Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Admiral Norton

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

Admiral Norton

Nomination

Final: (81/2/0); closed by User:Kingturtle at 16:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC).

Admiral Norton (talk · contribs) – I would like to submit for your considerations Admiral Norton. Admiral Norton has edited since August 2007 and is active in Croatia-related articles and translation. I had the pleasure of coaching him (which can be viewed here, and saw that he is fully knowledgeable of the tasks admins do. I feel he can lend a different perspective in a time where we could benefit from more voices and more participation. Cheers, bibliomaniac15 03:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm honored by this RfA and I readily accept. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

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 am going to start out with basic maintenance work (WP:PROD, WP:CSD, WP:AN3, WP:XFD, repairing technical issues with articles and page moves etc.). When I get the hang of it, I'll dive into harder parts such as dispute resolution. As I know a lot about the Balkan region, I intend to mediate disputes that arise in the Balkans, Central and Eastern Europe (of course, that doesn't involve disputes such as the border between Croatia and Slovenia where an average editor can't expect me to control my conflict of interest). Croatia already has two administrators (User:Dijxtra and User:Joy), but one of them is inactive and the other one edits only sporadically and I believe it would be useful to have a full-time administrator available for sorting out technical problems on Croatian articles.

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

A: I believe that starting the Zagreb task force of WikiProject Croatia was my worthiest contribution to Wikipedia. I have started more than 70 articles (most of which are still stubs due to their matter being obscure to an average Wikipedia contributor) and heavily contributed to 9 DYKs and 1 ITN about Croatia so far. If asked to highlight a quality article I've contributed to, I'd put Zaprešić, a good article, and Jastrebarsko, an article I'm currently expanding to make it a good article. The first good articles I was trying to make were Milan Bandić, which failed GAN mainly due to NPOV issues, and Šalata, about my neighborhood, which I abandoned after a peer review since I couldn't deal with slight WP:OR and maintaining the use of good quality sources, which would drastically reduce the amount of readily available material about Šalata. My long term plans currently include bringing Zagreb back to good article status and bringing Zaprešić to featured article status.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Yes, of course; I don't think I would value the abilities of an administrator who has never been in a conflict. However, I tend to take edit conflicts easy, as Wikipedia is a hobby for me, not a job. If I get in a conflict, I strive to maintain a professional tone and assume good faith to the highest degree. Becoming an administrator brings higher responsibilities, so in the future I'll take even more precautions to avoid getting into conflicts and behave in a way to solve them as fast and as painlessly as possible.

Additional question from Spinach Monster

4. Can you show an example of a conflict that you learned from and ended well? Spinach Monster (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A: I'd like to point out the dispute I recently had about the article Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons). Although it started in a minor way (just checking an article's history and finding some edits I wasn't too thrilled about) and also played out in a minor way, I learned to remind myself to stop focusing on merely one source and disregarding the others. Although I've made the same mistake once more at a dispute about Eastern Europe—where I think I've been headed in the right direction, but pushed my opinion way too far, although it ended well with a compromise—I've from this point become even more careful about this. There is a saying in Croatia I know: "A person learns while he's alive." We can't become immune from errors, but we should do our best to minimize them to the furthest extent. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional question from Patton123

5. In your opinion, why do the notability guidelines exist?

A: One can argue that an encyclopedia does not and should not write about everything conceivable on this planet and then try to sell one book in two truckloads. This can be objected to on the grounds that Wikipedia, as an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, does not have the need to limit its content to the extent of one book shelf. However, the true reason is the fact that, the less notable a subject is, the less reliable sources there are about him/her/it. This leads to the point where the subject is so non-notable that the best we can make out of his/her/its article is just a stub. Below that point, our only viable sources of information are either unreliable or revealing private personal information and the subject's article ceases to be encyclopedic and turns into a birth record or a cadastre entry. That's hardly something that anyone wants to read and even less of something that belongs to an encylopedia. Because of that, the notability guidelines were implemented. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well that's an oer complex answer. They exist so articles that can never be reliably sourced can be deleted ;-).--Patton^t/c 22:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I tried to say (I got this text-spamming habit from high school essays). Admiral Norton ^(talk) 14:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional question from Spinach Monster

