Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Franamax

User info
General user info Username: Franamax User groups: rollbacker First edit: Aug 26, 2007 23:14:23 Unique articles edited: 2,210 Average edits per page: 5.33 Total edits (including deleted): 11,782 Deleted edits: 188 Live edits: 11,594 Namespace totals Article	4374	37.73% Talk	947	8.17% User	884	7.62% User talk	1791	15.45% Wikipedia	2419	20.86% Wikipedia talk	954	8.23% File	129	1.11% File talk	1	0.01% MediaWiki talk	1	0.01% Template	46	0.40% Template talk	26	0.22% Help	9	0.08% Help talk	4	0.03% Category	8	0.07% Portal	1	0.01% Graph Month counts 2007/08	2	2007/09	78	2007/10	102	2007/11	26	2007/12	130	2008/01	329	2008/02	540	2008/03	521	2008/04	683	2008/05	1017	2008/06	527	2008/07	452	2008/08	558	2008/09	897	2008/10	824	2008/11	637	2008/12	457	2009/01	433	2009/02	509	2009/03	576	2009/04	405	2009/05	592	2009/06	318	2009/07	153	2009/08	199	2009/09	301	2009/10	308	2009/11	20	Logs Accounts created: 1 Pages moved: 25 Files uploaded: 28 Top edited articles Article

* 86 - Vancouver * 78 - Montreal * 77 - Number_the_Stars * 65 - Cosmetology * 54 - York_University * 53 - Marc_Emery * 46 - Robot * 40 - Nail_(anatomy) * 37 - Ottawa * 36 - British_Columbia

Talk

* 66 - Canada * 38 - Montreal * 36 - Vancouver * 31 - Moon * 27 - Columbia_River * 26 - Opposition_to_water_fluoridation * 24 - Antarctica * 22 - Cattle * 22 - Fidel_Castro * 16 - Darko_Trifunović

User

* 82 - Franamax/Sandbox * 69 - Franamax/Igorberger * 66 - Franamax/Ucontribs-0.3b * 58 - Franamax/monobook.js   * 48 - Franamax * 48 - Franamax/Stuff * 45 - Franamax/PictureBox * 45 - Franamax/Ucontribs-0.1 * 26 - Franamax/monobook.css * 20 - Franamax/Test13

User talk

* 331 - Franamax * 56 - Carcharoth * 54 - Jimbo_Wales * 34 - Betacommand * 28 - SteveBaker * 27 - Giano_II * 25 - MichaelQSchmidt * 23 - Igorberger * 23 - SandyGeorgia * 21 - Moonriddengirl

Wikipedia

* 829 - Reference_desk/Science * 217 - Reference_desk/Miscellaneous * 198 - Village_pump_(technical) * 150 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents * 106 - Administrators'_noticeboard * 95 - Help_desk * 63 - Plagiarism * 29 - Your_first_article * 26 - Reference_desk/Computing * 22 - Village_pump/Arbitration_Committee_Feedback

Wikipedia talk

* 145 - Plagiarism * 138 - Reference_desk * 87 - Ignore_all_rules * 43 - Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board * 31 - Bot_policy * 28 - Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers) * 26 - Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard * 23 - Bot_Approvals_Group * 22 - Blocking_policy * 20 - Requests_for_adminship

File

* 8 - Aerial_view_Canada_Pavilion_to_Quebec_Pavilion_Exp... * 6 - Ben_Johnson_1988_Olympics_-_LAC_a175370k.jpg * 5 - Igor_Gouzenko_hooded.jpg * 5 - Castro-Trudeau_1976_-_LAC_PA136976.jpg * 4 - Grace_Kelly_at_Expo67_-_LAC_e000996509.jpg * 4 - TLSP2_Cover.jpg * 4 - Brian_Orser_-_1988_Calgary_Olympics_-_LAC_PA-20975... * 3 - Uno_motorcycle.jpg * 3 - CouncilonCompetitivenesslogo.png * 3 - Frank_Mahovlich_-_Toronto_Maple_Leafs_-_LAC_E00250...

