Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trappist the monk


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

Trappist the monk
'''Final (86/35/8). Ended @ 13:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC). Closed as successful by WJBscribe following bureaucrat discussion @ 14:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– This is a self-nomination.

For the past six months or so, I have been a participant in the conversion of several of the templates from  to the Lua-based Module:Citation/CS1. The module's primary author and another editor (both admins) have chosen to pursue other interests. There is still work to be done on Module:Citation/CS1 and its associated support files and documentation pages. This is work I am interested in doing. However, because these module pages are protected, it is difficult for me to do this work now that I no longer have a readily available, interested, and actively participating admin who can synchronize the protected pages from the sandboxes where I have made and tested changes and fixes.

I seek administrator privileges so that I may continue to do this work.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2013 (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: Technical, especially Module:Citation/CS1 where I have a continuing interest in seeing that the templates work properly and consistently, but also other templates that over time I have noticed could do with a bit of a tweak.  This does not mean that I intend to set about fixing every template just because I can.  Where there are obvious deficiencies or (here's a real world example) parameters like yes where it isn't at all clear what that parameter is really supposed to do, I'll think about making changes.


 * My skill-set doesn't include conflict resolution except where something technical might be a way to resolve a problem. In general, I will stay away from interpersonal conflict because my skill-set isn't a good fit there.  I will be available to editors who are in a position similar the one I now find myself in – fixes or enhancements have been or need to be made to a template or a module and an admin is needed to take it the final step.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: In April 2013 I hit upon the idea of linking error messages emitted by CS1 citations to anchor points in Help:CS1 errors – anyone else could have done this, I just got there first. That help link in those red error messages that you either love or you hate, was my idea; most of the text in Help:CS1 errors is mine.  Each section of Help:CS1 errors contains a link to the category page related to the error message.  Help text from Help:CS1 errors is transcluded in the category pages so that the message about the error is consistent for editors. When help text needs to change, that change is made in only one place which eases the maintenance burden.


 * Addendum: I do gnome work: typos, grammar, spelling, overlink reduction; I insert, , and other templates; I fix dead links, unify citation formats, correct CS1 parameter misuse. This last is what got me involved with the CS1 migration to Module:Citation/CS1. Currently I'm working my way through Category:Ship articles without infoboxes adding infoboxes.  I have done enough content creation to know that my interests lie elsewhere.


 * 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 don't particularly care to be reverted.  I think that the work that I do is constructive and improves the encyclopedia so it irritates me when that work is reverted.  Over time I have learned to abandon articles where my help isn't wanted.  If I feel a need to say something, I take my time getting around to it and will often sleep on the problem before I write a response.  On talk pages I take care to keep my writing impersonal – I think I'm mostly successful at that. I think that I rarely use personal pronouns of any sort except when identifying myself or another editor and then, it is almost always as Editor . I tend to write as if I'm addressing a broader audience than just a single editor.  Doing that helps me stay detached and so limits my stress.


 * Additional question from Go Phightins!
 * 4. Thanks for nominating yourself, and for seeking to resolve what must be a frustrating conundrum in which you find yourself. As you mentioned, you don't have skills that many "typical admin" have or should have, namely conflict resolution. Should you be granted the tools, do you ever see yourself expanding your use of them beyond what you outlined in question one to expand in to conflict resolution or deletion? Thanks.
 * A: No, I do not foresee myself expanding into conflict resolution or deletion. While others have those skills that I do not, likewise, I suspect that I have skills that they do not. And so, we're balanced. It's possible that over time I could grow into other aspects of the typical admin, strange and unexpected things do happen, but I think it unlikely. That just isn't me, and never has been. I'm very content doing the things that I do and have done and wish to continue to do.  Thank you for asking.


 * Additional question from Miniapolis
 * 5. Why do you "no longer have a readily available, interested, and actively participating admin" to edit protected templates? (In other words, was there interpersonal conflict involved?)
 * A: If by that you mean any interpersonal conflict involved between the two admins and me, then the answer is no. We, of course, had our differences of opinion but they were only that, differences of opinion.  Though it has not been said, I suspect that the Module:Citation/CS1 primary author left because the fun bits of the work had been wrung out of it and there was fun to be had elsewhere.  The other admin, after years of unacknowledged toil, had finally had enough and resigned from the CS1 project.  As far as I know, neither departure had anything to do with me.


 * Additional question from I JethroBT
 * 6. In Q3, you said I don't particularly care to be reverted. I think that the work that I do is constructive and improves the encyclopedia so it irritates me when that work is reverted. Over time I have learned to abandon articles where my help isn't wanted. Given that your interest is focused on working on templates/technical work, what happens if your work is reverted or otherwise challenged on these fronts, say on Module:Citation/CS1?  If the conflict is interpersonal, would it be appropriate to abandon this line of work as well?
 * A: It's a different world over there in module and template space. When I see a need for a change to a template or module, I make the change in the sandbox version first and very often publish an example of the change on an appropriate talk page after I've tested it to see that the change works (and that I didn't break something else).  This gives other editors an opportunity to comment and criticize before the change is taken live.  I think that because I have put the work out there in sandbox form expressly to be challenged, that a reversion is much less likely than it would be in article space. Those examples also serve to show editors who have raised issues about the template or module that their concern has been heard and addressed – even if only to the sandbox phase.


 * Being reverted and told that my help isn't wanted in some particular main-space article doesn't stop me from contributing elsewhere. That kind of rejection appears to come mostly from editors who mantle over their articles like a hawk over a mouse. Because I work first in the sandbox, such a module or template "owner" can see what I'm doing as I do it without necessarily feeling threatened; the "owner" can see the test cases, the example, the explanations for what I've done in the talk page and all before a change is actually implemented. You asked specifically about Module:Citation/CS1 and an interpersonal conflict.  I'm finding it remarkably difficult to imagine a scenario like the one you suggest.  At Module:Citation/CS1 there isn't anyone mantling over the project.  I think it would take a strong, pushy, knowledgeable, opinionated editor – one who figures out how to push my buttons – to come to work on the project and intentionally cause me a fair bit of heartburn before I'd move away from that project.


 * Additional question from Trevj
 * 7. At some point in the future a significant and persistent administrative backlog could occur in areas outside your expertise. If this RfA is successful, and you were to be called on at such a point in time to contribute to clearing the backlog, what do you think you'd you do? -- Trevj (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A: If the backlog is outside of my competence, then I have no business working on it. What I can do, is work on things within my competence to relieve others for work in their areas of competence.


 * Additional question from Leaky caldron
 * 8. Outline the efforts you made to fill the Admin. resource void in the area where you require assistance before you decided that seeking to become an Admin. yourself was the way forward.
 * A: Little. I realized that I had been spoiled.  A readily available, interested, and actively participating admin is one who comes to the project to work on it because of the desire to work on it; is one who contributes materially to coding, to code review, to testing, to discussions about all aspects of the project.  That is much different from an admin who agrees to be on-call for activation of new code. An on-call admin would be little more than my own private  handler.  Because there is still a lot to do, at some point, I would begin to feel that my requests for admin intervention were an imposition which, if it were, could lead to bad things.  Better, I thought, to seek sufficient userrights to edit protected pages myself.  Were there a more path to only those userrights, I would have taken it.


 * Additional question from Adjwilley
 * 9. What are your thoughts on administrator recall? (Note, I'm not asking if you're open to it, as that's generally not a fair question in an RFA since any answer to that question is technically non-binding.)
 * A: Baffling. Climbing up this side of the admin mountain, the RfA trail is organized, disciplined, and seems to have been designed to be that way.  It perplexes me that processes for accusation, for finding of fact, for determination of guilt or innocence, and the like don't seem to have been similarly formalized and codified.  But that wasn't your question.  I'm not all that comfortable with the idea that admins who stand for recall can set their own thresholds for accusation.  I acknowledge that those who do stand for recall are probably not going to face recall.  But, in the best of all possible worlds, I would rather see a uniform process with standardized procedures from accusation to judgment that are the same for all in the community regardless of whether one is a pauper or a prince; where the accuser's and accused's rights are defended and they are each held accountable for their actions.  It doesn't appear that there is a great deal of enthusiasm for administrator recall; the last edit to Administrators open to recall was in January of this year and that was the addition of a  template.


