Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Richardcavell 3


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

Richardcavell
'''Final (27/25/4); ended 19:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC) - At the time of this close, sufficient opposition has been raised regarding both Richard's communication methods in various parts of the English wikipedia projects and his understanding or implementation of various policies and guidelines as to indicate that at this point in time, there is no consensus to allow Richard access to the English wikipedia administrator toolkit. As the issues that many project members had with this request of Richard's have been indicated in a respectful manner below, the opposition section could serve as a source of constructive criticism for Richard, indicating areas the project would like to see improved upon in preparation for his volunteering for this kind of maintenance work in the future. Avi (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– G'day everyone. I wish to nominate myself for adminship. For the relevant history, please see: I am making a self-nomination for the same reason that I did last time - because I want to disclose up front my history of adminship and unsuccessful re-application for adminship. My reasons for applying for adminship this time are in fact somewhat different to what they were the previous two times. Here they are: ... in addition to the usual admin duties, and my longstanding desire to reform Category:Hormones. To address the issues from my last adminship request:
 * Requests for adminship/Richardcavell 2
 * Requests for adminship/Richardcavell.
 * I have recently become quite involved in bots. I have written a bot framework in C, and have successfully tested it. I plan a major expansion of this codebase, and I would like to have admin tools to help me test the framework, and provide the option for my bot to also be given admin status in future. (Note that this RfA is for me, not my bot).
 * I have also had reason to become very interested in privacy issues recently. Richard Cavell is my real name. My home town is Melbourne, Australia. However, I have recently had to permanently leave my home town due to real life privacy issues, and my Internet access is now subject to certain privacy measures. (My apologies for being deliberately vague. Details available on request to sensible users). I lurk on IRC most of the time, and I am very keen to be able to make a quick response to privacy issues for other users who are in the same sort of position. I have had cause to request urgent attention to privacy issues that affect others, and usually do this on IRC rather than on Wikipedia talk pages (because it's quicker).
 * I would like to be able to look at deleted edits, which is something that only an admin can do.
 * I have re-read all of the relevant policies. I note that many of them have changed considerably since I became an admin in 2006. I see this as a positive thing. Take this statement from Jimmy Wales, which was published two weeks before my first RfA. I agree with Jimmy's statement, but probably didn't back in 2006. I note also that Wikipedia is far more influential these days than it was in 2006, and has a much more rigorous, academic focus, and therefore should exercise more responsibility.
 * I have learned much about referencing, and have taken to citing my work much more frequently than in the past. Look at my work on The Matty Johns Show since the last RfA for an example. I also intend for my bot to (eventually) work with references.
 * Regarding my reasons for resigning adminship in 2008, I have given my side of the story in RfA 2. There were several factors that led to me feeling distant from the project (the Essjay controversy, my feeling that Wikipedia was becoming too political, etc) that no longer exist.

Consequently, I request that the community trust me with admin status again. - Richard Cavell (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that again I have been unsuccessful in re-applying for adminship. I request that a bureaucrat close this as "unsuccessful" after it runs its usual course. Thanks to all who participated. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

 * I have added some info to the answers, owing to the fact that many have complained that my answers were light or vague.

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: When I was an administrator, I used to speedily delete relevant pages, warn and block vandals, and close AfDs. In addition to those typical admin tasks, I have become interested in bot operation and privacy.
 * Additional: I am usually on IRC and always on Skype, and I would like to be able to respond quickly to relevant issues. My work with bots started this year, and those who are inclined to look at source code might want to review this.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I have a long list of pages that I've created, linked from my user page. I particularly edit on topics related to law, medicine and showbusiness.
 * Additional: My best contributions might be The Matty Johns Show, Aggie and its homonyms, and adding references from some of my favourite books, such as all of these and this.


 * 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: The most recent conflicts I've had are in relation to the subject of an article and her management exercising some type of editorial oversight over her biography (Conflict of interest/Noticeboard), and a discussion about the use of Adolf Hitler's name (Talk:Adolf Hitler).
 * Additional: I handled the first issue by deciding not to edit the article myself, but place the issue on the relevant noticeboard. I am a little offended by the fact that the subject of the biography is attempting to exercise some ownership or censorship of the article. I handled the second issue by trying to keep people on the issue I was trying to raise (criminal and social sanction related to Hitler's name), rather than what others are talking about (whether Hitler was evil).


