Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dirtlawyer1: Difference between revisions

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

Hi all. I've closed this RFA as unsuccessful. First, let me state that this RFA suffered from multiple procedural defects. Among other things, the initial MOS talk page post, the follow-up posts to WT:LAW, WT:FLA, etc., the additional posts to WT:NFL, WT:CFB, etc., the ARBATC action filed during the pendancy of the RFA, the ANI filing, and the thank you notes sent during the pendancy of the RFA were all violations of generally applicable practices in RFA. Second, one of the reasons bureaucrat discretion exists is so that a bureaucrat can examine a close RFA and determine that, but for the improper conduct, the community's support or opposition of the candidate would have plainly conformed to the usual percentages for determining community consensus in the RFA. However, in this circumstances, the improper conduct occurred both in support and opposition to the candidate. In fact, it would appear that some of the opposes are based on a good-faith opinion that the candidate's response to events that occurred during the RFA were overriding evidence of their current unsuitability for the position. To that end, I do not find the margin close enough or the effect of the intervening influences clear enough to exercise bureaucrat discretion in contravention to the usual community expectations for consensus in an RFA. Third, based on a plain reading of the comments, I do not interpret them to express a consensus to promote, due to several broadly held, valid opinions in opposition to the candidate. MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1

'Final (92/45/3); ended 02:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC) MBisanz' ^talk 02:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC) SEE TEMPLATE FOR MORE DETAILS -->; Scheduled to end 1:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Dirtlawyer1 (talk · contribs) – Dirtlawyer1 has been in the project since June 2009, and since then managed to build over 54,000 edits. We first encountered each other at AFD, where our topic interests intercept, and his comments there shows an in-depth knowledge of policy and WP:COMMONSENSE, with here, here, here, and here, as specific examples, among many others. He is an established article writer with four good articles, and another 100 or so articles created and an active participant in the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) talk page, where his commentary is quite helpful in fixing redundancies on the page. Oh yeah, he’s also an attorney. We need more administrators that focuses on sports articles, and Dirtlawyer1 is as qualified as you could get. Secret ^account 00:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you for nominating me to be an administrator. I accept.

I never planned to be an administrator, and I never seriously considered it until several other editors whom I respect suggested that I should consider standing for it. Having thought about it rather carefully over the past couple of months, I honestly believe that I can make an additional contribution as an administrator beyond what I have as an editor. I say that in all humility. I will continue to contribute to the project as an editor, as I have in the past, regardless of the outcome of this RfA. So, with that said, let's begin . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2013 (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: As an administrator candidate, I see myself as a generalist providing a range of administrative assistance to editors who require those sorts of mundane, every-day help with page move, rollback, and page protection tasks. Kind of an administrator general practitioner, if you will.

I also fully expect that I will become a regular AfD closer. Over the past year or so, I have gained a solid understanding of the AfD process, the policy-based reasons for keeping and deleting articles and lists, as well as the specific notability guidelines applicable to various topics. During this time, I have been a regular contributor of policy-based arguments, and I have engaged in what I believe to be respectful and robust debate. After I've mastered the technical aspects of closing AfDs as an admin, I may expand my repertoire to include TfD closures as well. Within the range of the sports and university articles on which I often work, I will also pursue Sock Puppet Investigations as necessary, handle the post-SPI follow-up, and impose article semi-protection as needed to prevent vandalism and BLP violations. I am a cautious type, and will do my flat best to avoid obvious mistakes, and will probably arrange to have an administrator-mentor or two from among the many I respect. Consistent with my admin-GP metaphor, I will endeavor to first do no harm (and not break the wiki). To me, that means dodging unnecessary controversy, avoiding obvious conflicts of interest and situations that could easily be construed as COIs, not rising to rhetorical bait or provocative interactions, and not taking any action in anger or haste. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

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

A: I believe my best single contribution to Wikipedia is the Andrew Sledd biography, which afforded me an opportunity to indulge in online and old-fashioned library research, and to build a substantial online reference regarding the subject from what was originally a two- or three-sentence stub. One of my Wikipedia goals for 2013 is to take the article through the Feature Article review process. A recent example of a list article that I created from scratch is List of Florida Gators football All-Americans, which I believe also demonstrates my strong commitment to the reference requirements of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP. Since June 2012, I have also been very active in editing and upgrading the 700+ biographies of U.S. Olympic swimmers. My swimmer bio work has included standardizing the infoboxes, adding significant "see also" and interwiki article links, upgrading the sourcing, standardizing the footnotes, fleshing out the categories, improving and expanding the text, and generally bringing a measure of consistency in formatting and style that was previously lacking. In the last six months, I also created 60+ Olympic swimmer bio stubs. Suffice it to say, I see this as a multi-year personal project that I will continue to chew on through the balance of 2013. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

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 am currently a practicing lawyer of 15 years experience, and I previously served as a political campaign consultant for one of the national U.S. political parties for five years. As such, I am not a stranger to stressful situations, interpersonal conflict, heated argument and the various rhetorical devices used to get a rise out of you and elicit an angry response. On a handful of occasions in my nearly four years on Wikipedia, I have made the mistake of rising to the bait or using some angry rhetoric of my own. The longer I am an active contributor to Wikipedia, the more I am convinced of the need for greater civility in our interactions with other editors, and the need for administrators to be seen as being above the fray and to uphold those standards in their own conduct, and by their own examples.

Two or three of my most aggravating Wikipedia experiences involved talk page discussions at the Manual of Style. For any editor who has wandered into an WP:MOS talk page discussion as an outsider, you know that there exists a cast of MOS regular contributors, several of whom exhibit traits of a battleground mentality when any of the MOS status quo is challenged, and sarcasm, deprecation of the intellectual capacity of other editors, and other rhetorical excesses are commonplace. There also exists genuine expertise in English language punctuation and other stylistic matters. Sadly, the good and the bad are often exhibited by some of the same editors. Most frustrating to me are the tactics employed by several editors to preserve the MOS status quo, even when the status quo provisions in question may have been introduced without prior discussion and without any discernible prior consensus. This is a long way of saying that I believe that the MOS governance process is ripe for reform and is sorely in need of adult supervision. None of that, however, excuses my own sharp words in those MOS discussions, sharp language, I might add, that did not satisfy my own expectations for interaction with other editors.

As I said above, I believe that administrators should set the example for civility in their interactions with other editors. If the community decides to place their confidence in me at the conclusion of this RfA, that is the standard that I will do my utmost to satisfy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Bbb23

4. Would you consider changing your user name, or at least explaining clearly on your user page what it means (maybe a connection with the kind of law you practice?)? As it is, it's kind of off-putting.

A: Thank you for asking, Bbb23. A "dirt lawyer" is a commercial real estate attorney. It's a term commonly used among other lawyers, often as a term of affection. When another attorney calls me a dirt lawyer, it's usually intended as a compliment, and I would be happy to put a brief explanation of the term's derivation on my user page and/or talk page. I probably would not pick the same user name again, but it's the name by which many people now know me on Wikipedia and it's probably too darn late to change it now. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've never heard it used in California (maybe it's regional), but I'll ask around. I'd suggest explaining it on your user page, not your talk page, but I don't know what others think. Does it ever trigger bad lawyer jokes at Wikipedia (just curious)?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It's common in California too. It means a lawyer who deals with real estate, subdivision, land use issues, etc. - what's known as "dirt law". --MelanieN (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I thinks it's common jargon among lawyers throughout the United States, but Southerners do tend to be more colorful in our speech patterns. I have been called an "amateur lawyer" on one occasion in the middle of a talk page discussion when the hurler of that epithet did not agree with my position on the policy under discussion. No worries, though; I've heard much worse in real life. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional questions from Trevj

5. You acknowledge your mistaken use of some angry rhetoric and sharp words in the past. What steps are you taking to ensure that you don't descend to provocative interactions[1][2] in discussions? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 06:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

A: Trevj, I'm going to give you a multiple-part answer. In order for you to better understand my thinking on point, I need to explain how I believe an editor's role is different from that of an administrator. In order to properly fulfill his role, an administrator must consider how each and every online response will be perceived by the intended audience (and others), how it will affect his credibility as an administrator, and whether it will advance his intended purpose in responding as an administrator. In short, an effective administrator must be more circumspect in what he says and how he says it----sarcasm, biting humor, anger, and rhetorically cutting remarks tend to undermine the credibility and perceived fairness and impartiality of an administrator. More often than not, sharply worded responses also will not resolve the situation or accomplish the administrator's purpose.

One role of an administrator that does not appear in the written job description is that of conflict resolver. If an administrator is able to help resolve conflict without resort to threats of blocking, actual blocking, and other heavy-handed remedies, so much the better. Rarely do angry rhetoric or sharply-words responses help de-escalate a conflict situation; carefully measured warnings and requests for better behavior should always be the starting points.

I am standing for consideration as an administrator, a role in which factual and emotionally detached statements of problematic behaviors and their potential consequences are frequently required. In the most direct response I can provide to your question, I will carefully consider every online response I make in light of the guiding principles I stated above: (1) how my response will be perceived by my intended audience (and others); (2) how it will affect my credibility and perceived fairness and impartiality as an administrator; and (3) whether it will advance my intended purpose in responding as an administrator.

That having been said, you may rely on me to tell an editor when I perceive that he is engaged in counterproductive behaviors, when he has violated a policy or guideline, or when he is ignoring established consensus or abusing our processes. That will not include, however, snarky metaphors, angry rhetoric, sarcasm, etc. If I occasionally fail to live up to my own expectations and standards, I trust that you and others will gently remind me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Trevj

5a. (Apologies for this subsequent question.) In determining consensus, how should editors decide whether gaining local consensus is appropriate, and when should they seek views of the broader community? What is the role of the closer? -- Trevj (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

A:

Additional question from Stfg

6. You said above, "I believe that the MOS governance process is ripe for reform and is sorely in need of adult supervision." How do you envisage that coming about?

