Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:43, 14 June 2007

Magnus animum

Voice your opinion (54/7/2); Scheduled to end 16:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Magnus animum (talk · contribs) - I am glad to submit Magnus Animum (formerly "Steptrip") for your consideration, a user whom I've assisted through the admin coaching program, and whom I believe is ready to take further responsibilities within Misplaced Pages as an administrator. Magnus Animum was really, really hard to coach. I initially found many flaws in his preparedness and we had to go through all of them. After extensive and exhausting preparation, I am sure that he now possesses a good knowledge of the blocking, protection and deletion policies (among others), and is experienced enough to be trusted with the admin tools. Besides, Magnus Animum is very communicative and receptive to critique, he is always willing to improve and fix his mistakes with a smile. :-) Furthermore, by accepting this nomination, Magnus vows to list himself at Category:Administrators open to recall for at least three months shortly after promotion (if promoted). He shall submit himself to a recall if any three users in good standing ask him to be recalled during that period (naturally for valid reasons such as admin abuse/misuse of the tools). I ask my fellow Wikipedians to carefully analyze this user's capability and preparedness, and give him the trust and support he now certainly deserves. Húsönd 16:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination - I humbly co-nom Magnus animum. He joined Misplaced Pages back in September of 2006. Since then he has made over 7100 edits, with 2100 of them being on the mainspace. An active vandal fighter, who is involved in AFDs, he has contributed greatly to wikipedia. I first met Magnus animum back in Late April of 07, and asked him to be my friend. Ever since then he has helped me out, and many others, in numerous situations. I believe this user can be trusted with the tools, so without further ado, Magnus Animum!
--Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for a very well-written nomination. « ANIMUM » 21:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say that I am human, and as such, I am subject to making mistakes. Please remember this when judging my capability to become an administrator. Thank you, « ANIMUM » 21:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: Ah. I would largely partake in the following administrative fields:

1. Closing any XfDs except IfDs (I am not a very good photographer and copyright is rather confusing to me) and CSD clearing.
2. I am an active vandal fighter, and as such my largest area of participation will most likely be blocking vandals (who vandalised past their final warning, of course) at AIV
3. Even though I don't go there often, I would like to become more active at RFPP when/if I become a sysop or protecting pages on which an edit war is occurring in which I am uninvolved, in which case, I would make a request at RPP.
4. Editing protected pages such as MediaWiki pages when there is consensus on the corresponding talk page to do so.

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

A: My best contributions to Misplaced Pages are probably vandalism reversion because without it (and even with MartinBot) the credibility of this encyclopædia would be diminished. But that's only in the mainspace; I am regularly on #wikipedia-en-help and help users when the request is sensible, in the case when I can't do it, I ask a sysop who is on #wikipedia-en-help to take a look at it, or if it is blatant misuse of {{helpme}} (such as using it to ask that a user be blocked), I will remove the template and give him/her advice on what to do. I have also made some accomplishments in the Template namespace with {{Randomquote}} and {{Measurement converter}}, though the latter does not hold a candle to Mets501's {{dist}}.

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, Some of you may recall the JosephASpadaro incident, which I largely instigated. I sometimes get stressed when other editors negatively criticise my edits, and I've found that stepping away for a few days/hours or drinking herbal tea (it really works) calms my nerves and makes me able to come back and improve this project. My stress may escalate to greater proportions in the future, so I may have to take the above stress solution to the extreme (but nothing that would hurt me, of course :) ).

4. With respect to Andrew Jackson Middle School of which you created, do you feel it does or does not meet the requirements of WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11? Why or why not? -N 15:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

A: Unless I am missing something, I feel that it does not meet CSDG11. With due respect to A7, there are tons of articles on wikipedia about schools and educational institutions, so why should this one be singled out? (Note: That was a rhetorical question)

4.1. Indeed there are tons of articles on Misplaced Pages about schools and educational institutions. Most of them meet WP:CSD#A7 and have no encyclopedic content whatsoever. According to the first pillar of Misplaced Pages, they should not exist. How do we solve this problem by making it bigger? Húsönd 00:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You have one powerful point there. « ANIMUM » 00:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Humorous answer: I will solve the problem by making the article bigger. -N 00:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

5. Do Image:AJM logo.jpg and Image:Crackerjack2.jpg, which you uploaded, meet the Misplaced Pages:Non-free content policy? What can be done to remedy this? -N 15:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

A:Image:AJM_logo.jpg does because it is used as a corporate logo for identification. Image:Crackerjack2.jpg is one of the most prominent products of a corporation and is thus a !logo.

