Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/De728631

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

De728631

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) Final (74/0/0); Closed as successful by 28bytes (talk) at 22:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

De728631 (talk · contribs) – Folks, for your consideration meet De728631. Having started active editing in 2008, De928631 has made some 30,000 edits since. De728631 came to my attention through their excellent work at WP:PNT, where they are one of the few editors actively helping to deal with non-english and badly translated articles. A breakdown of their edits shows a substantial number to articles and user talk pages, clearly he is here to build an encyclopedia, and is doing so collaborative way, a review of his conversations shows him to be friendly, polite and willing to help out anybody who needs it. Wikipedia-space wise De728631 has 2300 edits, much of which is significant input at AFD, PNT and nearly 200 edits to AIV without use of tools such as huggle. In addition De728631 has over 6000 deleted edits, the majority of which seem to be deletion tagging. When it comes to admin tasks De728631 clearly already knows what he is doing, and I believe his ability to improve Wikipedia will only be increased by giving him the tools --Jac16888 ^Talk 14:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you very much, Jac16888. I gladly accept this nomination. De728631 (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I'd prefer to do the administrative part of that kind of work I've already been doing as a rollbacker and new page patroller. I.e. watching out for inappropriate pages and unconstructive editing. In the past few months I have also become more and more engaged in project-wide discussions at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or recently at the Village Pump. I'll continue watching these and other pages and will offer my advice and opinion where I see it fit. As Jac has already mentioned, I have also initiated and taken part in quite a lot of deletion discussion so I think I am prepared for judging whether consensus has been found or where a page needs relisting.

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

A: I'd say my best contribution to Wikipedia in general is supporting the various WikiProjects I've joined. I have a very diverse range of personal interests which enables me to participate in more than one area of topics. I'm not the sort of editor with a huge output of new articles but I keep doing to the regular work of wikifying and referencing, of tagging for problems, etc. I keep exchanging myself with other editors, and, if it so happens, I'll write something new from scratch every now and then. In my mind this is the kind of work that Wikipedia needs.

I am a translator, mostly from the German language Wikipedia. And I think my active contribution to improving Wikipedia began with translating de:Amrum step by step, which eventually turned the English article Amrum into something that has been labelled class C as a minimum. This made me realise that I actually enjoy that kind of work and so I've been continuing it for articles that needed major improvement and happened to be in the scope of my interests. Another advantage of speaking more than one language is that I can find and verify sources from languages other than English.

Lastly, I don't want to show off but I'll let these messages speak for themselves as examples of what I've done here: [1], [2], [3].

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: The most inconvenient incident I remember was this edit war I was unintentionally dragged into one year ago, and which made me temporarily loose my rollback rights until I appealed successfully. I suppose this shows that I can be somewhat stubborn from time to time when I feel that I have been wronged (or when I see that someone else is being treated unfair, for that matter). But certainly I won't go as far as to let things escalate.

And of course I have also had some annoying comments on my user talk page, either for trivial reasons or outright vandalism. When solid and calm arguments won't help any more, I tend to ignore such people.

De728631 (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions by Dennis Brown

4. You see a user with this image [4] on his user page. What do you do?

A: Interesting case, I have to admit that I'm not really sure what to do in this case. Copyright is obviously not the problem here but the logo is trademarked. If it was used in a clearly promotional manner with associated text and spam links, I'd remove that and leave a note on the user's talk page that WP is not meant for advertising. Other than that, I've had a look at Wikipedia:General disclaimer which says that trademarks should not be used "any purpose other than for the same or a similar informational use" as implied by the relevant encyclopedic articles. So I think I'd first ask another experienced admin for input. That being said, I have a userbox on my page that mentions a well-known brand of stout beer. Is there any need to remove it? De728631 (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Very respectable answer to a very difficult question. It is NOT a simple case, and there is currently some debate about it, as enwp rules do not prohibit the use per se. It might be problematic via the oft linked but non-Foundation http://freedomdefined.org/Definition . I would have also accepted the answer "Nothing", although some would mistakenly argue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If, as implied in the question, that is the only content on the page, I would have thought that Wikipedia:UP#Excessive_unrelated_content would apply, in paricular WP:UP#PROMO. Leaky Caldron 13:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really implied in the question, many people do in fact have this and similar logos on their user page. I left it vague so he could qualify it as he saw fit. The real goal of this curveball question wasn't to see his answer on this logo, it was to see if he could recognize that not all problems are black and white and it is best to ask rather than act when you aren't sure. On this point, he passed quite well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

