Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aitias 3

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

Aitias

Final (73/3/4); Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 23:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Aitias (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, I hereby present to you Aitias for your consideration for adminship. A vandal fighter by profession, Aitias is a reformed Huggle user that has numerous contributions in articles – the lack of which was criticised in his previous two RfAs.

Much of his best work is done on articles relating to Germany, as can be seen on his userpage. Many have before criticised his lack of article contributions, and how he relies solely on Huggle and AWB to edit the Wikipedia, but although Aitias is yet to get an article to GA class, this one edit should be more than enough to silence those critics. He is also very active in the area of featured picture candidates.

Of course, Aitias’ role as an admin will centre mainly around blocking users and protecting pages; he is already well ahead in preparation for this, with over 700 edits to administrator intervention against vandalism, and a further 80 in requests for page protection. He has demonstrated great trust within the community, having been awarded numerous barnstars by many different users. I feel that Aitias will do a great job as an admin on this website, even though he will be mainly in the technical areas of the website. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept and would like to thank WBOSITG. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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: The main areas where I would like to help as an admin are the Requests for page protection, the Candidates for speedy deletion and finally Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Besides I could help out at other places where admin tools are required, for example Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, etc. I could also block vandals myself, which I had to report to AIV so far; as well as protecting pages myself without requesting the protection first.

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

A: Well, I think the articles I have written (or started) about important German law scientists (Klaus Tolksdorf, Günter Hirsch, Monika Harms, Michael Eichberger, Brun-Otto Bryde and Andreas Voßkuhle) are not bad. Additionally the article about the Federal Court of Justice of Germany, that I began ([1], [2]), is quite good in my opinion.

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: So far, I have had no really serious conflicts, but some minor ones. For example, to mention two of them,

one with User:Orangemike:

Orangemike left this warning at my talk page some time before. Well, I was not very pleased and so I left this message at Orangemike's talk page. This “conflict” was solved when Orangemike apologized at my talk page.

And one with an IP:

An IP wrote “They also make great cookies out of them” into the article about Macadamia. That was reverted by User:Blanchardb. Later the IP tried to “justify” its edit writing “There needs to be SOME sort of information on this page about macadamia nut cookies... I searched the page for "cookies", and didn't find anything. I started writing about it, but someone reverted my edits.” at the talk page of the article, but unfortunately the IP deleted the whole other content of the talk page. So I reverted this edit, as it really looked like vandalism. Then the IP complained at my talk page. Reading that message I realized that the IP did simply not know how to leave a message properly at a article talk page. So I went to the talk page of the article immediately and repaired it for the IP. So this conflict was solved when the IP left this message at my talk page thanking me for the help at the article talk page. I also wrote this reply trying to explain the whole situation.

If I had any similar conflicts or even bigger ones in the future, I think I would try to solve them in a similar way. Generally it's quite important in my opinion not to inflame conflicts (e.g. by being uncivil); it's much better to discuss them calmly or at least to try to do so.

Optional question from RMHED

4. When did you last see your father?

A: I'm very sorry, but I honestly don't understand your question. If what you mean is, that as an admin I would sometimes have to make difficult decisions (“Here, if the boy tells the truth he will endanger his father, but if he lies he will go against the ideal of honesty undoubtedly instilled in him by his parents.″) I would like to say that I'm aware of that. However it would be very nice if you clarify your question a bit, so that I'm able to understand it. :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 01:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

4.(clarified) Would you rather maintain absolute honesty, no matter whom it harmed. Or would you rather lie and sacrifice your honesty in order to save those you most cared about.

A: Okay, thank you for clarifying. As I simply could never say the untruth, I would not lie in any situation. —αἰτίας •discussion• 02:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA cookie cutter questions from NuclearWarfare

5. Under what circumstances would you voluntarily give up your sysop status?

A. Generally, if I feel that I do not have the trust of the community (anymore). That may happen, for example, if one of my admin actions is criticized (heavily) by a noteworthy number of editors. In such a situation it may be appropriate to give back the tools until the community expresses its trust again in a re-confirmation.

6. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A. 11:02 the user received a last warning. So the IP was warned explicitly and clearly not to vandalize again, as he will be definitively blocked for any further vandalism. Despite that warning he vandalised again 11:28. So —in general— the block was completely justified. The IP did vandalize again after the block (11:31). So, in my opinion the constructive edit from 11:18 was just done in order to have a reason to be unblocked later (and to do further vandalism after the unblock). Accordingly if I would have to decide about the unblock request, I would decline it, as the risk of further harm for Wikipedia would be much bigger than something constructive. But, in order to avoid a conflict of interests I would leave the review to another admin. —αἰτίας •discussion• 00:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from Protonk (talk)

You mentioned that you are interested in doing CSD work. I'm going to pose a few questions about CSD tags, when you feel they should be applied and how you think you would process deletions.

7. In your own words, explain what sort of pages would meet CSD-A1, CSD-A7 and CSD-A3. This isn't a "gotcha" question. Look up the criteria and the relevant policy pages and let us know what you think each tag means. An answer like "I would never use A1, instead I would tag a page with G1 or G2" would be ok.

A.

• CSD-A1: If the article is very short and does not provide sufficient context so that the subject of the article can not be identified, e.g. “It's so great! So great!”.

• CSD-A7: If there are no indications that the subject of the article is in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability (i.e. why it is important or significant); e.g. “XY from YZ is a very nice person. She is so cute!”

• CSD-A3: Well, generally if the content of the page is just trivial and non-encyclopedic. Cases, where this applies are listed on the policy page, e.g. attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments and just external links. —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

8. You are watching Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and you see a page tagged for speedy deletion. Let's say it is a page about The Funky Underwear Monkeys, a Myspace band, and a CSD-A7 tag is applied. If the author places a {{holdon}} tag on the article but doesn't make a comment on the talk page, how long will you wait to delete the page? If the editor instead changes the page to make an implausible (but still good faith and not impossible) assertion of notability, what will you do with the page?

A. After the holdon tag was placed on the page I would wait about 6 hours to give the author a chance to improve the article. - After the assertion of notability I would do some research on the topic myself and bring the article to AfD if I am unable to find anything. —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Followup Q Is there any circumstance in which you would do a speedy delete after a holdon tag? DGG (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A: In accordance with Template:Hangon there are commonly two different circumstances, in which a page may be deleted despite a holdon tag:

• If the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria: This may for example apply in the case of blatant vandalism (e.g. “FUCK XY”) or patent nonsense (e.g. “jkabdiu3zih3ro8923bkuwehdi7g3qiubhwfe”)

or

• If the promised explanation is not provided very soon: For example if the author states that he would provide an indication of notability in the next two hours, but does not provide this indication within 6 hours. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

9. Why does Wikipedia have a speedy deletion mechanism for articles which are not vandalism, attack pages or copyright violations? By this I mean why in the motivation sense, not "how did wikipedia come to have a speedy deletion mechanism". In other words, tell me in your own words why we have A7, A1, G1, and G2. This question is entirely optional.

A.

Optional question from Keeper

10.In February of this year, you ran your first RfA, where it was decided that you did not have enough experience to be an adminstrator. What experience, specifically, have you had in the last 3 months to gain the additional experience necessary, outside of AIV reports (which I agree are absolutely superb...) addendum: That was my exact question from RFA#2. For RFA#3, I'd like you to answer: What experience(s) have you had to dispel those that might oppose your request for admin tools?

A: As Lradrama said it on my talk page I tried to “branch out into more areas of the website”. For example, I tried to help at places like the help desk now and then. The main point of criticism in may last RfA was my lacking mainspace work, which I tried to improve as well. As I have to admit today, last time I really had just some stubs, not real articles. Today, I think, I have some articles which are even quite good (see Q2). So altogether I hope that I could improve on some points since my last RfA, at least I tried to do so. —αἰτίας •discussion• 02:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Nsk92

11. Would you agree that in every situation where an admin has to make an administrative decision there is exactly one correct course of action?