 * Additional questions from The Utahraptor
 * 4. You say in your nomination statement that you would like to view deleted edits. Why do you want to view deleted edits?
 * A: I find it very useful when trying to identify vandals (deleted vandalistic pages will not show up under User contributions unless one is an administrator). It can also help when trying to decide on speedy deletion candidates,Redirects for discussion, and so on.
 * 5. In your last RfA, many users, including myself, opposed due to your misinterpretation of the BLP policy. What have you done since then that demonstrates that you now fully understand the BLP policy?
 * A: I hope that I have been demonstrating caution in respect of BLP issues, such as here, here, here, here, and here. I have also taken issue with an unsourced statement concerning a biography of living penguins here.
 * Additional: The first thing I did was to revert my unsourced edit that became the subject of debate in my second RfA here. I have re-read all of the relevant policies. I consider now that Wikipedia's policies are more mature - note that since the day I was last an administrator, WP:BLP has undergone 950 edits, and that it is more important than ever before that we try not to hurt people.


 * Question from / ƒETCH COMMS  / 
 * 6. If you don't feel comfortable answering this question, then don't :). Are the privacy issues mentioned in your nomination statement a direct result of your involvement or activities on Wikipedia? Do you feel that becoming an administrator would be wise at this point?
 * A: I apologize for being a little vague about the privacy issues in question. Suffice to say that I have left my home town and very few people know where I currently am, owing to my concerns about my personal safety. These concerns did not originate from anything to do with Wikipedia. However, I am quite visible on Wikipedia. I guess it's partly my fault, because I use my real name. Even if I didn't, it is one way that people could identify my location. All my Internet activity is undertaken using measures to keep my geographical location private. I feel very strongly that any person should have the right to access Wikipedia, or any general-purpose website, in this way.
 * Additional: I only ever edit Wikipedia when logged in. How my logged-in Internet access is routed to the WMF servers is, like all my Internet access, subject to obfuscation. The edits themselves are no less visible as a result. The privacy issues are not relevant at all to Wikipedia. Rather, my use of Wikipedia using ordinary Internet routes could be used to locate me (on the surface of the Earth). I intend to lead a fulfilling life in spite of my privacy issues. They shouldn't affect my ability to be an admin at all.


 * Additional question from TParis
 * 7. You said in your last RFA "I guess I'd rather include correct information unsourced than fail to include it." What is your opinion on the WP:BLP policy and do you still agree with the comments you made in 2010?
 * A: As I've already mentioned, I feel as though Wikipedia has changed considerably since 2006. It is now used as a source by journalists, for example. Sourcing and verifiability in biographies have become hot topics. I no longer agree with that comment. I am used to writing academic journal articles (I have over a hundred published in real life) and reading university-level books, and it is common to see journal articles and university-level books that are primary sources, and/or secondary sources, as well as tertiary sources. What has changed is that I have now realized that Wikipedia works best when it is limited to being a tertiary source. The essential difference between Wikipedia and the others is that Wikipedia doesn't have a rigorous peer review protocol and has hardly any barrier to participation. I still reserve my right to publish first-person and second-person tales in the academic journals, but not here. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional: To be clear, no, I don't agree with that statement any more. What changed in my mind was that I came to see Wikipedia itself as a tertiary source, rather than as a general repository of knowledge.
 * Producing more than 100 academic articles is indeed a Herculean task, but as such a prodigious author how can you fail to understand the difference between primary and secondary sources? Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're asking me. I am trying to say that back in 2006, I either wasn't aware enough or not convinced enough of the notion that Wikipedia should be a tertiary source, drawn from primary/secondary sources. But I see that now.


 * Additional: To be clear, it is quite common for academic publications to be primary or secondary sources. Some journal articles and textbooks are entirely tertiary. However, I realize now that Wikipedia is only tertiary and does not incorporate first-person or second-person material.


 * Additional question from Fluffernutter
 * 8. You've offered some comments about what led you to resign your adminship last time around - dissatisfaction with the site, and then a 'crat action that triggered the actual bit-turning-in - but no explicit assurance that you've grown past that action. Do you have any plan for how you'll cope with your adminship if you should again start to be unhappy with the site or if someone takes an action against you that you disagree with? Do you still view adminship as something that can be handed in as a political protest?


 * A: I don't regret handing in my adminship last time. I felt that the project and I were drifting apart, that I couldn't contribute to it with a clear mind any more, and that I was losing faith in the principles and policies that underly Wikipedia. I felt that handing in adminship was the responsible thing to do. I did not resign as a political protest. I don't endorse Essjay's actions, but it still makes me feel sad how Wikipedia responsded to it and I'm glad that Wikipedia has moved on. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional: I will not give an 'explicit reassurance' that I will never resign adminship again. I did not resign as a political protest. I resigned because being a non-admin was the only way for me to feel comfortable contributing to Wikipedia. If I am ever in a position again where I feel disappointed in the project, and that there is some kind of enmity towards my status, I might resign again.


