Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Earwig

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

(92/2/0); Closed Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:18:35 (UTC) by Avi

The Earwig (talk · contribs) – I first met and worked with The Earwig at WP:AFC. The first thing that comes to mind when I ask "What was he like?" is 'helpful', a trait that is increasingly important in Wikipedian personalities. In the three months that we've been regularly working together on wiki, he has improved greatly both in Wikipedia knowledge and accomplishments.

I've collaborated and worked with The Earwig for quite a while now, in useful project spaces such as WP:ACC and Articles for creation. He's demonstrated helpfulness to new and anonymous users at AFC by aiding them to develop their submissions, showed expertise in Wikipedia policies (also at AfC, reviewing submissions), operates three bots, among a large number of other areas. He has been trusted with autoreviewer, account creator, and rollback flags. Consistent, quality edits along with a great understanding of policy make Earwig a great adminship candidate whom, if successful, will be very useful to the project.

The Earwig would use administrator tools very effectively, based on his work so far as an editor. AFC could use another active admin to lend a hand, SCV has been a recent area of interest for himself, so he could use the deletion tool to clear copyright violations. I really can't answer this for him, however knowing him I'm sure he would find backlogged areas to contribute to.

In my personal opinion, The Earwig would be an excellent administrator. He has the necessary skills, clue, and ability to communicate that is required of a sysop. He would absolutely without a doubt be a net positive and a great help to the project. GrooveDog • oh hai 04:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom by Juliancolton

I'm in full agreement with GrooveDog's above statement, and I don't have much more to say. However, I'd just like to add my endorsement to The Earwig's nomination in the form of a "long-winded support", sometimes stylized as "co-nom". Anyway, Earwig is one of the most helpful and friendly editors we have. Don't take my word for it, though; the contributions speak for themselves. Earwig is constantly helping new users find their bearings, something more admins should be doing. His edits are all well-considered and constructive, and evenly distributed amongst the various namespaces. This editor balances the traits of both a wikignome and an in-depth contributor, which in my opinion makes him an ideal candidate for the mop. So, strong support as nom. Good luck. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept; thank you GrooveDog and Julian for the nomination. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 02:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: Like any administrator, I intend to work in the areas that interest me, and I do well in. I've always been interested in speedy deletion and articles for deletion, like most users, but as an admin I will probably focus in copyright work. I've done a lot recently at the Suspected copyright violations page, and I've run EarwigBot II (talk · contribs), a bot that detects copyright violations in Articles for creation submissions, for half a year now. Needless to say, copyright is an area that needs to be dealt with promptly, and the fact that some entries at SCV are over a week old saddens me. And while any user can tag pages under CSD G12, only admins can actually delete them.

I also would like to get involved in the Commons file moving backlog. I've done work in the User-created public domain images category, and have succeeded in transferring a decent number of images over (see the last section). While moving the images can be done by any user, the actual deletion – removing the images from Wikipedia, can only be done by an admin. Moving the images over only solves half of the problem, because it just adds them to the ever-increasing CSD F8 backlog, which currently contains 106 files.

Finally, an area I've been watching with interest is the enormous histmerge backlog, which ties into copyright above. I probably will not delve into this immediately as an administrator, but it's an area that I'd like to get into eventually.

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

A: My contributions can probably be divided into two areas: Wikignoming / stub creation, and metapedian work. I am, at heart, a metapedian; despite my attempts to change it, I am not an article writer. On the mainspace angle, I have two Did you knows, which I am proud of: Ringlegged earwig and Archidermapteron martynovi, but they aren't good articles or anything like that. I've created over 150 pages, most of them (Maritime earwig is a good example) stubs.

On the metapedian angle, most of my work is related to Articles for creation in some way. This is where (what I consider to be) my best contributions are made. For those who aren't aware, Articles for creation is a project that allows unregistered users to create articles; many of these users do not wish to create an account for one reason or another. This project, over time, has added over 5,500 articles to Wikipedia that would have not otherwise be here. I run two actively-editing bots (1 2) and some other tasks that all contribute to AfC in some way. I've reviewed a large number of submissions, and have helped with project administration as well. The work I've done at the project should be a good indicator of my policy knowledge when it comes to articles.