6. Can you point to an edit conflict in which you were involved where you were on the wrong side? If not, for my benefit, hypothesize one. How did/would you handle this conflict, and, if applicable, how would you handle it differently today? Jouster  (whisper) 00:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A: This question brings me back to the JosephASpadaro incident. What happened: Joseph was asking legit {{helpme}} questions which any experienced user would believe common sense. What I did incorrectly: I asked him to stop using {{helpme}}.What I would do now: Now I realise that he was genuinely asking questions, and not using {{helpme}} to waste the time of the helpers (for lack of a better phrase), and I would not have posted the instigating comment to his talk page.

7. Why do you intend to list yourself at Category:Administrators open to recall for three months? (In other words, why list, then why leave, and why three months?) --AnonEMouse 20:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A: I don't quite understand the parenthetic sentence, but I'll answer the question nonetheless. I am listing myself there because if I do any abusive (not questionable, which some XfD closings/blocks are and can be solved per some discussion) acts as an administrator, and three users speak up, I will voluntarily list myself for desysoppery at Meta.

AnonEMouse means: why would you only list yourself there for 3 months (i.e. why not permanently?) and more specifically, what's the significance of 3 months (vs. 1 month, 6 months, a year...)? --YFB ¿ 03:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Because in 3 months' time I will know how to use the tools and know the consequences of abuse, but permanently is good as well. :)

Optional question by AldeBaer

8. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite reads on Misplaced Pages are (may be articles, or even policy pages, whatever you like), ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.

General comments

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

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

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Magnus animum before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Beat the nom Support Long overdue for adminship. Honestly though he was one already a long time ago. Evilclown93_(talk) 14:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Support as nom.--Húsönd 14:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - as per nom :P ..--Cometstyles 14:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Support He's an active vandal fighter (I know that because he keeps reverting edits before me,keep up the good work.) He really deserves it, and I am confident he whould do a great job. Flubeca (t) 14:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Support he won me over with his edit summary when listing his rfa--"let's begin this". -N 15:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Support, looks good. -- Phoenix2 15:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Support good luck. I support per nom. Anonymous Dissident 15:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Support-Great editor. Eddie 15:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Support From my experiences with this user (at AIV, and such), I have no doubt that we can trust Magnus with the admin tools. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - have seen him around in discussions, and assumed he was already an admin. Walton 16:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. I have every confidence that Animum will make an excellent, dependable admin. Will (aka Wimt) 16:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Support-Great vandal fighter seen a lot at AIV.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 16:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
13. Support - As co-nom. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 17:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
14. Weak Support I think Animum has made some solid contributions to the project, but can get a little sloppy with AWB (as noted in Jouster's opposition note below). The WWII redirect fixes are largely superfluous, but there are worse contributions that can be made. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    Don't worry. I hardly ever use AWB so there's nothing to worry about. :) « ANIMUM » 17:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

15. Support I don't know about long overdue, but I believe this editor will make a good administrator. Carom 17:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
16. Strong support A great editor, I have often considered nominating Magnus animum for adminship. Good luck! The Sunshine Man 17:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
17. Support per Húsönd's outstanding coaching. Michaelas 18:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
18. Support With a few minor reservations, based on some of the things mentioned by your detractors. I think listing on the admin at risk of recall is a great idea and should probably be standard for all new admins. Best to start with some training wheels, eh? —Gaff 19:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
19. Support there are better reasons to support than to oppose. At least Magnus animum is trustworthy. —Anas 19:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    Thank you...I think. :) « ANIMUM » 19:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    You're welcome... I think. ;) —Anas 19:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

