Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Secret 3

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

Secret

Final (109/35/11); ended 08:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC) - Having reviewed the comments from all three sections, I'm persuaded that there is a consensus here to return the toolkit to this editor. Both those supporting and opposing made reasonable cases, but going by both the raw numbers and the strength of arguments I believe those supporting have made the better case. I also note that as the RfA has gone on, there was a clear trend of opposers shifting to neutral and neutrals shifting to support, which suggests that (some of) the opposers' concerns have been addressed by the candidate's responses and demeanor during the RfA itself. 28bytes (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Secret (talk · contribs) – I would like to take a short break from my current self-imposed isolation here on Wikipedia to nominate one of our best editors here for adminship. Secret has been a Wikipedian for 7 years now, and after a little more than a year from his previous RfA he’s ready to try again. Content-wise, he’s done a tremendous amount of work on American athletes, especially baseball players. The topic area is often beset by fanboys and vandals, and his ability to maintain his composure in those areas should speak to his current maturity and readiness for adminship. In terms of policy, he’s clearly got a high level of competence, and has made completely sure to brush up on everything one more time before this RfA.

I appreciate there may be some concerns with Secret, given the incident from 2009. I was obviously not around when it occurred, but after many conversations with him I’m completely convinced it was an aberration and has no chance of happening again. We really need more admins willing to step up and do some of the dirty work, which Secret is as ready and eager to do as ever, so there is nothing to lose from giving him back the admin tools to do it. I think the community will agree with me that Secret will be a huge positive as an admin. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination - Blade sums Secret up well; he's an excellent editor who'd make great use of the tools. With over 40% of his edits in the mainspace, he is a prolific content contributor; likewise, he shows familiarity with maintenance-related aspects of the project, with 1600 edits to the namespace. While Secret's been through some rough patches in the past, I'm confident that those mistakes will remain unrepeated, and that he will continue helping us build this amazing project. m.o.p 18:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination I first encountered Secret when I opposed his RFA in late 2005. Surprisingly, he then offered to nominate me for RFA, and I passed. While we've gone through our phases of activity and inactivity, I've seen him around a lot since then, and he has shown commitment to the project over the last eight years despite all that he has gone through. I know that there was a desysopping incident in 2009, but this was largely related to circumstances in real life that I believe have little to do with him as an admin today. I know that he has the best interests of the project at heart. Thus, I am glad to nominate him for RFA. --Rschen7754 08:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Short note: I accept this nomination.

Long Note: I thought about running for adminship for at least a month already, listening to the opinions of editors I trusted over the years. I was leaning back and forth whether to run, with both on Wiki and real life factoring in this rather tough decision. I felt in the past year I have grown to be more mature and deeply care about the project, which in the past, I mostly took it as a boring and additively strange hobby. My

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

A: Since my past RFA, I have written four good articles and expanded several other key articles, one of which,

WP:FAC soon, and another one Curt Roberts needs further sourcing for FAC. I have about 200 scholarly books mostly on Southern and baseball history that I bought primary to improve articles for the project. I'm currently working on the Babe Ruth article with User:Wehwalt

, a core topic that we both hopefully could bring to featured standards. Throughout the course of this RFA, I will be working on the article.

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: I been avoiding most of the noticeboards lately, so I haven't had recent conflicts other than the typical replies to an AFD or

WP:ITN/C comment that I don't agree with, which is minor. Conflicts from years ago, of course but I don't feel that it's necessary to discuss it as they are longer relevant for the most part, or well-known like Mzoli's. I don't waste my time in noticeboard drama anymore unless it is a complete necessary. "Drama", as most editors name it, almost destroyed the community from within. Who knows how many highly qualified editors and administrators we lost because of minor issues that had nothing to do with the integrity of the project and could have safely been ignored. The main reason is when random editors, not knowing the circumstances of the incident comments and inadvertently starts adding fuel to the fire, and I'm not that type of person. Also I witnessed almost every serious incident within this project since 2005-2006, and one of the main causes involves a lack of consensus on the issue. I am not going to do anything that may be controversial to some editors without getting community consensus, as I feel communication is key. I might venture to the noticeboards occasionally to look at cases in which the contributor is clearly affecting the integrity of the project, commercial spammers, single purpose POV pushers and the likes. Yes I wasn’t anything but perfect during my time an administrator, as sometimes my health or my emotions got the best of me, here is one recent example which involved almost burning out because of a annoyingly long watchlist which I later trimmed

but to alleviate any concerns I will be open to some kind of recall that can be proposed on during the RFA or my talk page.

Additional question from GiantSnowman

4. For those of us who are completely unaware of your past, what was "the incident from 2009" mentioned in the nomination statement?

A: Some of my answers above concerning my health that I mentioned above is relevant here. To keep it simple, around the time of my desysopping, my health was declining rapidly which baffled me and my family, and led to suspicions that I inherited my mother mental disorder. The health problems I was having, and a quick assumption of my family past, led me to be misdiagnosed with a mental/stress disorder. I just started on medications that didn't work, thus I was prone to "episodes", again something that I really don't want to go into detail. One of these "episodes", I edited Wikipedia in a strange way, deleting my userpage and did basically a cry for help that was quickly oversighted considering the sensitive information. As a precaution I was emergency desysopped while I recuperated my health. I got into an email conflict with an ArbCom member while trying to get the tools back, and decided to forget about the tools, specifically I went though three months of hell during the summer of 2010. I decided to go though RFA as the proper channel, but I did it during a poor time of judgement soon after I was edit warring on some article. I kinda had an panic attack soon after, not my best moment, and in the end I was so embarrassed about my health and knowing I exposed too much personal information about it, I decided to do the failed cleanstart. I could have asked for the tools back if it wasn't for the RFA I did in the fall of 2010, and it was mostly self-inflected my desysopping. I got "healthier" again, did the second RFA which again I should have closed it early, and then in November I was diagnosed with thyroid problems, which got me conflicted. It is a severe, and possibly fatal disorder that I'm stuck with extensive medication for the rest of my life, which was simply shocking. But at the same time I was relieved that it wasn't the mental disorder that affected my mother, and was known on the project, among my friends and family relaxing my social stigma I had developed with people during unstable times, and most importantly my workplace where that rumor kept me from key promotions in the nightclub business. I still take an anxiety and depression medication, alongside my thyroid medication, but I decided to focus on keeping myself healthy so I could forget about my dreadful past. I invested significant money on a personal trainer, I go to one of the top endocrinologists in Miami, and honestly I never felt healthier. I know I kinda hinted the same thing during my last RFA, which in all honestly while I know I would have handled the tools well if I was repromoted, my personal life was partly in shambles at that time, unable to go to school, and having difficulty at work. Today isn't the case. Like I mentioned in question 3, I will support a community consensus recall process that I could safely be desysopped if god forbid anything would happen to me, or if the community sees me unfit to stay as an administrator. I feel way more satisfied and mature with my life, I'm finally back on track on school and work, and honestly I'm not stressed at all in regards to this RFA, as I know if I fail it wouldn't be the end of the world, and I still have grand plans for this project in regards to article work. Secret ^account 20:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from

Beeblebrox

5. I have a few questions actually.
Why is your last RFA blanked? Although anyone can still view it via page history, as a matter of transparency and a display of good faith would you consider restoring it?
I also note many of your previous RFAs were withdrawn, sometimes within hours of being posted. Do you think there is any merit to the idea that someone who is so quick to take a defeatist attitude is probably not a good candidate for an administrative position?
I opposed you last time because I believed you failed completely to even comprehend

WP:CLEANSTART

. Do you think I had a point? Has your understanding of that policy changed in the meantime?
Don't you think most people would have given up and moved on by their seventh or eight RFA? What is this like, number twelve? Is there some reason you are so determined that you must have the tools despite the problems of the past?

A: Well I was forced so give some personal information with question 4, something which I been trying to avoid here. I'll answer this each one relatively short except for the Cleanstart one.

With the

User:lame sauce created an article about their lame YouTube channel of the same name

• I'll refer it for another administrator to decide as technically it's not a unambiguous promotional username, but does have some COI involved. If it was for me to decide, I would decline the report and follow the account edits closely, and if the user is unwilling to follow guidelines and was warned multiple times about it, then a block is in order. Secret ^account 01:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Am I troll? is making edits that are not trolling.

