hyperbole. I just felt his original comment deserved a response, and when nothing materialized after 12 hours he moved to oppose. I don't want to read too much into it, but I was anticipating an answer myself. I will say it was never an option to oppose, because the candidate is too strong in my opinion to oppose. But I did end up neutral, if only for now. But thanks for the reality check. Best, My76Strat  talk  06:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Elements of the situation with Diligent007 are capable of skewing my opinion to oppose. The entire debacle reflects admin qualities that I find particularly unflattering. I am vexed that I was counted within a stereotyped group said to hold views consistent with opposing this candidate. And the allegation was canvassing. I have no dealings with Diligent007 whatsoever. If he picked my name to message, (which he did) it can only be the result of having seen my contributions to articles and talk pages where he and the candidate have interacted. He could never have known how I would likely !vote. That is just a simple fact. My76Strat (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I love raising questions and please don't bite me. Despite all the accusations of Diligent007 canvassing, can it actually be proven that he was canvassing and that all the editors he invited were intrinsically disinclined to support the nominee? The fact that 2 of his invitees voted against the nominee doesn't necessarily mean that the entire sample of invitees were artificially skewed towards a certain opinion spectrum. My 2 cents. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No biting necessary! Don't worry about that. Yes, it was 100% canvassing. D7 sought out almost thirty other editors (including two IPs) who had been in conflict with the subject of the RfA in hopes they'd bolster his opposition to the nomination. Once they come to the RfA, their opinions can be taken in good faith. Whether they vote for or agin', they're entitled to their opinions once they get here. That some have voted to support the nom shows that canvassing isn't 100% effective, but the intent to disrupt was clearly still there. Dayewalker (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, can you actually prove that these 30 other editors were all in fact in conflict with the nominee? If not and, as you've noted, some actually voted in support of the nominee, then is that really a matter of a failed CANVASS attempt or that there simply wasn't any CANVASSing involved? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The 10-12 of them I looked at had all been in situations with the nom. I'm not going to make an exhaustive list, as I don't really feel like letting a disruptive troll like R7 give me extra work around here, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if 100% of them have had contact to an extent that R7 felt like they would back him up. And canvassing is only trying to stack the deck and influence a discussion. Once the canvassing is done, each editor makes their own decision. Whether it works or not, it's still canvassing. Dayewalker (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What would you be defining as situations with the nominee? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the things that did upset me about this, is I did not see any attempt to ascertain if the list was a neutral list. No one asked the blocked editor from where he developed his list. It was quickly called canvassing, and personally I had no conflict with the candidate, so my impression was he might have simply invited all of the editors who had contributed to a particular page, more than likely dealing with Casey Anthony. The message did not carry an assertion that the sender hoped I would !vote a certain way so I wasn't sure if I was being canvassed to support, oppose, or just give critical commentary. I guess for me, I am most curious as to why I was chosen to receive the message. And at least allow that it might have been from a neutral environment. My76Strat (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite having expressed my support for the candidate, I am not very happy about this as well (and this is not the nominee's fault, just to be clear). Here we have at least half a dozen admins actively going after Diligent007 (overkill?) but I have yet to see any solid evidence that he was in fact canvassing (or sending invite to an unambiguously biased sample of editors). Sure, Dayewalker claimed that 10/30 (or 10/90?) of them had situations with the nominee, there are no details provided and the overall support of the claim appears quite weak to me. I wonder if others here share my discomfort about this. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @My76Strat, this tool shows that you and Qwyrxian have edited many articles and talk pages in common. I don't know why Diligent chose you, and the point is moot, as you posted to this page four days before his message was placed on your talk page. @Bobthefish2, every administrator, and many non-administrators, who reviewed the situation felt that Diligent was in violation of the canvassing rules. Canvassing --Diannaa (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this is not a convincing justification. The fact that the supposedly canvassed commentators had shared editorial experience with nominee does not naturally mean they were pre-filtered to be biased towards a particular standpoint. In many ways, opinions from editors who had shared experience with the nominee should be valued even more as they had more opportunities in evaluating the qualities of the nominee. At the same time, I am rather concerned that there is some bandwagon effect with these CANVAS accusations. Had these "every administrators and many non-administrators" independently reviewed the set of supposedly canvased individuals? If so, it shouldn't be very difficult for them to share some of that evidence. Since this RfA is closing in a few minutes, I wouldn't expect anyone would want to continue this discusison. But I do hope that at least some here would agree with me on my skepticism regarding this matter. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm also perplexed, about what specifically makes inappropriate canvassing charge, stick to Diligent. What part in the policy specification, did he violate?  Vote-stacking?  Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement).  But, Diligent had no such knowledge outlined.  What specific part of the policy specification makes the allegation stick?  What am I missing? (Please don't answer in generality.  Please quote from the policy.  Thx.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I based my opinion on on User talk:Ihardlythinkso, which clearly shows which way the user intended the canvassed persons to vote (the other messages did not have this wording); and  at User talk:Qwyrxian, where Diligent expresses that he expects the canvassing to result in a deluge of Oppose votes. This is what led me to believe that Diligent007 had addressed his remarks to what he believed to be a partisan audience. Five admins and one recent admin candidate (the type of folks one would expect to know the policies most intimately, as they are expected to enforce them) agree with my conclusion, but I cannot comment on their specific thought processes, obviously. --Diannaa (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. The first post said he had bad dealings with the nominee but said nothing about whether or not he expected the invitee to support the nominee. The second post  was an impolite warning to the nominee about he's not allowed to forbid the influx of opposing votes. Again, it said nothing about whether or not the invitees were stacked in favour or against the nominee.
 * While it's possible that the accusation of canvassing is legitimate, I am not going to buy that claim simply because 5 admins and 1 admin hopeful bought that concept. Again, I look for convincing evidence. If there's none, then I am not convinced. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll post a couple of samples on the talk page when I get a moment, so as not to further clog up the RFA voting page. Dayewalker (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've posted my explanation to talk of how I believe the editors were chosen. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral I'm heavily involved with Qwyrxian in a fairly long-running dispute (he's one of the editors, I'm not saying we're at loggerheads!) so I don't think it would be appropriate for me to support this request. But I have found him to be very patient and friendly when dealing with other users. He has also tried to find middle ground and compromises, even if it was moving away somewhat from his position. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As an observation, when I ran for admin, one of the things that made the most difference to me was when someone I had previously been involved in a horrid dispute with (and for which all I could do was apologise) said "well actually, you're not that bad after all." So I'm sure Q appreciates you taking the time to post this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying he's just another party in the dispute. We're not at loggerheads, i.e. we're not (as far as I can see) on opposite sides of the argument! But given we've been involved in the dispute for such a long time together I don't think it would be proper for me to support him. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah right. So different circumstances.  I'm not sure it makes a difference in that case - whether you are involved in a disupte with him.  I think if you are able to separate your opinion of him as an admin, from your opinion of whatever he wants the article to say.....  Even so, an honest and friendly opinion from someone 'on the other side' is something that is appreciated.
 * Please rethink your sense of propriety. I would have thought your experience makes you uniquely qualified to support this -- precisely because of the extended opportunity to follow the parsed development of Qwyrxian's thinking when he simply cannot see beyond a loggerheads impasse. IMO, there is no impropriety in supporting this while continuing to disagree about specific instances in which Qwyrxian stumbles over a confounding fallacy (交絡), a confounding variable (交絡変数) or a confounding factor (交絡因子).  In this instance, your support would acknowledge that Qwyrxian is generally doing the kinds of things which are good for our project -- even when he is wrong or perhaps especially when he does not understand how he is mistaken. --Tenmei (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. Quite simply not impressed. My concerns definitely aren't enough for an oppose, yet I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting. Here comes one of my rare neutral !votes. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;"> Waterfox ~talk~ 00:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.