Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MSJapan

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

MSJapan

Voice your opinion (talk page) Final (9/9/5); originally scheduled to end 02:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn by candidate, non-crat closure. east.718 at 10:27, 10/27/2007

MSJapan (talk · contribs) - MSJapan is a long time editor who fully understands the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. He has edited in a wide range of articles and has contributed to multiple policy page discussions. He is active at AfD (with insightful comments whether nominating a page for deletion, or !voting to keep a page). He has also served as a clerk for the Checkuser page. I think he would make a fine admin. Blueboar 18:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination. MSJapan 02:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn MSJapan 07:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: There's always plenty of the usual work at the various XfD pages, and vandalism-related issues on AIV. I've also gotten a lot of help with issues through ANI in the past, so I think on principle I would contribute to discussions and resolutions there.

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

A: Well, when I first came to Wikipedia, it was to work on Freemasonry, which although it was a featured article, didn't really have anything that should have made it such. Soon after I came to WP, the article came under attack by Lightbringer, who became such a problem that he has his own LTA page. It took me 18 months to get him blocked and banned enough such that he could not edit those articles, going through AIV, ArbCom, RFCU, and so forth. The article is slowly getting better, but getting it to the point where it could be edited without being destroyed every five minutes was a feat I am proud of having accomplished (with help, of course). I don't really do a lot of article creation, but I try to get other editors working together to improve articles, and I do a lot of copyediting, sometimes on random articles. Considering that WP is meant to be a free reference, I think it's more important to improve the articles that we have than to make new ones.

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: Actually, I'm in one now, to a point; a cited factual statement on Masonic conspiracy theories is being reverted based on spurious reasoning. I explained the problem to the user, and he still persists in the deletion. I basically decided to step back and let someone else handle it after two reverts. Another recent issue was a "current events"-type section in 3 Doors Down; I rm'ed the section with reasoning, whereupon the other editor issued me a vandal warning. Again, discussion failed, so I got a third party to look at the problem, and then acted based on what he said. In general, I will revert once, and if the revert is undone, I'll try discussion with a revert, and if that fails, I go to article talk. The only time I avoid this rule is with obvious vandals, which is in a different category than editing problems. There's no point in getting into 3RR issues when there are other avenues available.

Optional questions

1. Lightbringer (as I was asked to elaborate)

Lightbringer, as far as I can tell, is also the webmaster of freemasonrywatch.com, a site which is basically dedicated to posting anything and everything negative to Freemasonry possible, with the caveat being that LB sees it as negative whether or not the article says anything negative. One of the items he tried to push repeatedly was that "Masons supported/were in league with Hitler and knew about his later actions because they sent him congratulatory letters in 1933" (when he was first elected Chancellor. Now, the problem with this is multifaceted: LB assumes historical transposition as valid ("we know now so they knew then"), and the other fact is that Hitler shut the Lodges down.

Lightbringer claimed a Grand Master was a member of the Nazi party without proof (and here I'd note Oskar Schindler was as well, because, well, no noe had much choice at times). There was a lot of statements by Lightbringer in the article that Masonry was Satanic, and so on and so forth. To avoid getting too wordy, WP:LB#Modus operandi has all the info (and I pointed it back to where it was supposed to go - somebody pointed it at a failed policy proposal page), but in short, his edits blatantly violated RS, V, and FRINGE, and this situation continued for a year-and-a-half despite blocks, despite bans, and despite ArbCom rulings.

I don't think it's POV, frankly, to use process to stop a persistent vandal who was given an LTA page for actions on one or two articles, and had at least 40 registered socks. I think I was 3RRed once in the entire process because I wasn't aware of the rule at the time, so I think it's actually a good indicator of being able to be NPOV and follow policy and procedure, which I think is what an admin needs to know how to do. I went through admins, AIV, ANI, and ArbCom over a long period of time to sort out the issue, and it's how I learned how things work. I think there's a conflation between "POV" and "interest" here; we haven't had a Lightbringer issue in a while, and there are quite a few admins (notr to mention users) who have a subject of specialization - mine just happens to be Freemasonry, but I have contributed to other areas as well based on my expertise or interst at any given time. Freemasonry is just a topic that needs to be watched, or the article will be destroyed. MSJapan 16:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Given that you do have a strong and continuing interest in editing the articles that relate to Freemasonry, and given that these are often controvercial articles, how would you deal with conflicts in those articles should you be accepted as an Admin? Would you recuse yourself from acting as an Admin in those articles? Blueboar 19:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I would deal with them much the same way I do now, which is to make sure that the edits made reflect the facts, make sure there is consensus on anything controversial before it's added, and revert obvious vandalism. None of those processes require admin tools, so I don't see why having the tools would change the process (except for speeding up mass reversions, which I have heretofore had to ask on ANI to have done, such as when someone linkspammed every single (40+) article. However, recusing myself would be dependent on circumstances: if there was a clear consensus amongst the editors on an issue outside of my own opinion, I think acting with respect to that consensus is perfectly acceptable. On a borderline issue, though, I would not intervene. MSJapan 05:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from [User:FayssalF]

