Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikid77


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

Wikid77
Final (4/21/6); ended 20:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC) per WP:SNOW Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination
– Although I have been asked to submit a wp:RfA for years, this is a self-nomination to reduce work for current admins. Previously I had thought of admins as full-time managers, but now I see admins can take wikibreaks and share the workload. What finally prompted me, to submit an RfA, was a user asking why their article was deleted, at the wp:Help_desk, and I noticed an admin could read the deleted page and answer the user, whereas I could not. Also, the growing complexity of wp:templates and Lua script modules has left a shortage of technical admins who are prepared to update a complex template used in a million pages. However, I also intend to help with wp:AfD work, or to block users who are causing severe wp:Disruption, in unprotected templates or in major articles or images. —Wikid77 (talk) 05:11, 28 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: Mostly updates to protected wp:templates, Lua modules or other protected pages (see: CAT:EP), especially between  1:00-6:00 am, when many other admins are typically unlikely to  respond. Several users have complained that this is "no longer  a wiki" because so many pages have been protected, and they need  help with timely updates to pages. Some full-protected templates  have waited almost 3 years for updates, for issues noted and  explained years ago. However, I am also willing to help with  any emergency needs which involve numerous admin  actions. -Wikid77 05:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I feel a timely response to a frustrated user could be the best contribution (why: to improve the spirit of cooperation among  users, to build positive synergy): someone had noted how a  songwriter of a Tim McGraw song had been misspelled, and I was  able to find a wp:RS source and correct the songwriter's name,  as requested. Many templates have complex problems, and I have often  debugged template glitches for other users within a few hours.  However, among pages I wrote, the original Template:Convert/spell (April 2011), to convert a measurement and show the  numbers in words, was a success. Perhaps the biggest impact was  rewriting the wp:CS1 cites to use Lua script as 13x faster, transforming Uncle_G's Lua prototype in February 2013  (70 edits) to closely match  {cite_web/old} format. After I explained  how the wp:Scribunto interface was slow, a MediaWiki developer rewrote it to allow double-speed Lua. Among 100 recent articles, I created "Recovery of Aristotle" to help correct myths about  Aristotle and focus attention on ancient Greek texts  as well as recovery from old Arabic translations.  With calendars, I wrote "Old Style 1752" (omitting 3–13 September) and 14 pages of "Old Style common year starting on Monday" (etc.) to remind people how calendar years had begun on 25 March, for many  centuries longer than new-fangled "1 January" as New Year's Day,  and those calendars were extremely complex to write, as if the  whole world had forgotten how calendars looked after the  Middle Ages. Meanwhile, I have written numerous essays:  "wp:Wikimedia Foundation error" explains the 60-second timeout of formatting large pages, while "wp:Advanced text formatting" shows detailed typesetting, and "wp:Wikifinagling" allows  talking about skirting the rules, without any demeaning comments about the profession of a lawyer. I have begun creating  wp:Helpbox pages, such as  for a short reference card to remind users about markup format or template parameters (see: ). Feel free to ask questions about the thousands of templates or  articles or essays I have edited. -Wikid77 05:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 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, many conflicts have reminded me to drop the wp:STICK and "back slowly away" from disputes, and in fact, some editors have  even complained at me for leaving a debate too soon. I have kept my  indef topic-ban of "Murder of Meredith Kercher" (in wp:RESTRICT) as a reminder not to go against a group of editors or else face censure. Instead, treat each person as an individual with their own viewpoint and "go with the flow" of other editors. In a sense, Wikipedia has  "traffic-jams" of conflicts, and many users are stuck on the same  road, to find a mutual solution, not abandon the efforts and quit.  One former vandal wrote to me about being reformed to now correct vandalized text, so give people time to change their viewpoints.  Hopefully, as a admin I can remind people not to tower  above others in demanding a lofty "fairness" in mid-traffic,  but instead, we try to work with others to clear problems at a  reasonable pace. There are numerous conflicts, and progress requires  diplomacy. -Wikid77 05:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

General comments

 * Links for Wikid77:
 * Edit summary usage for Wikid77 can be found here.
