Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Paul Erik

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

FINAL (83/1/1); closed 18:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC) by EVula

Paul Erik (talk · contribs) - This editor has been around since January 2007, during this time he has amassed over 12 thousand edits spread through many areas of Wikipedia. A dedicated content builder he has created dozens of article some of which are quite sizable. Civility is no weak point either and he is well able to handle himself calmly in a dispute.

His best work (outside of the article space of course) is at AFD where he has contributed too what must be hundreds of deletion debates and performed many correct

If Paul become an admin I would expect he will continue to work quietly and unobtrusively in the background steadily helping to chip away at the admin backlogs. He has shown consistent good judgment and more than enough clue. No problems here. - Icewedge (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and I thank Icewedge very much for the nomination. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Whether or not this RfA is successful, my main focus still will be to do what I have been doing lately, adding sources to articles that are at risk of being deleted. If the community sees fit to entrust me with the tools, I would be happy to help out by closing AfDs, especially when there is a backlog. I will start cautiously, with the least controversial ones, and, just as I did when I was a novice editor [1] I will seek out help from those more experienced if ever I feel that I'm in over my head.

I can also help when there are major backlogs at

WP:RM

, although again beginning only with the most straightforward, least controversial tool use.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: For a long time I was doing a lot of WikiGnomish activity such as cleaning up disambiguation pages, along with creating the occasional stub (mostly about Canadian music). Since I have taken to focusing more on AfDs I have been happy with my efforts to add sources to articles, and, as Icewedge noted, I believe I have saved quite a few. I still work at building articles, and although I have not taken articles I have created to GA, I believe I have become more skilled at sourcing these brief articles—some typical examples include Adam Cohen (musician) (which previously looked like this) and Major Maker. I typically do not work at the FA-article level, but I did a copy-edit of Opeth as it approached its promotion to feature-article status.

A little off-topic, but I would say that the most fun I've had as a contributor has been to go around snapping pictures at the

NXNE festival and adding them to Canadian musician articles: my oeuvre, as it were, is here

.

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: Being a volunteer editor here has been enjoyable and satisfying, and I am able to remind myself of that bigger picture. I have had some disagreements with other editors, but I've found that if I stick to my general approach, the stress for me is minimal. My general approach is to remain civil, to stick to the matter at hand and how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines apply (see Talk:David A. Dodge for example), and to make use of the wonderful aspect of working at a wiki—seek assistance from others. I try to keep in mind others' perspectives and will not hesitate to apologize when something I said has not come across as I intended.

In my early days here, I learned much from frustrations I felt with an editor (since banned) who was trying to transform the disambiguation system contrary to consensus. My frustrations surfaced when I nominated one of that editor's created pages for deletion. I recognized my mistake, and that it was probably a passive-aggressive move on my part, and since then have made efforts to go edit something else, or walk away from the keyboard, if I ever feel stress. Fortunately my piano is right behind my computer desk chair!

Optional question from

4. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very

NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ

and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A: Thanks Xeno; that's a rather elaborate optional question you have put together. On the one hand, it is vulgar language, but on the other hand I see it as rather run-of-the-mill adolescent-level stuff and am not going to be thrown off by it. If I were to unblock that user, with the idea that some vandals do turn into productive editors, I would make sure that it was at a time where I was available online for a while so that I could check their contributions and re-block if necessary. Otherwise, I would leave the unblock request in place, for another admin to deal with it, as per the usual protocol.

5. I've seen you around and have been very, very impressed with your article referencing, rescuing, and attitude in AfDs, such as this one on Polish reggae. I'm interested to know whether you are a complete inclusionist, like DGG, or if you have some balance. Can you comment, and show some examples of when you nominated/!voted to delete an article?

A: Thanks for the question, Tan. I am inclusionist only insofar as that I enjoy adding references when they are available, and I do not like to see notable articles lost to deletion. I am willing to argue "weak keep" when the sourcing I have added is a little wanting, such as here. And I have no qualms at all in arguing "delete" when there is a lack of evidence of third-party sources, such as here, here, here, and here, which are all in the past few days. I am also willing to change my opinion over the course of a discussion as I did here.