In reference to your response to the 3rd question above you say that "in general, you will revert once, and if the revert is undone, you'll try discussion with a revert, and if that fails, you go to article talk." Do you notice any confusion? Do you think there is another way to do it? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

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

---

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

Discussion

• I've had numerous dealings with this user and find him to be largely incapable of working within a consensus based system. I seriously question his ability to adequately and properly use admin tools. As an example, he kept up a long running hatred for an article's existence enough that he nominated it for deletion *4* times over a 15 month time period [1][2][3][4]. Whether the article deserved deletion or not (all AfDs failed to delete it), the absolute persistence in the face of heavy consensus to keep was rather unreal. MSJapan doesn't like losing. A cooperative environment means you will occasionally not be in agreement with decisions. MSJapan doesn't accept that gracefully. Further, this edit shows a lack of understanding with image copyright. Something being posted in a public location and being out of date doesn't make it ineligible for copyright. There may be other reasons for it being so, but that is not a valid reason. Further, MSJapan was blocked in April for edit warring over content block log, edits [5][6][7][8][9], this last one calling the person he was edit warring with a vandal. It was a content dispute, not vandalism. Despite being blocked for the edit warring, MSJapan returned to the same behavior three months later just this past July [10]. Your position being right or wrong, calling the contributor a vandal and later continued edit warring was wholly improper. I see nothing in later edit contributions to suggest any learning from past mistakes. In fact, rather the contrary. This nominee was blocked in 2005 for 3RR violation edit warring on Freemasonry. Two years later, he's still edit warring. In short, no, this person is not ready to be an administrator. If he can learn to work within a consensus based system and learn from past mistakes, maybe. Not now. --Durin 18:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Durin, you're taking things out of context a bit, because in all those cases, you're portraying unilateral action without discussion on my part, which is not the case. I felt I had legitimate (and different) reasons to nominate Kristi Yamaoka for AfD each time; those reasons were elaborated at those times on AfD, and were supported by policy. As a matter of fact, one of the renoms was done precisely because so many people said "let it sit and renom if nothing changes" on the previous AfD!

As for Asahi Shimbun - the consensus on the talk page against allowing the edit had already been established, and I had discussed with DGG on the talk page prior to reversion on multiple occasions as to what was wrong with the edit; I even found the sources, and they did not support the edit being made (which is what finally got the user to stop). The sources were in Japanese, and DGG was ostensibly a native speaker who had the sources in question - if he would not desist in the edit until he was proven wrong by someone else, that's more than a content issue - it's wilful misrepresentation, which is what I would consider vandalism. Moreover,I was blocked for 3RR (which I felt didn't apply to vandalism), not for calling DGG a vandal. I said that to the admin who blocked me, and left it at that without further contesting the block. Moreover, there was a lot more to that Asahi situation than just me and another user, and only considering diffs doesn't show that. User:Mackan was also involved, and could probably elaborate on it, as it was his posting on ANI that got me involved there in the first place (because of my language skills).

The statement "Two years later, he's still edit warring" seems to imply that I have been doing nothing else, and I feel that is an unfair characterization. Moreover, Durin states that as far as admin is concerned, "not now", yet he's willing to go back to an isolated incident two years ago for evidence. So if not now, when, when the implication is that negative evidence has no time limitation?

