Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FreeRangeFrog

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

FreeRangeFrog

Final: (106/1/1) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 23:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination

Nomination by Secret

FreeRangeFrog (talk · contribs) – Has been in the project since October 2008 and has racked up 17000 live edits and nearly 4,000 deleted edits. He is most active on WP:CSD, WP:BLP/N and WP:OTRS, two areas of the project that are in need of solid administrators and has a near encyclopedic knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines [1] [2] [3]. FreeRangeFrog has created several high quality articles on a wide variety of topics and a near flawless CSD log. He is also cautious and asks for advise when he's not totally clear on something [4]. I asked him several times in the past if he felt ready for RFA, but he decided to delay until now. In my opinion, FreeRangeFrog is long overdue with the tools. Thanks Secret ^account 15:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Hahc21

I have seen FreeRangeFrog (talk · contribs) ever since I started working at AfD. He always made the right call when casting a vote, and he rarely missed an outcome, so I don't need to check his AfD votes to be confident that he has hit the jackpot most of the time. Frog has been around enough to know and understand most of our core policies, and this can be reflected in the examples given by Secret above. However, this is also evident in his CSD log, which is filled with redlinks. Apart from his great record in the admin-related areas he wishes to work, Frog has shown a willingness to learn and receive advice that is on par with the role of being an administrator, and I'm sure he will do well with the mop. We actually need him at CSD and AfD with the mop. He's way long overdue. → Call me Hahc21 21:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, with thanks. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: If confirmed I plan to be involved primarily in four areas. First, CSD - patrolling new pages and tagging experience make me very comfortable I can function well there. Second, AFD, as I've participated in quite a few discussions and have a few non-admin closures as well. Third, at WP:REFUND, which I've had on my watchlist for quite a while after I first used it, and now that the G13 criteria has increased the load, sometimes does get backed up a bit. Fourth, at WP:PNT, which sometimes require speedy deletions of already-listed articles if they are deemed inappropriate. Beyond that, any given day at OTRS includes RD2 revdel requests, situations where a BLP (or any other article) is being vandalized or edit warred over that requires preventive blocks or page protection and the need to examine deleted edits or revisions of articles. For these I would be able to take action myself if appropriate.

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

A: I'm not a big content creator, but I am happy to have helped many people deal with serious issues in articles, especially biographies. A lot of what I've done in the past two years has been mostly at OTRS, which doesn't always directly reflect here, but is a source of satisfaction nonetheless. And even some of the decent content work I have done can be traced back to OTRS. For example, someone wrote one day asking why we didn't have an article on William J. Powell. A quick Google search and a few days later we went from a redirect to this, plus a DYK to boot. I'm also kinda proud to have created this (although it now looks nothing like the piddly stub I made). Another one that resulted in a positive outcome was a person that wrote in frustration, complaining about some reverted edits and a failed AFC submission. Again a quick Google search, some work and voilà. John Sommerfield, Trial on the Road, Twenty Days Without War and A People Uncounted are other examples of articles that have been created as a result of OTRS interactions with Wikipedia users and readers.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I wouldn't call most situations stressful really, the aspects of Wikipedia I tend to be involved in are generally clear-cut supported by policies and guidelines that leave little room for warring (e.g., the BLP policy). Beyond that I've found that an RFC is usually the best way to solve disputes. For example, whether or not to include Stephen King's signature in his bio, whether or not to include an animation of a naked man in an otherwise innocuous article, or whether or not a controversy over a Russian politician should spill over into an unrelated topic. My position is that policy-based consensus by multiple editors is key, and seeking that consensus is a good outlet for energy that would otherwise be wasted on endless bickering with invariably negative consequences.

Optional question from BrandonWu

4. Consider the following scenario: You are an administrator. Shortly after you take a certain administrative action that you believe is appropriate, you are approached by several users, including some administrators, who question your judgement and suggest that you reverse your action. Other users, though not as many, argue that your action was correct. You still believe that your action was correct. What do you do?