As for times I have nominated articles for deletion, there is this, this, this, and this.

Additional question from Nichalp:

6 As admin, you will come across several issues. For example, 1. A user uploads an image and tags it with GFDL, cc-by-(all), and PD. What will you do to correct the user's mistake? 2. You are to close an AFD of an article that might be notable, but with not many online sources available as the topic is from a smaller country with low internet penetration. The article is about a niche topic, and the author has provided sources to argue his stance. However those sources may not be very reliable, but the author argues that A-grade reliable sources are hard to get on this niche topic at his location. The AFD debate is unclear. How would you close this? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A: 1. I'm glad for the opportunity to brush up on image licensing, as it has been a while since I have looked at that. I would first ask the user which license they intended to use, and suggest they have a look at Wikipedia:Images#Uploading images and also this. If the user did not reply, frankly I would be uncertain as to what to do—I would guess that the assumption would have to be that the more restrictive licenses apply, in which case the PD would have to be dropped, though I do not know if someone else can validly do that on the uploader's behalf. Since I would not know for sure, I would take it to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to get some help.

2. If the debate is unclear due to low participation from other editors, then I would relist it. But when you say, "the AFD debate is unclear", I am assuming you mean that both sides have presented some valid arguments. I do see the argument that the article's author is making as something reasonable to take into account, if the sources provided are independent (and "B-grade" if not "A-grade"). I would close it as "no consensus" which defaults to keep. I would of course be more likely to delete (or at least stubify), though, if the topic is a BLP and there was contentious material.

An editorial question from Sceptre

7. I think that the actions of an editor in editing articles is very important, especially regarding points of views, which sometimes are found when an editor discusses things in "meta-space" (i.e. anything over than mainspace). My question is as follows: A majority viewpoint about an article subject, X, features language that is very biased, Y. Would you?:

1. Say "X is a Y", or;
2. Say "T, U, V, and W (major proponents of the viewpoint) believe that X is a Y". or;
3. Use undeniable facts that are agreeable to even the article subject to describe the subject which is compatible to the majority viewpoint (for example, court verdicts, observations by true neutral bodies, or even the subject's own major descriptors)?

Please give reasons to your answer. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A: Thanks for this question which brings up neutral point of view, and how cautious editors need to be in contributing to a neutral encyclopedia. At least that is what I am taking your question to mean; please follow up if I am misunderstanding.

Let's say hypothetically that a vast majority of music critics wrote that Little Jabs is Two Hours Traffic's worst album. It still could not be stated in the article "it is their worst album" without a qualifier. So option #2 would apply—"Music critics Smith, Jones and Woo have called it the band's worst album." A majority viewpoint is not a "truth" when it comes to a descriptor. Now, option #3 might apply if, say, reliable sources called it a "pop rock" album and the band's website said that as well (it wouldn't need to be stated "according to Jones and Woo..."). But the more negatively biased the language is, the more careful we need to be.

That was a trite hypothetical example, but it illustrates the principle of handling NPOV in descriptors, and it becomes more serious when "Y" is a term with negative implications and a biography of a living person is involved.

Optional questions from Winger84

8. Do you believe that it is possible for a user that has been blocked for reasons other than

3RR

- making an allowance for the fact that it is possible for two or more editors to experience moments of extreme stubbornness, believing that their edit(s) is/are correct - to ever be completely trusted again? Or, do you believe in the line of thinking, "Once blocked, always watched?" If you believe that it is possible for complete trust to be regained, what is a "reasonable threshold" of time - whether it be specifically time or a number of successful edits - for that trust to be regained? What about a user that has previously been banned but perhaps was able to convince administrators to reinstate their account?