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 have never been in any serious conflicts, and I have done well at avoiding major drama, for the most part. There has been the occasional case where I've been in tense situations, however. One example was in the beginning of August. I took a two-week long wikibreak for vacation, which I had planned before, but used it as a way to cool down following a minor event that occured between myself and chzz off-wiki. I usually do well under pressure, and if I ever end up in a situation where controversy has occurred, I will handle myself appropriately and maybe take a short break of lower-activity if needed, although this is unlikely. (This does not mean I support cool down blocks in any way, however.) I have always respected the civility and no personal attacks policies, and do my best to maintain a calm editing environment without any major drama.

Additional optional questions from SparksBoy

4a. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A: A block is a technical measure, implemented by one administrator, to stop a user from editing altogether for a certain time period. It may be used in cases of repeated vandalism, sockpuppetry, et cetera. A ban, on the other hand, is a formal, social construct implemented in more serious situations. A ban may prevent the person from editing entirely for a certain amount of time, it may be a "topic ban" and prevent them from editing a certain range of articles, or it may call on them to stop editing Wikipedia all together. Bans alone do not directly stop someone from, editing, however; only blocks can do this. Bans can be community-implemented formed through consensus, by ArbCom, or by Jimbo Wales.

4b. Under what circumstances would you block a user that vandalizes your userpage?

A: Well, as I said above (I believe, but I may not have been clear enough), I will not work in the blocking area of Wikipedia. But, I must ask the following questions: Did they vandalize it once and only once? Is this all they did? Have they made any other constructive edits? I must know this in order to make an appropriate decision. Unless it was a very serious case, I would most likely avoid blocking and would report them to AIV, using the same standards as I would use for any other vandal.

4c. What are your views on notability when it comes to wikipedia?

A: I see notability as an important concept that we should follow in almost all cases. It allows us to weed out a good portion of unacceptable articles, and gives us some basic standards as an encyclopedia. Also, keep in mind that it allows us to verify the content in our articles. If an article does not meet the notability guideline, we really cannot prove anything in it, and we cannot show why there is a reason to have it in an encyclopedia.

4d. In your opinion what is the most important policy that wikipedia has?

A: This is an interesting question. It is almost impossible to answer with one specific policy; there are simply so many, and we really could not function with only one. If I had to pick one, it would be consensus, because this is the basis for almost all of our processes. Consensus allows us to resolve disputes, consensus allows us to decide whether or not to delete an article, and consensus allows us to form new policies. If we did not have consensus, we may not have come this far.

4e. Will you be open to recall?

A: Yes. I believe that adminship is wrong in some ways there are some minor oddities concerning the admin policy, one of these is the idea that adminship is permanent. True, you can get desysopped in very rare cases, but you will not lose the tools for a couple mistakes, and many editors keep the bit for their entire career. If an admin screws up several speedy deletion decisions, let a discussion ensure. Let the community decide whether the editor should still be an admin, just like they decided in the first place. Concerning specific procedures, I've always liked the look User:MBisanz/Recall, but I will change it to fit my own case.

Ooptional question from Amorymeltzer

5. Do you feel that working at AfC has made you better suited to be a sysop, and if so how? Has it significantly informed your views on new contributions to Wikipedia, the application of policy, or any other aspect of wikipedian life?

A: In short, yes. Working at AfC has taught me a lot about how new articles are created, and a good deal about specific policies. In order to accept a submission, you need to review it carefully, checking it against the appropriate policies and guidelines pertaining to those types of articles. I could not be an active reviewer unless I understood notability, reliable sourcing, and the like, or I would be accepting submissions inappropriately. AFC can be likened, in a sense, to a reverse articles for deletion: you need to judge the article content, the subject's notability, the sourcing, the tone, whether it is spammy or contains copyright violations, et cetera. I will admit that from doing this many, many times, AfC has improved my understanding of a large number of Wikipedia's concepts.

Also, AfC has taught me a bit about what new contributors think of Wikipedia. I commonly come across users who are confused about our processes when working on their articles with them, and it has shown me what this ever-so-important aspect of Wikipedia is like. I have seen how our system appears not only from the inside, but also from the outside.

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

6. Which of the administrator functions do you believe has the greatest potential to cause real damage if misused and why?

A: Reading over the list of admin functions once again, I believe that the most dangerous is probably the ability to edit the interface (yes, I said it). It's not a common admin function, but it is a dangerous one. Deleting a page is easily reversed, and it is still one page being affected, no matter how large (under 5,000 revisions, of course). However, if a rogue admin were to vandalize MediaWiki:Sitenotice or MediaWiki:Sidebar, the result would be quite catastrophic for the few seconds that it live. Coupled with a few random BLP violations in the changed text, we'd be facing a reasonably serious situation.

