Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:32, 9 April 2009

Neurolysis

Voice your opinion (talk page) (89/30/6); scheduled to end 20:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Neurolysis (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, may I present for your consideration Neurolysis. Neuro is a prolific and valuable editor in many areas of Misplaced Pages. Call in now and you'll get over 25,000 edits, tons of wiki-gnoming, extensive vandal fighting, three featured lists, bot writing, NPP, ANI, AN, UAA, RPP, AFD, account creation, template work, and help desk experience. I've personally witnessed his ability to competently handle whatever strange problem comes up, be it resolving a conflict amicably or creating scripts to automate needed tasks. While Neuro is a skilled content creator, he's also one of those utter freaks that rejoices in thankless, arduous maintenance tasks - a perfect storm/deadly cocktail of adminship.

A relevant piece of Neuro's story is the personal growth he has undergone in his work here. Until the beginning of October 2008, Neuro worked under the username Asenine. In this account, Neuro made many positive contributions and had a clean block record, but like many of us found that he was developing an on-wiki persona that was not himself. He started to receive criticism over his manner towards others - especially accusations that he was not assuming good faith and being overly bureaucratic. Rather than dismissing these criticisms and blaming those that raised them, Neuro self-reflected and recognized that these evaluations carried weight. In response, he dropped this username and began Neurolysis, in which he addressed the previous concerns and concentrated on becoming a valuable and courteous editor. That is the editor that I'm presenting for your consideration now. (Neuro's account of these events is here.) FlyingToaster 19:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept, and would like to thank FlyingToaster for the kind words. If I may, I will say a little bit here.

My last RfA was not easy to endure for me. It meant embracing that I had been acting in a way which I do and even then did resent. I guess User:Neurolysis/Apology says most of it, but the gist of it is that I am sincerely sorry for all of the wrongs which I committed, all the mistakes I made, and the malicious things I did. I regret ever doing them, and apologise to anyone who was offended by my actions whilst operating under that handle. I am, however, glad that I had a chance to go through the RfA process that second time — it gave me a strong sense of guilt for my actions, and most importantly a will to actively change my ways and rectify the severe issues listed therein. My name change was a quick decision to get away from something which I by now so resented, and attempt to rectify them whilst starting afresh. I did tell a few people who I was at the time, but I did not publicly admit that the two accounts were indeed one and the same until December of last year. My motivation behind changing username was that I hoped that I could build enough of a base to demonstrate that I was sincere and serious about changing my ways. I hope that my actions indicate that I have changed for the better, and that six months is enough time to demonstrate such a change. — neuro 19:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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: Mostly blocking inappropriate usernames at WP:UAA, deleting blatantly inappropriate pages at WP:CSD, closing discussions which demonstrate an obvious consensus for a particular action (say, SNOW deletes and keeps after 2/3 days) at WP:AFD, issuing rollback to trustworthy users who have interest in the tool at WP:PERM, and generally helping out at WP:AN, and WP:AN/I. One area I would almost certainly stay well away from would be WP:RFPP, or at least I would stay away from it until I felt confident working there. I guess the best way to answer this question is simply by saying "a bit of everything". I have a habit of enjoying working at certain areas for periods of time, and then stopping there and going somewhere else for a while, and then returning later — it helps keep my work here enjoyable, refreshing, and generally rewarding; not least in that it broadens my knowledge in areas which I might not regularly visit or contribute to otherwise. For a few months now I have been doing new image patrol with the bots. If given the bit, I plan to work deleting images which need to be deleted, but not deleting those which I can fix myself. I would stay away from blocking users until I felt comfortable doing so, which could be a little or a long time — this goes for all but blatantly disruptive users, who I would have no problem issuing blocks to if necessary. I would also help out users requesting {{adminhelp}}.