Finally, I have taken many opportunities to build consensus, as I can show, so I would maintain that I do respect it. Otherwise, I think I would have had many more 3RR blocks and other administrative blocks set against me in a two-year period MSJapan 19:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that you were blocked in the past for edit warring, and yet engaged in it again in April of this year shows your lack of willingness to learn from past mistakes. That you returned to edit war over the same content, with the same reversion after being blocked for it shows you once again did not learn from your mistakes. I have no evidence to suggest you learn from mistakes. Rather the opposite. The appropriate course of action would have been to raise the issue elsewhere with administrators perhaps. You had a choice. You chose to return to edit warring over involving others for input. I'm sorry, but I see a pattern here that would be most troubling should you become an administrator. If in the future you show an ability to move forward from mistakes and take the lessons learned, then I could consider supporting. That evidence does not exist now. In fact, you're not even recognizing these as mistakes...another sign of incapability/unwillingness to be wrong and/or learn from mistakes. Your explaining it, excusing it, claiming it's taken out of context, claiming you were instructed to, etc...no acceptance of culpability on your part in any wrong doing. You do not like being wrong, and don't accept being wrong easily. I've changed my stance with regards to editors before who have come up for nomination here, for example on User:Guinnog's nomination and my support of it. That evidence does not exist with you. When it does, I'll happily reconsider my stance. For now, no. Thank you, --Durin 20:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've found MSJapan tends to bite when someone voices a contrasting opinion to any of his edits. When it came to the 3 Doors Down article, he cleared a section off and neglected to explain why. If he'd left his reasons when he edited the article, or even posted his reasoning on the discussion page, the subject would've ceased then and there. After discussion with a third party, he then proceeded to state to said party that 3 Doors Down was a "pet article" of mine. Certainly I've taken the time to clean up the article a tad, but it's definitely not a "pet project." (This describes the biting part of my explanation) I'm not sure if that's the type of person you'd like to elect as an admin. He tends to get too passionate over certain articles (i.e. Freemasonry), and I think giving this person administrative privileges is not advisable. Just my opinion. I know that I have a preference to edit certain types of articles on here, but I'm not asking to be an administrator either. Clearly he is a constructive editor on Wikipedia, but I do think he'll have POV issues as an admin. --Candy156sweet 23:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see an answer to optional question #2 that was posed by User:Blueboar. --Richard 04:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would rate your answer to User:Blueboar's question #2 as B+/A-. I admit that it could be considered a "loaded question" because answering with an unqualified "Yes" would have required you to give up use of admin tools in the articles where you would most likely want to use them. Answering with an unqualified "No" would probably have earned you a slew of "Oppose" votes. So your answer seems to look for a diplomatic way to answer honestly without giving up any right to use the admin tools in cases of "clear consensus".

So why do I give you less than full marks?

It would seem unobjectionable to assert that "if there was a clear consensus, then acting with respect to that consensus is perfectly acceptable". However, there are a couple of concerns around that. The first is that a "clear consensus" is not always easy to determine. What does that mean? That a bunch of editors who sit on an article have "decided" that X is the consensus and nothing outside of X will be tolerated? I've seen plenty of articles where the consensus of the "editors that be" sits outside of NPOV. I haven't read the Freemason articles so I can't opine as to whether this is true of those articles. I just point this out as a general concern to be wary of. A consensus that is 4:1 or 5:1 is what I call a "thin consensus" not a "clear consensus". If it's more like 8:1 or 9:1 then I would say, "Yeah, there is probably a consensus" but I would still look closely at the minority opinion and ask whether it should be presented in the article as a minority opinion.

Finally, even if the "clear consensus" is on your side, if you have been involved in a dispute, then using your admin powers to adjudicate the dispute can be considered a conflict of interest.

It's not good enough that you be in the right; you have to appear fair and impartial also and that's difficult to do if you are using admin tools in a dispute to which you are a party.

One thing that will drive an editor away from Wikipedia is if they feel that they have been treated unfairly. An opinionated, POV-pushing editor can become a valued contributor if they are taught the 4 pillars of Wikipedia in a gentle and impartial way.

IMO, preserving the perception of fairness and equitable treatment is more important than making sure that the article is 100% accurate 24 hours a day.

For this reason, the best practice is to notify WP:ANI and ask for a neutral, uninvolved admin to perform the action (usually a page protection or a block). If you look at my recent contributions, you will see that I have done that twice in the past few days.

Whether this RFA passes or fails, I hope you will take this advice to heart as I am sure you will eventually become an admin and I think this is an important principle for all admins to follow.

