Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hex 2

Earle Martin

Voice your opinion (17/35/9); Scheduled to end 12:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Earle Martin (talk · contribs) - This is my second self-nomination, following on from my first, five months ago. As before, I am running on the principle that I operate in a common-sense manner, and should be judged by my work for this project. The previous time that I went up on RfA, I was greeted with cries of "Not enough edits!" Well, I am a fairly slow and unadventurous participant, and do not have a gargantuan edit count to my name, mainly because I have other commitments in life. Wikipedia is a hobby for me, not an unpaid career. Even so, I take it seriously, and I believe that I am a good editor. Examining the subsequent five months' worth of edits that I have made will show that.

I was also accused of "No need for tools!" - well, if I become an administrator, I don't expect to be all over the project like a bad rash; there will probably be a long, gentle period during which I learn and apply any necessary tools in a cautious and appropriate manner. There have been times recently when I have needed tool access, in order to fix incorrect page moves. This resulted in the tedious process of having to find an admin and ask them to do for me something which I would have been perfectly capable of doing myself. As I encounter the need for tools, whether in the course of my own editing or through investigating tasks with backlog, I will learn to use what is available as the situation necessitates.

As before, I am declining to answer the boilerplate "questions for the candidate", as I have explained my position on administration. Thank you for your time.

Earle Martin [^t/_c] 12:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Postscript. To save you having to wade through the last RfA, I can note here that I have been with the project since 2002. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 15:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes, I accept. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 12:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions removed. See above. -- EM

Question for the candidate from The Evil Clown

1 It seems you are protesting the processes of Wikipedia. Why do you want to become an administrator on something you have a lot of issues with?

A I have specific issues with the RfA process. As I explained in my previous RfA, what this process has become is something totally alien to the principle of a wiki, a principle which I have believed in and been deeply involved with for the last seven years.

Additional question for the candidate from Nihonjoe

1a. Why do you have so many concerns with the processes for RfA when, based on your experience (a.k.a. edit count, and where those edits are), you don't have much experience with the processes at all? I ask because I find it odd that you object to these processes, but still want to be more active in them by becoming an admin. Yes, being an admin is no big deal, but process is something you have to constantly deal with as an admin.

A: That's a bit of an odd question. You don't need to be involved with something to know that it is wrong. And, as I've commented below, I don't have similar concerns with other site processes.

General comments

• See Earle Martin's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • Argument of edit count here is preposterous, this user has nearly 1000 mainspace edits, and 1700 total edits, regardless of how long he's been here. If nearly 2000 edits isn't enough, then God dammit, someone set a policy for how many edits is required to go for adminship, because this is becaoming absolutely mindnumbing. Kntrabssi 21:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

• Once a month or so, I see RfA opposition, and I think, "it can't get any stupider that this." What we have here is the March 07 occurrence. Picaroon 17:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. I trust that Earle's problems with incivility since the last RFA have abated, and my interactions with him have been positive. – Chacor 15:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
2. No big deal. – Riana ^talk 15:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
3. I believe he has shown significant improvement since his last RFA, and see no reason to keep him out of the broom closet. >Radiant< 15:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. I see no reason (after reviewing many of this users talk, article, and user talk edits) to deny this user the tools that he says he needs to do good work. C'mon people, at least with this user the umpteen-trillion edits aren't so numerous that you can't check them, rather than applying blanket editcountitis. I would like to see answers to the questions anyway, but will support pending further information. -- nae'blis 16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Support - If someone has been here this long and no one has any evidence that point to vandalism or incivility, I see no reason to believe that he can not be trusted with the tools. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Support. I have to support this, not only because I think he will not abuse the admin tools, but he IS right about the RfA process, which has become extremely flawed, and is basically a popularity/edit counting contest. I would really, REALLY like to see him fill out the answers to the questions, because even though the process sucks, we have to go through it in order to become an admin. Kntrabssi 17:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Support. Seems to be qualified for the job, and there's no indication that he would abuse the tools. --Rory096 17:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Support - more of a symbolic gesture, really. Martin's contributions look fine and the no-bullshit attitude is a refreshing change, but it's obvious that this RfA has no chance to succeed. If this candidate continues to contribute to Wikipedia, with or without admin tools, then we all win. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
9. Support' for being radical enough to not answer the questions. John Reaves (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
10. Per John Reaves. Refusing to answer the questions, twice, shows that you are either extrordinarily stupid or actually have quite a lot of Clue™ indeed. The fact that you can program in Perl suggests it's the latter. Picaroon 22:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
11. Support-The refusal to answer questions shows you know about RFA and all its flaws. The "too little edits" really doesn't apply to you, because you've been here for 5 years, a lot long than most people. I really liked your answer to Kntrabssi's oppose vote. I also like about how you're going to gradually learn. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 22:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    4 years, and the user crossed the 200 edits threshold in June 2006. Nishkid64 23:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

