Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wehwalt

Wehwalt

Voice your opinion (talk page) (68/18/3); Scheduled to end 10:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Wehwalt (talk · contribs) – Wehwalt has contributed very solidly and responsibly in potentially divisive subject areas, such as Jena Six and Albert Speer. I have interacted with them on several occasions, and have always found them to be pleasant, collaborative and open. As a trustworthy and reliable editor, I see no reason why Wehwalt should not be given administrator tools per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions#Doesn't need the tools. I am very pleased to nominate Wehwalt, and hope that others will join me in my support. Thank you. DrKiernan (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: In the short term, I intend to continue with the work I've been doing, developing articles into FA and working at TFA/R. I don't intend to move hastily if I get the tools, I've been involved at AFD in the past, perhaps just sit and watch what admins do there. I think the idea is don't be hasty and don't promise to get involved in all sorts of admin work that maybe you won't. Learn to use the tools appropriately, and in so doing, I'm expecting interests and opportunities will present themselves.

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

A: I am very proud of the three FA's I have been involved in that have been promoted this year, Natalee Holloway, Jena Six, and Albert Speer each of which has made TFA. The Speer article especially I consider to be my finest work, and I am very proud of it. I was glad, when I nominated it for FA, to see how constructive the process was (the earlier FACs were less constructive) and I enjoyed watching how everyone pulled together to get the article promoted in only nine days.

Since all three of these articles are in contentious areas, I think I have done well in working with others to find middle ground and keeping personality out of it.

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: Jena Six when it was in the news in 2007 and there was a lot of bitter talk page conflict with other users. I was traveling at the time, and it was before I was using my blackberry to stay current with it. I would agonize over what had been said and what would be on the talk page when I returned in the evening. I think I just learned to accept people's strong feelings, learned not to let it bug me too much, and in the end, when all the remaining editors began to cooperate, got it to FA and TFA. I'm considering other possibly contentious articles for my next project, perhaps Elian Gonzalez affair, which should be a true test of being able to take it and pull editors together for the good of Wikipedia.

Optional additional question from Scientizzle

4. Given the scenario at User:Scientizzle/RFA question, what, if any, administrative actions would you suggest or perform yourself? What non-administrative actions?

A: I just read it twice. As I am somewhat jetlagged, having just stepped off a transatlantic flight, I'm going to take a raincheck on this one as I may have missed key points. I'll revisit this in the morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC) OK, feeling a little more rational. Good question! Once I verify everything you've said, I lay protection over the article, perhaps for two weeks. Slow burning or no slow burning, an edit war is an edit war and it needs to be stopped. Then I go to contact both User:RandomWikiEditor and User:ExcitableScienceFanatic on their talk pages. I would ask ExcitableScienceFanatic to refrain from further personal attacks, pointing out that attacking other user adds nothing but heat to an already strong disagreement and general incivility may ultimately lead to further blocks. I'm sure I can find a nice way of putting it. On RandomWikiEditor's talk page, I'd ask him to reread relevant policies and guidelines such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE and strongly suggest that he work with other editors rather than simply reverting, that by just doing straight reverts, he's just pouring oil on the flames. I'd ask them both to comment on the article's talk page, where I would leave an explaintion as to why I'd protected the page and suggest involved editors open a Request for Comment in order to bring in a wider, unrelated audience. I'd also run a tool I have for finding significant editors to an article and see if there are any voices of reason that aren't part of the two groups who might get in the middle without being shot from both sides. I don't see any point in individual blocks at this stage. I think it would be helpful not to have knowledge and opinions of the subject matter, that way you aren't associated with either faction. Stay on top of it and cautiously lift the protection after two weeks and after that, everyone has had fair warning.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Keepscases:

5. Why have you chosen not to customize your Wikipedia signature? (Note: I am not at all implying that this is something negative)

A: Got nothing against those who do, I guess I am just a plain jane sort of person and don't see the need to. If I'm an admin, please don't expect my signature to show all the colors of the rainbow!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Question from Stifle:

6. Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a living person be used on Wikipedia?

A: Very limited purposes indeed, and only when there is no other way. For example, in the Elian Gonzalez affair article, on which I've done extensive work, we have the famous photo of the BORTAC agent pointing a gun in the general direction of Elian and Donato Dalyrimple. So far as I know, all three are alive, but this famous photo, which won the Pulitzer, gets in as an iconic historical image, which is mentioned in the article. I would imagine there could be other circumstances under which this is possible, such as if the person is missing (Natalee Holloway, as no free image is likely to arise) or unavailable in such a way that no photograph is likely to happen (long term hospitalization/imprisonment, I guess). But in each case, I'd really want to see discussion so that there is consensus there is no likely probability of a free image becoming available.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair answer to this question but there may be previously existing photos which can be voluntarily released under the GFDL. You could try contacting the family about this. Fewer restrictions on circulation would be a good thing if there is any chance Natalee is alive (I'm not familiar the current evidence but Wikipedia does list her as "possibly living"). On the other hand the web site of her mother's non-profit organization seems to be out of service, so it's possible that they've given up all hope. Still worth a try though. — CharlotteWebb 20:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we considered this during the FAC, when we feared we'd lose the nomination due to a lack of photos, and we decided against it. Van der Sloot's latest story has her alive, that and six guilders will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks Oranjestad, though!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Jon513:

7. In February 2007 you nominated two article for deletion. One was soon speedied as A7, and other [[1]] probably could have been. In April 2007, you nominated an article for afd which in my opinion would have been more appropriate to prod. In your deleted history I was only able to find one use of a speedy tag (a copyvio) and could note find any use of a prod. What do you view as the proper roles of afd, prod, and speeding?

A:No, you are right. When I involved myself in AfD in those days, I was much too quick to pull the trigger to start AfDs, but was hesitant to start Speedies and didn't understand Prods. I've gained experience in WP matters generally now. I see Speedies as a way of getting rid of matter that unquestionably should not be on WP and there is urgency in getting them off (extreme urgency if copyvio (images, for example), less so for stuff like hoaxes or nonsense, but still considerable urgency), with prods a more laid back way of accomplishing deletion of articles with plainly meet the criteria and are hopefully noncontrovertial and can be approved by an administrator without an AfD discussion. AfDs should be used more where reasonable minds can differ or where a speedy or prod has been objected to. That's how I see it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions from John Sloan (talk)

8. This is normally xeno's RfA question. However, I like it as well. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A. I rather like that question, and it is a change from alternating exhilaration and depression as the community weighs in on me! I think I would first drop a note on the talk page of the admin who unblocked the first time and see if his rationale is of any help to me. But I think I'm going to have to uphold the block, if it is my call (see below). The guy's comment is very germane, it hits right on WP:BLOCK, since blocks are to reduce the likelihood of future problems, not really intended as punishment. But past performance very often indicates future results, and this guy doesn't seem very mature, how can I trust him? I mean, established users with hundreds of edits would be blocked for a week or longer if they did that kind of thing, how can I in fairness not keep this guy blocked? Oh, I'd drop him a nice note explaining my rationale to him, nothing hurts more than noncommunication and if the guy takes the trouble to write, well, he ought to get a response. One thing I did not overlook is that I know nothing about the subject matter, his edit might be good stuff or it might be garbage. But I think that approaches being a nonfactor due to his actions. Afterwards, I would keep an eye on this guy's contributions, and hope I haven't soured a potentially solid editor to WP. I should note that you've said it is my call, generally, it is my view and I think WP policy that an unblock should be reviewed by an uninvolved admin.

