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

Final (83/1/0); Originally scheduled to end 20:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

iridescent (talk · contribs) - Iridescent is a highly active Wikipedian with over 10k edits to his name. A veteran of the XfD processes, he has an advanced understanding of the deletion policies and would be invaluable at CAT:CSD and in closing XfDs, both areas which frequently become backlogged. He is also an experienced vandal-fighter, and has a number of content contributions in a variety of articles; he's particularly active in expanding and improving stubs. All in all, Iridescent is long overdue for adminship, and I urge the community to support this nomination. Walton^One 13:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom from Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk)

I first encountered Iridescent in my first RfA, and even then he gave intelligent, knowledgeable comments. I've seen plenty of them since, and I've always wondered why he didn't want to be an admin. Anyways, good ol' Walton-boy finally managed to convince him to run for adminship (here), and I offered to nom soon after. I don't have that much to say about Iridescent, other then he's one of the most hardworking, and one of the best, users we have around here. If anyone deserves the mop, he does. So let's give it to him! Although he is English, which kinda weakens my support :P Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're just sore because you guys got beaten in Twenty20 cricket by Zimbabwe the other day! :-) Walton^One 13:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The day after that, you guys lost to us guys in Twenty20 cricket! :P Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 00:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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: To be honest, probably not a lot at first, other than closing the occasional unquestionable delete in the CSD/prod/AfD hoppers & blocking blatant vandals & spammers. (The "oppose, doesn't need the tools" posse may as well skip to the end now.)

Since quite early on I made a conscious decision to pick a few particular fields & rotate between them, rather than either try to spread myself too thin doing a lot of things badly, or become obsessively focused on one particular area. The areas I currently rotate between are article creation/expansion, stub-sorting, RFF, AFD and RFA), with the occasional bit of recent-changes patrol, mainly when I'm on the phone or watching something on TV as there's less need to keep up a steady train of thought.

Aside from the AfDs, the only one of those fields where admin tools would be any use is the stub-sorting, to get rid of some of the sorrier nonsense pages & blatant spam that Alaibot periodically dumps into Category:Stubs. As I get used to the buttons, I'd expand into further deletions & blocks. While there are some admin fields I know I'd never touch (I'd be terrible at editing the user interface, for instance) I assume there are other areas I'd find myself drifting into since (because I deliberately limit myself) there are large swathes of Wikipedia-space I currently don't have many dealings with.

One area which I won't touch is deleting anything to do with fiction. My time loitering on XfDs and assorted article cleanups have shown me that I have a very different opinion of the notability of fiction to community consensus (without wanting yet another rerun of WP:Pokémon test, I personally find it ludicrous that Chronology of the Harry Potter stories is 50% as long again as History of the United States), so I'm aware that any fiction-deletion I carried out would be controversial, even with a clear consensus.

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

A: Even though it's twice failed at WP:GAC, I personally believe the best thing I've written here is Broadwater Farm. (I take no responsibility for the POV-pushing & edit-warring trainwreck of its sister article, Broadwater Farm riot.) While the name might not be immediately familiar to non-UK editors, this is arguably the most controversial location in England, and I wanted to write a genuinely neutral piece on it that showed why it became such a byword for failed social engineering experiments (and how the underlying geography shaped the modern architecture, which in turn shaped the area's history), and to explain why the area's been on such an up-down-up-down boom & bust cycle compared to the surrounding area, without turning into either an attack-piece on or a puff-piece for the area, and I think I succeeded.

Whilst it's a truly dull article, I'm also proud of how Metcall turned out. This was my first long article, and even in its current improved state it still betrays some newbie mistakes, but I think the article's as close to investigative journalism as it's possible to get in the tertiary-source model. For an organisation that performs such an innocuous and uncontroversial role, this organisation has a ludicrously paranoid level of secrecy (even the organisations own website doesn't even admit that the place exists) and it's ridiculously hard to find sources on it. While every fact in the article is legitimately sourced, it's all pieced together from occasional paragraphs here and there to build up what, I believe, is the only (relatively) complete description either online or in print of what the organisation actually does and how it functions. I know from real life (yes, I have one...) that law enforcement personnel do now use this article as a standard reference when trying to find out information about the organisation.