A: [Temporary response] Stfg, I have just started my professional work day, and my thoughts on this topic require a written answer of some length and consideration. If you will be patient with my response time, I will provide you with a full response later this afternoon or early this evening (I'm in the U.S. Eastern Time zone, i.e. UTC+5). Thank you for understanding. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

[Full answer] How much time and space do we have, Stfg? There are long-term issues at the Manual of Style, including "ownership" tendencies of several regular contributors, a tendency to be unwelcoming to newcomers, rampant incivility, and personalization of what are nominally style and policy disputes. It got so bad some time ago that Arbcom placed all MOS participants under discretionary sanctions if anyone continued to personalize style and policy disputes on the MOS talk pages. MOS appears that it may now be at the crossroads of a potential generational change; that change represents both a potential loss of expertise and institutional history, as well as an opportunity to institute some new operating protocols and expectations for civility and collegiality. Let me suggest several potential reforms that could be instituted by consensus. First, that no future change implemented to any MOS text should be permitted without prior discussion and a discernible consensus for the change, effectively suspending the BRD cycle for MOS changes. (This is consistent with what WP:CONSENSUS already suggests with regard to Wikipedia-wide policies and guidelines.) Second, that all MOS talk page discussions should be moderated by a neutral moderator who holds such a role in an official capacity. The role of the moderator would be to welcome new participants and advise them of expectations for their conduct as MOS discussion participants; recall and reference past discussions and consensus with regard to specific issues; structure discussions in a logical and coherent manner to facilitate substantive discussion, resolution of disputes, and formulation of new and evolving consensuses as needed; and to gently remind all participants when they cross the lines of incivility or personalization. Third, that there be a designated pool of neutral administrators who are familiar with MOS structure and issues, but who will not participate in substantive discussions; instead, these neutral, non-participating admins would be responsible for striking any incivilities, comments that personalize disputes, and, as a last resort, temporarily block anyone who transgresses a strict code of conduct. These neutral, non-participating admins would serve for a year-long term, but on a staggered basis, so that two newly appointed admins would rotate on every two months, as the two longest serving admins rotated off. Sure, it's a pipe dream, but ask yourself this: How important is the Manual of Style to Wikipedia? How important is a civil and collegial discussion environment to the proper functioning of the MOS? If your answer is "very important" to both questions, then I think we have arrived at a point in time where reform is obviously needed, and some enforcement mechanism is required. These are my pie-in-the-sky, idealistic thoughts, and I don't pretend that they constitute some magic solution. But if we don't attempt something new, we are doomed to repeat the same unhappy experiment again and again, while foolishly continuing to hope for a different result. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Ks0stm

7. What are your views on AfD !votes citing common outcomes as a rationale, for example "Redirect per WP:OUTCOMES"? On the use of precedent at AfD in general?

A: Thanks for the interesting question, Ks0stm. At the outset, we need to recognize that WP:OUTCOMES is an editor's essay, not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. As an essay, it is influential in discussions only to the extent editors accept its logic as their own, and explain that logic in their comments. We do have policies and guidelines, which are binding, but they are subject to various exceptions, as well as the occasional exercise of WP:IAR when a strict application of the policy or guideline would render an illogical result or one that clearly impedes the positive advancement of the encyclopedia. That is to say, Wikipedia does have "rules," and they should be followed unless there is a particularly strong case for not doing so in a specific, well-defined instance.

Back to your specific issue of "precedents" in AfD discussion, and by that term I understand you to mean the use of a prior AfD decision/consensus as authority in a currently pending AfD. As I said above, Wikipedia does have written policies and guidelines, but it has nothing like binding precedents that are decisions rendered in Anglo-American common law courts. A prior AfD decision/consensus is only binding in the AfD case in which it was made, and every AfD stands on its own. Furthermore, consensus is always subject to change at a later date. That having been said, there is nothing improper if an AfD discussion participant cites a prior AfD decision/consensus in a current AfD, but the participant should explain why he thinks that the "precedent" was properly decided and be able to explain the logic and/or rationale of the prior AfD. If the prior case was particularly well reasoned, then its rationale may very well be influential and helpful in deciding the present case.

But, just to be clear, let me reiterate: prior AfDs do not set binding precedents for future AfDs. If you want something like a binding precedent, then you need to seek to have the applicable policy or guideline changed by consensus to conform to the desired outcome. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional questions from Bagumba

8. Under what situations would you use a supervote?

A: Practically never. As defined by the essay Wikipedia:Supervote, the concept of an administrator's "super vote" is that an administrator would decide the consensus outcome of an AfD, TfD, RfC, DRV, etc., on the basis of an argument and logic that were not presented by discussion participants, but which the closing admin chooses to form the basis of his closing decision. In my personal opinion, if an editor/administrator believes that he cannot make an XfD decision on the basis of the strength of the comments and arguments given during the discussion, then he should consider whether it is more appropriate to contribute an additional comment and/or argument to the discussion and relist the XfD, rather than closing it. I have seen XfD discussions swing on the strength of a single comment when it advances a previously overlooked policy or guideline, or otherwise advances a particularly strong, well-reasoned argument. Having failed in that, I would not close the XfD under those circumstances, but would leave it to another admin who may rightly view the "consensus" differently than I do.

I can imagine, however, several situations where WP:Copyvio or WP:BLP concerns might require me to delete an AfD article regardless of the nominal discussion consensus. If the entire article is a copyvio, it must be deleted, and would also be subject to speedy deletion. In the case of a BLP attack article, the article should be deleted, but I would hope that the discussion consensus would also arrive at the same conclusion. Technically, completely unsourced BLP articles are also subject to special deletion policy, but that issue can be (and usually is) cured during AfD discussion by "keep" !voters adding new footnote sources.

On a related note, I am particularly sensitive to an administrator putting his finger on the scales to achieve an XfD outcome in which the administrator is personally vested or involved. I am also quick to admit and correct my own mistakes, and in circumstances where I have overlooked some element that might have changed the outcome, I will graciously consider any post-closing talk page discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

9. An article at AfD does not violate any policies. A majority explicitly or implicitly cite WP:IAR, while a minority say it does not meet GNG. How would you close this?

A: Bagumba, I am guessing this is not an entirely hypothetical question, but, rather, that you may have one or two specific AfDs in mind wherein an editor recently advanced a similar rationale for keeping several baseball-related lists. I must confess that I do not approve of using WP:IAR as a trump card whenever the proper application of a policy or guideline renders a particular result with which we disagree. In my opinion, IAR should not be read literally "ignore all rules!" but should be reserved for those situations where a strict application of a particular policy or guideline renders an absurd, illogical, or unjust result in certain, specific circumstances, or otherwise impedes the betterment of the encyclopedia. To my way of thinking, that's a pretty tough standard to satisfy. It's not just a matter of saying we don't like the result, let's ignore the rules.

In the particular case of the baseball-related lists that I recall where the IAR argument was advanced in support of the "keep" position, I do not believe that the AfD being closed as a majority "delete" consensus for lack of notability was an absurd, illogical or unjust outcome, nor did it harm the encyclopedia. Instead of citing IAR in support of keeping the lists, I think a far better argument could have been constructed from elements of WP:LISTPURP, as WP:NLIST explicitly recognizes that there is no agreed-to notability standard for cross-categorized lists, and that such lists may be kept that satisfy one or more of the listed purposes (e.g., navigation or article development). I don't know if that would have changed the AfD outcome in the case of those particular lists, but it would have been a stronger argument for keeping them if well-supported with additional details. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. While we have all been in AfDs like the one I described, I was more interested in your thoughts on the hypothetical case, and not any specific ones we may have commented on. Namely, in an article that does not violate policies, if a minority cited deletion per failing to find source to meet GNG, while a majority said it was "obviously notable" and some citing IAR to keep, how would you proceed in closing it?—Bagumba (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Bagumba, I think my short answer to your hypothetical is that I do not believe that WP:IAR should be routinely used to trump policies or guidelines absent special circumstance wherein the application of the particular policy or guideline would render an absurd, illogical or unjust result, or otherwise impedes the betterment of the encyclopedia. If the "delete" !voters made a strong case for failure to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG (or any applicable specific notability guideline), and the only argument advanced by "keep" !voters was IAR, then I might close the argument as "delete" on the relative strength of the arguments put forth in the discussion. I say "might" because we are dealing with a hypothetical, and many other potentially determinative facts and applicable policies and guidelines were not included in your bare bones hypothetical. It goes without saying that any admin who closes an XfD in face of a large contrary majority is inviting a WP:Deletion review. I might also be inclined to comment in the AfD discussion, rather than close it.

Query: In your hypothetical, if the article demonstrably does not satisfy the GNG guidelines (or another applicable SNG), doesn't that mean that the article "violates" a guideline? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

"Demonstrably" is subject to consensus. We can discuss offline if you desire. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Northamerica1000

10. Should AfD discussions be closed based upon general consensus in the discussion, or per the strength of the arguments within them?

A: Northamerica, it is axiomatic that Wikipedia consensus is determined by the relative strength of the arguments advanced by the discussion participants, and not by a simple majority vote. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Tony1

11. Dirtlawyer, I appreciate your contributions in some areas—particularly sport. And I was pleased to see you write, "I will endeavor to first do no harm ... that means dodging unnecessary controversy, avoiding obvious conflicts of interest and situations that could easily be construed as COIs, not rising to rhetorical bait or provocative interactions, and not taking any action in anger or haste."

Then there was an honest admission: "I have made the mistake of rising to the bait or using some angry rhetoric of my own." Fine. I can empathise with you there.

But the personalised anti-MOS rant in your response to the subsequent question raises serious doubts about your suitability for adminship. Of particular concern was your use of an admin-related forum to push a personal agenda—one that appears to have resulted from unpleasant scrapes you've had when your own ideas about style didn't gain traction. (This is a feeling I know only too well myself—mostly in the earlier, formative stages of the evolution of the MOS pages.) You made unsupported claims about "tactics employed by several editors to preserve the MOS status quo, even when the status quo provisions in question may have been introduced without prior discussion and without any discernible prior consensus." Care to specify, or do you want to leave it vague? Could we have examples of the non-consensual edits that have irritated you?

"I believe that the MOS governance process is ... in need of adult supervision." For a moment I thought you were by implying that the MOS children need your adult supervision. You then returned to honest-mode to admit that you've been a bit of a warrior there yourself: "None of that, however, excuses my own sharp words in those MOS discussions, sharp language, I might add, that did not satisfy my own expectations for interaction with other editors."

My question is whether you have understood the WP:UNINVOLVED policy, and the fact that your statements here, and in many diffs one could dredge up elsewhere, effectively preclude your taking any admin actions at MOS pages; "admin actions", of course, are in contrast with editorial activities such as simply arguing your case for change politely and calmly.

A: Tony, let's start with an answer to your bottom-line question: Yes, I believe that I do fully understand WP:INVOLVED, and, if this RfA is successful, I will always do my absolute best to adhere to the letter and the spirit of that policy in any actions I may take as an administrator. However, I also believe that your reading of WP:INVOLVED is overly expansive. Clearly, an admin should never take remedial action against an editor with whom he has been involved in a dispute. This must, of course, be distinguished from those situations where the admin has taken purely administrative actions against the editor in the past; if an admin has properly sanctioned an editor once, nothing precludes the admin from doing so again, although I also understand that such interaction can become personalized, and that it may be best for the admin to step back and let another handle the problematic behavior. However, your suggestion that WP:INVOLVED precludes an administrator from taking any administrative action in an entire subject area wherein the admin may have been involved in a dispute as an editor, or taken an action as an admin, is not correct. Having been involved in a dispute with Editor A in an article about the city of Melbourne does not preclude the same admin from taking action against Editor B arising from Editor B's edit-warring in an article about the city of Sydney. If your interpretation were correct, active admins would be quickly precluded from taking action anywhere based on the wider subject areas in which they had previously taken admin actions. But, let me put your mind at ease in this regard: I have no interest in being part of the "adult supervision" I mentioned above, nor in taking any admin action at MOS, and I will commit to not doing so. As you have quoted me above, I will do everything I can to avoid "obvious conflicts of interest and situations that could easily be construed as COIs", and I have no desire whatsoever to see my admin actions questioned on that basis, rightly or wrongly. If I believe admin action is necessary, it is the far wiser course of action to ask another admin to review the situation and to take any action that he or she believes is appropriate. That results in no conflict of interest, and no appearance of a conflict of interest.

