Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cirt

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

Statement by closing bureaucrat

I have some comments and observations to make about this RfA and my evaluation of the discussion it contains. There have been various suggestions that this RfA should be either forshortened or extended. I have rejected both courses of action. It was always important for this RfA to run at least its full course, canvassing not withstanding, to ensure that a significant proportion of the community were in a position to evaluate this request. As to an extension, the fact that this candidate had edited previously under names he did not propose to disclose was openly stated in the nomination. Requests for details of the prior block log were responded to promptly. I also note that those who have been determined to discover the identity of the prior account seem to have been able to do so. It is my conclusion that 7 days were an adequate period of time for participants to determine whether they were willing to support a candidate in the circumstances.
To address the question of whether the opinions of supporters should be given less weight because they were not necessarily in possession of the "full picture", it seems to me that they were at all times free to withhold their support or oppose if they were uncomfortable supporting this request as stated. The decision to accept assurances about the nature of the past account without needing to review it themselves is I think a valid one, and I do not think it my role to assess whether or not this was a wise decision on their part.
I am saddened by the sockpuppetry and canvassing that has surrounded this request. My thanks to Rlevse and those checkusers involved in identifying instances where multiple accounts have been abused in the course of this RfA. The number of accounts for whom this is the first RfA they have expressed an opinion on, and which have been inactive for some time prior to doing so is concerning. Though such accounts are present both among the supporters and opponents of this candidacy, they represent a disproportionate percentage of the latter compared to the former.
Ultimately, I believe there is a consensus here to promote Cirt and I do not regard this as being in any way a borderline call, despite the controversy that has surrounded the request. Ultimately this discussion turns on a single issue - whether people were willing to support this candidate despite misconduct committed in the past with an undisclosed account. Whilst the reasons for being unwilling to do so were totally reasonable - and consistent - across opposers, they formed a clear minority of opinion about this request. Each commentator was in a position to determine whether they were satisfied with the information available and to decide accordingly.
WJBscribe (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Cirt

Final (166/43/7); Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 21:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Cirt (talk · contribs) - It’s an honor to be the nominator of one of en:wiki’s most qualified candidates for RFA. Cirt is already an arbitrator at Wikinews, an administrator at Commons, and an OTRS volunteer. At Wikipedia he has contributed 11 featured articles, 26 good articles, 33 “Did you know” articles, 1 featured topic, and 11 featured portals (he’s the most prolific contributor of featured portals on this website). He has made over 38,000 edits to Wikipedia. In connection with his OTRS work, cross-project deletion work, and his AFD work it makes sense for him to have the tools at this project too.

Now you might be wondering, why didn’t an editor with qualifications this good get sysopped long ago? Two reasons. First, some of Cirt’s contributions are to controversial topics. It is darn near guaranteed that an editor who writes about Scientology and related subjects will step on some toes, no matter how polite he is or how many of those contributions result in featured articles. I don’t know much about those subjects but I do know he’s evenhanded: not only do the articles he works on consistently pass GAC and FAC, but he’ll intervene to revert vandalism, seek page protection, etc. regardless of what POV the disruption expresses. The second reason he’s hesitated to ask for the tools here is because this isn’t his first account and he collected some blocks before he started this account. I can guarantee you he did not change accounts to hide that block log. Please respect his privacy in that regard. It had to do with personal security and I was the administrator he turned to for help when the problem first occurred. His blocks had to do with edit warring—not incivility or any more significant concern—and he’s long since learned to open dispute resolution instead of violating 3RR. The most recent block occurred more than a year ago.

So in terms of an editor who got a rocky start and made healthy turnaround, I don’t know of a better example than Cirt. Two other WMF projects already trust him with the mop. Let’s do the same. Durova^Charge! 19:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by weburiedoursecretsinthegarden

I think the only word in the English language to describe Cirt consists of only three letters: “Wow”. Perhaps that’s because I’m terrible at English. Or perhaps, as Durova has said extensively above, Cirt is actually too good an editor to describe in mere words.

It’s not often one gets the chance to nominate a good user for adminship – let alone a brilliant one. So, when a user like Cirt comes along, all activity is halted to write a nomination for them. I myself do not even feel qualified to nominate this calibre of editor for the mop, regardless of how big a deal it is. Many admins – perhaps even bureaucrats – do not have the credentials Cirt possesses – which is why he should obtain the almost iconic mop.

I first encountered Cirt earlier this year, on – believe it or not – featured portal candidates. I believe he had a nomination or three on the go then. At once, I saw the amount of work he put into those portals – not just a fly-over job, a work of art. Upon visiting his userpage, I saw just how many portals he had managed to get featured – some of which single-handedly – and gasped in shock. (That rarely happens to me, after seeing something on the internet.) I must say, this drove me to create and develop a portal of my own. That I did, and I owe it to Cirt’s example.

I don’t see much else I could say to top Durova’s nomination above. I do hope that you, the community, will not look upon Cirt’s early history and write him off for the tools that will only help him to help the project. We need more admins like this guy. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Thank you very much Durova and weburiedoursecretsinthegarden for your kind words. Cirt (talk) 20:29, 8 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: I’d like to do some work in the administrative backlogs related to images, specifically CAT:NCT, CAT:NC, and CAT:NT. I have recently been doing some work on OTRS, and having the tools would certainly help with this. I would also love to help out with updating Did you know, I know it has been a recurring issue to find admins for that.

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

A: I think my featured work on Wikipedia stands as my best quality contributions to the project. I’d like to especially point out how fulfilling it has been for me to work on collaborative efforts with members of WikiProjects, including a featured portal with members of WP:TEXTILE, a featured article and featured portal with members of WP:OREGON, a featured topic and featured portal with members of WP:DOH.

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: As Durova notes, I have been in conflicts in the past with regard to Scientology and related topics. Those were mostly edit wars from my early days, and I delayed this nomination considerably in hopes of building up a track record that demonstrates I've put those mistakes behind me. Those pages where I once disputed are mostly GAs and FAs now.

What made the difference is that blocks had their intended effect on me: I stepped back and returned with a healthier outlook. Since the early days I've also discovered that dispute resolution is a better way of resolving differences between editors. I also trust in the community – and I have seen the dispute resolution process work very well and I especially find article content RFCs to be helpful. With any issue that crops up I always seek out an experienced administrator for advice, and I will continue to do so.

Optional question from xenocidic

4. 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: The IP vandalized article mainspace a total of 13 times, and his previous 2 unblock requests were extremely uncivil. His statement is also incorrect in his most recent unblock request - after his "constructive" edit, he went on to make another vulgar vandalism edit, and his most recent unblock request was also highly inappropriate. I would not however be the administrator to review the unblock request because I was the blocking admin in the first place. I would leave the unblock review to an independent administrator.

Additional question from Haukur

5. Should this image be transferred to the Commons?

A: Interesting question. I'm looking into it. This work is definitely public domain in the United States. The question is whether it's also public domain globally. It falls under the pre-1923 window under U.S. law, but the illustrator lived until 1955. I'm currently looking into whether the New York publication given was the first publication (or whether it was first published elsewhere) and whether the artist resided in the United States at the relevant time. The short answer is I would take no action until I were certain.

Those are just the right questions to ask. Thank you. Haukur (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional question from Sumoeagle179

6. Many people feel admin behavior standards have gotten rather lax these days. Some users seem to feel it's okay to be rude and condescending to others, especially if you disagree with them. What do you think of WP:CIVIL? Should standards of behavior for admins, including civility, be higher than for user who are not admins? How should issues of admin incivility be handled?

A: If I want to ask for civility I had better demonstrate it. Of course that doesn't stop me from disagreeing with people, or explaining why. But incivility distracts from that type of message when it needs to be given. We are a community of contributors and we should all be held to a high standard of civility together. Of course I highly support WP:CIVIL, it is official policy and a very good one to encourage constructive, rather than destructive dialogue.

Additional question from Townlake

7. Would you mind providing a brief example of a situation where you would apply IAR in the course of your administrative activities? It can be the most obvious IAR case you can imagine, I'm just curious if and when you might invoke it. Thanks and good luck! Townlake (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A: Technically one is not supposed to edit an article after protecting it, but if I noticed an obvious WP:BLP violation, for example "Joe Schmoe is an alcoholic", I would invoke WP:IAR to remove that information. I would note that I had done so in the edit summary and give a comment on the talk page.

Optional question from MBisanz

8. Will you be open to recall? Who will be the "decider" of if a recall has passed? If you will be open to ti, what are your criteria?

A: I think that the recall process is certainly controversial and not clearly defined. I trust in the current system which works the best - if a user has an issue with my use of the tools they may start a User RFC. This could then proceed to an arbitration case, at which point my use of the tools could be dealt with formally by the Arbitration Committee.

This question should not be used for the basis of one's !vote. In fact, the question itself is extremely unpopular as it poison's the well---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from NuclearWarfare

9. At this time, do you believe that you will branch out to some of the other administrative-related tasks (CSD), XfD, RFPP, etc.)?

A. I will start off work in the admin areas I have mentioned above, NCT, NC, NT, OTRS-related work, and Did you know. Over time I'd like to branch out into CSD, XfDs and RFPP, but I think there will be plenty to do to start with those first tasks I listed. As I gain more experience I hope to naturally round out my administrative contributions a bit more in the future.

Optional questions from  Asenine 

10. 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: I would explain the importance of WP:V to the editors on the talk page of the article, and I would also welcome the new user and reach out and explain the relevant policies as well. If the article is a BLP then there is a pressing matter to remove unsourced content that cannot be backed up to verifiable and reliable sources. Perhaps some of that unsourced material could be sourced, and we could all work together on the article's talk page to share resources and work to properly source the material. In any event, a good next step would be to open an article content RFC to bring in broader input from the community.

11. 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: The Project Chanology article is one where I have seen an increase relative to other articles in the amount of new users that notice the article and make a comment on the talk page. Sometimes these users question current content in the article, or make a suggestion about adding new content. Sometimes they are indeed frustrated that a particular piece of information is not there. The first thing that I do is make sure that the user has been welcomed to the project. This provides them with helpful links to pages where they can learn more about how to contribute, as well as links to our policies. This also tells the user they can ask me questions on my talk page. I also explain the need to cite sources and back up the new information recommended to be added to the article. Over time, I have been pleased that users I had previously explained this to have helped to explain the matter to other subsequent new users that show up suggesting new information be added to the article.

12. 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 will most certainly continue my current activities if granted the mop and bucket. I am involved in a featured topic drive, and I have four featured portal drives I am working on. I will slow down a bit from article content contribution to work on some administrative contributions, but article-writing is one of the things I love most about this project.

Optional question from Lankiveil

13. In the nom, it's stated that you have worked with articles concerning Scientology, a most controversial topic at times. Do you still edit on this subject, and if so what sort of edits do you make? Have you made any major contributions to an article on this topic lately, and if so can you provide some examples?

A: Lately I've been focusing on featured portal drives and an unrelated featured topic drive. The closest major quality content work I've done to Scientology recently has to do with works by L. Ron Hubbard. These include To the Stars (album) (DYK/GA), To the Stars (novel) (DYK/GA), Buckskin Brigades (DYK), Final Blackout (DYK), Revolt in the Stars (DYK), and Space Jazz (DYK). I plan to do some more DYK/GA work on a few more works by Hubbard as well.

Question from Avruch

14.: Is it fair to say you've been blocked for edit warring seven times? I see that the last time, according to your talkpage post, was in June 2007. Without knowing the names of your prior accounts, its difficult for those of us who aren't very familiar with you to evaluate the circumstances. What about your approach to Wikipedia has changed in the last year? I should add - your content contributions are amazing and greatly appreciated, and unquestionably make you a far more valuable member of this project than myself. I'm just looking for some more background information, and a little insight into your views. Thanks!

A.: In the past I rarely sought to improve the quality of articles to a high standard. I had gotten a few articles up to GA, but I had not endeavored to participate collaboratively in a stringent review process with other editors to get an article all the way up to FA status. Through work on my first FA, Trapped in the Closet (South Park), multiple editors pointed out things that could be improved on in the article, and a few helped me with copy-editing and some other difficult work during the FAC process. After the article was promoted as a FA, one of the editors that had helped me on it invited me to join The Simpsons featured topic drive. I was hesitant to commit myself to such an ambitious project, but it has been a real pleasure working on it.

I have benefited greatly from my collaborative experiences working with editors on varying topics in featured topic and featured content drives. Also, when I work on improving the quality of an article I take it through the DYK, GA, peer review, and FAC processes. This opens up the articles I work on to review from a wide cross-section of the community, and I have found that this is a very positive thing which helps to greatly improve the quality of those articles. I highly respect the advice of experienced editors and administrators, and frequently seek out their advice in both stressful situations as well as for help with minor content questions.

Question from Justallofthem

15.: Cirt, we can keep this short and sweet. First off, Cirt and I go way back and I have known her in all her previous incarnations. I am going to say nothing at this point about her history here or any current objections I might have. I just have one question. Cirt, if you are given the admin bits do you promise to not use them AT ALL in the topic area in which you are personally invested and in which all your prior trouble has occurred, specifically the areas of so-called cults, NRMs, and the human potential movement. Your answers to previous questions indicated that you intend to work on image areas and it considered good form IMO to refrain from using admin tools in your own areas of potential bias. --Justallofthem (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A.: As you know, during mid-July and August a group of IP users were vandalizing your usertalk page, coordinated from offsite message boards critical of Scientology. It took some time for other admins to notice the issue and it was several hours before the users were dealt with. There was another recent related issue where you requested assistance at the Administrators' noticeboard for help with similar single purpose accounts that were attempting to insert unsourced negative information about the Church of Scientology at the article List of new religious movements, and it was a few days before an administrator took a look at the issue. I want you to know that you could come to me with any of these issues in the future if I become an admin, and I will quickly do my best to deal with the vandal users. Of course in any article where I am a contributor to the article's content I will refrain from using the tools.