9. This is normally NuclearWarfare's RfA question. But I beat him to it :D! Under what circumstances would you voluntarily give up your adminship/run for reconfirmation?

A. I think that it is more likely that I would give it up rather than run for reconfirmation. Basically, if I felt I did not enjoy the confidence and trust of the community, not necessarily by votes but more likely by opinions of respected editors, I would feel obliged to step aside and find some other way to contribute to the community. I don't think I would put myself or the community through a reconfirmation. I'd also give it up if I became inactive on WP, or committed some act, on or off WP (can't imagine what) that I felt I was no longer worthy of the community's trust.

Optional Question from Gopal81^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

10.Under what circumstances do you think an article should be protected?

A. When, in the opinion of administrators, there is such persistent vandalism, BLP violations, edit warring or other serious WP content violations that it is really detracting from what the reader is getting out of the article. To protect more than that flies in the face of WP's philosophy as the encyclopedia anyone can edit.

Optional questions from Foxy Loxy ^Pounce!

I have noticed that your edit summary usage is at 86% for major edits and 91% for minor edits, I find that to be an alright number but would like to ask you the following questions regarding the edit summary to better understand your edit summary views, and vote accordingly.

11. Why is an edit summary important when editing?

A. Well, it makes it a lot easier for people following through watchlists or edit histories to see what happened.

12. Is an edit summary more important in a situation where the edit may be controversial?

A. Certainly. Doesn't mean I've never left one blank in those circumstances, but in that situation, your edit summary is also a part of what you are doing to convince others of that what you want to put in is right, so you tend to be more careful then.

13. As an admin, would you commit to turning on the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" option in your preferences or maintain a 99% or above edit summary usage?

A. I'd rather do the former. I sometimes don't leave an edit summary when making repeated edits to the same article (fine tuning language), especially when article building. In many cases, a single edit summary, hopefully the last, speaks for all. However, I don't mind committing to that. Certainly I would never take action as an admin without leaving a full explanation anyway.

General comments

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

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

Discussion

• Statement by candidate Regarding the comment which is causing concern, it was not my intention to be uncivil. I apologize to wikipedians for the comment, and I am leaving an apology on the IP's talk page. No one has mentioned, in nearlyover 15,000 edits, any similar comment, and (as near as I recall) there isn't any, so if you want this to be your decider, that is your privilege. I'm not going to address the point further, if you wish to oppose, I respect that, and I believe being an admin is no big deal, so no hard feelings. Now I'm getting back out of the way and letting you guys decide this. I'm always willing to answer any questions about this or anything else so feel free.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

However, if you are as yet undecided, there is a live test of my skills coming up during the course of this RfA. My FA, Albert Speer will be TFA on Saturday. Handling the TfA of the first member of the Nazi Party to be TFA (and the only current one to be FA) will require tact and understanding. Why not hold off and keep an eye on things, if you are thinking of opposing?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Incivility versus Honesty versus Politically Correctness versus RFA

My, my, my what a long way we have come from No Big Deal - Ignore All the Rules - Assume Good Faith. I see that we are developing into a community that looks at only our trifle mistakes, though how minor they may be, and not our overall contributions, no matter how stellar they may be. A community that is, in some cases, more interested in a agenda versus fair and balanced reasoning - growth and the dissemination of information, that being correct information. I see we have found ourselves looking at individuals not as individuals but rather objects to what have they have done and in what way they may they can continue to help in my point of view. We have started to view candidates’ for RFA as items that must make the right decision, as to the almighty consensus, not offending anyone that maybe in the majority of that consensus, versus looking at the decision and not the wording of decision, if it was right or wrong. I see we have come a long way. However, are we traveling the right way? ShoesssS ^Talk 21:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's a sad truth that the general RfA regulars look for reasons to oppose rather than reasons to support. For arguments sake and easy math, let's say that each of Wehwalt's edits to talk space accounts for one comment (there are just over 2900 of them). That would mean that the one comment that some users are finding offensive amounts to 0.0344827586% (yes, that's three hundredths of one percent) of Wehwalt's contribs to talk pages. The other 99.9655172% are just fine. Does one comment in 2.5/3 years and 14,000+ edits really mean the candidate will not be a good admin? I would have thought the answer to that question was obvious, but apparently not... - auburnpilot talk 21:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Somehow, the important idea of "net positive" has been lost and replaced by "only flawless editors for RfA". Not that I have anything about flawless editors: they make good admins. But people should remember that flawless editors don't exist. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree about the overemphasis on this one comment, which seems a little unfair to me - but I don't think there's anything wrong about 'looking for reasons to oppose rather than reasons to support'. Arguably, that's what we should be doing. No reason is needed to support a candidate; it's assumed to be the default position. Hence, assessing a candidate for adminship is about finding if there are any valid reasons to oppose them - and if there are not, defaulting to support. Terraxos (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, now that the oppose section is claiming that admins are not allowed to exhibit emotion, I think we can safely assume we have entered The Twilight Zone. - auburnpilot talk 01:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I am gobsmacked to see a statement like "No matter what the case is, an administrator should never, ever display negative emotions." When people complained about the civility police I'd always believed they were making something of a straw man. I didn't realize how cluelessly detached from realistic expectations this had gotten. --JayHenry (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Just for the sake of argument – and at the risk of being clobbered with shovels for raising this point – how many people in the Oppose section have made it part of their Wiki routine to openly confront sarcastic, rude or even scatologically spewing admins about lapses in civility? There appears to be a concern for civility among future admins, I am curious to know what’s being done about the current bunch who are denying unblock requests with inappropriately facetious commentary, taunting editors who are begging for the return of deleted articles, or belittling baffled newbies who don’t quite get the hang of our parallel universe? Because if you are not taking on the current incivility, why is there a bother over the possibility of future incivility? Ecoleetage (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Just a note of closure that I have faced such mentioned criticism but have doled it out. Yanksox (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
            • You're a good person, Yanksox! Thank you for being you! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
              • You're welcome? Yanksox (talk) 03:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
                • No, I'm Eco. I don't think we've met before. Nice to make your acquaintance. How's life treating you today? :) Ecoleetage (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Beat the nom Support. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Nom beating too. Most encounters with Wehwalt have been rather pleasant. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Support - From my personal experience with Wehwalt, who I've worked with extensively on the Holloway article, I have no doubts that he will make an effective admin. Out of his 14,000+ edits over the last 2.5/3 years, a little more than 10,000 of them are within Mainspace (70%). With a mainspace-heavy edit count, Wehwalt's contributions still show plenty of work on article, user, and Wikipedia talk pages (~20% of his edits). Effective communication and the accurate application of policy (most importantly with respect to content) are two key factors in the role of a good admin. Wehwalt's contributions indicate he doesn't have a problem with either, and granting him adminship would certainly benefit the project. - auburnpilot talk 23:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   Support - Nothing alarming that I can see, default to support. — neuro^(talk) 00:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

