m →Oppose: copyedit |
m →Oppose: typo |
||
Line 253: | Line 253: | ||
#:::FWIW, I am well aware of Cirt's previous identities and I have mentioned the connections on a number of pages here including some very public ones in the past. This is the second time Cirt has whitewashed a questionable past with a name change and I do not think that substantive "privacy concerns" have been raised that would warrant obscuring Cirt's past here. Note that she continues to edit the same material she always has and I can point at instances where she seamlessly continued editing the same articles in the same fashion as previously. I am willing to [[WP:AGF]] that Cirt has learned her lesson and can keep herself in check to an extent but I have evidence to the contrary that I will present if my concern vis-a-vis misuse of admin tools is not addressed. --[[User:Justallofthem|Justallofthem]] ([[User talk:Justallofthem|talk]]) 00:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
#:::FWIW, I am well aware of Cirt's previous identities and I have mentioned the connections on a number of pages here including some very public ones in the past. This is the second time Cirt has whitewashed a questionable past with a name change and I do not think that substantive "privacy concerns" have been raised that would warrant obscuring Cirt's past here. Note that she continues to edit the same material she always has and I can point at instances where she seamlessly continued editing the same articles in the same fashion as previously. I am willing to [[WP:AGF]] that Cirt has learned her lesson and can keep herself in check to an extent but I have evidence to the contrary that I will present if my concern vis-a-vis misuse of admin tools is not addressed. --[[User:Justallofthem|Justallofthem]] ([[User talk:Justallofthem|talk]]) 00:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
# '''Oppose''' While Cirt has been a prolific editor over the last year,I think that there is a serious concern regarding what is happening here. First, two people who are already admins are voting against adminship for Cirt. They raise some serious questions. Cirt has been blocked 7 times in the past and did not completely disclose this at first. From what I can tell here, Cirt requested to have a significant portion of their history on Wikipedia deleted citing privacy? I don't get it. The way this is structured we are being asked to take that at face value. I don't know but it just strikes me as a white wash. While I respect everyone's right to anonymity on Wikipedia, but unless it can be proven that this is not being done to hide a history of inappropriate/POV edit history I have to vote no. I also think that people should re-consider their vote until they get to see Cirt's answer to optional question 15 above.[[User:Ebay3|Ebay3]] ([[User talk:Ebay3|talk]]) 01:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
# '''Oppose''' While Cirt has been a prolific editor over the last year,I think that there is a serious concern regarding what is happening here. First, two people who are already admins are voting against adminship for Cirt. They raise some serious questions. Cirt has been blocked 7 times in the past and did not completely disclose this at first. From what I can tell here, Cirt requested to have a significant portion of their history on Wikipedia deleted citing privacy? I don't get it. The way this is structured we are being asked to take that at face value. I don't know but it just strikes me as a white wash. While I respect everyone's right to anonymity on Wikipedia, but unless it can be proven that this is not being done to hide a history of inappropriate/POV edit history I have to vote no. I also think that people should re-consider their vote until they get to see Cirt's answer to optional question 15 above.[[User:Ebay3|Ebay3]] ([[User talk:Ebay3|talk]]) 01:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
#:A disclosure was made in the opening nomination. The only reason it was not quite as complete as you wish was because of a serious personal security concern. Per dialog with Athenara, Cirt provided a full list of the blocks and his previous account is being disclosed via e-mail to trusted editors who request it (he had one prior account, which was renamed partway through its use). He is afk right now and |
#:A disclosure was made in the opening nomination. The only reason it was not quite as complete as you wish was because of a serious personal security concern. Per dialog with Athenara, Cirt provided a full list of the blocks and his previous account is being disclosed via e-mail to trusted editors who request it (he had one prior account, which was renamed partway through its use). He is afk right now and he will answer question 15 as soon as he is able. I hope that's sufficient to address your concerns. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 01:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
=====Neutral===== |
=====Neutral===== |
Revision as of 01:27, 10 September 2008
Cirt
(talk page) (110/3/2); Scheduled to end 19:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Cirt (talk · contribs) - It’s an honor to be the nominator of one of en:wiki’s most qualified candidates for RFA. Cirt is already an arbitrator at Wikinews, an administrator at Commons, and an OTRS volunteer. At Wikipedia he has contributed 11 featured articles, 26 good articles, 33 “Did you know” articles, 1 featured topic, and 11 featured portals (he’s the most prolific contributor of featured portals on this website). He has made over 38,000 edits to Wikipedia. In connection with his OTRS work, cross-project deletion work, and his AFD work it makes sense for him to have the tools at this project too.