Cirt, in the examples you cite I would rather wait for an uninvolved editor admin than risk establishing a gray area here. And anyway, protecting my user page from vandalism is not included in the area I asked you to refrain from using your admin tools in. To be honest, I am not looking to oppose your nomination and in fact I feel that in many ways you have earned this. I could bring up recent specific incidents that I feel show POV editing on your part but that is not my mission here. We both know that your main area of interest and the area in which there are POV concerns is the area that I described above. Pointing out that you would have a faster response time as admin in that area is the exact opposite of the response I am looking for and raises the issues of WP:OWN that I already have problems with. I really do not know how to deal with your answer as I am looking for a clear demarcation and I did not get that. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not satisfied with Cirt's answer to question 15. I would like to see an explicit answer to the very clear and direct question above. A direct answer to what is basically a yes or no question doesn't need much elaboration. Ebay3 (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Question from Caspian blue

16.: What do you think of the essay, Wikipedia:Honesty and how this so basic requirement would affect your activities in Wiki space if you become admin? What is your past account? Many people seems to know you and say about "your 7 blocks for 3RR violations", but your current blog log is very clean. I wonder why you did not reveal such information before being asked by editors who know your past. You only disclosed your block history at the talk page, but no diffs provided. So we're seeing your new account only. Is this honest and transparent behavior for your RFA campaign? --Caspian blue (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A.: Thank you Caspian blue for your question and your concern. I do think the honesty essay is important to this project and that is one of the reasons why Durova mentions I have a previous block log at the top of this RFA in her nom statement. I posted the list of blocks and lengths of those blocks to the talk page, the last of which occurred in June 2007. I think Durova has already sufficiently explained the nature of the privacy issue in the nom and in her response to Athaenara below.

Thank you for the answer, however you still did not answer my question properly. I also asked you about how you consider honesty itself and behave as admin with the requirement. I still can not convince myself that your past 7 blocks are just an insignificant history. That is not far from "some". I don't know you, except your current account. People are judged by their past all the time and block log is somewhat a measurement of how they behave. Your past history is also public information and you make people unable to judge it. According to Durova's statement, His blocks had to do with edit warring—not incivility or any more significant concern—and he’s long since learned to open dispute resolution instead of violating 3RR. I'm sorry, but how do we call your blocks are dispute resolutions with "what ground"? Just her nomination statement? Besides, the answer seems that you defer the matter to Durova.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly view honesty as an important value and will conduct myself in an honest manner in my possible capacity as administrator. Durova already explained the privacy matter, so I feel that at this point there is not much more to say on that issue. The dispute resolution is something that I have learned and I think have gotten better at over time and through talk page discussion I have been able to work with others of varying viewpoints to collaboratively bring articles on controversial topics to WP:FA.

Question from Jayen466

17.: Dear Cirt, I don't think I've ever met a Wikipedian who spends so much of their lives editing Wikipedia. And of course you're active on a few sister projects as well! What drives you to devote so much time to this project? And when do you sleep? :-) (<wink> I want to get some POV edits in.) Cheers, Jayen466 16:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A.: Thank you Jayen466 for your interest and your support. I think a good quote which sums up a motivating factor perhaps shared by many Wikipedians is this one by Jimbo Wales: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." [1] I love writing, and I also enjoy my activities in other areas of this project and other Foundation projects helping to facilitate the pervasiveness of free information in a quality-format. I would also say that I volunteer in various capacities in my community which at times does have the affect of throwing off my sleep cycle a bit.

Question from Justallofthem

18.: In your prior account here, the one that edited under two usernames from mid-2006 to mid-2007, did you ever share that account with another person, i.e. were you ever one of two or more editors making edits under that account, either concurrently or consecutively, in either username, during any part of the period the account, in either username, was active.

A.: No.

::In other words, every single edit made under that account was made by you personally? --Justallofthem (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Question from Gray62

19: Looking into your contribs, I see that you're incredible productive. Sometimes, you made three comments on different users' talk pages in a single minute! Hmm, how do you do this? Pure concentration, or very fast fingers on the keys? Something we can learn from you? Gray62 (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

A.: Thank you for your interest. Sometimes I know I will write a similar message to multiple users and so I open several windows at once.

For instance, seven of them, on 23:35, September 10, 2008. Well, thx for your answer. Gray62 (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• There's obviously some sockpuppetry going on in this RfA. I propose EVERY voter here should be checked. Concentrating ONLY on "oppose" votes is discimination and may be easily misunderstood as pressurizing editors to vote "yes". Gray62 (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• See Cirt's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Cirt: Cirt (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/Cirt before commenting.

Discussion

Basically, as there is no public access to information about all previous accounts of Cirt and the context about the 7 blocks she received in the past and these accounts' edit history, editors commenting on this RFA will have to go with the nominator's assessment of the prior past and editing behavior of Cirt, as well as Cirt's own declaratios, as being something that is not relevant anymore as it pertains to this RFA. Given this, Durova will carry together with Cirt the responsibility of any unlikely problems of misuse of the tools by Cirt in the future. If Cirt continues her prolific work in the project without misue of the tools after she gets his/her adminship, this indeed would be one of the most remarkable turnarounds in Wikipedia, to be commended, and presented as an example for others in similar situations to consider. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone has any information about canvassing or socking related to this RFA, please send it to me. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse is doing a good job monitoring all that is going on and I will defer judgment to the bureaucrats regarding investigating possible inappropriate activity in this RFA. Cirt (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. Durova^Charge! 20:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Beat a co-nom support: You're not already an admin? Cirt should have been given the mops years ago! Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 20:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Support - fantastic editor and knows the project well. Will do well with some more tools. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

   I've reviewed Cirt's earlier accounts and I'd like to confirm my support. She might have had problems previously, but a year is a long time and I'm still extremely confident she'll make a fantastic administrator. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 04:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you very much, Ryan. Just to clarify though: Wikipedia can promote Cirt to admin but it can never promote him to female. That's an honor he'll never quite attain. ;) Durova^Charge! 05:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

4. Support Sure. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Support before anyone else gets in before me :P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Support, I am shocked that you aren't already an admin, I had assumed you were. Excellent candidate, I have no concerns. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 20:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Support Clearly one of Wikipedia's most qualified for the mop. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Support I actually did think you were an admin already. Model Wikipedian. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 20:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Support. Most definitely. This is one user who will benefit the project greatly by being given the mop! Malinaccier (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Strong support — Fully trust both nominators, great article work, is human and can communicate well with others, wants to work in areas commonly burdened with backlogs. Marvellous! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Support - trustworthy editor who understands the image policy. PhilKnight (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Support Overdue. how do you turn this on 21:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Obvious choice I'd say. John Reaves 21:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    Yes; definitely. I supported him on Commons recently too and would trust him pretty much anywhere. Solid trustworthy contributor with the best interests of the enyclopedia in mind. naerii 21:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

14. Support. Seems like a great guy. Certainly answered my question very well :) Haukur (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
15. Strong support, per both noms. Extremely trustworthy. --Maxim (☎) 21:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
16. Support I see him all the time and I think him to be an admin each time, only to be proven wrong. I have not a single idea why, with all those great contribution, he isn't an admin yet. SoWhy 21:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
17. Support: Why not? seicer | talk | contribs 21:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
18. Strong Support Highly trustworthy candidate. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
19. Support; I have no fear the candidate would stick the mop in bad places. — Coren ^(talk) 21:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
20. Simply looking at his astonishing content contributions pushes me to support - above and beyond the accepted RfA standards. Valtoras (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
21. Support complete no-brainer. Absolutely. --Rodhullandemu 21:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
22. Support Good editor. America69 (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
23. Support Great edit history, many fine contributions. Support 100% --Banime (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    Support Trustworthy candidate, I respect the nominators, and I like the IAR answer. Townlake (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    No opinion I'm too lost at this point to put forth an opinion on this request, even a neutral opinion. The concerns raised appear to have at least some merit. Townlake (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

24. Support - This RfA isn't an April fools joke? I thought you already were an admin. *Realist double checks his calendar* . — Realist² 22:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
25. Support Good answers, gonna make a great mop-holder. —[DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs] 22:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    Support - This candidate is a breath of fresh air. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC) I have to abstain. I have no idea what to make of this drama anymore. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

26. Support. I'm usually pretty well informed about who is and isn't an admin, but this one really made me jump out of my seat. bibliomaniac15 22:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
27. Suppose....joking! :P An excellent candidate —— RyanLupin • (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
28. I'm very disappointed... that I didn't nominate you myself. Very Strong Support! Wizardman 22:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
29. Support a real asset to the Wiki. ϢereSpielChequers 22:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    Support Love his answers. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

30. support —DerHexer (Talk) 22:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
31. StrongWeak support An outstanding Wikipedian. Move for acclamation invoking snow JGHowes ^talk - 23:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    [amended]: Changed to weak support per Q15 and Cirt's apparent involvement with offsite monitoring of Wikipedia, which I find objectionable. Also the veiled "insider information" being alluded to by some trusted admins indicating concern with his previous incarnation is troubling. I cannot bring myself to oppose because my interaction with Cirt has always been good and his contribs the last year are fine. He has also done unsung grunt work at WP:CROWN, BTW, which no one else has mentioned (not even Durova!) JGHowes ^talk - 20:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

32. Support Very straight forward, hard working... nothing of note to gripe about. Good choice! bigjake (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
33. Kind, caring, and trustworthy. Hopefully he'll become an admin, and then this'll be your third project as a sysop , correct? Good luck! —Sunday ^Scribe 23:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
34. Support - Yes!  Asenine  23:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
35. Like WBOSITG said, all I can say is, Wow! LittleMountain5 ^review! 23:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
36. Support Wow! iMatthew (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
37. A fantastic, exemplary contributor. Skomorokh 23:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
38. Support Several positive experiences with this user at Commons where the user is an administrator.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 23:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
39. Support I've had positive experiences with this user. Seems willing to learn fine points when required. Considerate. Helpful. No issues from my point of view. Protonk (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
40. Support Why do we even have to go through RfA for this candidate? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
41. I cannot think of anyone who "deserves" the tools more. Ral315 (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
42. Support I have interacted this user during the various featured processes I went through and as far as I can remember, it was only positive, without having any problems with any of his edits/comments. I also find it funny/notable to have edit conflicts over a 2-second edit in the support section. Nergaal (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
43. Support You managed to get FAs on Scientology articles? And you work at OTRS!? My cluemeter just broke. Paragon¹²³²¹ 00:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
44. Support I don't often post here, but I heard Cirt was in nomination, and decided to throw my unconditional support his way. Bastique ^demandez 00:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
45. Support Cirt is a good content producer and a nice guy. Zagalejo^^^ 00:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
46. Wha? He's not an admin? Someone get a WP:TROUT for the people at RfA. Excellent work in Featured content, very civil. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
47. Strong support Most certainly. In every way, epitomizes what people have to be to pass the horrible process that is the modern RfA. miquonranger03 (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
48. Strong support All of my interactions with Cirt lead me to believe he will make an excellent admin. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
49. Support - Nothing wrong with this user, give him the mop. Macy 01:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

    I trust Cirt. Giggy (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

    I'm indenting this. I'm not sure where I stand on Cirt's adminship, but I just have no interest in being associated with those that have made the oppose section of this RfA a complete farce. Cirt; good luck, keep up the good article work. I know how you feel. Giggy (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

50. Dinner Support - I haven't done a dinner support yet so here goes: I had General Tso's chicken and rice with an eggroll. --Coffee // talk // ark // 02:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
51. Support Looks good to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
52. Support. Wow isn't the one word I was thinking of... Busy might be more apt. But I'd be hard pressed to find anything Cirt has accomplished that was not done properly and thoroughly. A good editor who will make a fine admin. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

    Hello, I am here for the meeting of Necrophiliacs for McCain & Palin...oh, wrong queue. Support (the others said it best...and first). Withdrawing Support, moving to Oppose Ecoleetage (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

53. Support can't place where I've seen Cirt around since our editing spheres don't appear to intersect. When I saw this RFA I thought, "Cirt isn't an admin??" so, no doubts here. TravellingCari 02:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
54. Support. I often see this editor doing good work. I think he'd make a helpful and diligent admin. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
55. Support -
    "Cirt" is such a familiar-sounding name
    It comes from the whole prima facie fame
    But fortunately today I have no doubts
    That this user knows what it's all about
    CL — 03:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
56. Strong support. An outstanding editor. The amount of dedication and work Cirt had made here on Wikipedia is by far the most impressive I've ever seen. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 03:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
57. Support Looks outstanding! GlassCobra 03:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
58. Support Cirt should've been an admin months ago. Cirt is very familiar with Wikipedia, its policies, and editing. He is always a hardworking Wikipedian. I like the stuff he has done to various portals. He is always helpful and willing to help out. I think he deserves to be an admin. --Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 03:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
59. Support. Never had any problems with him. Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
60. Support I saw this when it was 10-0... and while my initial impression was to support, I decided not to take a short cut, but to investigate further... I saw it when it was 35-0 and still thought, wow, I should support, but let me look closer... at 50-0, I still couldn't bring myself to support without reviewing Cirt myself. Having looked him over, I am happy to pile-on-support.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
61. Of course OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
62. Total no-brainer support obviously is acting in the best interest of the project. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
63. Ah, much overdue. I am confident that you will integrate the massive experience you have on the other projects into your use of the tools here, and, because of that, there can be no reservations in the wholeheartedness of my support. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
64. Strong support - needs no introduction. Super nom, super editor. This is a total no-brainer - Alison ^❤ 06:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
65. Support - I have seen Cirt all over Wikipedia, and I think that he has the trust of many editors.--Danaman5 (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
66. Support Well known, good trustworthy editor. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 06:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
67. trust Durova Dlohcierekim 07:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
68. user:Everyme 07:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
69. Support - per excellent responses, especially Q#5. --Fatal!ty ^(T☠LK) 07:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
70. Support I thought you already were. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
71. Support — per the obvious. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 08:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
72. Support per strong confidence candidate will continue to contribute as before getting the mop. Candidate has been a major force in portal promotion and frequently risks the peril of editing in controversial areas. BusterD (talk) 09:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
73. Support Looks to be a good user Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 10:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