While the prelude to your question is long and raises various points, there is one point to which I am compelled to respond: your characterization of my response to Stfg's Question 6 as a "personalised anti-MOS rant" is a complete misreading of my response and overlooks many of the explicit points I made. I am not "anti-MOS" in any way, nor was my response "personalized" within my understanding of that word. Furthermore, if you re-read my answer to Question 6, I believe you will find that it quite clearly acknowledges what I believe is the MOS's central importance to Wikipedia; if MOS were not so important to Wikipedia, then the present discussion atmosphere at MOS talk pages and the conduct of regular participants would be of little consequence or concern to the community at large. There is, after all, a very real reason why Arbcom stepped in and has imposed an interdict pursuant to which any uninvolved admin may take action against any MOS participant. There's a very real problem there, Tony, and we can all individually chose to be a part of the problem or a part of the solution. If we choose to be a part of the solution, then we as MOS participants need to re-examine our past conduct, recommit ourselves to the Civility pillar, and find new and better ways to handle MOS changes, discussion and disputes.

If you would like to do so, I would be happy to continue this discussion on your talk page. You no doubt will be surprised to discover that we agree on far, far more than we disagree. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional questions from User:Neotarf

12. Should an admin be able to identify a WP:3RR violation? I see here you reported two editors for a violation but the result was "no violation".[3]

A. Yes, an administrator should be able to count to four, and then determine if the requisite number of reverts occurred within a 24-hour period. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

13. Should someone who is reported for a violation be notified? I see here you failed to notify the parties you were reporting.

A. Yes, someone who is reported for a 3RR violation must be notified, and I failed to do that. Notwithstanding my failure to place the mandatory notice templates on their talk pages, both were warned beforehand with talk page messages that they were engaged in edit-war behavior. Both subsequently responded on my talk page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Supplementary from Tony1.

14. Dirtlawyer, thanks for your response. It's proper to keep the thread here rather than to sequester it on a personal talk page, since it goes to the heart of your application for adminship. I suspect we'd find a great deal in common, and perhaps we'll meet some day at a wiki event. But right now, I'm concerned that you might abuse WP:INVOLVED, a matter that is a prime cause of community resentment of admins. I don't believe that my interpretation of the policy is "overly expansive"; so let's look at the opening (my highlighting): "In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute."

Your answer shows rather that your interpretation of discretionary sanctions may be on the expansive side: "any uninvolved admin may take action against any MOS participant". Let's apply our legal knowledge to the DS policy, noting the caveats; it's not as simple as you appear to convey here, especially for editors who might be misled by one who is supposed to be setting an example.

You wrote: "nor was my response "personalized" within my understanding of that word" ... There, I was concerned at your statement that the style guide is in need of "adult supervision", which seems derisory and belittling of editors who contribute to it. Are you aware of the admin conduct policy ("Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.")? BTW, I have noted as a matter of public information at the main style guide talk page that MOS-related issues have been raised here.

A supplementary response to these questions would be appreciated. Thanks. Tony (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from TCO

15. One of the things I value is people who put honesty above ideology. Like the ACLU defending the KKK. Could you please give some examples of where you have tried to correct content or behavior problems from people on "your side" or protected good behavior or content from people on "the opposite side"? (not mean to be a trick question.)

A: Thank you for your question and your support, TCO. I think one of the most important qualities any good editor should have is a desire to adhere scrupulously to the letter and spirit of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a political editorial, gossip column, newspaper, police wrap sheet, sports fanblog, or any other form of publication or writing that engages in independent editorial comment. Most of my writing for Wikipedia is related to college sports, Olympic swimming, professional football and baseball, and select university topics. Yes, I am a fan of certain sports teams, and I am also an alumnus of four different universities (three American, one British), but I believe that I am scrupulously neutral in my editing of articles related to my favorite teams and my alma maters, and I apply the same standard to other sports teams and universities which are considered their "rivals." I am just as likely to be found deleting vandalism, unsourced statements or NPOV violations from articles about rival athletes, sports teams and universities as I am from articles about those subjects with which I have a personal affiliation or affinity. My editing interests have expanded far beyond my original University of Florida-centric watchlist, and I think of myself as an NPOV watchdog, regardless of whether the subject is a former University of Georgia athlete now playing in the NFL, an Olympic swimmer from the University of Texas, a former Heisman Trophy winner from the University of Florida. A review of my edit summaries will also reveal my deep and abiding interests in addressing WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS issues across the full range of articles I edit and the 3,000+ articles I maintain on three separate watch lists. So, in short, when I'm editing articles, I don't think in terms of "sides"; I try to maintain the discipline of thinking about writing a biography or history article in the most accurate, unbiased, and well-sourced way I can. In response to your request, I will search for several examples (diffs) this evening and post them immediately below. And thank you for your patience in waiting for this response; it has been an interesting day. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Leaky

16. This also relates to WP:INVOLVED. In an escalated dispute (ANI, Arbcom, AE) it might be desirable in order to advance a case to examine deleted material (copyvio). Would an Admin. involved as an editor in the case as a proponent of one side of the dispute, be entitled to use their Admin. advanced rights to dredge for evidence that could advance their case in the dispute?

A: Leaky, I can only surmise that you have Carrite's recent RfA in mind when you ask this question. I think the question should not be whether an administrator should be prohibited from using such information in the case, but whether we should ensure that both sides to the case have access to that information. I'm a lawyer, and the process of "discovery," or the required disclosure of evidence, is fundamental to Anglo-American legal proceedings. The fundamental idea is that both sides to a dispute should have a full understanding of the underlying facts and circumstances; there should be no hidden evidence, no surprises. To my way of thinking, it would be far better to ensure that both sides have access to the information if it is potentially determinative of the case, rather than denying it to either side. If there is some form of information that can only be obtained through the use of admin tools, then the logical course would be to appoint or seek volunteer administrators to assist both sides in the collection of that information. In fairness to both sides, and in the interests of reaching a correct outcome, pertinent information should not be withheld. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No disrespect intended here, your answer is comprehensive and I, for one, do not disagree. However, this is en-Wiki not a court room or chambers ;). In reference to my original question, and considering available policy, would an Admin. involved as an editor in the case as a proponent of one side of the dispute, be entitled to use their Admin. advanced rights to dredge for evidence that could advance their case in the dispute?

Leaky, I appreciate your respectful tone and your desire for a direct answer, but I cannot agree with the premise of your question. I believe it presents a false choice. The solution is to provide access to that information to both sides, not to deny it to one side because he is an administrator. Of course, there is a significant element of unfairness if one side to a dispute has access to information that the other does not, and I know of nothing in policy that would prohibit an administrator from volunteering to assist one side in the collection of information. In the spirit of "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" and IAR, I see no reason why Arbcom could not sanction such a creative remedy. More information is almost always better, and the review of such information should not be limited to members of Arbcom, especially if that information is pertinent to the determination of the case. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I was attempting to establish your comfort zone, using a contemporary case, in dealing with situations which you might be presented with as an Admin. Admins cross the line, would you be able to admonish, policy can be ambiguous, which side do you come down on? The specific question is not a trip you up question. It can be answered yes or no and policy is available to lean on. While your yes or no would not necessarily meet with general agreement, you would at least be offering your assessment. I expect that from any Admin., otherwise you are being evasive, surely? Leaky Caldron 19:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The question of how to proceed in this case is so unclear, and opinion so strongly divided, that I think making the response to it is not really a good test of how and admin would respond to the ordinary matters they deal with. Almost any response would get strong disagreement. What this question is really a test of, is how the new arb com will perform; Id regard it as a fair qy for a candidate for arb., not admin DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED and WP:TOOLMISUSE are Admin. matters. Reluctance to offer an opinion in a worked example where many others (including a member of Arbcom) have expressed a view is unduly cagey. Leaky Caldron 17:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Question from Baseball Bugs

17. Have you ever edit-warred over Manual-of-Style matters? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Dirtlawyer1: Dirtlawyer1 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Dirtlawyer1 can be found here.
• Comment on Neotarf's Q12 and 13 - an admin should know that's the EDIT WARRING noticeboard, not just the Three-Revert Rule noticeboard, so Kuru shouldn't have declared no vio on those grounds. And unless you can show a pattern of refusing to notify, forgetting once isn't an issue. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. The specific complaint, as explicitly claimed, was 3RR by the "collective" actions of two editors, one of which had a grand total of one edit to that page in the last year. If there's a specific complaint with a long term pattern, then the reporter is free to make a logical argument, but but blocking Tony1 for one edit seems to be quite the logical stretch of our deliberately vague edit warring policy. Kuru (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

@Sarek, if you are looking for a pattern of not notifying editors of grievances filed against them, look no further than Dirt lawyer's latest ANI complaint. —Neotarf (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

There is an statement by Dirtlawyer in this section below at 02:05, 11 February 2013.—Bagumba (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• I will not restore the comments that were removed by SarekOfVulcan here without a consensus to do so, however I have started a discussion regarding the ARBATC sanctions on the talk page. —Neotarf (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• The candidate has filed an Ani report regarding WP:CANVASS about 27 hours prior to the scheduled Rfa closure. Jusdafax 22:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • And once again did not notify the editors he filed the complaint against. —Neotarf (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    • The ANI report was not a "grievance"; it was a simple request to remove obvious WP:CANVASSING. No other editors were mentioned by name, and no action was sought against any editor. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Two editors were mentioned, albeit not by name, and their conduct was criticised as canvassing. I agree with that, but they should have been notified. Actually, the candidate did notify Tony 1 [4], but removed the notice a minute later [5]. Puzzling. --Stfg (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• I note this comment today by the candidate. Perhaps it would be preferable to refrain from going around casting aspersions on people who raise questions at this RFA? Tony (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