 * Additional question from 64.134.235.244
 * 10. What do you think of the recently introduced "|accessdate= requires |url=" cite template error which ignores DOIs, PMIDs, PMCs etc? How would you fix it? Honestly I don't even know where to report it.
 * A: I think the error messages are a good thing. We can't fix things if we don't know that they're broken.  Templated citations by their very nature cannot be free-form.  That means that with the benefits of templates there are also limitations.  The limitations are documented in the various  template documentation pages.  accessdate is specifically intended to identify the date that an editor consulted an undated, or ephemeral on-line source that is linked with the value in url.  The identifier parameters to which you refer are used to produce external links to stable, dated journal articles.  Because these types of sources are stable, and were published in dated journals, the correct parameter to use with them is date.  accessdate in these situations is meaningless because there is no url and because the sources are not ephemeral.


 * While the words in the error message are mine, the decision to detect, identify, and report these errors was made by several of us at Module:Citation/CS1. The code is working as it was designed to work.  The correct fix is to repair the citations where the error has been detected.  Further information about things to watch for when repairing this particular citation error is at Help:CS1 errors.


 * Additional question from Benea
 * 11. Would you still seek adminship were a proposal along the lines of Requests for comment/Template editor user right to pass, which would give you the ability to make the template edits you wanted to, without the full package of admin tools?
 * A: I would not have pursued this RfA had there been another way to acquire the requisite user rights.


 * Additional question from PaleAqua
 * 12. Sort of a follow up to #11. Assume that your RfA has passed and then another option becomes available that allows edits to protected templates becomes available that meets the needs for the type of work that you want to do, what would you do?
 * A: Without appearing to count the chickens before they hatch, I'm optimistic that RfC/Template editor user right will pass. After the dust has settled around the RfC and its policies and procedures are in place, I have every expectation that, it meeting my needs, I will ask to be reclassified to template editor.  Given the assumptions stated in the question, I intend the interim period to show that those who have voiced trust in me here, were correct in their assessment, and so leave a record should I ever decide to seek administrator rights in future.


 * I am concerned that this RfA is or might be jeopardized by the mere presence of the RfC. I ask that those who will be !voting remember that template editor user right does not and may never exist; that if the decision is taken to create template editor user right, it will reach final implementation at some unspecified time in the future.

General comments

 * Links for Trappist the monk:
 * Edit summary usage for Trappist the monk can be found here.
 * Stats on the talk page. — ΛΧΣ  21  02:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Discussion