 * Additional question from TCO
 * 9. Having a hard time understanding how you maintain anonymity using your real name here and then geo-locations is secret? I guess there are some scenarios like not needing to work, or being retired, or living RL under a false name that could make this possible, but they seem kind of unlikely and don't mesh with being a doctor (medical licence under name and all that).  Also, since you noted your 100 publications, could you please point to some of them?  I checked Google scholar, but there are different R Cavell's working in different fields.
 * A: I am a fully qualified doctor, and I currently do not practise medicine. I have post-traumatic stress disorder, and I fear for my personal safety. (As you point out, it would be damn near impossible to practise medicine and be unlocatable). I am not at all anonymous - I simply live in a (relatively) secret location. Here are the three articles I've had published in my favourite journal - one, two three.
 * Very fair response. Thank you.TCO (reviews needed)  16:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Chaosdruid
 * 10. On your user page there are a couple of pretty strong POVs, as well as some articles that you say you started that were merely redirects (though you created them as redirects, they are listed in the articles section e.g. 233, 234). How can you convince us that NPOV and the accuracy of your statements are maintained throughout any actions you take?
 * A: I do have some strong opinions about Wikipedia policy, and I feel that I've explained them enough. Peter Hollingworth was forced to resign as governor-general after a massive scandal that filled countless pages of newspaper, and his biography condenses that into a few sentences buried within what reads to me as a minor rephrasing of his resume. I am a law student, and I see no reason why the law of defamation should stop us from reporting what happened, or intimidating us from reporting negative information about him. I see no conflict between legal principles and any Wikipedia policy. Jimmy Wales sidestepped numerous Wikipedia processes because of a hollow legal threat. It's getting to the point where people are intimidated from saying things that are negative but true. (eg "Mike Tyson is a convicted rapist" is damaging to his reputation, but entirely verifiable.)
 * The list of pages that I created was originally generated by AWB, and I sorted the list into articles and redirects, so that's why some are mis-sorted. Frankly the list is now so long that I'd rather delete it altogether. I originally created it as a kind of secondary watchlist, so that I could easily keep an eye on the articles that I created without having them clog my watchlist. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Anthony Bradbury
 * 11 Do you still feel that your reason for giving up adminship was rational and valid?
 * A Yes. I gave up adminship because I was becoming dissatisfied with the politics on Wikipedia, felt that Wikipedia and I were moving apart, and felt as though somehow I wasn't fitting in to adminship any more and that a bureaucrat was dissatisfied with me. I made the right decision.

General comments
RfAs for this user: 
 * Links for Richardcavell:
 * Edit summary usage for Richardcavell can be found here.

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

Discussion

 * Edit stats can be seen on the talk page. -- Σ talkcontribs 16:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing discussion (don't want to mess up your question section more):
 * (pedantic) I do not think it improper to cite non-controversial primary science journal reports when a review is not available and when it is not being done in some snakey create a montage to argue a position thingie. Also, I think we sometimes are imprecise here on Wiki about what is a primary source.  For instance in history, primary sources really tend to be things like actual individuals interviewed, hard copies of wills and the like.  On Wiki, I sometimes see people use the term as shorthand for any non-review article.
 * I'm a bit dubious about Wikipedia's interpretation of what is primary/secondary/tertiary. For example, in my view, in a court case, evidence from a witness is primary, the judge's summary of that evidence is secondary, and the judge's interpretation of the law is tertiary. I've even thought of writing an academic journal article about whether a jury's verdict can be a Wikipedia source (is it primary, secondary or tertiary?)


 * I'm curious how you square the comments here about evolving standards and do no harm with your userpage comments about BLP policy leading to being too timid about negative info. Think one can with principle argue either for a more cautious approach or a "let the chips fall" approach.  But it worries me that you seem to be changing position a bit based on assuaging people in RFA vice conviction.  (Just a little.)  TCO (reviews needed)  15:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a time when Wikipedians would not allow any negative info, even if it were true and verifiable. (eg this). I think people are being more sensible now, though.