Now you might be wondering, why didn’t an editor with qualifications this good get sysopped long ago? Two reasons. First, some of Cirt’s contributions are to controversial topics. It is darn near guaranteed that an editor who writes about Scientology and related subjects will step on some toes, no matter how polite he is or how many of those contributions result in featured articles. I don’t know much about those subjects but I do know he’s evenhanded: not only do the articles he works on consistently pass GAC and FAC, but he’ll intervene to revert vandalism, seek page protection, etc. regardless of what POV the disruption expresses. The second reason he’s hesitated to ask for the tools here is because this isn’t his first account and he collected some blocks before he started this account. I can guarantee you he did not change accounts to hide that block log. Please respect his privacy in that regard. It had to do with personal security and I was the administrator he turned to for help when the problem first occurred. His blocks had to do with edit warring—not incivility or any more significant concern—and he’s long since learned to open dispute resolution instead of violating 3RR. The most recent block occurred more than a year ago.
So in terms of an editor who got a rocky start and made healthy turnaround, I don’t know of a better example than Cirt. Two other WMF projects already trust him with the mop. Let’s do the same. DurovaCharge! 19:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Co-nomination by weburiedoursecretsinthegarden
I think the only word in the English language to describe Cirt consists of only three letters: “Wow”. Perhaps that’s because I’m terrible at English. Or perhaps, as Durova has said extensively above, Cirt is actually too good an editor to describe in mere words.
It’s not often one gets the chance to nominate a good user for adminship – let alone a brilliant one. So, when a user like Cirt comes along, all activity is halted to write a nomination for them. I myself do not even feel qualified to nominate this calibre of editor for the mop, regardless of how big a deal it is. Many admins – perhaps even bureaucrats – do not have the credentials Cirt possesses – which is why he should obtain the almost iconic mop.
I first encountered Cirt earlier this year, on – believe it or not – featured portal candidates. I believe he had a nomination or three on the go then. At once, I saw the amount of work he put into those portals – not just a fly-over job, a work of art. Upon visiting his userpage, I saw just how many portals he had managed to get featured – some of which single-handedly – and gasped in shock. (That rarely happens to me, after seeing something on the internet.) I must say, this drove me to create and develop a portal of my own. That I did, and I owe it to Cirt’s example.
I don’t see much else I could say to top Durova’s nomination above. I do hope that you, the community, will not look upon Cirt’s early history and write him off for the tools that will only help him to help the project. We need more admins like this guy. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I’d like to do some work in the administrative backlogs related to images, specifically CAT:NCT, CAT:NC, and CAT:NT. I have recently been doing some work on OTRS, and having the tools would certainly help with this. I would also love to help out with updating Did you know, I know it has been a recurring issue to find admins for that.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I think my featured work on Wikipedia stands as my best quality contributions to the project. I’d like to especially point out how fulfilling it has been for me to work on collaborative efforts with members of WikiProjects, including a featured portal with members of WP:TEXTILE, a featured article and featured portal with members of WP:OREGON, a featured topic and featured portal with members of WP:DOH.
- 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: As Durova notes, I have been in conflicts in the past with regard to Scientology and related topics. Those were mostly edit wars from my early days, and I delayed this nomination considerably in hopes of building up a track record that demonstrates I've put those mistakes behind me. Those pages where I once disputed are mostly GAs and FAs now.
- What made the difference is that blocks had their intended effect on me: I stepped back and returned with a healthier outlook. Since the early days I've also discovered that dispute resolution is a better way of resolving differences between editors. I also trust in the community – and I have seen the dispute resolution process work very well and I especially find article content RFCs to be helpful. With any issue that crops up I always seek out an experienced administrator for advice, and I will continue to do so.
Optional question from xenocidic
- 4. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
- A: The IP vandalized article mainspace a total of 13 times, and his previous 2 unblock requests were extremely uncivil. His statement is also incorrect in his most recent unblock request - after his "constructive" edit, he went on to make another vulgar vandalism edit, and his most recent unblock request was also highly inappropriate. I would not however be the administrator to review the unblock request because I was the blocking admin in the first place. I would leave the unblock review to an independent administrator.
Additional question from Haukur
- 5. Should this image be transferred to the Commons?
- A: Interesting question. I'm looking into it. This work is definitely public domain in the United States. The question is whether it's also public domain globally. It falls under the pre-1923 window under U.S. law, but the illustrator lived until 1955. I'm currently looking into whether the New York publication given was the first publication (or whether it was first published elsewhere) and whether the artist resided in the United States at the relevant time. The short answer is I would take no action until I were certain.