    I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 11:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Concerned with the developments. - Mailer Diablo 08:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

74. Support As per track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
75. Support, thought he already was one. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
76. Support. →Christian.И 12:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
77. Support - this is the first time I contribute to an Rfa. I consider Cirt a very worthy candidate. Also, I have long thought that he already was an Admin. Manxruler (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
78. Support Of course! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
79. Support - meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
80. Strong support per nom and comparable administrative work (Wikinews, etc.). Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
81. Support- Sure thing! Overdue, though. :) Cheers mate! Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
82. Support per the above. Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
83. Support - I've reviewed several of Cirt's FA nominations, and even though on several occasions I began by opposing the promotion, Cirt always worked very politely and very diligently to improve the articles. He has a good work ethic, a congenial manner, and a good grasp of policy. Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
84. Support excellent editor, shows dedication to the encyclopedia. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 15:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
85. Support good user who is highly qualified for the job of administrator.Biophys (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
86. Support. Cirt has definitely had a rocky road, and I've seen him rub up some people the wrong way, but this is mostly because of his enthusiasm and dedication. I have had a fair amount of interaction with him and am happy to give full support. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
87. Support I've known Cirt ever since he came out of nowhere to nominate an article I had on watch, and he's always been an enthusiastic editor and a lot of fun to work with. I would have gladly nominated him had he asked, so I definitely support. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
88. Support Great editor, any interactions that I remember have always been positive, should make a fine admin. Davewild (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

    Just commenting that I continue to fully support. Davewild (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

89. Support - Way overdue --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
90. Support - Seems to easily pass criteria as far as I can see. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
91. Support - I've known Cirt for a good while and know how great a user he is. He'll do nothing but good as an admin. Gran² 19:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
92. Support - Sorry I have no diffs but great name recognition—in other words all good associations, some as I recall, in Portal:Contents/Portals. Others here have said this better. Good luck. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
93. WP:100 Support for this editor.  Frank  |  talk  19:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

    Dalmations. Rudget 19:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Withdraw support. Moved to neutral. Caulde 18:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

94. Support - wow. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
95. Support. An obvious candidate for the mop. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
96. Support with a sense that this person will continue to do well..Modernist (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
97. Support - Why not?--OsamaK 21:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
98. Very Strong Support I trust him. Sure, he's got a couple blocks. You don't have to be a virginal saint to be a good admin. rootology (C)(T) 21:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

    Change to very strong support. If someone is drawing this much harassment and abuse on their RFA from abusive sockpuppets and questionable accounts tied to the promotion of cult organizations that use Wikipedia to game NPOV to advance themselves, it tells me that RFA candidate has done some good stuff to draw a line in the sand. rootology (C)(T) 14:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

99. Support per answer to question 3. Blocks aren't punishment then, and shouldn't be punishment now, over a year later, either. And also, because I thought that you were already an admin Keeper ǀ 76 21:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
100. Support. Cirt has given every indication, and has a proven track record showing that he will use the tools responsibly and effectively. So, in fact, make that strong support!   user:j    (aka justen)   22:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
101. Yes, looks good to me. As for your answer to my question, while you shouldn't be declining the unblock you can certainly grant it. Do consider giving {{2nd chance}}'s when appropriate. This particular vandal went on to become a very constructive contributor. –xeno (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
102. support Having now had time to look at the old accounts in detail I am inclined to support. This is also based on Cirt's work on the other Wikiprojects where he seems to be good. 3RR violations that are over a year old are not sufficient reason to oppose. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
103. Support. I trust this user.--ragesoss (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
104. Support. Here's a productive, trustworthy candidate. Cirt knows policy and has a solid record creating content and working constructively with other editors. Majoreditor (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
105. Support - know him from Commons. Exceedingly sound. ++Lar: t/c 03:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
106. Support - productive, no reason to think he'll abuse the tools. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 03:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
107. Support LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 03:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
108. Support Really, administrators on other WMF projects would probably be trustable with admin tools on this project.  Marlith (Talk)  03:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
109. Support. Somewhere in the past 15 months with no problems, 12 months as a truly exemplary contributor, 11 Featured Articles, 11 Featured Portals, and dozens of GAs and DYKs, I think this editor has more than atoned for past 3RRing. In general, I wouldn't really say I'm quick to forgive and forget, but surely Cirt's record is sufficient to do so in this case. --JayHenry (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
110. Support — E ↗^TCB 04:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
111. Support a decent user. Aside from article writing there is nothing that impressive about this candidate but there are no real negatives. The edit warring is to far in the past to influence my descion. - Icewedge (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
112. Support. I had some doubts, because I remembered some disruptiveness in previous incarnations and I hadn't seen much of this nominee since then. However, I respect Durova (I'd support her re-adminship any time), who authored what I consider one of the best of the Wikipedian essays, The dark side, so I did my homework on the contribs while giving it more thought. Cirt has changed a lot.
     I am very impressed by the gains in coolheadedness and skill, and I think the mop will be in good hands.
     (Changed from oppose.) — Athaenara ✉ 06:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
113. Support - Looks good to me, no doubts at all.    SIS  07:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
114. Strong support - Durova said it all! -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 10:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
115. Strong Support I know the full history of the user currently known at Cirt. Jehochman ^Talk 13:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC) #::Any editor who gets so many socks and indef blocked vandals opposing their RFA deserves strong support. Jehochman ^Talk 02:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
116. Support The history of this account, and the confidence of folks who know the history of the user, lead me to support. Avruch ^T 13:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
117. Support too much good 'pedia building. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
118. Support Surprised you aren't one already. Esp. per answer to Q8. John Nevard (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
119. Support. Cirt will be a solid administrator. Anthøny ✉ 17:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
120. Support. My first adminship vote, well, he looks good enough to be one. --Yowuza ZX Wolfie 18:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
121. Support looks good, no objections. --Kanonkas :  Talk  18:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
122. Support Cirt's and my POV have at times differed, but in disputes he has invariably behaved like a gentleman. I trust this will not change if he becomes an admin. Good luck. Jayen466 18:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
123. Support I'm piling on solely on the work Cirt did on the Miles Fisher article. That was my only experience with Cirt and I came away amazed from the due dilligence Cirt exhibited in the AFD. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
124. Support – Cirt is a quality contributor in a variety of areas (especially article work!), and all I've seen of him has been positive. The Opposes and past issues with 3RR don't leave me with concern; since then he's acted just the opposite of that, being collaborative and polite. I don't see why not, as he is overall a great user and very experienced. At times the mopping can be hard, but please don't let yourself be marred. ;) Jamie^☆S93 20:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
125. Didn't-read-the-nomination-support. · AndonicO ^Engage. 02:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
126. Support - the obligatory "you're not an admin already?" sentiment applies here. Superb content contributor. Will use the mop well. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
127. Support - I've only ever seen good things from Cirt. He's been helpful to me a few times, and blocks from over a year ago are of no concern to me. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 03:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
128. Support - I could have sworn Cirt was already an admin, so, if this is a case of deja vu, ignore me. If not, well, heres to it all. Same reasons as I probably hallucinated before. Something about trust, good editing, keep up the good work, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

     Support. The past blocks are a concern but Cirt's absolutely outstanding contibution record for the last year definitely outweighs it. Nsk92 (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

129. Support His help at DYK has been excellent. Royalbroil 12:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
130. Support, good experience and productive cooperation with this user. --Tone 14:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
131. Support, I thought you were an admin. I cannot believe this user is not an admin. Great user to work with, D.M.N. (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
132. Strong support. Strange — I was sure I supported here, but it seems I haven't. Cirt has been a solid contributor to portals, content, and discussions for quite some time now, and I've been lucky enough to speak with him regularly both over IRC and on-wiki. He has proved he can be trusted with the tools, so I see no reason not to give them to him. This is truly well deserved. Qst (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

     Support Per all reasons per supporting. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 18:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

     Noted, but you've already supported (#72, above). Enthusiasm for this candidate seems quite high, though - so, it's understandable. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

     Thanks for fixing this :) I didn't notice or remember about my previous vote. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 06:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

133. Support, although bear in mind that adminning Scientology-related articles will result in a flare-up for you, deserved or not! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
134. Support great contributor on wikinews. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
135. Support - I CIRTently support Cirt. Xclamation point 23:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
136. Support - A dead "cirt" for adminship if I ever saw one. Particularly helpful, has assisted me as I started my first round of dealing with Articles for Deletion relisting. Would be a great asset. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
137. Support - Certainly looks like a dedicated editor to me. I've seen constructive work at DYK also. Would do just fine in my opinion. Add yourself to WP:DYK/A when you get the chance. ;) -- RyRy (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
138. Support - I am glad to have the opportunity to express my confidence in Cirt.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
139. Support as per other people's comments. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 04:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
140. Support, good editor. Everyking (talk) 09:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
141. Strong support we need more people prepared to bring NPOV to articles 'owned' by fans of certain groups- not speaking of any one group in particular, it happens on a range of articles. Sticky Parkin 14:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
142. Support --Duk 14:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
143. Support , I thought he was an admin ... Xenus (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
144. Pile on support. Given the overwhelming good quality contributions, the history of blocks is less important. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
145. Strong editor: good interactions with and observations of them. (Acalamari from alternate account.) Bellatrix Kerrigan 20:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
146. Yes, the block log's not a plus, but it's more easily forgiven when it's someone like Cirt who has done such good work, and it is rather ancient history now. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
147. Support - a good editor with a damn fine record in the past year. That the blocks are way in the past are evidence of vast improvement since then. Is supremely unlikely to do insane or stupid things with the tools, and that's really the question RFA is supposed to be deciding - not an overarching Ken Starr inquisition - David Gerard (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
148. Support - well knowing his/her history, I will still support him/her, though he/she has about 7 blocks combined for something as minor as 3RR, its still not a problem..its editors with a clean block-log who you need to worry about ;) ...--Cometstyles 03:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
149. Support, certainly. krimpet✽ 03:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
150. Support- Cirt will most probably need the tools for his work, and I think can be trusted not to misuse them. Reyk _YO! 03:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

     Support I've had disagreements with Cirt from time to time, but the fact remains he is a superb editor. Z00r (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

     Discounted per ArbCom prohibition on the use of sockpuppet accounts in meta discussions. WJBscribe (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

151. Support. I have worked with this editor in the past on controversial subjects and found nothing but level-headedness. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 07:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
152. Support. Cirt has done a lot of work on here, and on Wikinews. We all make mistakes (3RRs), but a lot can change over the course of a year. Cirt is ready to have the tools, and will make a great admin!! CTJF83Talk 16:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
153. Support I've had good experiences with Cirt, especially relating to ITN and Portal:Current events. Spencer^T♦C 16:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
154. Support - I certainly don't think short long time ago blocks should be held against you, and you have clearly learnt from them and made a great turnaround from them. You clearly have a lot of experience, now have the right attitude, and I have good 2008 record despite working in controversial areas. All the best. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
155. Support - I actually was in the same situation that Cirt had, I was blocked in early 2006, yet passed RFA. Still, great editor, and I really support hard work he puts into things.Mitch32^(UP) 23:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

     You were blocked one time, not seven. --B (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

156. Support - Excellent editor. RB972 01:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
157. Support, have seen Cirt's fine work at Commons. Would do well here also. Kelly ^hi! 02:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
158. Weak Support (Shifted from Neutral): Reasons at Neutral section -- Tinu Cherian - 06:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
159. Strong support. Rebecca (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
160. Support. Although the previous identity really should have been disclosed, given its block log - all the alluding to it without directly admitting it probably caused more drama than keeping quiet about it would have. The past year's contributions have amply shown Cirt has changed his ways for the better. fish&karate 11:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
161. Support Fantastic contributor.--Theoneintraining (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
162. Support - The candidate has demonstrated a firm grasp of the technicalities of the admin role. Despite the rather sickening levels of puppetry that have occured during this RfA, I am confident that Cirt's admin actions will be reviewed and assesed as much as any other contributor performing admin tasks. Gazimoff 14:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
163. Support. I am wary about Cirt's past; I'm familiar with the old accounts and I had a hard time working with them, and I even had to give Cirt an official Arbcom sanction warning back in March (COFS case). However, if anything Cirt always seems in good control of himself, and the tasks he wants to work on are needed and appropriate given his background. Ultimately, adminship is no big deal and I feel confident he won't abuse the tools. Mangojuice^talk 14:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
164. Support While I appreciate concerns raised about past edit conflicts and would have been far happier if they had been disclosed, Cirt has no recent evidence of Wikipedia policy issues and has an undeniable track record of strong positive contributions to building this encyclopedia, so refreshingly different from the many RfAs of editors who have almost no edit history to speak of. Alansohn (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
165. Support I trust Cirt to use the tools correctly as he does on other wiki sites. --Patrick (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
166. Support Per Marlith, Patrick, Mangojuice, et al. No fear that he will abuse the tools. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose while the contributions and logs from Cirt's previous accounts, which I remember and consider pertinent, remain invisible in this discussion. Basic transparency is important in RfAs. I will support if the secrecy is reconsidered and replaced with candidness. — Athaenara ✉ 03:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
(Addendum: I will appreciate it if any objections to my view are lodged here or on the RfA talk page, not on my user talk page. In fact, if such objections are posted on my user talk page, I will probably forward them here or to the RfA talk page and reply there.) — Athaenara ✉ 03:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
[Moved to support.] — Athaenara ✉ 06:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Due to the nature of the topics Cirt writes about, personal privacy is a top concern for him--more so than for most editors. When Cirt was a new editor he was not quite as careful about that as he needed to be, and someone he collaborated with onsite was harassed at the workplace and could have lost her livelihood. Cirt and I discussed this carefully before nomination: we would gladly provide the usernames privately for review, or provide summaries of the block logs minus account information. Due to recent events (Poetlister etc.) there are concerns that possibly not everyone who has ops to read deleted user space is entirely trustworthy. I very much respect your opinion and hope this is enough to satisfy your concerns. Durova^Charge! 04:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Summaries, as you suggested, would be a significant improvement for now. — Athaenara ✉ 04:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