I'm also pleased with some of the "glimmer of potential" articles I've fished out of the {{prod}} mulcher or AfD and built up into valid articles. While I've done a lot of these, the two that stand out for me are the rewriting that ended a nasty revert/BLP war on Beki Bondage, and the mega-expand-and-merge that took an eminently deletable stub from this to this.

Oh, and I can't leave out the oddest character I've yet written on, Almeric Paget; while the rewritten article is very much a work in progress, has some extremely rough edges and still needs major expansion, my initial rewrite of the article has taken him from one of the dullest biographies on Wikipedia to one of the most unusual.

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've never been involved in a full-scale edit war. I've had assorted "how dare you nominate my article for deletion" posts (so many that I wrote a lengthy standard reply to people coming to my talk page) but they've never developed into outright arguments. The closest thing I've had was this incident back in April. As (I hope) is obvious, I didn't understand the accusations, and I think it was a case of mistaken identity. I was also very tangentially involved in the Arbuthnot Family business a few months ago, after proposing two members for the family for deletion (albeit !voting keep on many of the others), but I managed to avoid getting caught up in the arguments and recriminations that stemmed from it.

I think I unnecessarily annoyed some people a couple of weeks ago, whilst assessing the members of Category:Streets in London for WP:LT, as I nominated ten of the articles for deletion prompting some editors to complain that I was nominating too much for deletion; however, I stand by it; the articles I nominated for deletion were only the absolute worst cases - mostly one or two line substubs. Should anyone really care, you can read the full debate on the matter here.

A few days ago, I reverted this edit. I admit that I made a mistake in reverting it; I saw the first line of the diff & the edit summary, spotted it as either anti-American POV-pushing or a lame attempt at humour & reverted it without noticing that the remainder of the diff was a legitimate edit. I mistakenly tagged it as vandalism (which, since they hadn't received a warning about NPOV, it technically wasn't), and for the next few days received assorted abuse on my talk page from the IP (much of it since toned down) as a result.

It may be because I tend to work in fairly obscure areas, and because I generally write pages to a certain level and then hand them over rather than continuing to work on them, but aside from the above I honestly can't think of a genuine argument I've had here. I've had plenty of disagreements (mainly at WP:UKT and WP:LONDON), but they've all been resolved amicably.

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

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

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/iridescent before commenting.