Additional question from Sumoeagle179
- 6. Many people feel admin behavior standards have gotten rather lax these days. Some users seem to feel it's okay to be rude and condescending to others, especially if you disagree with them. What do you think of WP:CIVIL? Should standards of behavior for admins, including civility, be higher than for user who are not admins? How should issues of admin incivility be handled?
- A: If I want to ask for civility I had better demonstrate it. Of course that doesn't stop me from disagreeing with people, or explaining why. But incivility distracts from that type of message when it needs to be given. We are a community of contributors and we should all be held to a high standard of civility together. Of course I highly support WP:CIVIL, it is official policy and a very good one to encourage constructive, rather than destructive dialogue.
Additional question from Townlake
- 7. Would you mind providing a brief example of a situation where you would apply IAR in the course of your administrative activities? It can be the most obvious IAR case you can imagine, I'm just curious if and when you might invoke it. Thanks and good luck! Townlake (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- A: Technically one is not supposed to edit an article after protecting it, but if I noticed an obvious WP:BLP violation, for example "Joe Schmoe is an alcoholic", I would invoke WP:IAR to remove that information. I would note that I had done so in the edit summary and give a comment on the talk page.
Optional question from MBisanz
- 8. Will you be open to recall? Who will be the "decider" of if a recall has passed? If you will be open to ti, what are your criteria?
- A: I think that the recall process is certainly controversial and not clearly defined. I trust in the current system which works the best - if a user has an issue with my use of the tools they may start a User RFC. This could then proceed to an arbitration case, at which point my use of the tools could be dealt with formally by the Arbitration Committee.
- This question should not be used for the basis of one's !vote. In fact, the question itself is extremely unpopular as it poison's the well---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- A: I think that the recall process is certainly controversial and not clearly defined. I trust in the current system which works the best - if a user has an issue with my use of the tools they may start a User RFC. This could then proceed to an arbitration case, at which point my use of the tools could be dealt with formally by the Arbitration Committee.
Optional question from NuclearWarfare
- 9. At this time, do you believe that you will branch out to some of the other administrative-related tasks (CSD), XfD, RFPP, etc.)?
- A. I will start off work in the admin areas I have mentioned above, NCT, NC, NT, OTRS-related work, and Did you know. Over time I'd like to branch out into CSD, XfDs and RFPP, but I think there will be plenty to do to start with those first tasks I listed. As I gain more experience I hope to naturally round out my administrative contributions a bit more in the future.
Optional questions from Asenine
- 10. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?
- A: I would explain the importance of WP:V to the editors on the talk page of the article, and I would also welcome the new user and reach out and explain the relevant policies as well. If the article is a BLP then there is a pressing matter to remove unsourced content that cannot be backed up to verifiable and reliable sources. Perhaps some of that unsourced material could be sourced, and we could all work together on the article's talk page to share resources and work to properly source the material. In any event, a good next step would be to open an article content RFC to bring in broader input from the community.
- 11. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?
- A: The Project Chanology article is one where I have seen an increase relative to other articles in the amount of new users that notice the article and make a comment on the talk page. Sometimes these users question current content in the article, or make a suggestion about adding new content. Sometimes they are indeed frustrated that a particular piece of information is not there. The first thing that I do is make sure that the user has been welcomed to the project. This provides them with helpful links to pages where they can learn more about how to contribute, as well as links to our policies. This also tells the user they can ask me questions on my talk page. I also explain the need to cite sources and back up the new information recommended to be added to the article. Over time, I have been pleased that users I had previously explained this to have helped to explain the matter to other subsequent new users that show up suggesting new information be added to the article.
- 12. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?
- A: I will most certainly continue my current activities if granted the mop and bucket. I am involved in a featured topic drive, and I have four featured portal drives I am working on. I will slow down a bit from article content contribution to work on some administrative contributions, but article-writing is one of the things I love most about this project.
Optional question from Lankiveil
- 13. In the nom, it's stated that you have worked with articles concerning Scientology, a most controversial topic at times. Do you still edit on this subject, and if so what sort of edits do you make? Have you made any major contributions to an article on this topic lately, and if so can you provide some examples?
- A: Lately I've been focusing on featured portal drives and an unrelated featured topic drive. The closest major quality content work I've done to Scientology recently has to do with works by L. Ron Hubbard. These include To the Stars (album) (DYK/GA), To the Stars (novel) (DYK/GA), Buckskin Brigades (DYK), Final Blackout (DYK), Revolt in the Stars (DYK), and Space Jazz (DYK). I plan to do some more DYK/GA work on a few more works by Hubbard as well.