• The name can be inappropriate to some editors, but it is not a blatant username violation, especially if he is doing good faith edits. I would decline the violation, and kindly warn him to rename his account because the word "troll" is considered offensive to some editors, because of the term "
  Internet troll". Secret ^account 01:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

User:Bob's house of carpet made an AFC submission about Bob's house of carpet.

• Softer block, as it is an unambiguous promotional username, and did a promotional article about the company. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and avoid blocking with spam-username template considering the company decided to go though AFC first, but we can't keep the account around because of our username policy. If he wants to rename his account to something else that isn't promotional, it should be allowed with a reminder to avoid
  clear conflict of interest. Secret ^account 01:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

User:Big Balls in yo face has made no edits at all.

• This account name is offensive urban slang so I would do a hard block. The meaning of the account name practically is f*** you in your face, so it is strongly inappropriate and no doubt that the editor created that account as some kind of joke, or for a later use for vandalism. Accounts like that get blocked within minutes of creation anyways. Secret ^account 01:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:I am not a robot is making normal edits but is reported for having "bot" in their name.

• Not a offensive username, nor no indication that he would be confused as an official Wikipedia bot, so I will decline the report, and politely tell the editor who reported why I did. The "bot" based block policy is a rather controversial subject that been there since I first became an administrator. Usernames with "bot" was blocked back in the day as a precaution, not because editors would confuse them as a real robot, but it was a favorite username for vandals/trolls and more often than not, it clearly was a disruptive account. If the account was created in good faith, we allowed a username change. Once the vandalism died down somewhat around 2008, we allowed editors to use "bot" as part of their username, unless it is clearly misleading to our readers, like User:Antivandalism bot that wasn't authorized nor claimed by the BAG people, or is doing edits that indicate is an unauthorized bot. This account is neither of the two so it's a clear decline. Note the "not" in the username as well. Secret ^account 01:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Famous Fryer created an article about a restaurant of the same name

• Depends on how the article was created, if it's clearly spam and no indication that they are willing to contribute to the encyclopedia other than promoting the restaurant, it's a spamusername block. If they tried to work to make the article meet our standards of notability, and willing to work with us, I'll probably do something similar to Bob's house of carpet, a softerblock and a mention about conflict of interest, or refer for another administrator to decide. Secret ^account 01:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from

Bwilkins

7. After one "incident" that led to a desysop, and concerns raised, would you be willing to open yourself to admin recall, and under what conditions would you set (not that I think recall has all that much teeth - but this might just show the community your ethical stance)?

A: I did mention that I would be open to recall above. Ever since I saw an administrator break a recall promise by ignoring it a few years ago, forcing ArbCom to desysop him, (any experienced editor from the era knows that case) I been open to recall reform, and the best way to handle it is for to the community to decide the criteria for my recall. If the community agrees through consensus on a recall process for myself, a trustworthy member of the community like a bureaucrat or a member of ArbCom can make it valid. If I do get the tools back, and for some reason I lost the trust of the community, and the recall is successful, any bureaucrat can remove the tools without my consent. I will have little or no say on the recall procedure. Of course the editors who participate in my recall needs to be neutral, not single purpose accounts, editors I blocked, and editors who I had recent conflict with, but I have faith in the community to discount them. It is a proposal I don't think it ever been mentioned before, a contract-like based recall. But I know it's the safest bet, considering my history. Let the community discuss the proposal in this RFA, or my talk page.

Additional question from Cmach7

8. Do you have at least 5,000 good article edits?

A: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmach7 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully understand the question, if you talking about mainspace, I got 18,000 mainspace edits throughout the three accounts. I have written four featured articles, one of which later got de-featured because I wrote it early in my career when FA standards were rather lax, and once it went to

• Links for Secret: Secret (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Secret can be found here.
• Edit stats are on the talk page. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 06:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion

• I am open to any questions given, but I do have my right to decline some questions and the bureaucrat removing any questions that involves rather sensitive personal information. Secret ^account 05:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• One thing to consider here is that this user was an admin. in the past, years ago. It seems prudent to me to consider their administrative actions. While it's easy to debate a person's life, especially when they are so open about it, the bottom line here is how they will act as an administrator. Not to go into the "age" thing, but there is administrative history available. It might be worth considering. — Ched :  ?  22:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Secret, you twice state below that, in one way or another, something you've done is not as bad as "Mzoli". I've no idea who this editor is, but I don't believe naming someone else in the course of your Rfa as an example of someone worse than you is at all fair to this other person, whoever he or she might be. Or have I misunderstood.
  talk) 18:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Sarek tells me it's

talk) 18:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

For anyone curious, see my User talk page. Basically, this refers to a long ago AfD of this article, in which the candidate took part. Nothing of consequence now, I'd say.

talk) 19:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• I would note that its a very poor idea to accuse opposers of harboring a prejudice towards people with medical conditions. Only thing that such accusations can achieve is a full blown discussion about Secret's medical condition, and its not opposers or supporters who would be hit hardest in such case.--Staberinde (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I figure you are directing that at me. To some extent, those who have replied to me have reframed what I said, so that we are now discussing it as though I made a full-out accusation of bigotry, which goes far beyond what I actually said. What I said, and I stand by it, is that many people harbor unenlightened views about medical disabilities, and that I urge them to set those views aside. If one looks at the information in front of us in a logical and scientific manner, the worries about continuation of past behaviors become groundless, in the way that superstitions are groundless. Sadly, such illogical habits of thought do great harm, here as well as in the real world. The full-blown discussion that you threaten as something that sounds awful really amounts to something very simple, very rational, and very benign: a medical condition causes symptoms (including bad performance as an admin in the past); the medical condition can be treated; when treated, the symptoms do not continue; insisting that the symptoms are going to continue under these circumstances is irrational. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, that last sentence of yours sounds really nice and simple. Problem is, that it reminds me "I am fully medicated and capable of handling the stress that comes from becoming an adminstrator" that I found from Secret's 2010 RfA. In 2011 RfA he though that his "health is perfectly fine again". Still, from his quite empty block log I found January 2012 self-requested block obviously related to health concerns. 99% editors here have never seen Secret in person, so we can't give accurate assessment about his current condition. Only thing that can be done is evaluating his previous track record, and frankly I see quite obvious reasons for being cautious.--Staberinde (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being honest here. I was slightly more stable in the 2010 RFA than the 2011 RFA, in regards to my health, but either way I had no idea my symptoms had to do with thyroid disease. And I only learned about it after I collapsed at work, and a thyroid test was done, and of course the results shocked me. I explained most of it elsewhere in this RFA. Taking

Methimazole is a pain in the ass, but the only symptoms is over-drowsiness, which I drink mainly Starbucks triple shot coffee and my eyes is suffering, but the medication is working as usual and I am more self-conscious with my health. The 2011 RFA was bad for many reasons. Either way I knew it wouldn't affect my editing or any administrative work I would do. The block was mainly because I had no idea a forced wiki script existed and I was having RL issues, and if I feel like my health is slipping, I would simply stay away from the computer and/or add the script. I know what happened in 2009 won't happen again and I would be heavily scrutinized if this RFA succeed. However, I do understand where you and most of the opposing section is coming from, and I'm not worried or upset. Again why should I be? Secret ^account 14:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Secret just did a fine job of replying here, and I hope that everyone here realizes that what Secret says is far more relevant than what I say, but the issue is one where I feel so strongly, personally, that I want to reply a bit more to Staberinde. Thank you for your level-headed response to me. However, please consider that you are basing your evaluation on a statement from 2010 and a statement from 2011. Please ask yourself: was Secret taking that medication then, and is Secret taking that medication now? Did Secret know the correct diagnosis then, and does Secret know the correct diagnosis now? I know that editors can't independently examine the candidate in person, and I know that people's past behavior is important to consider. But I'm trying to communicate the point that something very relevant happened between then and now, and there's a difference between a treatable medical condition and a personal character flaw. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly very true. The problem is, we only have their word to go on. Now, please don't take that as an accusation of lying, it is not. Secret has been very forthcoming in this RFA and I commend them for their courage. But really, how easy is it to be completely objective about yourself? If there was some way to know that the condition was 100% responsible for the problems before and it is now 100% not going to recur and cause the same problems again nobody would be concerned. Unfortunately that is obviously impossible to know, for us, for Secret, or for anyone else for that matter.