File talk

* 1 - Pagan-Buphaya-pagoda-Nov-2004-00.JPG

MediaWiki talk

* 1 - Gadget-edittop.js

Template

* 8 - Usercheck-full * 4 - Convert/doc * 3 - Vancouver_landmarks * 3 - Largest_Metropolitan_Areas_of_Canada * 3 - Diligent_Librarian_Barnstar * 2 - ArticleHistory * 2 - LAC * 2 - Vancouver_Sports * 1 - UF-hcard-org * 1 - Bridges_of_Metro_Vancouver

Template talk

* 16 - Convert * 3 - WikiProject_Food_and_drink * 2 - Infobox_university * 1 - Metro_Vancouver * 1 - Cite_paper * 1 - Infobox_settlement * 1 - Diligent_Librarian_Barnstar * 1 - PermissionOTRS

Help

* 5 - Template * 2 - Link * 1 - Magic_words * 1 - Editing

Help talk

* 2 - Merging * 1 - Template * 1 - Files

Category

* 2 - Judges_of_the_Federal_Court_of_Canada * 1 - Culture_of_Ottawa * 1 - Nervous_tissue_cells * 1 - Judges_of_the_Federal_Court_of_Appeal_of_Canada * 1 - Images_from_Library_and_Archives_Canada * 1 - Wikipedians_in_Quebec * 1 - Wikipedians_in_Montreal

Portal

* 1 - Cold_War/Selected_biography

Continued discussion of Durova's !vote
Sandy, you may appreciate this: when I coach people for adminship one thing I ask them to do is to raise at least one article to GA. FA is better, but a GA is enough to get a sense of what content writers experience. It's important to do that before getting sysopped because if a dispute occurs afterward people do treat a person differently. Occasionally an editor with really exceptional admin-related abilities earns my backing without a GA although I do strongly encourage them to write a few DYKs at least--Hu12 was one, due to his antivandalism work. In two and a half years, Franamax has never bothered. And he doesn't do the kind of editing where tools are essential. Whether or not I've read his intentions correctly, I think I've read his edit history adequately enough and it seems out of character for you to be defending a candidate whose mainspace work is so trivial. And review the context of those diffs in my oppose: Franamax was a belligerent supporter of Kurt Weber after nearly the entire community was exhausted; Franamax mistakenly thought KMW was a good content contributor. It doesn't take much to find out that KMW's content work was as insubstantial as Franamax's. Durova 355 18:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Each editor must use their skills to Wiki's greatest advantage; not all editors are driven by award-seeking behavior, and I don't think that's a bad thing. Perhaps you could take your lengthy posts to talk now? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see any way that the wiki would benefit from this editor gaining the tools, and have substantial concerns about his propensity to silence disagreement in administrative discussions. Durova 355 18:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you referring to? user: J  aka justen (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Take it to talk, please. Durova 355 20:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Productivity
Long after having delayed several content drives for this editor's MySpace-ishness, even his RFA has become a drain on productive time. Am currently searching for sources on Ricardo Almendáriz, an eighteenth century illustator, because according to Library of Congress bibliographic notes his collaboration with Antonio del Río (also redlinked) on the excavation of Mayan ruins near Palenque marked "the dawn of scientific archaeology in the Americas". Please pose further questions about the candidacy here. Brevity appreciated. Durova 355 20:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Brevity could be furthered by you learning to make your points without all the self-congratulatory fluff that characterizes your posts. What does your "content drive" have to do with Franamax?  No one forces you to engage anyone. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Earlier at RFA it appeared that you snarked at my win in the WikiCup. I hoped that was a misreading and ignored it.  Thank you for making the resentment obvious.  It has little to do with this editor's unfitness for adminship, though, which has already been described and substantiated at length.  If you wish to proceed in a civil and topical fashion, please do so.  Otherwise and end (or even refactor) would be better.  That tone reflects poorly on both of us.  Durova 355 20:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And how are your (mistaken) impressions about your "win in the WikiCup" related to Franamax's RFA? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, this line of discussion reflects poorly on both of us. There is a stunning drawing from Palenque in the other window that remarkably well preserved for being more than two centuries old; restoration involves the rather difficult problem of how to compensate for the gradiated distortion at far left which resulted from the spine lifting away from the scanner bed.  Having already implemented one set of corrections for most of the problem, an entirely novel solution is going to be necessary for the remainder.  Regardless of bad faith misapprehensions from people whose experience and reputation might yield better, this is an actual technical challenge--it requires real concentration and attention.  So if something remains unclear about my assessment of the candidate, please follow up in a brisk and businesslike way.  Otherwise it's rather hard to concentrate.  Media work is every bit as challenging as text contribution. Fueds have no place here. -- Durova 355 21:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Having read and reread everything you just wrote to try to find a glimmer of relevance, I honestly am yet to figure out what on earth it has to do with User:Franamax and this request for administratorship. Is there some connection, other than that you feel this discussion has taken you away from your media work?  user: J  aka justen (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Durova, please try to focus on the matter at hand here: an RFA. What reflects poorly on anyone is you divulging private correspondence, characterizing it in a way that the candidate can't defend against, and derailing the RFA with discussions of your own accomplishments.  I believe this was characteristic of your posts long before your "WikiCup win".  Please try to understand that, if you chose to engage a certain editor and that took your time, that was your choice, and is unrelated to his RFA.  I also think that saying he "cultivated" all the "right people" or " befriend[ed] prominent Wikipedians" is highly offensive.  I don't know if you think you're one of the "right people" or I am, but he sure didn't "cultivate" me; I included him once in the long lists of people I would nom at RFA, each time I'm asked, and I did that based on having seen his work.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nahh, I've done the farming thing, sandy ground makes poor crops and Georgia is way to far to go with the tractor. :) Franamax (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate to interrupt... but I think Sandy's judgment with RfAs is sound and no one doubts that. Durova is a very talented err, photo-restorer (excuse me, I don't know the proper term). I fail to see, however, why your "productivity drain", Durova, is pertinent to this RfA, and if you are calling it a waste of time, then maybe you shouldn't participate. Best to both,  ceran  thor 00:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Durova has installed, and then reverted to, a derogatory section heading (see WP:TALK), might I suggest that futher additions to this thread by made via "edit this page" rather than "edit this section" ... the derogatory section heading appears on watchlists. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, habit. :(  ceran  thor 01:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've refactored the section heading. If User:Durova finds her misrepresentative, misleading section header so critical that she plans to edit war, in violation of wp:talkno, then I think there are bigger issues here than her productivity drain, and I'll step back and allow others to address the matter.  There's nothing wrong with this current section header, although "User:Durova's productivity drain" would apparently be slightly more accurate.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