A: I believe strongly in the human capacity for change—banned editors included. So it follows that trust can potentially be regained even when there has been behaviour that has prompted a very serious loss of trust. Understandably, the blocked or banned editor returning will need to be under more careful scrunity than other editors. How many edits it takes for the community to let them go without that watchfulness is not something easily set out in general terms, as it could vary widely depending on the specifics of the individual situation. It would depend on such factors as how severe the breach was, whether or not they returned to areas of the wiki that were trouble spots for them previously, how substantial the actual edits are, and how open they appear to be to feedback as they go about regaining trust.

9. If this RfA is successful, do you intend to add yourself to

the list of administrators open to recall

?

A: I do, and I plan to set out criteria on a user subpage that will make the process transparent. I will have to give more thought to the details, but I expect it will include elements of this and this.

Anti fence-sitting question from Kmweber

10. Are cool-down blocks ever acceptable?

A: Kurt, I respect that you and I may have differences of opinion about this question, but I thank you for it—blocking other users is to be taken seriously, and I feel that reflecting upon this has been useful for me in thinking about how I will approach the whole issue of blocking other users, if this RfA is successful. I am not on the fence about this question at all. I agree with the policy that cool-down blocks, solely for the purpose of cooling someone down, are not to be used. Even if the policy were to change, I would not issue cool-down blocks, and I would even probably lobby to have the policy changed back. Let me expand a little.

Being "heated" gets a lot of bad press, but it has the potential to be very useful. Let's take a hypothetical example of two angry editors. Editor A writes somewhere on a talk page something like, "I am ENRAGED about the amount of vandalism that is happening on Wikipedia!" Editor B feels the same: "I am SEEING RED!", he writes. Editor A then goes on recent-changes patrol and begins reverting vandalism, warning users appropriately, and making valid reports to AIV, feeling angry all the while. Meanwhile, Editor B starts making personal attacks against vandals and then even attacking people making good-faith but misguided edits. After unheeded warnings, editor B gets blocked. Editor A does not. That's how it should be. Both were angry and perhaps an admin might think they both needed to "cool down". But neither of them gets blocked on that basis. Editor B gets blocked on the basis of his behaviour, violating civility and NPA policies. Blocks are issued based on behaviour damaging to the project, not based on how angry an editor is while editing, and (in my view) they certainly should not be based on an admin's impression of how angry an editor is.

That scenario of editors angry about vandalism can apply similarly in other scenarios. An editor might be severely hot-under-the-collar after seeing other editors trying to add non-neutral-POV to an article, and she says something impolite and gets warned. But then she might still contribute productively using the energy resulting from that anger to discuss passionately but civilly on a talk page, by finding more references to add to the article, or by persisting with an appropriate dispute resolution that leads to an effective compromise and a better encyclopedia article. That productive use of her anger might not have happened if she had been prevented from editing with a "cool-down block".

Optional question from  Asenine 

11. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page. His edit contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy?

A: Discussion, discussion, discussion. :) Newbies are encouraged to be

WP:V

. I would try to understand where the editors were coming from and recognize their frustrations in having something removed that was discussed to some length already. The ideal—nay, the required—outcome would be to achieve a new consensus locally that does take into account the larger, project-wide consensus.

• See Paul Erik's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Paul Erik: Paul Erik (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Paul Erik before commenting.

• I've read question #7 three times, and I still can't make heads or tails of it.
  Tan ǀ 39 22:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I think Sceptre's question is: In case you encounter an article which is very biased, would you a.) say directly that it uses biased language, b.) say that others who share the point of view think it's biased (but not say so yourself directly) or c.) try to find reliable, definite sources to support the point of view but remove the biased sounding language? That is how I understood it but I admit I am mostly guessing and it's really confusing... So#Why ^{review me!} 23:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I took it to mean an article that contains a specific descriptor that might imply something negative about the article's subject. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, yes. Good question, good answer. Too many variables for me at first :-)