Question from Avruch
- 14.: Is it fair to say you've been blocked for edit warring seven times? I see that the last time, according to your talkpage post, was in June 2007. Without knowing the names of your prior accounts, its difficult for those of us who aren't very familiar with you to evaluate the circumstances. What about your approach to Wikipedia has changed in the last year? I should add - your content contributions are amazing and greatly appreciated, and unquestionably make you a far more valuable member of this project than myself. I'm just looking for some more background information, and a little insight into your views. Thanks!
- A.: In the past I rarely sought to improve the quality of articles to a high standard. I had gotten a few articles up to GA, but I had not endeavored to participate collaboratively in a stringent review process with other editors to get an article all the way up to FA status. Through work on my first FA, Trapped in the Closet (South Park), multiple editors pointed out things that could be improved on in the article, and a few helped me with copy-editing and some other difficult work during the FAC process. After the article was promoted as a FA, one of the editors that had helped me on it invited me to join The Simpsons featured topic drive. I was hesitant to commit myself to such an ambitious project, but it has been a real pleasure working on it.
- I have benefited greatly from my collaborative experiences working with editors on varying topics in featured topic and featured content drives. Also, when I work on improving the quality of an article I take it through the DYK, GA, peer review, and FAC processes. This opens up the articles I work on to review from a wide cross-section of the community, and I have found that this is a very positive thing which helps to greatly improve the quality of those articles. I highly respect the advice of experienced editors and administrators, and frequently seek out their advice in both stressful situations as well as for help with minor content questions.
Question from Justallofthem
- 15.: Cirt, we can keep this short and sweet. First off, Cirt and I go way back and I have known her in all her previous incarnations. I am going to say nothing at this point about her history here or any current objections I might have. I just have one question. Cirt, if you are given the admin bits do you promise to not use them AT ALL in the topic area in which you are personally invested and in which all your prior trouble has occurred, specifically the areas of so-called cults, NRMs, and the human potential movement. Your answers to previous questions indicated that you intend to work on image areas and it considered good form IMO to refrain from using admin tools in your own areas of potential bias. --Justallofthem (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
General comments
- See Cirt's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Cirt before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Support as nominator. DurovaCharge! 20:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Beat a co-nom support: You're not already an admin? Cirt should have been given the mops years ago! Dendodge|TalkContribs 20:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - fantastic editor and knows the project well. Will do well with some more tools. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Sure. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support before anyone else gets in before me :P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support, I am shocked that you aren't already an admin, I had assumed you were. Excellent candidate, I have no concerns. ~ mazca t | c 20:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Clearly one of Wikipedia's most qualified for the mop. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support I actually did think you were an admin already. Model Wikipedian. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Most definitely. This is one user who will benefit the project greatly by being given the mop! Malinaccier (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Strong support — Fully trust both nominators, great article work, is human and can communicate well with others, wants to work in areas commonly burdened with backlogs. Marvellous! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - trustworthy editor who understands the image policy. PhilKnight (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Overdue. how do you turn this on 21:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Obvious choice I'd say. John Reaves 21:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes; definitely. I supported him on Commons recently too and would trust him pretty much anywhere. Solid trustworthy contributor with the best interests of the enyclopedia in mind. naerii 21:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Seems like a great guy. Certainly answered my question very well :) Haukur (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Strong support, per both noms. Extremely trustworthy. --Maxim (☎) 21:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support I see him all the time and I think him to be an admin each time, only to be proven wrong. I have not a single idea why, with all those great contribution, he isn't an admin yet. SoWhy 21:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support: Why not? seicer | talk | contribs 21:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Support Highly trustworthy candidate. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support; I have no fear the candidate would stick the mop in bad places. — Coren (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Simply looking at his astonishing content contributions pushes me to support - above and beyond the accepted RfA standards. Valtoras (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support complete no-brainer. Absolutely. --Rodhullandemu 21:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good editor. America69 (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great edit history, many fine contributions. Support 100% --Banime (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Trustworthy candidate, I respect the nominators, and I like the IAR answer. Townlake (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - This RfA isn't an April fools joke? I thought you already were an admin. *Realist double checks his calendar* . — Realist2 22:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good answers, gonna make a great mop-holder. —[DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs] 22:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - This candidate is a breath of fresh air. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support. I'm usually pretty well informed about who is and isn't an admin, but this one really made me jump out of my seat. bibliomaniac15 22:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Suppose....joking! :P An excellent candidate —— RyanLupin • (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm very disappointed... that I didn't nominate you myself. Very Strong Support! Wizardman 22:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support a real asset to the Wiki. ϢereSpielChequers 22:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Love his answers. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- support —DerHexer (Talk) 22:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Strong support An outstanding Wikipedian. Move for acclamation invoking snow. JGHowes talk - 23:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very straight forward, hard working... nothing of note to gripe about. Good choice! bigjake (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Kind, caring, and trustworthy. Hopefully he'll become an admin, and then this'll be your third project as a sysop , correct? Good luck! —Sunday Scribe 23:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Yes! Asenine 23:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Like WBOSITG said, all I can say is, Wow! LittleMountain5 review! 23:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wow! iMatthew (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- A fantastic, exemplary contributor. Skomorokh 23:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Several positive experiences with this user at Commons where the user is an administrator.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 23:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support I've had positive experiences with this user. Seems willing to learn fine points when required. Considerate. Helpful. No issues from my point of view. Protonk (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Why do we even have to go through RfA for this candidate? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I cannot think of anyone who "deserves" the tools more. Ral315 (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support I have interacted this user during the various featured processes I went through and as far as I can remember, it was only positive, without having any problems with any of his edits/comments. I also find it funny/notable to have edit conflicts over a 2-second edit in the support section. Nergaal (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support You managed to get FAs on Scientology articles? And you work at OTRS!? My cluemeter just broke. Paragon12321 00:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support I don't often post here, but I heard Cirt was in nomination, and decided to throw my unconditional support his way. Bastique demandez 00:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Cirt is a good content producer and a nice guy. Zagalejo^^^ 00:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Wha? He's not an admin? Someone get a WP:TROUT for the people at RfA. Excellent work in Featured content, very civil. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 01:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Strong support Most certainly. In every way, epitomizes what people have to be to pass the horrible process that is the modern RfA. miquonranger03 (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Strong support All of my interactions with Cirt lead me to believe he will make an excellent admin. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Nothing wrong with this user, give him the mop. Macy 01:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I trust Cirt. Giggy (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Dinner Support - I haven't done a dinner support yet so here goes: I had General Tso's chicken and rice with an eggroll. --Coffee // talk // ark // 02:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Wow isn't the one word I was thinking of... Busy might be more apt. But I'd be hard pressed to find anything Cirt has accomplished that was not done properly and thoroughly. A good editor who will make a fine admin. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hello, I am here for the meeting of Necrophiliacs for McCain & Palin...oh, wrong queue. Support (the others said it best...and first). Ecoleetage (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support can't place where I've seen Cirt around since our editing spheres don't appear to intersect. When I saw this RFA I thought, "Cirt isn't an admin??" so, no doubts here. TravellingCari 02:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support. I often see this editor doing good work. I think he'd make a helpful and diligent admin. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -
"Cirt" is such a familiar-sounding name
It comes from the whole prima facie fame
But fortunately today I have no doubts
That this user knows what it's all about
CL — 03:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC) - Strong support. An outstanding editor. The amount of dedication and work Cirt had made here on Wikipedia is by far the most impressive I've ever seen. DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 03:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Looks outstanding! GlassCobra 03:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Cirt should've been an admin months ago. Cirt is very familiar with Wikipedia, its policies, and editing. He is always a hardworking Wikipedian. I like the stuff he has done to various portals. He is always helpful and willing to help out. I think he deserves to be an admin. --Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 03:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Never had any problems with him. Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support I saw this when it was 10-0... and while my initial impression was to support, I decided not to take a short cut, but to investigate further... I saw it when it was 35-0 and still thought, wow, I should support, but let me look closer... at 50-0, I still couldn't bring myself to support without reviewing Cirt myself. Having looked him over, I am happy to pile-on-support.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Of course OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Total no-brainer support obviously is acting in the best interest of the project. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, much overdue. I am confident that you will integrate the massive experience you have on the other projects into your use of the tools here, and, because of that, there can be no reservations in the wholeheartedness of my support. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Strong support - needs no introduction. Super nom, super editor. This is a total no-brainer - Alison ❤ 06:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - I have seen Cirt all over Wikipedia, and I think that he has the trust of many editors.--Danaman5 (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Well known, good trustworthy editor. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 06:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- trust Durova Dlohcierekim 07:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- user:Everyme 07:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - per excellent responses, especially Q#5. --Fatal!ty (T☠LK) 07:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support I thought you already were. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support — per the obvious. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 08:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support per strong confidence candidate will continue to contribute as before getting the mop. Candidate has been a major force in portal promotion and frequently risks the peril of editing in controversial areas. BusterD (talk) 09:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Looks to be a good user Monster Under Your Bed (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 11:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support As per track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support, thought he already was one. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support. →Christian.И 12:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - this is the first time I contribute to an Rfa. I consider Cirt a very worthy candidate. Also, I have long thought that he already was an Admin. Manxruler (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Of course! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Strong support per nom and comparable administrative work (Wikinews, etc.). Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support- Sure thing! Overdue, though. :) Cheers mate! Λuα (Operibus anteire) 14:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support per the above. Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - I've reviewed several of Cirt's FA nominations, and even though on several occasions I began by opposing the promotion, Cirt always worked very politely and very diligently to improve the articles. He has a good work ethic, a congenial manner, and a good grasp of policy. Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support excellent editor, shows dedication to the encyclopedia. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 15:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support good user who is highly qualified for the job of administrator.Biophys (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Cirt has definitely had a rocky road, and I've seen him rub up some people the wrong way, but this is mostly because of his enthusiasm and dedication. I have had a fair amount of interaction with him and am happy to give full support. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support I've known Cirt ever since he came out of nowhere to nominate an article I had on watch, and he's always been an enthusiastic editor and a lot of fun to work with. I would have gladly nominated him had he asked, so I definitely support. -- Scorpion0422 17:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great editor, any interactions that I remember have always been positive, should make a fine admin. Davewild (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Way overdue --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Seems to easily pass criteria as far as I can see. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - I've known Cirt for a good while and know how great a user he is. He'll do nothing but good as an admin. Gran2 19:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Sorry I have no diffs but great name recognition—in other words all good associations, some as I recall, in Portal:Contents/Portals. Others here have said this better. Good luck. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- WP:100 Support for this editor. Frank | talk 19:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Dalmations. Rudget 19:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - wow. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support. An obvious candidate for the mop. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support with a sense that this person will continue to do well..Modernist (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Why not?--OsamaK 21:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support I trust him. Sure, he's got a couple blocks. You don't have to be a virginal saint to be a good admin. rootology (C)(T) 21:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support per answer to question 3. Blocks aren't punishment then, and shouldn't be punishment now, over a year later, either. And also, because I thought that you were already an admin Keeper ǀ 76 21:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Cirt has given every indication, and has a proven track record showing that he will use the tools responsibly and effectively. So, in fact, make that strong support! user:j (aka justen) 22:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, looks good to me. As for your answer to my question, while you shouldn't be declining the unblock you can certainly grant it. Do consider giving {{2nd chance}}'s when appropriate. This particular vandal went on to become a very constructive contributor. –xeno (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- support Having now had time to look at the old accounts in detail I am inclined to support. This is also based on Cirt's work on the other Wikiprojects where he seems to be good. 3RR violations that are over a year old are not sufficient reason to oppose. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support. I trust this user.--ragesoss (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose while the contributions and logs from Cirt's previous accounts, which I remember and consider pertinent, remain invisible in this discussion. Basic transparency is important in RfAs. I will support if the secrecy is reconsidered and replaced with candidness. — Athaenara ✉ 03:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