12. Support just to counter the dumb votes below... no one's required to answer the questions. --W.marsh 22:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    Can you provide a reason for actually supporting the user? No one is required to answer the questions, but from how you are wording it, just supporting to spite the opposition doesn't really seem to have any correlation with the admin candidate at hand. Nishkid64 23:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    Many people below didn't provide any reason beyond the questions... not even sure if they looked at the candidate. if they can oppose because he didn't answer the questions, why can't I support because he didn't? Perhaps I should have gone neutral, but their votes didn't really take the user into much account at all either. Anyway I've talked to this user a time or two and he seems somewhat reasonable. I'd give it a harder look if the RfA miraculously got close. --W.marsh 23:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

13. Support. The questions are fatuous anyway. — Dan | talk 23:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
14. Support. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
15. Support. Great strides since his prior RfA, and impressive contributions. Plus, I like his chutzpah. A Train^{take the} 01:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
16. Support a platform of common sense, and as a counterweight to the literal-minded bureaucraticness of thinking that filling out a form is a) a requirement, or b) useful enough to function as one. I think you should do this every few months or so, and when you pass, we'll know RfA's not broken. Opabinia regalis 06:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
17. Why the hell not? A very strong case where this should be followed. Ral315 » 08:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
18. Support didnt get this far without being somewhat decent Twenty Years 14:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
19. Strong support Refreshing to see someone stand on their record as a Wikipedian rather than submitting to the anonymous authority of the crowd. Way too much importance is placed on the "decision process" for admins for what is the virtual equivalent of a driver's license. Absent some serious concerns, such as abusive editing practices, experience should be the prime determining factor in granting admin powers. // Internet Esquire 16:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Arfan 15:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC) No answer to the standard questions, no support, pure and simple. 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   Remember this is not a ballot. What are your reasons? Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   Updated above. 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   Standard doesn't mean it's not optional. Candidates don't have to answer the questions. --Rory096 17:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose. I would like to see your answers to questions, standard and optional. May reconsider if you answer 'em. MaxSem 15:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Not enough experience. Refusing to answer the questions may be refreshing, but, with relatively few edits here, if you refuse to answer the questions, how can we see any evidence that you want, need, or can be trusted with the tools? --Guinnog 15:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   Well, since he only has hundreds of edits in recent months, perhaps you could look over them yourself? He's an adminon WikiWikiWeb, and has been here for five years without any blocks or serious warnings as far as I can tell. Why doesn't that count for anything? -- nae'blis 17:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   I thought long and hard about your suggestion above. While my review of the candidate's edits was positive, I struggle to see how he has demonstrated "...respect and be familiar with Wikipedia policy because they are known and trusted members of the community." (Wikipedia:Administrators). I have sympathy with attempts to streamline and improve on the RfA process, but during an RfA doesn't seem like an appropriate venue for this. I hope this explains my opposition better. --Guinnog 07:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

   Fair enough; thanks for considering the candidate as an individual, in any case. I'm just frustrated with the level of bureaucracy of late... -- nae'blis 13:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose I have no clear idea how you would use the tools, you don't appear to have much interaction with other editors and have few wiki-space edits so sorry, but not this time. The Rambling Man 15:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose— you need to answer the questions to show that you have read and understood the Administrator's reading list. Refusing to answer them may imply that you are too lazy to tackle them. And despite your claim that you have explained your position on Administration, I still don't have an idea what you are about. I suggest that you follow the formal process; you won't get the promotion by being short handed. Also, you need more experience. Orane (talk • cont.) 16:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose Earl, you are right, the whole RfA process is flawed and should be looked after. But if you aren't willing to follow procedures, even if you disagree with them, then why should we trust that you will follow all the procedures that accompany administrative privileges? Kntrabssi 16:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   I'll answer this one: because the RfA process is probably the single worst thing about our entire administrative structure. The vast majority has at least some merit, RfA has decayed into a gabbling clique of process junkies who actually serve to damage the project by impeding the progress of numerous perfectly reasonable editors, by turning what should have been a no-brainer decision into a hoop-jumping competition. This has been acknowledged by a spectacular range of different people on a multitude of different occasions. All the non-insane policy and process is perfectly acceptable to me. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 17:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   Changing to Support