 * Editing stats posted on RfA talk page—John Cline (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Discussion

 * This RFA is just the latest example of a well qualified and deserving editor not being allowed to have the tools. The community has preconceived notions that an Admin must be a saint prior to getting the tools so this will fail. I find it rather hypocritical that there are several administrators on a topic ban but editors are opposing this one because of one. If a topic ban does not cause admins to lose access to the toolset, it should not prevent editors from getting the tools. Also, if something happened 4 years ago its time to let it go. We all made mistakes in our early editing careers and that's usually more do to the maze and volume of unnecessary policies than about the editors intent to do harm. All you opposers need to grow up and WP:DROPTHESTICK. I would support this candidate but of course IP's aren't allowed to vote. So much for allowing IP's to have a voice in how this community operates. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So register, already. Carrite (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a note: the IP has been blocked for editing logged out to evade WP:SCRUTINY. It appears the user's real account has been blocked as well. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Moral support I know this is not going to pass, and maybe there's reason enough for that, but I've known Wikid77 for around 2 years, and I do find what's written below (the first seven opposes) to be grotesquely unbalanced in emphasising the negatives and ignoring the positives (other than to acknowledge a "Long-time user" -- faint praise indeed!). I see no mention of his massive contribution in templates, his patient explanations at WP:VPT for editors with less technical savvy than he (which is almost all of us, let's face it), and his frequent copy editing in mainspace (while declining the GOCE barnstars). What I do see is an admin endorsing a virulent personal attack as grounds for an oppose, another editor attaching significance to the fact that a request to lift a topic ban failed 23 months ago, and lots more ugliness. Shame on the bunch of you! If this fails and the proposed Template Editor right is approved, I hope at least that some admin will have the gumption to offer it to him before he has to ask for it. And Wikid77, I hope all this won't stop you wanting to contribute here. You'd have been better at it than a number of admins I can think of. Sorry for the rant, but it needed saying. --Stfg (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he sure knows his way around templates and most of the stuff he does in that area goes way over my head. So kudos for that I guess, but what does it have to do with his qualifications as a possible administrator and why do opposers have to acknowledge this for the sake of balance? It's the oppose section and you are surprised that it emphasizes negative aspects? What did you expect?--Atlan (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What I expect and what I think we need may differ a tad. What I think we need to see in oppose sections is reasons, not personal attacks. For example, one could call the answer to Q3 unconvincing without having to allege dishonesty. I have oppposed several RfAs, and have never found it difficult to do it respectfully. --Stfg (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I want to add that an RfA is an offer to serve the community and deserves to be treated as such. It doesn't stand for Request for Apotheosis. --Stfg (talk) 11:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, other editors have warned how the block-log entries seem to "scar" a Wikipedian for life, but I was still surprised that the wp:3RR (from August 2006) was raised as an issue after 7 years, without another 3RR and not considering how article "Hurricane Katrina" had understated the impacts to the U.S. state of Mississippi, so I updated "Effects of Hurricane Katrina in Mississippi" (dif71) to explain the storm surge was so deep (9.1 m or 30 feet), east of New Orleans, that it pushed casino barges into the upper floor of hotels, and the police/rescue command centers in all 3 coastal counties of the state were flooded by waves at 10-meter (33 ft) elevation. Anyway, that is what the 3RR was about, and I learned other ways of working. -Wikid77 12:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I fully support Wikid77's qualifications for adminship. I think some of my respected colleagues who oppose this candidate, though meaning well, are proffering a misnomer by suggesting Wikid77 is anything but trustworthy. I do trust Wikid77, finding him or her dependable; actually.—John Cline (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Probably moral support more than anything at this point given the red flags on the block log and how this discussion is starting. I've crossed swords with this editor over at least one recent contentious topic, probably more, that's in the rearview mirror. I consider this one of the most intelligent observers of Wikipedia at the macro level. A very interesting, sometimes controversial, frequent, and intelligent commentator at JimboTalk. If he wants advanced permissions for template work, good enough for me. Would be a valuable addition to the cast of characters at The Site That Can Not Be Named, incidentally. Carrite (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as a long time editor. You'll have have to try again in a few months.  NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 03:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Strong oppose To put it plainly, I do not think Wikid77 should have access to the admin tools. I think Matma Rex said it best [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29&diff=prev&oldid=573813402 here]. Legoktm (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that comment by Matma was over-the-top, but thank you for noting the edit which admitted I was right about the MediaWiki software update Thursday, when the user reported a browser lockup. Other developers have been surprised about lockups in MSIE, this time for IE10, and there is an issue when a MediaWiki upgrade invalidates browser cache, because the high-security browsers can hang on the image icons, which are not from website "en.wikipedia.org" but rather from "bits.wikimedia.org" such as the MediaWiki logo file: poweredby_mediawiki_88x31.png". Other browsers, such as Firefox do not have such restrictions between different websites. -Wikid77 07:10/07:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per the reasoning [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=574832820&oldid=574832788 here] (Sven's). I don't believe the candidate has the judgment or temperament required for adminship.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Candidate is also badgering opposes, which I do not really approve of.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I am clarifying some misunderstandings, because I think people deserve a response to their concerns. They have taken time to ask questions here. -Wikid77 07:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per existing topic ban, and [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive244#Proposal:_Apply_the_same_topic_ban_as_Apteva_to_Wikid77_and_LittleBenW narrowly missing another topic ban from dashes]. --Rschen7754 05:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Considering that this candidate is under an active topic ban,, , I do not think that he has a sufficient level of community trust to be an admin. Yes, the ban was put in place in 2011, so the argument can be made that as it happened so long ago, it should not be held against him. However by that same token he has had two years to get his act together enough that he could convince the community that sanctions were no longer necessary, and the continued existence of the topic ban shows that that has not yet happened. Simply put, I don't find his answer to question 3 convincing; he claims to have kept it as a reminder, but I suspect he knows that any attempt to have it removed would be unsuccessful.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  05:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think lifting the topic ban, today, would be unsuccessful, because it was based on claims of personal attacks and not any form of POV-pushing, and the topic is not as controversial after the acquittal freed them from prison. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think lifting the topic ban, today, would be unsuccessful, because you have continued to exhibit behavior similar to what got you in the sanctions in the first place. If you got hit with sanctions and said to yourself "Oh, shit, I'm being sent a message that my behavior is out of line and I'm going to make sure that the mistakes that led me here aren't repeated", and then followed up with 12 months of not exhibiting battleground behavior, no one would have batted an eye at removing your restrictions. But you got hit with the topic ban after an earlier, unsuccessful request for a topic ban, and since being sanctioned, almost got hit with a second topic ban. This is a pattern of disruptive behavior that you seem not to have learned from. If you don't internalize warnings and change your behavior in the face of blocks and sanctions, what hope should anyone have that you'll suddenly stop doing the things that led to the blocks and sanctions?  S ven M anguard   Wha?  07:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the "hope" comes from no further blocks now, going on 3 years. -Wikid77 07:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Long-time user, but has practically demonstrated poor behaviour during his Wikipedia career, including a block for sockpuppetry, a 3RR violation and a personal attack. Minima  ©  ( talk ) 06:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Back in January 2010, the "block for sockpuppetry" was when people kept posting outrageous insults and slurs about my username (and other people), and we changed usernames in the same talk-page thread, as a technical violation rather than a pretense to be acting as 2 different people at the same time. Now I know about wp:SOCK to avoid mixing usernames. That was almost 4 years ago. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose leaning neutral per current topic ban and Minimac. You have too many problems. Though you have pros, as an autopatroller and has created many good articles, but you are under a topic ban currently. Your reviewer rights were revoked in the past due to your block for disruptive editing. Please see here for more information. Sorry, I changed my vote from neutral to oppose because your cons is more than your pros. ''' Jianhui67   Talk   06:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. The first part of the answer to question 3 is rather dishonest inaccurate, as Wikid77 has attempted to get the ban lifted and this effort was unsuccesful. That discussion is here. Wikid77 has just changed tactics over the years to complaining about admins and topic bans without explicitly mentioning his own topic ban, but rather alluding to it. I think,  and  demonstrates quite well what he actually thinks about the consensus that lead to his topic ban and how he has not dropped the stick at all. Apparently, the people who served him an indef topic ban are not "normal people" and "ruthlessly fascist". I'd rather not hand the tools to someone with such a bone to pick. The second part of answer 3 is about dispute resolution I guess, but it makes so little sense that I'm not sure. I have to wonder who all those people are that have asked you to run for RFA and where they are now, because this RFA was ill-advised IMHO. --Atlan (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. The topic ban problems are enough to oppose over, but I had a look at Wikid77's contributions anyway. With only five AfD !votes this year, he does not have enough experience to close AfD discussions. I do not trust him to make fair editor blocks either.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  10:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - the topic ban shows you - currently - do not have the correct behavior for an admin. GiantSnowman 10:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, topic ban, condescending tone during discussions, assumption that all who disagree are abnormal; long-term user with long-term history of problems. Not a good candidate for the mop -- it would simply increase Wikid77's battle arena. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose I'm sorry but your temperament and attitude are uncompatible with the role of sysop. —  ΛΧΣ  21  15:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose my experience of his contributions, in particular to TfD discussions, as well as looking at his recent contributions, suggest he is too headstrong and sure of himself, unwilling to accept that the views of others are as valid as his own and accept consensus when it's against him. Giving him the tools would be a big mistake.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 17:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So by that definition he already has the "attitude" to be an administrator. So, what your really saying here is that editors need to be humble until they get the tools but then they can become headstrong. Because I can't tell you how many admins meet the exact same language you use for your oppose (but its a high percentage).71.126.152.253 (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus is one of the building blocks of WP, and being able to understand, interpret and act on consensus is a key admin skill, whether it's the local consensus of e.g. an AfD discussion or the community consensus that lies behind many policies of WP (or often both). As for 'how many admins' you seem very well informed (though entirely wrong) on our admin corps and extremely opinionated on them for an editor who has only a handful of edits and no interactions with admins.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * True on the first statement, consensus is a core value here however I do not believe Wikid (or most other established editors for that matter ) would violate that. If they did, and that's the great thing about being a wiki, it can be simply reverted. I also agree that some admin functions require a consensus, many however do not. For example, does it require a consensus to edit a protected template (new right RFC not withstanding) or block a vandal? I would argue not. As for AFD and others were it is an issue, I have seldom seen an admin (even the poor or abusive ones) fail to follow consensus even if they do not agree with it. So that argument is really just AGF. I also don't agree that my assessment of the admin corps is wrong. There are some good ones but there are an awful lot of bad ones and there is no mechanism for getting rid of them. Its a billet for life because in order to change it, the admins need to agree and that will never happen. As for my knowledge of things here. I watch, I read and I listen, but I rarely edit and likely won't until the culture actually follows the policies that are in place. The reason I am opinionated is because I have a brain and think for myself and look at the details. I don't just blindly oppose or support because I see a bunch of others do it. Also for the sake of full disclosure I have edited before but as with many networks my IP changes when I disconnect. Its not socking its just a byproduct of having good network security mechanisms in place. If someone wants to block this IP then feel free. All I have to do is disconnect and reconnect and get another one. No muss, no fuss. It really doesn't affect me and although Wikipedia currently blocks about 2-3% of the worlds IP's, I doubt they would be willing to block the entire Verizon Fios network and the checkuser tools isn't worth a shit anyway. Its wrong more than its right but its used to block helpless and innocent IP's all the time. If I wanted to dodge it, I could, but I don't care enough about avoiding scrutiny to put forth the extra effort. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose per JohnBlackburne, Drmies and SuperMarioMan. I'd forgotten just how badly this user behaved on the Knox article, and I see no sign they have learned anything from the experience.