Support

 * 1) Support. Richardcavell was a valuable admin back in the day (check the logs, lots of good work) before some very strange drama brought him to resign. The BLP issue that brought down his second RFA was kind of sketchy, but the incident it centered on was pretty minor and I think he still should have passed (he added the persons full legal name to Josie Parrelli from his own personal knowledge and defended it). Not as active as I would like but he is an intelligent contributor, experienced and clueleful and very gentlemanly. I have no doubt he can be a good admin because he already has been one! jorgenev 16:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good to me! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Can no longer support per A6
 * 1) Support. Richard's previous tenure as an admin demonstrated he can be trusted with the tools, and his decision in RfA #2 to put himself up for the community to judge rather than simply requesting them back (as he was permitted to do) speaks highly of his integrity. 28bytes (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes. Would like to fully understand privacy issues, but it's not that important. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 17:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Most odd that you didn't get my support at RfA number 1, but glancing at RfA, mainly out of morbid fascination these days at how difficult and challenging the whole procedure has become, I was naturally surprised to see a familiar name, someone I knew as an administrator. Don't see any reason not to give him the bit, yes, unsourced information in BLPs always has been an issue, but more so are those contributors who want to stick [citation needed] next to statements like "The sky is blue". Nick (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) I'm inclined to say "yes" here. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  18:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support because, quite simply, he should never have lost the mop in the first place. If the opposes are the biggest problems, I confidently support.  Swarm   18:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support His adminship finished before I started looking behind the articles themselves, but in the time I've been here, he's always been knowledgeable and it was a while before I discovered he wasn't an admin. No problems for me with this application - I just hope it doesn't cause any for him. Peridon (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support- I've seen this guy around and he has always come across as intelligent and reasonable. No concerns whatsoever. Reyk  YO!  21:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Net win. The privacy stuff is pretty normal, low drama material and the answers about BLPs seem adequate to me.  Steven Walling  21:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm astonished to see you write that moving town to maintain your privacy is pretty normal, low drama material. Which planet are you from? Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can assure you he is from planet Earth, I am quite surprised you couldn't figure that out for yourself Malleus. jorgenev 22:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But probably not as surprised as I am to see anyone support a candidate who has such privacy issues. This RfA is madness, and ought to be closed. Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The only person who seems to want to make a big deal of it is you. Reyk  YO!  22:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't me who brought up the privacy issue, but it seems to be you who's ignoring it. Still, do as you think best, as I have done. Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Prodego  talk  01:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. In the end, RfA comes down to trust. I have seen Richard around, as well as having a look at the previous admin decisions he has made (the ones I, as a non-admin, can see) and I trust Richard to use the admin tools appropriately. Jenks24 (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong support A trustworthy editor alive to privacy concerns, would be a great addition to the admin corps. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) I've read the oppose section and don't share their concerns. The candidate found time to make sensible use of the tools when he was last an admin so I don't accept the "no need for the tools" argument. The Privacy situation is unusual, especially as he edits in his own name, but I don't see this as grounds for an oppose. If anything it is a positive that the editor is aware how serious privacy problems can be. As for his former divergence from policy re sourcing, I am happy with his assurances and trust that he will use the tools in accordance with policy  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I usually don't like "per someone" comments, but I have to say per WereSpielChequers. He summed it up more eloquently than I could. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 02:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not hard to believe, but you're both wrong.Malleus Fatuorum 02:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. I read what you had to say, and don't find it convincing.  We're not going to agree on this, so there's no point in attempting to take a dig at me. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 02:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A dig at you? Are you the complete moron? Malleus Fatuorum 02:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not, thank you. I don't think you're stupid, we just don't agree.  You've got to accept that I can have a different opinion than you; in this specific instance, I do.  Just as I'm obviously not going to change your opinion (I'm not trying to, anyways), you won't change mine. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 02:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Malleus, would you care to be more specific as to where you think I and blade are wrong? For example are you disputing that the candidate's previous use of the tools was uncontentious, or have you spotted recent edits that are against policy? Either way diffs would be welcome if such can be found.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Net positive to the project. Already showed himself to be trustworthy with admin privileges. -- Samir 05:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - shouldn't have given up the first mop and no issues when he had it  Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere!  (Whisper...) 11:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support -- RP459  Talk/Contributions 17:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Clean block log, has had tools before, no indications of assholery. Carrite (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Previous admin, nothing major recently, no blocks, no problem.  SQL Query me!  19:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - As he's described it, I agree with his previous decision to resign the tools and I don't hold it against him.  I wish more admins were willing to do that.  I see no other reason to oppose here and he meets all my criteria.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 05:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support (formerly oppose). The candidate has created some good quality articles about serious topics. His open and direct answer explaining his privacy concerns satisfies me. Nobody claims that this or any editor be infallible, and so I believe that a handful of minor editing mistakes should not deprive the community of a proven administrator. I would urge other early "opposers" to reconsider the decision.  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 18:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I can't quite oppose, so I suppose weak support will do. I think resigning the tools was smart on the candidate's part, and I don't hold that against him at all. I wish you luck! America69 (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) He knows the tools and the BLP concerns brought up below aren't convincing enough for me. Blurpeace  04:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Why not? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Support I see the candidate as a net positive and have no concerns related to trust. My76Strat (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Answers to the questions are good and I see lots of good contributions from when he was last an administrator.  Puffin  Let's talk! 20:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Support After additional answers and clarifications. /Julle (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose. It seems like insanity for someone concerned about their privacy to the extent that they feel obliged to move their home should raise their online profile by becoming a WP administrator, and there are already quite enough unhinged administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 18:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that RC has privacy issues doesn't necessarily mean he would make a bad administrator or abuse the tools. The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 18:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But it does mean that he may be better off not having the tools. Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Malleus, do you have any evidence for your implication that the candidate is "unhinged"? (I've not read over the previous RfAs yet, so I won't have seen it if it's in there.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did I say that the candidate was unhinged? Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * At the very least, you're suggesting that he would soon join the ranks of unhinged admins. It's a comically rude way of stating things but the underlying concern makes sense. If I may restate this with an extra touch of nuance: under the given circumstances, isn't running the RfA gauntlet somewhat counter-productive? Pichpich (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What I'm suggesting, if you take the trouble to read all of the words, is that it might not be in the best interests of someone who who has felt so concerned about their privacy and uses their real name on here to raise their online profile for the sake of being able to look at a few deleted contributions. Something isn't right. Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something? Richard isn't "concerned about their privacy to the extent that they [moved]", as this oppose states. They said they "had to permanently leave ... due to real life privacy issues." As a result, their internet usage is more secure. What is the problem?  Swarm   21:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're missing a great deal apparently. Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently not, you've made it fairly clear by saying 'adminship wouldn't be in this candidate's best interest', and 'something isn't right', which suggests either you're opposing out of concern for this candidate's privacy issues, or you suspect their account is compromised. If that's your point, fine, just seeking clarity.  Swarm   21:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm glad we've eventually managed to establish that, as it was after all what I said right at the start of this oppose. Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - maybe I'm incredibly dense, but the diffs in the answer to #5 look incredibly underwhelming. Also, this statement also bothers me: "I note also that Wikipedia is far more influential these days than it was in 2006, and has a much more rigorous, academic focus, and therefore should exercise more responsibility."  So if Wikipedia is less visible, it's okay to libel people???  I looked at your more recent edits.  In, you left "mormons" lower case.  This seems rather inappropriate, particularly when unsourced (though obviously not a BLP). In this diff, you correctly changed "suffers from" to "has", when referring to an illness, but made no effort to cite remove, or even tag what is certainly a potentially contentious statement in a BLP.  In , you added a claim about a living person without an inline citation.  In , you correctly removed "and does well in his studies (this was written by his parents)" with the edit summary "that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia" but left in the previous (unsourced) sentence (which was verbatim from his official bio), "where he presently lives with them and five cats, two dogs, birds, fish, a rabbit and a large flock of chickens".  That should be in an encyclopedia?  