6 To address the anon's question below: would you be willing to abstain from admin decisions regarding any Balkans related article or could you show an example of how you've kept your cool in regards to Balkans related articles in the past? Spinach Monster (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A A recent example of a Balkan dispute I've participated to is the dispute about naming the city of Split, accessible at Talk:Split (city)#Requested move. Although I don't like the way the move turned out, I retracted from the discussion following counter-arguments I could not respond to without turning the discussion into a COI farce. Unfortunately, the dispute continued in my absence, due to users with a greater COI becoming involved. Of course, although I intend to continue participating as a normal user in these discussions, I do not intend to use my admin powers and status in Croatia-related disussions, or any other discussions where I might have a conflict of interest. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 14:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Q(s) from flaminglawyer

7. Explain your alignment on (some of) the issues listed at meta:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies.

R. I'll explain my stance only on the first few: I'm a moderate eventualist, moderate anti-statusquoist and an article rater, because I believe that 90% of edits that aren't vandalism are either useful, or can be made useful by copyediting, etc. However, GA- and FA-class articles should be treated more carefully and edits that don't provide references should be treated with much more scrutiny to avoid the quality degradation. As for communityism and encyclopedism, I adhere more to the second view, as co-operation is necessary when building a good encyclopedia and seclusion can lead to WP:OWN and similar problems. As for communalism and authorism, I lean toward communalism, but I think that, although this is a GFDL encyclopedia, every author should be credited for his work, although a major author of an article shouldn't have any precedence over people who have made few edits to that article. Regarding the next choice, I'm divided between rehabilism and politicism, but I definitely reject "sysopism" (what an irony as I'm trying to become a sysop myself), because I believe that every user can be persuaded to do something constructive and that (almost) every dispute can be solved, if time and effort are invested. As I see there are some more choices and I don't want this answer to overshadow the rest of the page, I'll stop here. If you need my opinion on any other choice, please note here. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 14:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

7a. On communityism v. encyclopedism, you said you were the second (encyclopedism), but in your (brief) explanation you described the characteristics of communityism. Can you elaborate upon this?

A. Sorry, I really meant communityism, but I accidentally typed "the second view". Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Optional Q(s) from Regent Spark

8a Could you please explain what a neologism is and why it is generally considered undesirable to have articles on neologisms?

A. Per WP:NEOLOGISM, a neologism is a relatively new word that has or has not caught general use, but whose existence can't be verified due to a lack of secondary sources. Therefore, neologisms are not acceptable for Wikipedia due to our WP:RS policy.

I was hoping you could explain why articles on neologisms are best avoided (what you think/theorize the philosophy behind the guideline might be). (To the best of my knowledge, there is no policy restriction against articles on neologisms.) Please treat this as a completely optional follow-up question!--Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 23:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no specific policy restriction against articles on neologisms because neologisms are by definition not verifiable through reliable sources and therefore one can't write an acceptable article about them, nor use them as their use constitutes original research, which is necessary to describe the term on Wikipedia. IMO, the MOS guideline is here just to remind us about that. If an article doesn't abide by that guideline it will probably be deleted for other reasons sooner or later if the term doesn't become notable in the meantime. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

8b Could you please comment on what special care should be taken when creating articles that use terms translated from foreign languages? (Thanks!)

A. I'm not sure if I provided the answer you expected as I typically don't spend much time choosing titles for a translated article on WP:PNT or WP:TRANSLATION, but I believe that caution should be taken when choosing one out of several terms which are often used in the article one is translating into for one specific term in the source language. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 16:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

9a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

A: I would make sure the creator has been notified of the CSD tag and I'll delete it per A7 if a {{hangon}} or an indication of notability doesn't appear in the next 30–45 minutes at most (maybe more if the tag wasn't added by a new page patroller). There is little harm done if the contents get deleted as they probably weren't too hard to remember anyway and I would userfy the article if the author requested undeletion. Note that a G11 tag isn't appropriate in this situation and that I would change it to A7 if I encounter it in such a situation.