A more accurate answer is probably the edit filter. If this is abused, it can result in severe database lagging from the pressure, but it is also be possible to completely lock the database, by disallowing all edits. But, while this one may be more dangerous, it is not directly bundled with adminship. See Wikipedia:User access levels#Edit Filter managers.

7. Since you do a lot of work in copyright, I am sure you are aware that most editors (including experienced ones) are unaware of the proper merging procedures and/or believe content can be freely copied from one Wikipedia article to another without taking any special measures. Any ideas on how this problem can be reduced?

A: The problem you are referring to is concerning cut-and-paste moves. The trouble with solving these are that, for the most part, they can only be done by admins; all non-admins can do is find them and tag them, but usually cannot actually fix them. And, while they can be easy to fix, a lot of the time they are much more complex, and require a careful assessment of the two pages by the histmerging admin. I think that histmerging is a neglected process, and that neglect has resulted in a troubling backlog that should be dealt with sooner than later, considering it involves potential copyright problems with our license. As for reducing it, there is little that can be done. I mean, we have bots like CorenSearchBot patrolling new pages for these types of things, but we will never stop the problem until all users understand how to move pages, something that we cannot easily do.

Most of the problems occur with new users who aren't autoconfirmed yet, because autoconfirmed users have the obvious "move" button at the top. For these new users, the method by which we move pages is completely unclear, and there is nothing obvious indicating how they should do it. This results in copy-and-pasting articles from one title to the other without attribution. The only reasonable way to fix this would be to somehow show new users how to move pages, but not actually let them do it... maybe we could have the "move" tab always visible, but make it leave an informative message for users that are not autoconfirmed?

Copy and paste moves are certainly a problem, but was referring more to the sneaker (as in harder to detect) problem where someone copies or moves a paragraph from one article to another without indicating where the text came from in their edit summary. This makes it look like they wrote the text, which they didn't. A merge in this context being where someone copies the text and then turns the old article into a redirect. I have seen this sort of thing done by users with several thousand edits, simply because they are unaware of the rules/proper procedures. Detecting this sort of thing is considerably harder to do and I don't really have any answer myself, but feel free to reply further if you have anything to add. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, sorry for misunderstanding there. I don't really have much to say in that case. All we can really hope for is that new users are better taught how to do these types of things – merging, etc, but it won't be easy. I'm sure a lot of them are just being bold without knowing the correct thing to do. There's also the possibility of better scripts for detecting this type of stuff, but as I said above, this will not directly solve the problem, just show us what we need to fix. --The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 15:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional questions from Radiantenergy

8. BLP Question: As an administrator how will you handle edit wars in controversial BLP articles? Especially if it involves disruption by Activists with WP:COI? This is becoming an issue in some controversial BLP articles when the activists using multiple accounts evade detection?

A: Edit wars concerning BLP articles usually need more attention than warring on other topics, due to the obvious libel concerns. I assume that you're referring to edit warring where there is no blatant vandalism occurring; if one party was vandalizing and the other was cleaning up, the vandal would receive a stern warning using the {{uw-biog1}} series, and then a block. So, first of all, I would check to see if either of the parties were violating the three revert rule, in which case they would either be blocked or warned with {{uw-3rr}}, depending on whether they had been alerted in the past. I would most likely report the dispute to WP:AN3, as well. If both parties managed to escape 3RR, or the dispute continued after blocking, I would leave {{uw-3rr}} on both of their talk pages, asking them to civilly resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. If it still continued, I might fully-protect the wrong version of the article and/or block them using {{uw-ewblock}}. I would also watch out for any personal attacks or legal threats during any discussions that occur. If all else fails, I would get the attention of other users at WP:BLPN and WP:AN3 (if not already done), but depending on the circumstances. An WP:RFC/B or a WP:3O might be warranted if the situation gets any worse, or the dispute does not seem to be progressing anywhere.

The addition of WP:COI to the discussion is interesting. If someone related to the person (or even the actual person!) is involved, we must look at the situation differently. I might ask them to read Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) in detail, and solve the problem that way. If they're an activist that believes something uncommon or exceptionally bad about a person without any sourcing to prove it (for example, saying that Barack Obama is a Muslim from Kenya that is not legally the President of the United States), we should keep WP:FRINGE in mind, and as always, respect WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL.