  Tan ǀ 39 23:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I think the candidate got the gist of it, though I do agree it's confusing. What I mean is that, if majority viewpoint itself is very negative/positive (e.g. "brilliant", "terrible", "visionary", "idiot"), how should we present that? Option 1 would simply entail "John Doe is a brilliant actor". Option 2 would be like "Smith, Jones, and Robinson published in their analyses that John Doe is a brilliant actor". Option 3 would be "John Doe's films are notable for mainly positive reception; his films Lorem Ipsum and Placeholder were positively reviewed by the press, and he won an Academy Award for his role in the film Quick Brown Fox." Sceptre ^(talk) 00:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support. No problems here, question answers are all good. Best of luck, don't go insane with the tools should you get them, and all that. Cheers! —
   Hello! 18:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Support - Meets my criteria. Good AfD work in the last 100 edits or so. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support, Checked talk page and recent contributions and everything looks good, good nomination and was impressed with your contributions at AFD. Davewild (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong support. Absolutely. I encourage other participants in this RfA to read Q5, and the associated AfD links. A top-notch editor.
   Tan ǀ 39 18:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. Support First noticed this user on AfD where he does remarkable work researching sources for problematic articles; and upon review of contributions I see a superbly communicative and level-headed editor. Great admin material. -SpuriousQ (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Strongly support: I have only seen good work from Paul Erik, and he always comes across as sensible and experienced. No problems here. Acalamari 18:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. Reliable contributor. Good answers. Axl (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. For reasons similar to Acalamari, I'm happy to support. Regards,
   (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]
9. Support from me and the otters. Seems to know what they're doing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support — good answers to questions, and the fact that he works with articles to save them from deletion is an admirable quality. –
    talk) 19:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
11. [ec]Support. Rescues articles = trustworthy with delete button. nancy ^talk 19:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support because I have no reason not to. tabor-^{drop me a line} 19:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Replies to questions seem reasonable, candidate is a consistent contributor, with significant contributions to various articles. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Paul Erik is an excellent contributor. I have a great deal of respect for any editor who takes the time to rescue articles rather than simply delete them or list them at CSD/AFD. Answers to the questions are very good too. I would definitely trust Paul Erik with the tools. Rje (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Seems like a great editor, 12,000 edits is no minor feat. Can't be all that bad if he has several admins supporting him. --
    [discuss] {contribs} 19:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
16. Support I trust you with the delete button for your excellant saving of artoicles. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 20:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support :P -Dureo (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Does great work at AfD and tries to rescue instead of delete. I was particularly impressed with the "Polish Raggae"-AfD, one that is as well discussed from another viewpoint somewhere else at the moment, and the work you put in there to keep it. You seem very civil as far as I can see, not trigger happy, use edit summaries etc. Of course, people might dig up something against you that makes me reconsider but I doubt it really. So#Why ^{review me!} 20:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Strong support Model Wikipedian. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 20:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. This to me is quite encouraging. Cirt (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. An excellent editor, with enough experience and knowledge to earn my trust with the tools. Useight (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support--LAAFan 21:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. naerii 21:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Strong support - A character to emulate.
     Asenine 
    21:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
25. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Goodness me, yes indeed. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  Is grieving 23:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. I love his approach to AFD. If everyone spent their time looking for sources instead of arguing about ideology I suspect that our Deletion Processes would be happier, and would achieve the correct result more often. --JayHenry (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support - no problems. Reyk _YO! 23:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. A pack of Dunhill Reds, a Powerball ticket and...oh, wrong line. Seriously...Support :)
    talk) 23:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
30. Support - another excellent admin to mop up spillages. Civil,
    policy. Certianly more committed to improving random articles than I am! - Toon⁰⁵ 23:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
31. Support - Seems good to me, lots of edits and im sure he/she knows what their doing, spends alot of time on wikipedia. TOL (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support - I was leaning on supporting before asking, but I needed to make sure about how the writer presents his biases on Wikipedia, because very recently we've had admins whose viewpoints have negatively influenced their use of the tools. I see that, with his well-answered question, that the only thing his biases are going to influence is what subjects he writes about, instead of what he writes about the subjects - e.g. I write Doctor Who articles because I like the show, and I'm not squeamish for writing about it's faults, which is acceptable; writing how Doctor Who "sucks" or "rocks", with no thought of NPOV, is unacceptable. Oh, and decent taste in music too. :) Sceptre ^(talk) 00:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And I'll add, for the record, that I've even been known to write neutral articles about bands I heartily dislike. :) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You Canadians have more embarassing musicicans then them. Hey hey, you you... Sceptre ^(talk) 01:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Will, you're not supposed to admit that you know that song... :)