20. Support this is a solid editor. I thought that he already was an admin. I see no good reasons to oppose him.--James, La gloria è a dio 19:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
21. Support - Yeah, Husonds done a good job here. The thing that I like about Magnus is his ability to take advice. If someone has a concern, he listens and then acts to overcome the problem - certainly befitting of an administrator. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
22. Support I thought I already supported him? Oh well, he deserves to be supported 'twice' Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 20:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
23. Support Positive interactions with the user, and has listened to and agreed with concerns about fair use when it was explained to them. -M 20:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
24. Support this is essentially a pile on support, as I feel the candidate is admin worthy, because the two current opposes seem to be for personal reasons, and of little substance. BH (T|C) 21:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
25. Strong support, I've known Magnus for about half a year now and it's very interesting just how far the two of us have come. We have had our good days and out bad days, but Magnus has learned and improved from his (and others' for that matter) mistakes. Magnus has gone above and beyond the call of a Wikipedian by improving with every click of the "save page" button, and this is the true mark of a dedicated Wikipedian. *Cremepuff222* 22:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
26. Strong support. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 22:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    You have !voted, but what is your argument? *Cremepuff222* 22:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    This is a discussion, but users aren't obliged to write a full statement. A support&sign pretty much equals to "I subscribe this nomination, I think this user should become an admin, and I've got nothing else to add".--Húsönd 23:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

27. Support Have recently seen this user around recent changes, seems qualified to be an admin --♫Twinkler4♫ 22:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
28. Strong support An excellent user from what I have encountered in the past. I can even credit this user with being one of the few users to question my username. :) Not that that has anything to do with adminship, of course. :) Acalamari 23:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
29. Support - I haven't seen this user around very much, but everything looks good. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
30. Support. No problems, and answer to Q4 shows understanding of a couple of the more misunderstood speedy criteria. Should be fine with the tools. - Zeibura 23:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
31. Support ~ Wikihermit _(HermesBot) 01:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
32. Support. Misplaced Pages will be better if he has the mop. WODUP 01:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
33. Support No major concerns here. --Siva1979 06:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
34. Support - Husond's support is enough for me. A great candidate. - G1ggy /_Contribs 07:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
35. Support, no problems here. --Tone 11:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
36. Support good stuff. 15:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
37. Support Nothing to suggest editor will misuse tools, knows his strengths and weaknesses and isn't afraid to admit them. PGWG 16:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
38. Support. Contribs and answers look good to me, no reason not to trust this user with the tools. Arkyan • 17:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
39. Terence 17:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
40. Support Having read the oppose comments I come away with the feeling that this candidate is like all the rest -- imperfect. What I do not see is any suggestion that he will abuse the tools or harm the project. JodyB _talk 19:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
41. Support Great user who really deserves the mop. ♠Tom@sBat 20:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
42. Support I have seen this editor around the site and all of my encounters have been good. --wpktsfs 21:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
43. Support I think he'll work better with the admin mop... good luck. Majorly (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
44. Have had some occasions to call this user's maturity into question - I think it was something with Spawn Man a while back... but if Husond trusts him, I trust him. Riana ⁂ 23:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
45. Support - Give him a shot. I do encourage Magnus to take seriously critique that other users (and not just admins!) give him, and commend him for doing exactly that thus far. Philippe | Talk 00:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
46. Strong support Experienced member, often reverts vandalism and beats me to it. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 00:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
47. Support Oppose concerns do not seem to warrant opposition so I will support. Captain panda 01:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
48. Support. Well, why not? The 47 users who !voted before me seem to agree with my point of view. Sr13 03:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
49. Support – As EvilClown93 said, long overdue. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 06:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
50. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 08:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
51. Support - as regards the conflict noted in his response to the Questions: I have discussed the matter extensively with him, both during and since the incident. I believe that he fully understands what happened here as well as the root cause, and that he has learned from the experience and will act differently in a similar situation. I would also like to believe that he trusts my council and will consult with me (or his coach) if he needs help as he gains familiarity with the tools. --After Midnight 16:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
52. Support Has clearly been well-trained, and if was difficult it has also thereby been more thorough and more effective. Will be a great admin. Oppose votes on a single incident when he was a newby make no sense to me.--Anthony.bradbury 22:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
53. Support. The candidate is a dedicated Wikipedian with good knowledge of policy in the areas where he plans to use admin tools. The matters referred to by the oppose commenters relate primarily to isolated instances some time ago and I do not believe that they bear on the candidate's current readiness for adminship. I do, however, urge that if the candidacy is successful, you take on your new responsibilities cautiously and do not hesitate to consult with other admins before taking any potentially controversial actions. Newyorkbrad 15:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