On the point of not mentioning any relevant WP:UP guidelines he failed. Leaky Caldron 14:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really, since he did point out that if it was being used in a promotional way it should be removed, clearly he is aware of the UP guidelines, I don't see that it's necessary to link to them or mention them directly--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a leading international brand advertising emblem. It stands alone. It is, by definition, promotional and requires no further context. For example, it could appear alone on an advertising hoarding and get its message over. Not referring to relevant guideline or policy is a common Admin failing. If you can quickly & clearly refer to a policy or guideline page it reduces the opportunity for disputes. I think the candidate failed to cover all aspects adequately. Leaky Caldron 14:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that WP:UP allows for "A small and proportionate amount of suitable unrelated material". Nothing in the question implied that it was being used in a promotional way, only that it was being used. You can find the image being used correctly here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing small and proportionate about the example in the question. I looks quite blatant, occupying 50% of my screen. Nothing about small and proportionate in the answer, which sort of proves my point. Leaky Caldron 15:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You are beating the drum over an exception to the rule, not the general principal. Using that same logic, I couldn't say you are allowed to put Wiki-related material on your page because you might put 1.5 gigabytes of data there. Both are extremes that don't reflect typical situations. In general, the principal applies, everywhere else, WP:IAR applies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually neither WP:Userpages nor WP:Trademarks offer any specific phrase that reads "you must not display any company and brand logos on your userpage" – or I must've missed it. Instead at the userpages policy there is a phrase to avoid "advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links)" that leaves quite some room for interpretation. From Dennis Brown's question it was not clear whether the logo was meant to be the sole content of the page nor was there any comment on image size. One small icon among otherwise non-promotional content is not extensive advertising or excessive unrelated content in my opinion, as opposed to one logo filling the entire page. Maybe we should have the policy pages updated to clarify the use of brand logos and names on user pages? And as I mentioned in my original answer I wouldn't have acted on my own but would have asked for advice. So, unless you define "failure" as not knowing any possible interpretation of any guideline by heart, I don't see how I failed this question because the question was "what do you do". Answer: ask for help. De728631 (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

5. What do you think is the most misunderstood aspect of WP:IAR and why?

A: I could imagine that many users interpret this in a way like "Fine, I'm allowed to ignore all rules so I can do and write whatever I like." This is obviously not the case. The lead sentence on the policy page clearly says that you may ignore rules in order to improve or maintain the encyclopedia. See also this essay. De728631 (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Hahc21

6. A user is trying to upload an image from Flickr using the license cc-by-2.0, which does not permit derivative works allow commercial use. How would you proceed?

A: Actually the link you provided refers to CC-by-NC-2.0 which does allow for derivative works but excludes commercial reuse. This is still not considered free enough for general use on Wikipedia. But since it is the English language Wikipedia and not Commons I would try to find an adequate non-free-use rationale for the uploaded image and label it as such, including the original CC license. Then I'd explain the circumstances to the user. De728631 (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions from Crisco 1492

7. Have you ever created any articles from scratch (i.e. not a translation)? Have you ever brought an article to either GA or FA status?

A: As to article creations, I had to look it up. Admittedly, in my list of created pages only Strobilomyces strobilaceus, Traumtänzer, The Moon and the Nightspirit and A class minehunter (Turkey) are seemingly not based on direct tranlations from another Wikipedia (ignoring the various dab pages I created; n.b.: Soxred93's page creation tool lists also pages that have been created by moving an existing article, i.e. some articles in this list are not originally my work.). I'm not sure about Little Shield which was apparently recreated by me with additional references. De728631 (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Earlier this year I tried to lift The Hobbit to FA status with the help of a few other editors but it didn't work. I should get back though to this offer. However, in related news, my work has been in the news. And did you know that the Battle of Graveney Marsh on 27 September 1940 between British and German troops was the last action involving a foreign invading force to take place on mainland British soil? De728631 (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I have just written an article about Janet Brennan Croft which is not a translation either. De728631 (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

8. What is your understanding of copyright, especially the free licenses used on Wikipedia?

A: Actually most free licenses do retain the creator's copyright, but they are "free" since the content may be reused under specific circumstances such as attribution. Unless the author/creator explicitely waived their rights and transferred the work into the PD or the copyright has expired due to old age or lack of registration (see US), then a sufficiently creative work is copyrighted. I remember a discussion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions where I tried to explain something along copyright and free use to a new user with a rather general wording. And then someone else commented like "Nonsense, works with a free license are still copyrighted..." Was that you? :) De728631 (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Lord Roem

9. Besides the one incident you mention in your answer to question 3, have you ever been involved in a conflict that went through the dispute resolution process? If yes, please explain what steps you took to resolve the disagreement; if no, please explain what principles you have learned in your time on Wikipedia that will help you in making administrative judgments regarding user behavior.