RfA is one of the few places on Wikipedia where we're actually supposed to comment on contributors rather than on just contributions. Let's try to keep our comments focused on constructively critiquing the candidate instead of griping about each other. AniMate  05:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Followup to Caspian blue's oppose
not only presented a diff to substantiate his oppose that doesn't show what he alleges; there is another aspect of this oppose that concerns me.

''I'm not also happy about the fact that one of his most edited articles is Marc Emery ... Due to the recent fiasco regarding how some admin's personal taste on proactive substances, I would like to be more careful about that issue.--Caspian blue''

and ...

''About two years ago I told him he could get ten mainspace edits a day by watchlisting a bunch of articles and reverting routine vandalism. ... Durova355 15:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)''

Caspian blue is referencing here the recent admission from another admin involving LSD and, in spite of Durova's advice to Franamax to watchlist and engage "a bunch of articles" and no evidence presented that Franamax uses or edits under the influence of anything, the implication here seems to be that Franamax edits under the influence of marijuana. If "we are what we edit", then my editing record indicates that I have Asperger syndrome, autism, coprolalia, fetal alcohol syndrome, intrusive thoughts, klazomania, major depressive disorder, PANDAS, schizophrenia, stereotypic movement disorder, stuttering, Tourette syndrome, trichotillomania, tuberculosis, an abortion, and God knows what else.