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

A: Define 'contributions', really. If you mean article work and content creation, I particularly enjoyed and am proud of my work on featured lists, I have three - Hughes Medal, Gabor Medal, Davy Medal, and a few more coming up soon. For a long time I stayed out of content creation in general — mostly because I enjoyed and enjoy repetitive maintenance work, and didn't see the need to venture into other areas. However, after a while I found that I was doing a lot of maintenance work on mainspace articles, which gradually got me into wanting to work on content. After Ironholds prodded me about whether I wished to work alongside him getting some articles to featured list status, I realised that my love for technical jobs and mindlessly repetitive tasks could equate to content work with lists and tables. Aside from mainspace work, some of my best contributions have came about through helping out at WP:HD, WP:NCHP, and WP:RD/C (although I should probably contribute to those more often -- I have not been very active at them as of late). I also enjoy mindless technical jobs, and perform them a good bit (although more often than not for my own leisure, I do love a good puzzler).

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

A: I tend to disengage from situations before anything I would consider to be reminiscent of a 'conflict' occurs, and the same for stress, really. If I get stressed, I go and get a coffee, listen to some music, and generally check that I am in a good state of mind and make sure I am calm before proceeding. One of the benefits of an online encyclopaedia like Misplaced Pages is that if I am getting worked up or a little annoyed, I don't have to stick around. I can go and take a break whenever I like, since we are all volunteers -- that is, I see absolutely no need to get in a destructive conflict about things here, because unlike in a real world situation where it is very easy to get drawn into a dispute and not want to leave it until you have demonstrated all of your points and your opponent has conceded that they were wrong, Misplaced Pages is accessible through the medium of the internet — and there is plenty for me to go and do to take my mind off of the issue or issues at hand. If I were to get into a conflict with someone about my edits, I would discuss it with them first before continuing further, and if that avenue proved to be unsuccessful I would re-evaluate the situation, more than likely getting a second opinion from another user that I trust to tell me what they actually think about the situation at hand as opposed to merely what I am wanting to hear. If a group of users were to tell me that I was in the wrong, I would concede that such a thing was so and proceed to move on.

Optional Q. from Protonk (talk)

4 Why did you come back? This is open ended, so you can feel free to answer in whatever manner makes you feel comfortable. I also want to make clear that I don't mean this in the snarky "Why did you flare out just to reappear" sense. I mean literally what brought you back to the project? Do you think, in retrospect, that your leaving was permanent (at the time)? That sort of thing.

A: I rejoined only a few hours after my departure. I think there was one point at which the leaving was permanent, but I think that point was short lived. Being told by an overwhelming majority that I was what I so resented at first had the effect of being particularly upsetting. It is still upsetting to remember what I was like. It also, however, kicked some sense into me. After a few hours I felt I could turn myself around, stop acting the way I did, and I did not feel that I would lapse into old habits again. As such, I felt no need to stay away. My retirement was not so well thought out, not least in the fact that it only existed for an incredibly short period of time.

Optional questions from Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign)

5. What is the difference between a block and a ban? In your own words, please, no cut-and-pasting.

A. A block is a technical restraint on editing, whether it be on an account, an individual IP, or a range IP (rangeblock). A ban is a broader term — if we are talking about a straight out ban, a ban is a block which is not technically enforced (although it is issued in conjunction with a block). A ban also straight out allows reversions of all of a banned users contributions which were made whilst they were banned. A banned user is someone whose contributions are straight out considered to be unwanted, whereas a block is a preventative measure (it does not imply good or bad faith). A topic ban is something slightly different, that is, there is no technical restraint placed on the editor, there is, however, a disallowance to edit in a particular manner, at a particular place, or in a particular scenario.

6. This is normally Xeno's RfA question, but I like it too. 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:Xeno/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A. IP editors are, in general, not blocked indefinitely, so blocking the user "for life" is pretty much out of the question. I think unblocking after such a spree would not only be incorrect (there is a level of AGF'ing I am willing to do, but that was pretty blatant vandalism, and personal attacks), but also unnecessary. If the user has truly learnt from and understood why their actions were wrong, then hopefully they will also understand why the block was imposed. We have a lot of IPs and users that use WP:BROTHER sort of remarks to try and get around sockpuppetry, and this is somewhat similar. The user is saying one thing, whilst they have been actively demonstrating the other. In this case, I would discuss the issue with another administrator, and see what we both thought. That might be seen as sitting on the fence, but these questions are here to ask me what I would do, not what people want to hear. I realise this might need some elaboration, if it does, please just ask away. :)