talk) 17:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. That's by far the best response anyone has made to my arguments here. I guess "or for anyone else for that matter" is really it. We all make those kinds of judgments in every RfA. I know from real life how much a difference medical help can make, and I wish I could convince more editors how big a deal it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. I intend to co-nominate as well, but I'm trying to make a deadline, so it will be a few hours late. Rschen7754 05:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support Sensible candidate. Also, why his past RFA has not been oversighted? I see too much personal information there that should not be visible to everyone. If there is an oversighter reading this... — 
   talk 05:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   I don't think an RFA has ever been oversighted or deleted, and most of it was my stupidity of being too lucid so it's better to leave it blank and the history intact and I pay the consequences. Most of it isn't current anymore anyways considering my diagnosis change and I rather be honest in regards to that. Secret ^account 06:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Hmm okay. I still believe that it reveals too much personal information, but I understand. It's good to see that most of your issues are now gone. Regards. — 

   talk 06:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

   ]

3. Secret is a user who has been around a while, and I have full faith in his capabilities to be an effective admin here. He's a terrific article writer, and has shown he can work cooperatively with other users. Although he has been subject to some controversy in the past, I'm confident that those issues are resolved, and I believe that they would not hinder his ability to operate as an administrator. The main question here is: do we trust Secret to be an administrator? I'm sure I speak for many of us here when I say yes. (
   @301  ·  06:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Support I am convinced that the issues mentioned above have been fixed, and I am going to assume good faith here with their future actions.
   talk) 07:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. Over the course of years, he has shown us that he is experienced and capable, and I have no qualms to letting him use a few extra tools. This wiki is slow to forgive, but I hope we can, over here. →Σσς. (Sigma) 08:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Everyone makes mistakes, and Secret has certainly learned from them. Will definitely be an asset as an administrator. Legoktm (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support I looked at his contribs from 2009 and now. Let me point out 2009 was over 3 years ago and that's all I have to say. --
   Twinkle 10:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
8. Support for the same reasons as last time. Graham87 11:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support - mostly per Ktr101 and Sigma; also meets my criteria. Go Phightins! 11:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support This editor has a long and productive history. He has been open about his previous medical problem, which caused aberrent behaviour which is detailed in his previous RfA. In my opinion the chance of any further inappropriate behaviour is vanishingly small, and I would trust him with the mop.--
    ^"talk" 11:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
11. Support Take concerns of opposers on board, but no one is perfect over the long term. Doubtful he would abuse the tools, and has the experience to use them effectively.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support - No major blowups in over a year. My initial judgement was correct.
    talk) 12:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
13. Support - Secret has had his share of issues in the past, but I see nothing that would make me overly concerned about giving him back the mop. If anything, the opposes only strengthen my position on this. Wikipedia is Dante Alighieri's fifth circle of Hell, where the wrathful will spend eternity attacking each other. The level of petty attitudes I see in the opposes like "I have watchlisted this and the next RfA for secret because I don't want him to be an admin, ever, nyah!!" is FAR more unbecoming of a Wikipedian than anything the candidate has done in recent years. Trusilver 13:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support. Secret possesses a remarkable, almost encyclopedic knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as well as the unwritten culture of the project. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Secret has the skills and I can put the past in the past. My experiences with him have always been positive and I'm confident that he will be a net positive for the community with the bit. While I understand the reservation of some, I think his positive contributions over the years override the concerns. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support His editing over the past year brings up no red flags, and I think he'd be a fine addition to the admin corps. I believe it's clear that he's learned from past mistakes. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support...long term editor with minimal issues overall. I do not at the time see any reason they will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 15:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support per Tariqabjotu.
    AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
19. Support, passes the clue test. Stifle (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
20. Last time around, I went neutral because I felt that it might be best for Secret to avoid high-stress areas for a while given the concerns that arose in 2009 (which I remember, having been around back then), as well as issues that came up beforehand. Now, I support his reinstatement as an administrator. He seems to have gotten a handle on his emotions in recent times, which was the only thing that really held him back from being an outstanding administrator. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. Secret has had problems in the past, has been open about them and they seem to be well under control now, and I don't think getting the admin bit back will be of any great risk to him or to the project now. Secret has a lot of knowledge and experience, has contributed massively over the years, and would be a boon to the project as an admin. He has my trust. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support as nominator, obviously. Pardon my late support, I was right in the teeth of a very nasty snowstorm and my on-wiki time was very limited. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support clueful, no reason to believe mop will be abused -- especially as life appears to be getting saner. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support. I've had plenty of opportunity to observe Secret's ability to interact with other editors, and I'm very comfortable putting myself here in the support column. I see that a number of folks who are neutral are looking to be convinced, so please let me make a case. There's a big difference between a medical disorder that has not yet been properly diagnosed, and therefore is not being properly treated, and one that is. For entirely logical, scientific reasons, it's a mistake to use past performance as a predictor of future behavior this time. As long as Secret continues to get the medical help described above, there is a very low likelihood that the previous "incident" will repeat. For what it's worth, I take medication for something, myself, and in real life I won a lawsuit over discrimination against me for doing so, so I'm very sensitized to these issues. I feel very strongly that people who deal with medical – not moral! – issues such as those that Secret and I have to deal with should not be subjected to some sort of assumption of untrustworthiness. Secret is very smart and very clueful about how Wikipedia works. Secret clearly wants what is good for the project, and can be trusted not to harm the project. 'Nuff said. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. Several of the supports above are people that I trust the opinion of. Introspection into previous issues seems good, and sounds like the cause is being handled properly. PaleAqua (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support - three years, people, and seeing him about always being helpful ... net positive to the project.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support - he and I have interacted at a few AFDs (not always on the same side) and I've always found him collegial and convincing. AFDs in which I have not participated suggest his approach has been consistent in that regard. Previous what-not does not interest me. Stalwart111 23:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support - Highly experienced content editor and alot of past experience as an active admin. Seems like he's learned to deal with the personal issues, so I say give him another chance. INeverCry 23:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support
    Net positive, previous admin experience, good judgment (at times) in the past. Health issues apparently under control. Can be trusted with the mop. Miniapolis 00:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
31. Support My first RfA !vote ever. Because I never would have thought Secret was not a sysop, he has the calm and collected demeanor and knowledge of Wikipedia that I tend to expect and find in all of them. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
32. Per Miniapolis. --LlamaAl (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support The vast majority of Secret's administrative actions weren't controversial and he did some really excellent work before the drama bomb. Because so many people are aware of the past problems and issues, I feel that Secret will likely have quite a few eyes watching for any untoward actions. If something bad goes down, I feel like this is probably a case where a desysop wouldn't be very hard or controversial. On the other hand we get an extremely experienced admin who is willing to tackle quite a bit of work. The benefits far outweigh the risks here. AniMate 04:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support Secret has matured tremendously within the last few years. He's mellowed out, he's improved his communication skills, and he's learned to focus on the important things. He's clearly committed to the project, and I think he'd be an asset to the admin crew. Zagalejo^^^ 05:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support, although I was opposing was undecided last time, I shortly recognized after the RfA that this was a mistake and thus I'm supporting now! mabdul 06:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC) (corrected, reread the last RfA. mabdul 06:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]
36. Support, per Boing! said Zebedee, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support To paraphrase my comment from the last RFA - I've interacted with Secret for literally years. I believe he'll be fine with the toolset. Basically I trust him to go easy with the bits and use them wisely and for the benefit of Wikipedia. Pedro :  Chat  13:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Supported last time and my thoughts on the candidate have not changed. Was a good admin and believe he will be an even better asset for the site with the tools again. Calmer Waters 17:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support Although I wonder how good Wikipedia has been for the candidate, they have provided sufficient context to ally concerns arising from their previous history. FiachraByrne (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Adminship is no big deal, and rehashing grudges that date back years is not helpful for anybody. Ray^Talk 18:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support, certainly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
42. I really don't see any major problems. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 01:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support I've always had good personal interactions with Secret. Spencer^T♦C 01:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support Tryptofish has it. Ceoil (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support: You have been through a lot. Since it appears you have a grip on things again, I will support.
    speak to me..._{review me...} 04:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
46. Support: Obviously this is a tough call, but what he says about drama in Q3 is spot on, and he has loads of experience and know-how that show up in the answers to the what-would-you-do-if questions. Above all, his choice of what to work on -- "The key backlog I want to focus on however is articles for creation, which has tons of massive BLP and copyright violations, attack pages, spam and other "crap" in the declined archives that needs to be deleted." -- shows that he wants to use the tools to improve content. These jobs need doing. Also, as often, I agree with Tryptofish. --Stfg (talk) 09:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support - he has improved a lot from the last RFA. I also can't find any red lights from his contributions.
    talk) 10:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
48. Support Opposes have failed to demonstrate any problems since the last RFA in March 2012 (10 months ago) despite consistent editing during the period between that RFA and this one. The candidate has remained calm during this RFA, even keeping his sense of humor, and together, these indicate to me that the stress-related problems are being managed.--v/r - TP 14:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
49. While I do have some reservations, in the end I believe that Secret was a capable, and IMO good administrator when he had the tools the last time. I believe his use of the tools was a net benefit to the project and I'm willing to accept his offer of help again. I do wish him the very best with his health issues, but it is not my remit to "take care of him". I've also double-checked their previous administrative actions and feel comfortable with his use of the tools. If he feels up to the task, then I trust him to use the tools wisely. — Ched :  ?  14:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. I still have some background concerns about Secret caring too much, but then, I worry about just about everyone one way or another, and there are worse things than caring. I'm not seeing the warning signs of instability or lack of confidence that I noticed in previous RFAs from Secret, and my impression is that he's reached a point where he can look carefully at stressful situations and decide whether they're worth getting involved in or reacting emotionally to. This RFA looks to me like a case of someone who's "grown up" with wikipedia, has overcome some issues that were contributing to instability, and who is now ready to re-assume the roles he may not have been ready for a few years ago. Secret, I like your involuntary recall idea, but I think it could stand some more fleshing out - perhaps if this RFA closes successful, you could start an RfC where the community can work out binding recall criteria for you that both you and it are comfortable with. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
51. I note that some who are in opposition cite maturity concerns and past mistakes. I can respect that, however I feel that the good work Secret has done over the years and their work to learn from past mistakes counteracts that sufficiently enough for me to support his nomination.
    Help resolve disputes! 15:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
52. Per TParis and more so Fluffernutter. We all endeavor to become better people, to move on from our mistakes, and Secret is doing that with this RfA. --
    (ʞlɐʇ) 18:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
53. Support, Garion96 (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support Having not known anything about Secret's past, I was wondering what the fuss was about. Now I know more, and it doesn't worry me. It's the present I take more notice of, and I can't see any current problems here. Also per Fluffer (or is it Nutter?) above. Peridon (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's definitely not fluffer... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