 * To be considered by closing bureaucrat. 13:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support Sounds reasonable. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. This is the most unusual RfA that we have had recently. I believe that this is a legitimate reason for requesting the tools. Trappist's use of the editing tool will benefit Wikipedia. I am prepared to assume good faith that he will not use the other tools such as blocking or article deletion. I agree with Kudpung that a little information on Trappist's user page about the nature of his activity in Wikipedia would be helpful. [As an aside, I am intrigued to see that "Clitoris" is his most edited article, although that has no bearing on my !vote.]  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  09:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Joefromrandb, but I'll also add, the candidate is a longterm uncontentious editor who has been here for four years and has a squeaky clean blocklog. I checked a sample of their deleted edits and saw nothing of concern. When I assess a candidate at RFA I look for a diversity of involvement, and though the self nomination implies a narrow focus the edits show an editor who has contributed usefully in various areas of the pedia. I also look for clear, civil communication skills, and looking at both the edit summaries and the talkpage contributions I consider that this candidate passes that test. I would suggest that Trappist expands their Q2 answer to include a couple of articles to which they've added reliably sourced content, I found enough such activity in their edits to satisfy me, but many RFA !voters like to see that skill evidenced in Q2 or by a list on their userpage of articles created or expanded. I would happily trust this candidate with the whole toolset, that they have no immediate intention of using more than the tool that they are most qualified to use is in my view a positive.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  11:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I rarely provide content. To suggest otherwise at Q2 could easily be disproved and so deep-six my RfA. —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Some RFA !voters look to see what the candidates main focus is, and a few expect a main focus on content. I'm not bothered if an otherwise well qualified candidate only rarely provides content, but I do want to see that a candidate has mastered the art of citing information to a reliable source. An addendum to Q2 to the effect that "My main focus is not on content, but I have done x,y and z" would not be misleading, and I believe would have demonstrated that you meet most people's minimum criteria for content. There are some !voters who have higher content expectations than I do, it will be interesting to see if they make an exception for your template work.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  16:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Addendum added. Thank you. —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support This is exactly why we need unbundling. Usually I would oppose a nomination like this, because it involves giving powerful tools to editors unable to make the best use of them. But we can't afford to deny ourselves the contribution of editors with key skills because we don't have a way to give the right permissions without the wrong ones. We're in cloud cuckoo land with having this all-or-nothing approach and then requiring all-round perfection. In this case I have the impression that Trappist knows himself and doesn't intend to overstep. I've read some stuff he posted at Talk:Clitoris and I don't find it excessively terse; it's constructive and perfectly courteous, and he's shown he can accept being proved wrong. I trust him. --Stfg (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Seems okay with me. ''' Jianhui67  Talk  12:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per WSC. This is the way RfA's should be.  — Soap — 12:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. This is an entirely credible reason for needing the sysop bit, which will benefit the project. Unbundling would be good, but in the mean time we need to be pragmatic. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Am happy to support this Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!}  (Whisper...) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support No problems --cyrfaw ( talk ) 14:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Net positive. No reason to think that Trappist, who I've seen around a fair bit, will abuse any of the tools. As Guy says above, we should be pragmatic about requests of this type. Also, who knows, in time he may become interested in doing admin work, and will teach himself how to. —  Scott  •  talk  15:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - As not all admins are expected to use every administrative privilege or administrate every area, I don't see how this differs from any other RfA. Triplestop (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Support per WereSpielChequers. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Support I asked Q4 Q5 because while I don't think any of us like being reverted, the candidate (who would have access to the block button) made a point of saying so. However, I'm generally satisfied with their answers and am assuming good faith per Scott, who has seen them around. Think they will be a net positive.  Mini  apolis  16:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Support A reasonable request for a modest purpose. I like their answers to questions - not pretending or aspiring to anything beyond their current focus. I have no fear that they will abuse the tools, and I believe granting them the tools will help the Wiki. I commend them for their willingness to work in an area that apparently has no-one else monitoring it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Ideally he should get an unbundled template-coding privilege, but seeing as that's not currently possible... There are many avid coders with hands tied on full-protected templates, the number of which is on the rise recently, as the bar for full protection seems to be getting lower and lower. If we continue making it difficult for the relatively few avid template coders to edit the most used templates, we all suffer. This person appears to have a good head on their shoulders, judging from the communications I've seen thus far (I've always been deadset against the tradition of judging admin candidates on article content contributions, so I'm really not concerned there), so until there's an ideal solution, I'm comfortable with this less-than-perfect one.  equazcion ( talk ) 17:24, 9 Sep 2013 (UTC)
 * 13) Support A reasonable request for a tool to do something very important for WP; if we could give permission for this alone, the ed. would undoubtedly just have asked for this, but this is the only available route. The question for this particular tool is whether he would misuse edit-protected for other purposes, and there's nothing to suggest that he would. The question more generally is whether he would use the other tools, and everything he has done indicates he would be careful not to, and furthermore I suppose we must ask what would he do if hedid use the buttons  by error,  and I see nothing to indicate that it would be a disaster.
 * But a question. There is a "protect" permsision that gives only the ability to edit protected pages, and protect & unprotect & move them.. We do not grant it by itself, but it seems technically possible to do so. IAR applies everywhere, and here is an occasion to use it to benefit the encyclopedia. we make the rules by consensus, and, by consensus, we can make exceptions. &#39;DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support As already mentioned above, this request comes as a very unusual one, but I do not think that should deter us from handing him the mop if the request is reasonable enough. If there can be some way to allow Trappist to continue their work without getting adminship, I would definitely support it. However, in case that is not possible, I support this nomination. Also, I request them to create a user page with just the essentials of babel and possibly the articles/topics they've been editing in/are experienced in editing in. It would also simplify having to figure out personally if they're the go-to guy if I have any requests on those topics. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support due to the lack of an alternative available option for editing fully protected templates and modules that has found consensus.  This user is trustworthy (IMO) and there is no reason to stymie his good intentions to improve an invaluable set of technical entities. Technical 13 (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - It seems like a reasonable request. The requests for babel boxes are rather frivolous. I and many other admins don't use them. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support If a trustworthy user wants to help cut down on the protected edit request queue I don't see why we should stop him. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - This user has a great technical know-how of citation templates and his knowledge would greatly benefit the project. Browsing through some of his commentary on the citation module talk page enlightened me on citation parameters I never even knew about, and Trappist has shown his ability to work with the consensus rather than against it. I do not believe user pages are a sine qua non for the mop, though Trappist is welcome to make one at any time he wishes. Altamel (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support: Competent user willing to help maintain our template collection. I trust him not to jump in and try to administer areas outside his area of expertise, just like we all should do. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support: A clearly stated purpose by a trustworthy and rational user is good enough for me. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. States reasonable request for the bit. Glrx (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - This is a perfectly rational request for adminship. The user has stated exactly what he wishes to do with the toolset and it does not seem to me like he will abuse them. I don't understand how the community can oppose an RfC about unbundling the protected page editing tool and then oppose RfAs like this. That makes it nearly impossible to gain the ability to edit the pages you have expertise in editing unless you prove that you can correctly perform tasks that have absolutely nothing to do with editing protected pages. Support all the way. T C N7 JM 20:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Support ... At WP:ADMIN one can read "..Administrators...are Wikipedia editors who have been granted the technical ability to perform certain special actions on English Wikipedia...". Since we don't have any real form of unbundling (except rollback) I'm therefore minded to support. I don't find the arguments that the editor should understand all the admin tools persuasive, if they're not intending to use them. As an example, I haven't got a clue how to properly do IP range blocks so I ....just don't do them. Simples!. Pedro :  Chat 20:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - An unusual request, but I firmly believe that TTM will be a benefit to Wikipedia if he has the tools. I confident that he is competent enough to not make a mess of things, and also confident that he won't stay from the area he wants to work in. I also suggest that, if the consensus is to grant TTM adminship for a specific use only, the closing bureaucrat makes that clear in the close to give the community an easy way of removing the admin bit in the unlikely event that TTM is not true to his word. I would want to see a second RfA if TTM wants full use of the admin bit. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) We supported administrators who needed the tools for a specific reason which later passed RFA, contrary to buffbills statement. They were either working with the spam blacklist, or editing protected templates, such as this case. Secret account 21:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, User legitimately requires the toolset to continue work which will benefit Wikipedia as a whole. — -dain  <font color=#000>omite   00:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - per the answer to my question ... he doesn't plan to use the tools in ways not suited to his skill set, on which he seems to have a firm grasp. The manner in which he would use the tools is somewhere that is suited to his skill set, and will benefit the encyclopedia. Really, this doesn't seem like much of a choice to me. Adminship is no big deal, and if he proves to abuse the tools, we can take them back, but I highly doubt that will be necessary, as he has a clear purpose for them.  Go  Phightins  !  00:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - the editor has very specific reason, and that is understandable. I see no problem here.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 16) Support I see no reason why you shouldn't be given the tools, as any need is a valid one in my eyes, no matter how much of a need there is. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 17) Support There is a clear problem—the withdrawal of two admins from their work on these templates—and a solution to this problem exists—granting the admin tools to Trappist the monk. I'm slightly concerned by "It's possible that over time I could grow into other aspects of the typical admin, strange and unexpected things do happen, but I think it unlikely", because I think that if there is any chance this editor will "grow into other aspects of the typical admin", he should show knowledge of the relevant policies before being granted the bit; however, that appears to be a sufficiently unlikely outcome.  