A: While I don't remember having ever been somewhere into the higher levels of dispute resolution, I once initiated an Rfc for a highly debated article I was editing. And here's a recent example of me suggesting the 3O process to an edit warring party that apparently couldn't settle their argument. See also my part in an ongoing Rfc.

Generally, for resolving disputes I would first evaluate whether it is merely about constrasting opinions or whether Wikipedia guidelines such as reliable sourcing, neutrality, focusing on content, and so on have been ignored. I'd try to explain my point of view of the matter to the participants and would then seek to mediate between them. I would certainly make it very clear to anyone that disputes must not be taken to a personal level, i.e. name calling or second-guessing or implying bad faith without evidence is a no-go-area for me.

As an editor I try to avoid arguments and disputes but as an admin I will certainly have to deal with them sooner or later. So, for the administrative part I find it also helpful to read previous examples at ANI or at user and article talk pages to see how other admins and editors have been dealing with situations. Checking an article's history for related discussion and incidents may also reveal suspicious editing patterns that could reveal a sockpuppet. De728631 (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions from Leaky

10. If, as an Admin you had effectively closed a discussion using a hat, would you consider it appropriate to later add a further comment which might not be seen by those involved - the discussion having effectively been closed?

A: As the purpose of hat implies, such discussion should remain unchanged. If additional responses are being added, the discussion thread should be re-opened for anyone to participate. Also, there's an advice at the template documentation that hats should only be used by uninvolved parties. I take it that this applies to official discussions outside anyone's user talk page. Closing and archving of discussions at user talk pages is left to the affiliated user (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). De728631 (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

11. What is you opinion on nominators and supporters chiming in (aka badgering) rather than leaving candidates to respond on issues arising during RFA?

A: If anyone's comments are actually a kind of badgering I would leave to personal interpretation of the relevant candidate unless comments are outright offensive. And I for one don't feel pestered here (not even by you, see #13 below). De728631 (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

12. Is there anything wrong with this User page User:JenVegas?

A: As you have already pointed out, it might be mistaken for an article. So they might want to move it to a subpage and put something like {{userspace draft}} on top. De728631 (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

13. In the hatted discussion in which you did not participate, do you consider my comments to be in good faith or would you say that I was "looking for a cloud in the silver lining"?

A:Actually I was going to respond when the thread got a hat put on by someone involved in the discussion, even if it was only for keeping the focus on the main questions. Therefore, and because of what I have stated in response to your first question, I have taken the liberty of reopening said discussion. I've also added a personal reply.

I don't think you made any of your comments in bad faith. Perhaps you want to put me to a tough test since you seem to be dissatisfied with the current criteria for adminship? Please go ahead but let me quote from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions: "RfA is not a popularity contest, nor is it designed to force potential administrators to meet arbitrary criteria. It is not designed to judge whether a potential administrator holds the correct view on a controversial issue—which is different than asking whether they will apply a current policy consistently." De728631 (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Callanecc

14. I know you don't plan to work primarily in this area, but given your comment to #35 in the support section, I'll ask it anyway. Please read the following and answer the questions.

An IP user completely changes a large section of a non-BLP article from being unreferenced to completely referenced. However on the talk page, the community has a consensus to use the unreferenced information. Acting with this consensus, an experienced registered user manually uses rollback (with default edit summary) to revert the change and issues a level {{uw-vandalism4im}} warning (just the template by itself) to the IP user (the IP user has made 10 edits on 6 different pages all of which were good edits). The IP user asks the rollbacker (on the rollbacker's talk page) to explain why they reverted the referenced edits.

Following the rollback & warning and request for the rollbacker to explain their actions (which, after an hour of the rollbacker being active on Wikipedia hadn't yet been answered), the IP user undid the revert and added the referenced information back. The same registered user rollbacks again, and leaves a duplicate 4im warning and IP asks the rollbacker to explain their actions again. After another hour of the rollbacker not responding to the IP (during this time the rollbacker is still active on Wikipedia), the IP adds the information in again. The rollbacker uses rollback again then reports the IP to WP:AIV.

You see the request at AIV; outline all the steps you would take, and the policy basis for those actions.