I find this to be an unfair oppose, heading down a slippery slope, unless Caspian blue has some evidence that Franamax edits under the influence of anything. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe, and Casliber is mushrooms and elephants. My involvement with the Marc Emery article originally stems from a request at WP:CWNB to help with a POV problem at the article. I can see how my efforts to counter that POV could be construed as POV-pushing for the "other side" - but it's a BLP article, it needs to be accurate to its sources. I've never edited any drug articles and I don't edit under the influence of drugs - obviously I have enough trouble editing while straight. :) I personally don't think that Wikipedia should either condone or condemn drug use, it should only describe it neutrally. Franamax (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Remarks from the candidate
I may be conducting original research on pandemic influenza strains just now, but it's going well enough that I'm going to do a brief (that means lengthy ;) rundown through some of the oppose reasoning here. Specific objections I'll try to address in the order they appeared, the more general objections later.


 * Durova's !oppose:
 * Those two heavily-edited articles, yes I specifically mentioned them in my preamble and emphasized that I know almost nothing about fingernails except how to clip them, and I've never read Number the Stars. That's not going to stop me from preventing their vandalization though. The fact is that certain topics get assigned during school years and (relatively minor) vandalism happens in due course. Would the 'cyclo have been improved if I'd just ignored the vandalism so as to bolster my top-edited articles? I actually did very early on clean up the sourcing on the Nail article. And I don't need to read Number the Stars 'cause as it happens, my mother was a ten-year-old girl running around the streets of Copenhagen during the German occupation, so I've heard way more interesting stories. I can't write to that with NPOV but I bloody well am going to watch each and every edit that happens there.
 * The comment to Floydian should be read in its entire context, I'd made a (hopefully) neutral evaluation at this ANI thread, the result of the thread was that User:DHawker was page-banned. Floydian then protested that ban here. At the time, I was engaging in some efforts to discuss with DHawker directly ways to get the page-ban lifted. Floydian's efforts at AN/I were obviously not bearing fruit and I didn't feel able to discuss things with DHawker while there was a live AN/I thread. In fact I felt Floydian's well-meant efforts were working directly against getting DHawker out of his jam. Keep in mind that I wasn't trying to stifle any discussion, Floydian and I were both trying to help the same editor!! I've since contacted Floydian to ask whether they perceived that comment as being uncivil or hostile and their answer was basically "nope". Onlookers may judge that comment uncivil, but I was the one working directly with the subject editor.
 * The diffs from the Kmweber ban discussion, as noted elsewhere, should be read in the context of the entire discussion. Going back more than a year ago, yes, there was some rhetoric on my part. I can't help but notice that of the most-proximate to those diff'ed comments who have commented here, Majorly, AD and Carcharoth all support my candidacy (Crossmr is not present here). I also note Durova's comments on that page, "Franamax, usually I agree with your reasoning" and "Franamax...[y]ou're pretty astute", coincidentally just days before our relationship entered failure mode.
 * Durova's other comments regarding "MySpace-ishness" and various other conclusions drawn from private correspondence, all I can really say is that I strongly disagree with her conclusions. I have my own ideas on what actually happened but without a full reading of the archives, it's just as unfair for me to start selectively quoting or implying. so I'd much prefer not to. Durova has in the past misunderstood private communications, I'd rather see all that bit struck.
 * Ling, yeah, we got into an argument and I did contact you privately to explain how I got into that eventual state of making an unacceptable personal comment. That was in April and I've tried to draw lessons every day since. In a way, thanks. :) Our only other mutual experience I recall is when you mentioned somewhere about admins determining policy and I corrected you firmly with "No, admins don't set policy, they enforce policy. Editors set policy." - maybe that was on WT:IAR? Regardless, I'll accept your judgement, I plan to ensure that was the last mean statement I ever make here. (The wave-to-Daddy one, not the IAR one, I was right there)
 * Grox, when this is over, I plan to explain more fully to you my motivations, how I so didn't enjoy our first go-round at all but felt it needed to be done, and why in retrospect I could have done wayy better on the second one.
 * Miranda, I suppose my wording may have not best expressed my thoughts. I was trying to convey that BLP is a very strict standard and it's not even one we could change by consensus, it is a mandate. The only thing I may have added to that answer is that IAR'ing on BLP's in a bad way might get you pretty quickly blocked. I maybe would have preferred Lara's questions from past RFA's, where I could have expanded on my own ideas for a "one-strike-yer-out" approach to BLP editing. But the fact remains that on most of the BLP articles I watch, I don't see a big problem, possibly because I categorize a lot of that stuff as simple vandalism and revert it on sight. I don't hang out at BLP/N and I don't edit a lot on movie stars or presidents, I just keep an eagle eye on what is in my purview. Not much gets past me, a lot of my edits are from after it slipped past the patrollers.
 * Hibernian, I'm not sure what's in there that I can address as to how it relates to me personally. AGF of any particular user will vary with context. Certainly there are some anonymous editors who make very good contributions at the RefDesks and I see constructive IP edits to science-y articles happen every day. I suppose that discussion will have to wait 'til this is over.