--Richard 05:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think MSJapan is getting some unwarranted criticism, espcially in the post by User:Durin above. For instance, on the reverts on Asahi Shimbun, MSJapan was dealing with User:DDRG, who was essentially a single-purpose account devoted to edit warring on Asahi Shimbun and Joji Obara; in the case of Asahi Shimbun, DDRG was attempting to insert negative information of doubtful notability, based on poor sourcing, and his participation in the article's talk page showed an unwillingness or inability to develop a consensus (or to even answer basic questions about sourcing). DDRG's edits may not have been vandalism, exactly, but they sure weren't constructive, and they didn't belong in the encyclopedia. Obviously MSJapan shouldn't have violated 3RR in this incident, but he used the talk page extensively throughout. I don't see this as evidence of chronic edit warring, as Durin seems to imply. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm sorry but I think one of us has a mistaken view of 3RR. I don't think WP:3RR provides for an exception when the other editor's edits are "not constructive" or "not encyclopedic". It does provide for an exception when the other editor's edits are "obvious vandalism". Here's the point. There are many, many differences of opinion every day on Wikipedia. Many seem "not constructive" or "not encyclopedic". If WP:3RR is violated every time somebody sees an unconstructive or unencyclopedic edit, we will have more edit warring than the Bush administration has hawks.
  • If MSJapan is willing to violate 3RR as a non-admin, what will he do when he has blocking and page protection at his disposal? Why bother with the 3rd, 4th and 5th reverts when one can conveniently protect the page or block the other editor? We need someone who understands WP:BRD and WP:1RR. Not that I always observe WP:1RR but it is my goal. Can MSJapan say that? When faced with an edit war that is not clearly vandalism (and I don't agree with MSJapan's definition of vandalism), an admin needs to seek an uninvolved, neutral admin. I haven't seen MSJapan commit to doing that and that is my major reservation about giving him access to the admin tools.
  • --Richard 07:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, user has a good understanding of Wiki admin jobs, and will help accordingly. Rudget _{Contributions} 13:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support -- wide range of contributions outside Category:Freemasonry, clerking, etc. I see no reason to believe (per Neutral comment #3 below) that he will be overly quick with the blocking tools, on or off the Freemasonry articles.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 17:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Support; this editor seems to know what he's doing around here. Law & Disorder 20:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Strong Support Great User, Understands Wiki policy; Should have been an admin long ago. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 23:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
5. neutralSupport. I like the depth and reasoning of his answers, and I feel that he will do fine as an admin. We keep forgetting that we have means to address any harm he may do as an admin. Weighing the choices, I find it much more likely he will help the project than harm it. We have admins who use tools in their area of interest, and have been in debates and disputes in that area of interest. When they do the wrong thing, we desysop them. If this guy does the wrong thing, we'll desysop him too. Hell if he abuses the tools, I'll be the first one to block him. Until then, we should assume good faith and I see no reason to believe he won't be a good admin.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Support, based on his answers and my (reasonable) long experence with this editor. Having taken some time to ponder this, I feel he will make a good admin. WegianWarrior 09:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Strong support, did nothing wrong and everything right in the Lightbringer case mentioned below (how is that a reason to oppose?) No reason to assume the user wouldn't be able to cope with the extra buttons. Neil ☎ 10:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

   Up to strong support - given Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia, we need every admin we can get. Neil ☎ 10:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

8. Support After some real thought about this and the message this user had clarified in my talk page, I have decided to voice my support. Moreover, this use did nothing wrong in the Lightbringer case as well. A great editor as well and I do not think that he will abuse admin tools. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Support. I think some of the criticism here is off the mark. MSJapan seems like a good contributor, and we need more admins who are fluent in Japanese. I have no reason to think he'll misuse the extra buttons. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: I'm not sure I can trust somebody who would spend 18 months to try to get somebody banned with admin tools. Ksy92003(talk) 05:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

   I'm not familiar with the Lightbringer case but it can really take a long time to work through the Wikipedia processes especially if a "bad hat" is using sock puppets. I would ask MSJapan to tell us more about Lightbringer before we conclude that there's something wrong with his persistence in shutting down a "bad hat". --Richard 05:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

   The reason for this oppose is just because the way that MSJapan phrased that, it seemed like he was either going out of his way to get somebody banned or was trying his hardest to get him banned, which makes me fear a potential abuse of power/power control issue. Ksy92003(talk) 13:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