--John (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC) (amended --John (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 2) Oppose, in part due to the answer to question 3, which comes across as very disingenuous. The 2011 topic ban was not the result of being "ganged up on" or "silenced", as Wikid77 seems to be implying ("a reminder not to go against a group of editors or else face censure"), but the outcome of his uncompromising, obfuscatory and sometimes very divisive approach to talk page editing. Further to this, the user indirectly encouraged disruptive behaviour from several SPAs through carefully-worded but provocative user talk page comments. Yes, the diffs do date from two years ago, but since then I have seen little to no understanding on Wikid77's part of how this past behaviour was seen to be unacceptable.  Super  Mario  Man  19:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, the Amanda Knox debate was almost 4 years ago, and you are still upset how some new users [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Charlie_wilkes&diff=420790707&oldid=420480440 wished to make comments on the talk-page], even if they did not want to edit the articles. Well, several of those users were finally unblocked, and I do not think it hurt Wikipedia to allow a few more new users to edit pages, among over 5,000 new confirmed editors each month. -Wikid77 20:16/20:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I should have been clearer: in that diff, are there any statements that, in your opinion, could have been worded just a little bit more responsibly? I'm thinking primarily of the speculation on another user's personal life, as well as the attempt to downplay and excuse sockpuppetry. That is certainly not the kind of behaviour that I expect to see from any administrator on this project. Some time later, you were still casting these kinds of negative aspersions (and at the same time soapboxing in a manner that brought you extremely close to violating your cross-namespace topic ban). The rest of your above reply completely misses the point – it's a good example of the obfuscation that I previously mentioned.  Super Mario  Man  22:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per topic ban!, Not a wise choice - RfA whilst being topic banned!.  Davey 2010  T  22:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify about the topic-ban: I had been accused in 2010 of being a "ring leader" of some nefarious plot to advocate for the innocence of U.S. university student Amanda Knox, who was in fact found not guilty in October 2011, for the Murder of Meredith Kercher, her British roommate who also went to college classes and concerts with her and helped her get a job in Italy, although a higher court in Italy has since demanded yet another retrial to examine further evidence in the case, but I kept the topic-ban, during the past 2.3 years, as clear evidence that I was not here in Wikipedia to run a pro-Knox campaign. Many other users were also blocked or banned during the same time period, and I suppose I should have my topic-ban lifted now, so I can better discuss how new users were blocked when they explained the lack of evidence against Knox, such as a traffic camera running "5 minutes" fast to give a false impression of the sequence of events when the postal police arrived at the scene. Other editors (not topic-banned) have quit Wikipedia, in frustration, but all the blocking of many users has soured their experience, and they lost interest in writing other articles. -Wikid77 07:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I commend you for sticking it out but I feel If you waited till It was up- You would've had a better chance, -


 * Good luck on whatever next step you take. - Davey 2010  T  15:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. This editor is too much a dramah seeker, with over 1000 edits to User talk:Jimbo Wales (they got Tarc beat by almost twice as many, for instance), which I think they think of as a kind of in-wiki Wikipediocracy to denounce other editors. I have no faith in their temperamental suitability as an admin. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I could pretend to be "tempermental" but the protected templates do not seem to care when edited! Anyway, many interesting subjects have been discussed at User talk:Jimbo Wales, and he has posted much advice there to help improve Wikipedia; however, there have also been many cases of bickering, but I tend to avoid those, and in fact deliberately start new threads to re-focus on practical subjects (which readers have noted as a welcome change). Please understand that Jimbo gives advice as a long-term user and admin, and encourages "philosophical" debates which might be considered off-topic elsewhere. So, yes, I have posted over 1,070 messages to JimboTalk, and many of the discussions have been fascinating, plus Jimbo has said he plans to remain involved with Wikipedia for years, so feel free to post there with questions or comments. -Wikid77 07:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, well-meaning, but does not have the temperament or social skills to be an admin. See his contribution to this conversation on Jimbo's talk page. Graham 87 09:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. What we like to see in admins is that they