Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Rootology: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:23, 26 January 2009 view sourceDureo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers5,168 edits →Support: +s← Previous edit Revision as of 00:51, 26 January 2009 view source Giggy (talk | contribs)Rollbackers30,896 edits →OpposeNext edit →
Line 209: Line 209:
#'''Oppose''' after reading ]. --] (]) 21:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC) #'''Oppose''' after reading ]. --] (]) 21:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' The answer to Q6 was not the one I was looking for, and the candidate took the easy way out on Q8, so to me that indicates a lack of policy knowledge plus a lack of being ]. We need admins who are ] and put thought into their actions and reactions to situations instead of blindly following some set form of guidelines. ] (]) 23:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC) #'''Oppose''' The answer to Q6 was not the one I was looking for, and the candidate took the easy way out on Q8, so to me that indicates a lack of policy knowledge plus a lack of being ]. We need admins who are ] and put thought into their actions and reactions to situations instead of blindly following some set form of guidelines. ] (]) 23:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
#:Not only does his Q6 actually agree with policy, it gives some good reasons why the policy is correct, which is more than 99% of people who you support on the basis of answers to your silly stock question. What ''were'' you looking for? ] (]) 00:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - though his conduct here since his unbanning has been exemplary, the fact is that he was banned until less than a year ago and while he was banned, he created a site called WikiAbuse.com, which engaged in the harassment of Misplaced Pages admins. Making him an admin and giving him access to deleted revisions (potential material for harassment) is a spectacularly bad idea. --] (]) 23:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC) #'''Oppose''' - though his conduct here since his unbanning has been exemplary, the fact is that he was banned until less than a year ago and while he was banned, he created a site called WikiAbuse.com, which engaged in the harassment of Misplaced Pages admins. Making him an admin and giving him access to deleted revisions (potential material for harassment) is a spectacularly bad idea. --] (]) 23:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


Revision as of 00:51, 26 January 2009

Rootology

Nomination

Voice your opinion (talk page) (80/8/1); Scheduled to end 01:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Rootology (talk · contribs) – There is a real need to recruit quality editors to the role of adminstrator, especially as we have recently lost a number of hard-working people. I - and many others - have noticed Rootology's excellent contributions to the encyclopedia in recent months, where he has shown both the ability to write high quality content, and his very solid grasp of policy with contributions in a number of projectspace areas. He is also trusted as an admin at Commons. Whilst I am aware that he has had problems in his Misplaced Pages history, I am convinced that he has learnt from those experiences and turned them into a positive for the project, and I have no worries whatsoever that he will make an excellent, consistent and fair administrator. Black Kite 01:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Co-nom by MBisanz

When I look at administrative candidates, I'm looking for peopel with good judgement. And over the last months I keep seeing Root pop up in different places with reasonable sounding comments. So I looked at him in detail and it turns out he is a pretty great guy. He writes lots of content, including the FA-in process Pike Place Market and the current FA The Greencards. Also he works on building the project with the Obama FA/GA content-drive WikiProject. I know he has had some problems in the past, but after reviewing his record this time round and seeing that he has learned from his mistakes, has shown himself to be an excellent contributor, and will show himself to be a model admin. MBisanz 01:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Co-nom by Synergy

Way back in 2006 is when I first met Rootology. He gave me a good impression back then, and I am ashamed that I went this long thinking he was (yes yes, you've heard it before) already an admin. I did not keep up with what transpired with regards to his block since I went off wiki for about a year with no internet, but he came back before me so I was obviously oblivious to the entire matter. And as such, it has shown me that there are those select few that can truly be resilient. I've seen nothing but good things from Root. He is well mannered, thoughtful, shows appreciation and the ability to work well with others (not to mention his 1 FA, 4 GA's and 5 DYK's). I trust that he would not misuse the tools. Synergy 01:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Co-nom by Lar