    I wish you guys would quit characterizing all of the oppose votes as relating to some incident some time ago. Only one can be described that way in any way; two are due to his behaviour in this RFA and two are due to his having no experience contributing content to articles. Mine also makes reference to an incident that occurred last week. TomTheHand 17:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

    I saw a couple of the opposes were based on older incidents, but overlooked that one of the opposes had been withdrawn. I didn't mean to suggest that every one of the opposes was based on the older matters, and I do urge that the candidate take the opposers' legitimate concerns into account going forward if (as appears likely) this RfA is successful. Newyorkbrad 21:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

    Thanks Newyorkbrad, I appreciate you saying that. TomTheHand 21:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

54. Support Per all supports.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NHRHS2010 (talk • contribs)
55. Support per NYBrad semper fictilis 01:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
56. Support like a belgian madam ~ Infrangible 02:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
57. Support A good editor, and contributor to Motto of the Day Harrison-HB4026 10:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose -- Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously, as demonstrated by our stringent policy. This image, which you uploaded, fails the NFCC. It's vital an RfA candidate understands our image usage policy. Matthew 15:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC) He has changed to neutral—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.166.183.44 (talk • contribs).

With all due respect, that image was uploaded when I was very new here and had no knowledge of copyright. « ANIMUM » 15:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

So um, add a WP:FURG, yeah? -N 15:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not fix it now then? Matthew 15:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Matthew, I believe that it's a bit unfair to oppose this user on such grounds. Besides, Magnus has stated above that he doesn't even intend to deal with images.--Húsönd 16:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Cut him some slack, Matthew. The whole image copyright policy is very confusing for new users, and it's understandable that Magnus didn't know what to do for that particular image (I had those same issues when I was a new user). In any case, they should add their fair use rationale. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a fair use rationale, but as I don't know much about copyright or want to deal with images, it may not be the best you've ever seen. « ANIMUM » 16:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That image was uploaded a bit over four months ago. I have no problem believing the candidate has learned quite a bit since then; I know I've learned a lot about the Project in that same sort of timeframe. As he doesn't intend to get involved in IfD, this is not a blocking issue for me, and I'd encourage you to reconsider your !vote on those grounds. Jouster  (whisper) 01:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose — I've been closely following this user for quite some time, so my apologies ahead of time if this rambles a bit.

   I first became involved with Magnus animum while working with Template:User prepositions:no . He came off as a little bit defensive, but I had used a subst'd uw- template (albeit not a vandalism one), so I could understand his hostility. The situation was, in the end, resolved in my favor by citing it as a Winston Churchill quote, and simultaneously in his favor by pointing out that, stated in the less-bizarre way, it did not, in fact, end in a preposition.

   My encounters with the candidate continued, oftentimes as I was frustrated by navigating his User and Talk pages, which he ha(s||d) extensively customized. The gist of my argument in the last of those links was that creating highly-complex, inaccessible, un-edit-able pages is fundamentally opposed to the goals of the project (at least, as I understand them). His response was standoff-ish and insulting. I was not pleased.

   Nonetheless, I could look past all of this and approve, albeit with reservations similar to the nom's (namely, that the candidate list himself for recall) were it not for the Joseph incident referenced in Q3, but even more so this: . Reading his responses on the second link, the candidate shows a clear disdain for policy that is alarming beyond measure in an administrator candidate.

   In summation, I cannot in good conscience support the candidate for administrator status. I feel he is a very talented Wikipedian, and one with whom I could probably enjoy spending time, for we seem to have similar interests and talents (Asperger's Syndrome being one of his earliest edits). I do not feel, however, that he is ready for the tools. Jouster  (whisper) 16:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

   So are you basically saying that you are opposing because you don't like the way my user and user talk pages are formatted? « ANIMUM » 16:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

   No. Please also note that in the linked conversation, Cremepuff222 recognizes that he was behaving incorrectly, and apologizes for it; you never do. As I said in my oppose !vote, the issues with your userpage are insufficient for me to take issue with your nom. The link above, however, more than suffices. Jouster  (whisper) 16:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

   I do not mean to be standoffish, but have you apologized for criticizing my CSS yet? « ANIMUM » 16:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