A: I suppose it depends on what the action was. Let's say that some people disagree on the way I closed an AFD - there's always WP:DRV for that, so I'd say take it there since there's a clear process for it. In the case of something like a potentially inappropriate block for example, assuming I was having second thoughts on my own or because of doubts raised by other editors (admins or otherwise), I'd probably report myself to WP:ANI and seek advice and/or consensus to try and solve the problem. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Optional questions from Carrite (Tim Davenport, 52, Corvallis, OR, USA).

5. Have you ever edited Wikipedia using another username? If so, what user name or names did you use?

A: No. I do have a few logged-out edits by mistake, especially in Commons which seems to log me off often.

6. A few questions that I feel we all should have been asking candidates all along: What's your real life name and age? What country do you live in? (If you prefer not to answer, that's fine. Please do expound in that case on why anonymity is important with respect to writing and administering an online encyclopedia.)

A: Well, I'm not a teenager (that seems to be a thing at some RFAs!), I'm male and I live in the United States. But then my userpage already says that. I'm sure it's entirely possible for admins to be harassed and targeted in the real world for their actions here if their identities are known, so that's why anonymity is important. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. Carrite (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional questions from Anupmehra

7 (a) Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?

A: Whenever something is doing harm to the encyclopedia. My canonical example is the 3RR exemption for BLPs, which I've invoked at least once because I couldn't get the attention of a sysop in time.

7 (b) What is your opinion on rogue admins?

A: That seems pretty tongue-in-cheek to me (or at least I hope it is, it looks like a sophisticated way to say "lulz we deleted your article"). Not sure if you mean what I think of the essay or if those "rouge admins" really exist. If you can be more specific, I'd appreciate it.

I apologize being unclear to you. Just the first one, What do you think of wp:Rouge admin?

@Anupmehra: Thanks for the clarification. I wish essays like those didn't exist, because I can see how they arise out of the frustration admins feel when they are accused of abusing their "powers". Heck, I've been accused of bias, COI and other things and I'm not even an admin yet. So I understand why that exists, and at the same time I wish the situations that cause it didn't exist at all. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

7 (c) Are there any of your contributions, you are not proud of? If yes, why?

A: Plenty. There's one valid example below in the Neutral section. I've made a good number of mistakes along the way - I can only hope that I'm making less and less of them as time goes by. My biggest fear is causing people to (needlessly) have a negative opinion of Wikipedia and its community, or putting them off from potentially being valuable contributors. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Ottawahitech

8. You are approached by an editor who tells you they are discouraged and are considering leaving Wikipedia. They say they feel they are being targeted by other editors. How do you proceed?

A: I would certainly try to help them. Look at their contributions, diffs, interactions with other editors, etc. Then if what they say is actually true, I would proceed to recommend action at WP:ANI if at all appropriate. I recognize that most of the time (in my experience) this type of situation is a result of editors - especially new ones - who can't or won't function within our rules and policies, are not getting their way and thus resort to claiming they are being harassed or bullied. But that doesn't mean it's impossible for it to happen. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Kraxler

9. Could you explain what was going on recently at The African-American Historical News Journal and the pertaining segment on your talk page? Kraxler (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A: Long story short, the owner of another journal claims the AAHNJ is plagiarizing their material and has asked for the article to be deleted. But so far no solid evidence has been forthcoming. The initial contact was made through OTRS and I PRODed the article based solely on apparent lack of notability, which was contested by DGG. And that's where we are right now. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment Thanks. So, we can only hope that we all don't get stuck there where we are right now... Kraxler (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