take advice, and that they reflect on where they have gone wrong, and learn from it. Wikid77 appears to feel he is right and that the opinions of others are to be challenged rather than listened to. I am particularly concerned that he continues to justify his attempts to gather one-sided support for the Amanda Knox article. He seems to feel that the end justifies the means, and that following due process is not for him - indeed he feels that "The event revealed a "loophole" in wp:CANVAS". Looking at the incident - he was was advised by two users that he was violating WP:CANVAS. Four hours later he continues - this time adding the comment "I am not suggesting that you need to edit the article. You know, restrictions in notifying other users". Now, I understand that at the time he was heated, and when heated people do say and do inappropriate things. So while that incident is a concern, it was a while ago, and he has been topic banned for it. But I do expect users - particularly prospective admins -  to learn from their experiences. That he continues to feel he was in the right, and indeed that CANVAS should be adjusted to allow users who are heated and angry and unable to make sound judgements, to ignore CANVAS because they feel justified in doing so, gives me serious cause for concern. Opening this RfA with a topic ban in place was questionable judgement. That he keeps it open and argues with people is a firm demonstration of poor judgement. The longer Wikid77 keeps it open, and the more he argues, the worse it will look for a future RfA.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that is quite a lot of false assumptions to build a straw man argument. Briefly, I was not "angry" at the time, because my intention was to let other users read the article "Amanda Knox" and expand with wp:NPOV text, and it was not inappropriate "one-sided support" because other editors were neutral or against a separate article. When I notified another user (4 hours later), I was contacting a known opposing editor unaware (to balance support-vs-oppose for proper wp:CANVAS), with disclaimer [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bluewave&diff=prev&oldid=367105291  "I am not suggesting that you need to edit the article."] Now, insisting that I dismiss the topic-ban, against advice from another admin, I will again note that the topic-ban has kept me away from investigations of many suspected wp:SPA accounts (no talk-page discussions with them) where I might otherwise receive further sanctions in a broad-sweeping attempt to control numerous new editors trying to update the related pages, but it has been 2.3 years since then. Also, wp:CANVAS was in fact adjusted, along the way, to foster better collaboration. I can appreciate how you want me to do exactly what you think, but I am here to also listen to concerns noted by other users, and I feel they should be allowed time to make an informed judgment. I am NOT here planning "my next RfA" (no), but rather to address people's concerns. -Wikid77 11:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - the topic ban, overall answer to #3, and slight badgering of other oppose voters leaves me to believe the tools should wait at least a while. Also suggest closing immediately per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. ö   Brambleberry   of   RiverClan  19:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29&diff=prev&oldid=573813402 per Matma Rex]. On top of everything else mentioned above, Wikid77 has something of a history of blatantly misinforming other editors on VPT and other technical pages with long and confusing explanations of things that he quite simply does not appear to understand. That he thinks he does and responds to corrections (because when someone asks for help, they should actually get that help, not a bogus explanation that may not even be entirely related), as well requests to change his behaviour in general, not by acquiescing but by explaining himself further with similarly confusing and long-winded explanations and generally disagreeing, is not something I would want to see in any productive user, let alone an admin. -— Isarra ༆ 19:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please observe wp:NPA for no personal attacks. Claims of "blatantly misinforming other editors" requires a lot of evidence to prove such an outrageous conclusion. Also, understand that I have 2 degrees in computer science, so perhaps reconsider who "does not appear to understand" the technical issues, which can be quite complex at times. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - As many user's on the top had stated about the topic ban, also user has been blocked many times a long time ago, just don't see that this user will be an good admin. User should try again in few months after getting positive feedback from other users. ///Euro Car  GT  19:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As I explained, above, there were many editors (see: User_talk:Charlie_wilkes) who were blocked or banned in conjunction with article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" as I was also blocked or topic-banned repeatedly, and it became so troublesome that User:Jimbo Wales finally came to moderate the discussions and recommend unblocking users who had been blocked without proper justification. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Neutral. You have too many problems. Though you have pros, as an autopatroller and has created many good articles, but you are under a topic ban currently. Perhaps come back and request for adminship 12 months later when you have no problems. I wanted to support you at first, but considering for a while, I decided to place my vote at neutral. ''' Jianhui67   Talk   06:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral leaning toward supporting. I need time to research the issues concerning topic bans and other sanctions that have been raised in the oppose, but so far what I see is an editor with a demonstrated track record of helping out fellow editors, a well thought out rationale for offering to help with administrative tasks, good technical skills (which a lot of us agree we need more of in the admin corps), and good writing skills, so I want to recognise those pluses and encourage the candidate to hang in there while I and others do the necessary research. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * About those block-log entries: They were mainly about college student "Amanda Knox" as an article I re-created on 9 June 2010 ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amanda_Knox&diff=367002952&oldid=366816778 dif2952]) when many sources and editors said she should be acquitted of the Murder of Meredith Kercher (which she was on 3 October 2011), but the article was immediately re-sent to AfD while I was notifying people how I had re-created the article, and I was accused of improper wp:CANVASing for notifying more people who requested the article (well, they asked), rather than those who opposed the article but had already been notified by other editors. The event revealed a "loophole" in wp:CANVAS when supporters of an article do not frequent a discussion where opponents have been notified, putting a person at risk for double-notifying opponents when notifying everyone about the re-creation of an article (another reason to use wp:IAR to overcome loopholes). Meanwhile, the re-created article was subject to massive edit-wars, such as removing -11,817 bytes (~1,700 words) without prior consensus by other users, including by User:Hipocrite ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amanda_Knox&diff=367019803&oldid=367018309 dif803]), who left Wikipedia in July 2012. Such gutting of related articles, without consensus, led to numerous complaints. After topic ban, I was advised to stay away because the whole subject was a hornets nest for many editors, and I left the indef topic ban in place. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:43/13:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral for now, per Yngvadottir. I'll be back. -- Trevj (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral no need to pile-on, but I'd recommend that you withdraw at this point. The RfA will clearly not succeed and leaving it open could bring unwanted drama. Just my two cents. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 23:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment (but RfAs have succeeded with almost 40 Opposes), and I want to hear the concerns of other users as well, plus people have raised issues which needed to be clarified. -Wikid77 09:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I was actually just about to say the exact same thing as AusomaticStrikeout. Wikid77, you have made many great contributions to this site, but history has shown that you too readily engage in situations without thinking things through beforehand. Perhaps in a year or two with a proven track record of aversion to drama, I will consider supporting you for adminship. For now, just keep up the good work and hopefully you'll outgrow the issues you've had in the past. You're a valuable editor &mdash; everyone sees that. :-) Kurtis (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's why I came here after 2 years of no further blocks, but an admin cautioned me to keep the topic-ban lest I be targeted for further sanctions, along with dozens of users blocked or banned for discussing the Amanda Knox trials (6 court cases). -Wikid77 09:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Wait until all of the problems mentioned above disappear, and then maybe I'll support you. buffbills7701 02:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have explained most of the issues already, such as the topic-ban to protect me from other admins who might want to block more editors who they imagine are cohorts of wp:SPA accounts (see: User talk:Charlie_wilkes and find "are all largely SPAs"). I guess many people do not realize how a topic-ban can be a shield from getting lumped into a group of suspected users; and in fact, it took me a while to realize the danger of talking with users who are under investigation for advocacy, because I did not think of them as impending targets for blocking, but rather as new editors to update other articles such as page "Linda Carty" (which some of them attempted until followed to other pages). It is important to also think "like an admin" in reviewing these issues. -Wikid77 09:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - I  was asked 14 days ago  if I  would review this possible candidacy. Due to  heavy  commitments in  RL I  didn't  get  round to  it  but  my  advice would have been to  wait  a while longer until the issues mentioned in the oppose section had been addressed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:53, 29 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.