My thanks to Cirt for posting on WT:RfA/Cirt#Note. As I don't wish to move abruptly to support now, only later to find I want to reverse myself again, I will give this more thought (this RfA opened barely ten hours ago, so there's plenty of time). — Athaenara ✉ 04:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Durova - would it possible to elaborate on how many times he was blocked and when? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 04:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Cirt's posting summaries to the talk page. Durova^Charge! 04:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, I doubt it's going to change my opinion, but it would be helpful for others. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 04:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This whole "personal privacy" argument looks less and less credible the more we read here. I am not aware of anything to connect Cirt's previous usernames with his or her real-world identity - but if there is, no security is gained by suppressing references to it on this page. Hundreds of wikipedians are aware of it, and many more have discovered it quite easily within the last few days. It defies belief that it is being hidden for any other reason than that, were it open to scrutiny, it would render consideration for Adminship ridiculous - even with 12 months of exemplary behaviour in the meantime. DaveApter (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Oppose for previous accounts with numerous 3RR violations, 'and failing to disclose during RFA more details about the number of past accounts, the number of blocks, and additional username changes. 2007 24hrs on 3RR-; 72 for 3RR,; 48 for 3RR; 3 hours for 3RR, 2006 24 hrs for 3RR; 24 hr for 3RR; 8 hrs for 3RR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

   Sorry to immediately badger you, but those blocks were over a year ago. Surely one can change in that time? Hasn't Cirt proven that he is no longer an edit warrior, much the opposite? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

   Cirt could have disclosed these but did not. Not a good sign. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

   Ok, that was edit conflicted and you added more - look at question 3 and at Durova's nom. Both tell about these blocks. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

   There were not only 3RR violations, but those that know the previous accounts would attest to other concerns. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

   Another concern are the multiple requests to delete his/her current user pages (and all talk and user pages of previous accounts), the latest as earlier as Feb 2008. The first one could have been understood for privacy reasons, but the others simply obfuscate transparency. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

   Basically a prolific editor, that can continue helping the project without the tools as he has done so far. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

   You rightly bolded your main points in the oppose, otherwise they might simply appear too weak, no? user:Everyme 01:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   Let me give this a try...Those edits were more than a year ago. How's that Jossi? If your argument is so weak that to try to make your point you have to bold it, that's not a good sign. Cla68 (talk) 07:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Excuse me, but what is this nonsense about deleting comments? This editor wants to be an admin but is in such a sensitive position that certain comments about him must be immediately deleted due to unspecified "security concerns"? WTF? Durova's reply to jossi is positively Orwellian. Apparently, Jossi said something that was bad, Durova is demanding that Jossi delete all record of it having been said, and Jossi seems to be unaware of what the secruity concern is at all. What is going on here? I oppose Cirt's RFA in order to provide him with his unspecifiable security needs which are so dire as to over-rule normal Wikipedia transparency. This is nonsense we don't need. — goethean ॐ 21:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

   It's worth noting that Jossi also changed his name for security reasons and also had his talkpage deleted for security reasons. The need for discretion in this matter has been described in the nomination. Unless the policy here is to disclose the RL names of admin candidates I don't see this as a sensible reason to oppose. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

   FYI, my talk or user pages were not deleted. Sorry. And the issue is not about RL names, BTW. All Cirt's previous and current accounts and names (4 if I am not mistaken), were nicknames ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

   I may be mistaken, but the log seems to indicate that your talk page was deleted on March 3, 2007, and that there are 3,044 deleted edits. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong. The issue with Cirt's previous accounts isn't that the account names included his real name, but that he made edits with those accounts which divulged his identity. Unless Jossi and Goethean are seeking to out the real name of the user I don't understand their focussing on this issue. We have a full record of the user's past year, and we know of his blocks prior to that. That is sufficient for us to judge his qualification for admin. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

   Here is the deal. Cirt had an account and shortened it a shorter version of the same name then seemingly "retired". Soon after another editor appeared with the same style in many ways but without the rough edges and who kept a very low profile as far as disputes went; this editor soon shortened the new name to Cirt. So I guess that makes four accounts. I recognized what was going on and on several occasions outed Cirt on various pages which outing Cirt never confirmed nor denied but which she never hollared "foul, personal safety", about either (how is that bolding Everyme, amidoingitright?) I was very active during the period and never saw any indication that anything happened except that Cirt wanted to lose the old account and Durova helped facilitate that. If there are sensitive edits under the old name(s) then let Cirt point them out to an oversight admin and get them removed. That is the normal and proper channel; hiding your history here is not. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   (ec) (Check the deletion log and you will see - pls take to my talk if you want to discuss further, my name change was on 2005 if I am not mistaken). No one is trying to "out" Cirt. My opposition is based on what I know about this user, so let it stand. As this RFA will surely WP:SNOW and pass with flying colors, at least let it be a reminder to Cirt for times past that will hopefully not come back while in an adminship role (god forbid). Good luck with the tools. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

   FWIW, after further discussion Jossi now realizes that his talk page was in fact deleted, though he says he had nothing to do with it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   Unless Jossi and Goethean are seeking to out the real name of the user I don't understand their focussing on this issue.

   I regard that comment as an irresponsible smear. However, this being Wikipedia, I have no intention of trying to have it deleted from the record. — goethean ॐ 22:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

   Hi, I do trust you take this position with the highest of motives. My response to Athenara explains most of this. When two editors came to me concerned for their livelihoods, of course I treated that with the utmost seriousness and still do. There are times (occasionally) where extra care is reasonable, and this is one of them. With respect, Durova^Charge! 22:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

   Gee, thanks. Its unfortunate, and indeed, disgraceful that you had to send me an email and cc Jimbo Wales in order to be convinced of my good faith. Isn't it? — goethean ॐ 01:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   Jimbo was the person those two individuals permitted me to discuss the events with at the time when events occurred, so he was the individual who was able to corroborate what I was saying. I meant no disrespect by that action, and certainly see no reason to be ashamed of offering the only means available to demonstrate that I was telling the truth about a serious matter. Durova^Charge! 07:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose. I came here to support, but from what I see, you have a history of being blocked for 3rr. This is not something I like to see, and would have been willing to overlook it if it had been disclosed. Synergy 23:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

   Please see the talk page of this RFA: Cirt did self-disclose the 3RR. Also, I disclosed it in the nomination and he disclosed it in the answer to question 3. Best, Durova^Charge! 23:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

   How stupid of me. I had seen the mention of the blocks, but not how many. I did in fact fail to check the talk page. I'll need some more time to consider it, as the history and the nature of the blocks is what are of real concern for me (the failure to mention the amount in the nomination was was what brought me to this section). Synergy 23:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

   To be precise, disclosure of the previous blocks was made by Cirt after it was asked at 04:17 Sept 9[2]. This RFA was filed at 19:59, September 8, 2008, and a partial disclosure made by Cirt on Sept 8, 20:28 [3] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

   His blocks are all over a year ago. Does being blocked once scrub someone forever? If not, for how long? rootology (C)(T) 23:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

   Being blocked once, not. Being blocked seven times, maybe. Now, given that we cannot scrutinize his past due to privacy issues, users participating in this RFA may not be privy to the behavior leading to these blocks and other related issues. Granted, Cirt has done admirable work since these days, and can continue doing so with or without the tools. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   FWIW, I am well aware of Cirt's previous identities and I have mentioned the connections on a number of pages here including some very public ones in the past. This is the second time Cirt has whitewashed a questionable past with a name change and I do not think that substantive "privacy concerns" have been raised that would warrant obscuring Cirt's past here. Note that she continues to edit the same material she always has and I can point at instances where she seamlessly continued editing the same articles in the same fashion as previously. I am willing to WP:AGF that Cirt has learned her lesson and can keep herself in check to an extent but I have evidence to the contrary that I will present if my concern vis-a-vis misuse of admin tools is not addressed. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose While Cirt has been a prolific editor over the last year,I think that there is a serious concern regarding what is happening here. First, two people who are already admins are voting against adminship for Cirt. They raise some serious questions. Cirt has been blocked 7 times in the past and did not completely disclose this at first. From what I can tell here, Cirt requested to have a significant portion of their history on Wikipedia deleted citing privacy? I don't get it. The way this is structured we are being asked to take that at face value. I don't know but it just strikes me as a white wash. While I respect everyone's right to anonymity on Wikipedia, but unless it can be proven that this is not being done to hide a history of inappropriate/POV edit history I have to vote no. I also think that people should re-consider their vote until they get to see Cirt's answer to optional question 15 above.Ebay3 (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   Confirmed sock per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. rootology (C)(T) 23:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

   A disclosure was made in the opening nomination. The only reason it was not quite as complete as you wish was because of a serious personal security concern. Per dialog with Athenara, Cirt provided a full list of the blocks and his previous account is being disclosed via e-mail to trusted editors who request it (he had one prior account, which was renamed partway through its use). He is afk right now and he will answer question 15 as soon as he is able. I hope that's sufficient to address your concerns. Durova^Charge! 01:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   If two admins voting oppose influence your !vote, how many admins supporting does it take? Also, as for Synergies concern about how many, we are talking about over 15 months ago. IMHO, 15 months is a non-issue.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   My concern, is that it was a an editing pattern, and one I cannot ignore. How many times did it take cirt to figure out that 3rr was not how we get things done? I would have liked to see that cirt was willing to not edit the articles mentioned in question 15 (I'm assuming these are the same articles that the 3rr's were from... am I wrong? please correct me if I am). To me, thats dancing around the questions. I would not like to see Cirt edit the same articles if there is an established history of edit warring once an admin. Synergy 03:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   Not that it has any relevance, and people can oppose as they please, but I stopped counting at 15. (my fatigue overcame my OCD. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   (Responding to Synergy's revised post) As Cirt states, the pages where he used to get into 3RR trouble are now mostly closely related to pages he raised to GAs and FAs. With that good a turnaround, there doesn't appear to be any problem in him continuing to edit them. Durova^Charge! 04:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   Yet most editors still watch over their GAs and FAs, usually having strong opinions of them. I am more than happy to see these articles at their GA/FA status, and would have liked to see Cirt responding to this, and not you Durova (no offense; but Cirt did dodge the issue, and should have been the one to respond). Synergy 04:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you for your interest and concern Synergy. I am very grateful that the community had enough confidence in my work to select it for GA and FA. Like most GA and FA writers, I will continue to keep an eye out for vandalism and maybe raise more of those good articles to the featured level. At present, I'm mostly working on other content. Cirt (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   "the pages where he used to get into 3RR trouble are now mostly GAs and FAs" I'm disappointed - this is just not true. Of the seven 3RR blocks I just checked six of the involved articles and one is a GA. That is it. Seems to be some spinning going on here. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   Hi Justa, I apologize if I overstated. Right now Cirt and I are collaborating on a featured content drive for the Finger Lakes portal, and I'd like to round it out with a better variety of featured pictures. The restorations might take a couple of weeks. So if you'd like to select one of those other articles for improvement I'll see if I can persuade Cirt to take a break and collaborate on a good article drive with you. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 04:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, I know you guys are productive editors. That is why I am not trying to drag Cirt through the mud here. You just might want to fact-check your statements a bit. Especially when they are based on material that most editors here do not have access to. If and when my concern is addressed in a clear and unambiguous fashion then I am done here and will bow out. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose - Just doesn't instill confidence in me at all in regard to his attitude and activity. --John Jacob Wilson Alueminous (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Indef blocked for vandalism and trolling, vote struck/indented. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   That's incredibly vague - and considering it's a copy and paste rationale from another RfA you just voted on, could you be a little more specific, at least for the sake of the candidate? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   This account was created 18 minutes before it opposed here.[4] Durova^Charge! 05:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose per his answer to my question above. Almost everybody say he has been reformed from his past in which he had been chronically blocked, but I could not know how well he has been improved. 7 blocks are not "some" blocks, edit warring is not immune to anyone including admins. Besides, he is not open to his past, and this just reminds me of somewhat User:Shalom Yechiel's RFA. His contributions with the current account look good, so he certainly would pass this RFA in spite of my opinion.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   (Addendum) That was not so difficult for me to find his previous two accounts much related to Scientology. Durova's defensive statements are also not wholly WP:Honest about his past. For some unknown reason, his contributions of one account were totally deleted and Durova was engaged in that as well. That does not look like a relation with his personal privacy because he hopped to a similar name when he changed his account first. He seems to have had many enemies with "long-held grudge against him" according to his own statement somewhere. If he become admin, I wonder he could cooperate with them peacefully and properly manage the disputed articles with the tools.(those articles are still hot potatoes) He was also frequently accused for his POV pushing, WP:Point, incivility, WP:Disruption to ANI, AN3, etc in the past, and I still can sense the similar pattern of his past behaviors with his current account. So I change my opinion from oppose to STRONG Oppose--Caspian blue (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   You accuse me of deleting an entire account history? I don't know what you're talking about, and I certainly didn't do such a thing. Cirt has one prior account and was never blocked for any reason other than 3RR. There must be a terrible misunderstanding here. I wonder what account you're thinking of, and would gladly resolve the confusion via e-mail. If you distrust my word on the matter I'll gladly hand it over to a mutually agreeable third party. With respect, Durova^Charge! 07:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