What I think will happen is we'll end up having an article on Black Chronicle, since it at least has a few library holdings. I'm not convinced the AAHNJ is notable at all, but barring definitive proof that we are linking to a website guilty of copyright infringement, that would have to be decided at AFD. We'll see. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for FreeRangeFrog: FreeRangeFrog (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for FreeRangeFrog can be found here.
• Stats on talk page. → Call me Hahc21 00:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. As co-nominator. → Call me Hahc21 00:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Support - looks like a good candidate. Especially like the OTRS work and good CSD track record. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Rschen7754 00:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
4. Having spoken with him several times at BLPN, I'm confident that he will be a good choice to handle a mop. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
5. Support - looks very professional indeed. --Stfg (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
6. Support as nominator Secret ^account 01:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
7. Support Great candidate and overall net positive for the project —  dainomite   01:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
8. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
9. Support with pleasure -- Tawker (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
10. Support without reservation, a strong candidate. Go Phightins! 02:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
11. Support. Looks like a great candidate to me! — Status (talk · contribs) 03:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
12. The candidate seems to be an excellent communicator, sharing ideas and advice politely but in a no-nonsense fashion. There are lots of good things to talk about, but since I can only imagine one outcome of this RfA, I won't waste my time. :) Good luck! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
13. Support I have to agree with Julian. To be specific, his advice at BLPN has helped settle countless disputes in this important area of the encyclopedia. My interaction with him left the best impressions. We need more admins active in this difficult area. Keep up the excellent work FRF. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
14. Support I've had good interactions with this candidate and I'm impressed by the experience and the maturity to wait for the right time to go through RFA. - tucoxn\^talk 04:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
15. ///EuroCarGT 04:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
16. Support No concerns. Widr (talk) 06:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
17. Support Long overdue for mophood; I look forward to seeing him clearing the backlog at CSD instead of filling it up... Yunshui 雲‍水 08:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
18. Support per "not an asshole." (based on observation at dispute resolution boards e.g. AN, ANI) NE Ent 09:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
19. Support Looks good to me. Accurate at CSD, and seen around in other areas. No problems for me. Peridon (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
20. Support absolutely. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
21. Support - looks okay to me. Deb (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
22. Support - fine as frog hair. I am One of Many (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
23. Support Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 12:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
24. Support It won't take you long before you realize that the candidate is Wikifit to be an admin who can help out in the CSD area and handle the tools properly. No need to elaborate further. Japanese Rail Fan (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
25. Support – Looks like a pretty fit candidate for the admin tools. Plus, has shown that they deserve tools based on their actions at AN and ANI. Epicgenius (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
26. Support - A levelheaded editor. Sam Sailor ^Sing 14:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
27. No question. -- John Reaves 14:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
28. Support. Unusually strong CSD tagging. (The AfD stats website seems to be down at the moment.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
29. Support. Excellent candidate for the mop. — sparklism ^hey! 15:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
30. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
31. Support. Based on his good work on OTRS, I'm sure he'll be a level headed admin. Mike V • Talk 17:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
32. Support - largely by having seen this editor's participation at AfD. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
33. Support No concerns. --Randykitty (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
34. Support Content creation is no more important to sysops than mop and bucket duties are in making good writers. Balance is always a preferred in making a well rounded editor but it really is one of the least important criteria on my list as we've seen time and time again quality sysops who largely make gnomish edits. If a 'qualification' has so many exceptions to its rule it's usually not considered a "benchmark" rule. Mkdw^talk 19:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
35. Support - solid editor, and I've had nothing but a positive view of their work with BLP and elsewhere. GiantSnowman 19:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
36. Support per Mkdw. Northern Antarctica (₵) 19:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
37. Support I've seen the candidate around, and like what I've seen: a level head, with plenty of clue. Miniapolis 20:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
38. Support Been seen around often, no problems here.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
39. Support -- Finally, a determined WikiElf as an admin. Much needed compared to the oversaturated anti-vandal positions.GuyHimGuy (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
40. Support -- Lots of positives. Can see no reason to oppose.Blethering Scot 22:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
41. Support Nice and adequate answer for Q4, and overall sounds like he will be a good Admin!--WooHoo! • Talk to me! 22:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
42. Support. I'm not going to bother to do my due diligence before voting. My interaction with FFR is that he's smart, has good judgment, and is deft in his interactions with others. Even when he disagrees with me - and it goes without saying that he must be wrong - he does so in a respectful but independent manner, and he supports his point of view. My only quibble is his user name. Every time I see it, I think of free range chicken. Is there such a thing as free range frog that one eats and pays twice as much for because it's not kept cooped up before it's slaughtered?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
43. Support. The answers hit, and the spot checks look good. Glrx (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
44. Support with no reservations whatsoever. Among the best of the WP:OTRS posse, dedicated, calm, professional and tireless. Handles more tiresome tickets than anybody else I can think of and will be an asset to the admin team as well as being even more useful at OTRS. Leaving aside the love-in, when it comes to credible reasons for needing admin tool,s OTRS work is right up there. I think easily one i ten tickets cannot be dealt with properly unless you can see deleted history, delete individual revisions and so on. And everything I have seen about Freerangefrog persuades me that he will do this judiciously and quietly, creating minimum drama and maximum benefit for the project. Guy (Help!) 00:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
45. This one's a no-brainer. FreeRangeFrog is a huge asset to Wikipedia. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
46. Will be a net positive. No concerns. Connormah (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