7. How do you feel that you have improved since your last RfA?

A. In just about every way, I hope. Back then I acted in a fashion which I realise was unacceptable, and unjustifiable. I guess my main improvement has been in my attitude. I do my best to assume good faith, help people out, and generally I have tried to turn my back on my previous actions. If we want to talk content, see Q2. I was sorely lacking in article work last time around (although that wasn't really brought up due to the fact that there were more serious issues), but this time I have three FLs. Admittedly FLs aren't as highly thought of as FAs, but I enjoy doing them, and they are good, solid mainspace work.

Additional questions from Jennavecia

8a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: I believe there is a problem, yes. That said, I don't really know what sort of thing you want me to comment on here. I've been writing answers and then looking back at the question and realising it wasn't really what you said at all. Assuming you didn't want as much of a short answer to this as I have provided, could you rephrase?

Well, the second part of the question is open to interpretation. How you interpret it is telling. That you can't interpret it at all... I don't know. I didn't see that coming. If I explain it, it sort of kills it for future use.

You see, my issue is that I have never tended to get too involved in BLP issues, so I don't have too much to say other than I think there is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with.

8b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A: I don't (and didn't) support the trial of FlaggedRevs when it came around. I believe any sort of straight out blanket flagging or semi-protection for all BLPs may be over the top. It is my belief that if we wish to stop BLP issues in their tracks, we must influence a change in editing, not only a change in the software. IP editors are not the only ones causing issues with BLPs, and whilst I concur that Flagged Revisions or semi-protection would no doubt have an effect, I feel that the positives would fail to negate the negatives if we were to implement FlaggedRevs on BLPs — that is, I feel they undermine our ethos, and would need a demonstration that they had a significant effect before supporting them, and I don't believe that semi-protection should be applied in such a liberal way. Not least, I also oppose them because I believe that flagged protection and patrolled revisions would be the best way to go about combating this sort of problem in a fashion which still conforms to our core values. FP/PR promotes more editing, not less, and it also promotes review of those edits as opposed to straight out limitation. So, in summary:

1. No

2. Yes

3.

• Global protection for BLPs? No.
• More liberal use? Yes.

8c. For BLP AFDs, closing as "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

A: Assuming the argument is that if we are unsure of the notability of the subject it would be better to simply delete the page on them, my views are that that AfD would be the wrong venue to apply such a thing to. I don't think either is 'better', I think they both have their pros and cons, but I also don't think that applying such a modifier to AfD would be the right way to go. I think we need to work out something else outside of AfD.

Request for clarification: Can you explain what ideas you have for "work something else outside of AfD"?

Actually, what I was thinking of before is too flawed to work (due to bias based on opinions based on all BLPs, not just ones being discussed), on second thought. I'll work out a more cogent answer in a bit.

8d. For BLP AFDs where the subject has weighed in to request that their article be deleted, how much consideration, if any, do you give to that request?

A: This question is a difficult one to answer. If Bill Gates were to come along and request that his page was deleted, I'm sure that he would not succeed (or at least, it would almost certainly not happen willingly on our part). If someone much less notable than he came along and requested that their article was deleted, I would first want to see why such a thing should occur. Deletion does not stop recreation of an article, so actual creation cannot be prevented without salting (which is unlikely to occur), and as such the only things which deletion serves to do is to keep IP editors from creating an article on them (because they can't create pages), and deter people from adding content (because they would have to start from scratch, a daunting concept to a lot of new users, or users that are aware that they are unfamiliar with our policies). I guess my thoughts on the matter are this — if there is an understandable, cogent, and reasonable argument provided for deletion by the subject, it should probably be deleted. I would also argue that a reasonable request for deletion from the subject at an AfD (or through some other method whilst an AfD was ongoing) should tip a no consensus close to default to delete, too.

Additional questions from Backslash Forwardslash

9. Would you speedy delete an article with an {{underconstruction}} tag?

A: That would depend. If the article was blatantly unwanted (such as an attack page), I would not hesitate to delete it. If the article was simply not asserting notability, I would hold off. I guess {{underconstruction}} just says 'I am working on this', but that tends to not mean anything for pages with no salvageable content whatsoever.