A: I don't really think so. From my point of view, there seems to be some kind of “discretionary powers” often, in which correct/fair decisions can be made. —αἰτίας •discussion• 12:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Question from Stifle

12. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?

A. According to Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 the use of non-free pictures of living people is generally unacceptable, as there would be the possibility of taking a new free picture as a replacement, which is almost always considered as possible. This picture has to serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image in that case. But in case that the living person is no more active in the career, which constitutes his notability, a picture that would be now taken may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during his/her career. So in that case the use of a non-free picture would be acceptable. —αἰτίας •discussion• 12:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from  Asenine 

13. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?

A: In this particular case Wikipedia:Verifiability —as one of Wikipedia's core content policies— is definitively more important than Wikipedia:Consensus. Therefore the newbie is right. Accordingly I would leave a message at the talk page of the article requesting that reliable sources are provided in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability. I would point out that the newbie's version has to be restored, if there are no reliable sources provided within an appropriate period of time. After this appropriate period of time has elapsed there are two possible cases:

• There have been provided reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability. In this case the version, which has achieved consensus on the talk page can be used in the article.

• No reliable sources have been provided. In this case the newbie's version should be restored. —αἰτίας •discussion• 00:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

14. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?

A: Well, for a really “annoyed” user I think I have given a very detailed example in my answer to question Q3. To give another example, in which an “inexperienced editor”, who was “highly puzzled as to what is going on”, was asking me for advice at my talk page: Please have a look here (and here). —αἰτίας •discussion• 00:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

15. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?

A: I hope that my current activities will continue in the same amount as now (at least I plan to do so). Of course then my overall activity will increase, as I will have to do admin-related work as well (as described in Q1). —αἰτίας •discussion• 00:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from TomStar81 (Talk):

16. What is your opinion on the use of optional questions in an rfa? Are they helpful or hurtful to a potential candidate undergoing an rfa?

A:

General comments

• The bot doesn't seem to be picking up Realist2's oppose for some reason. Can anyone figure out why? how do you turn this on 02:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Shouldn't any RfA show links to previous RfAs of the same candidate, like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aitias and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aitias 2, for the convenience of the editors? Gray62 (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

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

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Aitias
• Requests for adminship/Aitias 2
• Requests for adminship/Aitias 3

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

---

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

Discussion

• RHMED's question is cryptic, though very interesting as I read it. Protonk (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• I think the responses to RHMED are getting overblown. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think we are reading WAAAAY to much into the wikilink to "absolutist". RHMED asked this candidate if he would lie if he knew it would protect something or someone he held dear. The candidate responded unequivocally in the negative. Evidently, RHMED feels that flexibility is a critical component of adminship and has opposed on that basis. This isn't the "introduction of some outside litmus test" or anything like that. It isn't as though RHMED asked "Who would you vote for in the US 2008 presidential election" and then said "I can't support a democrat". He feels (and I can sympathize, though I don't think one question is enough to oppose this canddiate on) that bending the rules when they need to be bent is a good idea. How is that not related to adminship? Protonk (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  Seriously, Protonk? Come on, there's a massive logical chasm between "I avoid telling lies" and "I will follow all rules absolutely." Of course it's a litmus test. It presented two options, one of which prompted the opposition. That's the patented definition of a litmus test. --JayHenry (talk) 06:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  Well, there is a much smaller chasm between "I will never, ever, under any circumstance tell a lie" and "I will follow all rules absolutely" and I was pointing more toward the "I will follow all of my internal rules for behavior absolutely". I shouldn't have linked to IAR, because it wasn't where I was really going. As for the propriety of litmus tests in RfA, I see ~3 in the questions above. I think we freak out about litmus tests concerning things obviously not wikipedia related (which is correct) but I just don't see how the answer to that question is so unrelated to behavior on wikipedia--assuming that the answer gives representative look at the behavior of the candidate (that's a big if). I personally wouldn't oppose based on it, I just commented here because I can't understand the fervor surrounding it. Protonk (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Having seen Aitias around popping up here and there doing useful things, I've formed a pretty good impression of him. I think his article work could be stronger, especially as I don't think writing GAs is all that difficult, but some people just aren't suited to writing big articles for whatever reason. I think what people sometimes neglect to consider is that 100 edits across 100 articles that add some useful content is just as worthful as 100 edits that brings one article up to GA, even though you don't get a sticker for the former. The work that he has done in the mainspace is a good effort, especially the various new articles he's created, and his work in other areas appears to be almost without fault, so I see no reason to oppose this request. naerii 22:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Support. I've seen you around, and I think you will be a definite benefit to the project with the tools. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Support, sensible and dedicated user who makes a very effective vandal fighter and could make excellent use of admin tools. I supported last time based on exactly that rationale and I am happy to do so again! Aitias only seems like an even better candidate now. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 23:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Support; I see nothing worrying about this candidate, and improvement since his huggle-loving days. Besides, there is a rumor that all the best admins were chosen on their third attempt.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 23:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   Yeah, I have heard that too. :P Tiptoety ^talk 23:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   As have I. Xclamation point 00:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   Awww... :P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   While I know that they say that the "third time is the charm", I am nevertheless forced to respectfully disagree with the statement that the best admins pass on their third attempt. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