   Yeh, I understand. MSJapan's phrasing was unfortunate. However, I have now read through Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Lightbringer and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer and I think I concur with those familiar with the case: what MSJapan was commenting on is probably his patience and tenacity rather than his vindictiveness. You have the right to your own opinion on this but I urge you to consider the other perspective. --Richard 16:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

   You might want to see: Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Lightbringer for the details on this. As someone who is familiar with the case, I can say that MSJapan did not go "out of his way" to get someone banned in any way. MSJ took the appropriate steps in dealing with a real problem. I really can not see MSJ "abusing" admin power if it is granted. What I do see is someone who, because of his experience with dealing with a problem user, has learned how the system works and can help other editors try to resolve similar issues on other articles. He knows when to encourage compromise, and what steps to take when compromise does not work. Blueboar 13:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

   I added Lightbringer as an optional question above. MSJapan 16:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

   AFAIK, Lightbringer has been banned from editing Freemasonry-related subjects and talkpages indefinitely by the ArbCom (Passed 6 to 0). Since i always trust and support ArbCom rulings, i must say that presenting his case there was rightly done by MSJapan. I'd only have blamed MSJapan if LightBringer was found innocent which was not the case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Daniel. My apologies. NHRHS2010 talk 20:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose. My main experience of MSJapan was his clerking of the RCFU pages, where I found his approach rather territorial. In particularly he responded to a request he believed was inappropriate with: You are not an RFCU clerk, so you should not be editing the RFCU page. The request you formatted (or actually added) is one that is expressly prohibited from being requested, and it therefore should have been left alone, not put in the "outstanding requests" list. Any user may of course list cases at RFCU and snapping at those who try to help is unhelpful. Decisions as to whether a case is acceptable under checkuser policy should be left to the checkusers themselves. I flagged up various issues with him here and his response was largely defensive and failed to acknowledge the problems with his actions. As a result, I worry that he would be prone to bite other users were he an admin. Reading his response to Durin above I see a similar defensiveness to that bothered me why I challenged his clerking approach - this bodes ill for him being willing to accept constructive criticism of admin actions he may perform. Someone who lets the "authority" of simply clerking a page go to his head is a worrying choice to be an administrator given the "authority" that role is often perceived to have. WjBscribe 10:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

   Per this diff [11], I had an edit reverted when I was a new clerk "because I wasn't a clerk and couldn't do what I did anyway" (though my name was on the list). Therefore (as I explained at the time), since nobody explained it to me at the time otherwise, I was under the impression non-clerks could not edit the RFCU pages period, which is why I replied so strongly. I also did admit that I should have notified Bigglove, so I think I indeed took note, especially since the problem has not occurred again. Given the types of comments made and the length of time people are going back to find things, I'm seriously wondering what it takes to make somebody realize an issue has been resolved -- in my view, if a problem doesn't happen again, it's sorted, but that doesn't seem to be the case here, and that concerns me a bit. For example, I've been clerking for months after that incident. MSJapan 15:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