I know some people aren't always keen on a lot of co-noms but I hope this time you'll forgive, because I think it's important to speak out, not just in strong support, but as a co-nom here, because Rootology and I have been talking about this nomination for a while now. Rootology is the poster child for a user who has put his past behind him and moved on to make strong contributions. I've worked with him in a number of areas here and elsewhere, and been extremely impressed by his very sound approach. The other co-noms have said most of what I'd say, so I'll just say we really need more people like Rootology dedicated to this project. His work on Commons, especially since gaining adminship, has shown he "gets it", "has a deft touch" and "won't blow up the wiki". Please join me in supporting this fine candidate. ++Lar: t/c 02:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I extremely graciously and thankfully accept. As I said verbatim on WP:AN when I came back nearly a year ago, I won't disappoint all of you, and I mean to stand by that pledge.
I began editing by IP (various DSL and Comcast IPs) in early 2005, on and off, with mostly trivial little edits. I registered in 2005, and began working on content. In 2006 I was banned as a result of some poor decisons on my part, by Arbcom. Jimmy Wales granted me a Right To Vanish later on, and off I went into the sunset. I became a sometime-commentator on Misplaced Pages Review for a while, in spurts, but became just a reader of Misplaced Pages otherwise. I left Misplaced Pages Review in early December '08 and my account is currently locked out by my own doing, with thepassword hashed. In 2008, Jimmy and Arbcom unbanned me at Misplaced Pages.
To answer the question pre-emptively, I honestly swear to God that various "socks" tagged as me in 2007 are not me--I know it's all my word vs whomevers, but I have nothing else I can offer as proof, since you cannot prove a negative. XP (talk · contribs) is me, and that's it from 2006.
My Editor Review at Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Rootology has more details (more than most of you probably ever care to know) about what I was doing between my leaving Misplaced Pages and coming back in May 2008, specifically in my reply to Cieol here.
Since coming back to the WMF, I've become an administrator on Commons (mostly working on copyright issues). I've picked up a few awards at User:Rootology#Awards, two from now-Arbitration Committee members. I had approximately 2609 edits whenI left in 2006; I now have 11,000+ since May 2008, an entirely separate lifetime, since returning. I've gotten Featured quality content (see below); been on the Main Page five times, twice with my own photos; gotten awards; gotten a Triple Crown; created and/or significantly expanded over 30 articles, and I've tried to be as generally helpful as I can be when I'm working here. Like I wrote in the editor review, this is me circa September 2006, making up for two years' lost time, slowly but surely. I also have another account in the form of User:Rootology Bot, but he sadly sees little action and is parked in the garage mostly.
I will be open for recall. If 5 admins in good standing ask me to over any issue with my tools use, I'll stand for a reconfirmation RFA within one week. rootology (C)(T) 01:57, 25 January 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: The housekeeping, primarily. I want the tools primarily so that I can have another way to help out. Moving images to Commons is a big thing I want to work on, that I have worked on on-and-off in bursts. Speedy deletion clean-up is another, and Requests for Page Protection is yet another area I'd like to help on. Those would be my primary areas, especially the images work involved in clearing out images moved over to Commons (principally the categories User-created public domain images and Copyright holder released public domain images). IFD is another area I could help out on, and I've been on and off trying to trudge through an image clean up project at User:Rootology/Images which is basically rooting out Commons move candidates from the orphaned PD images that belong more on Facebook than here or Commons. I do Huggle sometimes, if I have some spare time and don't feel like actually writing, so I'd probably try to help keep an eye on AIV backlogs when I can, as well. The image work, to go in tandem with my work and tools on Commons, will be my primary focus.
2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: I've written so far one Featured Article in The Greencards and another in development for FAC at Pike Place Market; Good Articles in Beecher's Handmade Cheese (this one will go FAC), The Paperboys, and Pike Place Fish Market; and I've been on WP:DYK and the Main Page five times, twice with photos I took myself.
I'm also proud of three back-end things I've begun. One is a silly little essay, Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not about winning, and for having begun the Misplaced Pages:Protecting BLP articles feeler survey. The third, Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Committees, wasn't quite so well received, but I'm still fond of the idea and think some day it may have legs.
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 was the filing party on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO in August 2006. Because of some poor choices on my part, I was banned. I recognize now I made mistakes then and have learned from those mistakes.
To me it's ancient history, three years past. The 2008 Arbitration Committee members noted I was back in good standing and that's good enough for me.
I've had only one conflict (if you can even call it that, which is dubious) since returning to Misplaced Pages. When Sarah Palin was announced as the VP Candidate for John McCain, I began working on her article like half the active editors here did, it seemed like. That as some of you will recall incredibly quickly erupted into a full-scale administrative wheel war over protection of her article. Like all the other non-admins I could only stand and watch it all. Afterwards, when it went to Arbitration, I submitted Evidence and Workshop proposals that seemed to be well-received. I don't even have the Palin article on my watchlist anymore, and that entire wheel war by the other admins in hindsight was a flash in the pan.
Just a footnote, my blocks by WJBscribe in October 2008 were he and I trying to figure out a possible blocking bug we suspected in a MediaWiki update, over IRC, as he noted with the "guinea pig" comments.. There was a discussion on ANI after Giano's talk page mysteriously locked him out during one of his blocks. It looked like a total technical error, and this discussion is where WJBscribe and I chased it down with our testing. All the chatter between WJBscribe and I was over IRC to coordinate the blocks with various editing tests "real time". There was an extra discussion on that 'feature' on ANI a few days later here.