Sorry, but I'm not seeing this new commitment to BLP. --B (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Your answers do not impress, they appear to me to be phoned in. I expect for administrators to have decent communication skills and be willing and able to answer important or complex questions fully and clearly. I'm not seeing that here. Cases in point: For Q2, you give us a link to a list of articles and expect us to sort though them. That's great, and that could be part of your answer, but it tells us almost nothing and puts the onus on us to do the work of figuring out what your best contributions are. Some of those articles are better than others, a few are redlinks, and most of them were probably worked on after you started them. Ergo, your answer tells me almost nothing. For Q5, you respond to a question on BLP by showing a few minor edits off, some of which are routine vandalism fighting, and from that extrapolate that you have an understanding of BLP. I'm sorry, but that's not what we're looking for. We're looking for a coherent explanation as to we should trust that you understand BLP policy. Links can be part of it, but not all of it. In Q3 you are asked about conflicts, and how you would respond to them. Again you link us to other pages as opposed to answering the question. Finally, I'm troubled by what I see as a few knowledge gaps. You say in Q1 that one of the reasons you want to get the mop has to do with bots, except bots are handled though the Bot Approval Group, which has nothing to do with being or not being an administrator. There are other gaps, but I've gone on long enough, I think.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  01:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree big time. I might want to double check someone, but I want to start with some analysis done for me.  And we can't always each do our own analyses.  Nom should feel some need to present the case, just for efficiency's sake.  Of course, that I agree with you, should make you consider moving to neutral or support.  ;) TCO (reviews needed)  14:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose The response to question #5 was made without elaboration, overall I did not get impressed by any. I'm sorry, but I don't think you would suit this charge.  Diego  talk 01:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Regretful oppose. I talked to Richard about this RFA before he opened it and offered some of my thoughts, mostly centered around the idea that I would need to see assurance that he was willing to commit to not using his adminship as something to be used to make a point, and I was hoping he could explain his growth on the issue well enough here to persuade me to support, but his answer to my question just doesn't do it. The issue in my mind is not that someone who felt he and Wikipedia were unsuited would resign (which actually seems quite proper), but that the actual manifestation of that resignation was something resembling a ragequit, where someone said something that upset him and he turned in his bits in response. Admins catch a lot of incidental flack as they carry out their actions, I think most people can agree with that, and without knowing if Richard has some sort of plan for constructively coping with criticism if someone says something to him on a bad day, I don't have enough confidence in his coolheadness to support this RFA. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose The answer to Q5 was very poor. The linked diffs do absolutely zero to reassure me that the candidate is now aware of the need for secondary sources in BLPs.  I gave the candidate a second shot to refactor the comments in their last RFA in Q7 and I feel they threw it away.  Their comments were a very serious misunderstanding of WP:BLP and all the candidate had to say was "I no longer agree with that comment."  I am not confident that this candidate has improved since the last RFA and the academic journal comment has not helped.--v/r - TP 01:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Per above. Concerns with policy knowledge. Furthermore, after reading your nomination statement and question answers, you do not present yourself as someone with a legitimate need for the tools.  Also, what's with the ambiguous reference to 'privacy' in Q1?  - F ASTILY  (TALK) 04:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Overall, Richard's participation in this RFA is a reflection of poor communication skills. I see a lot of words, but not a lot of substance or (apparent) thought behind them. It all appears very disordered. In my opinion, the request for adminship would have been better served with straightforward answers, rather than vague, deflection about privacy concerns. I'm concerned with the answer to Q6. If all individuals participated in editing under some kind of clandestine geolocation protection, the encyclopedia would equate to one big socking nightmare. And yet, Richard feels very strongly that any person should have the right to access Wikipedia in this manner. Heaven help us. Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 06:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - Per Fastily, and similar concerns in the opposes. No need repeating them. Shadowjams (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. I am not convinced by the answer to question 7. I am also concerned that Richardcavell has personal issues with privacy. Becoming an admin isn't going to make that easier, although it is unclear to me if the privacy issues had any relation to Wikipedia. (I don't really want to know.)  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  09:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Do you actually really have a need for the extra buttons? Running a bot has nothing to do with adminship. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose, per Fastily and similar concerns above. --Taelus (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Concerned. The bot interest is not mentioned in your previous work through the end of 2010.  Giving you the tools for bot work also requires giving you a bunch of regular admin moderator tools, but there is some evidence of being at odds with sourcing norms and of personal drama.  The possible gain to the community doesn't seem worth the risk.  You've been around a while and not enough has changed since RFA2 just a half year ago.  Also interesting looking at your month by month that there was a huge spike before the last RFA and then you seem to have contributed less in last 6 months.  I would also want some better evidence of writing up a good BLP (not a stub) from sources to allay the Josie concerns (note just reffing Josie not enough for me...would want to see you check this box hard.)  I felt for you with the 'crat RFA action and agree with Malleus, that dude was at fault not you.  And nothing wrong with a principled resignation.  Still...just concerned too much drama around you.TCO (reviews needed)  14:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose This editor has been doing good work on Wikipedia for years. I have seen his edits on some medical articles which I have also edited.  I reviewed some of the controversy this person has been in, and he handled it gracefully.  