55. Support per AniMate. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support I am aware of the history. Ultimately I think the chances of being a net benefit outweigh the chances of a problem, and if there is a problem, it won't be one that requires a huge cleanup by other editors. Hence I think it is worthwhile giving him a chance again. really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support Secret's calm demeanour during the RFA demonstrates that he's now on the right track, health-wise. Getting the correct diagnosis and the correct medical treatment has made a big difference, IMO, and we will now see the real Secret – the person you were meant to be. For that reason I don't think that events of the long-ago are very relevant any more. One reservation: I would like to see you using more formal English and taking more care that your posts are clear and grammatically correct. -- Dianna (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support I'm so glad you've returned to health - I know how hard illness can be, and I'm pleased to see you've recognized the problems your actions caused and that you've matured from the grumpy teenager I knew back in the day. Let's put the past in the past. - KrakatoaKatie 20:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support At the last blanked Rfa I believe I opposed and urged you to forget about the bit and focus on getting better. Judging by the list of notable people who have made major contributions to society with Graves' disease, Wiki adminship seems rather small in comparison (though I have the greatest appreciation for what they do here). Perhaps more importantly, as others have noted, time and increased maturity appear to have played their own natural role, too (though I note that there are some in this project for whom chronological age appears to have done little in this regard). Anyhoo, I join others willing to give you another chance, as I am reasonably confident that the mistakes of the past are in the past. Of course, I scarcely need to point out that your actions will be closely watched, as you are aware, and there can -- imho -- be no question of getting the bit back, should it prove to be too much for you again.
    talk) 20:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
60. Support. I don't find the opposition arguments compelling. The person is a long-term, experienced, adept, and accomplished Wikipedian with a good grasp of policy. He's willing to do admin work, and we need a steady supply of new admins. I understand the opposing points, but I'm not much bothered by someone feeling a bit wuffly after going through a failed RfA. That's just human. I don't care if he's had a bunch of RfA's -- so what? The other stuff with the desysopping and all was a while back and he's aware that he's not perfect, has undertaken to work on his areas that need work, and has apparently done so. I hope and suggest that he work in some subset of administrating that is best suited to his temperment rather than trying to do everything, though. Herostratus (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support — - dain- talk    22:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support —stay (sic)! 23:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support This user demonstrated level-headedness regarding an brusque interaction I had with another editor. This user clearly knows how to use the admin tools and can, I believe, handle them in a fair way. Best of luck in this difficult process! - ʈucoxn\^talk 23:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
64. Strong support I was going to be a nominator but things got busy with school and I fell off the face of the earth. Secret is a dependable and trustworthy user. Has he had issues, health and otherwise, in the past? Yes, but he has improved substantially since 2009. I fully trust his judgement and I think that we need to only view his contributions from the past year to a year and a half. Looking at the opposes, many of them aren't worth the electrons they are written with. The fact that this is his 10th RfA is meaningless reason to oppose; all but three of them are from 2006 or before. I find the judgement related opposes to be a few years out of date. A few other opposes seem to come from parties with axes to grind. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
65. I thought long and hard about this. He's been an admin and not an admin more times than I can count, and it kept me from nominating him myself. Some of the opposition (not Tariq's) I can understand as a result. This would admittedly be a last chance deal; if he requests removal of the tools yet again I can't in good conscience support another RfA. Despite all that, I look at one thing when evaluating admins. Are they a net positive as a Wikipedian and an admin? There's no question in my mind that Secret is, even though I wish he just stuck to article writing and stopped trying to get the tools back, especially with the utter lack of mercy an RfA can have. Wizardman 02:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
66. I have every confidence that giving Secret the tools will be, on the whole, a net benefit to the encyclopedia. It's also a benefit that he's been an admin before, in my opinion. Health related issues here do not concern me, and I believe that the high number of RfAs Secret has undergone shows nothing more than an intense drive to further help the project. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 10:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support. Being relatively new to Wikipedia (is it really two years already?), I don't remember any of the previous issues, but whenever I've encountered Secret he has been knowledgeable, helpful, and civil. I take this as an indication that he is long past his previous issues. I also find Anthony Bradbury's reply to Ks0stm in the neutral section to be particularly persuasive. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support This one is a tough one overall. Secret was trusted with the tools in the past, and rightly so. They made an incredibly stupid error in judgement many years ago that led to a forced desysop. I am of the belief that this many years later, Secret has learned from that single piece of stupidity and that it will not recur. With respect to "health issues", I'm always rather pissed off when people drudge someone's health through RFA. If this was a job interview in the US, the "Americans with disabilities act" might kick in. Rather than using illness as a crutch, Secret has admitted that it has been an issue in the past, and seems to be prepared to a) handle incidents, and b) disengage if and when health-related issues arise. As we know that desysopping can be a challenge, I would have been happeir to have seen much stronger response to my question on Recall, however, it is my belief that he is amenable to a way forward that protects both him and the project. Secret has a lot to offer this project, and has given a lot to the project. In short, they've been trusted before, they seem to have their shit together now, and they're willing to face the music if they screw up - 'nuf said. (
    BWilkins←✎) 13:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    If the candidate lays it all out there as part of their nomination acceptance statement as Secret has you cannot expect editors not to take it into account in their evaluation and weigh it according to the importance they place on it. Secret has made no secret of their medical background and the consequences that it had for their activity on WP. Leaky Caldron 14:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally, I commend Secret for facing those issues in his nomination statement. It shows his maturity about the issue, not blaming it for his issues in his past but acknowledging that they existed in the hope that people can forgive the issue. (