47. Support Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
48. Support I think I saw you in my swimming pool once. It must have looked like a nice beautiful pond at first, but that chlorine was really rough. I'm glad I saw you when I did so I could set you free again. I wish you the best of luck in your hopefully long and fruitful career as a Wikipedia administrator. —Soap— 01:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
49. Samir 04:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
50. Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
51. Support because Wikipedia needs these sort of editors around. He is also a part of afd and from what I hear from Hach21, he won't abuse the power. Fremantle99 (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
52. Support: candidate is a net positive. Matty.007 08:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
53. Support I reviewed his contributions for October where I was reminded of his contributions to Eleanora Knopf - a new article by a new editor that I had trained at an editathon. These displayed a commendably helpful and constructive attitude. He could have been more communicative though and I'm not liking the use of slang in edit summaries. Andrew (talk) 10:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
54. Support buffbills7701 11:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
55. Support - A trustworthy and experienced editor who will be a net positive to Wikipedia. -TheGeneralUser (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
56. Support I've come across this candidate several times, and always been impressed with their clue and tact. A review shows no red flags and plenty of relevant experience. Clear net positive, I believe. Begoon ^talk 16:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
57. Support I like what Guy says "....minimum drama with maximum benefit". ```Buster Seven Talk 17:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
58. Support Uhhhh I thought FRF was an admin already. Obvious strong support. Mrfrobinson (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
59. Support - Per above. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 20:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
60. Support Per nom (even though it contains an egregious spelling error) and good answers to the questions. --John (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
61. Strong support. Daniel (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
62. Support Can be trusted. OccultZone (Talk) 02:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
63. Support Seems well-liked. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
64. Support' A solid, well-qualified candidate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
65. Support Jianhui67 ^T★C 05:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
66. Support Seems good.Epeefleche (talk) 06:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
67. Support Definitely JMHamo (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
68. Support. I would have preferred to see more evidence of content creation, but generally the candidate looks good. Nsk92 (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
69. Wizardman 19:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
70. Support Would like to see more content creation though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
71. Support Rzuwig^► 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
72. Support Solid history, good answers to questions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
73. Support - Adequate tenure, sufficient contributions, clean block log, no indications of assholery. Thanks for helping WP. Carrite (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
74. Support Good CSDs, and I don't see any issues. KonveyorBelt 02:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
75. Support. As an admin I typically have faith in FreeRangeFrog's edits and nominations, which should good sense and knowledge of guidelines. I don't think we should overstate their article contributions: there's a lot of maintenance and gnomish work, and the articles listed in the nomination aren't huge or GA/FAs (plus, there's a bunch of redirects etc.). Having said that, they have certainly produced content, and the content I've looked at was of sufficient quality to prove that they know what content production is. I don't recollect any bad interactions with this editor, and have no reason to think they'd abuse the enormous power of the tool. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
76. support My interaction with FFF has been nothing but positive. An ideal candidate. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
77. Support. Looks good to me. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
78. Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
79. Already does lots of useful administration work - indeed, that seems the Frog's main interest. I'm not at all opposed to admins who are admin minded - indeed, it seems to me to be a positive. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
80. Support - CSD log and PROD log both look good. AFD participation looks good. The answers to the questions are all satisfactory, and I don't have any concerns. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
81. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
82. Stephen 00:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
83. Support Seen user around generally being clueful. No problems raised I'm worried about. Hobit (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
84. Support Light on content creation but good contributions overall; should be a good administrator in a number of areas. Donner60 (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
85. Support. A no-brainer. Gamaliel (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
86. Support - Pile-on support. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
87. Support - No reasons found to oppose and many reasons found to indicate FRF will be an excellent sysop. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 11:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
88. Support without reservation.- MrX 11:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
89. Support This one is easy. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
90. Support. Great candidate. INeverCry 18:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
91. Support FreeRangeFrog will be a fantastic addition to the admin corps. Patient, thoughtful, and full of clue!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
92. Support. I think that Drmies and SilkTork make particularly good points. (If I may make an incredibly minor quibble, and it's definitely not a reason to oppose, it's that I would have appreciated more precise links in the answers to questions, links to sections and not just to pages.) Overall, I think the candidate will be a good admin, and I don't see any red flags. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
93. "On the ninth day, I let the frog run free".... Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
94. Support - right attitude, strong answers to questions, solid track record. Stalwart111 22:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
95. Support per Newyorkbrad. Ribbit. No, seriously. Ribbit. Cindy(talk) 22:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
96. Per answers to questions and intentions. Good luck. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 00:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
97. Support To pile up those support to 100 hundred.----AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 03:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
98. Support Strong all round candidate and a potential admin who does things like this gets my vote. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 09:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
99. SUPPORT A kind and cautious frog is he, at the noticeboard Bee Ell Pee. He interacts well with BLP subjects and issues. Having an admin that frequents this board regularly would be welcome. Hopefully he won't leave for greener pastures once he is blessed (cursed) for admin responsibilities. Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