Optional questions from IMatthew

10. What is your view on inactive administrators? Do you think they should have their bit removed? If so, should they be able to get the flag back by requesting it from a crat, or going through RfA again?

A. Let me put it this way — administratorship should not be 'for life', and it should not be as permanent as it is at current. I don't think the correct motive for removing the bit from older accounts should be "you must make x edits per y or your bit will be removed", but I do concur that they present an unnecessary security risk, and don't really see a problem with it on that ground. I would also, therefore, support the reinstatement of the tools upon request to a 'crat (on a case by case basis, of course). I guess it depends on the history of the user at hand.

11. Do you believe that RfA candidates should have experience at AN or ANI before becoming an administrator? If the candidate wants the tools for the sole purpose of working at WP:RFPP and WP:AIV, should they still have experience at AN/ANI?

A. Again, sorry not having a direct answer, but I think it is a case by case thing. Some users are particularly adept at learning things quickly and have an amount of clue that would sway me against worry for potential issues regarding where they wanted to work, and where they had not worked previously. That said, there are occasions where I would have hoped for diversification of contributions in projectspace from pre-RfA from certain users. It is true that the bit does not come in parts, and many candidates branch out into other areas after succeeding in their bid, so really candidates should demonstrate a good knowledge of as many administrative areas as possible when applying. I do not, however, believe that where a candidate has/has not worked should have a critical impact on their request for the tools — work does not necessarily indicate understanding, and lack of work does not necessarily indicate the lack thereof. So, in summary, it is nice to see diverse contributions indicating (but not demonstrating) knowledge of policies through contributions as various administrative areas of Misplaced Pages, but I don't believe it is the most crucial thing at an RfA.

12. This is one of your typical questions with a slight twist: What is more important, consensus or verifiability, if the consensus was made by the Arbitration Committee?

A. Verifiability, in both cases.

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

13a. 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: It wouldn't be that simple. Firstly, I would wait about an hour, and if no further edits had been made to improve (or construct) the page, I would contact the user. If, after 24 hours, they did not respond, and I could not locate any sources indicating a possibility of notability, I would delete, and leave the user a message to contact me if they wished to have the page restored to their userspace. (I will leave a message for every user who submits a page that I delete under a CSD criterion which is related to notability, regardless of if a {{underconstruction}} tag is present.)

13b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template?

A: Yes. I would then contact the editor after an hour and ask what their plans were. If they did not respond, and I was not able to find sources hinting at notability to start the page myself, I would delete it.

13c. Editor1 adds relevant properly sourced, but controversial, material to an article and Editor2 removes it; Editor1 readds it; and Editor2 removes it again, would a re-add by Editor1 be a 3RR violation? If Editor2 removes it again, would Editor2 be in violation of 3RR? Is anything different if one of the deletes was made by Editor3?

A: It might break the spirit of 3RR, but not the letter. 3RR actually permits a maximum of three reverts, that is, it is not a third revert that breaks the letter, it is the fourth. It would take Editor1 three more additions to break the letter of 3RR (the initial addition is not a reversion), and it would take Editor2 two more. As for the Editor3 question, it would depend on whether the editor was acting on the instruction of Editor2.

13d. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?

A: I'm not sure I completely understand this question, but I will have a shot at answering it regardless. My interpretation of consensus is the same in both circumstances, that is, consensus is not built upon the numbers of people endorsing or censuring a particular action or event. Article writing does, however, lend itself to being done on the terms of the majority as opposed the terms which are indicated by consensus, not least due to rigid limits (at least to the letter) like 3RR. That shouldn't occur, but it does.

Questions from Seddon

14 What sensible arguments do you look for when judging concensus in an afd?

A: Well, exactly that, sensible arguments. The arguments that hold the most weight, of course, are those that are based upon a policy or generally accepted guideline. There have been a few cases in which I have advocated the use of IAR keeps — I seem to remember that I !voted that way in the deletion discussion for Futaba Channel.