4. Per the incident WJBscribe cites above, which left a terribly sour taste in my mouth. Daniel 12:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose Per WJBscribe. I believe that a normal editor attempting to "enforce" something in a heavy-handed manner may not be beneficial because it might harm new editors who are not familiar with the social dynamics around here. Although a perception of power hunger is not necessarily bad in itself, it is a risk factor for abuse of the tools. Also, MSJapan just speedied his/her user talk page, which indicates an incomplete grasp of WP:CSD. comment updated by east.718 at 10:13, 10/27/2007
6. Oppose An admin's mentality must be that they are here to serve. Even when we are "enforcing" something, we must do it in a helpful manner that does not turn away well intentioned, less experience editors. I do not see evidence of this mentality with you at this time. The AfD issues also suggest strong potential to abuse the tools. Hiberniantears 15:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose Seems heavy handed like Ryulong used to be (and still is according to some). Even with his simple RFCU duties, he violates policy by taking matters into his own hands rather than just follow the rules which say that RFCU clerks are supposed to do thankless, menial tasks, not make big decisions. Needs to mature, maybe in a year. NKCanada 17:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose indented due to user being blocked for sockpuppetry. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose per WJBscribe. Pat^{Politics rule!} 03:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   I'm a bit concerned here firstly that this user is keeping a list of who he has supported and opposed on his userpage; secondly, that three out of the four oppositions he has were voted on today; and third that he is voting en masse - he cast votes in 15 RfAs in 15 minutes (as evidenced by contribs), and I don't believe that indicates the necessary level of seriousness needed for RfA. Thereofre, I will ask him to elaborate. MSJapan 04:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   First, before I !voted in all the RFA's, I reviewed each RFA. Since I had just come back from a vacation, before I !voted, I reviewed each RFA. I looked at each one, made up my mind, and then expressed, all at once to make it easier. That way I would not have to keep referring back, but know what I thought. I weighed all the facts, and in my conclusion, I feel this user is not ready for adminship. I am equally appalled that he would question my lack of judgement. I looked at each one, and at all the same times, casted my !votes. In conclusion, I weighed everything, and my judgement I feel is right. If there is too much opposition to the way I did today's !voting, I will not do it again. Sincerely, Pat^{Politics rule!} 05:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   You edited your userpage at 2:53 to announce you were back (previous edit was September 12), made edits at 2:55, 2:58, 3:01, twice at 3:03, and 3:06. From 3:10 to 3:31, you cast votes in 15 RfAs, and at 3:32, you added the results of your RfAs to your page with the summary "Back in Force!" My concern is that you were trying to make a point of some kind, and I'd like to know when exactly you had adequate time in that period to review 15 RfAs. I'm concerned because it affects me negatively, but it's no better if you give positive votes to those who do not deserve them simply to make a statement. I had asked you on your talk page to elaborate on your opposition reason; you have not done so, but I will leave it to the evidence and the judgment of another admin as to whether or not the votes were considered. MSJapan 05:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   MSJapan. You left an important question above unanswered and came here arguing about something really stupid? Politics rule! has had the habit to do so. What he has there has never led to any disruption of the process and that since he's had them there. You decided to answer that simple but important question (in fact 2) above till tomorrow but still you put Pat under strict scrutiny. In fact it was a request for you to elaborate on your answer N.3. We don't care much about Pat's reasons re their userpage since it is not meant to be in bad faith. It is just not directed to you. He opposes many users as he supports many others as everybody does. That was what i think. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) - FayssalF (my esteemed admin coach) beat me to the punch on this one.

   Hmmm.... this is only one !vote and your engaging in a contentious debate with an editor expressing an opinion in the midst of an RFA could be viewed poorly by other editors. RFA candidates who attempt to rebut every oppose !vote often wind up shooting themselves in the foot. In an effort to somehow call into question the !vote of Politics rule, you are making yourself look bad. A better approach would have been to let another editor question the validity of the !vote. Keep yourself as much "above the fray" as you can. Perhaps you have not spent much time reading the RFAs of other candidates or you would know this. --Richard 07:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

8. Oppose for the civility and bitey-ness issues raised by WJBscribe and others. --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose per this note at AN/I. A good rule of thumb, which I believe I once saw User:Gmaxwell mention, is to always assume good faith, but block bad actors. You really didn't do that here. -- RG² 06:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I can't oppose since I've dealt many times w/ MSJapan and find them a very outstanding contributor. However, i still believe that MSJapan's is too much concentrated on Freemasonry related-articles which brings POV issues to my mind. I'll be following this discussion and my vote would change depending on the updates and opinions of MSJapan and others. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral The POV issues is a major concern for me here. No doubt, you are a good editor, so I cannot oppose. My opinion on this RFA may change as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Changed to support. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral, leaning towards oppose. Contributions are mostly solid but there is too much concentration on Freemasonry-related subject and I fear that awarding the blocking tool might be a step too far. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral - per Siva1979. My opinion may change here. Rudget _{Contributions} 13:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

3. Neutral, leaning towards support Ahh! The pain! Appears to be a great editor, bot opposers have some good points. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

   neutral, leaning to support. Talk to me on my talk page and prove to me why I should support. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC) changed to support. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

4. Neutral, leaning towards oppose. When edits like this are done, with no apparent awareness of bias, then there is a serious issue. I would be prepared to keep neutral if I had more reassurance on the Freemasonry articles. Currently it will be a self defined concensus, I would prefer to see hands off. JASpencer 10:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral. I've had few dealings with MSJapan; my impression of him comes from the William Guy Carr AFD, where I felt his delete was motivated by Carr's anti-Masonic theories. One incident shouldn't be enough to oppose, however, and since this RFA looks like it will go down anyway, I'm not going to take the time to comb through his record to see if this fits into a pattern, as some above have worried. --Groggy Dice T | C 10:24, 27 October 2007 (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.