9b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template; if so, what say you?

A: Most probably not. An {{underconstruction}} template definitely shows that the author isn't a total newbie with intents to market his new web domain, but someone who has at least some insight into the quirks of Wikipedia. However, this is applicable to both cases you presented and as such it wouldn't change my decision in this case only. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

Comment This candidate is apparently strong supporter of the Croatian nationalistic line. Giving him/her the administrator's privileges will be very bad service to Wikipedia.--141.156.253.196 (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Uhm...being a Croatian nationalist doesn't really affect his/her administration skills. In fact, it doesn't really matter what his stance on any matter is... Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 21:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

YOu obviously haven't heard of the eastern european and balkan disputes. COuntless arbcom cases, blocks totalling thousands of hours, multiple bannings and lots of edit warring. It would indeed be very bad form to promote a balkan nationalist pov pusher to adminship, but not a balkan nationalist.--Patton^t/c 23:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly, I do lack expertise, or for that fact, any knowledge, in that area, so pardon my comment. However, this specific editor seems to be respectable enough, so my original point stands. :) Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 01:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The user's politic party doesn't matter on Wikipedia, honestly --Mojska (m) 13:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know how to say this, so I'll be blunt. Stop the whole crat nom business please. If you're going to write that you trust my nom, at least mention it from the perspective of an admin coach who's come to understand their coachee. My physical ability to hand someone a mop does not equal awesome powers of admin potential comprehension. bibliomaniac15 06:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Could not agree more. User:Archtransit was nominated by User:WJBScribe who had 'crat rights at the time. Need I say more....? Pedro :  Chat  22:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Quite true; I suspect that !votes based solely on the fact that the nom is a 'crat will be discounted. Even so, I don't think it hurts to mention that fact as part of a more in-depth rationale. Bureaucrats are expected to have excellent judgement, so it seems reasonable for people to think that you'd know what makes a good admin. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Votes are discounted? I'll believe that when I see a bureaucrat actually note that he probably won't count a vote and not get beaten with a stick for it. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Beautifully said, biblo. I understand the constant misperception that ArbCom, crats and others are "in power", because no one with a business degree thinks it's possible that the highest-traffic non-portal internet site in the world got that way by self-assembly, with no real power structure, but that's how it is. People keep looking behind doors trying to find out who's pulling the strings, and there aren't any strings, just a large, enthusiastic, knowledgeable bunch of middle-managers (or middle class, if you like). - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. My Very First BTM Support!. Great contributor, no reason not to give him the mop. Jonathan321 (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

   BTM? Beat The Mominator? Useight (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

   Yep. Juliancolton (talk) 06:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

   I suppose I really am a maternal figure around here... bibliomaniac15 21:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

   I'm supporting largely on the basis that when you said in your nomination statement "we could benefit from more voices", you meant "we could benefit from a greater variety of voices". ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Absolutely. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. bibliomaniac15 18:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Support - Hell Yeah!. Simon^KSK 18:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Majorly talk 18:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Support – has a long history which reveals the qualities and reflects the dedication needed of an administrator. Caulde 18:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Support No problems.--Giants27 ^T/C 19:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Support. Took a sizeable random sample of his XFD and CSD contributions. The only one I had any minor qualms with was that this (admin only, sorry) should have been tagged as an attack page, rather than pure vandalism, but I'm not one to nitpick over excruciating minutiae. Useight (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

   You might want to fix that to refer to the actual diff. bibliomaniac15 19:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

   Whoops, linked the wrong page. It's here. Useight (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