15 If you find an virilent vandal account cannot be blocked due to a software glitch, what avenues can be explored to try to deal with the problem?

A: How exactly is the account virulent?

16 Write a sentance with less than 17 words summing yourself up as an admin?

A: Easing myself in slowly. (Everyone loves arbitrary values, I set mine at 4 :D)

Optional question from Quadell

17. Tell us about a time (under this account) when consensus didn't go the way you wanted. How did you react?

A. I guess the best example of this (although I would dispute that 'consensus' existed, although Jimbo seemed to think it did) would be the Flagged Revisions trial proposal. I was a vocal opposer of Flagged Revisions, as I believed (and believe) that they violate the core structure of our ethos. When Jimbo requested that Brion implement them, I was a little surprised at the suggestion that the results of the discussion indicated a consensus one way or the other. Whilst I was a little annoyed at the fact that Jimbo had stated that their implementation would go ahead, I also saw (and see) the benefits that Flagged Revisions could bring to the project, especially in areas such as BLPs. Put it this way — whilst I opposed them, I would not be particularly irritated if we were to give them a try. I guess my !vote was indicative of a preference as opposed to a rigid stance.

The whole idea of consensus is to get an idea of what the community wants. As such, when consensus goes against my preferred outcome, I accept it — there are more people here than just me — consensus going against my preferred outcome is not a problem. It simply indicates that I am probably wrong in my convictions.

General comments

• Requests for adminship/Asenine
• Requests for adminship/Asenine 2

• Links for Neurolysis: Neurolysis (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Neurolysis can be found here.
• Promote Neurolysis

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

Discussion

• For those that prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • Soxred93's edit counter
  • Wikimedia edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk 12:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. FlyingToaster 20:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Had it watchlisted for some reason support (deja vu!) - clueful editor. –xeno (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Would-have-nominated-Support. Per Xeno ;-) SoWhy 20:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Does good work, no reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. I must say that I'm unpersuaded by the concerns in the oppose section thus far. –Juliancolton |  20:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   My intention wasn't to persuade anybody, just letting you know where I stand.  iMatthew :  Chat  20:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   I know, but the purpose of a rationale is to let others know your thoughts. Otherwise it'd be a straight vote. –Juliancolton |  20:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   Hmm, perhaps I misunderstood at first. Sorry, nevermind. ;)  iMatthew :  Chat  20:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

5. Support I believe the nomination statement was sincere. And while I am not a fan of extracting apologies, I think it was probably necessary. I think Neuro/Asenine will be a net positive as an admin. Protonk (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Yup, been around the block, as it were, i see no reason the mop will cause brain fail. --GedUK  20:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Support on the condition he stops making me hip-hop mixtapes, rapping on WP and doesn't shave HAGGER? into my head while I sleep. Ironholds (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   As for the latter: Mmmhh...beans *off to buy a shaver* SoWhy 20:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   Have I coined WP:SHAVE?. WilliamH (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   One might want to create that page as something similar to WP:WTHN: "The fact that they will not shave HAGGER? into someone's head while they sleep is a reason to support a user running for adminship..." SoWhy 09:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

8. Support I trust this user not to abuse the tools and I hate IRC DRAMA. Hipocrite (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   Hopefully the new op guidelines will go some way to combat drama on IRC, Martin drafted them a few days ago. — neuro 20:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