Q's from flaminglawyer

4. What's the difference between a block and a ban? In your own words, no copy-pasting please.
A. The block is the technical stoppage of editing via admin tools for a given duration typically; a ban is either an Arbcom-leveled restriction against editing or a full community sanction. The Arbcom does up to 1-year bans (I don't remember ever seeing a 2-year, anything like that from them) except in extraordinary circumstances, and it seems like they debate about that. I know James F. always held they couldn't do that, and some people think otherwise from conversations I remember seeing. The general community ban is either indefinite or a fixed duration, but you also have topic or article bans, which are a different beast. Its not me copy-pasting, but an indef block no one undoes is functionally a ban (I can't think of another way to word that to not sound like I'm copy/pasting). rootology (C)(T) 02:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Optional Question from Townlake

5. You recently started the WikiProject WP:OBAMA. Why did you start it, and will your becoming an administrator impact your availability to support that project (either positively or negatively)?
A. I started it for three reasons. The first is a tiny bit selfish, because I want to write more articles, but if you look at my sandboxes and my "current" to-do list, I tend to get scattered on which thing to actually write. I like having focused systems to work through for that kind of thing, and it's a steady stream of content I can work through, myself. The second is that so many people are so interested in everything Obama, there will be literally floods of content and RS to incorporate... it's a staging ground for content for more editors, and for editors to work together. I'm good at finding content, I think, but fine-tuning it and copyediting it is NOT my strong suit at all. It took me three gawky FACs to get my first. Working as a team is just smarter for everyone, and for writers with the odd weakness. The third is that this just gives focus to getting even more GAs and FAs going for everyone. It's a win-win for at least the next four years, if it lasts and interest stays up.
As for adminship on this or anything to do with the President, my views on Obama for anyone that knows me aren't exactly secret. I wouldn't use tools here on anything Obama-related. We have enough active admins on AN/ANI, email, IRC, and IM that it wouldn't be hard to get help on a high-profile article(s) if tools are needed in an emergency, which is unlikely. rootology (C)(T) 03:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Questions from ArcAngel

6. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
A. In general, I don't like the idea of cool-down blocks, and wouldn't use them ever. It's not necessarily the same thing as throwing gasoline on a fire in every situation, but it may as well be more often than not from what I've seen. It's better to talk things out. I remember what it was like to be needlessly stressed out over (perceived or otherwise) problems on this site. We all joke (even me) sometimes that, "hey, it's just a site", but this is practically the Times Square of the Internet sometimes. Getting some random "Rootology" shoving a block in your face, saying to "cool down" isn't going to do that. If you're that wound up that someone hit the block button in that situation, it's just going to incite you more. People are human, not sheep to be herded and tranquilized for sheering. I've lived in two big cities. We're not cops, but as an analogy, I've seen cops just slap cuffs on an angry person, and seen the person all but explode, and I've seen cops saying "Whats wrong?" and had the person calm down immediately to explain. People are inherently good. We should treat them that way. rootology (C)(T) 03:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
7. What are/is the most important policy(s) regarding administrative functions?
A. I'm usually a bit of a smart ass, so can I say this? No? It depends on the function you're doing or planning, and sometimes where and how you're using it. I'm not going to lie and say I have every policy and every sub-article of every policy and historical precedent memorized. No one does. Blocks/bans? Blocking/banning policy. Protection? Protection policy. It's usually a pretty straight 1:1 correlation, and not exactly hard to figure out with half a minute of time and one search, if you're not sure. If I were to pick the best single section of the 1,001 policy and guideline pages I'd be tempted to say Misplaced Pages:Administrators/Tools#Misuse of tools as a catch-all starting point. The precedent on how we do things becomes policy, so the actual written page might not be up to date if no one bothered to get it up to date, but it's always better to ask if you're not sure. There really aren't that many emergencies I can think of that require button mashing... this isn't a video game that requires lightning mouse reflexes. Beyond that Administrators/Tools link, being smart about it, being mindful of the specific policy/act (protection to protection, etc.) and actually trying to improve WP, that's probably all you can really know to start. The rest comes with practice in whatever your niche ends up being. RFPP expert? They'll know the nuances of Protection. Speedy patrollers? CSD masters and so on, in the end. rootology (C)(T) 03:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Optional Question from Iamawesome800

8. You say you want to participate in protecting pages so find 2 pages that need or recently needed page protection. Discuss why page protection would be the best way to address the issue, what type of page protection best fits, how long it should be, and what alternatives exist to page protection in that particular case.
A. First one: Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport at this moment is up for RFPP for edit warring. It's a short edit war, and is hours hold. I'd decline on that one, and leave a note for the particpants on their talk and on the article talk, and tell them it could be protected on the wrong version if the warring resumes, and advise them to talk it out. rootology (C)(T) 21:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