 * Gigs, no, but in a way yes. No-one really earns a right to misbehave, but at the same time there are some people who've put in really serious work here and yeah, I'll tolerate their frivolous behaviour when it doesn't damage anything. Lara can be Lara or Jenna, whatever. If Bishzilla shows up, I think the best thing to do is offer her a plush toy for lunch. That won't stop me debating Bishonen if I disagree with her position on things. The specific diff, that will have to wait 'til I straighten things out with G'rox (sasuming GR wants to ever talk to me again).
 * Caspian blue:
 * The specific issue with Igor you mention, at Hummus, yeah maybe it would be better if I was there, but I wasn't editing Wikipedia that day! I addressed it immediately next time I logged on, but it was all over by then. All I could do by then was say "gee, weren't we going to take it slow?". The encyclopedia is very important, but my family comes first, I don't carry a wiki-pager. I spent a lot of time with Igor, we did actually compose one] or two successful edits (I still need to go back and clean up that last set a bit). Yes, that mentorship was unsuccessful, for sure.
 * The "drugs" stuff, addressed in the thread above. My recollection is that the specific source was being used to support "called a drug dealer...in newspapers" or suchlike. A letter to the editor signed by a drug enforcement official is certainly a reliable source to indicate how the US government terms Emery, but it is not a reliable source to support the claim that media itself terms Emery a drug dealer. In that context, it is a primary source and should be treated as such. That's really all there is to it.
 * Warrah, "...repeatedly telling people to shut up..." I believe is incorrect. I've explained the bit with Floydian above and I think it was the correct move at the time, since we were both trying to help the same user. I'm not aware of any other time on-wiki where I have asked anyone to shut up.
 * No wait, "put up or shut up" does technically qualify as asking someone to shut up. That was rhetorical, but yes, does qualify as repeatedly. I'd disagree though as to whether it was an attempt to "silence opposition" as suggested elsewhere. Rather, I'd term it as an attempt to bring specific elements to the fore in that particular debate. Reading the entire post again, I think it's pretty clear what I was getting at - where is the specific evidence? But yes, I did use those words in two places on-wiki, contrary to my earlier statement so yes, you were right all along. :) Franamax (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's enough rambling. If this isn't enough to completely sink my candidacy, I'll add more later on my efforts in article-writing and article-talk discussion. Sorry for the tl;dr-edness of it all! Franamax (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Robofish:
 * "tries to present a civil and helpful facade" - well, I suppose I can't change your impressions. If it's a facade, it's pretty elaborate, since I have applied the same principles for about 25 years before I started editing this wiki, in my personal and professional life. As far as being helpful and/or welcoming to newcomers, you could look at my interactions over the last year with MichaelQSchmidt, Jsahrrdc, Susan1717, HJMitchell, Meganbell20, Fredtheanimal, MysteMyst, NightDancer, Mainsouth, Eniloracg, IRheinwald, Acred99, Emmete Cole Hernandez, my 90 edits to WP:HELP, 198 to WP:VPT, 20 edits to WP:Your first article, several more at newbie help, edits I've made based on RefDesk discussions - I could have skipped all that and made a few good articles instead. Do you see where I stand on whether or not to be helpful to others? :)
 * The diff from BBugs's page, that needs a little more context for sure. It's a little too long of a story for here. I hope Bugs and I are OK with that one, though I kinda just let that drop, we ended up with other concerns. I'd have to leave that for Bugs to comment, though he was pissed at the time (it was one of those "let's-bash-Bugs" days I think).
 * Vodello, oh that t-word. The term makes it difficult to discuss my approach with troublesome editors, since any one I name would get the label. I have certainly progressively disengaged from getting involved with drama, especially AN/I and ArbCom drama. You should understand that a certain part of my induction to Wikipedia involved editors involved in drama, who I'd rather not name. I learned long ago to not seek drama, I only try to comment when I think I have something constructive to add.
 * TFS:
 * Yeah, I only get involved in those "traditional" admin areas like XfD where I think I have something to add. I don't patrol that stuff, and I certainly wouldn't do so in an effort to "burnish my credentials" to become an admin. My interests lie in other areas and the traditional areas are pretty well-covered anyway. I would just pick off the easy stuff.
 * Civility issues, other than the thing with Ling in April which I flagged up in my preamble, I'm not really seeing it - but I've discussed that above, where I refer to the context. Asking Floydian to shut up, that was actually a friendly comment, or at least not meant to be hostile. That was "hey, we both want the same thing, but you're not getting there". From an outside standpoint, yeah, that could look mean, but consider that I was pursuing the same goal as Floydian. More comments are above.
 * AIV, yeah, I only go there as a last resort. A much wiser and longer-tenured 'pedian than I stated at a wiki-meetup that "the average attention span of a vandal is minutes" - really, most of them can be waited out or just nudged with a gentle comment. A small subset of them need more forceful intervention and they get dealt with. Often I'm too busy examining their edits, reverting, warning them, checking the article history (you always should check the article history to see whether the vandal you are reverting is concealing a previous vandal's work!) to do an AIV, and the NPP's are looking at the edit-by-edit action and doing their own thing. Short-circuiting AIV is actually one of the reasons I could use the tools.