   Caspian Blue, I think you will find that Cirt's previous account was renamed, so his/her edits were reattributed to the new username which was a shortened version of the first. Durova only deleted the account's talk page, not the account's editing history. The talk page's history was moved to the new username when the account was renamed, thus what Durova deleted was eight edits which all seem to be related to breaking or restoring the redirect that occurred on moving the pages to the new account. Sarah 09:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

   Well, then why does he have separate block histories on each account? If somebody changed his own account, the block record are following the newly changed account altogether. Durova, I did not said that you are all responsible for deleting his contribution history, but somewhat involved in that. If my understanding is not correct, please excuse me since I've never seen such weird and obscure AFD campaign in regard to "WP:Honesty". Of course, he has a right to be banished but his activities are extended from the previous accounts. I'm also bemused to see his accounts being listed on missing people list on contrary to his prolific new identity. The editors who had been disputed with him in his previous accounts know the current Cirt and AFD? You claim that his blocs had nothing to do with others than 3RR violation sounds just absurd. He violated 3RR more than 10 times (which were reported to AN3) and was chronically blocked per one month or 2 weeks except some interval. That pattern of his behaviors was more than disruptive and includes all accusations by disputers at that time. If he opened his account at the first place, could he get such support like this? I don't believe people can be changed so drastically per someone's AFD. Sorry, I could not send you an email since I don't need such confidentiality, and still don't get what privacy concern he and you has tried to keep. Besides, I remember something big incident related to email in Wikipedia.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

   S/he has separate block logs because, at the time the rename was made, block logs did not move with the rename. I'm not sure if this is still the case or if it's been fixed, but this why you sometimes might see a one second block in the new log linking to the previous block log so that future admins will know a user has been renamed and has an extensive block history under the previous name. I'm not following what you're saying about AfDs but I'm wondering if you might mean RfA?? Sarah 13:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you for the explanation. Yes, RfA, I mistyped that. However for some "privacy concern", I did not post who is (although the person is an admin). I just don't want to see something happening like Essjay controversy.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

5. Oppose - an admin with 7 blocks for 3RR? What could possibly go wrong there? --B (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   As others have done, I went back and found Cirt's old account contributions. On one 3RR block, he argued he shouldn't be blocked because it wasn't all the same revert - this is a misunderstanding of the 3RR policy. On one occasion in mid-2007 when he was reported for 3RR, he tried to cherry pick an admin for a favorable close. (He was not blocked in that instance, although it had nothing to do with his asking another admin to look into it as far as I could tell.) On two other occasions in mid-2007, he was reported for 3RR and the closing admin opted to protect the article instead. Bottom line - he has seven blocks and easily could have even more. If he hadn't changed accounts, this RFA would fail with less than 20% support. I'm not going to reveal his previous accounts, but seriously, the closing crat needs to either inquire who the accounts are or figure out for himself/herself. This is utterly silly to ask for adminship without everyone !voting having a full opportunity to reveal all of the history. --B (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

   I think the closing 'crat should consider that the existence of the previous identity and the fact there was a block log was revealed by the nom and candidate. I think it should also be taken into consideration that said blocks were over a year ago, which is clearly enough time to demonstrate that one has learned from their mistakes and understand the policy. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 03:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

   I always find it silly when people point out what the crat should or should not take into account. It should be obvious that some things will be given more or less weight. Synergy 04:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC) That is after all, the role of the crat.

   ??? The role of the closing 'crat is to make a judgement based on consensus here and on community consensus as a whole. It's difficult to do that if we don't point out to them arguments we would like to see given less weight becuase we think they are relatively weak. Giggy (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

6. Oppose 7 blocks? Secret past identities? Friends in high places who make stuff up in his defense? Seems like the recipe for another above-the-law admin. --Rividian (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   Cirt has made the appropriate disclosures to both the Foundation and the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. His work as an admin for Wikinews was steady enough that they elected him an arbitrator. Durova^Charge! 16:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, with seven !votes: [5]. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   So he gathered the greatest number of supports in the election (with 2 others), and no oppose.. It's difficult to compare Wikipedia and other projects, they are administrators from other projects who are banned on enwiki. Being arbitrator on Wikinews matters little for adminship on Wikipedia in my view. Cenarium ^Talk 18:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

7. Oppose Not that I expect my observations to influence the outcome, but I counsel extreme caution here. We are dealing with an editor who spent well over a year as an extreme POV warrior of the most obsessive kind, often spending up to 18 hours a day on polemical outpourings. Not isolated excesses explicable as inexperience, but sustained campaigns of edit-warring on a narrow range of related topics, abusive and uncivil comments and personal attacks on other editors, and multiple blocks for repeated and persistent 3RR and other violations. Then suddenly they announce their retirement, go to great lengths to hide the records of past behaviour, but almost immediately create a new account and spend a year or so building up an impeccable record and winning friends. There are clearly two possible explanations for this sequence of events, but I'd be more inclined to the charitable one if there had been a full and frank disclosure of past activity. DaveApter (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   The long-term, sustained 18-hour-a-day shifts are certainly somewhat unusual. It's something that's puzzled me too. :-) Jayen466 16:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   I couldn't care less what has been declared to the arbcom I'm not willing to support anyone for admin who has a hidden user/contribution history. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Oppose struct after some thought. I can't bring myself to support at this time but I no longer believe it would be correct to oppose. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

8. oppose three reasons 1) 3rr and NPA blocks and no real willingness to discuss them 2) I don't like the evasion we are seeing 3) If this editor has severe worries about privacy and real-world identification, to the level suggested, then being an admin is a really, really, bad move. Keep your head down mate.--Troikoalogo (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   To the best of my knowledge, Cirt was never blocked for NPA on any prior account. He has adminned successfully at two other WMF sites. Durova^Charge! 21:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   OK, but really are we to be satisfied with "the best of your knowledge" - there's history here (apparently) of edit warring and long -term and obsessive "extreme POV pushing", and what we get is "trust me, he's OK (to the best of my knowledge)". I say, let's not go there.--Troikoalogo (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   What a clever user you are, to have found, installed, and used Twinkle within your first 25 edits.[6] You seem to be complaining about Cirt's incomplete disclosure of prior accounts. Perhaps you'd like to apply the same standards of transparency to yourself and let us know what other accounts you've operated here, or on other Wikimedia projects. Jehochman ^Talk 22:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   Oh dear, an ad homium, and so early in the day! Why is it that all oppose voters are not only being argued with, but they are not being researched in order to discredit them. Well, for what it's worth, I am not hiding anything, and promise to fully disclose everything if I'm ever asking the community to place trust in me. Now, if you've finished dirt-digging, can we return to scrutinising the candidate?--Troikoalogo (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   (ec x2) As noted above, Cirt has the best of reasons for his reticence and has maintained a stellar record for over a year. He has made the appropriate disclosures to both ArbCom and WMF. He also self-disclosed his own block history here at this RFA, and if writing 11 featured articles and 26 good articles counts as obsessive/extreme POV pushing then I hope Wikipedia acquires many more obsessive/extreme POV pushers of exactly the same type. :) Yes, he erred a long time ago with 3RR. That hasn't been a barrier to good administrative work at other projects, nor need it be at ours. People can reform. I hope to hold him up to others as an example that motivates other editors to overcome their early mistakes. Durova^Charge! 22:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   Durova, no offense, but it will be hard to use someone as an exemplar of reformation without explaining what their sins were. One can scarcely drag someone into the town square saying 'behold the reformed sinner' and then refuse to divulge the sin itself. The original sin could vary from the benign jay walking to the not so benign axe murder and the reformation would be judged rather differently in the two (and many in-between cases). Which is why I think the candidates past history should be open to scrutiny. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 15:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

   A funny thing is that somebody once labeled him as "prolific POV pusher moving from Wikipedia to Wikinews" in his/her report on Cirt. Besides, admin roles on Wikinews and Commons are quite different from English Wikipedia's. You know that. As you said, by gone is by gone and such "one-year-old" past records are not so big deal, why he is so reluctant to reveal his past accounts and willing to risk himself for being exposed more to people by his adminship? Nonsense. --Caspian blue (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

   There's one example why WMF projects assume good faith and don't take every accusation at face value. That claim happened to be the first edit at Wikinews by that account, and Cirt's track record and general esteem at that project speaks for itself. Durova^Charge! 07:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, that is also a complaint about Cirt's attempt to feature Scientology on Wikinews.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

    Note: Checkuser of Troikoalogo, and off-wiki discussions have confirmed that this is a user in good standing. Jehochman ^Talk 18:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

9. Oppose - I am well aware of the prior accounts, and their history. I am also aware that he isn't quite as good at letting bygones be bygones as he has intimated. As I respect the user's desire for privacy as the reason for his rename, I will not comment further on this issue; please do not insist on examples, as it will only serve to "out" him. Risker (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   Addendum: To me, one of the key components to be assessed in RfA is judgment, and the ability to reasonably anticipate the effects of a decision. It strikes me that a candidate who has a serious personal concern for security would anticipate the reasonable effect of permitting his name to be put forward for these permissions. Except for a change in username, and some fiddling about with talk pages, Cirt has done just about everything one should avoid doing to prevent connection between the previous account (changed for safety reasons, we are told) and the current account. He has edited the same articles. He has interacted with the same users, to the point that most of them recognise him from his previous account. He hasn't been blocked, but he has continued with his habit of annoying those with whom he has had previous disputes in small ways—tagging their articles, or commenting on their talk pages, or bringing them up atWP:ANI. Finally, he has come here, where he is well aware the history of all of his accounts will be reviewed in as much detail as possible, even though there is a tacit agreement amongst us not to name the previous account. Many editors have commented that they either knew the previous username before they got here, or figured it out based on the information that was partially revealed during this RfA. How secure is Cirt now? Are the same safety issues that led to the previous username still of concern? If so, this was an extraordinarily foolish move. If not, then there is no reason not to reveal the previous usernames. All in all, I do not see the evidence I need that Cirt has the foresight to predict the effects of his actions. Risker (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose (Switching back to neutral. My concerns with this Rfa are with the secrecy, not with Cirt's abilities as an admin. I should rightly express my concerns, assume GF, and vote neutral. So that's what I'm doing now. (With apologies for adding to the confusion.)

   Regretfully, I must change my neutral to an oppose. My reason is straightforward and has no bearing on whether Cirt will or will not be a good admin - I simply cannot judge that. However, I do believe that Wikipedia is only as good as its ordinary editors who toil away adding this piece of information or checking that fact, expecting no reward other than that the processes that govern the encyclopedia be fair and transparent. In this case, the process is neither fair nor transparent. It is not fair to expect someone like me to express an opinion on the suitability of this candidate while apparently essential information is withheld. It is not transparent to say that "appropriate disclosures have been made to ArbCom and WMF". If that were sufficient then the RFA process should include a mechanism where ArbCom and WMF make admin decisions on their own without consulting the community. However, that is not how wikipedia works and presenting an RfA to the community with a great deal of classified information and a 'trust us' approach is wrong. My apologies to Cirt for this oppose because I cannot believe that someone would game the system for months on end just to become an admin, but the process here is flawed and I do not like flawed processes. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 02:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

10. The blocks are certainly concerning. While they are indeed from a year ago, there are seven (at least that is the number given by administrators who are privy to the previous account's username) blocks for 3RR. That's ridiculous. That shows that he has a lack self control to stop edit-warring, discuss and build consensus; a refusal to follow social norms — there are seven blocks; or the ability to learn from mistakes. The behavioral problems alluded to above also compound these concerns. Further, I do not like administrators to have a problematic history that cannot be openly reviewed. And finally, I agree with Troikoalogo. If Cirt has serious privacy concerns, and he edits contentious articles, becoming an administrator is an extremely unwise thing to do. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

    I think you meant it shows that he had a lack of self control, etc. Maybe one year as an incredibly exemplary contributor is not enough to atone for past misbehavior. But the statement that he lacks control to stop edit warring, refuses to follow norms and does not learn from mistakes is directly contradicted by his entire track record on a new account. It's one thing to say that more time is needed, and I understand concerns about not being able to review the past account, but none of that is a reason to ignore his entire record with the new account which unequivocally demonstrates that he can follow norms, refrain from edit warring and learn from past mistakes. Away from Cirt and into the hypothetical: a hypothetical editor with a history of edit warring changes accounts to get away from genuine harassment and also has a sincere desire to make a clean start. What would it take for such an editor to earn your trust? Or could such an editor never do so? --JayHenry (talk) 06:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

11. I've been thinking about this for a couple of days now but I'm just not comfortable with it and therefore must oppose. I have seen this user's name around but I did not realise it was a new account of a user I remember only all too well from the various ANI discussions a year or two ago. In fact, I only discovered who Cirt was accidentally when seeing the subject being discussed on another user's talk page via my watchlist. I'm not comfortable with a user with a controversial history on this project being promoted without the community being allowed to know who they are and having the opportunity to examine the full range of their edits. Also, and probably most importantly, if their identity can't be revealed for the purpose of transparent discussion at their own RFA but their identity is apparently known and is even being discussed openly on user talk pages, I worry that they are too vulnerable to be an administrator and could be compromised (and for some reason I can't help but think of the situation with NSLE as I write this). If they can't reveal their prior username due to personal security concerns, then what happens when a troll they deal with as an administrator happens upon discussions of their former username and decides to use the information? Sorry but this is a little too much for me and I'm just not comfortable with it. Sarah 09:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Per concerns about the previous account. naerii 10:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Reluctant Oppose, this user's contributions are stellar, there can be no doubt or dispute about that. However, I am just not comfortable with the secrecy and mystery surrounding this user's past. I'm sure that Cirt will prove me wrong and turn out to be a model administrator, but I feel I simply can't support given that there are things we don't know about him/her. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC).