• Support Knows what to do. 82.165.187.34 21:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow... out of the 3 people I've nominated for RfA, it looks like iridescent will be the 3rd to pass unanimously. This makes me think highly of my own judgment. :-) Walton^One 13:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better luck next time. :-) Pascal.Tesson 23:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe not unanimously, but 71 Support to 1 Oppose is close enough. Walton^One 16:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The anon hasn't turned up yet - that'll make at least one more. Incidentally, that "the free world, plus other places such as the United States" is still on Nicorette if anyone else feels the urge to clean it up; I have no intention of getting into a 3RR war over as trivial a subject as chewing gum — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support beat the nom support - great work at AfD, obviously knows policy, will make a great admin. ELIMINATORJR 19:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support woohoo. Yes, good luck. The Rambling Man 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support, looks good. Wizardman 19:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support - good reputation, broad experience. No problems that I can see. Should make a fine admin - Alison ^❤ 19:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Per contributions, civility, personal interaction, and (dare I say it) - trusted noms. I see all the hall marks of a great admin here, but particularly your reasoned and considered judgement, with a great knowledge of policy thrown in. Very Best Wishes. Pedro |  Chat  19:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Double-edit-conflict Support. a hard-working editor who will make a great admin. --krimpet⟲ 20:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support as (late) nominator. Walton^One 20:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. User's contributions demonstrate dedication to the project as well as a strong understanding of policy. No doubt this user will make good use of the mop. Figured this user was already one! ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Strong support. Great editor, with lots of fine contributions. Melsaran (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support, since there's always stuff to clean up in CAT:CSD. I like the answers to the questions, and Iridescent's talk page shows a good ability to reason with people who aren't always reasonable. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support — I like seeing more active participation in the main manespace from admin candidates (not just fixing typos), but your other contributions are great, so I have no problems with you becoming an admin :-) --Agüeybaná 20:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I do do things aside from fix typos; among other things, I've written four GAs from scratch or from stubs (the last one less than a week ago), written a long series of articles on the geography of North London (one of which, to my annoyance, is currently at AfD), the railway stations of East Anglia and numerous obscure-but-notable-in-their-subculture musicians. My recent edit history looks swamped with typo fixes as I sometimes leave AWB open in another window, running a check through my "extended watchlist" of every article that's come to my notice, keeping an eye out for any typos that have crept in since I last checked, and you can rack up 30 minor edits in the time it takes to make one substantial one. I dare say most people here have already heard my opinion on minor edits being kept on contribution lists — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I know. I checked :-) I just meant that you should focus on writing more of those wonderful articles you have already created. But, feel free to ignore this; typo fixing is important, too :-) --Agüeybaná 21:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The typo fixing doesn't really take up much time - I just leave AWB running in the background, and periodically flip windows, check whatever it's proposing is a change that actually ought to be made, and click the button. I'm surprised more people don't do it — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12. Strong Support Wow, I thought you were already an admin! GlassCobra 21:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. (ec2)Support A good editor with a good understanding of the project. Will be a great admin. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support. Solid contributions to encyclopedia building. Espresso Addict 21:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support - And nobody informed me about the nom. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Strong Support I really thought that you were an admin already! -Lemonflash_{(do something)} 22:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Yep - thought he was one. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Massively belated support! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 22:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support Good candidate. Xiner (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support No explanation is required, the evidence speaks for itself on this one. In other words: duh! VanTucky ^Talk 23:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Strong Support This should have been done long ago! I have no doubts you'll make an excellent admin. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 00:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Jmlk17 00:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Suport Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support --Oxymoron⁸³ 02:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. Candidate has made solid contributions to articles and should make a fine admin. Majoreditor 02:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Have had some good expieriences with this user. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Major RFA-cliche moment for me; abundantly qualified. Xoloz 04:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support -- I've had nothing but good experiences with this user, and I believe they will use the tools intelligently and fairly. --Haemo 04:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support No problems here. It is time to give this user the mop. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. the_undertow ^talk 06:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support: I've seen him on XfD, and while I don't always agree with his stances, I've always felt he's a thoughtful, reasonable editor with a long record of excellence.  RGTraynor  06:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support: Get on it. :) Dfrg.msc 07:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. An editor who I genuinely thought was already an admin. Support, Sebi _[talk] 07:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support more than able to be admin.--Kerotan^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 08:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Excellent contributor; will make a great admin. -- Chris B • talk 11:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support - good answers and plenty of experience in WP policy. It's not a particular factor in discussion but the Almeric Paget article is both interesting and bizarre, and a credit to your research skills. Euryalus 12:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. WjBscribe 15:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Great answers to questions, no doubt will use tools effectively. Phgao 15:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support. Experienced and trusted user. utcursch | talk 16:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support. Unqustionably. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support I assumed you already were! Carlossuarez46 17:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support Looks good, don't think he'll abuse the tools. —Ignatzmice^talk_contribs 18:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support - I see no evidence that this user will abuse the tools.--Danaman5 19:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support I can't remember a bad experience with this editor. J-ſtan!^Talk_Contribs 19:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Great editor, what more can I say? GDonato (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Why not? Good luck:)--SJP 20:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Is this redundant or pointless in supporting him after all this above? •Malinaccier• ^T/C 21:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support - excellent experience. Deletionist, but not extremist; straight but not narrow. Can be safely trusted. Bearian 22:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support - looks to be another solid administrator, significant contributions to the Wiki-related pages and significant experience.--JForget 23:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. It is inevitable. bibliomaniac15 15 years of trouble and general madness 00:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support no reason to believe the user would abuse the community's trust. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support - Hopefully, I got in early enough on the support train so people don't think I'm just following the crowd. The candidate is highly qualified and has great user name. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 03:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
54. SupportGreat Track no concerns whatsoever.Pharaoh of the Wizards 12:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Has all the right temperament to be an admin. It also says something about me when I thought (s)he was one and I have a script to tell users' rights! :-P —[[Animum | talk]] 14:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support An outstanding user, with more than adequate knowledge in Wiki-cleanup. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 18:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support The Evil Spartan 18:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support, good answers, decent participation in discussions. Conscious 18:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
59. SUpport, lots of expeoremce jere/ Marlith ^T/C 22:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Epbr123 23:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support Will use the mop well. --Sharkface217 02:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
62. Yes - Ofcourse. --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 04:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
63. Per that water guy...or whatever his name is. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 08:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support See that he's experienced with Wikipedia, no evidence that he would misuse the tools. Good luck! SirFozzie 17:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
65. Unnecessary pile-on. — [ aldebaer⁠] 21:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
66. BIG THANGS POPPIN', and little thangs stoppin. Miranda 02:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support and good luck to you :-) --Ben^chat 05:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
68. Strong Support One of the strongest candidates I've seen at RfA. Particularly liked the comment about avoiding deletion re fiction articles - someone aware of their own POV issues is a goodie. Trustworthy? You betcha. --Dweller 09:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support A great user who Im sure can be trusted with admin tools. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 17:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support Admittedly, I almost wanted to go neutral since I'm not real sure what the "newspeak" issue is. But however much an "advocate" he may or may not be, I'm not worried he won't be throwing a wrench in the works. So he has my support. -WarthogDemon 20:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support Very good. Kudret abi^Talk 03:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support Pfft... Easy choice :-D Scarian^Talk 10:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support with your experience, definitely you will help. Carlosguitar 17:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support I've seen a lot of excellent work from this user lately, especially at AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - excellent contributor with a great track-record. I've met this guy again and again and it's always been good. I certainly trust him with the mop - Alison ^❤ 05:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already supported, see #4. I've struck this and left a note on Alison's talk page. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 06:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