quality article work
From my occasional interactions with Franamax, he has struck me as a good admin candidate. I too have been bitten by his comments, and was pleased he had the guts to put a bit of feeling into it.

I have vigorously opposed candidates who lack article work, such as Requests for adminship/Cobi 4 (and talk), so when people opposed on this basis, I decided to do a bit of research. Thankfully, Franamax has developed a lovely tool to assist. User:Franamax/Ucontribs-0.3b was used to help evaluate the ArbCom 2008 candidates. He has prepared an overview of his own contributions at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-0.3b/Franamax 01Nov09, and I have made it a little easier to use.

Looking at his contribs to featured articles shows that he is not a huggler.

As an example, Canada has been a featured article since 2006; Franamax has 14 content edits, and 66 talk page edits. The 14 content edits are mostly reverts, but not reverts that a huggler would do.
 * 1) replacing one inappropriate image with another.  Both images were deleted from Commons.
 * 2) rv Canada not the longest [undisrupted democracy still in existence]
 * 3) rv Islam 2.5% -> 1.9%, restoring the 2001 stats in the cited source.
 * 4) rv fair-use image . File:Queen of canada wob.jpg currently includes Canada in its long list of fair-use rationale's however the image is present on the article.
 * 5) rv "occupying some of northern North America" restoring some->most.    This is mentioned in the source in that paragraph. and the WFB has long said that Canada was larger than the US. see CIA World Fact Book, 2004/Canada
 * 6) typo fix in new text added 8 hours previously.
 * 7) followed by improving the title of a ref  added some time previously.
 * 8) partial revert to restore wording in the middle of a long string of edits by R-41.  It looks like R-41 didnt have a problem with that.
 * 9) rv unexplained significant change after an hour.
 * 10) rv commercial link.
 * 11) rv grammer.
 * 12) reword per talk page.
 * 13) null edit.  eh?  probably a technical glitch he was fixing.
 * 14) rv ENGVAR

The 66 talk page edits are all helpful to the continued development of this featured article. For example, he led the discussions about revising the History section. which starts at Talk:Canada/Archive_18. Before that he was heavily involved in the heated discussions about the Government: Talk:Canada/Archive_17 (see also many sections which follow)

Another example is Columbia River, which recently became a featured article with Finetooth, Peteforsyth and Pfly doing the majority of the work, however Franamax is the sixth highest contributor due to the edits he did back in Sept 10-12 when it was being peer reviewed. He is also the seventh highest poster to the talk page.

Also, a nice example of helping newbies is Thni Kong Tnua. Here was the response from the newbie, who has become a regular contributor.