I suggest that you structure your answer into the following format (but it's completely up to you): (a) request at AIV (decline/accept, any other actions & why); (b) the revert including use of rollback, warning, unanswered message on rollbacker's talk page, possible 3RR vio (for all - implications, your actions and policy basis); (c) change to the article (your actions (and possible actions) and policy basis).

A: First of all it depends on the quality of the newly added sources. When there are only unreliable sources available anyway then I could at least understand that kind of consensus. Now to your questions:

a) If the IP added only pseudo-references like promotional material or spam links I would accept the report and block the IP for some 36 hours or so; even though the exclusive usage of {{uw-vandalism4im}} on someone's page would normally trigger a response from me like "user has not sufficiently been warned, please report again...". If the new sources are in fact reliable, I would refuse administrator action at AIV. See Wikipedia:Vandalism on bold edits: "Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism." Constructive editing in good faith (i.e. trying to improve the encyclopedia with valid sources being backed up by a good edit history of the IP) does not constitute vandalism; add to that the lack of personal response to the involved IP. In either case I would leave a personal message at the IP's page as to why they have either been blocked for some time or why their edits were actually not vandalism.

b) and c) Again, I'd have to consider the new references. Spam links count as obvious vandalism so reverting them per rollback is acceptable and even exempt from 3rr, no need for me to change the article. With the references actually being reliable and valid I would restore the article to the new, sourced version and leave a note on the talk page with what I wrote above in terms of good faith, bold editing vs. consensus, etc. Consensus can change and such occasions should trigger a new discussion. And in your description I count only 3 reverts for each party (IP: changing the article with new sources plus 2 reverts; experienced editor: 3 x rollback), so none of them has exceeded the limit. I'd however admonish the rollback editor not to use rollback with its standard summary for content that was not outright vandalism. Even if there was consensus, others may not be aware of it and the first revert of the IP's edit should have been made by "undo" with a proper edit summary explaining the consensus situation. That said, in any case I'd also ask the rollbacker to be more responsive when someone asks them to explain some template warnings and/or actions on their talk page. Both accounts would also be referred to the guideline on edit warring/3rr for future reference. De728631 (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Jorgath

15. Please state your interpretation of WP:ADMINACCT and WP:WHEEL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgath (talk • contribs) 16:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Moved autosign to Q instead of A- Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

A:

• WP:ADMINACCT explains that administrators are still responsible for their administrative actions and all such actions shall follow the basic guidelines and rules of Wikipedia. In short, administratorship is not a free-ride-ticket to power but an editor's account with extended abilities and responsibilities.
• Wheel warring is basically the administrators' version of edit warring. And the rules are similar: do not revert a contested reversion but seek a constructive discussion in order to reach consensus. De728631 (talk) 07:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up Question: I'd like you to expand more on ADMINACCT, if you would. I have no problem with what you've said, but it's complicated enough that I'd prefer more than the "in short" answer. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

A: I'm not sure which answers and interpretations you'd like to see from all the administrator candidates you ask based on your recent experience (please see also my reply to Leaky about the purpose of RfA). And since the policy page itself has it already summed up nicely and self-explanatory, I don't see how I could possibly expand on that without repeating myself or what has been written over there. I do think though that admins with a proven negative track record of intentionally breaching policies and guidelines in bad faith should be removed from office per community consensus. As Voltaire said, "With great power comes great responsibility." De728631 (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment I mostly just wanted to see a firm grasp of the policy, because there have been cases recently where there have been issues of admins not responding to good-faith concerns about their admin actions. Your answer was and is sufficient. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for De728631: De728631 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for De728631 can be found here.
• Please note: I won't have internet access for two or three days starting tomorrow, Monday, 30 July. So I won't be able to respond immediately to new questions or comments. I'll be back though in time before the closure of this RFA. De728631 (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm back. De728631 (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• User has quite a confusing/complicated username, these numbers are quite hard to remember when typing in. As an administrator, one may be more constantly approached by people with problems and newbies; this could be an off-putter if they need to keep remembering the name. I would suggest a rename to a simpler name and then I would support - the rest of their contributions are excellent. Rcsprinter (chat) @ 16:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Did you read that, Jac? We need to change our names! De728631 (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Might I suggest (if this is an issue) finding a nickname to use in your sig (mine is Ed) and creating a redirect from that user page to your real page? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Good idea, but honestly, I would object to changing my username or even my signature. So far there have only been two comments about it being confusing or misleading and they are the first such remarks I've ever got in my four years of being active here. If the name was really a problem somebody would certainly have approached me and other people before. De728631 (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom --Jac16888 ^Talk 22:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Support, good recent interactions with this user, giving him the tools will be constructive - filelakeshoe 23:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Support - you'd have to be an utter cretin not to support this. Not only has De72831 not signified any intention to replace the main page with goatse, he's actually come up with some constructive suggestions! Egg Centric 01:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