In addition, while I have no faith in the community's ability to desysop people, I have complete faith in the community's ability to stop any administrator who is causing harm to the project through their use of the tools.  I would like to see Trappist the monk discuss any expansion of his use of the tools in a community forum of some sort, should he choose to expand their use.  These future possibilities aside, I think the project would benefit by handing Trappist the monk the tools and that benefit greatly exceeds any harm that might occur.  I'd normally be concerned about the lack of a userpage, but I don't think a userpage is important to the nature of Trappist the monk's role here. Ryan Vesey 03:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ditto. That's what I was trying to say above. :-)  Go  Phightins  !  10:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support No problems here. <font color="#00A" face="High Tower Text">StevenD99 <font color="#030" face="High Tower Text">Talk &#124; <font color="#030" face="High Tower Text">Stalk 04:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as a fellow specialist admin with no interest in dispute resolution or deletion. I'm confident that he won't misuse the tools. Graham 87 05:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I'm sure he's smart enough not to use those parts of the toolset he doesn't need or understand.  Yinta n  09:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Editor has a legit need for part of the toolset and there's no evidence they would abuse the rest of it. NE Ent 10:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. An unusual request but a reasonably made one. I'm the mirror image of this candidate - I have no skills or knowledge in his area, haven't used the tools in this setting and never will. I restrict myself to conflict management work of the sort that this candidate says he will never do. Between us we have complementary skillsets and I think that's how this works. If he ever moves out of the gnoming on templates and starts misusing the tools it will be pretty obvious and we can use this RfA as evidence should there be a call for de-sysoping. <font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D">(Talk)  10:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Has a valid reason for needing the admin tools, very similar to my own. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, I have some concerns about giving block/delete buttons to a user who doesn't want/think he can effectively use them, but these concerns are far outweighed by the good he can do by editing major templates.  From what I've seen there, his work is excellent.  Tazerdadog (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I have seen that this user is indeed heavily involved with technical work, and feel that they are committed to helping the project, and, as such, that the project would benefit if they were granted the tools. <font color="#006600">It Is Me Here  <font color="#CC6600">t / <font color="#CC6600">c 14:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Support If the candidate wants to concentrate on a specific area, let them. It's not going to take anything away from other admins. Bigger concern for me would be the admins that get the mop and disappear right after. Continuing to work for the project in one way or another is always net positive for us all. Widr (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Yes, we need to unbundle the tools, but that won't happen. We have had a discussion to create the protected page editor usergroup twice, and it failed twice. Now, blocking any possible unbundling and stopping a very productive technical user from being productive because of our own unwillingness to change is cynical and egoist. Trappist the monk is a candidate that, from my perspective, is very aware of his strengths and weaknesses, and acts accordingly. Therefore, I am confident that he won't use any of the tools he feels not prepared enough to use, and will make excellent use of those he's prepared to. — ΛΧΣ  21  19:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Specialist admins are OK. Nothing but good can come of this.   Dloh  cierekim  19:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) Support He says he's going to do what he does best, and I'm sure he does that extremely well. Knowing what he isn't happy doing makes him, I think, a better candidate than many. Jamesx12345 21:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 13) Support I am going to AGF here and take him at his word regarding his intentions, and his editing history lends credence to this. I agree that this would be better if the mop was unbundled, but it is not, so I have to vote for the way things are, not for what should be.  If this adminship is granted, and it causes great consternation such that it effects change in that area, all well and good.  I would gently ask the Monk to keep Benea's oppose in mind, as admins are and should be held to a higher standard, even when not performing "admin" work.   78.26  (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to editorialize in the middle of the !voting but if you believe it "would be better if the mop was unbundled", surely oppose would be more effective? Looking at the current support !votes, these users also said that they would prefer to see unbundling:
 * Stfg (!support 4)
 * JzG, signed as "Guy" (!support 7)
 * Equazcion (!support 15)
 * DGG (NYPL) (commenting on !support 16)
 * TheOriginalSoni (!support 17)
 * Hahc21, signed as "ΛΧΣ" (!support 43)
 * Unbundling is what the candidate prefers too.
 * TCN7JM says (in !support #25) "I don't understand how the community can oppose an RfC about unbundling the protected page editing tool and then oppose RfAs like this." I see it the other way around: I don't understand how the community can support this RfA having already opposed unbundling the ability to edit protected pages. When our rules don't work, surely we should revise them, rather than create special case exceptions? In the long term we'll get a better result if this RfA fails so we are forced to re-examine unbundling instead. - Pointillist (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If there were some indication that a failed RFA would motivate the necessary change, I probably would've opposed. Past experience has shown otherwise. In the meantime we need to do what we can with what we have, and this is the next best option if we want to keep people editing what they're good at editing. I'm actually working on an RFC you might be interested in though: Requests for comment/Template editor userright. <font style="font:Futura;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #a0a0a0;"> equazcion <small style="font-size:75%">( talk ) 23:35, 10 Sep 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly what said. That's how Wikipedia works. If this request fails, it will be moved to the long forgotten archives of declined single-use requests and then nothing would happen. The fact that this is passing means that the community is aware that an unbundling won't happen anytime soon and that it's way better to give Monk the solution he seeks with what he wave. —  ΛΧΣ  21  23:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand your position, but equazcion's RFC is just the sort of thing what I was hoping for. Whatever the result of this particular RFA I hope all of us here will support a fresh look at unbundling, at least for the template namespace. - Pointillist (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My point here was that some people said at the RfC that if people really wanted the ability to edit protected templates, they could run at RfA. If those same people opposed RfAs like this, that would be hypocrisy. <font color="blue" face="Tahoma">T <font color="red" face="Tahoma">C <font color="gray" face="Tahoma">N7 <font color="black" face="Tahoma">JM 01:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm with what said, too. Also, it's not at all clear to me whether opposing or supporting would be more likely to help a move towards unbundling -- it depends whther those opposed to unbundling are more irritated by a support that gives unnecessary tools or by an oppose that denies necessary tools. In any case, supporting or opposing in the hope of getting unbundling in motion looks pretty unrealistic, and would be tactical voting. I supported because I think it useful for Trappist to get what he is requesting. P.S. Should this discussion be moved to the talk page? --Stfg (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support They seem to be here for the right reasons, and every time I've seen them around it's been a positive experience. Though their inexperience in some areas is of concern, I trust them enough to be careful and not do stupid things. I also like their style, in that they are bold enough to not have a user page and to self-nom. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support A net plus for the project.  Spencer T♦ C 00:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) weak support Lack of user page bothers me a little. Lack of content creation bothers me a little. But I agree that he's a specialist and that we're not going to unbundle anytime in the foreseeable future. The guy seems to know what he doesn't know, and he should stay out of trouble.  <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">rakatoa  <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">atie   01:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Don't see a problem with this narrow RfA. If the Trappist (by the way, that's a registered trademark, and I'd like to have the Monk explain this) goes outside the parameters set by this RfA then they will no doubt quickly be blocked on the suspicion of having been hijacked. FWIW, I would like to see a (simple) user page that has a link to this RfA and a sentence or two explaining that users are dealing with a specific kind of admin. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. So is and, I would suspect, many others.  I originally conceived of trappist_the_monk (all lower case with underscores) when I needed a user name for something almost 20 years ago.  I had been researching Trappist ales, having just become a homebrewer.  When the need for an online identifier arose, trappist_the_monk just popped into my head. Though I have made minor edits at Trappist beer, I do not use my username to advocate for or promote or denigrate the Trappist's business activities or religion. —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just kidding, Trappist®. And if you send me a case of Orval, I can reassess my opinion that it's the least of them. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support This really comes down to whether you can trust the candidate to only do what they say they will. I see no reason why they cannot be trusted in this regard. AIR corn (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Trappist has an obvious need for the tools, and I trust him to use them responsibly. Kurtis (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I am indenting my support. Although I don't think Trappist would abuse or even misuse adminship, there are too many concerns with his communication skills outlined in the oppose section for me to feel comfortable throwing all my weight behind this request. I wish the candidate the best of luck going forward. Kurtis (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - Having tried (and failed) to make a rational, specific, limited request for use of tools myself, I'm favorably disposed to this rational, specific request on general principles.  Carrite (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I view the granting of the tools to the candidate as a net positive. The opposition has valid arguments that might even  persuade me in a less unusual case. This single use is specialized. This candidate is known, experienced and has a good reputation. I don't see a few terse interactions as especially troublesome; they do not appear to be argumentative or confrontational. I believe the candidate is not likely to venture irresponsibly into other areas, as might be more of a concern in a different case. I think the project suffers if Trappist the Monk cannot easily continue valuable work. I do not think a support ivote requires supporting all single purpose candidacies. I don't think it is helpful to oppose this candidacy to make a point that can be made otherwise. The dilemma presented here might be cited as a reason to bring the matter up yet again but I don't think it requires an oppose vote. Donner60 (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support The users who used to do the highly specific technical work here have left. Adminship is a bundle, yes, and the need to see fully protected pages does not mean that the user ought to block users or delete pages. However, the admin bundle means more features, which means that even if the editor here is bored with the technical things, he will be less likely to leave and more likely to do other things like vandal catching or page protection. His contributions are wholly positive. No reason to deny, as he lacks specific faults.-- Seonookim  (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 06:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I do not find the reasons for opposing convincing; i'm actually baffled by those referring to a lack of user page (which probably says more about the different ways we behave here than anything else); i don't see language use or style which reach the level of incivility in the candidate's interactions (either in Kudpung's diffs or in mine own explorations), simply a user who perhaps uses words a tad more bluntly than some others do; the fact that it's a single-use request...meh, so what?  On the other side, i am one who isn't lining up to try and unbundle the tools, and i support this request as a necessary consequence.  