I would rather see a person's worst behavior than their best behavior, and even at his worst this person would make a good admin in many cases.  In the "oppose" section there are some complaints about how he answered some questions.  His answers are not the answers I would give but despite that I am not concerned that this person is going to misuse admin privileges based on my review of his past behavior.  Despite all these good points, this user is seriously missing the point of question number 5.  The major requirement for being a good admin is direct, concise, answers to questions, and an answer of "I do not not know" or "I do not understand the question" would have been preferable to the trite and non-informational answer given in this case.  This editor is really cool, and I would love to support him on a future nomination.  But this nomination should be a learning experience - this is the second time there has been a problem with explaining BLP policy so get it right for the future.  Ask any other editor on the oppose board for help if you do not understand the problem.   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   17:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose - I wish I could support Richard, he's a good egg and I've had nothing but positive experiences with him. But unfortunately my concerns at his last RfA, in regards to his stance on BLPs, still seem unaddressed. I see that I'm not alone with my concerns. I remember that I had advised him last time to volunteer at WP:BLPN to pick up some pointers, and I'm not so arrogant to suggest that would have been all that was necessary, but I think that might have helped and I still suggest it. --  At am a  頭 22:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose per Cindamuse. I don't understand the purpose of the long diatribe on Richard's 007 lifestyle, fleeing his hometown in the nick of time before the bad guys get him, editing Wikipedia from the witness protection program.  If none of it affects your ability to serve as an admin, then why even mention it?  Competency/stability concerns.  And, the circumstances under which adminship was previously revoked give me concerns about immaturity.  You had your chance as an admin and you voluntarily gave it up in a temper tantrum, despite dozens of editors asking you to reconsider.  Don't be surprised if the community is reluctant to give it back to you.  &mdash;SW&mdash; confer 04:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose I hate to oppose former administrators, but there are still some problems that haven't been addressed, such as the BLP and also, the poor clarification of answers to some of the questions. Minima  ©  ( talk ) 09:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose In my interactions with Richard concerning bots and as a member of the BAG, I've always been left confused about his requests. The advice I gave seem to be poorly understood even when I took above-average efforts to make things clear. Richard never violated any policy, or was incivil or anything like that, but communication was definitely an issue, and I never had the sense that we spoke the same language. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Evil TCO suspicion, but I wonder if botdom is seen as the new easy path to moderator tools now. Last fellow got it despite never having done an inline citation of text.  Given it's a newfound interest and then we hear the guy is not that good at it yet...and had the tools before...and wants them back...TCO (reviews needed)  21:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Botdom? It's that some kind of fetish? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing easy about working with bots, even more so with Wikipedia and it's clustefuck code. If there was, BAG wouldn't be desperate for warm bodies, and we wouldn't have to rely on luck or wait for months in order to get some bot tasks done. Your suspicions are misplaced here TCO.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  19:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reasoning? Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose. The WP:BLP stuff is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned, and the opposes based around that are unconvincing. On the other hand, the extremely terse answers to the questions (even after going back and elaborating, these are remarkably short answers) are pretty troubling. Brevity is an admirable trait, and I'd be the first to acknowledge that I myself could stand to benefit from some - but when you're giving woefully incomplete answers, it's a communicative issue (look at the original answer to Q3 - the question asks 1) have you been in any conflicts, 2) how did you resolve these conflicts - your original answer dealt solely with (1)). If I ask a question of an administrator, I expect a complete answer - I really dislike being made to feel like I'm badgering (heh) someone when getting a complete answer is like pulling teeth. This also leads me to worry that you may take administrative actions based on an incomplete reading of the situation (if a person can't even pay attention to both parts of a thirty-four word question, how can I reasonably assume they'll be able to read an entire discussion through which multiple points may be raised)? Finally, the real-life concerns lead me to seriously question your judgment. Applying for a prominent position on a high-ranking website under your real-life name - a website quite well-known, at least within its own ranks, as a place where occasionally tempers flare and all sorts of kooks, nutcases, and cranks end up on Holy Wars - when you seem to have some persisting real-world stalker issues is, pardon my bluntness, dumber than dumb. Even if your answers to the questions demonstrated perfect understanding and comprehension (and were comprehensive themselves), my own good judgment (lacking though it may be at times! :-D) would still cause me to oppose this candidacy, for much the same reason that I would not hire a photo-sensitive epileptic to juggle chainsaws at a rave, no matter how skilled a juggler he was in normal daylight conditions. I do wish you the best outside of WP, and should the real-world issues ever suitably resolve themselves I would be happy to re-evaluate at that time. Badger Drink (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per concerns over BLP interpretation, communication issues (on BAG and elsewhere), unconvincing answers to Q's (per Sven Manguard), "don't have enough confidence in his coolheadness" per Fluffernutter, and (FSM help me) per Malleus Fatuorum...the latter being, that although we need admins, we don't need ones who look like a magnet for DRAMA before they start; the latter point may seem unfair, but I'm sure you are already used to accepting things-you-cannot-do, due to your background. But, the attitude to BLP is the killer, for me.  