To me, this comment by the candidate shows an obsession with entrenched battleground mentality and "winning" the adminship. Jusdafax 09:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how appropriate it is to send 17 !vote supporters a thank you message while the RfA still has a day to run. Gratitude is usually, if at all, expressed after the RfA outcome and can be sent to all contributors in the RfA, not just a selected section of supporters. This is an unusual step and could be construed as an attempt to secure votes in the face of an apparent swing against the candidate. At best I think it is inadvisable. Leaky Caldron 10:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• How does sending a 'thank you' message to people who have already !voted 'support' constitute an attempt to gain further support? Whatever happened to AGF? NB - I received one of these messages. GiantSnowman 10:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe re-read what I said before jumping down my throat. I didn't suggest it was an attempt to swing. There is a swing against following some issues over the last 36 hours. It could be construed I said as an attempt to secure votes (already made). People change their mind don't you know? It is unorthodox behaviour by any standard, although it may happen on IRC. AGF is fine, so is bringing to attention peculiar behaviour in as neutral a fashion as possible. Leaky Caldron 10:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• GS, in my oppose a few days ago I asked early !voters to reconsider their support !votes, due to what has become a lot of new information about the candidate. And LC is spot on; in over 4 years of fairly close monitoring of Rfa's I have never seen anything like this contacting of supporters well before the Rfa close. LC calls it unusual: I would call it unique. Good faith can only be stretched so far, and here we have, counted together, what I term tactics of desperation in the face of a momentum shift. Jusdafax 10:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've re-worded - how does these messages mean that DL is trying to gain more support? GiantSnowman 10:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• He may not be trying to do that, but talk pages have watchers. Some of those that received these thanks will have very many. --Stfg (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)You must be having an off day, GS. It is nothing to do with attempting to gain more support. It could be seen as an attempt to influence waivering supporters to stay with their original !vote in view of new concerns being raised fairly late in the day and the percentage being marginal. Leaky Caldron 10:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Same difference. GiantSnowman 10:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• GS, you have a 122 page watchers [6] - 122 editors who may or may not have known about the RfA and the "going south" comment is open to interpretation. I haven't seen anything like this either, but noticed it yesterday. It's worrying. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• I hadn't thought of it that way, but O29 appears to provide an example of subtle canvassing via another user's TP [7]. " Unfortunately, other than you, none of the "collegial" MOS editors have turned up" Well, I suppose they might if they see that message on their watchlist. Leaky Caldron 17:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment The discussion on this page (and on its talk page, and on related ANI and various argumentative spin-offs, etc. etc) demonstrates exactly what Wikipedia has devolved into. What accomplished editor in his/her right mind would want to help out this project by becoming an admin? If you've done a lot of content work or, even worse, participated in any discussions at conflict-strangled areas like MOS or free/non-free image pages, you will have probably ruffled some feathers among the procedurally obsessed. And then, even when it's a perfectly competent and capable person like Dirtlawyer1 who finally gets a long-deserved admin nomination, those old grievances will resurface as old opponents make as much noise as possible, pushing rfa rules and guidelines to the limit in an attempt to squash the candidacy. When retribution for long-ago petty disputes trumps the mission of the project (you know, actually writing an encyclopedia), then we have a problem. It's almost enough to make an editor become semi-retired. --Zeng8r (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

We have more than enough editors who are obsessed with manual of style, and probably some admins as well. The MOS means nothing to the wikipedia readers - it's entirely an internal conflict. And we don't need an admin whose focus is going to be an area of perpetual conflict. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

• Stats posted on talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support In my opinion, Dirtlawyer1 is very qualified to serve his fellow Wikipedians as an administrator. To start with, he has the experience necessary. He has done quite a bit of work on articles related to the University of Florida, getting four promoted to GA status. I've personally seen Dirtlawyer1 around at AfD and his !vote will match the consensus the vast majority of the time. Dirtlawyer1 is not a controversial editor and he would be a net benefit to the community as an admin. In short, I trust him with the tools. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
2. Support without reservation - I've long admired Dirtlawyer and have been looking forward to the day he ran for adminship for some time. His tact, knowledge of policies, and helpfulness more than qualify him for administrator tools. I think he will clearly be a net positive closing AFDs, protecting sports articles, and whatever else he may decide to do. Go Phightins! 01:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
3. Support without reservation Dirtlawyer and I have collaborated a great deal over the past three years within the realm of WikiProject College football and related projects. He has been a great resource, sounding board, and partner in establishing and modifying a great number of standards for policy and formatting in the college sports world on Wikipedia. I regard him as something of an adviser as his pragmatism and diplomacy have offered valuable counterpoints to my at times brash idealism. His discussion comments are consistently well thought-out, well stated, and comprehensive yet succinct. He will serve well as an administrator. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
4. Support as nominator. Secret ^account 03:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
5. Support: Good move pbp 03:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Great candidate, glad to support. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
7. Support This editor appears to be trustworthy and will obviously be a net positive to the encyclopedia. I admire their work in the areas of articles for deletion, vandalism cleanup, page protection and content work at the English Wikipedia. They appear to discuss matters often in an always civil manner as well, so I certainly trust him. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 03:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
8. Support on the basis of his excellent AfD contributions, and especially his Redirect that dealt with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Florida Career Resource Center. It shows the right approach to AfD. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
9. Support Have seen this editor's work at AfD before, and have been impressed. Now I've looked at some of his content work, and have been, again, impressed. --j⚛e decker^talk 03:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
10. Support Everything seems good, and the recommendations by those familiar with his AFD work resolve any issues that might have arisen because of my unfamiliarity with his AFD work. Nyttend (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
11. Support I like the candidate's honest, modest and thoughtful answers to questions. I also like their content and AfD contributions. Good luck lawyer. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
12. Support - Everything looks good to me. Good contributions and good work at AFD. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
13. Dirtlawyer1 has all the experience needed to be an administrator, and I don't see him doing anything crazy with the added toolset. I think he'll be a great asset over at AFD and anywhere else he wants to chip in. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
14. Support - The more I look at this editor's contributions, the more I want to support. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
15. Support Intelligent; clearly expressed; cool. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

    Support - Seems to be an eminently reasonable editor. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC) (Moving to oppose. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC))

16. Support - no concerns. Stalwart111 11:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
17. support. A constructive editor who would benefit from administrative tools. Sometimes he gives wake-up calls to dopey editors, which helps turn time-wasting discussions into consensus. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
18. Support - great candiate for admin. No concerns at all. Torreslfchero (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
19. Support - filelakeshoe 14:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
20. Support per the nom and many others who have already voted and whom I trust the judgement of. A cursory look at contribs shows good judgement and plenty of experience. I'm sure they will put the tools to good use. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
21. LlamaAl (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

    (Moved to oppose. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)) Support. This is a very easy decision for me, and I support with particularly high enthusiasm. I've crossed paths several times with Dirtlawyer1, and I've always been impressed with his astuteness in sizing up a complex situation, coupled with a civil and collaborative approach to interacting with others. Although I've seen in this RfA some editors, and the candidate, mention long-past conflicts, what I've seen recently has been nothing even remotely like that. This is an ideal person to be an administrator. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

22. Support Experienced Editor and good content creator has been editing regularly since July 2009 with 54K edits of which 88% 48K edits go to Article Space.He has created over 98 articles. Fully trust DGG's opinion of his excellent AfD contributions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
23. Support Why not when user has good contributions.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 16:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
24. Support - I remember working with Dirtlawyer1 on some MOS issues regarding sports seasons, he left a good impression. GiantSnowman 17:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
25. Support. I have had excellent interactions with the candidate where I found he was eminently clueful. No concerns, even after reading the neutrals below. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
26. Support I see no reason why I shouldn't. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
27. Support Great candidate. --Carioca (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
28. Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
29. Support Seems like a net positive, and I trust that any tendencies toward over-legalism will be held in check. Miniapolis 20:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
30. Support Review of contributions shows nothing odd. The interactions in the first oppose actually seem very professional. I don't interpret the text of the message as a threat; simply that there would be many concerned editors when a high interest template is modified, which seems to be true. As noted, seems like a net positive. Kuru (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
31. Support Solid, trustworthy user. Would be a benefit to the encyclopedia. Spencer^T♦C 21:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
32. Support - Good candidate. Mlpearc (powwow) 23:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
33. Support - Have had the pleasure of working with Dirtlawyer1 as part of the WP:CFB and is a fantastic candidate for an admin. Patriarca12 (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
34. Support I'm familiar with his work, and I think he has a good head on his shoulders. In truth, I see a lot to like in those template discussions mentioned below. He is forceful and passionate, but never uncivil. Plus, he knows that "free agent" is not a proper noun! I thought that was a losing battle on Wikipedia. :) Zagalejo^^^ 02:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
35. Stephen 03:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
36. Support My fellow Wikipedians sing your praises, therefor it is imperative that I support this Dirtlawyer! — - dain- talk    04:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
37. Support - One of those cases in which I'm not entirely sure why tools are needed, but beaucoup contributions to mainspace, sufficient tenure, and a clean block log, so this is a NOBIGDEAL situation, I reckon. Carrite (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
38. Support. Highly experienced, clueful user with a very strong background at AfD. Clearly a disproportionately net positive. Swarm ^X 06:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
39. Support I like his measured responses - give him a mop! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 09:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
40. Support - AfD track record looks fine, a random sampling of their edit history looks fine (if a bit of a habit of making unnecessarily long "see also" sections, but we all have our vices), opposes don't strike me as significant enough concerns to not support. WilyD 10:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
41. Support; my only objection to this is that I didn't nominate ;p. I've known Dirtlawyer for years, and see him go from strength to strength - of all the non-admins I know, there are none I'd rather see get the tools. Ironholds (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
42. Support No concerns Jebus989^✰ 14:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
43. Support, as above. Érico Wouters ^msg 18:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
44. Support - I like what I see, and I don't anticipate any issues. Good addition. Shadowjams (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
45. Support - I have worked with Dirtlawyer extensively on matters relating to American football. He is level-headed, smart and a good peacemaker when disputes have arisen. He has the temperament and Wikipedia knowledge to be a fine administrator. Cbl62 (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
46. Wizardman 22:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
47. Support no concerns. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
48. Support: I think I have seen you around a few times. I don't see any reason to not support. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 02:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
49. Support - Based on review of work and having no real issues of concern. Kierzek (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
50. Support. Can't see any reason to !vote otherwise, since we are talking about an excellent contributor to the project and adminship is NOBIGDEAL. — sparklism ^hey! 13:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
51. Support I have had extensive interaction with him on sports related work. He is quite logical and would be a fine admin.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
52. Support I don't remember any problematic interactions in the past, and answers to first few questions (other than 6) appear clueful. (6 omitted because I'm too close to the subject to weigh it objectively) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

    (moved to oppose)Support Haven't come across the candidate before but the good responses to questions makes me think this will work out well for us. I actually liked the response to q6, more for the thinking that has gone into it than for the specifics (but the latter is always less important anyway). --regentspark (comment) 19:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

53. Support - I was just wondering why Dirtlawyer1 had not yet submitted to RfA. In our interactions, he has shown diligence in his approach to the application of Wikipedia's policies and a willingness to ask for assistance when needed. I have no doubts that he will have a positive impact on the project if granted the admin tools. --auburnpilot talk 19:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
54. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
55. Support per my RfA Standards. Mkdw^talk 22:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
56. No concerns Inka⁸⁸⁸ 22:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
57. Support. Would be even more enthusiastic if his name were "copyviolawyer", as I expect we will not run into too many real estate law issues. But we take what good assistance we can get. Looks like a good add.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
58. Support - Does not appear problematic, and has also been a great user over at WikiProject NFL. ZappaOMati 23:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
59. Support With all due respect to opposers, Dirtlawyer1's response to my questions No. 8 & 9 make it clear to me that he is not looking to use his admin position to apply personal bias in reading consensus. Nobody is perfect, but his willingness to communicate based on my past interactions with him will be invaluable in those rare hiccups. Use the opposes as points for improvement; the list of haters can only grow as an admin, warranted or not :-) —Bagumba (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

    Ooh, list of haters; do we keep statistics on that?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

60. Support - The candidate has the requisite experience and has provided thoughtful answers to the questions. He certainly seems like someone we can trust to wield the mop with due care. - MrX 03:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
61. Support. Trusted and experienced editor. INeverCry 04:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
62. Suppport. Long-term editor with solid content contributions & strong answers to questions. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
63. Support. Excellent candidate and should do quite well as an admin. I did particularly enjoy his response to my question. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
64. Support. Good contributions and good answers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
65. Seems trustworthy; good answers overall. KillerChihuahua 17:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
66. Support —stay (sic)! 19:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