   Moving to oppose. — neuro^(talk) 20:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

4. Support Although I haven't run into him here on Wikipedia, I can still tell that he's very committed to preserving Wikipedia and will use the tools wisely. So yes.--Iamawesome800 02:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Support One of the most rational editors I've encountered. Nergaal (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
6. Support per encounters with the user at WP:TFAR. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
7. Support We need more admins who have the skills to take complex articles to the highest levels of quality. Everything else is mostly trivial and can be learned. Editor has been exceptional every place I've seen him too. --JayHenry (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
8. switched to strongSupport per User:AuburnPilot Wehwalt has been editing about a month longer than I have, and has over 14,000 edits. Has been working on three FA's. (readily meets my standards) In reviewing Talk:Natalee_Holloway, I see a knowledgeable and reasonable editor who seeks consensus and works well with others in a sometimes contentious environment. I discount the "no need for the tools" argument-- user is unlikely to rush in and do something ill advised with the buttons. Blowing a fuse as mentioned in User:either way's neutral looks like an aberration. Even so, it was pretty much on the mark and at worst was overly frank, rather than incivil. In the context of the conversation, it was not as inappropriate as it would have been had the anon been less bellicose. It does not diminish my confidence in view of all the other edits. Not likely to abuse/misuse the tools and a net positive. Dlohcierekim 04:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

   Switching to strong' based on Hibernators below, and the aplomb with which the candidate has handled this harrowing. Dlohcierekim 21:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

9. Support. Upon further review and thought, such a comment is really inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Per Dlohcierekim, I think the candidate soars well above the net positive. Best of luck! DARTH PANDA^duel 04:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
10. I have interacted with him lots at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
11. as nominator behind the beaters! DrKiernan (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
12. Sure, seems fine. If the only thing dug up so far is one snappish remark to an IP, this candidate's a net positive. GlassCobra 11:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
13. Support Absolutely. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    Support Epbr123 (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    Switched to oppose. Epbr123 (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

14. Support. I have never seen this user's name before but the contributions look fine to me. The only concerning thing is the diff provided by either way in his neutral !vote but I haven't found any other comments of this kind. I think, also based on Q1, that he will be a wise admin that does not run guns drawn into things he does not understand and I am sure he will handle the tools responsibly. And as the nominator out it, there is no reason to deny him those just because he does not wish to focus on admin work. Every active responsible editor in good standing with the tools is a net gain for the project, even if he or she does only use them once a week. Regards SoWhy 13:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
15. Support Definitely has a clue. His FAC work shows patience and responsiveness. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
16. Support – Yes, another long-winded comment. Reviewing the candidates’ talk page – oppose opinion expressed, along with the neutral view, and taking into account Wehwalt contributions I can only come down on the support side. From my perspective the answer to question 7 shows an individual that has grown into a fine editor and who will make a wonderful Adminitrator, fair and balanced. Regarding the Neutral opinion, I understand the point Either way is trying to make. However, two slightly, and I emphasis slightly, bite remarks can be chalked-up to a frustrating situation and remember 2 out of 14,000 edits is a damn good track record. Finally, the Oppose opinion actually pushed me to contribute to this discussion in the support column. Where Yanksox points to the candidates’ expressing the viewpoint that he does not need the tools or may not even want the extra buttons. When we think about it, there are very view individuals on Wikipedia who actually need the tools. However, I am inclined to give the tools to an individual who expresses reluctance in wanting the tools. Good luck to you. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
17. Support Keepscases (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
18. Support. I am not doing any “wrong queue” jokes today, because I want to offer my serious support on two levels. First, the candidate has done extraordinary work that is deserving of commendation – that is a given. Second, concern is being raised over the isolated comments made by the candidate that, admittedly, were not framed correctly. This should not be a cause for disqualification. People will, on occasion, say the wrong thing. But that is why the words “sorry” and “apologize” are part of the vocabulary. On a few too many RfA occasions, I’ve seen highly qualified candidates whacked because isolated incidents of poorly-considered opinions and badly-phrased comments were taken out of context and magnified inappropriately in an effort to obscure a larger body of positive work. I sincerely hope this is not going to be the case here. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    Well said. Dlohcierekim 15:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

19. Support. Editor has strong contribution history and I sense a sufficient amount of clueful editing that, overall, respects and advances the goals of the project. I found the answer to Q4 to be a responsible and practical initial course of action for uninvolved adminstrative action in a contentious arena. — Scientizzle 18:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    To further expand upon my support...Wehwalt has a couple of comments that seem to have irked others. These comments barely move the needle on my incivility-o-meter; but more importantly, the lack of a consistent pattern this sort of thing is highly relevant in my opinion: admins are not automatons and we shouldn't expect them to be. In my experience, the institutionalized coddling of nice-but-destructive editors is a far more pervasive problem than incivility directed towards good-faith contributors. In truth, I would have likely opposed Wehwalt's candidacy had he reached for the block button based on civility concerns in the hypothetical I presented in Question 4. — Scientizzle 02:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