    @804  ·  18:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    X!, and Bwilkins, are right. Leaky, although it's true that editors can and should take whatever information is available into account, it's also true that poorly reasoned interpretations of that information, of which there are altogether too many in this RfA, can and should be rebutted and discounted. It's not just a matter of the law (ie, the Americans with Disabilities Act), but a matter of something much higher: what is right and wrong. It saddens me to see so many editors below who, in effect, are harboring a prejudice against persons with certain medical conditions. I know that some editors below will be offended by my saying that, and I'm sorry if it sounds harsh, but I really mean it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see anyone saying "Oppose, because he has a medical condition". It seems a lot of people are opposing because of his conduct, regardless of its source. Had we not known about his medical condition, information which -- again -- he offered voluntarily, the reasonings would have still stood. But, now that we know of its existence and that it may or may not be the cause of some of these conduct issues that are of concern to so many opposers, we're supposed to say "Oh, well then, never mind; it's ok"? You and all the supporters may find the conduct issues to be of insufficient relevance or water under the bridge, but not-so-subtle accusations of discrimination are uncalled-for. I find it extremely hard to believe that an airline could be successfully sued for not hiring a narcoleptic as a pilot. -- tariqabjotu 20:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No, you are wrong. We aren't talking about an airline or a narcoleptic here. We are talking about a website, and a user who used to have an undiagnosed medical condition that resulted in un-admin-like conduct, but where the condition has now been diagnosed and is being treated appropriately. We have editors arguing that it doesn't matter that appropriate treatment is being given, that they have somehow determined that the medical treatment won't work, that the symptoms of the medical condition are going to continue. Or, are you arguing that you know that the conduct did not result from the medical condition? It's science: you treat the condition, and the symptoms stop. I suspect that, years from now, the kinds of thinking I see on this page will look just as anachronistic as arguments based on skin color look today. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Tryptofish, I have scoured the oppose comments trying to find the sentiment you speak of, and I came up empty. But I understand those who are convinced that others' actions are borne out of prejudice are unlikely to change their perception (not too unlike those who are prejudiced themselves). And so, especially as it has no effect on your position on this matter or the outcome of this RfA, I will desist from attempting to set you straight. -- tariqabjotu 22:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't expect anyone to say that they are opposing Secret because of his medical history. But I hope that some people will examine why they are opposing, and consider whether they might be opposing because of an illogical line of reasoning. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

69. Support I trust you--Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support - The candidate points out that the prior misuse of the administrator toolkit was due to mental health issues, which are now being treated. Given that the misuse had a medical reason, I can see no real reason why not to support. Furthermore, the number of armchair psychiatrists below me is a little ridiculous. How many of you even have a degree in psychiatry or psychology, and, if you do, how can you make a diagnosis without ever seeing the "patient"? Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support, net positive. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support I, after reviewing the candidates recent activities and interactions, believe that (s)he has the knowledge and judgement to use the tools productively. I see nothing recent that would lead me to believe the candidate would misuse the tools, and a return of the tools will be to the advantage of the project. Net Positive. Dlohcierekim 21:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support. I supported the last RFA and see no reason not to do so this time. By his own admission, Secret has done many nutty things over the years, but actually he has not done many of the things opposers are assuming he will do as a renewed admin. His worst conflicts have been with long-established editors (including Jimmy Wales) not with newbies, trolls, or the rank and file. His desysopping was not over a pattern of misuse of the tools; he has always used them judiciously.
    Chick Bowen 00:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
74. Support One more chance - hopefully it will matter; and work out...Modernist (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support, per Modernist and Chick Bowen immediately above.
    TALK 00:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
76. Support. My support is not without trepidation. The last thing I want to see is a re-grant, a relapse, and another worst day for Secret. Opposing would finesse most of that fear and would be simpler. I acknowledge that a lot has been laid bare here, but it is both a plus and a minus. Those revelations and the ten or so standings for RfA (some successful) suggest the candidate may want the bit too much, and that in itself may not be healthy. Some of the prior acts were disturbing, and I'm not sure I believe all of the back story, but things can be forgiven over time. IIRC, the block was self-requested, and that speaks well. Contributions suggest Secret has an anti-list-of-X-article bent that could be toned down, but that is a content issue. I trust the nominators have considered the downside of Secret standing for this RfA and the additional stress should it succeed, so I'm willing to give Secret another shot. Glrx (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support. Not much I can add that hasn't already been said. Garamond Lethet
    c 07:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support because I don't see what all the hubbub is. I understand the concerns that my colleagues have in the oppose section, but nothing there is of great concern to me in the context of this RfA. I believe Secret will make a good administrator once again, and I wish him all the best on Wikipedia, however this RfA turns out. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support Why not?--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 11:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
80. Adminship is no big deal (I like the old link). Everyone seems to agree that Secret has the best interest of the project at heart. I've seen some suggestions that Secret should find a new hobby, aside from WP -- I disagree. Whether admin or not his hobby is currently a strong net positive to the project, and I appreciate the effort he puts in. He was a fine admin before, and would be one again. The simple fact is that all admin actions, especially from admin who have a history, are among the most highly scrutinized changes in the project and I have no fear that his work will easily survive such scrutiny.  7  13:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support. I don't think any of the concerns about past conduct accurately reflect the candidate we're looking at today - much has changed, as discussed above (and below, a bit). But the candidate should also be aware that there will be lots of editors watching for any screwup - so do be careful mate, ok? For my part, on the merits, I have no reservations whatsoever. Good luck! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support (from Neutral). I stand by my opinion that you would enjoy your Wikipedia life more as an editor rather than an Admin. But you are an adult, so you decide.
    ^TalkQu 17:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
83. Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support. Is capable. Well experienced. I am persuaded that enough time has passed and enough sincerity expressed to overcome passed temperament issues. I see no real threat of his adminship damaging other editors, and no danger of an unlikely relapse creating unfixable damage. I trust him. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support While I understand the hesitation some have expressed, I don't see reason to doubt the trust many above have placed in Secret. Best of luck, --auburnpilot talk 06:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support I take Secret's word for them being stable now and so feel that this user can be trusted with the administrative tools. Suraj T 07:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support I think we ought to give another chance here. If the previous incidents were caused by a medical condition which is now being properly treated then there's no reason to think that they will recur. Hut 8.5 12:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support per Balloonman, especially re:competence and commitment
    ^✰ 13:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
89. Support; the past belongs in the past. There are very many people who have screwed up in years gone by, and who have since been productive and valuable members of the community. There must be a point at which past sins are forgiven, otherwise we end up with a punitive system where people are marked with a scarlet letter. People and circumstances change, and I see no reason to believe that Secret isn't now a perfectly suitable candidate to wield a mop. — Coren ^(talk) 17:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support I've seen that this user has created some great articles on Wikipedia. Cmach7 18:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support Cluefuel, experienced and dedicated. With respect to possible concerns that I might harbor, I tend to agree with Smokey Joe, Chick Bowen and 7, among others. --
    Tikiwont (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
92. Support. - Per Coren. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support I think Secret has clearly shown that, while there have been issues in the past, he had grown because of them and become a better editor. And he meets all the other criteria that I would judge an editor against. An easy, solid support vote from me. Silverseren^C 03:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support. Some of the comments in the oppose section have their merits while some others are just pile-ons, votes from raw newbs, or from voters who should find a new hobby. On the face of it, Secret has far more than enough experience and should not be judged on events of the distant past. I voted neutral on the previous attempt and I am far happier supporting this RfA than I would, for example, for some marginal, relatively new, hat-collecting teenager who happens to check all my boxes. His work as an admin would be very much under the loupe anyway, and as long as any advice he gets is given in a collegial manner, he will be a net positive to the corps of sysops. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support seems to be handling this (rather stressful) RfA well. In addition the usernames question/answer was good and this user clearly has a clue. Just promise you'll take a break if you need one. Hobit (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support. Rzuwig^► 11:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
97. Welcome back. —Kusma (t·c) 12:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support: per Coren, Kudpung, Hobit and others.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support Concerns that stress might prove problematic seem, at least in what I assume is a stressful and close RfA, not in evidence. Enough clue to wield the mop well appears plainly in evidence. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support per pretty much all the above, and Ballonman's support below.
     WP:100 ! FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
     ]
101. Support, perhaps better described as a weak support. I'm very wary of a user who attempts to use a medical condition to excuse misbehaviour, but frankly all the problems are well in the past, content contributions are great, and I think this is a user who's due a second chance. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support I voted support last time, I see no reason to change.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support as co-nominator. m.o.p 22:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support " I'm not seeking adminship just for the hell of it, I am seeking it because I know I can help this project with the tools." more or less sums up why the tools should be given. I am also interested to see if Secret can come up with a recall with teeth. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support
     Kablammo (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
     ]
106. Support - per Fluffernutter. We should encourage - not discourage - editors to improve and learn from prior mishaps. hmssolent\Let's convene 02:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
107. I've waited on this one for a simple reason; RFA is a crucible, perhaps the hardest one we have short of being the subject of an arbitration case, and I wanted to see how the candidate handled it. Ge;s handled it well, so that tips the "undecided" meter over to support. Courcelles 02:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
108. My opinion on this is a Secret. --
     neg 03:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
     ]
109. Support per Coren. —
     Webclient101^talk 06:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
     ]