    Support: I haven't really come across this editor before, but what I have seen here impresses me and gives me the belief he will be a good admin. Matty.007 19:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

    I think that this was a mistake, since you already are support #52. Indented. → Call me Hahc21 19:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

100. Support OMG - I get to be the #100 for once. Yay. But other than that, I still support.--v/r - TP 19:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
101. SUPPORT There is a reasoned quality about the manner by which Frog deals with potential edit disputes before they erupt into edit wars -- anticipation and prevention are critically important to keep the international community base of Wikipedia growing, and so I support the candidate in the strongest possible terms. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
102. Support. I'm a strong advocate of serious usernames and humorless admins, but I'm willing to overlook this in favor of the candidate's sterling record and valued contributions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
103. Support Appears fully trustworthy.--MONGO 13:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
104. Support Seems clearly equipped for the role. -- DS1953 ^talk 15:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
105. Support--There you are!! Herald 15:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
106. Support On the strength of the work and communications I've seen by this user in OTRS. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Inadequate effort at creating content. Minorview (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

   Coming from someone with your edit history, that's an interesting !vote. --Randykitty (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

#Waiting for response to Question 4.WooHoo! • Talk to me! 01:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Moved to Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandonWu (talk • contribs) 22:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

1. I think that your signature §FreeRangeFrog^croak is childish and inappropriate for an administrator on a serious project like Wikipedia. I was also a bit surprised by the way you approached me at User:Vejvančický/Archive_17#Redirect_to_Scott_Roulet, but you apologized which shows that you are not a bad person. I think that your other work is good and that you are competent, and therefore it wouldn't be fair to oppose. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

   Seriously? GiantSnowman 11:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

   Really? ..... We judge more on who's "fit for the job"... Not signatures.... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

   Wikipedia is srs bisniz. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

   Although I realize I'm piling on here, I'm astonished the "community" voted to keep that essay.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