9. per Ironholds. Keegan 20:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
10. I opposed Neurolysis' last RfA based on some behavioral concerns. However, in the time since that RfA I have kept an eye on him, and I think he's done a great job in improving himself since then. He experienced with policy, is friendly, gives good input and does good work wherever he participates, and is a helpful editor overall. I am pleased to support this nomination after opposing the last one. Acalamari 20:39, 6 April 2009
11. Support? Hell yeah! Inferno :  Chat  20:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
12. A very approachable and helpful user, Neuro will do well with the tools.  GARDEN  20:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Neurolysis has been very active in a wide range of areas across Misplaced Pages and is very trustworthy. In my opinion, he has improved greatly in the last six months since his last RfA and would be very helpful as an administrator. GT5162 20:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Support I can work with him. MBisanz 20:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Support I like what I've seen, & I think he'll be okay (okay meaning not abusing the tools). hmwithτ 21:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Support I've seen neurolysis around, and all indications are that he'll be a great admin. I actually thought he was an admin already. Best of luck. Timmeh! 21:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Support. Been waiting for this one. Solid, personable, and he cares. I'll be happy to look at Wisdom's diffs or anyone else's diffs, but it will have to be pretty bad for me to switch teams. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
18. Support, and Support strongly I might add. While his tremendous efforts to get me clued in and up to speed during my fist days at WP may be a personal feeling, rather than objective evidence, I can also state with clear conscience that Neurolysis does have a clue, will benefit the community, and the tools would only further enhance his ability to maintain, sort, and protect the project. (sorry for the run on sentence - I got carried away) — Ched :  ?  21:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose Too many administrators currently. No. Oppose - I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. No! Hello, I would like to place an order... oh sorry, wrong queue. NO!!! Wait, I got it! Very strong support - I've seen Neuro around, and have seen nothing but good from him. A hard worker, civil, kind and helpful; if not him, then who? --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 21:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    The sarcasm isn't really constructive. Just sayin'. Townlake (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    Just joking around with regards to the references. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 21:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

20. Yarr! Neuro is an excellent editor, polite, mature, and clued-up. Excellent administrator candidate, I keep having to remind myself that he isn't one. ~ mazca 21:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Support Give him the tools already! Hersfold 21:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    Support Neurolysis is a tremendous contributor to the community who would clearly use the tools responsibly. Took all my advice to heart in the editor review he recently conducted, even the stuff he could have bristled at. Neurolysis seemingly always defaults to assuming good faith absent a good reason to believe otherwise. I'm proud and happy to support. Townlake (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Didn't know about the blog comments. They remind me of the old account. Rethinking.

22. Support No bad interactions, only good ones. America69 (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Support About time. Whatever his past, neuro is a clued in editor who usually (thankfully not always!) makes sense. With all the odd jobs he's been doing around wikipedia he's already a janitor - about time someone handed him a mop! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 21:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    Meh Mr.Z-man 21:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

24. Strong support --Giants27 /C 21:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Support You've been around and that's what counts. —Admiral Norton 22:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Support Definitely trustworthy. rootology (C)(T) 22:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Support May the force be with you, young Jedi. ^_^. Meetare Shappy 22:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
29. Strong support, will make the kind of administrator of which we really need more. J Milburn (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Support — Jake Wartenberg 22:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Support -download | sign! 22:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
32. Support: Per above. South Bay (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
33. Strong Support Been expecting this rfa for awhile - would have nominated you myself eventually. Neurolysis has much experience in many aspects of the project, a high level of approachability, and will definitely not abuse sysop rights. - Fastily (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Neuro has always been able and willing to help me when I've had problems and has always been calm during a crisis. I think he would make a great administrator. Soap /_{Contributions} 23:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
35. Support Been waiting for this. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
36. Support --Xavexgoem (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    Aye - probably the RfA that I've had to think the least about (ooh, must've been about five seconds) recently. Black Kite 23:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Moved to neutral, then to oppose. Black Kite 15:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