   Hah. —Animum (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   Show-off..... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   To engage in proper oneupmanship, you need a flawless victory. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

5. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
6. A little trigger-happy on this latest attempt, which I think might cause a few problems, but as I did the last time I around, I support this candidate. --Winger84 (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Support should have been promoted last time. - Icewedge (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Hello, my brother-in-law mistook a tube of Super Glue for his toothpaste and I need to buy a crowbar to...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: Support for a candidate who fights vandals and writes articles (nice combo!). Ecoleetage (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Support - Now that Aitias has clarified for me, my slight concern is mollified. Good luck on the RfA. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Support Make it absolutely strong support even better than last time. Dlohcierekim 00:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

    Candidate has made vast improvements sense prior RFA. And having a strong moral sense seems a good thing. Dlohcierekim 03:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

11. Support - Very trustworthy editor. Xclamation point 00:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Support Has gained much more experience in the four months since last RfA and although for some reason I didn't express an opinion then, I am happy to support now. No worries for me. --Rodhullandemu 00:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Support. How could I oppose a candidate who both fights vandals (706 edits to WP:AIV) and makes content contributions? Aitias should have been promoted last time. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 00:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
14. Support Active, trustworthy and experienced. Though I have to ask, when you rewrote Federal Court of Justice of Germany, why did you erase all the categories and interwiki links (as shown in the diff provided in the nomination)? Not that it changes my opinion, simply curious. how do you turn this on 01:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

    That happened just accidently - I repaired it immediately after I noticed it. :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 01:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