    Support, ignoring Q6 entirely. Q6 is a policy proposal, not a statement of what the user would do under the current policies. That entire question wasn't really appropriate for an RfA to start with. Proposals for fixing policy problems have nothing to do with an RfA. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 07:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

    1. Follow-up comment: The second and third paragraphs of Q3 strike me as being right on point both in substance and approach. And appropriate for an RfA because they demonstrate the approach to conflict. If Q6 had been about how to approach a future MoS conflict, it would have been appropriate; since it solicited a policy proposal, it wasn't. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 07:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

    Q6 is a question, not a policy proposal, and it did not solicit a policy proposal or any specific type of answer. The candidate is free to choose whether he replies in the context of current or future issues at MOS, or both. The answer he chose to give is his, not mine. --Stfg (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC) -- expanded --Stfg (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

    While I suppose one could have answered "How do you envisage that coming about?" with "Get the community to make a decision", it sounded to me like you were asking for a particular proposal. Regardless, the details of the proposal that he did give are irrelevant to his adminship as I see it. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 12:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

    Thanks for responding to my request for a response, btw. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 17:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

67. Support trusted user Mediran (t • c) 07:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
68. Support His feistiness seems well-tempered by consideration. Warden (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
69. Liked the comments about MOS talk. That place is really one of the more iconic examples of the Wiki tendancy to emphasize edit wars over trivia versus real content creation. And to want to fight for control. P.s. I like Grammar girl better--she hawt and helpful.TCO (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
70. Support In our many interactions over the years, I have found Dirtlawyer to be consistently reasonable, intelligent, and honest, with much respect shown to Wikipedia's procedures and guidelines. Most importantly, he has always demonstrated a unwavering dedication to the project's main goal: creating well-sourced, quality content by starting or improving MANY articles, templates, infoboxes, and anything else that will help get info across to wiki-readers. Because he is willing to defend his understanding of wiki-guidelines, apparently Dirtlawyer has unwittingly made some enemies among editors who came up on the losing end of various debates. Many of these folks can be found n the "oppose" section below. However, I'd much rather that Wikipedia appoint administrators who have been prolific contributors to articles and have extensive experience in procedural discussions than users who have semi-anonymously slid along without making any waves. Zeng8r (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
71. Support Criteria satisfied, in my opinion. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
72. Support, great editor. →Bmusician 09:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
73. Support per nom.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 13:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
74. Support. Can be trusted with the tools. Nsk92 (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
75. Support I looked through some of the cherry picked links in the oppose section, and didn't see anything worth justifying an oppose. Editor has made a tremendous amounts of edits to Wikipedia, so seems well dedicated to the project. Dream Focus 14:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
76. I've looked this user over and would have to say Support. --Yrtneg 17:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
77. Support - At this point I really don't care what goes on at the Manual of Style. I really don't. Beyond that the candidate looks fine. I'm not too worried about the low number of wp:talkspace edits. (I have a grand total of 50.) AlexiusHoratius 20:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

    Thank you for your kind comment, Alexius. One of the comments below may have left you and others with an inaccurate impression regarding my participation in project pages and other discussion spaces; I have 519 edits to Wikipedia Talk pages; 709 edits to Wikipedia project pages; 1,232 edits to user talk pages; and 1,517 edits to article talk pages. The percentages are small, however, because I have a relatively high number of article and template edits. Please see here. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

    You're right that numbers vs. percentages can be viewed in different ways. I probably should have said "low percentage" instead. Either way, you have more experience, if editors want to count it this way, than I did before my RfA. AlexiusHoratius 23:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

78. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
79. Support strong user in content creation and expansion, good experience in admin-related areas. --Mark91it's my world 23:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
80. Support he seems like he will do well as an admin. Greengreengreenred 01:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
81. Support I'm especially interested in this MoS plan. There is too much cliquishness there now. Too much of the MoS is there because of the personal preferences of a small group of editors, sometimes in direct contradiction with established sources on correct English practice. Some discussions are civil, but things can get ugly. DirtL's plan might be another failure, but it sounds worth a try. I can see why the term "adult supervision" offended Tony1, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
82. Support Dirtlawyer is a personal friend of mine, but taking that away from consideration, he is fully qualified for the duties of adminship. He's highly intelligent with regards to policy involving Wikipedia, has a cool head when interacting with others, and always willing to help others. When I have any questions or concerns, I feel confident going to Dirtlawyer for answers and solutions. Philipmj24 (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
83. Support...its highly doubtful they are going to misuse the tools or position. (Switched from neutral)...--MONGO 15:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
84. As long as he calms himself down a bit and does this more by-the-book when he has the mop, I think he could do a pretty good job with it. — foxj 15:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
85. Support Seems qualified, and I've had no interaction with him to my recollection. Have carefully read the opposes, and I do not find them convincing. I'm not saying they are totally out of line, but I don't see anything to cause me to withhold my support. We need more lawyer admins anyway. :)--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
86. Support I find the opposes not sufficiently weighty to withhold my support, although the candidate may need to grow a thicker skin over being attacked. A lot of the time, the best thing to do with certain types of criticism is not to respond, especially in an RfA setting. Nobody likes the person who absolutely has to have the last word in a discussion. Ray^Talk 19:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
87. Support I wasn't really planning on saying anything here, but I think Dirtlawyer1 will make a fine admin and I don't want to see his RfA torpedoed. It's just a few extra tools, and I see no evidence he'll have any trouble staying within his limitations. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
88. Support. Generally, the opposers are saying unsuitable, not incompetent, (ad hom anyone?). He has skills, and this RfA is a big wakeup call for him. And, ok, if he turns out to be a rebel, then we just deal with it as we have in the past. No big deal. Come to think of it, someone once famously said adminship is no big deal. Moriori (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
89. Support Dirtlawyer1 is an excellent editor, and I appreciate his willingness to give well reasoned answers to explain his decision making process. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
90. Strong Support To be honest, this user is really respected and has no problems. Cmach7 (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
91. Support Dirtlawyer1 and I have worked together on various articles in the past and I have also observed his wide array of contributions to Wikipedia. He has made countless improvements to articles related to the Florida Gators. From my experience he always edits with the utmost professionalism. Whenever I want to see how something should be done the right way, I look to Dirtlawyer1. I would absolutely trust him to be an admin. ~ Richmond96 T • C 00:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
92. Support I respect this editor's level-headed responses to the questions and I don't think this user would abuse the tools. - ʈucoxn\^talk 01:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. regretfully oppose, my interactions with this editor have not been pleasant (in particular the continued filibuster surrounding the Infobox NFL coach merger). Frietjes (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

   I couldn't find anything by either you or the candidate at the link you gave, but I found Template talk:Infobox NFL player#Recent edits, stats alignment and subsequent discussions on that talk page. Sorry, but I'm not seeing anything unpleasant there. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

   it's all over the place. shortly after the TfD closed, he promised a riot on my talk page and several others. the merger was halted, and the discussion continued here. this discussion concluded with what I thought was a process for merging the two templates. however, when I attempted to start the merger again, the filibusterer continued. overall, I found the entire experience unpleasant, and I find I have to ask his permission before editing anything with which he is involved. I don't plan to touch the NFL coach/NFL player infobox merger for another three months because of this. Frietjes (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

   Why are these discussions fragmented across various places, rather than being limited to the following more appropriate avenues?

   1. TfD
   2. Template talk page
   3. WikiProject talk page

   It doesn't seem to be helpful for unfamiliar editors to navigate. -- Trevj (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

   Gentlemen, some explanation of this situation is necessary. In the underlying TfD, the nominator failed to notify the template creator as required by standard TfD procedures, and also failed to notify the most recent major contributors as well as the Wikiporject that is the only user of the template (over 12,000 transclusions). Nor was a TfD merge template placed on the target template. I was not aware of the TfD until after the "merge" closing; I immediately objected to the closing, based on the procedural failings of the nominator, multiple times over a period of several days, on the closing administrator's talk page. The closing administrator never did respond substantively to my objections. With the consent of both the closing administrator and Frietjes, the discussion then moved to the talk page of Wikiproject NFL, the only user of the template. There, I laid out my objection to having a "pig in a poke" forced on the NFL project by non-project editors, without their prior review and consent; Frietjes committed to preparing a mock-up of the merged template in his sandbox, so that NFL project editors could review and comment on the mockup of the merged template. To date, the commitment to prepare a mock-up of the merged template remains unfulfilled.

   I regret that Frietjes recalls this matter as an "unpleasant experience"; I have found him to be a very knowledgeable template coder, if somewhat terse in his communications. My personal recollection is that a TfD nominator failed to properly notify the concerned parties or place the required notice template on the target template for the merge, the TfD was improperly opened and closed as a result of those failures of notice, and the closing admin failed to address in any substantive way those failures and ignored my repeated request to invalidate or reopen the TfD. Subsequently, Frietjes did not prepare the mock-up for review that he previously said he would on the WP:NFL talk page. I am away from my normal computer until this evening, but I will provide diffs to support each of the elements of this history. In my own defense, I'm not sure how any of this makes me the Bad Guy, how I was in any material way "unpleasant" to anyone concerned, or why the other parties continue to stonewall a situation that they could have already resolved on the basis previously agreed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

   Note: That was a couple of days ago. Not the issue I care most about, but others probably still await these diffs. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 16:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

   Note: I'm pretty sure that Frietjes has identified herself as female. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

2. Weak Oppose, per concerns regarding ownership of articles expressed by others during an edit war.[8][9] (I accept that this occurred almost one year ago, and may change this !vote if satisfied that I've misunderstood events and/or that such accusations have been rare and are related to uncharacteristic behaviour .) -- Trevj (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

   I'm going to further read around the MOS aspects relevant to this dispute... -- Trevj (talk) 06:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

   Removed "weak", per Beyond My Ken. The candidate clearly does great work around Wikipedia, but I'm no longer inclined to do any further research. Perhaps next time, if the issues raised have been substantially addressed. -- Trevj (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

3. Yeah, that encounter Frietjes describes rings true, as does the response. Too concerned that in the limited fields that Dirtlawyer1 describes himself as wanting to work in an admin capacity, it's going to be primarily to help out his affiliated WikiProjects, especially in terms of defending them from outsiders who might want to do things without begging permission first. There's plenty of support here from folk I pay attention to, but little that specifically addresses the potential problems. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

   I think that's a rather unfair characterization of the situation. If somebody's going to TfD a template that is used extensively by a single WikiProject, it's not unreasonable to say that said WikiProject should be notified. As far as I know, nobody is saying that "outsiders" must beg permission. I would suggest, however, that those outsiders should be willing to acknowledge that they are outsiders and could be willing to defer to the opinion of those who are more in the know. To oppose Dirtlaywer over this seems rather trivial. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