20. Support. Wehwalt has a strong grasp of policy and a history of working with other editors. He put in a lot of effort at WP:TFA/R to help define what the process ought to look like. I'm satisfied that he has a lot of clue and will not abuse the community's trust. Karanacs (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
21. Fine content contributions, no bullshit attitude, can interact politely and constructively with others, knows their way around the encyclopaedia at this point. Skomorokh 19:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
22. Support Having read the candidate's answers to questions and the opposes below, I am going to tentatively support the candidate. Everyone makes mistakes from time to time when it comes to WP:CIVIL. I hope the candidate has learned his lesson there and will be a little more mindful of it in the future. Trusilver 19:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
23. Support per Trusilver --Irmela 19:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
24. Great user. —Ceran [speak ] 20:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
25. Support, the mildly uncivil (incivil? noncivil?) comments aren't Wehwalt's finest hour but they look like isolated incidents in a long editing history, and aren't that bad in any case. Still, I'd urge Wehwalt to take the civility comments in this RfA on board. Other than that, a good content editor on controversial topics, with a good grasp of Wikipedia's core policies. Seems fine to me. Euryalus (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
26. Support - has shown excellent judgment in applying policy to various disputes, in addition to being a solid contributor. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
27. Support - No reason not to. AuburnPilot (Roll Tide) makes an exceptional point about nit-picking. JodyB _talk 22:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
28. Enthusastic Support. Have been impressed with what I've seen. IronDuke 22:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
29. Strong support - I might've missed something, but judging by the candidate's contributions and answers to the questions, he will make a great admin, experienced and knowledgeable in the important processes. His course of action in certain answers differs from what I'd do, but still shows that his knowledge clearly comes from dealing with real articles and real users, as opposed to artificial knowledge gained solely from process participation. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
30. Support. We need more people willing to say what needs to be said and less self-proclaimed Civility Police. – iridescent 23:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
31. Strong Support - What ever happened to net positive and no big deal? Isolated incivility almost three months ago is not enough to make me oppose, but if you becomes an admin, I suggest you take an extra healthy look at WP:CIVIL. No one is a perfectly civil robot. RockManQ^{Review me} 00:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
32. Did we run out of sysop bits? Are admins really expected to be perfect? Wehwalt's positive contributions to the project are clear to see, but you have to get out a magnifying glass and squint real hard to see anything negative here. The comments in the discussion section are all too true, unfortunately. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
33. Support With a few minor reservations based on either way's comment in the neutral, but they aren't nearly sufficient enough for me to even go neutral, as I see a pretty good contributor up for adminship today. A few ill-adviced words shouldn't damn anyone's RfA candidacy outright. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
34. Support See no pressing concerns. America69 (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
35. Support. Opposers, while acting in good faith, are IMO stretching it a bit. The canididate will be a net positive. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 01:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
36. Support. per RyanGerbil10 --John (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
37. Support. Sensible editor, see no serious concerns. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
38. Support Avruch ^T 02:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
39. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
40. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
41. Support. The opposes below are silly, typical of the normal hostility shown on RfAs towards encyclopedia builders. This good editor has done more than enough to show he can be trusted by the extra buttons. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
42. Support I decided to look over this RFA as it's a close one. I've considered the opposes below and completely agree with Deacon directly above me that they are completely silly and I believe they are unduly nitpicking. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
43. THE GROOVE 07:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
44. Support I've worked with this editor a long time, and he shows sound judgment. Neither of the diffs below bother me strongly ... snapping back at an editor that is chewing on you isn't the best of behaviour, but even when he did it, he focused on the quality of the edit, not the characteristics of the editor.—Kww(talk) 15:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
45. Support a good article builder, and Kww said what I would about one minor lapse. We've all been there. Nothing indicates to me that the tools will be misused. --Rodhullandemu 16:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
46. Unlikely to abuse the tools (nor to use them often enough for a moderate error rate to amount a serious problem, but that's another matter). — CharlotteWebb 17:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
47. Course! Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
48. Weak support per Julian and AuburnPilot. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
49. Support: Any experienced editor who understands that a tool like this is not an inexperienced noob, but a jaded editor hiding behind an IP for the sake of causing disruption has my trust. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
50. Support per User:Pascal.Tesson, - 10+ edits per page is an impressive contribution for an editor with 14k edits...must know somethin'....Modernist (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
51. Support: I think this is a responsible editor in which I would be comfortable entrusting the privileges of an administrator. kilbad (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
52. Support - I feel that the Wehwalt having the tools is a net positive for the project and the remark to the IP does not concern me at all. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
53. Support miranda 08:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
54. Angus McLellan and auburnpilot have unpacked this quite nicely. east718 // talk // email // 09:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
55. Incivility concerns are outweighed by the candidate's positive contributions. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
56. Support - I like your answer to Q9. For Q8, your call should be to let another sysop handle the unblock request. Also, I like the fact that you are prepared to be tough on vandals! I'm not really concerned by the civility issues brought up in this RfA. I've seen and encountered sysops with severe civility problems and in some cases, downright attitude problems during my time here. As far as I can see, you have a nice, tough and hard working attitude! Good luck :-) JS (chat) 10:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
57. Support. No problems here. "Incivility" accusations are being blown WAY out of proportion. Tan | 39 15:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
58. Support - good editor. With regards to the opposition, it's a poor argument when you have to rest upon one diff. Caulde 18:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
59. As long as that diff never, ever happens again. Garden. 22:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
60. Support - I'm as big on civility as anyone, but that's about as minor a deviation from civility as could be imagined and I imagine the editor has taken the point. Good luck if you're successful. Dean B (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
61. Support - I have worked with this editor (my role was minor) over time on one of his FAs (an extremely difficult one to write, one of the best I have seen on Wikipedia) and I have noticed his behavior since. Not only is he an exceptional article writer, he is extremely patient and easy to work with on difficult topics. I have never seen anything close to incivility in his responses, even in some irritating situations. Whatever evidence to the contrary is a very unusual exception. No doubts in my mind at all about his judgment nor his ability to communicate well and constructively with others. —Mattisse (Talk) 06:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
62. Support Opposition isn't convincing, good answer to questions 11-13. Per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 07:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
63. Support will make a great sysop, I am sure. abf /talk to me/ 10:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
64. Support Seems very good. The minor incivility discussed below does not bother me. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
65. Support One violation of WP:CIVIL in two thousand talkspace edits? That's amazing! ~-F.S-~(Talk,Contribs,Online?) 16:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
66. Support due to barnstars and good/featured article credits on candidate's userpage (shows that others have appreciated the candidates efforts and that candidate has contributed constructively to our project), as candidate has never been blocked, and due to no memorable negative interactions in any discussions we both participated in. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
67. Support, good editor, solid article contribs, shown ability and intelligence in collaborating on high level and sometimes divisive articles. He has opinions (gasp!) AND (double gasp!) has the audacity to stand by them? Heaven forbid we have admins with spines. Admins are janitors and hall monitors, not doormats. Keeper ǀ 76 19:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
68. Support. Overall, very fine contributions. Wehwalt has a good appreciation of policies and guidelines. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I am not cool with the attitude expressed in the neutral opinion. Don't bite the newbies. You have to take crap from people and smile about it. It's not exciting but its how it works. Normally, this wouldn't bother me, but it's just too recent to overlook. Also, per [this] I don't really see a need for him to even garner the tools along with the idea that Q1 doesn't express a real need for it. I will give him credit for being a fantastic editor but I don't like giving adminship as a matter of fact kinda thing. Yanksox (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

   Please see WP:NONEED. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

   Please, now you are grouping me with comments that are absurd like that. I am not saying that are a habitual user or anything of the like. I would appreciate it if my comments were given slighly more respect than a user not familar with the process. My opinion is founded on several matters not one idea. Yanksox (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

   I was simply pointing out the fact that "no need for the tools" arguments are generally given less weight by the closing 'crat (at least, supposedly). –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you for trying to belittle my opinion. Much appreciated. Yanksox (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

   I do not think he was trying to do that in any way, I think Julian was just trying to help you, rather than hinder you. :) Andy (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

   It's fine, but I just think he underestimated how much a former admin knew about RfA. I'm not fazed at all just slightly agitated but it comes with the territory, so I'll assume the best. Yanksox (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose. The diffs brought up by Either way in the neutral section are unacceptable for an administrator to have. You will be representing Wikipedia if you gain the admin bit, and comments like the ones given there will give the encyclopedia a bad reputation. Even if you do not plan to actively use the administrative tools, users will still come to you for advice, disputes will be brought to you for judgement, and your communicating skills will be utilized daily. Even if you are making a reply to a vandal, your goal should be to rehabilitate them into--at the very least--a regular user that does not vandalize Wikipedia, rather than to make them into a repeat vandal. You are a talented writer, but I do not think you have the necessary skills to become an administrator. Malinaccier P. (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose per either way and Malinaccier. This was a bit too harsh. Epbr123 (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