Chzz  ► 00:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Oppose. In your nomination statement, you said "I note also that Wikipedia is far more influential these days". To me, it sounds like you want to make sure that Wikipedia is the biggest playmaker and not a fringe project in the field before coming back and apply for admin again. No comments regarding the RfA questions or other concerns raised in previous RFAs. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. You're quoting him completely out of context. This is what he actually said: "I note also that Wikipedia is far more influential these days than it was in 2006, and has a much more rigorous, academic focus, and therefore should exercise more responsibility." How you have read that as Richard only wanting the admin tools because Wikipedia has become more well-known since 2006 is absolutely beyond me. Jenks24 (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I came here today thinking I'd gladly support the nomination, although I opposed your 2nd RfA. However, I have to oppose per Fastily and Cind.amuse. Wikipedia shouldn't need to adapt to Richard Cavell's 007 lifestyle, like SW said. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;"> Waterfox ~talk~ 19:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * With respect, the candidate seems quite the opposite of the 007 type - more like a honest to a fault academic as evidenced by his editing in his real name. Maybe he provoked some nutter with his obvious activism against those he sees as countenancing child abuse or something like that. Anyway he clearly just mentioned his personal circumstance to explain his motivation for wanting the tools to help out with privacy issues. No reason why the community cant have the solidarity to make minor allowances for those who need it – but for the grace of God, all of us will need help sooner or later. Government employees quite often edit Wikipedia, but youd never know it if they worked for 007's department. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Communication is a key part of what I know is required for administrators. I see many follow ups in this users questions. When I look for an admin, I always look for max 1 or 2 good clarifications to answers. I don't see that here, and that's how I know there is good communication. Also reading BLP questions, I see "[WIkipedia] has hardly any barrier to participation." That doesn't comfort me, seems user is more willing to use the tools then to try with words. Also BLP is not only sourcing...there is a whole other end. Sourcing is only one part of BLP. Further concerns for comments from Fluffernutter, TP, and more. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  22:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Malleus. A person who is concerned about his privacy would be attempting to keep a low profile, not try to make himself stand out of the crowd. Buggie111 (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral for now, leaning toward support . You certainly have come a long way since your second RfA, but this, this, and this (among the links you provided in Q5) did not show me how you demonstrated your knowledge of the BLP policy. The first link has nothing to do with Wikipedia's BLP policy; it was simply a punctuation error. I can see where you were coming from in the second link, but I would think, since Alfred called himself Fred in the television episode, that the usage of the Cite episode template, with a link to the video in which Alfred called himself Fred, would be sufficient. Like the first link, the third link has nothing to do with the BLP policy, as it was just a difference in spacing. The first link you provided in the answer to Q5 did show me you've at least learned a little more, however, so don't feel bad. You are definitely a highly respected editor, and I wish you the best of luck in the rest of your RfA. The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 18:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That first diff you mention was not just a punctuation error. Putting someone's occupation in scare quotes is a subtle way to insult them, kudos to RC for reverting that. 28bytes (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. I suppose the same could be said for diff 3, which I just realized also contained quotation marks. I've been away too long... ;) The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 18:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Not impressed with the answer to number 5. I may be swayed either way, but for now I think I'll remain neutral.  ceran  thor 20:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral for now. Many thanks for the answer, though it did not really address the question on how you could convince me that NPOV would be maintained. I fully understand your points on the problems of censorship when it comes to BLPs and perceived defamation, in fact I agree with most of what has been said in the reply, however I still feel that such a heated reply (basically repeating the User page comments) is not really going towards convincing me how that POV would be avoided in admin actions. I am satisfied that there was no malice aforethought in the article creation list and the mistake was minor, probably caused by oversight after AWB produced the list, and that the list was not intended as a de facto record of your article creations. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral (not leaning  either way). RfA is not  just  a question of ticking  all the items on one's/my list  of criteria. It  also  involves evaluating the candidate's  participation, motivation, and need. As  I'm  completely  undecided, I've been looking  at  the rationales  of those  who  have voted  one way  or another -  something  I generally  do  not  take much into  account. There are some big  guns in  the 'support ' section whose opinions I  always respect. However, there are some opposers whose work in  Wiki project  space I  also  hold in high  esteem. After following  this RfA since it  started, I  still  can't  make my  mind up, and in any case a vote now won't  change the outcome. I hope Richard will  continue to  do  great  work in  the knowledge that  there are always admins around whose opinions he can seek  if he feels a button  ought to be pressed  somewhere. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:43, 29 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.