   I'm putting this comment here, but please understand it as a reply to pretty much everything above, rather than something directed specifically at Chris. I've tried to go through all of the links and diffs given. I'm not really seeing a "filibuster". I think the "promised riot" cited by Freitjes wasn't intended as a threat of what Dirtlawyer1 would do, but as a characterization of how project editors collectively would feel. But it's the kind of word choice that can easily be misread, and administrators need to be very careful about that, so please note that and learn from it. Per Chris' comment, I would suggest that Dirtlawyer1 take a strict view that WP:INVOLVED applies to any administrative action about US football pages, full stop. Continued work as an editor, fine, administrative actions, no. Please consider that suggestion. Beyond that, what I think I see is someone who tends to look out for content editors who work in a particular area of content, as opposed to editors who are more interested in technical details. Broadly speaking, that's a good thing in an administrator, because it puts the emphasis where it ought to be: on building the content that our readers will read. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

   No administrative action on an area that an admin has technical expertise is not the spirit of WP:INVOLVED. Protecting a page that is obvious vandalism or blocking a user that is blatantly edit warring can be done in many cases without a conflict of interest even if the admin is an expert on the subject. If there is a legitimate concern based on past experiences, I suggest a question be posed to Dirtlawyer above so that he may address it directly.—Bagumba (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

   Bagumba, you make a good point there. I really hadn't thought about admin actions that are routine and non-controversial, and you are right about that. My suggestion was in terms of the kinds of issues that are of concern to the editors who have opposed, to avoid what Chris characterized as "defending" certain content areas from editors with whom the admin disagrees. That, indeed, is in the spirit of INVOLVED. (And please remember, I'm supporting.) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

4. Oppose: Much as I agree that the atmosphere around MOS is awful, the response to Q6 is quite alarming: (a) "effectively suspending the BRD cycle for MOS changes" is not at all "consistent with what WP:CONSENSUS already suggests with regard to Wikipedia-wide policies and guidelines"; all WP:CONSENSUS says is that "Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of articles." (b) a pool of elected admins who "would be responsible for striking any incivilities, comments that personalize disputes, and, as a last resort, temporarily block anyone who transgresses a strict code of conduct" looks like a censorship arm to me; a civility police is the last thing we need; warning and even blocking for incivility is one thing, but deleting what was said is quite another. There is a flavour of a model of the admins supervising the rest of us in all this. I am also concerned by this item (mentioned by Mr Stradivarius below). Not being aware of the guideline is a small enough matter -- we all need to learn stuff -- but when an article is at AFD with its notability contested, to take material from it and place it elsewhere is to pre-empt the consensus. It is obvious that this is high-handed, and it shouldn't need any guideline to say so. (Most of that material had primary sources only, by the way, and the remainder is promotional). I am not convinced that the candidate understands the difference between administration and governanace, and that he would confine himself to the former. --Stfg (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

   P.S. On the plus side, I meant to say that I think the candidate was correct in his handling of the Infobox NFL coach merger and handled himself admirably in the face of the "filibusterer" ad hominem above. I agree with Tryptofish's comment beginning "I'm putting this comment here ..." --Stfg (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

   2nd P.S.: it should be pointed out that the above-mentioned material, which was pre-emptively transferred from an article whose notability was challenged to another article, related to the University of Florida, with which the candidate is closely associated, as is evident from his talk page and contributions. That makes it all the more unacceptable. --Stfg (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

   The AfD in question was closed as "Redirect", which the closing admin attributed to the candidate's bold merge. Can you elaborate on the problem, as it seems like a case of WP:PRESERVE to me? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

   At the time of the bold action, the AfD had two !votes to redirect, one of which was Dirtlawyer1's !vote, and three !votes (including the nominator's) to delete, one of which commented "Not even worth redirection". Dirtlawyer1's rendered the delete option unavailable, because of WP:RUD, so the redirect close was forced, regardless of consensus. If Dirtlawyer1 had no association with the subject, that could just be a mistake, but he does, and that reeks of COI. Note that the material itself, as added in this edit, consists of a descriptive paragraph sourced entirely to the ufl.edu site (with two of the three citations being to the subject's own web page), and a single sentence that gives (with a secondary source) the Princeton Review's ranking of the center in 2010 and 2011, i.e. out of date. I see nothing in WP:PRESERVE that justifies this material, and certainly not in such a way as to forestall the consensus of an AFD. Can you help me with that, Bagumba? --Stfg (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

   I see that the candidate gave full disclosure in the AfD that his merge was "in the spirit of BRD". Nobody reverted or objected for four days, and then the discussion was closed. The closing admin could have relisted or participated in the discussion, but saw fit to close as a redirect. This seems to be good faith edits to me. If there is dispute with the content still, it's never too late for anyone to revert.—Bagumba (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

   Thanks for helping to keep it in perspective, Bagumba. I think that what's directly relevant to this RfA is the action at the time it was taken, not how the other participants and the closer acted afterwards. There's no implication of bad faith, but I think it showed poor judgement to implement what was then the minority "merge" position rather than let things take their course, especially in an area of interest to the candidate. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

   Respectful response. Stfg, the University of Florida is clearly notable per the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG and the specific notability guidelines of WP:ORG. Within an article whose subject is determined to be notable, it is a fundamental guideline that it is not necessary to demonstrate the separate notability of individual subtopics within the article. Please see WP:NNC. There is no reason why the UF Career Resource Center should not be discussed in the main University of Florida article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

   ... and I haven't said there is. The time and place to make that argument would have been under a Merge !vote in the AFD. However, what is and what is not included in articles is subject to consensus based on the content policies, isn't it. The issue here is not whether the UFL article shoudld mention the CRC, but your pre-empting of the decision of the AFD. --Stfg (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

5. Oppose—Unless there's something I'm missing that would convince me that Dirtlawyer is not one of the most unsuitable candidates ever to seek adminship on en.WP. In-principle agreement with Thumperward's comments above. Concern that the implied claims that 15 years of legal practice is a benefit are not reflected by the legal thinking I've seen from the candidate when he's in disputes with other editors (I should find diffs, so disregard the last comment if you feel it's improper of me to make an unsupported comment ... I have little time at the moment). Tony (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

   I wouldn't say it's improper, but it would be useful if you supplied diffs, in case anyone would have their mind changed... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

   Is this anything to do with User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2012/July#3RR warning? (Sorry, I've still not checked out the MOS stuff referred to in my oppose above.) -- Trevj (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

6. Oppose: The editor's poorly disguised WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality about and insulting approach to his/her disagreements with other editors at WT:Manual of Style is completely inappropriate from any editor, much less a candidate for tools that can be used to protect pages from editing and block editors personally from editing. This editor has been heavily involved in disputation on MOS-related topics (which can be okay, within bounds), but is seeking administrative power for the specific intent (perhaps among other more legitimate intents) of shutting up opponents of his/her MOS views, in ways that thwart WP:CONSENSUS policy. Note the blatant but unsupported accusation of bad faith on the part of MOS "regulars", in Dirtlawyer1's second MOS-related rant in the questions section above, where he/she accuses other MOS editors of WP:OWN without evidence, in the same breath as criticizing them for what turned into WP:ARBATC, yet not realizing that casting such a vague and broad aspersion is itself a personalization of style disputes and thus a violation of the discretionary sanctions at ARBATC! This, from the candidate who wants tools to enforce ARBATC, and further fantasizes that MOS should have thought-policing by some new kind of "super-admin" called a "moderator", and that this would be an "adult" way to handle it, a suggestion that is alarming, absurd and grossly incivil. The candidate's response to the original question No. 3, his/her first rant above about MOS, makes it clear this editor does not understand WP:CONSENSUS properly, as that policy notes clearly that silence is generally taken to equate to assent and that language surviving for a protracted period of time is evidence of its consensus. It simply does not require that every single nit-picky detail at MOS or any other page be subject to some massive RfC process, or any other protracted, distracting procedure intended to make it seem terribly important. The majority of MOS predates the current fad of becoming an anti-MOS warrior, a disruptive pastime that has arisen mostly in the last couple of years. While consensus can change, one or a handful of editors failing to gain widespread traction about some pet peeve, does not make it change.

   MOS operates like all other pages anyone pays attention to here; it has a pool of editors, changing slowly over time, who care about it and who form the bulk of those one works with to establish a consensus to change something there. Attacking MOS for operating the way Wikipedia operates is senseless. Attacking MOS and all of it's non-drive-by editors, just because the candidate has had some disputes with particular editors on its talk page, is beyond senseless, and is just completely fallacious reasoning. Yes, it is hard to change things at MOS. This is a good thing, because what MOS says impacts millions of articles. This candidate came to MOS to change things, and now complains about an imagined lack of consensus for things he/she didn't get to change, yet goes on at length about how MOS supposedly needs a censor who ensures that everything in it has consensus and can't be changed without it. I can have nothing but a "What the hell...?" response to such a position, that is either a) that confused or (more likely) b) designed to mask the fact that the candidate has an MOS-changing agenda. It's all backasswards, and consensus is working fine at MOS, despite the fact that some parties there, "regular" and otherwise, get testy or insistent from time to time, including this candidate. Look, every single thing in MOS, like every single thing in every style guide ever written, has people that disagree with it. MOS could not function if everyone with a pet peeve got their way and was able to change whatever they didn't like at MOS without going through normal consensus processes. Basing one's campaign for adminship on an intent to do exactly that, to in suspend the normal operation of WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS at MOS (I couldn't make this up!), and to belittle, besmirch and punish debate opponents, after exhibiting a self-admitted pattern of vitriolic argumentation at MOS, strikes me as wikipolitical suicide. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 16:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

   PS: The candidate's own posts at WT:MOS, WT:MOSABBR, User talk:Dirtlawyer1 and archives thereof, etc., indicate a general pattern of "sport debate" or argument for argument's sake, a common habitual pitfall of attorneys in online communities, and one that greatly impedes collegiality; in an admin it is a very negative trait. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 16:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

   WP:TLDR, and I lost interest at the accusation that the candidate "is seeking administrative power for the specific intent (perhaps among other more legitimate intents) of shutting up opponents of his/her MOS views." I have not read that anywhere, and am satisfied with the responses to WP:INVOLVED that the draconian fears are unfounded.—Bagumba (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

   RFA does not need reports about your attention span, and others' votes at RFA do not need running commentary from you that reiterates what satisfies you and your concerns, without addressing the unsatisfied concerns that were raised by whomever you're pointlessly responding to. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 17:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

7. Oppose. Candidate can not identify WP:3RR violations, candidate does not notify parties he is reporting. [10]—Neotarf (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

   For a sampling of contentious MOS discussion, here is "Yes, my edit summary was intended to be sarcastic.", then the thread degenerates into unfortunate accusations of socking and more, in sections labeled "Accusation and response", "Misrepresentations and incivilities", and "Can we stop bickering and come to a consensus?" —Neotarf (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

   After discussing the importance of notifications above in this same Rfa, today the candidate has again filed a grievance against two editors and neglected to notify them. —Neotarf (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