1. Oppose, per rationale at previous RfA. -- tariqabjotu 06:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Your oppose at that last Rfa is one of the worst character assassinations I've ever seen at a Rfa...that you would cite that as the same (per) reasoning to now still oppose is a reflection on you. Disgusting.--MONGO 17:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm going to have to agree with Mongo here. While the concept of your October 2011 oppose may hold merit, your choice of wording there is appalling Tariqabjotu. The term "unbecoming" comes to mind. — Ched :  ?  19:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Someone said much the same last time. That is my statement, and I am not changing it, as that is the way I feel. I am giving my honest opinion, not an artificial one for the sake of your feelings. -- tariqabjotu 19:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I remembered your oppose rationale from the previous RfA Tariqabjotu, and although it might have been a bit strongly worded, it does encapsulate everything that made me go neutral the last time around. But the things I have observed over the past couple of years left me convinced that Secret has much more control over his emotions than he did before. He has consistently shown the kind of stability and perseverance that make him fit to once again serve as an administrator, and I suspect he'll be more effective and less flighty this time around. But that is, of course, my opinion. You speak with more experience on the matter than I've got. I just feel that he's changed since then. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   It's quite obvious I'm not going to change my mind about this, and I am not trying to change anyone else's. I understand that there are a lot of people who disagree with my position about Secret's RfAs, and I was prepared for his last RfA (and, now, this RfA) to succeed. But these issues have existed for a long time, and have always been of concern to some people. After his sixth RfA (March 2006), in which I stayed neutral, he had a fit and quit, but the community was ready to forgive him in time for his seventh RfA (July 2006), which I opposed. Those who opposed at that time, myself included, were berated for our suggestions that his repeated quitting would be an issue for an admin. That RfA succeeded and we all know how his time as admin, and the aftermath, turned out. So, once bitten, twice shy. I was open to changing my mind seven years ago, but no more. I see no reason to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who was previously given the benefit of the doubt and ended up blowing it. But, again, I understand there are many people who are happy to overlook his behavioral history in favor of his editing history. Fine. I won't badger them for their positions, and I'd appreciate not being badgered for mine, especially as doing so is futile. -- tariqabjotu 02:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Of course not; I have no intention of dissuading you from your opinion, which is based on seven years of observing previous significant instability from Jaranda/Secret (frequent retirements, at least one reconfirmation RfA, emotional outbursts, etc). I am aware of the context, and I stand by my present-day support. I completely and 100% respect your opposition, which is perfectly valid and reasonable. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Kurtis, the reconfirmation RFA was my idea of some kind of early administrative reform. Using the example of another administrator, I decided to ask for desysopping and then run for RFA to see if I still held community trust after a year as an administrator. I wanted to start some kind of trend that other administrators might follow in good faith, but it proved to be controversial and it didn't really take off. Secret ^account 00:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Ah, I see. That's fine; I'm not necessarily opposed to reconfirmations in principle — assuming there is need for one, of course. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose, this user has demonstrated a pattern of behavior that makes it very difficult to recommend for they to be granted adminship status. Admin role is not akin to a trophy displayed on a mantle, but a role that demands immense trust in its holder. In turn it is the responsibility of the community to decline the nominations of users that do not meet the standards of trust. riffic (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose - It seems this user is far too impulsive / easily frustrated, and while I feel for the user, I am not confident that the bad behavior and poor judgment would not return during a period of stress. I'm not sure exactly what happened in "late 2009", and I would ask, but the user does not seem to want to go into that. That also concerns me, as it appears the user is not willing to be completely open about what has happened in the past. And while I respect those wishes, it's also another reason why I cannot support this RfA. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   The previous RFA has extensive details on it. Any clarification question can be asked if needed. Secret ^account 07:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Instead, concerning privacy and the sensitive issue of the matter, it's better just ask a clarification question, and I would answer it as long as I think it's answerable without going to livid details about my personal life, I can answer a question on my desysopping without issue. Secret ^account 07:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   OK - an answer to question 4 (GiantSnowman's question) would be satisfactory to me. Based on your answer to that, I may reconsider. Inks.LWC (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I'd like to thank you for answering, but unfortunately, the answer does not quell my concerns that you still have judgment problems that make you someone I would not trust with adminship. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose - While I am sympathetic to the editor's medical issues, I find that a cursory inspection of the past few years precludes my ability to support for adminship. Hoping your health improves and best wishes always. Jusdafax 07:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose this user has consistently failed to meet the standards of trust placed upon him by the community, and I see absolutely no indication that this will change. User:Ldvnsx 08:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   This user has very few edits. --Rschen7754 08:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Specifically four; the second is a self-reversion of the first. --

   ^"talk" 11:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

   ]

6. Weak oppose; past drama was not limited to a single isolated incident, I feel. Much more drama has surrounded previous desperate attempts to get the mop &c. I have no doubt that this is a competent editor on a day-to-day basis, but when something gets wrong and criticism starts flying - which is inevitable sooner or later if you're going to wield a mop - I fear for the worst. Tariqabjotu's previous concerns still stand. I don't normally follow RfA but I had manually added Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Secret 3 to my watchlist in 2011 when it was still a redlink. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Secret 4 is still on my watchlist; after !voting here I have watchlisted 5. The only thing that surprises me is the username; as Secret's comments about a clean start a couple of years ago had led me to expect a new RfA with a different username. bobrayner (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm sorry, but I never been the type of editor who would dare to attempt create a new username and just train in order to get the administrative tools. I always tried to be as honest as I can, and when I did the failed cleanstart a few years ago which I mostly did because a few editors urged me to and the first thing I did was contact ArbCom. Secret ^account 17:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   It's a very complex history, but my understanding is that you tried to make a fresh start with the "Secret" account, had more RfAs with that name (and attempts at getting the mop by other means when RfA didn't deliver the right result), then there was another ragequit where you said "I'm not leaving I just started a new account that ArbCom knows" whilst openly planning to make yet another attempt to get the mop. This may actually be a simplification since I think there was a previous Secret account which got ragequit and renamed before you started using the name again. I must admit that I was pleasantly surprised that your latest request for adminship - at least, the latest visible request - was made with the same name as last time; this is refreshingly honest but the fact that we're here discussing yet another Secret RfA shows that the underlying issue hasn't really changed. bobrayner (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   No, the fresh start with the Secret account happened seven years ago, and I had administrative status until the 2009 incident mentioned above. Where did I say I was planning to quit and create a new account for "adminship" purposes. I mentioned the Ibluffsocall clean start above? Secret ^account 02:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   It is very difficult for me to keep track of the history, because there are different accounts involved, many twists and turns, and some key pages have been deleted. However, it was you that said "I'm not leaving I just started a new account that ArbCom knows" on WT:RFA in 2011, yes? That was after your ninth RfA, with the third account, had gone badly and you ragequit; so forgive me for worrying that future attempts to gain the mop would use an account that the rest of us didn't know about. You also said that with your new not-Secret identity you'd get the mop back through arbcom rather than RfA, but we've heard that before. bobrayner (talk) 10:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I think your candidacy has good bits and bad bits; if we keep on discussing previous attempts to get the mop, it just puts more emphasis on the bad bits and I don't think that's fair on you. Can we agree to disagree? Discussing this point for longer isn't going to help either of us. bobrayner (talk) 11:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree the first link was not my finest moment on the project and probably my worst example of "rage quit" along with Mzoli's, the second link was associated with my failed cleanstart, there is a bit more to that, but I understand and respect your oppose vote, and arguing back and forth won't help neither of us, you are correct. Secret ^account 15:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose—Per several of the comments above. Tony (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Withdrawn vote, but leaving comment here. No, thank you, albeit with regret. Definitely has best interests of project at heart, but long-term questionable judgement, over multiple occasions. Some editors are simply ill-suited to the admin role, Secret is one of them IMHO. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Still somewhat hesitant and ambivalent about all this - particularly the inadequate response to the recall question - but on reflection I'm going to sit this one out. Not supporting, not opposing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose. The good news is that the editor is a valuable member of the community. The bad news is that, for reasons described in the last RfA, another administrative tenure is too risky for WP and the editor. The best news is that the candidate doesn't need administrative tools to continue making great contributions. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose I don't really care about the health issues. I am opposing because I am not particularly impressed with the user's maturity.
   Wha? 01:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
10. Oppose - not every good editor will make a good admin. I share concerns above re:maturity and history. Happy to be converted though. GiantSnowman 09:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose - I am not really familiar with whole history here. But after reading answer for Question 4, diagonally skimming previous RfA, and quick check at block log and list of previous RfAs, I don't feel confident to have this user promoted. I fully believe that he is very good editor, but considering somewhat unorthodox circumstances, I simply don't consider a year with no issues sufficient for being sure. I would be ready to consider revising this position in a year or two.--Staberinde (talk) 09:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose per Jusdafax and others. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 14:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13. Per Floq. -
    Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
14. Oppose Per Kw and others. Intothatdarkness 21:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose. The candidate has repeatedly, over many years, displayed judgement and temperament that are incompatible with adminship. Skinwalker (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose He has not need for admin tools. The answers for username violations were sub par. R^₵ 01:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Secret's answer to question 6 looks acceptable to me. Exactly what causes you to think of it as 'sub par'? →Σσς. (Sigma) 05:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed after input from another editor R^₵ 16:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I tend to agree with User:Σ here. Those answers seemed fair enough. Andreas JN466 16:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    In retrospect you are both right. (comment struck through) — nerdfighter 22:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