15. Support Trustworthy user. You'll do fine as a sysop, despite not seeing an answer yet in Q4. SchfiftyThree 01:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
16. Support I'd like to see more article work, though 700 AIV edits = trustworthy candidate (in this case!) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
17. Bah, no article work needed, just maintenance of the encyclopedia, that's adminship for. macy 02:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
18. Support has an obvious need for the tools. MBisanz ^talk 02:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
19. Just your third RFA? I thought I'd supported you like six times already. · AndonicO ^Engage. 02:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
20. Support per WP:WTHN. :D (of course) miquonranger03 (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
21. Strong support — I am very impressed with what I see; we have before us a well-rounded and dedicated Wikipedian with no apparent black marks. I would urge a rethinking of the answer to RMHED's philosophical question, however. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 03:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
22. Support. bibliomaniac15 03:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
23. Support Certainly. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
24. Support I really loved naerii's way of putting it: 100 good edits are 100 good edits, no matter if they are on one article to GA it or on 100 article to make each one a little bit better. You should not judge an admin by GA/FAs I always say. This candidate wants to fight vandals and care about CSD (which has a huge backlog at times and everytime I see it I feel like more help is needed there) and I am sure he will do it great. And this user is friendly, helpful and constructive and will make the encyclopedia a better place with a mop. SoWhy 07:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
25. Support Epbr123 (talk) 09:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
26. Support. Everything I'd want in an admin. Καλὴ τύχη, Αἰτίας! haz (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
27. Support per SoWhy, naerii and weguardourberrieswithsecrets, eh, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden ;-)    SIS  10:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
28. Support. →Christian.И 10:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
29. Support as last time, and better qualified now. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
30. Support Possesses a clue. Protonk (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
31. Support He's not going to do anything dumb and giving him the tools will be a definite positive for the project. Thingg^⊕⊗ 14:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
32. Support Good luck. :) GlassCobra 15:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
33. Latest nom support evar. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
34. Support No obvious reasons not to. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 18:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
35. Support Per RMHED. America69 (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
36. Performs an upscale amount of work at FPC. I'd like to see more content building but rv edits are impressive. —Sunday ^Scribe 19:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
37. Support, I trust Aitias completely. There is no requirement for administrators to be experts in all fields, and what Aitias does, he does well. FusionMix 19:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
38. Support I agree this makes sense. rootology (C)(T) 20:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
39. Strong Support Unrelenting commitment ,Great track ,Totally unbiased Vandal fighter.Above All Trustworthy.See no misuse of tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
40. Support Trustworthy user who would benefit from the tools. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
41. Supporting a great contributor.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 20:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
42. Strong support - meets my standards, excellent answres to questions. Bearian (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
43. Strong Support I supported last time, and will support again. Long overdue. I fooled the Wikibreak enforcer for this one (and because I was bored). Actually, the Wikibreak enforcer is very flawed. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
44. Support Thanks for a great vandal-whacking, german helping, all around great candidate! spider1224 01:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
45. Support, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
46. Support Sounds good. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
47. Support, meets my criteria, has addressed my concerns since the previous RFa, and has worked diligently towards the betterment of wikipedia. What's not to love? Excellent candidate. Keeper ǀ 76 14:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
48. Aitias is the candidate for the mop. An exceedingly well-versed and coherent user. Caulde 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
49. I have seen Aitias on Huggle several times in the past couple of months, and I know that he knows what he's doing with vandal-patrol. His answers to the CSD questions are also good, as are his article contributions.
    Based on my prior interactions with you, I came here intending to give you a strong support. However, your answer to RHMED's question was, in my opinion, absolutely excellent. Regardless of whether your position there is right or wrong, I greatly admire someone who is willing to make a statement like that in such a forum as an RfA. Your answer shows clearly that you are not afraid to to state what you believe, regardless of any possible consequences of your statement. Since you are obviously willing to say what you think is right no matter what, I also believe that as an admin, you will be willing to do what is right, regardless of what others may think. I have no reason to believe that you will make any bad decisions as an admin, so, based on my interactions with you in the past, and especially on your answer to Q4, I am happy to give you my Very Strong Support. Good luck with the mop! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
50. Support I have had good experiences with this user, especially at WP:FPC. Good luck! Spencer^T♦C 20:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
51. Support Seems to be a dedicated and trustworthy 'edian. Though I cannot say that the answers to the questions had me jumping up and down, shouting "Go, Aitias!!", I must say that examples of work have gotten me pretty solidly over to Support. I feel that he has the experience and general mindset needed for an admin. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 20:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
52. I nominated Aitias for adminship last time around, and I'm disappointed that the RfA didn't pass. I thought he was qualified then, and believe he is qualified now. I have to mention that I was very impressed by this discussion on his talk page (also see the section after it), showing that Aitias is indeed a communicative and helpful user, and nice to newcomers. He'll be fine. (Acalamari from alternate account.) Bellatrix Kerrigan 20:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
53. Support. Aitias has good contributions and a fine temperament. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
54. Support - Common sense appears to be abundant with this candidate. Aitias, would you mind sharing some with the rest of us? Tiptoety ^talk 23:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
55. I thought about going neutral because of all the automated edits, but I do my fair share of those as well. After thinking about it, I don't think he'll do anything stupid like deleting the main page, so I'll support. --Tex (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