I think that my basic position means i trust the user, as they have shown no reason not to be trusted; his answers, in fact, show evidence of honesty, integrity, and self-awareness, all good traits in a mop-wielder.  The only potential downside i see is the possibility that he might move into other areas of admin usage, perhaps to gain advantage in disputes; he's been clear he won't, i'm leaning to believing him. Cheers, LindsayHello 06:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support (moving from neutral). I'm not going to be expanding into his area of work, and he's probably not going to expand into mine. Not without studying things first (a lot more work in that for me than for him...). There are a lot of specialised areas. Why should he have a user page? A lot of those with user pages are as anonymous as he is. If that and being a bit blunt are the worst things to be found, I'm not going to object to giving him a mop. Peridon (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support He appears to have a valid plan for using some of the tools, and has been clear about he doesn't intend to use. I can't see any evidence that he is likely to act irresponsibly - he seems trustworthy. I don't expect our admins to be able to contribute in all areas of the wiki equally (few are going to be able to write featured articles, carry out advanced research, copyedit, solve disputes, conduct technical work etc. with equal skill!) and therefore I trust that they will focus on their areas of competence if appointed. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) While I would feel more comfortable supporting if I had a more concrete assurance that TTM would not wander into "enforcement" areas in the future without a new RFA, a perusal of his contributions seems to indicate someone with clue, who appears to be trustworthy, and who appears to have no desire to enforce anything. So I'll take him at his word. I also note that opposes based on the idea that we should be able to unbundle the admin tools instead is unfair to TTM. I strongly agree, the tools should be unbundled, but they aren't, and he's pursuing the only option available to him. It's easy to sacrifice someone else's adminship to push for unbundling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - "With this guy it seems to be pretty much all out on the table" per Editor equazcion @ Oppose 12. I like his answers and his responses here---clear and decisive. I trust him to limit his tool use to the area he knows best. Don't most admins wind up doing what they are best at? Seems honest and competent. Terse? Maybe a bit. But I sense a person willing to work on that side of his talk persona. But, the exchange cited seems like a teaching situation and telling the student, "Yes, you do know!" is bold. Its too bad the student choose to get angry rather than listen. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  04:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - Based on the answer to Q12 I am going to support. Willingness to give up the admin bit if a better solution comes along is the key detail for me as it means I can judge my support / oppose based on just the intended use. PaleAqua (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - the thoughtful voices of opposition notwithstanding, it is my view that the candidate is mostly harmless.  Ben   Mac  Dui  19:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - I don't find the oppose arguments too narrow a need for the tools/unbundling and a lack of a user page very convincing. The important question is "will the candidate make a good admin?". I think he will.   Pumpkin Sky   talk  21:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - Per precedent: Requests_for_adminship/Jimp--v/r - TP 00:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Current consensus of 87% opposes forcing those red-error messages in wp:CS1 cites (see: WT:CS1 about suppressing messages), so if Trappist uses admin power to force the red messages into 60,000 pages, then I expect some admin to respect the consensus and revert any such protected-edits by Trappist, and not allow a wp:WHEEL-war over the Lua script cites which reformat 2.1 million pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because Trappist has an opinion about something doesn't mean he's going to use the tools to go against consensus. I have an opinion about a lot of things and I don't go around ignoring consensus.--v/r - TP 11:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) *Trappist twice pushed cite error messages against consensus: I know it might be hard to believe, but after we discussed the horror of showing thousands of red messages in major articles, it was Trappist who activated *all* those controversial red-error messages in the /sandbox version (see: dif582), which User:Gadget850 installed causing an uproar in 60,000 pages and then Gadget850 quit the cites in frustration. Acknowledging the consensus, Gadget850 re-hid the messages as merely warning categories (dif519), but Trappist reverted admin Gadget850's hiding of excessive red-error messages (dif768). Please understand we discussed how the Lua cites should auto-correct trivial problems or quietly put tag "[fix cite]" and not flood a page with numerous red messages. Now, Google has indexed those excessive error messages (surprise) into 69,300+ pages (Google site-search for "'accessdate= requires' url" will list 783 of them). Red messages are not the way-of-the-future in live typesetting, which should omit proofreader's marks in live pages. If non-admin Trappist would revert Gadget850 in 15 minutes, what would admin Trappist do? I think Trappist can make helpful suggestions now, but more power might be too much temptation. -Wikid77 15:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're talking about a sandbox. We use sandboxes to test such thing.  Gadget850 moved the change to live against consensus, not Trappist as you've demonstrated.  Is the consensus against using the red messages in the sandbox as well?  If so, let him branch, but it's not an abuse or against consensus to experiment in a sandbox.--v/r - TP 15:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - Genuine, if narrow reason for needing the tools, and no evidence of problematic editing that would suggest giving him them would be a concern.-- <font color="#96C8A2">K orr <font color="#96C8A2">u  ski  <font color="#96C8A2">Talk 14:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read above "Trappist twice pushed cite error messages against consensus" and reconsider. -Wikid77 15:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Trappist had no part in what I did or did not do— any actions I have taken were my own. I have no idea what consensus you are talking about, except perhaps the ones in your head. The long, rambling and frequently divisive discussions made me realize that the citation project was causing me heartache and I was no longer having fun. I dropped out and unwatched 1000 citation related pages (yes, there are that many) before I got pissed off and did something stupid. I don't know how to be more mature than that. I have never understood half of your discussions, so I have pretty much ignored you and I intend to continue, except where you make such defamatory statements. Out. --  Gadget850talk 15:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you are so upset. See consensus to suppress cite messages in Help talk:Citation Style 1 (WT:CS1). I made no "defamatory" statements, but rather listed the diff-links as the edits were made. Thank you for admitting that you were ignoring me (and possibly others), as that explains why consensus was not understood as changes were forced into pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, that consensus is for the cite template, not the sandbox. Trappists actions involve the sandbox and Gadget850 himself has clarified that Trappist had nothing to do with the production rollout of the cite messages.  Sandboxes are for experimentation.--v/r - TP 16:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did: Proposed release schedule for revealing errors (revisited). —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Long-term editor, sensible responses to questions and sincere need for the tools. Not sure what all the fuss is about <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 22:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I see no reason why this user would not do what they said they would do. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support. I don't know what to say. --SoftFeta (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Seems like he can be trusted with the tools. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 07:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. I don't think the conversation that Benea pointed out shows anything all that bad. As long as Trappist sticks to the areas of adminship that they say they will - and I don't see any reason to think that this might not be the case - then I don't forsee any problems. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 01:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Based on Trappist's answers to the questions as well as a view of his contribs/interactions with others, I think he can not only be trusted with the tools, but he will also use them to do good for the encyclopedia that he currently can't without them. I see no indications that he will abuse the tools. Per his answers to Q4 and Q7, Trappist is clearly aware of where his strengths lie, and plans to stick to that area. Moreover, if Requests for comment/Template editor user right passes (and is subsequently implemented in the software), Trappist has stated that he will promptly request desysopping and reclassification to "template editor" instead. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 04:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support This user can be trusted with the tools. <span style="color:blue; font-family:'Segoe UI', verdana, sans-serif, arial;">Mediran ( t  •  c ) 05:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - I don't see anything here that would be cause to not trust the user. In fact, I find some of the oppose arguments to be greatly lacking in WP:AGF. —   <font style="color:#000080;">Ched <font style="color:#FF0000;">ZILLA  07:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Benefit in one area is benefit enough. <font color="Blue">Ish <font color="Green">dar <font color="Red">ian  10:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - trust sensible use of tools, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) I have no reason to doubt Trappist the monk: They intend to keep out of admin areas unrelated to protected template editing, and should a new userright allowing non-admins to edit protected templates materialize, they have said that they will hand in their adminship for that right. Unless I'm much mistaken, the other single-purpose RfAs that passed worked out well; I see no reason why this one will be different. The only concern that I agreee with is the redlinked user page; I think at least turning the redlink into a redirect to the talk page would be fair. Acalamari 12:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) This candidate obviously knows what they are doing; should we really consider letting the regrettable politics around the way administration works get in the way of helping them do just that ? Simone 13:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 13) How much damage can they really cause if they decide to block, protect or delete a page ? Nick (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Err, are you implying that there shouldn't be any scrutiny of candidates? That wasn't how it worked in your RfA, was it? - Pointillist (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per Pedro. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I don't require other admins to be able to develop citation templates, nor do I require Trappist to be able to update the DYK queues. Admins should broadly keep within their areas of competence and I trust that Trappist will. It is worth bearing in mind that, for some people, brusque comments from an admin may come over as rather more intimidating than from other editors so especial care is appropriate. Thincat (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) support per Pedro and others. — Lfdder (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Respectfully,   Tiyang (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per WSC. Legoktm (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Per TP and Hahc.Unbundling the tools doesn't seem possible at the moment. L smll  09:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Trappist has been doing sterling work at CS1, and I admire his dedicated and level-headed approach to problem-solving. His quality of argumentation I also rate highly, and he has caused me to change my mind about for example the desirability of the error message (as opposed to outright removal) in relation to template errors. Here in this nom, we will be creating a highly specialised admin who is quite happy to seek out the nerdy stuff that few others are interested in. I don't see why we should expect or force an admin to venture outside their area of interest or expertise or comfort zone, and I see his specialisation as a gain for the community. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 10:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Support His answers are reasonable and not "boilerplate RfA answers."  I see absolutely no reason to oppose here at all. Collect (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)  BTW, the idea that somehow he should be singled out for "non-admin but flagged for moves" is outré. Collect (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Support No reason for an admin to work in every area. Who does that anyway? Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) My concern is that  you  are asking  for admin tool  access for something  very  specific (access to  fully protected pages) where we do not  have (yet) any  possibilities for unbundling  the tools. While  your need   may  be justified in  order to avoid making  numerous edit requests, the problem is that I need to  see sufficient  experience in  most  meta areas where the admin  tools can be applied  if used, and that they  would  be used judiciously. Put  another way, admin candidates need to have demonstrated that  they  can inspire confidence to  use all  the tools in  the set whether they  say  they  will  use them  or not. You  have already  stated that  you  do  not  like being  reverted and on  that, a review of your interaction  with  others -  which  is also  sparse - leans towards being  terse at times -  a random  look  at  some of those messages demonstrates to  me at  least  that  they  could have been friendlier for someone aspiring   to  be an admin.,. I  see that  you  have created a certain  number of articles about  ships/yachts, but  some of them are very  thin on references while some have dead links and others have no  references at  all. While content  creation  is not  obligatory  for adminship  per se, I  feel  that  any  creations should be free of major issues (I'm  not  aware of any  special notability dispensation  for ship  articles).    There is also  the question  of your  user page -  although it's not  obligatory, I  can't  think  offhand of any  admins who  don't have one - having  a user page with  at  least  some basic information would demonstrate some willingness to  being  accountable as an admin. The bottom  line is, although you  do  excellent  content  improvements and appear to  have a good grasp  of WP:MoS, you  do not  check  all  my  boxes even on  aggregate, so I  cannot  see this singular request as demonstrating  sufficient experience to  be granted all  the admin  tools and the responsibility  of non-tool  judgement  that  comes with  the bit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I view this RfA to be very similar to Jason Quinn's RfA a while back. I think that if we believe that Trappist the monk isn't going to abuse the tools xe is given, and will use the tools for a productive purpose (helping with Lua modules), we should give them the tools. Since you mentioned it, User:JzG is probably the best example of not having/needing a user page. Legoktm (talk) 08:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This has no similarity whatsoever with Jason Quinn's RfA. Jason wanted, out of boredom (as he stated), move away a little bit from content creation and instead march into a variety of admin areas. Besides, although he created a new interpretation of the verifiability guideline ("Articles do not need sources appended, info is verifiable if the reader can google for it."), it was possible to establish a "track record" from his user page, talk, content creation and RfA discussion. Kraxler (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have never aspired to be an admin. I am taking this path because there is no other.
 * You have focused-in on what was the most frustrating interaction I've had with admins. As far as I was concerned, the issue was finished as soon as my request for speedy deletion declined.  Two weeks after the fact, another admin created that post on my talk page.  Yes, I was irritated and I reacted strongly.
 * As you can see, article creation isn't at the forefront of my work at Wikipedia. The ship and yacht articles were created from existing articles to fill in some of the holes in the  nav box and the America's Cup Challengers and defenders table.  I make no claims that these articles should be exempted from the notability criteria.  I have repaired the cites tagged with.
 * I don't understand how a user page can demonstrate some willingness to being accountable as an admin.  Doesn't the demonstration of willingness to be held accountable come through this RfA? At the end, when a candidate is successful, along with the privileges come the responsibilities and the knowledge that the successful admin will be held to account for actions taken and judgments made.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a redlinked user page because people behave differently when they know there are admins around. I get much closer to the generic behaviour people display towards others, sometimes that's bad, sometimes it's good. Deleting my user page made a significant difference to my experience when editing, and I recommend all admins to try it from time to time. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * However, it's still obvious who admins are when using Equazcion/ExperiencedEditorPack (unless they use complicated background colours in their sigs). -- Trevj (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Per Kudpung except for the user page issue. If the core of the problem (sorry about the pun) is you lost your admin assistance, I suggest you find another admin or admins to help you with your tasks. There appear to be camps of people (Wikipedia is full of camps) on the narrowness issue and the related issue of how much a candidate is going to use the tools. One camp believes that if there is even a single purpose for a candididate, as long as there's no indication the nominee is going to abuse the tools, why not? Generally, that same camp also believes that if a candidate is going to use the tools very little, as long as we can trust them otherwise, again why not? I'm not in those camps. I don't think admins should know how to do everything, but their skills should be broader than one narrow area. I don't believe that all admins have to pass some magical threshold in using their tools, but they are promoted not just because we trust them but because they are willing to do a job. And that job entails doing admin-related work at least to the degree that justifies having the tools in the first instance. As for the user page issue, it would be hypocritical of me to require it. I have one, but it says very little about me, so just having one to avoid the redlink is form over substance. I kind of like the fact that I'm much more anonymous about who I am than many other editors. In that way, people judge me by my edits and actions, rather than making assumptions based on what they know about me personally. Of course, editors still suspect my motives even though I've said virtually nothing, but that's unavoidable, if at times amusing in a weird sort of way. I hope you find a way to continue to contribute technically to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Single-use requests have been declined before. The tools need to be unbundled, and every exception made pushes that realization further over the horizon. I find the "let's make an exception" supports unconvincing. Since the tools are "one size fits all" and are bestowed in effect for life, we need to have confidence in the well-roundedness of each candidate. Sorry. Intothatdarkness 14:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I have no reason to suppose that this editor has any intention of doing anything except to benefit the encyclopedia. But nevertheless, as unbundling is not an option, he will receive, if accepted for the tools, the full range of abilities of an admin which he admits he is not competent to use. This is in my opinion not acceptable. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony Bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 14:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - as a single-use request; perhaps the tools (or some of them) need to be unbundled but I see no reason for you to be given the mop for this task, sorry. I also agree with Kudpung's user page comment. GiantSnowman 16:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose — No user page (carrying anonymity a bit too far), single-purpose request (such have mostly been voted down before), doubtful content creation, unfriendly messages in the past (see his talk page), apparently no clue about other admin areas (even as a single-purpose request, a tiny little bit of experience in other areas would help) etc. etc... Kraxler (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Single-purpose request, which won't do much for helping the encyclopedia. Sorry, but as said before, single purpose requests have been made before, and ultimately failed. I don't think this one will be any different. buffbills7701 20:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, several single-purpose requests have succeeded in the past: i.e. lustiger seth, MGA73, and West.andrew.g. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Lustiger Seth and MGA73 were admins on other wikis when they came to en-wiki to offer help, and Andrew West was a PhD candidate and creator of the helpful STiki tool. The case here is quite different, more similar to the request by Carrite. Such requests have all been voted down so far, if I remember correctly. (Give another example, if I'm wrong.) Kraxler (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The list of people who got rejected is longer than the list of people who got accepted (and some after many attempts).  A m i t  웃  03:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh, whatever happened to the old culture of IAR? There's no rule saying that single-purpose requests should fail, and I fail to see the logic in saying that Trappist won't do much to help the encyclopedia because they are good at doing one thing instead of another. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - No scope of expansion to other areas as partly mentioned in answer 4. Would not add or benefit the community in any other way.  A m i t  웃  03:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - I was concerned with your interactions with another user here, just a month ago. The user was I think justly upset by the tone you used, which I accept may well have been wholly unintentional. But you apparently did not pick up on this, or if you did, you did not make an attempt to modify your initial tone, and indeed responded in a way that caused further distress to the user. An ability to be diplomatic in your dealings is important for adminship, and as others have pointed out, though you have requested the tools for a specific purpose, I'm not sure that you have enough experience yet in the full range of skills that are usually required from admins. I don't think suggesting that you will only use the ones you need for a specific purpose should be grounds for exemptions from these standards at an rfa. Benea (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The conversation began in another thread at WT:SHIPS. With I added ten  templates and, later that day, did some cleanup and added two  templates to Editor's list.  I had hoped that Editor would see that and continue what I had started.  Editor announced completion of the list in the WT:SHIPS thread that Editor Benea mentioned.  Because Editor had not made use of  nor addressed the  issues, I pointed that out.  Rather than simply referring Editor to the  documentation, I showed the citation for the first of the ten  templates that I had added to Editor's list and then briefly described what information belonged in the various parameters.  I ended with a template skeleton inside   tags.  Editor's  was missing the template name and most of the required parameter data. When Editor returned to the conversation with the comment that I do not know what it is supposed to look like, I frankly didn't believe that and said so but, I provided a completed  template to show what Editor's attempt should have looked like.  Editor replied with the ... once I decide how angry I am comment, but used the completed example I provided and then changed the next reference in the list; in both cases getting them right but leaving out the   tags.  In frustration, I up'd-stumps and retired to the pavilion.  I don't think that what I wrote about how to use the  was so complex that it could not be understood.  I will hold an editor's hand for a long time if needs be, but in this case Editor seemed to be willfully ignoring what I had written.  When that happens, my patience wears thin.—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this rather strengthens my oppose. While you work very well and consistently in the area of templates, other editors, such as this one, do not. He had made a good faith start to a basic list, and when other users worked and expanded it, he worked with them to add content. His post was to invite further work on it, and said that it had been a good learning experience in tables, etc. Your response was "You're not done yet. Fix Rung Ra Do, there are two listed." I.e. go back and work on it. The problem was your tone, which the editor certainly picked up on, and by your admission above was a deliberate show of annoyance that the templates hadn't be used correctly. When the editor tried to do as you say, and made some further errors, he asked for help. You say that you did not believe that he didn't know how to use the template. I'm afraid this shows a strong lack of good faith. Fortunately someone else came by and helped him out some more. But the end result was that the user stated that "I am dropping that page from my watchlist ... and have nothing else to contribute". I.e. he was driven away. I find it hard to believe that he was purposefully trolling you, so you seem to have made a basic error that "he was wilfully ignoring you." I'm sorry, but you failed to assume good faith, you snapped at an innocent editor who was trying to work on a project he found interesting because your patience wore thin. I understand tone is hard to judge here, but this open admission of your reasoning is very disappointing. This, and the diffs by Kudpung, further show you don't have the diplomatic skills yet to be an admin. The nature of wikipedia is that you will come into contact with other users even if you declare your intention to work only on templates, as this incident has shown, and you have not shown good judgement in dealing with even honest mistakes over very minor formatting issues. Benea (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - No offense to the candidate, but this would be unbundling the wrong way around. Either re-open the unbundling debate, or assess all admin candidates against the usual content/policy/experience/behavior criteria. - Pointillist (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Other solutions exist here, including seeking wider Admin. assistance, requesting previous involved Admins. to come back to the problematic area or seeking access only to the tools needed for the job. There is evidence (Q8) that alternative solutions have not yet been fully & sufficiently explored. While undoubtedly genuine in seeking a pragmatic solution to their current specific problem, I cannot support the granting of all Admin. rights on a one-off / single issue basis. This type of request, once approved as a means to an end, opens the door to future, similar requests by potentially less genuine candidates. With no swift means of removing Admin. rights once granted, the circumvention of the accepted RfA standards can become the thin end of the wedge that will be exploited by other, less honest candidates, in the future.  