75. Support should do well. Sumoeagle179 21:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
76. You seem to be civil, sensible, smart, and, calm, with a great grasp on policy. Would I trust you with the extra buttons? Yesirre bob. :) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 02:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support, fantastic work at AfD, coupled with a hard working and friendly attitude. No reservations whatsoever to this excellent candidate. Phaedriel - 03:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support, per nom, seen them around and been impressed. --John 06:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
79. Suppose - definately a great candidate - I thought he was already an admin! Lradrama 08:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support seems very capable and has the right attitude. - Modernist 11:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support Very trustworthy! Hiberniantears 14:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 16:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support Can't see any probs. Sarah 17:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose Candidate is an advocate for newspeak. --Fljm 16:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment Can you forgive my ignorance and elaborate? It doesn't sound to me like he's "advocating" anything. It seems like he's saying (this is an example I made up) something like: "Iraq seems to be having a bad connotation with terrorism. Does that mean Iraqs are all bad?" Though this is how I see it. If my view and comparison shows my lack of education here, please clarify for me. -WarthogDemon 18:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment For full disclosure, I'm neither for nor against because I really don't know much about the issue, hence why I'm asking. -WarthogDemon 18:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   As it stands, most policies and guidelines are subject to interpretation; ask twelve editors how they interpret WP:IAR and you are likely to get just as many differing perspectives. Given this discrepancy, the last thing needed is to have those in authority spouting ideas which fail the duck test as fact. (I can just see it now — "...things will go easier for you if you will just repeat after me: RFA is not a vote; it is a !vote...") --Fljm 22:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   So you're saying that Wikipedia would be better off if it avoided giving admin responsibilities to anyone who disagrees with you on a minor wikipolitical discussion? How about perhaps sharing your thoughts in that thread of the discussion rather than bullying the candidate here? Pascal.Tesson 23:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, Fljm's entitled to his opinion. We're not going to change his mind by harassing him. Epbr123 23:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Hey hey! I don't see any bullying here. Let's just leave Fljm alone, surely we have better things to do? :)  * Aillema 00:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   To be honest, I do have to say Fljm has a good point. It sounds like he's saying Iridescent is trying to quelch any politically incorrect language about voting (ahem, *!voting*). I do have to agree that it is a pain in the neck to put that exclamation point in front just to prove to anyone, "I know it's not a vote" (not to mention that, in fact, RFA really is a vote - tallies have to fall into the slim 70-80% margin for a 'crat to use his/her judgement). That said, I think that's not a good reason for Iridscent not to have the tools. The Evil Spartan 23:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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.