    You can't delete the main page. (What did you think new admins try first?) Brion apparently has no sense of humor. (And no sense of humour either, would you believe it?) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

56. Support - yes.   jj137 (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
57. Despite my ramblings below, I trust the candidate. Giggy (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
58. Support per nom, although xeno has some good points and advice below. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
59. Support - I supported last time, and I see no reason not to do so again. You have the right judgement and attributes for adminship in my opinion. Opposition comments are not that strong, article work seems good to me, I don't see this as needing to be fantastic for adminship. I also see nothing wrong in admins being fully honest. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
60. Support – Passes my criteria. Seriously, though, Aitias would have made a fine admin long ago. —Animum (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
61. Support I trust this user. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
62. Good vandal fighter, dont see any significant probs, good luck Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 02:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
63. Support Good candidate that can be trusted. However, I don't support the usage of greek, hebrew, kyrillic or other foreign letters in a username. Y'all, pls stop that nonsense messing around with your signature and make your usernames readable again, pls! Gray62 (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
64. Support - seems to be a ready and able candidate, and excepting xeno's concern, I see no reason not to. Best wishes - Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
65. Support: A well-rounded editor who would make a fine janitor! seicer | talk | contribs 00:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
66. Support. Fully qualified candidate. The opposers' rationales are unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
67. Support, absolutely. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
68. support —DerHexer (Talk) 07:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
69. Support - The candidate's edit history does not give me any concerns that he will misuse the tools. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
70. Support. I have to say the opposition's comments were quite disappointing. Perhaps they don't know that questions like "do you always tell the truth?" are standard "baiting" questions used to assess deception on psychological tests like MMPI, and the lie detector. The attempt to focus the debate on that applicant's answer to that question is dubious at best. VasileGaburici (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
71. Strong Support: Trustworthy , experienced and Active wikipedian. -- Tinu Cherian - 10:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
72. Support -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
73. Support Ashton1983 (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too soon since your last attempt for me and stronger article building needed. — Realist² 23:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose I can't support an absolutist. RMHED (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   How does that relate to Wikipedia at all? If it isn't related, then it is opposing on unrelated personal issues, something I thought had been de facto community banned. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   It's pretty fairly within his sphere of possible good faith opposes. I read that question as a test of the candidate's moral philosophy (assuming the answer to it is truthful, of course). To many people the answer to RHMED's exact question is a vital component to trust. Protonk (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   A religious, political, or philosophical (other than, perhaps, some aspects of wikiphilosophy like "anyone can edit") litmus test for admins is a very bad idea. Wikipedia is often accused of systematic bias (and, for that matter, has plenty of individual articles that are unquestionably biased). Excluding admins for disagreeing with a non-wiki-related philosophical viewpoint of yours is a bad road to go down. --B (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   I generally agree that people should be allowed to express whatever opinion they like on RFA, and the crats do an adequate job separating the wheat from the chaff. So it goes with responses. Personally, I find that litmus tests tell us much more about the person administering the test than the person failing it. And a litmus test to oppose absolutists is deliciously ironic, in a only-on-Wikipedia-way, is it not? --JayHenry (talk) 06:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   You're opposing because the user says he would not lie??? And I suppose you'd vote to support someone who would lie like a bedbug? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   Oh, jeez. Come on, RHMED. This is one of the absolute worst opposes I have ever seen in my Wiki-days. This, pardon me, is bullshit. This is prejudice at it's finest. This trumps Kurt. Completely. So now you, desperate to oppose, decide to convince yourself that one's philosophical beliefs will impact their ability to administrate a website? What's next? This is worse that all of those trivial ageism opposes. I'd support a someone I disagree with in a heartbeat if they were a brilliant editor. That's what RfA should be about. Not this. This is why RfA is broken. Because people can vote like this (lets not kid ourselves into saying RfA is a discussion) and let their viewpoints get in the way of a great candidate. RHMED, please strike you vote. If you can't support, then please take you prejudice out of RfA at least. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   I just read the question. What at all does this have to do with this candidate's ability to administrate Wikipedia. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   I am in full agreement with Erik. While I will not disparage the nature of the question, I will say that I find it quite irrelevant to this process, despite it being made in good faith. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