The pages he frequents the most are Reference desk/Science, Reference desk/Miscellaneous, Village pump (technical) and Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism; those four pages account for 1500 of his edits. I've not spent a lot of time looking through those contributions, but the few I have seen have been good. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In support of your "not a huggler" statement, I'd like to add that he is the first author of the guideline Plagiarism: . --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

More from the candidate - article work
Many of the conerns here relate to "lack of article work" and "vandalism reverter". While it's true that I have no GA/FA awards (two DYK's, but that's no biggie), and it's true that a lot of my edits are reversions of vandalism, I think there's a little more to the story. I try to always keep my focus on maintaining or improving article quality, bit by bit. I'm not a "sit down and write a gem" type of guy, I try to do my bit in small ways where I feel I have something to add. One way is to help new editors get on their feet on all the various standards; another is to work on article talk pages to address concerns and help to resolve disputes - I think that's pretty important actually; yet another is to do the grunt-work with sources, retrieving links from the internet archive, typo-fixing, linking, minor rewording. I think the 'cyclo is built one word at a time and I like doing it that way. Here are some examples:

I'm going to take a snack break now, but really, does this look like the work of a superficial vandalism-reverter and MySpace-r? This is technical heavy-lifting, it needs close attention to sourcing and wording. I might not do it fast or continuously, but I do it when I can. This is the heart of the encyclopedia and I try to make it bulletproof. It's really hard work! I'll try to add more examples later. Franamax (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, here's one where I didn't write a word. I read something interesting in a journal and offered to create a stub here. Someone else beat me to the stub then two days later User:Tim Vickers got his teeth into it and now we have a pretty darn good article on L-form bacteria. Not much I could have added to that process except to say "way to go Tim!!".
 * Geostationary orbit - I added an entire section here, correcting an important omission. My work was good enough to earn a compliment and get the text copied into the Space law article. Then I went over there and worked on improving that article too. In fact, pretty much all my work in that area is about improving the quality of the article family. including working with a newly-arrived editor from it:wiki here.
 * Antarctica - I got into a discussion on the talk page on "Effects of global warming", an, ahem not uncontroversial topic. Note in there where I put together 20 sources (yes, twenty) to help examine the issue. Then I wrote a new article section to incorporate the results of the discussion. (My version is free of sources on purpose, User:Polargeo reworked the whole thing properly just as I hoped he would) More recently, I spotted another interesting bit in a journal (same one, I only subscribe to Nature), raised it on the talk page and subsequently added the sourced wording - as usual, with the help of Polargeo. I still need to integrate another source or two in there, but it's a featured article and the link between ozone depletion and global warming effects in Antarctica seems important and I'm proud of having dug it up. (Assuming that global warming really exists of course ;)


 * Not too much content but well written and amusing, you should write more. I also like your start to the plagiarism policy page very good. Off2riorob (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Still digging, it's not easy to piece together the history of some of the other stuff. I'm actually a pretty good writer, but with the constraints of assembling the sources properly, putting them in the right place, getting agreement for changes, it's literally an hour per sentence or so. The plagiarism policy, that was a ton of work beyond the first draft, it was reading every talk comment and page edit over and over for ten months, trying to respond all the way through and act as the "institutional memory" for reference to previous discussions (not that anyone would necessarily follow my backlinks, but still). Don't you dare call it a policy though, just getting to guideline was tough enough. ;) I think "when" and "also" survive from my original text, but that's what it's all about. Speaking of article quality, plagiarism and copyvio IMO are important factors, we need to remove or rework that stuff to have a proper 'cyclo and we need to educate editors on how to achieve "not-copied-but-not-too-original-either" content. You can check my edit summaries for "copyvio" to see where I've acted, and I've tried to address plagio's that were raised on the guideline talk page too. That's certainly an area where editors have delicate sensibilities, needs a careful touch... Franamax (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Umm...
Is someone in charge of closing 's RfA? hydnjo (talk) 05:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A bureaucrat will be along any time now to interpret the consensus and close it. Unfortunately, it has finished at a time when many of the bureaucrats are not at their keyboards. Ah well. Risker (talk) 05:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, Thanks for that. hydnjo (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)