   Can we address this diff issue honestly, and get a bit of perspective? I could understand opposing based on a comment if it was a perfect example of a pattern of biting the newbies, a pattern of incivility, or a pattern of attacks. But nobody has so much as insinuated that there is a pattern of abuse from this editor. This is pretty typical for RfA, for editors to oppose based on a single diff, but that doesn't make it acceptable. Within the last couple months, I had an admin tell me to "fuck off". Doesn't make him a bad admin, and one or two unfortunately worded diffs out of 14,000+ doesn't make somebody a bad nominee. If the diff presented by User:Either way is the worst that's out there, Wehwalt's a better candidate than most. - auburnpilot talk 15:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

   AuburnPilot is correct. There's a difference between biting newbies and getting ticked when being bitten by a newbie. (see my comment in the neutral section) Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

   Irritated by newbies? There are far more capable wikibrawlers out there, well organized and "playing by the rules". NVO (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

   Please take a look at the entire context of the comment and take into consideration the ip's comment which is important. This is not something to be proud of but certainly not worth opposing on this alone. JodyB _talk 22:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

   Please take into account that an administrator's comments can result in very negative consequences, one of such is listed at WP:SIP. Please stop badgering Epbr123, and understand that what an administrator says reflects upon Wikipedia. Malinaccier P. (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

   Absolutely true, however I do not think that example is that damaging at all, especially being that he was not an admin at the time. Mistakes will happen. Truthfully I've seen much worse said by current admins. Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, but in my view this is becoming simple nitpicking. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

   Saying the things Wehwalt said in the diffs are not mistakes. Mistakes are when you accidentally tag an article for speedy deletion incorrectly, not when you insult someone and make such comments. It is true that Wehwalt was not an administrator at the time he made the comments, but this does not give me the confidence that he will not make similar comments in the future. Wehwalt is a great editor, but his talents will not make him the best administrator. Malinaccier P. (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

   Fair point. Though I would still hope that this process hasn't become so petty that a lapse in judgement becomes a definitive factor in contrast to the editor's net positives. The example given is nitpicky in my opinion. I could give you a fantastic recent example of a still current admin saying absolutely scandalous things to another user (I truly do mean scandalous). In the example Wehwalt's attitude was slightly unprofessional, but that's all. Being tactful is something I am confident he's capable of doing and will do as an admin. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

   Referring to a good faith attempt at copyediting as vandalism isn't good either [2]. Epbr123 (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

   Change to NeturalOppose While he may be a great editor, I don't think Wehwalt is ready to assume a position of authority here at the project. Observing how he's interacted with a new user at Rachel Corrie over the last few days, I've had a few concerns. He simply reverted them to begin with, and did not take up discussion until after he was asked to. While he has now switched gears, I believe this is only because I asked that he and IronDuke discuss their reversions with the new user and because his actions are now under review in the nom. I'm also concerned that he may lack a worldwide perspective when dealing with difficult subject areas, such as those related to the I-P conflict. His comments in response to my concerns about missing information in the article use rather contradictory argumentation that I feel may be rooted in a kind of bias, of which he may not be aware. (See Talk:Rachel Corrie#Information missing from the article) Sorry, but that's how I see things from my perspective. Tiamut^talk 16:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

   I invite people to see the talk page for Rachel Corrie that Tiamut references. Wehwalt has shown terrific patience with a new user who is clearly pushing a POV, and who is generally quite difficult to understand. IronDuke 22:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, he has now, and he's added lots of comments to the talk page too. But that doesn't change that before, both you and he were just reverting the user, without explaining to them why the edits were inappropriate. Looking into the page histories helps. Tiamut^talk 22:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

   But the edits were inappropriate, I think even you would concede that. And Wehwalt came to talk upon request - and has been more civil than most would be. Your oppose, I expect, will not change, but I urge people who have no stake in I-P conflicts (like Wehwalt) to use your reasoning to support. IronDuke 23:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, a lot of it was problematic. But when you revert new users, if they post messages to this talk page asking you to explain why, you should respond to them. It shouldn't take another established editor to come along and ask you to do that. I won't get into the content issues here because the place for that is the talk page. Tiamut^talk 23:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

   Comment The user's first talk page comment was on the 4th. IronDuke replied on the 5th. I replied on the 6th. Forgive me, I was in Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, and using my blackberry to do more than rudimentary editing is very difficult (thus I only did a couple of reverts and rollbacks in that time frame) and I prefer to let it wait until I reached the internet cafe at the Carrefour in Deira (those with access to the IPs I log in from can check this out). I should note that proposing me for admin didn't come up until the 9th, so the whole thing about "Oh, he's only responding on talk page because he wants to be an admin" is contradicted by the timestamps. I should note that Tiamut is actively involved in this content dispute, and—well, go read the talk page. I've been nothing but courteous and friendly to him, both before and after I let myself be nominated for admin. In fact, I've helped him out by editing his contributions, he's prone to duplicate links and the like. This is the only I-P article I'm involved in, and I don't think it has much to do with the conflict, note that I've extensively edited Natalee Holloway, Schapelle Corby and Lori Berenson and maybe a pattern will emerge!--Wehwalt (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

   I appreciate your response, but it does little to alleviate my concerns. A review of the article and talk page history shows a vigilance towards keeping out sources that express one POV, while being relatively lax with those that support the other. You have been courteous with me, yes, but also somewhat condescending. I'm not "prone to duplicate links and the like". I may make mistakes from time to time in my editing, but they are minor and I usually catch them. Thanks for your comments though, and I wish you good luck in your endeavour here and happy editing in general. Tiamut^talk 14:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose, in light of the incivil tone of the communications linked to in User:Either way's neutral vote. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 19:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose I find it disturbingly inappropriate, and somewhat ironic, that you would condemn another user's grammar on a public encyclopedia. That kind of arrogance is astounding and unfit for a potential administrator. Seriously, this candidate obviously has vast experience in the mainspace building content, which is great, but I don't want anymore administrators with chips on their shoulders or condescending attitudes. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose - I would support, but Either way's neutral has changed my mind. Administrators should be more civil than what you have said in those diffs. If I was told that, especially if English was my second language, and I was a newcomer, I'd feel unwelcome. Xclamation point 20:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose - We don't need more incivil administrators. — neuro^(talk) 20:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

   The discussion above may sway me, I'll decide tomorrow. — neuro^(talk) 05:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

8. Oppose - Unfortunately per Either way's second diff and other opposes. ayematthew ✡ 21:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

   Comment - I take it now we do not hold new users to look at edit summaries? If you look at any and all of Wehwalt revisions and reverts, that you are referencing too, they were accompanied by Edit Summaries that explained the rational and reasons behind the changes versus the newbie that made no edit summaries. Ahhh yes, of course the excuses of; “..I didn’t know’, “I’m new”, “You should have told me” count more than content and dedication. Excuse me!!. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