Leaky  Caldron  13:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. This is a very tough decision for me. With a few things just a little bit different, I would have ended up supporting on the grounds that it would be good for Wikipedia to, in effect, do an "experiment" of giving administratorship here in order to test how unbundling would work. A problem-free use of the tools in the very delimited manner requested here could contribute to a future consensus in favor of unbundling, and I would be happy to see that. I recognize that the candidate has made it very clear that they intend to use the tools only for something specific, that this use is a net positive for Wikipedia (although it does not seem urgent to me), and that they have a long track record indicating that we can probably trust them to stick to their promise not to go into other administrative areas. But when I read the self-description about not liking to be reverted and some of the candidate's past talk comments (see the diffs in Kudpung's oppose), I get a picture of someone who is the exact opposite, in temperament and communication style, of users whom I would normally support at RfA. If ever – ever – the candidate got into a potential administrative situation outside of the proposed work, even by innocently running across someone else who was being unpleasant while editing together on a page, I see this as a situation where there is simply too much risk of a bad block or some other kind of problem. I know that the intentions are good, but I perceive the risk as being significant. I'd rather see an effort to find existing admins to help the way the two previous admins had done. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * On first glance I found the mention of not appreciating being reverted troubling, but reading through the entire answer, this is more of an admission of a weakness followed by steps they try to take in dealing with it, as is sort of the intent of the question. I actually respect the candidate more for not attempting to sugar-coat that response as other candidates tend to attempt. I'm also not too concerned with those diffs. This person wasn't uncivil; he just made his feelings clear and didn't respond in the political fashion of one that's running for office nor taking pains to be excessively deadpan, as other candidates tend to. Again I actually respect him more for it. When people are just a little too nice and/or neutral, it has me skittish about what they're actually thinking, and what might come out once they don't see a need to prove anything. With this guy it seems to be pretty much all out on the table. <font style="font:Futura;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #a0a0a0;"> equazcion <small style="font-size:75%">( talk ) 02:11, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
 * As a small aside, this is not the first nomination of this sort we've seen (single permission motivation for adminship). But I forget specifically who the past one was. Shadowjams (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There was West.andrew.g's RfA, which was primarily for viewing deleted pages. PaleAqua (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That is one, I think Carrite's nom is the one I was thinking of, but thank you for adding to the list. I think there's at least one more that I remember... in any event, the unbundled request is not new. It doesn't say much about the nominee but it does say something about our process. Shadowjams (talk) 07:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Lustiger seth requested adminship for the sole purpose of editing the spam blacklist. Leyo's request was also a similar case, but he requested adminship for image work. Graham 87 09:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also see the replies to oppose #7. Graham 87 09:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, thank you to everybody who commented to me here. About the previous single-purpose RfAs, I do indeed remember at least some of them. And I'm friendly in principle to the idea. I have long been in favor of unbundling, personally. I believe that having more single-purpose RfAs that are successful, and then turn out to produce good administrators who really do specialize in what they focus on, will eventually lead to community consensus for unbundling, and I would be pleased to see that. Now as for what Equazcion asked me, it's obviously a subjective call. My first instinct was to want to support this RfA, and I never feel good about opposing any RfA. I, too, recognize that the comments about disliking being reverted were in the context of showing what the candidate had learned about themself, and that's good, as is the honesty about it. As to whether or not those diffs satisfy WP:CIVIL, I don't ever expect multiple editors to even agree as to what WP:CIVIL really means. But I thought hard about it, and I'm really quite convinced that what I concluded was correct. I get a picture from the evidence I cited. A lot of it is gut feeling, and other editors may agree or disagree. And I have no doubt about the candidate's good intentions. I'm making a subjective call about what I believe this picture is telling me of what the candidate will do when, inevitably, someone else acts in a difficult manner towards them. And I think that there is too big a risk that the community will eventually regret it if this RfA passes. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - I'm sorry but I simply cannot support single purpose nominations, or take restrictions on adminship at face value with the broken recall system [its lack]. I don't doubt this editor, but it's not a good precedent to set for the future, and if Trappist changes their mind down the line, how should we handle that situation? If we want limited adminship rights let's petition for those specifically (like rollback, or article creator), but I cannot support self-constrained adminship. Shadowjams (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I see it all now, and just like as per above comment (the number 12 opposer comment) I will also say Oppose. Sorry about this, but its my final decision. <font face="Comic Sans MS" size="3" color="#FF8C00">Hamham31 <font face="Century Gothic" size="2" color="#0000FF">Heke! <font face="Arial size="2" color="red">KushKush!  01:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Tryptofish. --John (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - I generally do not support single purpose nominations, but in this case, I have other concerns. The answer to question 3 concerns me, and the user seems to have an antagonistic attitude at times, as evidenced by some of the conversations on his talk page. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I aggree with Inks.LWC comment, I'm concerning the same situation as well. <font face="Westminster" size="3" color="#FF8C00">Izzy Izumi <font face="Arial" size="2" color="#0000FF">Prodigious! <font face="Fixedsys" size="2" color="red">Check!  01:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Strike comment by sockpuppet per Sockpuppet investigations/Hamham31. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose As the concerns raised by the above are valid, but we all know this will come down to how many admin and bureaucrat buddies you have. One already expressed wanting to go back to the 'old culture of WP:IAR', which was usually a moderator that shall remain nameless telling people to, quote, "fuck off" while calling other "cunts" as well as about 160 other instances of verbal abuse as of five years ago with absolutely nothing being done to him so that he could continue his tornado of abuse as admin to this date, but good ol IAR! Once we put one of these editors into office, we have to drag them out kicking and screaming if they won't come quietly. I'm not going to support a candidate when I know I won't be able to undo it, especially when "recall" has been long exposed as a broken joke and WP:RFDA is a page to give the illusion that we'll even have a de-adminship process in the future. Oh well, let's see if the superfriends push through a single purpose request anyway. Extremely unwise, but not unprecedented. <font color="#ff5500" size="2px">Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 13:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I was going to question this oppose and caught myself in time. I'm not going to badger and I implore other editors to restrain themselves too. Let this oppose speak for itself and let the closing 'crat evaluate it. No need for RfA dramah here. <font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D">(Talk)  14:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Unfortunately I must oppose per Benea.The issue of requesting adminship for one purpose does not trouble me in the slightest. However the exchange highlighted by is problematic and I am concerned that the candidate does not seem to appreciate this. If they had recognised that the discussion was sub-optimal or even said "I was having a bad day" I would likely have excused it and then supported. But the candidate has attempted to defend their rather brusque and unfriendly language, and this is not an attitude we want to see in our administrators. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - per Benea; candidate's temperament is unsuitable for adminship. Per MSGJ; candidate does not grasp the magnitude of dysfunction. When a user interacts with TTM they will not perceive him or her as a special purpose admin, but instead as an administrator; and they will more than likely be left wanting in the aftermath.—John Cline (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Not sure I like the idea of granting admin tools based on a "limited use" promise. I don't really doubt that Trappist's promise is made in good faith but circumstances change and it doesn't really make sense to me to do a circumscribed evaluation but then give the candidate all the buttons. (This is neither meant as a comment on the suitability of Trappist nor should it be taken as an anti-unbundling statement.) --regentspark (comment) 16:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose but a reluctant one. Per Tryptofish and I wish this editor would have made at least some comments on a user page. This editor seems like a rather good candidate for the RfC/Template editor user right. - <font face="Verdana" color="#522C1B"><font size="+1"> t u <font color="#417DC1">coxn \ talk 00:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Benea and John Cline. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Benea and John Cline. My gut says no too. Sorry, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 10:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose the issues brought up by Benea and the diffs by Kudpung (oh man, those diffs), as well as the single-purpose request have led me to conclude that the candidate is unsuitable for adminship. Sorry, but no. Inanygivenhole (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose as too soon, as too few template/module edits at this point (see: edit-counts). When User:Jimp requested adminship to fix protected templates, he had made over 2,000 template edits. Also the ongoing WT:CS1, with growing consensus to suppress red-error messages in wp:CS1 cites, is diametrically opposed to Trappist stated intent for more messages in Module:Citation/CS1, which would just frustrate the whole purpose of this RfA, to have powers to change a protected module but consensus would likely reject those changes. Needs to wait typical 6 months, and edit more templates/modules meanwhile. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Weak Oppose Until the tools can be unbundled, I must look at this as a full RFA. As such, this editor falls slightly shy of my RFA standards. That said, I would gladly support this editor in pursuing additional user rights in the future and if this editor wants to specifically apply for adminship as a whole and shows a balanced understanding of conflict resolution and policy. I largely feel this is an oppose because the system is broken for not having a user right to edit protected pages. Mkdw talk 18:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Per Tryptofish, Benea and John Cline. Does not have my confidence. Ceoil (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose per above and per Ruhrfisch...Modernist (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose per MSGJ and John Cline, among others. The temperament issue is enough to sink this RfA for me for now..  P.S. I suppose I should note that the lack of a userpage does not bother me. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. I have nothing against the candidate, but don't like the idea of single purpose admin because of the perceived problems highlighted by some of the !voters in the oppose section. Unbundling the tools may be a solution to avoid this kind of RfA. <font style="color:#e90;">Salih (<font style="color:#08c;">talk ) 05:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose not generally a fan of single-purpose adminship. Also quite disturbed by the candidate's refusal to create a userpage; besides the identification issues, it does not reflect well on the candidate to refuse to do something as simple as that. --Rschen7754 05:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose per Tryptofish, Bena, and John Cline.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 16:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose - Between Support and Oppose, I'm more into Oppose, user makes great edits and contributions, however I'm not seeing where this will go. ///Euro Car  GT  18:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose - per benea felt  _   friend  19:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 18) I originally !voted neutral, but am opposing because I've seen no evidence Trappist wished to work in any other admin areas. Also, they have been rather curt at times. the  one  sean  03:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Neutral - I guess this user doesn't understand the question no. 3. I will moved either Support or Oppose if he/she answered properly. But anyway, I see his/her contributions. Some of them need concern. <font face="Orator Std" size="3" color="#FF8C00">Hamham31 <font face="LCD" size="2" color="#0000FF">Heke! <font face="Arial size="2" color="red">KushKush!  02:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral The to-the-point style of this candidate and his introductory paragraph sold me. However, I will sit here to take a dep look to the candidate's contributions, and cast my vote later. On a side note, this reminds me why we sometimes need to unbundle several tools out of the sysop toolset. — ΛΧΣ  21  02:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral Could the pages be unprotected?TeeTylerToe (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * These particular pages are considered high risk. At the time  was added to Module:Citation/CS1/doc the module was in use by an estimated 1.9 million pages.  It's probably in our own best interest to keep the pages protected. —Trappist the monk (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Please put Babel boxes on your userpage or indicate your language abilities in some manner. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, please, . Create an userpage with some baci information about you like the languages you speak. — ΛΧΣ  21  03:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * American English with a smattering of British English that I've picked up from an ex-pat English friend. I am private person so I maintain that privacy by leaving my user page blank. I want my reputation on Wikipedia to be based on what I've said and done here, not on what I say I am in the real world. If you want to know something about me, just ask. —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How about a list of articles you created? Kraxler (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * list of non-redirect articles created by Technical 13 (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. Total 29, a few dab pages of ship's names, 3 articles without any sources/references. Not really something to support this request, sorry. Kraxler (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a rather strange RfA. I applied for auto patrolled status a while back because I am drafting a project that requires lots of userspace subpages. I was denied because, typically, tools and hats aren't given to people who won't use them for their normal purpose. The situations aren't analogous, but that's my perspective. Perhaps if the candidate showed some inkling of maybe widening his horizons and getting involved in other admin areas, I would support. But as of now, I'm simply neutral.  the  one  sean  04:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)  opposing, I've seen no evidence they want to use the tools for more than editing protected paged
 * Instead of unbundling, would it be possible for the unrequired admin areas to be turned off? I've no idea how the technical side of it works, but I'm thinking on the analogy of the bunch of keys that a real janitor gets. In cases like this, a smaller bunch would be given, and if the recipient changes their mind later, an RfA would consider them then. Peridon (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Moving to support Peridon (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the same as the dreaded unbundling, Peridon? If we don't do it in general, are you suggesting we should make exceptions every now and again?  Not really convincing. Cheers, LindsayHello 06:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * as I interpret it, Peridon (and I) are indeed suggesting we make an exception, here and now. IAR was invented for purposes like this, when something is reasonable and the existing rules do not provide for it.  DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Here for now, till i finish thinking this through; despite a couple of admins i respect being there, i don't find the Opposes convincing ~ no user page? c'mon! terse language? but still civil ~ so have to decide on the given-the-bunch-to-use-one-key question. Cheers, LindsayHello 06:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Moved to Support. Cheers, LindsayHello 09:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - Although I'm not usually a stickler about this, and it's certainly not my main concern, I would like to see a user page. Even if it's a redirect to his talk page or just a "Hi, I'm Trappist the monk; I do technical things". User pages don't have to be about the real world. Also, there's the obvious concern of being given all the admin tools for one purpose, but to me that's an obvious neutral and not an oppose. I'm also not a fan of the tone of the third sentence in Q3. That being said, I think that the work Trappist is doing is extremely helpful, especially considering my lack of technical knowledge (Content creation, copyediting, and !voting? Sure! Photos and technical stuff? Er, sorry) and the fact that he was brave enough to go through with a self-nomination. That would be why I'm parked here. <font color="#007FFF">ö   Brambleberry  <font color="#9C9C9C">of   RiverClan  14:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, pending the outcome of RfC/Template editor user right. I've not found any unduly alarming contributions from the candidate, and noted some examples of good standard communicative interaction. I applaud the candidate's technical expertise in and dedication to repairing/improving module/template coding. The stated intentions are clear, but admin candidates often also express greater capacity and willing to operate in other areas. That said, there's the potential for any admin to break things on a grand scale by editing outside their capabilities in protected areas, and predominantly anti-vandal RfAs don't seem to penalise candidates for knowing little about templates if there's no intention to work in such areas. In summary, for the moment, that unfortunately leaves me here in neutral. -- Trevj (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with pending the outcome of the RfC is that, while this Neutral section is often a "holding pen" until one has a better feeling of the candidate's abilities or otherwise, the RfC began after the RfA and, if it runs the thirty days they usually do, it will end long after the RfA ends. I'd be referring to jni's waiting comment here, too.  Unless the suggestion be that the candidate withdraw and hope the RfC concludes with a positive outcome? Cheers, LindsayHello 10:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see a need for a withdrawal; this RfA could pass, and I don't think that'd be a problem. However, I just don't really feel able to support. If this RfA is unsuccessful, then obviously it'd be a good idea to wait for the outcome of the RfC before deciding whether a subsequent RfA is warranted (assuming on the limited use case presented this time). -- Trevj (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral, mostly on the basis of being unable to personally resolve the conundrum of trusting an skilled editor to only do a specific set of tasks that is visibly useful while being given authority to doing them all. The responses to the questions, including my own, have been respectable.  It's true that WP:OWN issues make editing and improving things frustrating and it seems less likely for conflict to come up on these fronts.  But when the editor says that their skill set doesn't include "conflict resolution" (except in technical work), it becomes a major concern of mine, because one fundamental component of being an admin is being able to handle conflict (broadly construed) appropriately, particularly the interpersonal kind.  I really don't think it's a good idea to have the mop if you wish to avoid interpersonal conflict.  I do not disbelieve the editor when they say they will stick to template / module work, but the avoidance of conflict is enough of a concern to keep me neutral.  Again, however, my main issue is that I do not think it is entirely fair to an editor skilled in a very particular domain to oppose or support them on the basis of a system that supplies successful candidates with numerous tools.   <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT  drop me a line 16:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not being funny, but only doing a specific set of tasks despite access to others is a life skill my seven year old has. He's quite capable of ignoring his technical access to the oven yet manages to wield a knife and fork. If would suggest JethroBT that its not hard to "resolve that conundrum". Pedro : <font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat 20:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the metaphor analogy, but we'll have to agree to disagree. It's not an obvious decision to me.  Approving or denying authoritative functions on Wikipedia on the basis of being skilled at a very specific one that is largely unrelated to the others has consequences on future nominations of this sort.  This has less to do with trusting this particular editor, who I generally trust after evaluating their contributions and recognize their need in this case, than it does with being uncertain of how supporting or opposing the candidate would influence future nominations.  I would rather help and see a process like RfC/Template editor user right succeed (as I have already) so that the scope of permissions granted are consistent with an editor's intentions in this case.  The editor has stated as much, that they do not require nor have any interest in using the other permissions.  I genuinely want to help the editor do their work because I believe it is useful, I just do not think this is the right way, even if it is the only available one.  <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT  drop me a line 21:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. Why not wait for the outcome of RfC/Template editor user right since self-nominator does not seem to want the full mop. No strong reasons to oppose candidate so might change to support after thinking more this somewhat unusual RFA. jni (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that Trappist was unaware of that RfC when he submitted this nomitation, was was I. — ΛΧΣ  21  17:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Inevitably, as this RfA began before the RfC had been created <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 17:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not wait? Because the RfC might not pass. Also because if it passes, goodness knows how long it could take for the user right to actually be implemented into the software. If and when it's implemented, Trappist will step down as an admin and request the template editor right, as he stated in his reply to Q12. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 04:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not notice Q12 and you both are making valid points. However I'm still undecided so will stay neutral. jni (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. I am not familiar enough with the candidate to support or oppose, but I would like to comment that there are likely many admins who avoid using some of the tools that they are given. An admin who decided not to modify templates and scripts, etc., because of lack of competence in this area would be showing admirable restraint and no one would think anything was amiss. The main criteria is trust by the community to use the tools to benefit Wikipedia, and if the candidate feels that the best way to do that is to avoid using certain ones, that is an aspect of that trust.  In my opinion, when judging this candidate's suitability for adminship, the criteria should be suitable experience and competence in the areas in which he has chosen to work, based on his contributions, and trust by the community to show good judgement in the use of the admin tools, even when that judgement means choosing not to use some of them.  It's not as though there is a limit to the number of admins and he would be bumping someone out who chooses to work mainly in dispute resolution. I also hope that those who are voting for or against are voting with respect to this candidate in particular, and not for or against the idea of a single-direction admin. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I'm not fundamentally opposed to single-purpose RfA, but I really don't know about this one. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 03:27, 15 September 2013 (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.