General comments

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

Discussion

  • I've commented out a late conom until the candidate has reviewed and consented to have it displayed here. Do you want it on here, Root? (un-comment it if you do) flaminglawyer 02:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Just being safe. The last late conom I saw turned out to be a piece of crap that seriously degraded the RfA. (Not the same deal with this one) flaminglawyer 02:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there any reason why both User:Rootology and User talk:Rootology have many deleted edits, even though the user has come back and the right to vanish no longer applies? I'm mainly concerned about the user talk page deletions, because user talk pages are a llarge part of a user's on-wiki record. I understand that Root has turned over a new leaf since the deletions, but transparency is vital on Misplaced Pages, especially during requests for adminship. Graham87 13:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I thought my talk page had been undeleted when I came back? My user page on some revisions if memory serves had a bit of personal information, which is why I didn't ask for that to be restored fully. I saw you've got the bit, if you want to go ahead and restore talk page. rootology (C)(T) 13:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Uh, are you User:Fuckface on ED? I saw a claim that you were, just wanted to you to confirm or deny, especially with the MONGO related slurs on that page. — neuro 00:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Support
  1. As co nom. Synergy 01:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. Strong support I was going to be a nominator, but I got busy writing an article instead. I'll keep this short: it's almost as if Rootology is a different person. I have not seen a single bad thing come from him since he returned. This is clear proof that people can change. Rootology is dedicated to writing the encyclopedia. He's already entrusted as an admin on Commons, and has recently shown he could put admin tools to great use here as well. Since more admins are needed, and Rootology has shown he is totally dedicated and qualified, this should be an obvious shoe-in. Majorly talk 02:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. Aye as co-nom. Black Kite 02:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. Support When Rootology first ran for RFA at Commons last year I held back--wasn't sure he was ready for it or trustworthy. With respect extended toward the other parties in his old conflicts, it has been frankly a pleasure to work with him as a fellow sysop on that sister project. He's earned the Valiant Return triple crown over here at this site. It's always been my opinion that it would add a valuable perspective to have a formerly banned editor among our admin corps; the tough part is finding the right one. Because it takes a very special person to complete that long climb. Frankly I would have preferred if Rootology had hit the full twelve month mark before starting this candidacy, but it isn't too early to take this candidacy seriously. Supporting. Durova 02:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. Although I've effectively retired from RFA, this guy's real good. Seen him everywhere, work seems to be faultless. So as I noted, I would come for specific RFAs. This guy's been on my list... Ceran//forge 02:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. Support Per my nomination statement. MBisanz 02:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  7. Support per arbcom de-ban, triple crown, excellent recent history, good noms, admin on commons. Only concern is it's been only 8 months, I'd prefer 12 just as I do with new users, but you are well past 6 months, and with this history I'm willing to make that my minimum. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    Disclaimer if your bit goes through, the precedent could help me later. I'll leave it up to the closing 'crat to decide if that means my !vote doesn't !count. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  8. Support I trust the judgment of those that have supported before me. Sam 02:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  9. Support per excellent article and wikispace work, although I have questions about his judgement in regards to a certain gig in NYC :P. Ironholds (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    Disclaimer: long ago, I had a chance to see Portishead in NYC, which became Roseland NYC Live. I lost my chance for an extra ticket in a coin toss I allowed to give someone else a chance. :( rootology (C)(T) 02:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  10. Support per the co-noms, my own nom, every other support so far (especially Majorly and Durova), and all his supports at Commons. Do I need to go on? :) ++Lar: t/c 02:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  11. Definitely. No reason not to trust Rootology with the tools. –Juliancolton 02:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  12. Support. I was just wikistalking this editor two days ago after I found out that he wasn't an administrator (forgive the cliche). Looks great. Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  13. Support per the candidate's Commons work and other areas of experience. SF3 02:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  14. Support My look at the editor's work shows good things, and I see that editors I respect and trust are in support.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  15. Support. Seems clueful and eager to help. I trust him with the tools. Deor (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  16. Support - Until this nomination, I had been unaware of rootology's history, as every time his name has come up, I have been left with a favourable impression. I'd say he has regained community trust. //roux   02:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  17. Strong Support. Wizardman 02:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  18. Support. I've been very impressed since his return. He's a good editor, civil, responsible, trustworthy, and he cares about the policies and the project in general. SlimVirgin 03:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  19. Strong support - Nothing to say but, fuck yes. iMatthew // talk // 03:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  20. Support: Everything that needs to be said has been said in the !votes above. So in short, he should be an admin. But err... isn't RfA closed? Chamal 03:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  21. Strongly: amazing editor, great improvement since unbanning, rollback granted