8. Strong oppose. On answers to 4 & 6. "cast of MOS regular contributors...bla." Per SMcCandlish except for the "poorly disguised" bit. Its not disguised, its right there and ominous. I dont see a person willing to judge concensus, I see a person with his mind made up and asking for bits to enforce. This will end in tears. Ceoil (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
9. Whilst it's true that everybody will inevitably get caught up in a dispute in a long WP career, the true mark of character is not that they existed but how they are resolved. There's enough in the 'oppose' section above, particularly raised by Stfg to warrant me not wholeheartedly supporting the candidature. Also, Trevj provides some evidence that instances that same resolution may not have been the case. The candidate's admittedly "pie-in-the-sky, idealistic thoughts" about policing the MOS strike me as a bit authoritarian. Sure, I agree that civility and the MOS are both very important. The ideas may warrant a lot more discussion – not here nor within a cosy club of admins self-appointed to guardianship – but properly in the purview of Arbcom. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
10. Oppose – I believe SMcCandlish has described the problem well. To give admin powers to a user who has been anti-consensus and hard to reason with in disputes over the MOS is asking for increasing troubles there. In my own dealings with dirtlawyer, his lawyering was out of control, though it characterized it here amusingly as I am not engaged in "wikilawyering." I am simply pointing a procedural finger, pursuant to Wikipedia policy... We don't need more of that kind of pointing of procedural finger. Dicklyon (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
11. Oppose. I have chosen to leave Wikipedia because of abuse of process by three or four admins. I will only return for a full ArbCom case to resolve the serious issues arising.
    I note that Dirtlawyer's RFA commenced immediately after I announced my retirement. While the prospect of his success can have no effect on me, I owe it to the Project to oppose – and to draw attention to this editor's polemical attitude, refusal to retract misrepresentations, and careless approach to procedure in RFCs and the like.
    This matter at WT:MOS drew me out of a long wikibreak in 2010, when Dirtlawyer started an RFC that failed to meet the requirements for neutrality, among other shortcomings (see WP:RFC). What he suggested was eventually adopted, curiously, in the arduous 2011 consultation on dashes to resolve disputes over hyphens and dashes in article titles. (I drafted the draft that was adopted as consensual after consultation involving 60 editors, under ArbCom supervision.) The content is not at issue; the process is.
    This matter regarding WP:ABBR (see sections preceding that one also) shows his abusive style and lack of truthfulness concerning fellow editors with specialised professional knowledge that he obviously lacks.
    (Calm, please. ☺ I am not applying for adminship. He is.)
    There are other matters in which Dirtlawyer has conducted himself in the "righteous indignation" money-changers-in-the-temple mode. (See WT:MOSNUM for a recent case, where he plays quick and dirty with consensually established recommendations in MOS; and he took the result of that "discussion" and imposed it at WP:MOS also, at the heart of recommendations about slashes, hyphens, and dashes – a core concern of WP:MOS guidelines for high-quality style on the Project.) He shows no familiarity with the special relation that a manual of style has with its "reliable sources" (among which Strunk & White is not included, though from the evidence at his talkpage he treats that laughing-stock as gospel). Frankly, if Dirtlawyer becomes an admin I am even more pleased to be out of this game, devoting myself to other projects instead. I am equally confident that he is pleased that I will be out of his way.
    Let anyone here challenge what I say. I don't care, and I will not respond. ☺
    Noetica^Tea? 05:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
12. Oppose - A goodly number of the opposes above are convincing, and the diffs provide a picture that give me grave concerns regarding the temperament and motivation of this editor. Frankly, what I see is someone in love with battle for battle's sake, who is willing to ride over consensus and who is arrogant in their beliefs and comments. I do thank the candidate for time spent here, and from what I am reading above, this is not someone I trust with a lifetime appointment to use the admin tools. I go so far as to ask those in support who are reading these words to reconsider their !vote. Jusdafax 17:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

    Jusdafax, I respect your comment and your right to !vote as you choose. Yours is one the very rare "oppose" votes to which I will respond directly because it is clearly and openly based mostly on previous "oppose" comments, and because of your call for existing support !voters to reconsider their previous support. It would be a mistake for anyone to accept several of the over-the-top "oppose" comments at face value; unfortunately, I cannot respond personally to every comment lest I be seen as "badgering" those !voters or engaging in disputatious behavior. In direct response to your own comment above, however, let me say this: I am neither "willing to ride over consensus" nor "arrogant in [my] beliefs and comments." In my own defense, you are far more likely to discover many, many instances of me as an advocate, facilitator and upholder of established consensus. I have from time to time attempted to change consensus, and I have usually been successful in that regard. To characterize me as some sort of renegade hell-bent on "battle for battle's sake" is simply inaccurate and unfair. In my Wikipedia worldview, no change endures unless our fellow editors agree. Rather than relying heavily on previous comments, I respectfully ask that you take a few moments to review my contributions at AfD over the past two years, linked here for your convenience. If there is a pattern of arrogance and disregarding consensus, I would think one would find a pattern including multiple instances of such behaviors in one of my areas of most frequent Wikipedia contributions. I don't believe you will find such a pattern.

    Because of the obvious constraints on the candidate in responding to "oppose" votes, I will not respond or make any further statement under your comment. If, however, you would like some additional perspective that might cause you to reconsider your own position, I would be happy to respectfully engage you on one of our user talk pages. Thank you for your consideration. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

    @Jusdafax I respect your opinion, but I stand by my !vote. I think there is a difference between building consensus while selectively being being bold as an editor versus assessing consensus as an admin. MOS was obviously a hotbed, but I see more positives overall. Nobody is perfect, so we are all picking our poison when deciding on admins.—Bagumba (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

    "review my contributions at AfD". Right. A similar audit at MOS might be conducted. Ceoil (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

    Ceoil, here is the "audit" you requested immediately above regarding my participation in MOS talk page discussions:

    Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons – Dirtlawyer, among numerous other editors, is participating in several open-ended discussions regarding the overuse of flag icons in several specific subject areas, including sports articles. Threads run from December 24, 2012 through the current date.

    Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Comma after i.e., e.g. – Dirtlawyer, among several other editors, challenged the lack of consensus for a change made without prior talk page discussion or any discernible consensus. Unilateral changes were ultimately reverted in a manner consistent with the position advocated by Dirtlawyer. Thread runs from June 7 through December 28, 2012.

    Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 139#Sports seasons: 1967–68, not 1967/68 – Dirtlawyer, among several other editors, objected to a change that was made with no prior talk page discussion and with no prior discernible consensus that would have caused the renaming of over 10,000 sports articles. Discussion ultimately resulted in a new consensus to expressly recognize existing sports article practice as part of the MOS. Thread runs from October 29, 2012 through November 13, 2012.

    Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies/2011 archive#Use of German characters in English language articles – Dirtlawyer requested input regarding the use of German alphabet characters in English language articles. Single comment made on September 6, 2011.

    Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 119#Blank lines around headings – Dirtlawyer commented once. Thread runs from January 4 through January 10, 2011.

    Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 118#RfC: endashes and set-off spaces – Dirtlawyer, among several other editors, objected to the eccentric minority position of using an ndash set off with spaces when the juxtaposed phrases consisted of more than two words. Dirtlawyer, admittedly inexperienced in RFC procedures after a year on Wikipedia, voluntarily withdrew the RfC after procedural objections from Noetica. Subsequently submitted RfC ultimately later adopted the position advocated by Dirtlawyer. Admittedly, not my shining moment on the WP:MOS talk pages, but I will leave it for others to judge if my comments rise to the level incivility described by others. Thread runs from December 2 through December 10, 2010.

    Ceoil, I believe my participation in the preceding threads represents my total participation in MOS talk page discussion. If I missed anything, it was inadvertent, and I stand ready to be corrected. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

    Dirtlawyer1 Ive been been here for long enough now not to get sucked into that game. I'll assume you dont dont think so low of me that using the word "inadvertent" was a typo. Gloss is another word. Nice try though. You talking about yourself in the dispartial third person...lovely stuff. I salute you. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

13. Weak Oppose - mostly per concerns raised by Stfg and Chris Cunningham. Whole MOS affair and the way it has got drawn into this RFA is somewhat unsettling too. I probably would not have opposed over any single one of these, but all together it is a bit worrying to me.--Staberinde (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

    Trying to solve potential canvassing issue quietly "in a manner that does not attract further attention" through WP:PITCHFORKS feels like major failure of judgement [11].--Staberinde (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

14. Oppose. This was less than a year ago, and does not give me the impression of someone who I'd want wielding the block button. Black Kite (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
15. Oppose Per BK above. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
16. Oppose Unable to offer an opinion in a situation relating to a key judgement policy (Q16). The answer provided is fair enough, politically correct and in an ideal world would make the question irrelevant. Policy is not always clear, simple or fair to everyone and refusing to offer a direct view on a specific policy based question is simply not good enough. Leaky Caldron 19:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
17. Oppose per Stfg, Tony1, Noetica, and Leaky Cauldren. Moreover, a few other red flags here: 1., looking at the candidate's contribs shows a 88 percent of the edits are to mainspace - which quite honestly is a bit amazing. (I'd be happy to reach 62 percent.) However this is problematic because the candidate has less than 1 percent edits to WP talk space, barely above 1 percent to WP project space, and only 2.19 percent to user talk. All in all, as far as I'm concerned, these numbers show a lack of project engagement that I'd want to see in an administrator. Also, I'm not really impressed by some of the comments during the RfA, such as this asking Tony to reformat questions, and this on the talk. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

    When you have 54,000+ total edits, 1% of edits to Wikipedia talk space is still a lot of edits. Zagalejo^^^ 22:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

18. Oppose - Lacks the perspective needed by an admin, to determine what's important and what isn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

    If, as I assume, you mean the WP:ANI report he filed earlier today that you commented on, yeah... that approached bizarre. I also notice it was closed really quickly. At the rate he's getting opposes, this may have to be decided by a 'crat. Jusdafax 02:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

19. Oppose, concerns over temperament, per many of the diffs provided above. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
20. Regretful Oppose. Reading through some of the diffs in this oppose section give me pause in the "temperament", "battleground" and "ownership" areas. While Dirtlawyer appears to interact well with those who agree with him, his approach to those who disagree with him indicates (to me) a problematic future with the extra bits. While there are many I respect in the support section, I'm afraid I'm going to have to register my concerns here. But best of luck no matter how this concludes. — Ched :  ?  01:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

    attempting to restore Plasticspork's post that apparently I somehow deleted in my original "!vote". Apologies to all, not sure how I managed that, but this diff indicates that I did. — Ched :  ?  16:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

21. Oppose per Staberinde and Ched. Graham87 02:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
22. Oppose. The nominee's taking a canvassing complaint concerning this RfA to AN/I while in the midst of the ongoing discussion shows a lack of judgment that I do not care to see in an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
23. Oppose per many, many above. While I do see a strong knowledge of the project, I also see a terrible battleground mentality and a general temperament that I feel is incompatible with adminship. Trusilver 02:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

    Also... the WP:ANI thread strongly reinforces my feelings on this candidate. I don't have a very good opinion of editors who use WP:PITCHFORKS as a tool to win their battles to begin with, but to do it in this manner shows exceedingly poor judgment. Trusilver 03:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