    (talk) 10:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Uh, I know it because it's number one on YouTube... filthy cheater :/ Sceptre ^(talk) 15:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

33. Support for this model wikipedian. The tools will enable him to contribute so much more. I wish he'd go through the articles that I frequently edit in order to improve them to his standards. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Strong support: Content-building + civility = win. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. An experienced and civil editor, with excellent mainspace contribution record and substantial projectspace and AfD participation as well. The AfD !votes are careful and well-reasoned and make it clear that the user actually does some research before !voting. Good answers to the RfA questions too. Will be an asset as an admin. Nsk92 (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support, I've seen him around and he does good work. A trustworthy, conscientious editor. --Muchness (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support Yanksox (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Very impressive! Fantastic answers to the questions as well. GlassCobra 16:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Model wikipedian, exemplary administrator candidate, outstanding choice. Rudget 19:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Definitely trustworthy. Steven Walling (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support -- Sure. --Cameron* 20:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support Don't see anything that convinces me otherwise.--KojiDude ^(C) 20:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support Great editor, trustworthy, good answers to questions. LittleMountain5 ^review! 21:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support ok. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support. Looks great to me. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Definately can have the delete button. -- Freakatone ^Talk 23:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support per 1-46, above. Great editor, lots of clue. Keeper ǀ 76 00:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support generally I wouldn't even bother to check out a person whom I don't know and appears to be destined to get the MOP (eg supports outweigh opposes as lopsidedly as this one.) But I decided to take a quick look at Paul----but Ice's nom really caught my attention. Thus, I am going somewhat against my practice and supporting this exceptional candidate.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support I applaud your contributions and I believe you'll make a great admin. Keep up the great work in the future. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 03:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. Jonathunder (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support, active user with experience.--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 04:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support - fair questions were asked; some very nice answers followed. Even in the absence of the commentary in the other sections, his answers (on their own) reveal a lot about himself as well - particularly his positive approach towards Wikipedia (and all of its contributors). He's an exceptionally talented user from what I've looked at, and certainly seems trustworthy to be an admin. Impressive candidate indeed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
53. I'm
    Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
54. Support Looks a goodie. --Dweller (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Looks good. Can't see anything to prevent supporting. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support, all seems fine to me. Maxim_(talk) 13:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support per a quality candidate and strong answers to my optional questions. --Winger84 (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support. I found many reasons to support and no reasons to oppose this clueful candidate, though I now hold the absolutely irrelevant opinion that the list of Homer Simpson's jobs should be a list/article, not a redirect. — Athaenara ✉ 18:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support No reasons given by opposers as to why this user should not be given the tools. Protonk (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Solid, nuanced answer to Q10, among many other reasons to support. Trustworthy and mature.
    Townlake (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
61. Strong Support - All of the questions were answered perfectly. My Account (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support - good contributions, well-answered questions... enough for a support. doña macy 22:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support Understands deletion policies very well. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support quite apart from inclusionism one way or another DGG (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support Paul Erik has more than 8,000 mainspace edits. I reviewed his other contributions and I couldn't find any major flaws. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support - Lengthy history of positive contributions. Chicken Wing (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
67. Strong support - not only does he meet
    being deleted, this guy should get the mop, where he can do even better work. He's one of the best candidates in recent months. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
68. Support. the wub "?!" 18:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support - No reasons not to; good edits and answers to questions; could do more work with the tools. Also (in small part) to counter Kurt's probable oppose. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 00:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support Sure. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support No reasons for concern.
    talk • contribs) 14:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
72. Support - a sterling set of contribs, and a sensible user. Lradrama 15:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support Great work in Afd's. Will make a fine admin.America69 (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support. Looks like a well-qualified candidate. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Seems sensible and trustworthy. Will make a good administrator.