   Best support vote I've ever seen since Gurch was around :D - filelakeshoe 09:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

4. Support Seems like a dedicated user whose contributions are bound to be constructive. Michael (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Support This user is born to be an admin. He will be able to handle the tools properly. Jedd Raynier wants to talk with you. 09:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Support - I see no problems here. Deb (talk) 11:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Support - No, I don't think that was me. What few content creations there are look solid, good work with translation, and (surprisingly, at least to me) fairly diligent on providing attribution for his translations (you missed one at Ernst von Prittwitz und Gaffron though and The Hobbit has a broken ISBN). Behaviour looks good as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

   I didn't miss the attribution at Ernst von Prittwitz und Gaffron. When I wrote that article, {{translation/ref}} was still widely being used, which is meant to sit in the External links section of the article, not on the talk page. Thanks for the hints though. De728631 (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

   Missed that. I notice that your first translation had the template on the talk page, but perhaps that was changed afterwards. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, nowadays I put the attribution on the talk page and I also use to relocate them from the article to the talk page when I come accross such "old" pages. There's been much discussion about {{translation/ref}} since it might be mistaken for a reference. And while I remember being a defender of this template back then, I find it now more practical to have the attribution on the talk page so the general reader is not confused by procedural links like these. De728631 (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

8. Support - In particular, for having the wisdom to admit he doesn't know something and to instead ask someone else. Solid answer to the hardest question I've ever asked at RfA. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
9. So far I'm not seeing anything not to love: writes solid military history articles, very experienced and committed. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
10. Support I too can't see any reason not to support: he's been acting like he is an admin, in the best possible sense, for some time. Does a lot of work at articles for translation. His AfD work seems solid. Very considerate and thoughtful in his interactions. Great. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
11. Support I excuse myself for the confusion on the question, but anyways he got my point and gave a good response. Regards. —Hahc21 15:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
12. Support. Fully qualified candidate. And I continue to be impressed, after six years of editing, with how many corners of the project exist that I have never heard of or interacted with, and how many excellent editors are part of them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
13. Support. User creates articles, uploads files, should know what it feels like to have articles they created tagged with whathaveyou. Mysterytrey talk 16:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
14. Support - I was floored by his answer to Dennis's question. We need more new admins like that! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
15. Support. Kudos, in particular, for your response to question #5. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
16. Support. Definitely clueful and with the right attitude for the job. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
17. Support. I've reviewed a variety of contributions, including AfD participation, and saw CLUE and no reason to oppose. I was specifically impressed by the translation work and by the response to Dennis Brown's question. Finally, I share Newyorkbard's reaction. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
18. Support I've been trying to think of things I can say about you, but I really think the people above me have everything covered. Fantastic job. MJ94 (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
19. Support; your collected response to the very... marginal questions 10-13 demonstrate clearly that you have the proper temperament for the mop. — Coren ^(talk) 19:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
20. Support Dieser Benutzer wird ein ausgezeichneter Administrator sein. --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

    [en: "This user will be an excellent administrator"] — Coren ^(talk) 19:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

    Oh, good - my high school German got it right! :) --MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

    No need for {{cleanup-translation}}. :) De728631 (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

21. Support Seen around - like what I see. Excellent answers and manner. Not afraid to ask. Peridon (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
22. —Kusma (t·c) 19:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
23. Support. Good contributions. However the username, which contains a string of digits, is not intuitive. Ironically, the nominator (Jac16888) made a mistake in his nomination statement. Egg Centric (support number 3) also made a mistake. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

    In such cases, copy & paste is your friend. :) De728631 (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

24. Support He might be a "Preiß" (as they say where I live) but he seems to be a good candidate for adminship nonetheless ;-) Regards SoWhy 21:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

    Check my project affiliations and my edit history and you'll find that my original neck of the woods was blatantly occupied by the "Preißen" some 150 years ago. ;-) De728631 (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