16. Oppose This user has been a admin before and that clearly did not work, maybe you should take a break trying to be an admin if you do not succeed. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose - I remember this user's previous RfA well. I opposed without much conviction, and sincerely hoped this user would prove me wrong by taking the RfA's failure in a mature way, particularly since they spent the entire time vigorously trying to convince the community that they're completely mentally sound, level-headed could handle stress without issue. That didn't happen. Secret declared an indefinite Wikibreak and posted a lengthy statement on their userpage (now deleted) explaining that they had to recuperate after the RfA and declaring that they probably couldn't handle another one. I have tons of respect for this user, but, judging them with the same standards as I would anyone else, I simply don't have complete confidence in their maturity or stability. Swarm ^X 03:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I plan not to comment much during this RFA, but I do feel like I have to reply here. That last RFA was physically and mentally exhausting near the end, and like I mentioned above, it was something I still regret for not closing early, even while it was still within passing. In my opinion it is the most regretful moment I ever had on Wikipedia as it bought out the worst with so many editors, and some bad memories that I mentioned that I rather clear out as extremely damaging. You read my comment on my userpage perfectly. It was mostly a comment I needed some time off to relax myself and think what I had to do next. Again I wasn't probably diagnosed with Grave's yet and that was during an "unstable" time in my personal life, so it did damage my health somewhat. I am not stupid to try RFA again if I didn't feel like I was healthy enough to handle it. It wasn't a quit "storm off" and you need to understand where my comment came from. I really don't want any mentions of my second RFA from both the supporters and opposers while discussing this current one, and I want each participant to respect my wishes. It is not because I don't have the strength for it, or the "stress" bs, but is such a sensitive matter that its better to be forgotten Secret ^account 04:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

18. This user's emotional response to the last RfA tells me that he does not have thick enough skin to be an admin. Binksternet (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
19. Way too many areas of concern with this candidate. Based on the available background I cannot see that the potential benefit outweighs the fairly obvious risks. Leaky Caldron 10:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose as per previous comments  TUXLIE  15:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding comment signed as by TUXLIE (talk • contribs) actually added by Tuxlie (talk • contribs)[reply]
21. Oppose. The candidate clearly has the best of intentions. But while I think they might perform some admin tasks perfectly capably, other such tasks require steady hands, and I am not sure the candidate has matured to that point yet. (Debundling admin rights would help here.) I also would like the candidate to work on his writing skills; some of the comments above seem to betray a lack of care in that respect, which make me feel there may be a more general issue with exercising due diligence. Andreas JN466 16:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes my grammar has never been my strongest area in the project, because of a mild case of dyslexia. I did fix an obvious grammar mistake above in the recall question. Secret ^account 16:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - I count this as the TENTH RFA for this user. Every single issue of stability or potential instability aside, that is sufficient cause for concern for me to land here. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think if you look carefully, most of those are very old and he has been an admin before. I was another that had talked to Secret and had offered to nominate him for adminship, but I had been very busy with work (I took the time out of family time to nom you, actually). I've worked with him via AFD many years ago and trust him enough to take him at his word regarding his health. I won't ask you to change your vote, but I would ask you look closely at the timing of the previous RfAs and really decide if the number of RfAs is really enough to disqualify him. Like him, I trust and respect your opinion, I just hope you have looked as closely as I think he deserves. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving to neutral, per your request. Carrite (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

22. Oppose - I do not trust him with the tools. He's had them in the past and misused them on more than one occasion. Also, in my opinion he doesn't seem to be mature enough to be an admin. The fact that this is his 10th (at least) RfA makes me think he wants to be an admin a bit too much.--Rockfang (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
23. This is a tough one, which is why I think I skipped voting on the previous RfAs (although I believe Jaranda was an admin before I began editing and was eligible to vote). Basically, opposing per the comments Flo made above. Great user, obviously deeply dedicated to Wikipedia, probably not ideal for an administrator. Nathan ^T 20:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose The candidate should find a new hobby. Keepscases (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems a little harsh, Secret is clearly a net positive to the project withoout the tools, and would probably be one with them. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

25. Oppose. Happy to have him as a fellow editor, but am not comfortable trusting him with the mop given the history here.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
26. Sorry, But No. This RfA reminds me of that famous quote about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. And as the tenth RfA, the editor's obsession with obtaining administrator responsibilities is embarrassing. And Adoil Descended (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm certainly hoping the closing crat is keeping count of the large number of opposes that offer no rationale whatsoever aside from inane babbling about the number of RfA's the candidate has. Trusilver 17:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

27. Oppose His reaction to the failure of his last RFA shows a temperament unsuitable for an admin. As an admin you're going to suffer abuse from people you block and whose pages you delete, and it takes a particular type of mental constitution to handle such abuse, which this candidate still does not seem to have. SheepNotGoats (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm editing from my iPad so any grammar errors I apologize. I understand where you are coming from, but I feel like I should comment. I am well aware of the risks of being an administrator or even an editor, having experienced those risks myself. I dealt with severe harassment, personal attacks, ousting of my old address and telephone number, hacking of my emails and Facebook, being a major target with grawp, all kinds of terrible stuff during my time in the project and I simply ignored it for the most part and continued editing. I believe I handled those situations the best I could considering my health/age/immaturity at that time. I'm well aware how to deal with those situations. If it does happen, which likely will, I would try to find a solution to the problem, or if I notice the editor is simply "trolling" ignore it and move on. Wikipedia is a still simply a website and a hobby, and my public identity is well known. The same risks apply to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other websites in which users actively participate in. Why should I need to worry? Secret ^account 19:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Note I copyedited to the best of my attention as my original comment came from my Ipad, which isn't the best editing tool. Secret ^account 22:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

28. Oppose The RfA process reflects the community's general mistrust of the current body of Sysops, and you need to have impeccable [recent] past and an unshakeable temperament to weather an RfA these days. Secret doesn't seem to possess either. I can already feel the cracks showing under the pressure, and would have reservations about appointing one who doesn't have a firm grasp as well as nerves of steel needed to wield the mop around here. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 10:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose Too many negative points. Warden (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
30. Oppose Sorry, but I've been swayed by other editors concerns regarding maturity and the fact that this is the 10th RFA now... Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
31. Oppose - After much thought it boils down to this: I don't trust this user with the tools. The "2009 incident" and previous RFAs concern me enough to oppose. This user has a history of erratic behaviour and I don't feel confident that it won't return should the stress rise. James086^Talk 18:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oppose Sorry to oppose Secret. But as what I've seen above regarding those negative points, concerns and others that you're involved, I'll do nothing but to oppose this RfA.
    t • c) 02:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
33. Oppose Unreliable temperament: inability to handle stress and (despite his oft-repeated assertions to the contrary) develop the necessary, consistent self-awareness as to the consequences. These numerous attempts at and associated history with adminship may obscure the fact that Secret has very considerable abilities as an editor and I hope he will instead concentrate on those strengths of developing the encyclopaedia content. Plutonium27 (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    On 13/02 Secret reverted this !vote at [1] after it was retracted, with the explanation of Reverted to revision 538066752 by Secret: rv myself, let someone do it, it was in AGF what I did, but probably I shouldn.(sic) Shortly after, Secret's revert was restored by User:GiantSnowman along with this advice from User:TParis on Secret's Talk Page: [2] "Secret - please do yourself a favor and do not take controversial actions..."). Why was that exchange not posted on the talk page of this RfA, to which it is relevant and pertinent? Anyway, the revert shows Secret arguing with himself in an edit summary; ultimately, even though knowing that to act would be inappropriate, he couldn't stop himself from doing so. It is a trivial-seeming example but is nonetheless a current example of his thought processes on decision-making here. And GS and TP's responses give the impression of friends discreetly cleaning up, to help Secret get the admin status he craves. Finally, as someone who has been around here for quite some time (and who is a professional in both adult general and psychiatric nursing) I confess I am, to put it mildly, bewildered by Secret's reported and manifested medical history over the years, by the various diagnoses with respect to his behaviour, and the varying emphasis and explanations given. Plutonium27 (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