(Addendum: I will appreciate it if any objections to my view are lodged here or on the RfA talk page, not on my user talk page. In fact, if such objections are posted on my user talk page, I will probably forward them here or to the RfA talk page and reply there.) — Athaenara ✉ 03:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)- Due to the nature of the topics Cirt writes about, personal privacy is a top concern for him--more so than for most editors. When Cirt was a new editor he was not quite as careful about that as he needed to be, and someone he collaborated with onsite was harassed at the workplace and could have lost her livelihood. Cirt and I discussed this carefully before nomination: we would gladly provide the usernames privately for review, or provide summaries of the block logs minus account information. Due to recent events (Poetlister etc.) there are concerns that possibly not everyone who has ops to read deleted user space is entirely trustworthy. I very much respect your opinion and hope this is enough to satisfy your concerns. DurovaCharge! 04:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Summaries, as you suggested, would be a significant improvement for now. — Athaenara ✉ 04:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- My thanks to Cirt for posting on WT:RfA/Cirt#Note. As I don't wish to move abruptly to support now, only later to find I want to reverse myself again, I will give this more thought (this RfA opened barely ten hours ago, so there's plenty of time). — Athaenara ✉ 04:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Durova - would it possible to elaborate on how many times he was blocked and when? Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 04:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Cirt's posting summaries to the talk page. DurovaCharge! 04:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Many thanks, I doubt it's going to change my opinion, but it would be helpful for others. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 04:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Cirt's posting summaries to the talk page. DurovaCharge! 04:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Due to the nature of the topics Cirt writes about, personal privacy is a top concern for him--more so than for most editors. When Cirt was a new editor he was not quite as careful about that as he needed to be, and someone he collaborated with onsite was harassed at the workplace and could have lost her livelihood. Cirt and I discussed this carefully before nomination: we would gladly provide the usernames privately for review, or provide summaries of the block logs minus account information. Due to recent events (Poetlister etc.) there are concerns that possibly not everyone who has ops to read deleted user space is entirely trustworthy. I very much respect your opinion and hope this is enough to satisfy your concerns. DurovaCharge! 04:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose for previous accounts with numerous 3RR violations, 'and failing to disclose during RFA more details about the number of past accounts, the number of blocks, and additional username changes. 2007 24hrs on 3RR-; 72 for 3RR,; 48 for 3RR; 3 hours for 3RR, 2006 24 hrs for 3RR; 24 hr for 3RR; 8 hrs for 3RR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to immediately badger you, but those blocks were over a year ago. Surely one can change in that time? Hasn't Cirt proven that he is no longer an edit warrior, much the opposite? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Cirt could have disclosed these but did not. Not a good sign. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, that was edit conflicted and you added more - look at question 3 and at Durova's nom. Both tell about these blocks. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- There were not only 3RR violations, but those that know the previous accounts would attest to other concerns. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Another concern are the multiple requests to delete his/her current user pages (and all talk and user pages of previous accounts), the latest as earlier as Feb 2008. The first one could have been understood for privacy reasons, but the others simply obfuscate transparency. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Basically a prolific editor, that can continue helping the project without the tools as he has done so far. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, that was edit conflicted and you added more - look at question 3 and at Durova's nom. Both tell about these blocks. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Cirt could have disclosed these but did not. Not a good sign. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- You rightly bolded your main points in the oppose, otherwise they might simply appear too weak, no? user:Everyme 01:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to immediately badger you, but those blocks were over a year ago. Surely one can change in that time? Hasn't Cirt proven that he is no longer an edit warrior, much the opposite? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but what is this nonsense about deleting comments? This editor wants to be an admin but is in such a sensitive position that certain comments about him must be immediately deleted due to unspecified "security concerns"? WTF? Durova's reply to jossi is positively Orwellian. Apparently, Jossi said something that was bad, Durova is demanding that Jossi delete all record of it having been said, and Jossi seems to be unaware of what the secruity concern is at all. What is going on here? I oppose Cirt's RFA in order to provide him with his unspecifiable security needs which are so dire as to over-rule normal Wikipedia transparency. This is nonsense we don't need. — goethean ॐ 21:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that Jossi also changed his name for security reasons and also had his talkpage deleted for security reasons. The need for discretion in this matter has been described in the nomination. Unless the policy here is to disclose the RL names of admin candidates I don't see this as a sensible reason to oppose. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- FYI, my talk or user pages were not deleted. Sorry. And the issue is not about RL names, BTW. All Cirt's previous and current accounts and names (4 if I am not mistaken), were nicknames ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I may be mistaken, but the log seems to indicate that your talk page was deleted on March 3, 2007, and that there are 3,044 deleted edits. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong. The issue with Cirt's previous accounts isn't that the account names included his real name, but that he made edits with those accounts which divulged his identity. Unless Jossi and Goethean are seeking to out the real name of the user I don't understand their focussing on this issue. We have a full record of the user's past year, and we know of his blocks prior to that. That is sufficient for us to judge his qualification for admin. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) (Check the deletion log and you will see - pls take to my talk if you want to discuss further, my name change was on 2005 if I am not mistaken). No one is trying to "out" Cirt. My opposition is based on what I know about this user, so let it stand. As this RFA will surely WP:SNOW and pass with flying colors, at least let it be a reminder to Cirt for times past that will hopefully not come back while in an adminship role (god forbid). Good luck with the tools. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Unless Jossi and Goethean are seeking to out the real name of the user I don't understand their focussing on this issue.