9. Weak oppose Usually I'm fully in favour of second chances, but sometimes things just don't rub me the right way. I appreciate that people need to vent sometimes, that life is hard, that things can go south of how we'd like them to go; however, that's no excuse to act uncivilly. No matter what the case is, an administrator should never, ever display negative emotions. Yes, they are human, but they are the people we entrust to keep order around this place; if they're responding snidely to others (even if said others are the worst vandals possible) they shouldn't be sysops. So again, this isn't a personal thing, and I still think highly of Wehwalt; I just can't support yet. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 00:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

   I think we would have vastly fewer administrators if your standard had been applied throughout the history of Wikipedia. My guess is between zero and... zero. Avruch ^T 01:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

   Agreed. I'm having trouble thinking of an admin I know who hasn't been uncivil at one time or another. They're only human. MoP, I admire the spirit behind the oppose, but I hope you'll reconsider. IronDuke 01:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

   Never display negative emotions? Let the mass resignation of admins begin. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

   That's the saddest part; so many people behave dramatically around here that it has become an accepted way to deal with things. I'm not saying that all dramadmins should leave (that would be unrealistic, and also, as you've said, reduce sysop numbers considerably), but I've never supported that behaviour and unfortunately this is just enough to tip my scales the wrong way. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 17:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

10. Oppose I'd have to say the incivility has me bothered enough to oppose, unfortunately. Incivility is probably one of the hardest things, and it becomes even harder when you're an admin and even more people may complain or argue with you. If you could take a few months or so and continue to make a conscious effort to be civil, even to someone argumentative and hostile, it will help. Some things that help me are just to leave the specific article for awhile, since we all face this problem. However for now I don't think you should get the mop because of these interactions. Good luck in the future. --Banime (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose because of concerns over the candidate’s comments in this discussion starting on 22 October. He criticizes SandyGeorgia’s understanding of a prior exchange by stating: "Sandy, I want to work with you, but you are making it real hard. I make a living as an attorney, I don't take being accused of breaking my word lightly. Please withdraw what you said." When Sandy provided statements showing the basis for her understanding, the candidate made a legalistic argument why there was no agreement, stating the discussion "does not constitute an agreement not to nominate for the 21st and I'm not buying that you viewed it that way". Inside of half an hour he took umbrage at what he took to be an attack on his honesty, while refusing to believe another editor’s statements, thereby impugning her honesty. I am not comfortable with giving the powers of an administrator to someone who engages in argumentative behavior and who relies on his profession when advancing his position, nor with what appears to be an escalation of a misunderstanding rather than an attempt to resolve it. (SandyGeorgia stated that the incident was "no big deal" even before Wehwalt made the second statement quoted above.) While the two parties work well with each other, I am concerned of the effect of such actions on editors less experienced and collegial than Sandy Georgia. Kablammo (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

    Comment for the convenience of editors, here is the exchange in question, which I stand by:

    You may gain support for that argument to the extent this article is a bio, but man oh man, what it took to get you all to include three little bio sentences about the subject of the bio :-) If it's not a bio, then it should be moved to the Disappearance article; perhaps it will endure as a bio now, but until yesterday, it was in limbo, neither-nor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

    Was it worth it? The loss of civility makes me think it probably wasn't.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

    Well, then don't do that next time. AGF works (but I've told you that before :-) And what happened to that agreement not to ask for this little ditty to be run on the deceased's birthday, by the way? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

    I never remember an agreement, just your threats to oppose it based on your personal morality (aka nothing to do with Wikipedia). - auburnpilot talk 00:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

    To be honest, I remember you requesting that, and we did attempt to run it on a different date. I don't remember anyone assuring you that it wouldn't be requested on her birthday when that one got yanked. Got a diff?—Kww(talk) 00:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

    Sandy, I refer you to the discussion we had on Raul's talk page.[16] in which I said, "if Kww and the rest of us are going to nominate again, we'll have to do it for the 21st, to get that fifth point. It would solve everything if Raul chose to run it earlier". Sandy, I want to work with you, but you are making it real hard. I make a living as an attorney, I don't take being accused of breaking my word lightly. Please withdraw what you said.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

    Gosh, I'd hate to read that as a legal threat. Refreshing your memory on the conversation from this point in the archive you linked:[17] "So, is there any reason the article couldn't run on some day that has no association with the story?" Gimmetrow 14:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC) "That is frankly what I am hoping. ... " --Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC) I took your word and refrained from opposing at TFA/R; you requested it for the 21st anyway.[18] For the record. No big deal, but the bio concerns raised by everyone else who visited the talk page should be weighed now that mainpage day is over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

    Still waiting for an agreement. A hope that Raul would exercise his discretion, combined with telling you we were going to renominate for the 21st does not constitute an agreement not to nominate for the 21st and I'm not buying that you viewed it that way. Seems to me your quarrel is with Raul for actually running it on the 21st.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

    This is water under the bridge, but I do not want an incorrect record to be left here. There were no opposes on the WP:TFA/R (we already discussed why I didn't oppose); Raul complied with the community request (as he always tries to), and the regular editors here objected when the article wasn't scheduled on the 21st.[19] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

    As I said, I stand by my comments. I won't cringe on the hope of being an admin. It seems to me that the response to "you broke your word" is perfectly appropriately, "No I didn't. That's a serious accusation, my word is my bond. Please take that back." especially when backed by two other editors and the text supports me. Again, I didn't mean to butt into deliberations, but when my word is being questioned . . . well, please see the whole reputation speech from Othello.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

    These things happen in the course of editing wikipedia. Not sufficient grounds for depriving him of adminship. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

12. Oppose - the diffs identified by either way are all that I need to see. I'm not going to check anything else. Keep calm - don't get a victim mentality. It comes across as aggression when you act defensively like that. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose' Not quite ready yet. Soonish, but not yet.--VS ^talk 12:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
14. Weak Oppose due to concerns over recent civility and inappropriate responses as epbr123 and other editors pointed out. Andy (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose Unlike some admins, Wehwalt is not exempt from WP:NPA. It's really a shame that some current admins are attempting to justify this behavior. Regardless of context, the response should be completely unacceptable from any competent administrator. Next they'll try to convince me that telling users, "Fuck off!" on 10 separate occasions is completely OK since it's part of (mystery admin)'s culture. Oh, wait.. SashaNein (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
16. Strong Oppose. The key question in evaluating an RfA is trust, given that the necessary experience requirements are satisfied. Sadly, I am unable to trust this candidate, firstly because of this blatant lie^{for readers wishing to verify this lie, the link to the HRW page is now dead, but it can be viewed on the wayback machine} and secondly because, as Tiamut has pointed out in her edit of 14:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC) above, Wehwalt has displayed a consistent pattern of lax application of rules regarding edits supporting his own POV while vigorously trying to keep out edits against his own POV. Sorry, Wehwalt, I normally like to support article builders at RfA, but I regard this sort of lying and inconsistent application of rules as an automatic and absolute bar to adminship or any other position of trust. And before people jump in and say I'm just opposing because my POV is different than Wehwalt's, not so: I will support (so-called) "pro-Israel" candidates if they have demonstrated that they can be trusted, for example here. NSH001 (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