Concerning sock accounts to edit war: I think one of the best ways to look for these is by checking what happens after one of the accounts is blocked. Does a new editor appear suddenly and pick up from where the other one left off? It could be a sock. If I felt socking was involved, I might end up filing an WP:SPI against the suspected accounts.

Additional follow up question to 8A by Radiantenergy

8. You answered the earlier question well. This is more complicated scenario. You can answer or ignore it. I leave it to you.

Suppose you find out that the Activists are pushing their agenda in articles where they are involved directly. The reason they are able to disrupt is because they have internal connections in wikipedia. What can be done? Its a real issue when administrators misuse their powers. Recently there had been a case about administrator aiding sock puppet. My question is what do you think can / should be done in such scenarios where administrators misuse their power?.

B:

Additional optional questions from Bwilkins

9. Would you be willing to advise bureaucrats in private of any alternate account that you may have, or may create in the future if you become an administrator?

A: Yes. Currently, all of my alternate accounts are listed on my userpage here, so I do not have anything to hide right now. But if I ever created any in the future (such as for privacy concerns), the answer is yes: I would be willing to tell any bureaucrat or checkuser of their existence. I would probably avoid telling someone who is only admin if the account revealed personal information about me, after seeing what's been happening recently.

Additional optional questions from Blurpeace

10. Is this file a copyright violation? Explain.

A: No; interesting case here. What appears to be the source at first – this Flickr page, licenses the photo under cc-by-nd, which means derivative works are not permitted, while the file page on Commons licenses it under cc-by, which is different. So, not only do we have a disagreement between the licenses being used on both files, but what seems to be the correct license for that file (cc-by-nd) is against the Commons licensing policy because you can not derive other works from that image (see here). So if the source is Flickr, it would be a copyright violation.

...but the source is not Flickr. Digging a little deeper, we can see that the image was uploaded to Commons by Escapedtowisconsin; his userpage says that he is Paul M. Walsh, the photographer. Also, he's not actually sourcing the photo to Flickr as it first seems, but rather himself. As the copyright holder, he is capable of putting it under whichever license he chooses. I notice from his talk page that he has had this type of problem in the past, but it looks okay here. This diff and this one would have saved it from deletion.

This image situation is a bit complex, probably too much so for an RfA - notice that the source credit included in the image description says "AP PHOTO" - which is the credit form used by the Associated Press. If Walsh took the photo during the course of his employment, then he may not own the copyright to the image. AP images are typically not used without a fair use rationale. Nathan ^T 03:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nathan. We are researching the licensing debacle at this time. Will attempt to get in touch with the author. Knew it the whole time. Joke is on you. –blurpeace ^(talk) 03:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure. :p Nathan ^T 03:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo momma says wha'? –blurpeace ^(talk) 03:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GENTLEMEN! There is no fighting in the war room. Protonk (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

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

---

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

• Editing stats on talk. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Full support per the reasons in my nomination statement. GrooveDog • oh hai 02:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per nominator. @harej 02:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Strong support - Has my trust. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support as nom. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per nom.--Giants27(c|s) 02:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Strong support as one of the new users mentioned by JC. Earwig really helped me get my bearings around Wikipedia, and I believe that he would handle the mop very well. MacMed^talk_stalk 02:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Super strong support - over 1000 deleted contributions is evidence that he has a strong knowledge in deletion policies. I also note his work at WP:SCV, and creating a CopyVio detection bot for WP:AFC shows that he is very diligent at upholding the policies of the wiki. With experience in Wikiprojects, toGnoming, to writing content, and scripting bots, I have no doubt that this user will not only benefit from the tools, but the wiki would benefit by giving The Earwig these tools. SparksBoy (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Strong support (after e/c): editor is a great asset to Wikipedia, whether dealing with copyright problems (for which the bit would be more than useful), WP:AFC and WP:ACC. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. What's not to like? Oodles of deletion work, bot work, and lots of gnomery. Contribs seem civil and level-headed. - Dank (push to talk) 02:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support after e/c phew... nearly thought *gasp* I wouldn't make it to the top 10... *breath* will make *breath* a good *breath* admin. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support – Another good editor I have seen around with a great amount of established trust and clue. Civility level, from my spot-check, is nearly spotless (let's hope that keeps going). Should be nothing but a net plus as an admin. MuZemike 03:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Moar support!^{and edit conflicts} ≈ MindstormsKid 03:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support The Earwig is nothing but a civil editor with the only purpose to improve the encyclopedia. He would never misuse the mop. warrior4321 03:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Nice and helpful. ceranthor 03:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support because it would be hilarious to say "You've been blocked by Wikipedia's Earwig" or "This page has been protected by The Earwig." Good user + good record = support. iMatthew ^talk at 03:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think User:Ice Cold Beer wins that record. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    But he isn't named after a freaky looking bug. ;) Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you infering that he is *gasps* a freaky looking bug? SparksBoy (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally I'm waiting for a perfectly timed block by User:After Midnight to expire at 12:01 AM UTC. GrooveDog • oh hai 04:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