- I regard that comment as an irresponsible smear. However, this being Wikipedia, I have no intention of trying to have it deleted from the record. — goethean ॐ 22:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I do trust you take this position with the highest of motives. My response to Athenara explains most of this. When two editors came to me concerned for their livelihoods, of course I treated that with the utmost seriousness and still do. There are times (occasionally) where extra care is reasonable, and this is one of them. With respect, DurovaCharge! 22:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) (Check the deletion log and you will see - pls take to my talk if you want to discuss further, my name change was on 2005 if I am not mistaken). No one is trying to "out" Cirt. My opposition is based on what I know about this user, so let it stand. As this RFA will surely WP:SNOW and pass with flying colors, at least let it be a reminder to Cirt for times past that will hopefully not come back while in an adminship role (god forbid). Good luck with the tools. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I may be mistaken, but the log seems to indicate that your talk page was deleted on March 3, 2007, and that there are 3,044 deleted edits. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong. The issue with Cirt's previous accounts isn't that the account names included his real name, but that he made edits with those accounts which divulged his identity. Unless Jossi and Goethean are seeking to out the real name of the user I don't understand their focussing on this issue. We have a full record of the user's past year, and we know of his blocks prior to that. That is sufficient for us to judge his qualification for admin. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- FYI, my talk or user pages were not deleted. Sorry. And the issue is not about RL names, BTW. All Cirt's previous and current accounts and names (4 if I am not mistaken), were nicknames ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that Jossi also changed his name for security reasons and also had his talkpage deleted for security reasons. The need for discretion in this matter has been described in the nomination. Unless the policy here is to disclose the RL names of admin candidates I don't see this as a sensible reason to oppose. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. I came here to support, but from what I see, you have a history of being blocked for 3rr. This is not something I like to see, and would have been willing to overlook it if it had been disclosed. Synergy 23:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please see the talk page of this RFA: Cirt did self-disclose the 3RR. Also, I disclosed it in the nomination and he disclosed it in the answer to question 3. Best, DurovaCharge! 23:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- How stupid of me. I had seen the mention of the blocks, but not how many. I did in fact fail to check the talk page. I'll need some more time to consider it, as the history and the nature of the blocks is what are of real concern for me (the failure to mention the amount in the nomination was was what brought me to this section). Synergy 23:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- His blocks are all over a year ago. Does being blocked once scrub someone forever? If not, for how long? rootology (C)(T) 23:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Being blocked once, not. Being blocked seven times, maybe. Now, given that we cannot scrutinize his past due to privacy issues, users participating in this RFA may not be privy to the behavior leading to these blocks and other related issues. Granted, Cirt has done admirable work since these days, and can continue doing so with or without the tools. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW, I am well aware of Cirt's previous identities and I have mentioned the connections on a number of pages here including some very public ones in the past. This is the second time Cirt has whitewashed a questionable past with a name change and I do not think that substantive "privacy concerns" have been raised that would warrant obscuring Cirt's past here. Note that she continues to edit the same material she always has and I can point at instances where she seamlessly continued editing the same articles in the same fashion as previously. I am willing to WP:AGF that Cirt has learned her lesson and can keep herself in check to an extent but I have evidence to the contrary that I will present if my concern vis-a-vis misuse of admin tools is not addressed. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Being blocked once, not. Being blocked seven times, maybe. Now, given that we cannot scrutinize his past due to privacy issues, users participating in this RFA may not be privy to the behavior leading to these blocks and other related issues. Granted, Cirt has done admirable work since these days, and can continue doing so with or without the tools. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please see the talk page of this RFA: Cirt did self-disclose the 3RR. Also, I disclosed it in the nomination and he disclosed it in the answer to question 3. Best, DurovaCharge! 23:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose While Cirt has been a prolific editor over the last year,I think that there is a serious concern regarding what is happening here. First, two people who are already admins are voting against adminship for Cirt. They raise some serious questions. Cirt has been blocked 7 times in the past and did not completely disclose this at first. From what I can tell here, Cirt requested to have a significant portion of their history on Wikipedia deleted citing privacy? I don't get it. The way this is structured we are being asked to take that at face value. I don't know but it just strikes me as a white wash. While I respect everyone's right to anonymity on Wikipedia, but unless it can be proven that this is not being done to hide a history of inappropriate/POV edit history I have to vote no. I also think that people should re-consider their vote until they get to see Cirt's answer to optional question 15 above.Ebay3 (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- A disclosure was made in the opening nomination. The only reason it was not quite as complete as you wish was because of a serious personal security concern. Per dialog with Athenara, Cirt provided a full list of the blocks and his previous account is being disclosed via e-mail to trusted editors who request it (he had one prior account, which was renamed partway through its use). He is afk right now and he will answer question 15 as soon as he is able. I hope that's sufficient to address your concerns. DurovaCharge! 01:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Neutral
Neutral thinking this one over too.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC) [switched to Support]
- Neutral : Earnestly wanted to support for the merits of the candidate but I am too embarrassed to pile on support when the result is so crystal clear :) . But my sincere best wishes -- Tinu Cherian - 10:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral - well qualified, but the answer to question 8 gives me pause. To present that the current system through the Arbitration Committee works shows a large amount of ignorance towards how wikipedia actually works --T-rex 13:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you T-rex for saying you feel I am well qualified. I was not explicit enough in my answer to question 8. The Arbitration Committee isn't perfect, and it is not the best possible system we could ever have on this project to deal with times when administrators misuse their tools and lose the trust of the community, but it is the best process that we have out of current options. Recent events have shown that the recall process can be fraught with undue drama and tension, and lead to the Arbitration Committee as an end result. Until there is a more clearly defined process that has the consensus of the community I feel that a User RFC followed by if necessary a formal review by the Arbitration Committee is the best option in cases where there is a question if an administrator has misused their tools. Cirt (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)