    talk) 13:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Apologies about the duplicate. :-)

    Anthøny 13:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

76. Support - why not? --T-rex 14:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support – overall work looks excellent and trustworthy, will make good use of tools. A note of caution – your response to question 7. choosing option #2 could, in my opinion, give undue weight to an extreme minority opinion, and per
    WP:FRINGE#Particular attribution it would probably be more appropriate to go for option #4 and write "the vast majority of music critics called it their worst album", citing Smith, Jones and Woo via an inline link. Depends on the circumstances, of course. . . dave souza, talk 20:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Indeed. Point well taken. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, much appreciated. . dave souza, talk 22:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

78. Support, don't see any issues. Wizardman 15:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support for, among many other reasons, understanding and answering question 7 so well. I disagree with Dave souza, and actually think stating "vast majority" carries the risk of misrepresenting the number of critics with this view from the total who reviewed the album, thereby placing additional, and unwarranted, negativity on the statement. It would always, of course, depend on the specifics of the situation, but depending on the notability of those named, I think it would most likely be more appropriate to go with option #2, as you have, optionally naming the publication they write for rather than them specifically.
    ^(Talk) 16:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
80. Support No candidate is 100% perfect, but I see nothing sufficient to withhold support, certainly not in Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles' comments. — Preceding
    talk • contribs
    )

    Support Default good faith support, per outstanding contributions and no evidence of poor judgment. Definitely trustworthy. Steven Walling (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    duplicate vote above

    talk) 07:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Support There is no reason to oppose. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    duplicate vote above

    talk) 07:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Thanks, Gary. I voted on this RFA on August 12 and I just forgot about it! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

81. Support. Absolutely. Superb answers. Synergy 15:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support Sure. Very civil and intelligent on Wiki-issues. Flawless answers to the questions! Knows how to start out with adminship. He deserves the mop. IceUnshattered (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
83. Very Weak Support Itfc+canes=me (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Weak oppose per
   Tally-ho! 20:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   • The logic that he represented was actually right on the button and was in line with Wikipedia's notability guideline that requires multiple independent sources. Whether it was inconsistent with the close does not make a difference. You and I both know that there are plenty of afd's that are closed with a result that is blatantly against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Besides, his vote was actually more as consistent with the result than as yours. His vote was "delete" "netural", your vote was "keep", and the result was "no concensus". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   His final vote was delete. - Icewedge (talk) 03:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Speaking of the article, why does it now redirect to Homer Simpson. The history states a merge consensus, but I can't find it anywhere. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I found the discussion here. Reyk _YO! 10:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Although I'm actually inclined to agree with you that his !vote didn't suggest the best possible course of action (which imho was to stubbify the article down to include only verifiable material, and if necessary merge into the main article until a half-decent stub can be put together), I don't see how his comments undermine your trust in his ability and willingness to apply the admin tools correctly. "[...] what therefore caused the change in argument" is a rather blurry statement. Perhaps you could be more specific? Moreover, I believe it would indeed be useful if you looked at a wider range of AfDs the candidate has commented in and especially ones that you yourself haven't participated in (and where you are perhaps less prejudiced by your own rationale on what should (have) happen(ed) with the article in question). user:Everyme 11:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I can't see any evidence that you can cope with controversial, disputed material or articles, or any consensus building on such articles. Also do you have any GA's or FA's that you have significantly contributed to. Will happily reconsider if I can see. — Realist² 05:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   For coping with controversial, disputed material, I'd direct you to Talk:David A. Dodge if you have not taken a look at that already. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.