by me, loads of article work...an excellent user. I trust Rootology with the tools. Acalamari 03:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  22. — Realist 03:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  23. Support per respect for the candidate and the nominators, plus a really, really good answer to Q5 - thanks. Townlake (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  24. Support excellent edit summary usage, lots of good points brought up by nominations, per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy 03:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  25. Support. This user is truly a reformed soul. He should totally be an admin. Also, this user has been very civil, and I was totally shocked when I found out that he had previously been banned. Jonathan321 (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  26. Support I was leaning towards oppose because of the ban and not yet a year passed since it was lifted. I read the arbcom case and comments and I see a hot contentious situation that got out of control. Ban was appropriate but I can somewhat understand Rootology's reactions. I would be interested in what MONGO (talk · contribs) has to say about this RfA. However, there has been enough time for Rootology to cool down and looking through his very good editor actions since he came back he shows all the qualities of character and knowledge I expect to see in an admin. Admin on Commons is a big plus and is a real good testing ground - that makes up for me the shortish time since ban removal. I am also strongly swayed by the nominators and the quality of their evaluation and support. Rootology will make a fine admin and I look forward to working with him. --NrDg 03:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  27. Support — Jake Wartenberg 03:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  28. Support. The Nordic Goddess Kristen 03:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  29. Support - Per the noms, per the answers to the first three questions, and great quality contributions to the project. A valued contributor indeed, will be able to help out even more so with the tools. Cirt (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  30. Support Hiro Gomiashi (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC) — Hiro Gomiashi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
    Possible meatpuppet... flaminglawyer 05:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    Hm? A meatpuppet of who? — neuro 09:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    It's unusual for anyone to find there way to RFA on their 13th edit. Could be a former anon who got tired of anonning? Dlohcierekim 16:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    Rootology has a link to this RfA on his userpage, so perhaps that's how they found it. –Juliancolton 16:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    I found my way to RfA on my 6th edit. It's unusual, yes, but not unheard of. Shubinator (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  31. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 05:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  32. Support - A very active and dedicated user. Always waiting for Mailer diablo approvals before mines -- FayssalF - 06:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  33. Support. I was a little bit skeptical about the ban, but after reading the circumstances surrounding it and seeing the contributions of the user since it was lifted, all of my fears have been appeased. Give him the mop. Trusilver 06:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  34. Strong Support Thoughtful and honest. I find this to be a very frank and self aware answear to a difficult question + I think the nom statements are true and convincing. Ceoil (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  35. Support - Excellent editor, already has the bit on another project, would benefit from the bit here. Matt (Talk) 07:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  36. Amazing. I come back from a short Wikibreak (due in part to limited computer access) to find, to my surprise, that Rootology is up for RfA. Total shocker, as I had always thought he was one. I was in for another shock subsequent, however, as I read the nominee's acceptance - specifically the part about him being banned. I thought, "wtf? Rootology couldn't have been banned." But I decided to do some extensive research into the matter, for about 15 minutes (what? I'm a bit lazy - bear with me). It's true - more true than I was hoping for, and the events that lead to it left the Arbcom with little choice. Unfortunately, I could no longer write a "zOMG I thought he was! :O " comment, as it would not suffice in the circumstances. But I digress, the fact remains that it never occured to me that Rootology wasn't already a sysop, and this is because he is consistently clueful, civil, diligent, hard-working, and conscientious - I'm guessing lots of people thought he was already an admin (here comes a WP:100 pile-on, I'm guessing). He has clearly acknowledged and learned from his past mistakes that led to the arbcom sanction, which demonstrates, at least to some extent, how he will respond to criticism and improve from it. He has matured a lot over time. Hense, my comment in the Support section. Go for it, Rootology! Master&Expert (Talk) 07:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  37. Support - Rootology made mistakes in 2006, but it seems that he has learned from his mistakes. In RL, I've said things I shouldn't have said; I've done things I shouldn't have done. We are humans, not God. We make mistakes. You have written one FA, you are dedicated to WP, and this is 2009. You've my support, bro! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  38. Support Whenever I have seen Rootology in the last year on wikipedia my impression has been positive. I feel he will be an asset as an admin and will not misuse the tools. Davewild (talk) 08:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  39. Support - No issues as of recent, in fact quite the opposite, I have only seen Rootology doing good things recently, and can only imagine the trend continuing into the future. — neuro 09:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  40. I trust Rootology. He has worked hard to earn it. Giggy (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  41. Dedicated volunteer who has helped improve Misplaced Pages in many ways. Cla68 (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    Sorry, you need an account to comment at RfA. Did you forget to log in? Black Kite 11:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    Sorry. Logged-in now. Cla68 (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  42. I agree with the nomination. A constructive, polite, sensible editor. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  43. Support The honesty about the block log had to be hard to explain but explained it was. I like this honesty. --CrohnieGal 11:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  44. Support Appears to have learned from past mistakes, and is a valued contributor in many areas. --Chasingsol 12:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  45. Support →Na·gy 12:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  46. Support Seems to have learnt from his mistakes and does good work. After all, if he edit-wars/wheel-wars/etc we can block/ban/punch/kill him quite easily but it's much more likely that he won't and I don't think we should allow us to lose a good admin because he might misuse the tools. They all might but I'd only oppose if there is a reason to believe they would. And I have none here :-) SoWhy 13:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  47. Support Been doing solid work, three years is a long time. Royalbroil 13:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  48. Support Past issues forgiven and forgotten IMHO. Solid work, WP:CLUE levels high. Pedro :  Chat  13:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  49. Support Graham87 13:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  50. Hey, Joe… where you goin' with that mop in your hand? — CharlotteWebb 13:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    I'm going down to shoot Willy on Wheels
    You know, I've caught him messin' around with another IP range
    — neuro 14:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    And that shits not too cool. Yeah. Ceoil (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    I thought my rhymes were dope, g :( — neuro 00:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  51. Good God yes. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 13:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  52. Support Absolutely. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  53. Support. Rootology's edits over the last few months have been exemplary, as has his work as an admin over at Commons. Giving him the admin tools will most definitely benefit the project. Rje (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  54. Support, this nom is long overdue. Rootology has done outstanding work as an editor and will do so as an admin as well. Kelly 15:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  55. support The incivil comment to MONGO was more than 2 years ago. User was banned for that episode and then came back to become a positive. I found no reason to believe would abuse or misuse the tools. Dlohcierekim 16:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  56. Yep. --Conti|✉ 16:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  57. Support as candidate generally meets my standards. AfD arguments are elaborate rather than just drive by "voting". As seen at User:Rootology, the candidate has multiple good and featured article credits as well as barnstars. And all but one of the candidate's blocks were subsequently unblocked. The nature of the first two blocks are a cause for concern ("Pretty outrageous personal attacks" and "links to harassment articles on Encyclopedia Dramatica") as I regard harassment as one of the worst things to be blocked for, but these are from 2006 and we are now in 2009... Sincerely, --A Nobody 16:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  58. Support. Intervention in Sarah Palin was a good thing, as is this user's work generally. Cool Hand Luke 17:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  59. One hundred and ten percent yes. And that's spelled out as well. Garden. 17:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    Doesn't make it any more mathematically correct :P Stifle (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  60. Support Definitely yes! Four co-noms!?! LittleMountain5 17:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  61. Support already. Stifle (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  62. Support. Is a sysop on commons and seems genuinely sorry about previous behavior. meshach (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  63. Support, despite a pet peeve of mine being when people say they "graciously accept" on here. I've seen Rootology around a lot; never had any issues. All the experience seems to be in place. Tan | 39 18:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  64. Durova said it well above. Nothing to add but a support. Keeper | 76 18:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  65. Of all the non-admins I was looking at nomming, why did I miss Rooto? Support Xclamation point 18:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    Consider it this way: Noone nominated someone you wanted to nominate in this RfA - allowing you to do it :-D SoWhy 19:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  66. Support - positive interaction history, e. g. Sarah Palin Wheel War case. No signs of unsuitability have been discovered. WilyD 18:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  67. Support I thought this user was already an admin. User has shown that they have learned from the past, and have stated that they are open to recall if they go off the deep end. --Terrillja talk 18:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  68. Support although I am sure that the bored RfA masses could have found a more interesting person to nominate. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  69. Support Probably pile-on voting by this point, but I still want to show my support. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  70. Support No problems here. Definitely knows his stuff and would make a great admin. Razorflame 19:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  71. Support. · AndonicO 19:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  72. Support I see no reason not to support. America69 (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  73. Support - thinks alot about WP and what I have come across is sensible. Net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  74. Support I would support anyway if there were no past to consider; I support more because there is a past and the candidate has moved on admirably from it. I don't expect any problems from him. Crystal whacker (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  75. Support: The prior unpleasantness was before my time, and I've liked what I've seen since rootology came back. He's done good work, and shown good BLP instincts in (for instance) the Sarah Palin debacle. I'm happy to sign off on this one - make us proud. MastCell  20:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  76. Support - per positive interactions/observations available with this user. Gazimoff 21:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  77. Go on then Interventions in admin related areas show consistently good judgement. Spartaz 21:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  78. Strong Support I don't even need to see your next answer to my question, plus 4 co-noms doesn't hurt.