9. Support Yes. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Strong support Wizardman 19:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Support - Seems good, not found any major issues so far. — neuro^(talk) 19:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Does good work both in mainspace and behind the scenes, and has a head on his shoulders. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Can't find any legitimate issues. User is unlikely to break the Wiki or delete the mainpage. Shows good faith and seems open to criticism, that all works for me. Trusilver 20:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Will do well with the tools. -download | sign! 20:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
15. Support --Ex13 (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
16. Support. No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Wide range of good work, don't see any red flags. FlyingToaster 21:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
18. Synergy 21:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
19. Support I trust Bilbiomaniac's judgement. Looks fine. Sam ^Blab 22:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
20. Support --Roberta F. (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
21. It took you this long to run why :) I kept anticipating this RfA for ages. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
22. Support. I see no reason to oppose, and certain advantages to having an administrator with an interest in Balkan topics. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
23. Support, Wikipedia can always use more competent admins who focus on the often difficult area of articles relating to the Balkans, and as such I feel Admiral Norton can be a great asset. No evidence he will abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC).
24. Support, I've seen AN and his work in several areas, and those experiences have always been positive. Spencer^T♦C 00:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
25. Support fr33kman -s- 00:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
26. Support — Jake Wartenberg 02:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
27. Support Net positive. LittleMountain5 ^review! 02:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
28. Support - Good user, trusted. Xclamation point 03:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
29. Support - It's a good sign when your nom is a bureaucrat. Seriously, though, I've seen your work in various places, and as far as I can tell, you seem to be a nearly perfect candidate. Juliancolton (talk) 06:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
30. If bibliomaniac15 (who is a Bureaucrat that can actually upgrade other user accounts to admin status) supports him, he must be a very good editor :) –BuickCenturyDriver 09:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

    I trust your support will be discounted as without value, as it appears to be based on the nominator not the candidate. Pedro :  Chat  22:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

    Methinks the smiley denotes sarcasm, since he made the comment after I made mine. bibliomaniac15 04:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