    FWIW, that first diff is over two years old. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

    True, and thanks, but that is not the main point. SashaNein just cited WP:NPA, I don't know how else to characterize NSH001's comment accusing me of telling a "blatant lie" for inserting, two years ago, in an attempt to balance NSH001's somewhat biased insertion of material, a statement that the HRW report did not contradict the conclusions of the IDF, that is, that the driver could not see Corrie. Notably, even NSH001's own insertion only questioned the "quality of the report" rather than its substance. I note from the HRW report, "The possibility that the bulldozer operator could not see Corrie cannot be ruled out, however. Thomas Doyle and Nicholas Durie, as noted earlier, both said that she had been crouching or kneeling when the bulldozer was twenty meters away and that she stood up after the machine had come closer." I respect most of the opinions that have been stated here, they seem in good faith though I don't always agree, but I'm just disgusted by NSH001's, for lack of a better term, contribution. If you wish to oppose my nomination, do so, that is fine, but submitting oneself to RfA does not give a general license for an unfounded accusation of a "blatant lie" and "lying". For shame.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry, Wehwahlt, in your edit you did not insert the crucial qualifier "that the driver could not see Corrie". The conclusion of the IDF report, as stated in our article at the time, reads: "The Israeli army's report, which was seen by the The Guardian, said that Corrie was: "struck as she stood behind a mound of earth that was created by an engineering vehicle operating in the area and she was hidden from the view of the vehicle's operator who continued with his work. Corrie was struck by dirt and a slab of concrete resulting in her death ... The finding of the operational investigations shows that Rachel Corrie was not run over by an engineering vehicle but rather was struck by a hard object, most probably a slab of concrete which was moved or slid down while the mound of earth which she was standing behind was moved," This is directly contradicted by the HRW report: "The claim of the “operational investigation” that Corrie was not killed by a bulldozer is directly contradicted by the findings of the final autopsy report, conducted only four days after Corrie’s death released on April 24 at Israel’s National Center of Forensic Medicine. The author of the autopsy report stated:“Based on the results of the autopsy which I performed on the body of RACHEL ALIENE CORRIE, age 24, I hereby express my opinion that her death was caused by pressure on the chest (mechanical asphyxiation) with fractures of the ribs and vertebrae of the dorsal spinal column and scapulas, and tear wounds in the right lung with hemorrhaging of the pleural cavities.”271"

    But I invite readers to read the whole of the HRW report, which contradicts the IDF report in many other aspects, stating that the latter "contains major factual errors". To the extent that you meant the narrow interpretation that the conclusion meant only that the driver could not see Corrie, I accept that this was in good faith on your part. Nevertheless, even in this narrow interpretation, it is still not strictly true: the IDF report says that he didn't see her; the HRW report leaves the question open, not the same thing as "does not contradict", more so given that the HRW report also reports eyewitness statements which do indeed contradict the IDF report. But, ironically, I don't think this was a major point of dispute, since most editors were agreed that we simply report both versions.

    --NSH001 (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

    Comment: Sorry to say NSH001 your arguments are better served at the talk page of Rachel Corrie than here. And to be honest, I am extremely disappointed in the conduct and opinions expressed in this RFA. We have not judged a EDITOR on his overall contributions to the project called Wikipedia. I have seen agendas forwarded - POV used as reasons to oppose and even more disappointing, pile-on opinions expressed through laziness because editors and even several administrators all to willing to read a few comments, and express an opinion based on hear say rather than their own investigative research. I respect any and all reasoned opinions, even ones I disagree with. However, the one thing that sticks in my throat more than anything else is when individuals use any means to further their schema. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

    Comment Agree with Shoesss, and I might also add it's depressing that someone who (AFAIK) has only worked on one article on the I-P conflict would be subject to votes against merely on that narrow POV, on that one article (where he has actually been a voice of reason). IronDuke 01:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

    I would say in response that I think it's incredibly unfortunate that when editors express concern about an editor they have interacted with during an RfA, that those who disagree with their views try to characterize them as having a "schema" or an agenda. The I-P area is very difficult to work in and with the discretionary sanctions whereby any admin not involved in I-P articles can ban or block editors unilaterally, it is important that the admins that do get elected be impartial in this regard. Wehwalt is saying he is not involved in that area of editing, but he has been deeply involved in the article on Rachel Corrie, and his edits there have concerned at least two editors. I'm sorry that Shoess and IronDuke don't think those concerns are valid or well-intentioned, but we are certainly entitled to express them. Tiamut^talk 12:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

    Comment given the tone and content of yours' and NSH001's statements, I rather doubt I would be considered an uninvolved admin. To cut this short, I will undertake, if elected, to preserve the appearance of neutrality and all that, not to take administrative action in the I-P area, said statement to be construed broadly.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

    Probably a good suggestion, given the Great Hummus War of 2008. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

    Wehwalt, I appreciate your undertaking, but you may wish to rephrase it to make clear the "Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done" meaning. As it stands, it could be construed as being concerned with preserving appearance rather than the substance of the matter. However I am not going to change my "vote". Your pattern of editing, backed up by IronDuke, effectively drove me off the Rachel Corrie article in disgust, and probably contributed to the medical condition that kept me off Wikipedia for several weeks shortly afterwards. One does not easily forget this sort of horrific experience. If you have succeeded in driving me off that article, then you have probably also driven off other good editors. I regard that as a much, much more serious fault than the occasional loss of temper at a problematic editor that seems to be the basis of most of the other opposes. NSH001 (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

    I refer you to my response to Tiamut's neutral. You did note that you were going off Wiki for a time due to illness, you never blamed myself or IronDuke, or for that matter, anyone. When you returned, I wished you well, and you said nothing in response. I left a diff at the other response. If we were at odds beyond what you might expect to find on a contentious talk page, some note on my talk page or some effort somewhere to resolve it would be available to be found. I see nothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

    (outdent)I also find this diff] in which you disagree with one edit I made, but say that you thought my "earlier contributions were mostly helpful". Res ipsa loquitur sayeth the lawyer.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

    (outdent)Hummus? You're kidding me. lol. Oh, you're not kidding me. Jeez. Not going there. Anyway, that's my undertaking.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

17. Regretful Oppose. Was going to vote "Support", in part based on the ridiculous justifications from opponents. I'm not all that impressed with Albert Speer, which paints its subject in too positive a light (see summary of more damning evidence Template:De icon; but the de-wikipedia article is no better). However, I would have supported if not for the undertaking by Wehwalt "not to take administrative action in the I-P area", based on… well, what? A sign that the candidate lacks backbone, in my opinion.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry you feel that way. I felt the editors in question were right to the extent that because of my involvement in the Corrie article, I should stay out as admin (if and when) to I P affairs, which are contentious enough without uproar about whether I'm "uninvolved" or not. I'd say that the backbone thing is probably not correct because I'm not sucking up to get them to change their votes, there is no likelihood they will. As for Speer, well, you're entitled to your opinion, and I'll look at the web site you noted.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