16. Support No concerns. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. —SpaceFlight89 04:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Absolutely. Earwig has done some great work at WP:AFC and has written several superbly helpful scripts. Promoting this user to sysop would be a net-positive. Good Luck! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Strong Support He deserves it greatly! Ditto with Leo. Cubs197 ^(talk) 05:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, The Earwig. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 06:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Amen and Insha'Allah. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 06:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

21. Suppport works with others well, is here to build the encyclopedia. Appreciate the WP:AFC work and the bots. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Strong support Great work at AFC, etc. etc. Very good candidate. Pmlineditor ∞ 09:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support - Was not familiar with this editor prior to this RFA, but a tour of the contrib log made me very confident of my support vote. Manning (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. I've noticed your good work at WP:SCV over the last couple of days, and it would be nice to have more administrators there. :) Theleftorium 09:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Earwig is a kind and gentle editor who will work tirelessly to improve Wikipedia, whether the benefit is small or great. His work in areas such as AfC and deletion has given him a wide range of experiences, and should arm him well as a sysop. Also, per IMatthew. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Strong support, great editor, quite suited for adminship. I would have supported a few months ago when he declined an RfA nom. Earwig shows good communication skills with others, and I appreciate his dedicated WP:AFC and bot work. JamieS93 13:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Good candidate. Pikiwyn ^talk 13:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. Per above. AtheWeatherman 13:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Strong support per nomination. LouriePieterse 13:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support, definitely. --Aqwis (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards, which makes 3/4 candidates in two days supported by me! Anyway, lots of positives here: 1) unanimous support from my colleagues thus far (not even any neutrals!); 2) user was trusted with rollback, account creator, and autoreview rights; 3) user is experienced with over 7,000 edits; 4) user is helpful and nice as evidenced by being a member of adopt an editor and the welcoming committee; 5) user is here to build an encyclopedia as evidenced by having created many articles and even getting a couple DYK credits; 6) user works well with others as evidenced by his several barnstars and having never even been accidentally blocked. While we have never participated in any of the same AfDs, I am no longer relying too heavily on that criterium and want to be sure I take into account the totality of the editor, not simply whether the candidate is likely to agree with me and in this case it is apparent The Earwig is a good faith and trusted editor whom I believe will make a decent administrator. Best wishes! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support. The Earwig has a lot of experience in a wide range of areas, has shown a good grasp of the various policies and guidelines, and has a good track record. I don't see anything which indicates twiddling the bit would be a bad thing. Twiddle away! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support I have worked with Earwig and my experience has been positive. Triplestop x3 17:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. Fully-qualified, helpful, intelligent editor. This one's a no-brainer. -- œ^™ 17:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. This editor has been a tremendous help to WikiProject Articles for creation and I have no doubt he will make a fine addition to the pool of administrators. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Strong support per nomination. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. (Insert witty support here) I have worked with The Earwig before and am (or is it is?) proud to support. I've been waiting for this day.Abce2|This isnot a test 18:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support per all of the above. Tim Song (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support plenty of clue, and will have a similar use of the tools for WP:SCV work than I do :) Net positive, no second thoughts. MLauba (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Looks good. GlassCobra 20:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. I looked through his recent contributions and saw what the nominators saw: a good worker who can benefit from the tools. Martin Raybourne (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support Have not seen anything real alarming (see !votes above), with good work at SCV and at deletion (last incorrect speedy tagging I found was an A7 for a game guide article on June 20, 2009 (deleted diff (admin only) and a G11 on June 14, 2009 that was not necessary (diff, spammy parts could have been removed instead)). As such, I see no reason not to trust this user with the tools. Regards SoWhy 21:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support Experienced editor and great contributor to ACC. I am confident that we can trust him with the mop. Best of luck! Ali ^(t)_(c) 21:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support - he isn't an admin already?--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 21:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support per above. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Strong support BejinhanTalk 04:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support I know Earwig very well, and would have nommed happily; I was mentioned re. a disagreement in Q3, and remember it - a storm-in-a-teacup; there will always be disagreement on wiki, but Earwig has amply demonstrated his ability to cope under pressure. He has, in Articles For Creation, shown a willingness to 'go the extra mile' and worked hard to help our newest users. He is not afraid to ask for help when required, has an excellent grasp of policy, uses common sense, and is an all-round top-notch candidate.  Chzz  ►  04:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support per nom and above, especially iMatthew at number 15. Sluggo | Talk 05:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support. That is an ugly creature on your homepage! Bwrs (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. Brianherman (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Sure. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support A very helpful editor, who (from what I've seen of him) is considerate and kind in his interactions with others, and spends a lot of time working to clean-up the 'pedia. I see quite a bit of The Earwig when he is helping out with bots, and he behaves in the manner I would except of an admin when I've seen him around in that area. I'm confident that he will do a lot of good with the tools, and I trust him :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support worth a trial with the mop an' bucket. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support Wrote a highly useful bot to identify possible copyright vios at AFC. TNXMan 15:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Strong Support - I have a lot of respect for someone who puts in a lot of time at AfC, and in its own way that shows as much of a willingness and ability to create content as someone with a couple of FAs and GAs. Copyright experience is great, and having the technical skills to have written useful bots is a big plus. -- Atama頭 16:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support per good answers, nom statement, and contribution.--Caspian blue 19:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support: Absolutely..South Bay (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support - Seen him around, friendly, civil. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Crafty cannot fault this nom./All requirements met./May clueful editor be given mop. Crafty (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Beautiful cries SparksBoy (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