   It indeed is a ridiculous essay. → Call me Hahc21 03:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

   I found it rather amusing. At any rate, while I disagree with the position taken by Vejvančický, I don't think his comment makes him a 'hater'. Northern Antarctica (₵) 17:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

   I think that your comment and attitude about their signature is childish and inappropriate for a project like Wikipedia. Mrfrobinson (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

   Pff... haters gonna hate... we do what we want. *brofists the frog* :P §Slakr^meh 03:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

   I wrote 'signature' but I mean also candidate's username. I don't think that "croak" is an appropriate invitation to a talk page of an administrator on a serious educational project. The candidate values anonymity. Real people complaining at WP:BLPN are adviced by anonyms, the information about them is shaped and decided by anonyms but they have no option to be anonymous and speak as frogs or giraffes. I don't think it is fair and professional. It may not to be candidate's fault, but it may be a reason for me to not support. It is just my opinion, as I speak only for myself. But having an opinion doesn't make me a hater! I'm in the neutral section (please note the emphasis) and my opinion here is a reminder rather than an objection or criticism. Yes, I take the project seriously since my very first edit, so there's no need to make fun of me by 'srs bisniz' remarks. Others may have different opinions, well, I'm one of the many and I respect different opinions. The candidate values anonymity, I value transparency. That's all. I don't know who is the all-embracing 'we' mentioned in the comments above but please don't call me 'a hater'. Thanks for your understanding. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

   Just so you're aware, we have administrators with such colourful names as Woohookitty, KillerChihuahua, Crazytales, Madman (previously "Madman bum and angel"), Ohnoitsjamie, and DangerousPanda (i.e. the artist formerly known as Bwilkins). Kurtis ^(talk) 17:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

   I originally wanted my username to be "ExtremelySeriousWikipediaAuthority" but accidentally typed "Ohnoitsjamie" instead. Things still worked out OK. Seriously, though, this is the sort of thing we should be worried about in giving someone access to the tools? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

   You forgot User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, who managed to become an arbitrator despite his extremely serious username. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

   I need to emphasize: Wikipedia (and the internet as a whole) is full of silly stuff and silly people, and those that don't have a sense of humor are typically gonna have a bad time anyway. I do understand your concern that you feel his username or signature may seem unprofessional. That said, we have a lax dress code because all editors (admins included) are volunteers at a charity, and once you've done enough volunteer work at charities in real life, you'll notice that abject professionalism is frequently absent. On top of that, when the torches and pitchforks come out, it helps to appear as human, light-hearted, and as approachable as possible to encourage de-escalation of tensions. I, personally, think clicking "croak" as a way to "talk" to a "frog" helps to promote that, but that's just my opinion. You should realize, however, that the risk you take when you post a criticism of someone or something is that the response from others may very well be criticism of your criticism, including satire (see also "haters gonna hate" definition). Try not to take it personally; we actually do appreciate your opinion and the honesty and civility with which you've provided it, as it's important for determining consensus (especially should others share it). Take caution, however, because while you, personally, might take everything on here seriously, you still need to be able to co-exist with those of us who aren't as formal in our approach. ;) --slakr^\ talk / 05:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

   I did not expect any sympathy from Wikipedia nicknames and I'm OK with your criticism/responses, I just felt it needs to be said here. Wikipedia is a changing environment and I feel that now it should change in this direction (I mean it should require more transparency from people administering the project). Please don't confuse with a lack of sense of humor on my part. There's a nice quote corresponding with my general point of view: “All liberty required was that the space for discourse itself be protected. Liberty lay in the argument itself, not the resolution of that argument, in the ability to quarrel, even with the most cherished beliefs of others; a free society was not placid but turbulent. The bazaar of conflicting was the place where freedom rang.” (Rushdie). I wish the candidate all the best. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

My favorite has always been User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Might have been a good name, wasn't a good precedent.[5] Thincat (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2014 (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.