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 22:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  79. Support - good, sensible editor. Although... are there 5 admins in good standing? ;) – Toon 23:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  80. Strong Support I am pleased to support this candidate...Modernist (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  81. Support - Dureo (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I'm still not comfortable with Rootology having the tools. Sorry. DS (talk) 03:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    I'm curious, is this related to his post-return behavior, his pre-ban behavior, or just not enough of a history since his return? Please don't consider this badgering, if you don't want to answer I'll understand. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. Oppose (moved from neutral) I figured it out now before seeing Giggy's reply., so I must oppose. An admin with various experience of sockpuppetry for 4 months/POV pushing for long time/incivility? Errr.. Athough many argue that the indef.block was too old to be accountable, his unblock happened also just 8 month ago. I don't think that is enough for him to have the tool even though he is a lost son for some people. --Caspian blue 12:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    Uhhhh, how does the prodigal son come into this? — neuro 13:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    Oppose. I do not have a problem with Rootology personally, his past history is checquered to say the least and though his participation in external attacks has been largely to try to keep them accurate and reasonably neutral, there's no doubt that he has acted as an enabler for egregious attacks by banned users. Leave it another year and maybe. I think he is a reformed character, but that's a long way from being a candidate for adminship even under the "no big deal" rule. If the aim here is to prove that he's turned over a new leaf, then let's by all means give him a barnstar as one of Misplaced Pages's most improved, but not a mop just yet. 80.176.82.42 (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    Sorry, you need an account to comment at RfA. Did you forget to log in? Black Kite 12:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. Oppose because of recent conduct at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Workshop. Still too volatile, needs better interpersonal skills. Jayen466 14:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. Oppose-Although I would be the first to say that anyone can overcome a troubled past I believe that this troubled past is too recent. To be an admin good social skills are required and it seems that Rootology needs some more time to work on them.-Kieran4 (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Supports 27 and 28. Tool2Die4 (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    Eh? Dlohcierekim 16:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    I think he's trying to make a point by giving no reason, whilst citing supports that state no reason. — neuro 16:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    Also sprach Dorftrottel. Support is the default position, meaning one agrees wtih then oms and found no reason to oppose. An oppose needs a rationale. RFA is not a vote. Dlohcierekim 16:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    Hey - don't look at me, I agree with you. D: — neuro 17:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    That simply isn't true. Neutral is the default position. If one agrees with the nom, they should indicate why. WilyD 18:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    Perhaps here isn't the appropriate place for this discussion, but I disagree that neutral is the default position. If there is no reason to oppose, you should support. — neuro 19:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. Oppose after reading Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Workshop. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  7. Oppose The answer to Q6 was not the one I was looking for, and the candidate took the easy way out on Q8, so to me that indicates a lack of policy knowledge plus a lack of being proactive. We need admins who are autonomous and put thought into their actions and reactions to situations instead of blindly following some set form of guidelines. ArcAngel (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    Not only does his Q6 actually agree with policy, it gives some good reasons why the policy is correct, which is more than 99% of people who you support on the basis of answers to your silly stock question. What were you looking for? Giggy (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - though his conduct here since his unbanning has been exemplary, the fact is that he was banned until less than a year ago and while he was banned, he created a site called WikiAbuse.com, which engaged in the harassment of Misplaced Pages admins. Making him an admin and giving him access to deleted revisions (potential material for harassment) is a spectacularly bad idea. --B (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral :( -- Gurch (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    Surely you mean :) –Juliancolton 03:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    I hate my life. -- Gurch (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    I hate his life too :( ..--Cometstyles 03:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    Don't we all? flaminglawyer 04:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    Maybe he's :( 'cause he couldn't support. Dlohcierekim 16:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    (moved to oppose) Heck, I though he already became an admin (I checked to see if this RFA was for him to regain his tool....) As seeing his block log, I don't understand the "Guinea pig" play with WJBscribe and want to know why he was indefinitely blocked and then unblocked one year 8 months after that.--Caspian blue 10:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    All of your questions are answered in question three. Giggy (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)