24. Oppose per BlackKite, Ched and Beyond My Ken. Bidgee (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
25. Oppose I noticed this a couple of days ago and decided not to be negative because I thought the candidate's comments with the very unusual proposal about MOS were interesting and reasonable. However, the current commentary from the candidate regarding "canvassing" on the talk page of this RfA, and at WP:ANI#Procedural/canvassing issue in ongoing RfA, show a strongly inappropriate style for an admin. The encyclopedia needs TLC, not the combative approach shown concerning the very minor issue of whether a particular notification violated WP:CANVASS. Also, there is perhaps a lack of understanding about what ANI can/will achieve: what if it were agreed that canvassing had occurred? How does the candidate think that would assist? Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
26. Oppose Like Johnuniq I first came across this a few days and have been mulling it, but the last trip to ANI has pushed me over the edge. BlackKite makes a very good point, and some of the answers to questions also give me cause. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 04:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
27. I believe that your attitude, confrontational and wikilawyerish, makes you unsuitable to wield the mop. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
28. (moved from support) With regret. I did like your initial answers to the questions but, like johnuniq above, have concerns about your approach to this RfA which has been unnecessarily confrontational. Some degree of circumspection is important in an admin and you haven't shown that with the canvassing ANI report, the lengthy responses to opposes, Ceoil's comment about your style, and more. Any one would be concerning by itself but, taken together, it's not at all good. Add BlackKite's example and your response to leaky's question (I think you missed the point completely), and I must, in good conscience, oppose. --regentspark (comment) 13:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
29. Oppose. I couldn't care less about which side of the MOS wars a given person is on, but what I see in this RFA is an unpleasant tendency toward drama and trench-digging by not only some naysayers, but the candidate himself. A candidate can't control the people who don't like them, but I certainly expect them to comport themselves in a non-escalating, non-dramatic manner. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC) ETA clarification: To be more specific, I was willing to stay on the fence about whether to support, oppose, or not comment until I saw this (mentioned under Discussion above), which is apparently what Dirtlawyer felt he needed to do to respond to what he believed was people canvassing against him. Two wrongs don't make a right, and a candidate using judgment that poor isn't cancelled out just because he feels his opponents did something similar. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
30. I think it's too risky giving the block button to someone frequently involved in bitter disputes. Epbr123 (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
31. You seem to have a tendency to panic and make hasty decisions at the very times when you need to be calm and think things through patiently. —Soap— 17:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
32. Oppose I have some concerns with regard to whether the candidate has the necessary temperament to remain calm and neutral when taking the flak admins deal with on a regular basis. I also find the appearance of canvassing in Fluffernutter's oppose concerning. Not every good editor is meant to be an admin, and I believe that is the case here.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
33. Oppose My concern is mainly outlined by Epbr123, and fluffernutter brings up some good points regarding the candidate. John F. Lewis (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
34. Oppose - Per most of the opposes above. I actually had decided to be neutral on this one. I thought Dirtlawyer's votes at AfD, cited in the nomination, were quite sound, and showed common sense, and understanding of the guidelines. The early opposes (i.e. Frietjes) didn't concern me, apparently Dirtlawyer had some reason to re-open the "Case of the Infernal Infobox" (:D). At that time Dirtlawyer's score of support was 93%. And then it came to light that Dirtlawyer is a regular at MoS, haggling over punctuation in a not so nice manner. I still thaught, well, somebody has to tackle the backlog at AfD, and maybe the MoS issues have been settled in the meantime. But then we get during this RfA an accusation of improper canvassing, questions about whether "ARBATC sanctions apply to this RfA", and a run to ANI by the candidate himself. Holy smokes! Adminship is not about content, Dirtlawyer. No harm is done if an article on some non-notable subject lingers on for a few months more, awaiting discussion at AfD. Changing the policies and guideline at MoS is already more problematic. The other day I had a little dispute over a minor point of punctuation, and was corrected by another user who gave a link to the pertinent guideline. I thaaught this guy is nuts, but when I checked it out, I saw that the guideline had been reversed since I had last seen it, and acknowledged the current version. Imagine editors with a different mentality, they might get into each other hair, each one insisting he's right under the guidelines (these are not easy to find for less experienced editors). So, you see, reversing and re-reversing longstanding MoS guidelines increases the drama-rate exponentially. Anyway, as I said, adminship is not about content, it's about tone, style and behavior. At 93 % support, a level-headed admin candidate would just have let it roll. Even with improperly (? - open to debate) canvassed ten opposers, a serene candidate could have shown that he can keep drama at a reasonable level. But the run to ANI, but also a lack of comment like "please don't worry about canvassing, anybody could vote here, the more the better, so to get really balanced input" show that, for Dirtlayer, escalating drama is a legitimate proceeding to win a case, or make a point. That has been called "battleground" mentality, and is IMO an occupational hazard for lawyers, whose one and only aim is to win a court battle regardless of the merits of the case (for historical examples see Linda Fairstein and the Central Park Jogger case; or Earl Rogers and the Mootry case). However, here at Wikipedia, there actually are several guidelines, cited by the various opposers above, that ask editors to avoid such behavior. So, I'm really sorry to voice an opinion here. I suggest Dirtlawyer calm down a bit, and whether this RfA be successful or not, show in the future more patience, and the ability to look farther than the end of his own nose. Kraxler (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
35. The ANI post (WP:ANI#Procedural/canvassing issue in ongoing RfA) and the way this editor is talking about others ([12]) doesn't sit right. HaugenErik (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
36. Oppose. Moving from support because of some of the same concerns shared by others re: attitude and an apparent battlefield mentality. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
37. Oppose: Per Chris Cunningham and Ceoil and SMcCandlish. Kraxler also posted an excellent summary. The candidate does not seem to have the temperament to detach himself and behave impartially during debates. I am concerned that this characteristic is not something that can be easily changed or re-learned. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, and the candidate's past behaviour has not been of the kind I look for in admin candidates. -- Dianna (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
38. Oppose. Moving from neutral. The answer evasiveness in the answer to 16 doesn't look good to me. I also agree with a lot of Kraxler's concerns above. The canvasing issue and the ANI thread is troubling on all sides. I've seen other recent admin hopefuls throw curveballs in their RfA and handle them much more openly and less confrontationally. If handled differently I could have seen supporting this, but not now. PaleAqua (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
39. Moved from Support. This pretty much ruins my day; I feel awful about it. Frankly, I think that, in all of the garbage over MOS, ANI, and AE, there's a lot of blame to go around, and rather little of the blame belongs to Dirtlawyer1. But, within exactly the kind of drama in which an administrator must expect to find themself, Dirtlawyer1's choices made the drama worse. Basically, it comes down to what Soap said above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
40. A lot of little things, perhaps none of which individually would matter. I've had my eye on this RFA since pretty much the beginning, and I'm left with an unease about this candidate having the buttons; too much battlefield mentality, even while this RFA ran. Courcelles 21:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
41. Oppose. I've been torn on this one from pretty early, when I was very unimpressed by the comment "I believe that the MOS governance process is ripe for reform and is sorely in need of adult supervision" - that kind of condescension is a bad sign in an admin candidate. And since then, I've seen more and more of an entrenched battlefield approach with a determination to "win". So I'm sorry, but I really can't support. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
42. Oppose: As someone who rarely comments on RFAs, I came across the candidate's recent post on ANI about alleged canvassing. I think Courcelles and others nailed it: WP:BATTLEGROUND. Toddst1 (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
43. Oppose. The candidate has strong contributions. Q1-Q3 are good. Appropriate comments about being reserved and circumspect. It's clear that he can dissect and understand issues and that he understands what the bit is about. He's not afraid to engage in difficult argument. The candidate gives some welcome mea culpas about past conflict/behavior. Those are all strong reasons to grant the bit. However, Q6 has a chilling undertone. The rebuttal is good on an intellectual level, but I'm not persuaded the implications are wrong. Other events give further pause. I need to see evidence of moderation. Glrx (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
44. Weak oppose - I'm sorry, but too many issues with battleground behavior have been demonstrated. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
45. Oppose for unfortunate WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWN tendencies, coupled with RfA answers indicating WP:INVOLVED problems, largely in regards to MOS issues. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 01:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

# Of the professed reasons for needing the bit, my experience of Dirtlawyer1 has typically been when he and a bunch of other US college sports editors have turned up en masse at some XfD or other, and I've also been left with a bitter taste in my mouth regarding interactions where he exercised his considerable professional ability in a manner that we would rather not have it exercised. That said, much of this was over a year ago. But I haven't seen anything specifically to address my reservations. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Per Frietjes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

1. I have checked the candidate's deleted contributions, and I don't see anything out of place there. I have also looked through his comments at AfD, and I see impressively reasoned arguments and a good knowledge of our notability guidelines and precedents. However, I am worried that these two AfD comments[13][14] may indicate a less-than-full understanding of the guidelines on reusing deleted material, and that this might lead the candidate to making bad calls on AfD discussions with comments that call for "merge and delete". So I am reluctant to support at this time. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

   • Mr. Stradivarius, I have reviewed the policy and essay you linked above, and I do want to fully understand your concerns and, more specifically, what you want me to understand. Would it be possible to continue this discussion on one of our user talk pages so that we might have a fuller discussion? I do want to address your concerns, if possible. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

   (moved to oppose) Neutral, while I have a look and a think. -- Trevj (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

   Neutral for now. (Moved to support.) I really would like to see an answer to my question, even though I'm highly leaning towards supporting and doubt the answer could cause me to oppose. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

   Neutral (Moved to oppose.) leaning towards oppose. A little concerned about some of the interactions in the MOS area. But the comment I have no interest in being part of the "adult supervision" I mentioned above, nor in taking any admin action at MOS, and I will commit to not doing so. made in regards to Q11 mitigates some of my concerns. The issues implied by Q12 and Q13 also look like areas of concern for someone seeking to be an admin. Diffs like this one [15] also have me wondering a little. Yes the article was deleted, but consensus is not just straight vote arguments matter, and giving some of the comments made it seems to me that giving it the extra relisting was not a bad move. PaleAqua (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

   Neutral (moved to support) Talk about sitting on a fence. Do a couple (maybe more) MOS guidelines suffer from ownership issues...you can bet on it. But do they need "policing" or a "moderator"...no, not any more than the rest of the pedia overall.--MONGO 07:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

2. Neutral I have known Dirtlawyer1 for several years now since we both work so closely on American college sports' WikiProjects (he prefers football, I prefer basketball, but we still overlap quite a bit). He has always tried to help me whenever I leave questions at WT:CFB and his edit summaries are always crystal clear. Whenever he offers rationale at XfD, his arguments are always based on policy, not arbitrary opinion. The reason I'm neutral, however, is because I'm wary of the lawyering at which he is so adept. On numerous occasions I have seen rebuttals in XfD's or talk page discussions where it appears as though he thinks by adding longer responses and/or driving home more secondary points, the opposing viewpoint editors will either give up out of exhaustion trying to answer every detail he demands or become too confused by the long-winded responses to adequately rebut. For him as an admin, I just fear that too many discussions would be bogged down by expansive paragraphs of Wiki-jargon; 99.9% of us editors don't have juris doctors, so debating with Dirtlawyer1 already puts the rest of us behind the 8-ball to begin with. This neutral !vote isn't personal, obviously, but I cannot fully oppose nor fully support this RfA. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
3. Neutral - leaning towards oppose, but I don't very familiar with RfA's, so I'm not voting. I was made aware of this RfA as I'm one of those 122 watchers of User talk:GiantSnowman, and I'm a little worried that those "thank you" messages can be a clever way of canvassing to make more people who support him aware of this RfA (especially this). Mentoz86 (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2013 (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.