   Er, no. But I did not violate policy by criticizing your CSS, and the issues I took with your CSS laid not in their beauty, but in the functionality and appropriateness for the format. Furthermore, I was very careful to ask if you'd rather I take my comments to a different page; you said they were fine where they were. Even had I not done so, there's a big different between violating policy and then, when informed, insisting that the policy is flawed and seemingly nearly invoking WP:IAR, versus someone taking issue with the usability and accessibility of your page as you have formatted it. If I truly insulted you by pointing out that your formatting made the site unusable then, regretfully, I must decline to apologize. Jouster  (whisper) 16:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

   I never said you were violating policy, but your penultimate post says "Please also note that in the linked conversation, Cremepuff222 recognizes that he was behaving incorrectly, and apologizes for it; you never do." You were basically asking for me to apologize, but you haven't for putting so much effort into complaining about my contributions. ( see Image:Magnus Page Issues.PNG, Image:Magnus_Name.PNG, Image:Wikiweird2.PNG, and Image:Threeways2.png. ) Thanks, « ANIMUM » 00:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   I have never complained about your Project contributions, with the possible exception of asking you to become uninvolved when tempers were flaring over Joseph, and my (somewhat-late) comment on the AWB redirect issue, where you invoked "devs will tell us if there's a server problem". My issues have exclusively been with your userpage. I point you again to this image, which shows one of the most-blatant ways in which your modifications to your userpage prevent(ed) navigation, even to fully-able users (ironically, users navigating with non-mouse interfaces would have an easier time clicking the links there; go figure).

   With regards to an apology—you accepted the nomination, which is akin to putting yourself up for editor review (which you have also done, twice). This is one of the harshest formats in which to expose yourself to careful dissections of every last one of your edits over the course of your involvement in the project (note the issue raised with your cracker box image, above). I do not think it would be appropriate to apologize for careful evaluation and consideration of your contributions, and I certainly think it would be bizarre in the extreme to attempt to apologize for "putting so much effort" into complaining. You're asking for the ability to enforce NPOV, for example, which invariably boils down to enforcing a POV as you choose which version of the page to protect and what {{editprotected}}s to service. I must have the utmost confidence in your judgement and grasp of policy in order to support you. Your contributions, especially your vandal-fighting, are great, and I want you to continue them. I just honestly do not feel you are prepared, from the standpoint of your attitude towards project policy and authority, for the administrator tools. Jouster  (whisper) 01:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   Opposing an editor based on the complexity of his or her userpage's CSS is not a very good rationale. Please step away from the userpage argument and judge me independently (i.e. outside of incidents in which you were involved as well as me, the {{User prepositions:no}} incident, and judge my administrative contributions.) « ANIMUM » 01:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   I don't think you are deliberately mischaracterizing my comments, so I can only conclude that I am doing a terrible job of communicating my concerns. The AWB issue is the tipping point for me. If it makes everything more clear for everyone, I can go through and <s> my comments about your userpage.

   As to judging you on the basis of your administrative contributions, I cannot, as you are not an administrator. But I am judging you based on your mainspace and project space edits, totalling a bit over 3,000, and a remarkable number of which consist of silliness like Motto of the Day (466), your {{Randomquote}} template (66), etc. Of the remainder, a vast majority of your mainspace edits have been very recent and often AWB-assisted minor (or even policy-violating) edits, along with reversions of vandalism, which are hardly going to be contentious. I don't have a lot of substantive content to go on. Where I do have it, you have consistently failed to impress—every edit conflict I have ever seen you involved with, you have come forth as the One True Editor and either created or exacerbated the conflict. If you can find me an edit conflict that you actually resolved, I might be a bit more inclined to support. As it stands now, you have ignored policy on redirect changes, insulted users who asked for help, and you now seem insistent on misportraying my concerns as a crusade against your User pages. Quite frankly, I can never mention your User pages again, if it would clear the situation up. My concern lies solely with your character and attitude, the only things that actually matter in an administrator candidate (remember "no big deal"), and you are sorely lacking, as evidenced by your lack of response to the single largest point I keep bringing up (the AWB-assisted redirect edits in violation of policy). Jouster  (whisper) 04:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   Just as an outside observer, why did you bother mentioning the userpage bit at all if it's truly irrelevant to your opposition? I looked over it and, to be perfectly honest, you come across as extremely petty; I know I'd be hard-pressed to be much more civil than Animum if some random person came to my talk page bitching about my userpage. The WW2 stuff is valid, though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