   This oppose makes perfect sense, and I'm amused at people asking that people not comment if they can't support an RfA. Apparently, that's going to improve Wikipedia. Giggy (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

   If RHMED opposed for any other reason other than this, I would have said, more power to you. I oppose admin candidates if I don't believe the tools are necessary for them at the time, or if they are ready for the tools. Not their moral philosophy. This is the same as saying, Oppose, you are Jewish, or Oppose, you're Asian, or Oppose, you're a woman. Prejudice shouldn't be on any area of Wikipedia, but especially not RfA. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

   It's absolutely not the same as any of the examples you've given. The opposition is based on a moral stance that's absolutely relevant to how the admin tools will be used. Giggy (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

   If you can tell me what on Earth moral absolutism has to do with blocking a vandal or protecting or deleting a page, I'll eat my shirt. —Animum (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

   Well, if you will never lie, you will always be honest about blocking/deletion reasons, and generally not deceive the community/use the tools for personal gain. This could have terrible consequences for the future of Wikipedia, I am sure that it is these terrible, evil consequences that RHMED wants to avoid. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

   Giggy, how could always telling the truth be a bad thing for an administrator to practice? And as JayHenry (talk · contribs) pointed out, it is deliciously ironic that RMHED takes an absolutist stance against absolutism. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose per Realist2. The last RFA was just held two and half months ago and content building and activities in Wikispace are more required.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   Just for the record, the user's last RfA was 3 and a half months ago, which is more or less the accepted time frame to wait - of course that varies from editor to editor. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   I counted 3.5 months too, but still too recent for me. — Realist² 19:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral - Just for now, I see some great things, but the last line in the answer to question 1 gave me slight pause. I don't feel that it is appropriate to protect pages you work on, which is what I feel is being implied here. Hopefully the candidate meant that they would work at RFPP. I will wait for the candidate to relieve that concern. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Switching to neutral support per candidate's explanation. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you misunderstood me, but that seems to be my fault. To clarify what I wrote in question 1: Of course what I wrote in Q1 does not implicate pages I work on. In my opinion protecting a page I work on would mean a definitive conflict of interests. So I would never protect such a page. Regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean you switched to support Wisdom. I would correct but I'm sure that's considered rude on these things. — Realist² 00:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks for the catch R2. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Pending answers to questions. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Neutral, I cannot support an editor who "would not lie in any situation". --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 16:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   So you're condoning dishonesty? Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   An admin should keep an open mind at all times, being able to do what helps the encyclopedia the most without being bound by absolutisms. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 20:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral. Although I feel Aitias' rewrite of Federal Court of Justice of Germany was great, I feel his/her article building needs more work. Not enough for an oppose, but not enough for a support either. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 04:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral for now: a clueful response to Q6, noting that he should not decline the unblock request from his own block, but I disagree with this statement: [if i had] to decide about the unblock request, I would decline it, as the risk of further harm for Wikipedia would be much bigger than something constructive. Not true at all; schoolboy vandalism of this nature is easily cleaned up (especially with our huggle battalion), and the reblock would be swift. The possibility of long-term positive contributions from this user far outweighs any risk of having to reblock if they were not sincere. Consider offering users in this case a {{2nd chance}} (even if another admin has declined the unblock template as they likely would, since it was, in itself, a fine and good block - at least in my biased opinion). Constructive contributors are golden. Though I will take a closer look at the rest of this in the morning. –xeno (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral Towards Oppose: I haven't found anything that I'm completely opposed to, as of yet. My big issue is the necessity for adminship. I don't think this user has been hindered by not having administrator privileges, and having failed RFA a few times before, it makes me question why they're intently seeking the admin position. bigjake (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

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.