37. Duh - won't abuse the tools. Donnez le mop, toute de suite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by roux (talk • contribs)
38. Secret 23:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
39. Support Can be trusted with the bit. --Patar knight - /_{contributions} 00:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
40. Support. I am amazed by how much growth Neurolysis has shown from his past as a rather disagreeable character to someone with whom it is a pleasure to work with. I am certain that Neurolysis will make an excellent admin. bibliomaniac15 00:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
41. Too tallToo young Majorly talk 00:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
42. I've seen this request coming for quite some time now. There was a time when I had already thought Neuro to be an administrator, and then I had happened upon his logs and noticed he wasn't. I wondered, "why? He'd be a wonderful admin." I have seen Neuro's name around a lot lately and have generally had a positive impression of him — he is always willing to assume good faith when there isn't especially strong evidence of bad faith, and he admits and learns from his past mistakes. He is very active in a lot of administrator-heavy areas of the project, and is very thoughtful and patient when it comes to dealing with newcomers who don't understand Misplaced Pages's processes quite yet. We need more administrators with these traits, and we need more highly active admins. That said, I feel it would be against Neuro's wishes for somebody to not be honest and forth-right with him, and I will not lie; I have at times been concerned by Neuro's handling of certain situations. There are times when Neuro makes judgmental mistakes (and he knows this, he's not afraid of owning up to his mistakes), and on occasion I find he is a tad too willing to give obviously bad-faith editors more chances than they should have. I'm not suggesting that he AGF less often, but I just wanted to offer a reminder that sometimes, rules can be ignored if it's better to do so. I also took the liberty to check his prior RfA and found that there were significant concerns at the time, just around six months ago. But simply looking at his contributions as of late, it is obvious he has come a long way since that time. He has matured a great deal ever since he first came here, and those issues are pretty much a faded memory now. It is obvious that Neuro has been working to become an administrator for some time now (not that it was his only Misplaced Pages goal, but it is still evident that Neuro wanted to be somebody others would turn to for help) and I cannot find any reason why not to give the mop to somebody who is honest, considerate, thoughtful, and open-minded. In short, I trust Neurolysis fully. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
43. Support I've had good interactions with this user and I think he'll be a good admin. Camw (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
44. My impression of neuro has always been that he is an extremely civil and respectful editor; just about every interaction I've had with him has involved neuro keeping everyone civil (I have sometimes been on the receiving end of that). I don't know anything about neuro's past, before I was a Wikipedian, but the neuro of the present certainly commands my respect. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 00:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
45. Support No concerns. Wronkiew (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
46. Weak Support. Not the perfect history, but a very improved Wikipedian. Useight (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
47. Support Great editor, very helpful. Per all the above. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5  01:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
48. Support Through my lengthy interactions with Neuro through anti-vandalism, FPC, and other places, I have always had good experiences. Spencer 01:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
49. Support- I don't see any reason to deny this user the mop. Neuro has always struck me as level-headed and intelligent, and will probably be responsible with the tools. Reyk _YO! 01:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
50. Support miranda 02:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
51. Support. I wondered a few days why you hadn't run for adminship. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
52. Support - I've seen good work from this user and believe he would make a fine and trustworthy administrator. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
53. Support- it's about friggin' time. Neuro is quite prolific and I've had positive interactions with him. Valley2city 02:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
54. Support No reason not to. Seen good stuff so far.  Marlith (Talk)  03:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
55. Strong support. He's not an admin? Wizardman 04:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
56. Support thought he was an admin, a crat, a CU, an oversiter, an ArbCom member, a Steward, a Founder, etc, already. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
57. Support Keep up the good work. Steven Walling (talk) 05:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
58. Support Skinny87 (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
59. Support Has clue, will travel. WilliamH (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
60. Support - I don't generally get involved in these Admin elections (mostly because I just don't care about Admins), but I've seen some of his anti-vandalism work and I was impressed enough to have to speak up. He has my support for his Admin bid. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    Support Any off-wiki behaviour, unless it is atrocious, doesn't bother me. Neuro is a responsible editor and, as an administrator, would act with probity. ∗ \ / (⁂) 11:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Switching to neutral. ∗ \ / (⁂) 10:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

61. Yes - honestly per Wizardman, also per WilliamH. —Ed 17 13:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
62. Hell yes (it gets old just saying "support" all the time, and well, the one above me is a "yes," so...) per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as the candidate has never been blocked, rescues articles from deletion and contributes to featured articles per User:Neurolysis#Contributions, has received numerous barnstars seen at User:Neurolysis#Barnstars, and makes thoughtful arguments in AfDs (see and . Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
63. Strong Support Definitely, I was also under the impression that Neuro was already an admin.--Res2216firestar 17:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
64. Support After what has been already said, I do not think there is more to add to the conversation. Lucifer (Talk) 17:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    Weak Support One does not have to be an admin to be an admin, I think Neuro demonstrates that mentatility. I have not reviewed his edits, but the very fact that I thought he was already an admin, tells me that he is ready. That being said, there have been times where I thought he was a little , I don't know the word I'm looking for, brash? Hasty? I can't put my finger on it... but while I thought he was an admin, I've felt that he had some room to grow as one. I'll try to elaborate on that more if I can verbalize my concern. But I've always said, the best way to become an admin, is to be an admin.---I'm Spartacus! 18:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Edit moving to oppose---I'm Spartacus! 15:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    GlassCobra below used the word I was looking for... there are times where (right or wrong) I feel that Neuro can be a little drama prone, not enough to oppose, but enough so that I have to mention it here.---I'm Spartacus! 18:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