    Oppose I also managed to find the prior accounts of this individual and in reviewing the block logs, if someone came to RFA with such a block log on the Special:log/username link, I'd oppose. It also highly concerns me that Cirt was no forthright regarding the past blocks (even listing a redacted block log on the talk page instead of waiting for someone to ask) and that he indicates he will not be open to community recall, despite this past history of behavior. MBisanz ^talk 13:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

14. Oppose Cirt is an excellent content contributor (something far more important than some silly extra buttons) and I hope he will continue. I can't unfortunately shake my uneasiness of his block log and past history, given that past cases of problematic admins have been significantly damaging to the project. I'll err on the side of caution in this case, and hopefully be proven wrong. henrik•talk 19:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
15. Strong Oppose Cirt is an average contributor who's POV is remarkably close to mine. But per B and Jossi, there's something wrong here. Fighting POV battles is fine, but 3RR is one of those non-subjective guidelines around here that shouldn't be violated once, let alone 7. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

    Further comment. I've always wondered why those who oppose have to write more to defend their position, but here it goes. 3RR is just one of those rules around here that is like a line in the sand. Don't cross. Maybe you can argue about what's NPOV or what isn't, what's civil and what isn't. But edit warring, even if you think you're right is just not acceptable. It's not a judgement call, it is a rule that is supposed to tone down the arguments. If Cirt had violated it once, we could all overlook that. But seven times is a bit much. So, how are we to trust them with the tools, when they has abused the system. Moreover, since we are on the topic of trust, their lack of transparency about this situation takes a couple points off the trust scale. Cirt is a great editor, or so it appears. They've got the numbers all around. Their temperament may be ill-suited to an admin. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

    A him according to this. Not that there's anything wrong with that :-) --Regents Park (count the magpies) 23:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

    I demand a DNA test for gender!!!!  :) BTW, I am Orangemarlin and I endorse this message--I am not a sock. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    Further further comment. I switched to strong oppose (not that it matters), based on SwatJester's comments below, and with what Bishonen wrote on his user page. This is scary. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

16. Oppose Excellent content contributor who should remain as such, having administrator rights will not improve this user's contributions to the project. Also a bit of a protest oppose to the lack of transparency et al. One can disclose all they want, but things don't get any more transparent and that's a bad thing. User:Krator (t c) 21:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

    Addendum I want to add some more commentary to the above. I do not think anyone can blame Cirt for the secrecy surrounding the past accounts, nor can I; the secrecy means, however, that he shouldn't wield the mop, in my opinion. Not because of anything that's his fault, but rather 'external circumstances'. Furthermore, it's not something solvable: it would be a rather bad idea to have everything disclosed in this case. User:Krator (t c) 17:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

17. Oppose - While I feel that letting the forgiving and forgetting is something we all need to learn to do a little more of here, I can not overlook Cirt's history in this case. Let me start by saying that I respect Cirt and have come to find him a good editor, and I think he needs to stay that way, an editor. I consider edit warring, and violation of 3RR to be among some of the most disruptive practices here, and have come to see them as the downfall of Wikipedia. In order for us to ever fix these issues we must have admins who set good examples, and a block log seven blocks long does quite the opposite. In my experience users who have a block log as long as Cirt's prior account does for edit warring are unlikely to change that behavior, and admins who edit war often do the most harm. I really hope that if Cirt does get promoted, that he will take all of the opposes to heart and insure that every edit he makes is in the projects best interests. Tiptoety ^talk 21:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose The editor has a propensity to edit war. I find a history of blocks. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
19. I've been thinking about this for several days since I saw mention of it on someone's talk page. I'm sorry, but I can't support because I know who this user used to be. While I'm fine with someone turning over a new leaf, I have a sneaky suspision that this user is only doing it just to get the tools and then will go sideways. --Tex (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose Sorry to have to do this. Cirt's account and edit-warring history aside, I find the prospect of a pro-Scientology editor who is best buddies with justallofthem (confirmed 'OSAbot', an employee of Scientology's OSA who is tasked with seeking out and removing anything that relects badly on Scientology in the media) being given adminship wholly unsettling. To quote Cirt above: As you know, during mid-July and August a group of IP users were vandalizing your usertalk page, coordinated from offsite message boards critical of Scientology. It took some time for other admins to notice the issue and it was several hours before the users were dealt with. There was another recent related issue where you requested assistance at the Administrators' noticeboard for help with similar single purpose accounts that were attempting to insert unsourced negative information about the Church of Scientology at the article List of new religious movements, and it was a few days before an administrator took a look at the issue. - I know exactly the incidents being referred to here. I am aware that there WAS some vandalisation of justallofthem's talk pages, however it was NOT co-ordinated. Also Cirt refers to SPAs trying to attempt unsourced material, this is not wholly accurate, in fact what happened was justallofthem started an edit war by contunually removing sourced material. The tone of Cirt's reply suggests that she does not recognise justallofthem's part in that whole affair, whereas any objective and fair editor viewing that article's talk pages would see that he started it. In conclusion, there is definite collusion going on here, and the very thought of a pro-Scientology editor who is close to an OSAbot being given admin status is repulsive. If this is passed, any fair insertion of negative material in Scientology articles will disappear, plus no doubt anything else that justallofthem wants done will be done, just like that. I therefore I must oppose.ShadowVsScientology (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Note: This user has made little to contributions outside of this RfA. Tiptoety ^talk 05:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

    Note This is undoubtedly another sock of banned User:Richard Rolles. I will not remove the WP:PA but would appreciate if a neutral editor did. The entire oppose should be removed. I have infoed the admin that was previously involved but anyone is free to address this. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

    discounting oppose by SvS. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

    confirmed sock, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Richard Rolles — Rlevse • Talk • 23:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

    The offsite message boards I referred to above in my answer to Question 15 are located at the anti-scientology site www.enturbluation.org, and specifically the threads "War on Wikipedia!" and "Wikipedia Entry on New Religious movements equals lulz", which Justallofthem had referred to in a post at ANI. I subsequently went to Talk:List of new religious movements and agreed with Justallofthem's position that if certain controversial subsections containing references to the Church of Scientology could not be sourced to verifiable and reliable sources, then I would oppose the inclusion of a reference to Scientology in those subsections of that list. It's heartening to receive opposition from both sides of the ideological fence regarding Scientology: if featured credits aren't enough to demonstrate that I have become a neutral editor, surely this does. Cirt (talk) 05:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

    I have edited Scientology-related articles with Cirt, and have observed that he is not a pro-scientology editor. He is like Spock, a neutral arbiter of verifiability. This means occasionally Cirt removes anti-scientology material that is unsourced, even if it is true. This is the proper course of action considering the importance of verifiability and no original research, but newer editors often misinterpret it to mean that he is somehow "pro-scientology". He removes unsourced pro-scientology material just as fast. I get the impression that Cirt is primarily motivated by getting articles featured, and realizes that unsourced material of any sort would be an obstacle to this task. Z00r (talk) 06:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose I oppose this editors nomination. I don't understand why someone gets to have thier history on wikipedia erased when there was clearly some controversey. If it was not that bad, then why can't we see it? This is an afront to the democratic proccess. Littlebutter (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

    Confirmed sock at: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway rootology (C)(T) 23:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

    The person was being harassed by ideological opponents. The Wikipedia community allows anonymous and pseudonymous editing to help ensure that people are not harassed. I personally feel that it is better to identify oneself and deal with any harassment head on, but I understand if others choose a different approach. Jehochman ^Talk 15:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

    That is not the impression I get with all the talk about reformation, POV warring, many blocks, etc., the reasons for which seem obvious to many but unavailable to others. If it were solely about harassment, that would be a different issue, but that does not seem to be the case. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 15:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC) On re-reading your response, I think you mean that the reason why his past is not being divulged is that there is a fear of harassment and you are not saying that there weren't issues with the editor in his past incarnations. My apologies for the misunderstanding. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 15:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

20. Oppose The lack of transparency here makes one unable to make a fair judgment. Is this editor trustworthy enough to be an admin? I have no idea, because I can't see the information I'd need to make that call. Even if there are legitimate reasons for this lack of transparency, it seems troubling that editors are being asked to accept on good faith that an editor with a history of blocks and POV edit warring should become an admin without the details of this history being known. It seems better to err on the side of caution--An editor doesn't need admin tools to keep creating worthy articles. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

     Bureaucrat note: CU shows probable same as Barnham. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

21. Oppose per goethean, et al. I am, like Gilbertine, erring on the side of caution. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
22. Oppose per B, Jossi, Gothean et alia. Full stop. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose A great editor with a great contribution over the last year, but something seems to be hidden here. Too much controversy. Not a good idea.Eastbayway (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

    And the master sock: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. rootology (C)(T) 23:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

    Eastbayway (talk · contribs) - First edit in 15+ months, 20 edits total. Sleeper sock? rootology (C)(T) 18:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose I oppose this editors nomination based on the poor history of this editor. If someone has been a bad editor in the past and we are not being allowed to look at their edit history, it stands in the way of a fair vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia1287 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

    This is this users first edit in 5 months. Davewild (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

    Yup, and apart from 4 edits to the same article, hasn't been editing in over a year - probable vote-stacking sock.--Troikoalogo (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

    confirmed sock — Rlevse • Talk • 20:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

23. Oppose I oppose this editors nomination based on the lack of transparency regarding their previous accounts. Clearly someone with a mysterious and perhaps controversial history should not be an Admin. Mvemkr (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
24. Strong Oppose - Believe or not I really wrestled for a long time with this one. I wanted to give Cirt the benefit of the doubt and !vote "neutral". I even toyed with the idea of !voting "support". What brought me to my senses was Cirt's response (here) only a few paragraphs above this. It demonstrated clearly that whatever sense of judgment Cirt might possess that qualifies him to be an admin here goes right out the window when Cirt's own self-interests are involved. And that is what worries me most when a confirmed and dedicated POV-warrior puts on a happy face and makes of bunch of friends. I refer of course to Cirt's response above to the sock User:ShadowVsScientology (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Richard Rolles). In the pair of edits the sock attacks me as a paid propagandist working for OSA and proceeds to explain that he knows all about the IP attack on my userpages. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that this is just another sock of the same character that was doing most of the attacking, Richard Rolles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Just look over his contribs - there are only six of them, and those of the first sock Ken Moxon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Would any of you admins here have missed that? Cirt was very involved with all of this and in fact referenced it in his response to my Q.15. He pointed at specific related off-wiki posts in his response to the sock. There are simple to follow clues in those posts to the source of that attack and the sockmaster there including a name similar to this current sock. But he should not have even needed to go off-wiki, it is obvious to anyone that looks at the posts of the sockmaster and the current sock that they the same individual as was confirmed by checkuser. And even if, by some stretch, Cirt's admining instincts are so bad that he could not spot that then why in the world does he respond to the post by providing clarifying information rather than address the personal and off-topic attack on me, and to a much lesser extent, himself. To try to a score point as a "neutral editor"? Anyone that thinks Cirt is neutral on the subject of Scientology is clueless indeed. Cirt is careful, not neutral. Careful not to get caught. Cirt repeatedly and routinely puts this project second where his own self-interest and biases are concerned. Witness his recent unwillingness to grasp the basics of WP:BLP and what constitutes a reliable source at Talk:David Miscavige. Cirt repeatedly championed the inclusion of libelous and poorly-sourced material in that article 1 2 3, even to the extent of suggesting it be included as an EL after it was clear that it was not going in the article 4. I did not have any big problem when it was just old low-key POV-warrior Cirt being obtuse on BLP and RS; I do have a problem when it is admin-hopeful Cirt. --Justallofthem (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    It is best for an admin to have sufficient evidence before he or she goes around accusing people of things. Z00r (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    That does not seem to be the norm in this RfA; 'nuff said on that. No matter, the issue I refer to was a no-brainer. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

25. OpposeWould like to support but too many issues have come up. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
26. Oppose I have observed Cirt's editing style through at least three previous account names and have observed a pattern of editing against editors s/he has taken exception to regardless of the merit of the edit. Just to annoy and disrupt.Momento (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
27. Strong Oppose Cirt seems unreasonable and has even attacked some good Wikipedia editors. Spacefarer (talk) 06:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    How has he attacked other editors and been unreasonable? Not meaning to "badger" as the saying goes, but this is a discussion, so you should be able to provide evidence to back up your oppose if asked. Qst (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    About 98% of this Spacefarer's contributions are to Landmark Education and closely related articles. This article has been a long term problem area with lots of edit warring and POV pushing by single purpose accounts. Jehochman ^Talk 14:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    So those that have experienced Cirt's "dark side" are somehow less valid voters than those that have been snowed er . . seen only his "good side". And those that vote oppose are subject to inspection of their edit history and a fishing expedition by you and a couple others at WP:RFCU in blatant violation of the rules for use posted prominently on the RFCU page. And please don't remove my comment here like you did at RFCU unless you want to remove all the off-topic suppositions about the oppose votes. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    The opinion of a single purpose account trying to advance an outside agenda does not carry as much weight as the opinion of a contributor who's agenda is to make Wikipedia better. There was no fishing expedition at RFCU. A bunch of socks were identified, confirmed by checkuser, blocked and had their votes stricken. Please strike out your assumption of bad faith, and stop trying to muddy the waters here. We are looking at the opposes because that's where there has been active sock puppetry! Jehochman ^Talk 14:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    Judging from what I read about the Poetlister et al scandal there has been abuse in the support section, too. So, I have to say that I'm not impressed at all of your onesided approach, Jehochman. Seems a bit, uh, naive to me. Or driven by an ideological desire to give everybody the mop, dunno Gray62 (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    "a single purpose account trying to advance an outside agenda" - cough Cirt cough. Just because a person limits himself to a specific area does not preclude him also being "a contributor who's agenda is to make Wikipedia better". There is nothing inherently "wrong" with an SPA and they are certainly part of the community here, your attempt to marginalize notwithstanding. There is no assumption of bad faith, simply pointing out that the policy for dealing with suspected sockpuppets during a vote is being ignored. That is pretty black and white. The fact that you caught the ebay3 situation does not warrant further fishing - cops find lots of stuff in illegal seaches; doesn't justify more of them. This has the potential to act as a chilling effect and I ask that the fishing stop now. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