25. Support No reason not to support. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
26. I find it surprising that even after four years of editing, I still find areas and people I've never come across. De seems to be perfectly qualified for the tools. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
27. Support Like Ed17, I never heard of this user but I love the thought put into his answers.PumpkinSky talk 22:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
28. Support - Good answers above, strong support from respected admins. I am loving this new batch of noms, keep them coming! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
29. Support – experienced, and seems sensible enough. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
30. Support. Natürlich! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
31. Support. No concerns. Torreslfchero (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
32. Support. A look over De728631's contributions and a read of the answers to questions above is enough to convince me we have a great admin-to-be here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
33. Support Went through the answers and they we convincing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
34. Support Definitely. And could this RfA be the 5th to have 100% support? --Morning Sunshine (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
35. While he seems a good editor and gave good answers, the answer to question 1 suggests that the editor doesn't actually plan to do anything that uses administrator tools. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

    Maybe I didn't write it clearly enough but I do intend to use tools like page deletion, blocking of users, page protection, etc. As stated in my answer to question #1 I have so far been doing the non-administrative part like reporting, discussing and repairing but I'm willing to extend that. De728631 (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

    This sounds reasonable, I'll move to support. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

    Thank you. De728631 (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

36. Support Does not appear to be in the pay of Stephen Colbert. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
37. Support - Decent answers, no reason to oppose. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

    Support Damn great answers mate, fuck yeah! Yaplunpe (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

38. Support. Experienced, competent candidate. Sound answers to questions (of which he was given rather a lot!) and no obvious issues. AGK [•] 16:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
39. Support A solid candidate. I see no reason to not trust him with the mop. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
40. Stephen 03:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
41. Save the name, no concerns.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 08:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
42. Support no concerns -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
43. Support Good answers, especially to #4. —HueSatLum 14:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
44. Support Good contributor to the project. Nice answers to the RfA Qs, I see no reason we can't trust this user with admin duties. — sparklism ^hey! 14:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
45. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
46. Support Seems ok, good luck, work hard...Modernist (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
47. Support - I see nothing in this candidate's background that implies to me that there would be challenges. Further, I'm impressed with the answer to Q1 above. In my capacity as an administrator and volunteer, not as an employee action. -Philippe (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
48. Support Hard worker, good contributor. Electric Catfish 21:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
49. Support Has been editing regularly since July 2008 and see no concerns as per track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
50. Support If I opposed you could hit my head and call me a Took. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
51. Support 30k edits, 3 years + and no clangers thus far suggests will likely be a net positive. Hence worth a trial with the mop. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
52. Support Good answers to all of those questions, good record and experience; I have not issues supporting. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 03:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
53. Support - nothing new to add to the above comments, but looks like a solid candidate. Manning (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
54. Support - I have never come across De728631, and I haven't been able to come across any reasons why I should not support. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
55. Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
56. Support. I haven't had much contact with the candidate, and I have to admit to a little discomfort with the overall feel that I get from the incident in which the rollback permission was temporarily removed. On the other hand, I appreciate how complicated file licensing can be, I think the answers to questions about it are fine, and I see the candidate as filling a need in administrative work in that area. I looked at the mushroom page the candidate started, and the content work there is fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
57. Support Everything I see here supports my choice to support. I like an occasional BMF (be BOLD, make a mistake, fix it and move on. I expect De728631 to be a competent sysop, maybe great or even exceptional, but not perfect. DocTree (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
58. Support - The user seems qualified enough and I don't have any reason to oppose.--Slon02 (talk) 03:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
59. –BuickCenturyDriver 03:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
60. Support No issues here.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Temporarily Online} 12:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
61. Support. Seems great! Ironholds (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
62. Weak support. Good candidate for the job, but not exceptionally so. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
63. Support - as far as I recall, I've never encountered this editor before (not sure whether that's a good or a bad thing!) but they seem well-suited. GiantSnowman 16:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
64. Support No problems here. Ryan Vesey 16:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
65. Support. I can't see any reason to oppose. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
66. Support - Good answers to some very hard questions. Impressive community backing. I wish the candidate all the best and trust the tools will come in handy to help improve and maintain the project. Jusdafax 06:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
67. Support: no issues. Thine Antique Pen 13:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
68. Support Nice Answers! TheStrikeΣagle 15:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
69. Support Not paranoia-inducing. -— Isarra ༆ 15:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
70. Support; seems to be a good candidate. Kierzek (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
71. Support Always happy to support potential candidates. De728631 is a good faith and trusted member of the community for a long time now. Good answers given to most questions above. User has sufficient knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and has a good experience by having a variety of contributions in many areas of the project. Will be net asset and benefit to Wikipedia in an Administrator role. All the best De738631! TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
72. Support with no concern. KTC (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
73. Support per my criteria. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
74. Support, happily. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

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