34. Oppose While I'm happy that Secret is here making article contributions, I have concerns both about his ability to avoid scene-making and to adequately communicate. Grammar issues in articles can be hammered out by a copy editor later, but if you're explaining policy on a new user's talk page you have to be clear the first time. Danger ^{High voltage!} 02:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
35. Oppose per Epeefleche. The risk of problems may be low but the consequences could be relatively serious. Therefore, I can't support with confidence, and am reluctant to even offer weak support. -- Trevj (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

(indented) Thinking back to the 08-09 days I recall that I liked Secret a great deal (although he may not recall interacting with me); still, I do have some reservations here. If this runs it's course then I'll stop back and pick a side. — Ched :  ?  10:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC) moving to support — Ched :  ?  14:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Willing to support, but I'd like to see a couple more Q&As before I decide. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC) moving to support --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I almost never land here, but for the moment I'm doing so. I'm hoping to see some more information shake out in this RFA specifically about how Secret has coped with stressful or confrontational situations in the past year or so; that will be the biggest deciding factor for me. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Moving to support. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Can't decide. Secret seems to be a hard-working and all-round nice guy... until things happen that go against him, and he is prone to flip out. I'm just concerned that, if he were to crack while in possession of the mop, things might get messy. —
   foxj 15:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   I will decide my position once I see a few more Q&A's, but I still have a few concerns myself.

   speak to me..._{review me...} 04:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

   ]

2. Not often I end up in the neutral section. My impression of Secret is that they are a solid editor, with a good degree of experience. Overall, I have a good impression of his editing over the past 12 months; however, there is just too much history for me to feel comfortable that he will cope with the pressures of adminship again. Tricky one...
   talk to me 18:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Per Jusdafax; willing to be convinced.--v/r - TP 18:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3. First of all and most importantly, I commend, admire, and respect your decision to run at RFA with such health and personal issues that could be reason to not try at all (not to mention your extraordinary openness about them). I hope your health remains well as you cope with Graves' disease. That said, there are some very germane issues raised in this RFA. Namely, the suggestion that you might act impulsively or out of frustration is of great concern (which, tragically, might be—as you write on your userpage—a consequence of your health). Although I wish you the very best in terms of your health, I'm afraid that, while I commend your decision to run and firmly believe that you are generally a good-natured person, I cannot support (nor can I oppose) your becoming an administrator. I find myself in the neutral section because I think it's unfair to oppose your candidacy on such a subjective basis (since nobody required you to be open about your health &c). Your contributions are commendable and will continue to be no matter the outcome of this RFA. I must also make clear that my concerns are grounded upon your past conduct as an editor and not your medical condition (which you seem to be managing very effectively). Thank you for your understanding and I wish you the very best of luck. Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Leaning support. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 12:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment Graves disease, or thyrotoxicosis, is a condition which if unrecognised and hence untreated can lead to a variety of behavioural anomalies (also physical ones). It is perfectly treatable, and when treated there is no expectation of any further physical, mental or emotional disturbance greater than that normally experienced within the population at large.--

   ^"talk" 12:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I'm aware, although that may be useful information to others. I'm just kinda biding my time to see where this goes and until I catch up on sleep to think through with a clear head. At first glance, 80% chance I support, less than 5% chance I end up in oppose. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Moving to support. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 09:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral. Secret has many good contributions, including previous administrative actions. However the scale of the previous problem is too large too ignore, not least because of the stress to Secret himself. Despite Secret's assurance that his illness is controlled, this will always be a sword of Damocles for him, and may even be quoted against him during conflicts. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Moving to support Neutral Given all that has gone on I am surprised the candidate wants to return to adminship, and it's not difficult to foresee further issues arising sooner or later should they be successful; however I can't oppose someone so dedicated to the project. I hope you continue the great content work regardless of what happens here

   ^✰ 11:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

   ]

5. Neutral You clearly have all the right intentions, but your health status might continue to cause problems, and so I can neither support nor oppose you as an administrator. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral, leaning towards oppose. It's an issue of trust. Can we trust the candidate that what happened will not repeat itself? Yes, he gave a medical explanation, and I understand it's not his fault. But can we feel confident it's absolutely over? No; we can not. That being said, a year might be enough time to expose any problems there might still be, and he's passed that. Still, I feel like we're being asked to take a leap of faith here, and I'm not sure I can acquiesce to that. So I'll !vote neutral, but am leaning towards opposing. -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Moving Neutral. I think you could be an admin, and would do the work well and that you can be trusted. But, I don't think you should be an admin and should put thoughts of being one behind you and move on. Getting too involved, too caught up in this place and too emotionally engaged is bad for one's health and well being. I think you'll end up "rage quitting" from Wikipedia as a whole if you head down the admin route. Aspire to be the best and most respected editor - that's where you should go.

   talk) 09:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

   ]

7. Neutral - I say this as someone with a repeated acquaintance with Secret. I think he's generally a good person, I like him, and would like to support him because I like him. But I can't. I can sometimes be strict (as most people are) when evaluating someone for adminship, and someone with a track record like Secret I couldn't support. If this was someone else asking for adminship I'd probably flat-out oppose but I can't bring myself to do so here. -- Atama頭 18:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Sigh After posting a series of questions the way I did I feel like I owe Secret a solid yes-or-no answer, so I am not happy that I feel unable to give one. There certainly does seem to have been some growth, the behavior that marred so many of the previous RFAs is not present here, and while the answers to the username questions aren't exactly what i would have done in each case they are close enough and all well within policy. And yet I still feel uneasy about supporting. I could go on and on about the thoughts i have had about this but the short version is that I just can't seem to come down solidly on one side or the other.
   talk) 19:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
9. I keep an occasional eye out around here just to see if there is anything compelling enough to get me to comment on. So far, I don't think there has been a single case were I've felt strongly enough about commenting where I've actually identified myself---heck, I don't think there has been an issue where I've actually made a post. But that is about to change. I would be casting this !vote in the Support Column, but as I made my old account impossible to access I can't log onto it---I will however contact MBisanz so that he can confirm my identity. Secret will probably be very surprised at my Support, I don't think the two of agreed with each other but a handful of times in many years of working together. In fact, we usually disagreed quite profoundly. That being said, I definitely think he has the best interest of the project in mind and won't break the wiki. At one time I might have opposed him, but I think we set the bar too high (and I did more than my share to move it in that direction.) Admins don't have to be perfect---they just have to be competent, sincere, and driven to serve the project. Whatever else his flaws, I think Secret fulfills those qualifications. The project needs people who are committed to the project---and his tenure here, despite his bad times, speaks volumes. Again, I know MBisanz and will confirm my id with him. If he wants to move me to support, that'll be fine with me, but as I know an IP can't officially vote, I am placing my Support here in the Neutral area. The twisted one formerly known as Balloonman04:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

   Confirming this is Balloonman. I'll leave the comment here, but a close crat should interpret it on the comment's intent, not location. MBisanz ^talk 12:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10. Neutral Until looking at this RFA, I always thought Secret ceased being an admin voluntarily and unprovoked while he was named Jaranda. It's too bad he didn't do a full
    WP:CLEANSTART, as most if not all the opposers are bringing up incidents from years ago. I'd fully support if I did not know about the track record, or if this was a real job and I could meet face-to-face and follow up on references. As it is, I can also see how people are wary. Without doing more research, I'm willing to live with consensus either way and will sit out.—Bagumba (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
11. Neutral - Ten tries at the brass ring is too many, but I'm satisfied that this is a good person and will thus attenuate my grumpiness... Carrite (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]