   Honestly? Probably because I have an agenda for accessibility, usability, and simplicity. Feel free to ignore that portion with my apologies if doing so makes my overall argument better. Jouster  (whisper) 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

   Earlier today I left a message on someone's talk page with a revised sig for them, that saved about seven characters (and ditched a font tag). I'm all for accessibility and whatnot (being a web developer by trade), but there's a certain point where it's just not worth bothering someone over. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

   Jouster, please look at my administrative contributions, such as the reports to AIV, RPP, UAA, AFD, etc. Review them, please. The redirect instance is just that: a single instance. « ANIMUM » 18:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

   It exists within the context of a failure to seek consensus and work within accepted strictures and policy. I'll add a question related to this. Jouster  (whisper) 00:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   I believe enough is enough. Please stop this now pointless conversation, which has become nothing more than a battleground. It is no longer productive and has become uncivil. Jouster, I recommend you read WP:CIVIL. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 23:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   It is disheartening to see people using WP:CIVIL to beat people into the ground on RfA. RfA exists as a referendum on the person's character and attitude, and I have, without question, impugned Magnus animum's; based on what I've written here, will you now cite WP:NPA at me? The reality of the situation is that the candidate is an unremarkable vandal-fighter with a vindictive, self-righteous streak, who uses his userpage for self-promotion and self-aggrandizement, and who is getting promoted solely due to WP:ITIS. All of this is making me doubt WP:ANOT#Adminship_is_not_an_entitlement. Based on the number of supports, I can only hope the closing bureaucrat can see the alarming number of policy and guideline violations, the dearth of non-vandalism-reverting mainspace edits, and the consistent incapability of the candidate to bring about a positive outcome when involved in a dispute. That we're even discussing this young man as a candidate for administrator in the context of all of this is alarming, to say the least.

   In reality, I'm pretty sure that Magnus will just poke the nearest friendly bureaucrat over IRC when this process finishes (I really need to write an "IRC Cabal" article). Thus, my real only hope is to convince everyone up there in the "support" queue. Apparently, I can't, as people are simply too blinded by, "Oh, how cute, the young man is editing 2,000 times a month for four months! Nevermind that his only mainspace contributions other than reverting vandalism are a page on his school that wouldn't survive a {{prod}}, and he has never been on the right side (or, hell, even the civil side) of an edit conflict in his entire WikiLife." At least I tried. Jouster  (whisper) 00:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Magnus doesn't seem to be interested in actually working on articles. The vast majority of his edits in the mainspace are just reverting vandalism, and of the rest, hundreds are from using AWB to edit valid redirects, which, he argued, are legitimate things to "fix" in spite of all of the Misplaced Pages guidelines that say otherwise. 64 talk page edits are also far too few. I think it's important for admins to contribute to articles. TomTheHand 14:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   Without vandalism reversion, the reputability of en.wikipedia would surely decline due to things like "Pigs ur gay" or sneaky vandalism in articles. As for the redirect issues, I must admit that I did not know that it was frowned upon, just like I didn't know that there was a policy denouncing that practice; I'm sorry. « ANIMUM » 20:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   I'm really sorry, Magnus, but I feel that content contributions are more important than reverting vandalism, and I don't think that you can be a good administrator without contributing to articles because I don't think you'll have the right perspective on how to deal with problems. My encounters with users and administrators whose primary focus is reverting vandalism haven't been positive ones. Looking at the tally, it seems obvious that you'll be confirmed, and so it appears that my opinion is not a popular one. TomTheHand 20:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose per his rudeness to Jouster and hassling opposers. If he can't deal with a few critical comments on his RfA there is no way he will be able to deal with the trolls and vandals that will argue with him when he uses the admin tools. Kamryn Matika 00:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

   After reviewing his contribution history even further, I would also like to note that he appears to be generally quite quick to become defensive and isn't able to take constructive criticism (particularly with the WWII incident referenced above). This user does not have the right temperament to deal with the hassle of being an admin. Kamryn Matika 00:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