65. User:Mixwell/Rainbow Support I give him the best support ever. --Mixwell 21:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    Good lord, Mixwell, somebody's gonna fry you for that ridiculously long signature... and I'll be the one to start that... 4 lines that I would have to wade through if it weren't for WikiEd's highlighting features... Until It Sleeps 22:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

66. Yup. Without a doubt. And, er, what happens on irc, stays on irc. :) Steve Crossin /₂₄ 22:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
67. Being Neuro's nom for his Last RfA, I can say that my view has not changed. Neuro is a very friendly, capable user, and will go good with the tools. Xclamation point 02:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

    Support Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Switching to oppose, sorry. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    Support --Caspian blue 06:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Switched to Oppose.--Caspian blue 13:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

68. Support Sure. — Aitias // discussion 09:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
69. User is a good one. He's mean to me on IRC, but well, I can overlook that. Haha. the_undertow 10:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
70. Support - A good candidate for the job, already doing a lot of useful admin-like work, and I've found him to have a good demeanor. Baseball Bugs carrots 10:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
71. About time support. Why isn't this user an admin already? Stwalkerster 16:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
72. Support This user spends a lot of time trying to do helpful things around the project. I feel he his a pretty good candidate, and I can find no reason to think he would abuse the tools. Landon1980 (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
73. Support, per above. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
74. Support - I was not aware of this user's previous history, but I've seen some of his recent comments in the admin forums, and he always appeared to be a sensible person. Not convinced by the Oppose arguments. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
75. Support I can't see any reason worth opposing for. ThemFromSpace 20:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
76. Support Never had a negative impression of the guy, and seen him around plenty. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
77. Support →Na·gy 22:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
78. Support Seems an able, and willing candidate...Modernist (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
79. Support I see no problems, will be an asset as an admin. Foxy Loxy 23:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
80. Support Sure, I think he'll be an asset with the tools. --CapitalR (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
81. Support nice guy, I trust him. He's not that bad IRL either. Sceptre 02:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
82. Strong speedy support We need more guys like him. fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 11:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    Liars and dellusionists? Giano (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    Giano, I understand you're angry about what happened, but I hope you'll consider letting go of some of your anger and moving on. As Neuro pointed out, he has apologized several times for what he did and quite explicitly said it was a mistake. After someone has gone so far as to ask for forgiveness for their actions, I feel it is in the best interest of not only the project, but of yourself, to accept that. Comments such this and this and this are really not helping anyone in this issue, and I respectfully request that you stop making them. Thank you, FlyingToaster 11:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    • Several times? he never appolagised at all untill he realised it was costing him votes here! I'll loose my anger when he withdraws this half baked candidacy and appolagises on the blog where he spread his lies. Giano (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Slightly modified to remove obvious personal attack. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

83. Support belongs here. --candle•wicke 13:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
84. Support to spite Giano :) No, seriously, there are positives and negatives about Neurolysis, and I think the former outweigh the latter. People are allowed to screw up. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
85. Support opposes unconvincing, interactions positive. Equals support.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
86. Support. People can change, and this editor has shown that he has.—S Marshall /_Cont 15:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    Support - per Q12. —Ed 17 15:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    You voted twice (Support 62 and 88). GT5162 16:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    Whoops, my apologies. Indented and struck. —Ed 17 16:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

87. Support  Editor has proven they can be a useful and valuable member of the staff. --StaniStani  16:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
88. Support Oops, thought I already had. Sorry for being so late! —Cyclonenim | Chat  16:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)