28. Oppose. The secrecy about this candidates former identities and contributions prevents a fact based judgment. If the candidate has such problems, it would be a good idea not to run for admin. Not willing to support RfAs where the editors are left in the dark. Gray62 (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    Gray62 has been inactive for nine months. This creates the appearance of a sleeper sock, or somebody who has been might have been canvassed to show up here. Gray62, how did you hear find out about this RFA? I for one am getting very tired of the shenanigans at this RFA. Jehochman ^Talk 15:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    Not that this is your business in any way, after all, NO editor has to give account to you about why he is posting here, but if you look in my old contribs you'll find that I actively participated here before. My motivation, as a not-so-regular editor, is to prevent abusive editors from getting the mop. Sadly, it looks like I missed an important vote in October 2007. But the poetlister scandal made me curious about what's going on in RfAs, and so I decided to check. As simple as that. Sry, no conspiracy involved. Gray62 (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    WHAT? Just because I had some tohers things to do in real life, I now look like a sockpuppet to you??? And you have the impertinence to accuse me of acting in bad faith on my talk page??? Oh, the hypocrisy. I suggest you better concentrate on your good work of exposing real socks, and check the support voters now. Gray62 (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    I think you need to go easy with your comments, Jehochman. I can see this user has visitied this page and commented on other RFAs as well. I would argue that your comments about "shenanigans with this RFA" are a bit over the top, so go easy and let the process unfold. Crats are bright and experienced fellows, and they can see a sock from a mile. Relax. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

     Note: Checkuser of Gray62 did not turn up any evidence of sock puppetry. Jehochman ^Talk 18:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    Thx for pointing this out, Jehochman. And after that lesson about the risks in jumping to conclusions, I would very much appreciate if you would drop your totally unbased accusations of me taking part in canvassing here. I mean that "canvassing" crap that still stands there^! Imho that's totally inapropriate, especially regarding the circumstances. If some editors here may look like they are interfering the RfA process, I certainly am not one of them. Gray62 (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    I see a lot of names here of people who routinely participate in RFA. I participate occasionally. On my userpage you will see a chart of the current RFAs. When I recognize a name, I go vote. You haven't voted at RFA (or edited) in nine months. This has caused me, and User:Rlevse,[7] to wonder, how did you end up here? Did somebody ask you to come here and vote? You could answer that question and put our concerns to rest. If somebody did bring this RFA to your attention, that is not a problem, so long as the closing bureaucrat can take that information into account. Jehochman ^Talk 20:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    Who are you, the spanish inquisition? Again, nobody told me to come here, it was a coincidence, triggered by the poetlister scandal that reignited my interest in RfAs. But if canvassing "is not a problem", what tf are you doing here, harassing me with baseless accusations? Enough already! Really, I would like some other admins or better a bureaucrat to look into your conduct here. Imho it's scandalous.Gray62 (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    You could ask many other editors that have participated here the same question "how did you end up here?" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    By my count there are 8 editors who need to be asked that question. While it may not seem like many, they account for 25% (a quarter) of the oppose "!votes". And no other RFA active right now has a single editor who has not participated in an RFA before. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 23:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose the above comment because it taints the RFA process The effect of the above comment chases away anyone with a comment. I have edited regularly for over a year but not thousands of edits. If I support or oppose, I will be questioned and treated like a criminal. I don't want to be treated like that. Therefore, like a Black man in the U.S. in the 1950's, I will not vote but will just sit on my porch and sing gospel songs to myself. Spevw (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    No, what is "[tainting] the RFA process" is the canvassing that is clearly going on here. (Now 9) people who have never participated in an RFA did not find this particular RFA by accident, and I am sure that it is not a coincidence that a number of individuals would choose this RFA to begin their !voting career. One or two, sure, but nine? No, I don't buy it. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 01:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    And where is your count of equally "dubious" support voters? Dozens of them showed up here very soon after the nomination, even though they haven't shown much interest in RfAs before (I checked some contribs). If you think WP:Good faith doesn't apply to RfAs, then give every editor posting here the same scrutiny! The way this is conducted now, it has become a witchhunt against opposing editors only. Most of the folks voicing their concerns here have nothing to do with the sockpuppets that Jehochman found, but you're treating all of us like criminals. Imho this amounts to interfering with the RfA process, and intimidation of editors, and I support the proposal that a bureaucrat should look into this. Gray62 (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    Btw, there isn't any "obvious" canvassing going on here. Despite all the accusations by Jehochman et al., no hard evidence has been found for this. If you're concerned about editors 'unexplicably' showing up here, well, there are some of them on the support side, too. What has been found, and exposed, is evidence of sockpuppeting instead, and these editors have been caught and banned, and that's good. However, this isn't sufficient reason to make a case of 'guilt by association' against every opposing editor and turn this RfA into a witchhunt. Jehochman could have easily handled this in a discrete way and still catch all those fraudsters. That this has become such a mess now is largely his fault. Imho this should have consequences. Gray62 (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    I have seen at least two posts that have been left on userpages that arguably constitute both canvassing and "outing." (Because they reveal Cirt's previous identity, I'm not going to provide the diffs.) I've noticed them, and I've not even been looking. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose I oppose the nomination for Cirt to be an editor because this user has failed to disclose their editing past. One cannot vote without the proper facts and Cirt has failed to provide us with such. Ki1mberlyhobart (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    • Yet another instance of an account with limited activity. Account create in July, made fewer than 40 edits, and last edit was July 28th before !voting here. Closing crat should take into account the obvious vote stacking which is occurring here. Somebody is obviously soliciting opposes or using socks of some sort.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
      • sock of Julia per CU. struck. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
29. Oppose per comments by Jossi and Caspian Blue. Too many things that trouble me and not enough information to evaluate them. Sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
30. Oppose. Has been a borderline POV pusher, and I'm saying that as someone with no connection to COFS. Recent edits seem to show improvement, but the concealed blocks in the past push me into "oppose." Maybe next time. Cool Hand Luke 22:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
31. Oppose Having observed and edited pages that Cirt and his former user names have edited in the past (and still edit) I am opposed to this nomination. His/her editing over the last year has been above board and polite, but previously this was not always the case, and he/she often heatedly argued with and insulted other editors. There were several times that he/she misquoted the sources he used as references so that they would support his point of view and then whined when it was challenged. It disturbs me that his/her history is not clearly laid out for all to see so that we can have a real discussion based on a true history.Barnham (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

     Bureaucrat note: CU shows probable same as Gilbertine goldmark. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    Fewer than 300 edits since 2006. Has been editing some since June 08. First RfA vote.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    Would you stop such bad-faith badgering? So Cirt is so okay to have his secrecy but opposers are not permitted to do the same. This RfA is getting ridiculous even more by supporters like you.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    It is perfectly acceptable to point out voting irregularities. There is a determined group of editors involved at Landmark Education and Werner Erhard who seem to be canvassing among themselves and friends to generate oppose votes. That is not the way Wikipedia's requests for adminship system is supposed to work. This matter is going to be getting close scrutiny. Jehochman ^Talk 01:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    Jehochman and Balloonman, I say this in all good faith. We carefully select our bureaucrats for their judgment, and we know they are watching this RfA closely. They rarely go wrong, individually or as a group. They are perfectly capable of discounting sockpuppet votes and weighing the arguments in the "Oppose" section. Running around for checkusers on accounts and giving a black eye to anyone who opposes and doesn't edit through their account to your satisfaction is not helping the candidate you support; in fact, it is your actions that have turned this into a three-ring circus. It would be beneficial to all if you and your fellow supporters would take a big step back, as your behaviour is intimidating. Really. Risker (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

32. Oppose - many of the above comments are concerning. I am also not comfortable creating more administrators who very actively promote the rather overzealous formalisms being applied to wikipedia articles these days, far beyond what policy would call far, and disparage articles that do not meet their personal interpretations. See WP:FAR, where this user has such a scope of understanding that he or she can apparently offer a Remove opinion on nearly every article, and things such as [8]. Trivial? Not to me—reasonable approaches to article stewardship are all that matter to me in an RfA candidate. Whiskeydog (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    I see that you maintain a "list of enemies" on your userpage.[9] Do you think that is civil? Is Cirt one of your enemies too? Jehochman ^Talk 01:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    OMG. Outside of wikipedia this is what's known as a "joke". See User:JayHenry, see earlier diffs of User:Ceoil. We are having fun. Whiskeydog (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    Also, just to note that since this joke implies that JH and I are on friendly terms, the fact that JH and I are on opposite sides of the RfA should be taken with a tiny bit of optimism: it's once instance of a non-voting block, which I believe people are sometimes concerned about during RfAs. Whiskeydog (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    Jeochman, I think you are crossing the line with these kind of comments, don't you think? Several editors have already asked you to stop attacking each opposer ... it only generates heat that is really not needed, and despite your excellent standing with the community, in this case you are ending up not doing this RFA a good service... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    Jehochman, you omitted the cause and effect initiated by User:JayHenry's editat 2008-09-08T02:53 and following edit by Whiskydong at 2008-09-08T03:14. According to JayHenry, Whiskeydog or others are good to post whomever he considers as his enemy on user pages. So what is your problme in this? Because he oppose Cirt to become admin? Your badgering does not really be helpful for anything.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    Indeed Caspian. To say that Jehochman has missed an important piece of context regarding my enemyship with Whiskeydog would be very much an understatement. It's sort of a lesson in why we should not be so quick to rush to judgment. --JayHenry (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    Thank you for the explanation. I am somewhat tired of opposers ganging up to personally attack on me. This RFA has had significant vote fraud. Up to now, I have been told by bureaucrats that they need evidence in order to act. Therefore, I am gathering and documenting the evidence, and keeping them informed at every step. The moment a bureaucrat says my comments are not helpful, I will stop. Jehochman ^Talk 02:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    You're the one who has been attacking opposers including your groudless "evidences" as tag-teaming with your good fellas. Then, I will ask the 'crat to stop you.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

33. Oppose - I'm absolutely opposed to this candidate due to POV and security concerns. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose. Per the candidate's not saying anything about the relentless campaign of badgering and intimidation of the oppose votes in this RfA. To Jehochman and Co: you are welcome to grab your torches and your pitchforks and run a checkuser on me or whatever else anti-AGF idea you come up with next. And for the record, no, nobody canvassed me, except, in a way, for you guys with your witch-hunt here. Nsk92 (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    Nsk92 indented this vote themselves with an edit summary indicating that they were not voting. [10] Jehochman ^Talk 16:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

34. Oppose. Unwillingness to disclose prior account(s). --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
35. Oppose Even as it is most probable that the net effect on the project of Cirt's participation is positive, it is not at all clear, per, for one, the succinct Swat, that the net effect on the project of his being sysop(p)ed should be positive. (I should say explicitly that my participation here is not the result of canvassing; even as I have made but a handful of logged-in edits across the past two months, including none to RfA [where I had been an active !voter], I have edited a non-trivial bit anonymously and have in any case been, as ever, an active observer of AN, AN/I, and RfA [and thus a continuing, if largely passive, participant in the project], at the last of which I have not been compelled to participate in a good while—my opposition here is not, I would note, as severe as that that I might have held for other RfAs in which I did not !vote, but in none of those was the outcome in doubt, and I prefer to avoid piling on toward the disposition I seek or arguing pointlessly against a disfavored disposition, at least where my opposition is not of the sort as to be likely to command the support of others.) Joe 04:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
36. Oppose. I've been following this closely, seeing both pros and cons, and rather troubled by the secrecy that makes it hard for many users to evaluate the candidate (though I'm not one of those users myself). Cirt has certainly done good work recently; on the other hand, his/her past is ... well, I'd call it shady. And Justallofthem makes good points. But what swings it for me is SwatJester's recent oppose. I know Swat investigated the candidate in depth under a previous account (investigated for good reasons, in case anybody wonders), and he knows a lot about the security concerns he mentions. I must oppose. Bishonen | talk 06:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC).
37. Oppose, switched from Support I take no pleasure in moving my vote, but as this discussion has progressed it has become painfully obvious that Cirt has stretched the concept WP:AGF to the fraying point. The candidate's failure to be upfront and honest about the block history is appalling, and the whole concept of secrecy surrounding the candidate's past seems wildly out of place for an online encyclopedia project (unless Cirt is really Dick Cheney...Dick, is that you?). Furthermore, the rising level of defensiveness by the candidate's supporters isn't helping the candidate -- if anything, it is raising more questions about why Cirt's ascension to adminship is such a big deal. (Take it from an expert: being too defensive in an RfA is never a good idea!). I feel awful Cirt, but I would feel worse for the project if the admin tools were given to this editor. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
38. Oppose due to hiding the past. If there is no problem, tell us, if there is, remain silent, atm there seems to be. Jacina (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
39. Oppose I appologize, you may be fantastic admin material, but I just don't know how I could support as long as your past account(s) are undisclosed.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
40. Oppose - I am concerned by the lack of information about previous problematic accounts, and the multiple blocks for edit warring. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
41. Oppose - per Sarah. Switched from neutral below; I highly value and respect Cirt's contributions (in particular the portal work which has been outstanding) but the propensity to edit war is a doubt in my mind, big enough for me to oppose this candidacy. As Orangemarlin states above, we shouldn't edit war once, never mind seven times. No amount of time would ever cover that. Caulde 17:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    No amount of time? What if it had been 5 years ago? 10 years ago? (Ok the project hasn't been along that long but the point remains). JoshuaZ (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    I wouldn't presume to speak for Caulde, but if we were talking about a 15-year-old kid who committed vandalism a year or two ago, that time is an eternity ... but we're talking about someone who presumably is an adult and if they knew something was against the rules a year ago and did it anyway - 10 times - a year, or five years doesn't really matter. --B (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    B's right. Caulde 20:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