   Because I'm being questioned about this further - I would oppose anyone who had been through 'admin coaching' anyway. Indeed, looking at his replies to most of the questions on the coaching page and comments about NPOV here I'm left wondering if Magnus knows policy particularly well at all. Kamryn Matika 14:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

   I'm not arguing with Jouster about the WWII incident; I'm over that. I'm arguing with him about his criticizing my userpage, saying he won't use the argument again, and then does the contrary. « ANIMUM » 00:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

   If anyone here is being harassed by another user, it's me. Jouster's comment above: "In reality, I'm pretty sure that Magnus will just poke the nearest friendly bureaucrat over IRC when this process finishes (I really need to write an "IRC Cabal" article). Thus, my real only hope is to convince everyone up there in the "support" queue. Apparently, I can't, as people are simply too blinded by, "Oh, how cute, the young man is editing 2,000 times a month for four months!" (diff). Thus I hope you will reconsider your vote based on the issues I gave you. « ANIMUM » 00:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

   Harassing your opposers is rarely the way to disprove an accusation of harrassing your opposers. My comments that you quoted are at the end of a very long and contentious discussion with you and your friends; please leave them nestled in the comfort of their context. They get cold when you drag them out like that. Jouster  (whisper) 00:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

   Harassing a candidate is not a very good tactic either. KamrynMatika said that I was harassing you, but you have been saying very POVish things, such as the quote above. With whom did you discuss this? « ANIMUM » 00:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

   Did you seriously just try to use WP:NPOV about an RfA!? Did you read any policies that weren't on your admin coaching list? NPOV applies to article and encyclopedic content. Applying it to RfA would be impossible, unless everyone here wants to become a reliable source. Jouster  (whisper) 07:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

   "Harrassed" users clearly don't know the meaning of harrassed. This is a discussion, if points are raised and the candidate diagrees with tem, let him respond. Naturally he doesn't want to be opposed, and then to oppose for "harrassment" is just ridiculous. If you're going to comment on an RfA, expect someone to reply, it's a discussion. Majorly (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

   I believe the operative word is "rude" more so than "harassed". Indeed, the opposer uses the word "hassle", never "harass". The first to use the latter term in this discussion was the candidate. Jouster  (whisper) 07:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

   It's more the fact that the candidate doesn't appear to know when to drop it and move on. It's pretty obvious that Jouster isn't going to change his mind and continuing some silly, pointless and ultimately futile debate on his RfA of all places (in my opinion) shows that he has a severe lack of judgement. Kamryn Matika 14:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

   I've been wanting to stop, and now I am. It's just that Majorly's statement basically sums up why I continued arguing. « ANIMUM » 21:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

4. Weak Oppose Oppose - per civilty on RFA. I changed this oppose, to weak oppose. I wish this candidate would have contributed to writing articles as well. Adminship isn't always about vandal fighting. Miranda 03:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Too new, little to no involvement with improving articles or content disputes. Vast majority of edits are semi-automated. —Centrx→talk • 01:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

   With all due respect, a lot of PPG's edits were semi-automated when she became a sysop. As for content disputes, I have been involved in them, but I have never been incivil and have always learned from them/being criticized. « ANIMUM » 11:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

   Could you tell us about one or more content disputes you've been involved in? TomTheHand 21:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

   The JosephASpadaro thing, the redirect thing (sorry about that whole thing, btw), and miscellaneous, inadvertent reverts of GF edits. « ANIMUM » 21:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

   Those are not content disputes. A content dispute is when I say "This article should say this" and you say "No, this article should say that." For example, say I'm trying to put a piece of information into an article, and you revert it, saying my information is POV. I disagree, saying that it's a necessary and valid alternate perspective. It's very important that you know how to deal with such situations, and you only learn from experience. I... don't feel really good about the fact that you don't even know what a content dispute is. I hope you'll stick to vandal-fighting after your promotion until you have experience with content disputes; you cannot help others to resolve one if you've never been involved in one yourself. TomTheHand 21:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

   The line between a content dispute and an editing dispute is quite small and quite large at the same time. « ANIMUM » 22:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