60. miranda 00:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support - Yes, definitely! Airplaneman ^talk 02:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Samir 03:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support. RfA cliche #1, excellent answers to the questions, good interactions. Plus we need more arthropod admins. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. Yes --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 09:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support per nomination and answers. UncleDouggie (talk) 11:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support - Solid candidate. AdjustShift (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support - Good answers to questions, nothing glaringly bad shows up in contributions. Civil and will be good with the mop :) -- Casmith_789 (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support per te above. Excellent answers and very thorough.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support, knows his copyright. Will make a good administrator. –blurpeace ^(talk) 21:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support. Excellent answers to a multitude of questions. Vincent Valentine 21:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 00:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support Meets the criteria. Razorflame 01:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support - wholeheartedly. Clueful editor and responses to the above questions show a great deal of sensibility. Will use the tools well. AJCham 04:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support - great contributions great use of policy and has a genuine do good attitude to better Wiki. great candidate.
    >>>> Posted By Alex Waelde (Leave Me A Messgae) 04:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support Impressed with the answers given by the candidate, and feel that the candidate will use the tools well. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support Impressed by previous work and answers. Would be happy to have earwig as an admin.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support great candidate, thought he was one already. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
78. Weak Support: Normally I would not support an editor with all his deletions (See ConstEdit on my user page) but he has a very good attitude and is helpful to new users - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
79. Strong Support: Helpful/thoughtful editor.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support with a name like The Earwig, how could you oppose? The Seeker 4 Talk 12:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
81. Wizardman 13:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support. He has "involved" "moving" and "backlog" in the same sentence. That's enough for a support! Valley2city^‽ 17:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support Pile-on support!! =P America69 (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
84. "...do my best to maintain a calm editing environment without any major drama," which is good enough for me. Malinaccier (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
85. Strongest possible support Great Candidate. December21st2012Freak ^chat 02:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support - From my brief interactions with him at AfC and using his bot, I think Earwig has what it takes to hold the mop! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support Looks a good candidate, best of luck. Dean B (talk) 08:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support No issues, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
89. per the excellent work you have done on numerous articles, the clear understanding of Wikipedia policies you have demonstrated via your substantial contributions in multiple areas, particularly showing a knowledge of the deleting policy and blocking policy. Tan | 39 22:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support of course! — JoJo • Talk • 12:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support I don't see any reason to be concerned. Warrah (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support The Earwig has shown dedication to Wikipedia through regular edits over an extended period of time, a friendly demeanor, strong communication skills, and the answers to questions indicate a high level of CLUE. In reviewing his contributions I found some cases where he had removed an invalid speedy tag or replaced it with a prod, which I consider to be a strong plus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose Some of the answers make me think adminship here would not be a net-benefit. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Could you please explain why? Though I have an obvious bias, I thought the answers overall seemed reasonable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose I'd like to see more article work and dispute resolution experience. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.