31. Support - this editor appears to be genuinely interested in admin work and seems to have a solid reputation. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
32. Support --Igor Windsor (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Maybe he doesn't need the tools, but he won't delete the main page if we give them to him. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Seems to be a sensible and well balanced editor. If this passes though, needs to be careful about using the mop around the Balkan area articles to avoid accusations of favouritism. --GedUK  15:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
35. Support Answered my questions to my satisfaction. I feel he won't abuse the tools. Spinach Monster (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
36. Support: As per conflict resolutions he has been involved in. There is also no apparent reason why Admiral Norton would misuse or abuse the mop, and a lack of subjectively decided need is ridiculous (as no one NEEDS the mop) --Carbon Rodney 15:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
37. Support. Erik9 (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
38. Support User has been around since Aug 2007 and while the user has heavily edited Croatia which is a high dispute area.I Assume Good Faith that the user will not user his tools in any dispute involving Croatia and will use uninvolved admins Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
39. Support, but recommend steering well clear of Eastern European/Balkans topics with the admin buttons. Stifle (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Solid contributor and I trust biobliomatic's judgment. I see no reason to oppose and opposes based on WP:NONEED do not convince me. SoWhy 17:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
41. Support I work in Croatia-related articles a fair bit and thus have seen the Admiral around. I've got no doubts that he'll make a fine admin. Regarding the concerns expressed at the top, I'll also add that I've never noticed a strong 'Croatian nationalist' or any other POV in the candidate. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
42. Support Have fun! :)Synchronism (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
43. Support -- Qualified candidate, will benefit from tools.--₮RUCӨ 19:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
44. Support Looks good to me. — Aitias // discussion 19:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
45. Support Seems to be a qualified candidate. - Fastily (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
46. Support Looks good (i.e. - doesn't look bad!). Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
47. Support - iMatthew // talk // 21:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
48. Support Clearly should be able to use the tools, works at contentious areas without problems, dedicated and clueful. Good luck. Pedro :  Chat  22:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
49. Support Will be even more helpful with the bit. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
50. Support Looks fine to me. -- Avi (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
51. Support very good contributor. I don't think he'll abuse the admin tools. Best, Versus22 _talk 23:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
52. Support. Solid record of contributing. I always like to see an admin candidate who's written a lot of articles, and has shown an understanding of dealing with conflict. Cool3 (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
53. Support No serious concerns, has earned community trust, appears well qualified. Townlake (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
54. Support Woooooooooooooooh! LetsdrinkTea 01:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
55. Support Good editor. America69 (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
56. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate is a good article contributor who makes good arguments and has never been blocked. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
57. Support, fully qualified candidate, no issues. The first opposer's rationale is without merit and the second appears to have been superseded by the candidate's answer to Q6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
58. Support per the answers to the questions. They show that this user has good foundations in the policies required for administrator here and they definitely show that this editor knows the policies here. Cheers, Razorflame 05:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
59. Support Nothing concerning discovered, per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 06:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
60. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
61. Support with a note that, in my opinion, your English is indistinguishable from that of a native speaker. Keepscases (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
62. Support. Nothing wrong with holding strong position on some topics as long as they don't interfere with admin work. Good work so far so I believe admin tools can only benefit. Cheers! --Tone 21:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
63. Support. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
64. Support I haven't run across the Admiral before, but the reasonable answers to questions show little reason for worry here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
65. Support - Everything looks good. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
66. Support. Candidate will be a benefit with the tools. DiverseMentality 21:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
67. support I have slight concerns about how he might use the tools in regard to Croatia articles and related articles. However, as long as he is careful about not using the tools when he is involved or has a strong POV there shouldn't be any issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
68. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
69. Support - meets my standards. I've run across this user, and while very opinionated, he(?) can be logical. Bearian (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
70. Support - not sure he understands the dangers of neologisms (and, Semi-highway worries me!) but everything else that I see shows a reasonable and dedicated editor so that doesn't worry me a whole lot and I'm sure he'll be a fine admin. (Thank you for answering my questions.) --Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 15:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
71. Support - impressive record and very satisfactory answers to questions. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
72. Support As always, I read and considered the non-supporting voters, but the supporters are persuasive. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
73. Support Húsönd 21:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
74. Support I've encountered Admiral Norton a few times now on a particular, recurring, somewhat controversial issue. He remained civil with those with whom he disagreed. I also suggest to refrain from using the admin buttons on Balkans-related articles. Parsecboy (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
75. Excellent editor; I too, thought he was already an admin. Acalamari 02:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
76. Support -excellent, neutral editor with required qualities.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
77. Support: Clearly aware that he has a conflict of interest in certain areas and I trust that he will refrain from exercising administrator power in those areas. I liked the thoughtful answers to the questions and recognise a very intelligent, dedicated contributor. I also find the translation abilities a huuuge plus. Maedin\^talk 09:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
78. Support (moved from neutral) After sending more time in looking into his contribution, I'm convinced that he is a sensible editor and would be a good admin far from abusing the admin tool.--Caspian blue 16:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
79. Sure.  GARDEN  22:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
80. Support All adds up for me. — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 10:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
81. Support yep. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Dispute resolution doesn't require tools. This seems to be the primary "goal" area of interest, so tools wont be needed for this user at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

   Apart from "I am going to start out with basic maintenance work (WP:PROD, WP:CSD, WP:AN3, WP:XFD, repairing technical issues with articles and page moves etc.)" Did you ignore that part? Majorly talk 18:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

   Off topic discussion moved to talk page. iMatthew // talk // 22:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

   Majorly, that seems to be a temporary thing at best, and doesn't necessarily require the tools. You can work on Prodding, CSDs, etc, without tools. I don't really see the need to let him test things out for a few months before moving onto dispute resolution. The whole basis seems to be unnecessary. This seems to be another hobby admin request and not something serious. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

   As was, rightly, pointed out to me WP:NONEED is a poor argument and one to avoid in RfAs. Regards fr33kman -s- 00:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

   People may use whatever arguments they please. Live with it. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

   That's a little unfair. Instead, the above user is mistaken. I am not arguing "no need". I am arguing that they have not provided a legitimate reason for why they need it, thus there is no serious application to consider. Without a reason for the tools, the application can be seen as "I want it because I want to be an admin", which suggests that they see it as a status symbol. I will oppose anyone I feel will treat it as a status symbol, as those are the types most likely to abuse the authority of adminship. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