    I'd like to note in Wehwalt's defense that Wikipedia is still the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and if you want to modify the Speer article, you're more than welcome to do so. Speer is a very ambiguous figure and the historiography on the subject is notably complex. I find it strikingly harsh to fault an editor for building a featured article that you feel is imperfect. As for the I-P area, it is important for admins to limit their involvement (as admins) in contentious areas where they are not perceived as impartial. It's not a question of backbone: Wehwalt can and should continue to get involved in editorial debates, but admins who block/protect/delete in these areas usually end up creating a lot of useless drama. For these very reasons, the policy on administrators specifically recommends avoiding these situations. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

    I'd also note that Albert Speer is currently showcased on the Main Page as Today's featured article. Congrats, Wehwalt. - auburnpilot talk 01:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

    I have left a note giving more detail on the Talk page of Albert Speer. Wehwalt, I was not suggesting that you were "sucking up" to anyone, but that your undertaking to stay out of I-P areas based on complaints from two editors is troubling. Unless they showed evidence that your edits there rendered you unfit to take administrative actions in that area (and they have not presented such evidence) you should not let yourself be pushed aside so easily. All the above IMHO of course.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

    I've responded there. Thanks for your input. I've based my stepping aside on more than that, actually. I've mentioned (for example in the FAC for Speer) that I'm a former synagogue president, and that would inevitably be brought up in any discussion of my fitness on the I P question. And as an attorney, the appearance of impropriety is almost as important as impropriety itself. I think it is the case of Rex v. Sussex Justices in which it was said "Not only must justice be done, it must be seen to be done." Should I wait until someone dug up from the FAC my description of myself, and then have to step aside in disarray?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

    I would never have challenged your impartiality on the basis of your being a synagogue president (something I did not know). It's your involvement at Rachel Corrie and what I perceive to be a predisposition to favouring certain sources over others that I find problematic. But your pledge not to take administrative action in the I-P arena because of your involvement there and the concerns raised by NSH001 and myself here have shown me that you are sensitive to the views of others and committed to maintaining the appearance of impartiality in disputed areas here at the encyclopedia. For that reason, I have changed my vote to "Netural". I would have changed to "Support" had it not been for the concerns about civility expressed by other editors and my own concern that your approach to newbies could be more supportive. In any case, your work as an editor here is appreciated and I wish you good luck. Tiamut^talk 13:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

18. Unfortunate but firm oppose. The input of others here, and Wehwalt's response to the opposes (showing he doesn't react calmly when challenged), combined with the fact that other editors have encountered similar issues that I have seen, leads me to believe Wehwalt is not ready for the tools. Although I have long-standing concerns about Wehwalt's difficulty with WP:AGF and his input at WP:TFA/R, which has been a bit rough around the edges, as well as the ownership issues and failure to respect broad consensus at Talk:Natalee Holloway, I had not intended to enter an Oppose on an FA contributor. What finally convinced me to oppose was this exchange, which reminds of the issues at Holloway, but occurred only in the last day, while he was at RfA. I was willing to overlook the number of times he has questioned my good faith or honesty, but indirectly soliciting 3RR backup [3] compels me to oppose at this time. Whether or not this RfA is successful, I hope that Wehwalt will take on board that there is a need to examine AGF and article ownership issues, and if he acquires the tools, I hope he will keep this well in mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

    Not that I'm surprised to see you oppose, Sandy, but let's not mischaracterize things. An editor contacted Wehwalt on his talk page, expressing support and asking if there was anything he/she could do to help with the TFA. Wehwalt responded, saying he would appreciate it if the editor looked at some recent edits and the talk page discussion, as he didn't wish to violate the 3RR. Nowhere did he solicit "3RR backup". - auburnpilot's sock 21:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

    For the record, noting the edit summary, ("we know why you're opposing") from the above edit, which is reminiscent of all of the AGF issues that repeatedly surfaced at Holloway and TFA/R. Also noting that Wehwalt left a talkback requesting help while Speer was on the main page, as shown in the diff above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

    God, no! He left a talkback template telling an editor he had responded to a comment on his talk page! I should block him now... - auburnpilot's sock 21:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I was ready to support based on overall positive article contributions, but then I glanced at Wehwalt's talk page and saw these two replies ([4] and [5]) there and must say that I am not a fan of the attitude expressed in each. For now, I must stay neutral, either way (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

   Context is important. The last diff came after this. I don't think Wehwalt's reply is particularly outrageous under the circumstance. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

   Context does not override civility. — neuro^(talk) 23:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral. I'm not all that concerned with the first diff shown by either way, but the second diff does worry me. Because the other user was obviously a vandal, I'm not opposing. Leaning support until I've thought about this more, because of net positive. DARTH PANDA^duel 03:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Moved to support

2. Neutral for now - will probably end up supporting, but need to examine the candidate in more detail first. Terraxos (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral. Although he looks like a fine editor,(this is not everything) and for me personally, I am a little concerned about the attitude displayed in certain situations and how recent this is. I'll probably change later, but I cant decide now which way to go. :-)Andy (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

   Changed to oppose. Andy (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

3. Neutral. Changed from "Oppose" after the candidate's pledge not to take administrative actions in the I-P domain. Concerns about civility and his approach to newbies remain an obstacle to full out support. Update Knowing NSH001 for some time now, I'm concerned by his latest comment regarding how Wehwalt's actions at Rachel Corrie put him off editing altogether, and even drove him to be ill, something I was not aware of. NSH001 is not a drama queen, so this is a serious issue. I'm not going to change my vote again, but I do hope that others consider what it means when an established editor says another editor's approach at a given article turned them off editing completely. But I wish him luck nonetheless. Tiamut^talk 13:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

   Comment Thank you for giving me a chance, Tiamut. I don't know what to think of NSH001's comments, obviously I always AGF, but in light of his "blatant lie" comment, I went looking this appears to indicate no animus between me and NSH001 following his return from illness. Notably, he does not say anything like "You made me sick, how dare you wish me well." I'm just going to have to leave this one to the judgment of individual editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

   Hi Wehwalt. I have a lot of respect for NSH001 and don't think he would say something if it wasn't true. It's quite possible he didn't bring it up before, precisely because he's not a drama queen, and firmly believes in collaborating with people, even if he does not share their viewpoint. Why did he mention it here then? Well, I would say there's a higher standard that's to be expected of admins, and having accepted the nomination in this case, you submit yourself to critique based on that higher standard. I'm quite sure it was not your intention to drive anyone away from anything. Nonetheless, if the sum of your actions at the article caused NSH001 to become ill and withdraw, it may worth reviewing what it is that you were doing there that caused such a strong reaction from an editor who is not prone to drama. You are right though, that conclusions about this issue should be left to individual editors to weigh for themselves. Thanks for your response and happy editing. Tiamut^talk 16:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you for your advocacy and good wishes, and for your willingness to be open. Your advice is sound, and introspection about one's past actions is a sensible course of action for every human being. this diff, stating that NSH001 found my contributions (except the one he was discussing, that he disagreed with) "mostly helpful" kinda disposes of the whole "drove off Wikipedia thing".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)