   Wow, how Zen. And nonsensical. A content dispute is an editing dispute that's about content. For the most part, when people ask you about a dispute you've been in, they're not saying "Tell us about a time when you messed up, because we want you to disclose what kind of mistakes you've made." They're saying "Tell us about a time when you've had a legitimate disagreement with someone, and about how you came to a solution, because we want to see how you resolve conflict and determine consensus." TomTheHand 13:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose, at least for the time being. I've seen quite a bit of Magnus about the place (AIV and FPC for example) and while I'm sure he's a capable vandal-fighter, he does come across as somewhat immature at times. Looking through his admin coaching page, I can see why Husond says that he was "hard to coach" in his nomination statement. Without wishing to sound harsh, it looks a little as though his understanding of policy and of the right actions to take in various situations has come more from "learning by rote" rather than from any particular degree of innate common sense. We need as many good vandal-fighters as we can get, but I'm not convinced at present that Magnus would display level-headedness and consistent good judgement in more complex administrative situations. I don't really believe he'd abuse the tools, but I'm not confident that his decision-making would be reliably sound in greyer areas, which could lead to inadvertent misuse. --YFB ¿ 02:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

   Changed to neutral after discussing with Húsönd. --YFB ¿ 02:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

6. No sorry not yet able to support per ability to handle conflict in this RfA.--VS 09:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   He's handling it quite well considering how trivial some of the stuff the opposers have come up with is. Majorly (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   I have had many instances where other users would have blown up, like the "He'll ask a Bureaucrat on IRC" thing and the releasing of my IP which has since been oversighted and re-added by the same user who initially added it. > Animum < 11:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral -- Kudos for fixing the image issue, I'm a bit worried that you come across as abrasive in this discussion. I'll still neutral for awhile and see how you handle things. Matthew 07:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   You may wish to strike your original oppose, then. Jouster  (whisper) 16:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   Jouster, Matthew had already changed to neutral and changed his oppose to a small type. Me and another user had already stricken and indented it. Why are you undoing, you're just complicating everything. :-/ --Húsönd 16:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   Upon further investigation, the user who <s>'d the text, in violation of the guideline asking people not to edit others' comments, was Magnus Animum himself, logged out and editing as an IP address. This is a Misplaced Pages editor with over 7,000 edits, and I'm supposed to believe he accidentally forgot to log in, coincidentally lost his session data with his stored login, and failed to sign his message? What possible purpose was served by logging out and editing as an IP in order to make that change, other than to distance himself from violation of this guideline? Asserting that an editor with thousands of edits would suddenly forget to sign his messages (and even if he had, would have failed to come back and sign it) is disingenuous in the extreme. I don't like this situation one bit, and I'd like to hear the candidate's side of it. Jouster  (whisper) 19:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   Jouster, you need to stop jumping the gun. I forgot to log in, not trying to topple the votes in my favour. And another thing, how in God's world did you know my that was IP? That seems like jumping the gun. « ANIMUM » 20:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   I thought I was logged in, and normally when an honest striking occurs (or at least in my experiences with it), it is not normally signed. « ANIMUM » 20:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   It was pretty simple. I looked at the IP address from which the change was made. Then, cross-referencing your contribs, noting you had a logged-in contrib 5-10 minutes after the anon edit, and noting the writing style of the IP address and his use of edit summaries, it wasn't hard to conclude that it was you, or, if not you, a startlingly-close facsimile. Jouster  (whisper) 00:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

   Wow, how creepy, over the top, and plain uneccessary. Kamryn Matika 15:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral. I've seen quite a bit of Magnus about the place (AIV and FPC for example) and while I'm sure he's a capable vandal-fighter, he does come across as somewhat immature at times. Looking through his admin coaching page, I can see why Husond says that he was "hard to coach" in his nomination statement. Without wishing to sound harsh, it looks a little as though his understanding of policy and of the right actions to take in various situations has come more from "learning by rote" rather than from any particular degree of innate common sense. We need as many good vandal-fighters as we can get, but I'm not convinced at present that Magnus would display level-headedness and consistent good judgement in more complex administrative situations. I don't really believe he'd abuse the tools, but I'm not confident that his decision-making would be reliably sound in greyer areas, which could lead to inadvertent misuse. I'll be happy to see him promoted under the probationary terms set out by Húsönd, as I expect most of Magnus's mop-usage will be in clear-cut vandal fighting anyway. --YFB ¿ 02:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)