   We have been over this so many times that I lost count somewhere in the triple digits. As we learned from Kurt Weber, everyone is entitled to their opinion. If someone wants to oppose because the candidate drinks coffee instead of tea, and coffee drinkers are just so damned untrustworthy, then it is their right to oppose on those grounds. Likewise, it is the 'crat's right to throw out arguments that they feel are irrelevant to the RfA. Some incarnation of this argument has occurred hundreds of times, and we have come to no new conclusions this time than we have in all the previous times. (Oh, and Ottava, I'm not suggesting your argument is as trivial as tea v/ coffee, I'm just making an example.) Trusilver 03:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

   Kurt insulted a number of candidates by calling them power-hungry, and asserted that he didn't need any evidence to make the claim. Doggedly insulting people is a CIVILITY violation, and if it happens again at RFA, I'll try to talk through the issues with whoever's doing it, and if that doesn't work, I'll pursue a topic ban from RFA. Ottava isn't asserting a right not to have to back up what he's saying; he reads what's being said and thinks about it. I don't always agree with Ottava, but RFA absolutely needs him and people like him. Bureaucratic or political approval processes of all kinds have a tendency to degenerate into a "gentleman's club" where no one will say anything critical over time, so anyone willing to say something critical, if they're willing to keep it relevant and back it up, is always welcome as far as I'm concerned. I practice what I preach; I'm more negative than the average voter at RFA, even though I'm a conflict-avoiding weenie IRL. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose Intelligent, solid contributor, but I don't think user has a need for the tools. Very strong interest in Croatia articles is concerning for COI, and can probably help Wikipedia better as a contributor rather than being an admin. Doesn't seem particularly interested in general admin work - little admin related work so far, and apparently never mediated or acted as a neutral party in a dispute, which is odd and concerning considering his stated desire to use the tools for that. The timings in this situation (user,contribs) makes me wonder how he would handle something similar as an admin. Looking through the edits, nothing bad sticks out, but I get a strong sense of ownership over Crotia related articles and facts (example [1]), which probably isn't best for an admin who ultimately wants to intervene in the kind of insane disputes that happen in these topics. I'd need to see FAR more admin related work, evidence of good dispute work, and indications of broader interests. Phil153 (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose A useful editor, but handing them admin tools could be disastrous. This user has shown that they are constructive, but a few edit summaries and lack of good faith when handling other users suggests that this user would become something of a Nazi with those tools in place. Not a good idea. Tin Whistle Man (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

   I think the Nazi reference may be a little over-the-top! --GedUK  10:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

   Please note that the above editor Tin Whistle Man has been blocked as a disruptive editor. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

   !vote indented and stricken. SoWhy 14:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Although I disagree with Admiral Norton about some minor things, such as his use of the word highway [2], I don't feel that is enough for me to oppose him. I admire most of Admiral Norton's contributions and his dedication to the project, but the few times I have interacted with him where we held different opinions have been a bit of a turnoff for me (see Talk:Semi-highway), so I am a little wary, especially since he wants to use admin tools in disputes about his editing interests. However, he stated above that he will keep his COI in check, but only in disputes about Croatia and Slovenia. It would be much more refreshing if Admiral Norton were to say he will always keep any possible COI in check and not primarily do dispute resolution in his area of interest. A good mediator does not have to be familiar with the subjects being mediated, it's often most preferable to have an uninterested mediator. I don't doubt that Admiral norton will use his admin tools properly, I'd just like to see more commitment to the admin tools and less focus on using admin status in dispute resolution. Synchronism (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously. Does his use of the word "highway" affect how well he'll press a few extra buttons? :) Juliancolton (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It seriously doesn't. I'm just pointing out my own COI.Synchronism (talk) 06:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've changed my vote to support after reading the answer to question 6.Synchronism (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral I totally agree with Phil153's concern because his edits in Croatia articles with the admin tools could be COI.--Caspian blue 20:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

After more research on his contribution, I change my mind.--Caspian blue 16:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.