42. Oppose- Been putting off coming here, but consciously I'm very big on transparency so I wish to comment, I've gone through and looked at the blocks on the prior account, and firstly, I don't see any reason at all the prior account should not have been disclosed, by name, during this RFA, I see nothing personally identifying, and by not disclosing it, it just made everyone who wanted to know it(including anyone who might have been the reason for not disclosing it in the first place go seek it out.) So I must oppose, based on what I see as a transparency issue, compounded by the earlier block log that shows me that though he is a good editor, he has also been a wee bit of an edit warrior. -Dureo (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
43. Oppose. How many blocks must an edit warrior receive before he's considered a chronic offender? How many name changes must an editor undergo before he is considered unpredictable and evasive? A couple of blocks a year ago wouldn't have been a serious concern, and one name change is common and acceptable. But seven blocks for the same, persistent behaviour, and four different names in a relatively short time shows a definite pattern. If personal security is a concern, the high visibility of an admin is the wrong place to hide. Cirt has done some great work since her last name change, but for an admin, I look for stable, persistent, dependable behaviour. Owen× ☎ 19:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral thinking this one over too. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC) [switched to Support]

Neutral : Earnestly wanted to support for the merits of the candidate but I am too embarrassed to pile on support when the result is so crystal clear :) . But my sincere best wishes -- Tinu Cherian - 10:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC).

Hello, thank you for your kind words about my merits as a candidate. Could I answer any questions which would lead you to feel you could support? Cirt (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You may treat this 'neutral' as a support :). Just didnt want to pile on when the result of this RFA was so predictable already, Thatz all ! best wishes again -- Tinu Cherian - 18:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Shifted to Support Too many sock puppet opposes make me push to 'support cabals' area :) I am willing to support inspite of very old disruptive history . Best wishes. Keep up the trust we have in you...-- Tinu Cherian - 06:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC) .

1. Neutral - well qualified, but the answer to question 8 gives me pause. To present that the current system through the Arbitration Committee works shows a large amount of ignorance towards how wikipedia actually works --T-rex 13:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you T-rex for saying you feel I am well qualified. I was not explicit enough in my answer to question 8. The Arbitration Committee isn't perfect, and it is not the best possible system we could ever have on this project to deal with times when administrators misuse their tools and lose the trust of the community, but it is the best process that we have out of current options. Recent events have shown that the recall process can be fraught with undue drama and tension, and lead to the Arbitration Committee as an end result. Until there is a more clearly defined process that has the consensus of the community I feel that a User RFC followed by if necessary a formal review by the Arbitration Committee is the best option in cases where there is a question if an administrator has misused their tools. Cirt (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral swinging like a pendulum! I cannot believe that someone can put up a facade for a year just to become an admin and to oppose a prolific content editor is something that goes against the grain for me (I think strong content editors with respectable recent history should automatically be made admins). With a cooler head, I would have stuck to my original neutral - instead, with the oppose, I just added to the drama. Mea culpa! (switch to oppose)

   I do not know if he did or not. In the end I just felt that he consistently showed bad judgment and a penchant for putting the project second where his POV is concerned. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   because everyone else seems to know more about what's going on than I do. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 13:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   In a nutshell - A prolific POV editor who impressed no-one dumped his old account and recreated himself as a prolific wiki-gnome (WP:ELF? WP:FAIRY?) who impressed many while scrupulously keeping his head down, avoiding conflict (mostly), and making (usually) non-controversial edits on his previous area of POV editing. Now said editor wants the admin bits ostensibly to further his gnomish side but most editors are barred from viewing and openly discussing his previous history for vague and IMO dubious "privacy concerns". A very few of us that are all too familiar with the editor behind the gnome are concerned about potential misuse of those admin bits. So the question we must ask ourselves is this: do we have here a reformed POV-warrior that has seen the errors of his ways or do we have a determined and clever POV-warrior that realized that the best way to have free rein to forward his POV is to flank the project with a massive beard of non-controversial work. I have my own opinion about that but I am not looking to make a case here. I really do not think the admin bits are any big deal and Cirt would be ill-advised indeed to misuse them in forwarding his POV. I think Cirt is more clever than that. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   I have now looked at these previous accounts (in fact, I was aware of them already, though I have only interacted with this user when he has been using this latest account). I have to say that yours is an extraordinary partial and misleading summary. I'm not entirely sure why Cirt wants to keep a veil of silence over the past, though I am willing to take in good faith Durova's comments. But you must be the first to know that were there to be a thorough examination of his previous interactions, then you yourself (and your own multiple other accounts, some declared and some not, plus IP edits) would hardly come up smelling of roses. If I were you, I would feel relieved that he has decided, very maturely, to let bygones be bygones. But let me concentrate on the way in which you describe Cirt's editing under this account. For it is equally misplaced to suggest that Cirt has been a prolific "wiki-gnome." The page to which you link describes a wiki-gnome as someone who "loves to work in the shadows," for instance "fixing typos, correcting poor grammar, creating redirects, and repairing broken links." This is not an accurate characterization of Cirt's editing patterns. Cirt continues to work in the same controversial areas as he has always done (viz. Scientology, Erhard Seminars Training, New Age movements, and so on), and regularly brings the articles he works on to FAC, so drawing enormous attention to what he has been doing, inviting the scrutiny of the entire Wikipedia community. There is almost no area of Wikipedia that could less be described as its "shadows" than WP:FAC. Rather, it is a place in which there is a glaring spotlight of criticism and critique, as reviewers seek the slightest trace of NPOV, unreliable sources, undue weight, and so on. This is hardly the activity of someone who wishes to fly low under the radar. The insinuation that it is amounts to conspiracy theorizing at best. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

   Oh, you do not know me very well at all if you think I would shy away from a thorough review of Cirt and my interactions in either her present incarnation or any previous one. I would most enthusiastically welcome that but you might notice that I have spared y'all such drama. Heck, I haven't even !voted yet and have not been the most vocal in this discussion either; not silent but not the most vocal. But since you bring up my so-called sock history, let me at least point you toward the relevant discussion following Cirt's relentless harassment of me when, as a semi-retired editor, I tried to make some good-faith edits without logging in. Cirt being aided and abetted I might mention, by none other that Durova. Here, is the conclusion by User:Bishonen to what she termed a "trainwreck" "full of cheaply-bought accusations of disruptiveness". If you want a good synopsis of the interactions between Cirt and myself and the role of Durova in such, I suggest reading that. And if are really interested in Cirt's behavior under her new identity included repeated and tendentious WP:BLP violations and deceptive editing then please read Down the rabbit hole with Durova (and Anynobody and others). --Justallofthem (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

   Look. I don't want to go over your interactions with Cirt in his previous identities. Everyone agrees (and the nomination clearly and openly states) that he did not conduct himself as he should have. Nor do I want to put your part in all that under scrutiny; it is not you who is up for RfA. I was simply pointing out that there were many caught up in the "trainwreck," yourself and others included. More importantly, I'm saying that I beg to differ about your account of how Cirt had conducted himself since he has taken on his current account. But I don't want to derail (if we are to use railway metaphors) this RfA any more than it has been already. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

   That's cool. Yes, I was well aware of Cirt's work on featured articles and featured portals but I consider the portal work to be non-controversial and background in nature. I deliberately left out mention of his FA work 'cause I have strong opinions about some of that and likewise did not want to derail this. Regarding how Cirt has conducted himself since taking on his new name I have been at the receiving end of a number of instances when Cirt broke cover, so to speak, so I have a different perspective. My dilemma is whether those breaks were errors in a well-orchestrated plan by an editor that has shown a massive commitment to *something* here or were they simply cases where an editor that is really trying to do better simply slipped up. I am still pondering that and will !vote soon based on my best assessment. But that is my personal thing as I am in a very unique position vis-a-vis Cirt. Others seem to be voting on their perception of his current editing style or their concerns about what is going on with the RfA and that is all well and good. As far as the alleged reasons for hiding Cirt's questionable history, I have to take that with a lot of salt as this is the same editor that cried "I am quite frankly getting scared for my personal safety due to User:Justanother's personal attacks in edit summaries and elsewhere" after I used CAPS in an edit summary following a particularly egregious bit of tendentious editing on Editor X's part. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

   How about assuming good faith? The editor has a POV, but don't we all? They have been a model contributor for a lengthy period of time. Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   How about we don't trot out the old WP:AGF. This is an adminship discussion and warrants open discussion of legitimate concerns. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, but concerns based on long past events are not given much weight, especially if the user has behaved extremely well since then. You seem to feel that they are faking, but I think they have sincerely improved. Jehochman ^Talk 14:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   Believe it or not I am able to WP:AGF that what may have started out as an end run has changed to a real commitment to the project and a realization that petty forwarding of one's POV is neither so much fun nor so intellectually remunerative as honest and lasting contribution to an important worldwide project. But then I am an optimist and I believe in change. A pessimist might think otherwise. However the concern is a legitimate one given this IMO phony obscuring of the prior history. That is not a good recommendation for the candidate and is consistent with what a cunning poseur would do, reveal just enough so as to not be caught in a lie, but not enough to allow open discussion. It would look much better if the old accounts were just named openly and we drop the charade. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   When an editor changes username to avoid harassment, outing the past username would be bad thing to do. Don't go there. If you want to oppose, there is a section above where you can state your reasons. Jehochman ^Talk 15:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   I never said I would out Cirt. As I have mentioned above I have outed him in the past and he did not scream "foul" so I have my doubts. Not my decision to make but just saying. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   Actually, I didn't have any problem with Justallofthem's summary. Based on what Cirt and others have said, it does sound as if he was a POV warrior, but has been keeping his hands more or less clean. There are other people who have clear biases, but can temper their POV while working on the project. Justallofthem asks, So the question we must ask ourselves is this: do we have here a reformed POV-warrior that has seen the errors of his ways or do we have a determined and clever POV-warrior that realized that the best way to have free rein to forward his POV is to flank the project with a massive beard of non-controversial work. He isn't advocating one position, but asking the pertinent question... those who opposed, seem to think the later.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   I thoroughly criticized Cirt back in the day. When somebody behaves consistently well for a long period of time, this is a sign that they have reformed. I don't believe an editor could do such a massive amount of good work as a ploy to gain adminship. Contrast Cirt's contributions with those of former administrator, banned editor User:Archtransit, who I helped to expose.[11] Jehochman ^Talk 20:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Neutral for now Problematic this one - a "just stay well away" temptation but I've read through this far and concerns about the issues this nom raises nag: why does this seem to be a bit of a 'reward' of adminship consideration? The candidate's history - arguably old? So what is 'old history' and for whom and under what circumstances does it or should it matter still or no (seven blocks, name change, pov accusations)? The insistence of the replies to the opposes. Drama - actual and potential? Alongside and yet in opposition: the value (and volume) of the contributions. Thinking, reading on. Plutonium27 (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral. I'm sorry, but if a past ID is so sensitive that just discussing it causes people's comments to be deleted and there are outing concerns, then no. Too much chance for blackmail. Corvus cornix_talk 22:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral, leaning (weak) oppose. Those blocks are certainly concerning (I wasn't aware of them prior to this), and I agree with Corvus above. Also, I remember a not-too-long-ago run-in with another member over content. I had thought it was a one-off at the time, but with a record like that said on the talk page it is disconcerting enough for me not to offer my support. Caulde 18:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral commentary Is this true that the person has spent 18 hours a day on Wikipedia? If so, this is such an extreme time commitment to Wikipedia that they person risks losing touch with society and interaction with others. I would be extremely concerned if someone spends that much time. They could be on Wikipedia so much that they would be handling matters and not let a neutral administrator also handle the matter while they are away from the computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.48.235 (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Indenting this vote as only registered users are encouraged at this section. you are free to contribute to the discussion. -- Tinu Cherian - 06:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

5. Neutral Too controversial. Bwrs (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral and relist. I've worked with Cirt and find him a fine editor and applaud his work, but this RFA is far too tainted and the accusations of the supporters are going too far. I don't see too many comments interspersed in the support section asking for difs on why an editor supports the nomination nor questions why this editor or that editor is here. This is why I tend to stay away from RFAs. Deplorable. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   Anticipatory comments: Yes, I have participated in RFAs, I am an active editor, I have almost 30,000 edits, never been blocked, do not edit any of the above references articles/topics, I found this through Cirt's talk page, and I have known for a long time his last identity. In case anyone wants to question my motives improperly. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

7. Neutral I'm still gravely concerned about the lack of recall, but I guess I'll move for now. MBisanz ^talk 17:14, 15 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.