6. Oppose If the user cannot be bothered to fulfill the process of requesting adminship or learning about his desired responsibilities as an admin then I can't be bothered to support him. NeoFreak 16:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose Same as last time. You're refreshing, but if you're not going to answer the questions we need to know about you from your editing. That means Wikipedia: edits and lots of them. --kingboyk 16:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Strong Oppose Could be an sysop in the distant future but no answers to standard questions, let alone if their were optional ones asked, not ready for the tools.Tellyaddict 16:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose. While I agree that RFA has its problems, answering the three standard questions is not a hoop-jumping competition. It's a perfectly reasonable way for you to communicate why you should be an admin. Is this a serious RFA, or just a protest against the way RFAs work? TomTheHand 17:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose -- Although a long-term editor, Earle shows too little experience with Wikipedia policy and norms. Further, he does not demonstrate requisite openness by refusing to answer questions which may give insight into whether the community should trust an individual not to abuse admin tools. Finally, I have concerns about snap-judgment editing which becomes more problematic when given admin authority-- as shown recently in his merge of content into Human rights in the United Arab Emirate, which included a summary of "Remove untrue nonsense about Jews not being allowed to enter the country..." A quick search readily shows that although it may be that Jews aren't directly barred from entry-- since there is no "religion" section on most passports-- UAE denies entry of anyone bearing an Israeli passport or having a stamp from visiting there: [1][2] [3] [4] Even the UK Guardian noted last year, "Israelis left out of West Ham's training trip to the Gulf". --Leflyman^Talk 17:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    This is offtopic for this discussion, but I will indulge you. The material that I removed was a confused paragraph (visible in this diff, where it came to my attention) discussing various non-notable internet sources disagreeing with each other about whether Jewish people are allowed to enter the country. Apart from the fact that it contributed absolutely nothing to the article, I removed it because I know it to be false (from personal experience of the United Arab Emirates, but that's beside the point.) I can assure you, Leflyman, that there was nothing "snap" about my judgement. If someone were to add a sourced statement about visa policy for Israelis or those with Israeli visa stamps, I would be very pleased to see it. Unlike the worthless material which my change comment referred to. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 18:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    • I'm confused, then, as to how the removed note about Der Spiegel article, which claims (rightly or wrongly),"all Jews are strictly banned from entering the country" would not constitute a sourced statement. Do any of the links I provided fulfill your understanding of verifiability?--Leflyman^Talk 18:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • My apologies. I think it would have been clearer if I said "a correct sourced statement". As we all know, not everything with a source is necessarily accurate. Der Spiegel is certainly, generally speaking, a reputable source. Thanks, -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 19:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

11. Oppose due to the failure to assume good faith and the choice to descend into incivility even in your answers in this RfA. Since you choose to label us a "gabbling clique of process junkies" why should we take your request seriously? Its an offensive personalization of your position that gives me no confidence that you can bring a measured and reasonable tone to the use of the admin tools. Gwernol 18:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    From my experience of this process, "assume good faith" is a concept entirely foreign to most of the participants. If it were not, we would have many more admins than we do now. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 18:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    This is an interesting point; is "more admins" a better thing? In other words, is Wikipedia suffering from a dearth of administrator oversight?--Leflyman^Talk 18:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

12. Oppose. It's really a shame, because you probably do have enough experience to be an admin. However, presentation counts for a lot here (as in a real-world interview). Harking back to previous antagonism from those who said you don't need the tools, and choosing not to answer the standard questions, is a real turnoff for me. If you submit a more standard RFA request, I might consider supporting it. YechielMan 19:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
13. Not until questions are answered. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 19:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose RfA is deeply flawed, with trivial reasons enough for an Oppose vote. Perhaps you'll see mine in the same way, but how are we to know that you won't be silent when questioned on your sysop actions? Together with the very low edit count despite the length of service, I'll have to oppose. Brave act though. Xiner (talk, email) 20:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Your reasons for not answering the community's questions of you are noted and respected. However, it does smack of an assumption that everyone here as met you or heard of you. I have not and would like to. The question-and-answer session is a good springboard to this - knowing what you think is important, what you are proud of, what you wish you'd done differently. If you can't do that little thing for the community, or me, then I dread coming to you to question an action of yours. In fact, I'd be scared of questioning you. That being the case, I'd like to keep you away from the tools at this time. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 21:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    "it does smack of an assumption that everyone here as met you or heard of you" - that is about as far from my intentions as it is humanly possible to be. I've never seen 90% of the names here before; why on Earth would I expect them all to know me? I have made it quite clear that I expect to be judged on my editing history. Five years (on and off) of editing says more, and says it more reliably, than any answers to questions that I or another candidate could contrive. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 17:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

16. Oppose. Redvers' raises a good point that the standard questions force the candidate to engage in a bit of self-examination. I would like like to know those points as well before supporting you, as well as what situations have caused you stress and how well you believed you handled them. Your self-nomination seems to come down to the point that you would find the admin tools convenient for your own use. I would find the admin tools handy, but I don't feel the actual need to have them. Like it or not, admin tools aren't given out solely for editors' convenience. Kudos for your boldness, though. --Kyoko 21:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    I'm further troubled by the edit summaries seen in diffs like this and this, which to me sound like borderline personal attacks, or at least a bit incivil. Probably most relevant to this RfA is how recent these actions took place. Kyoko 00:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

    But the comments he removed are a bit boring, aren't they? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

    Whether or not the comments are boring, Earle Martin shouldn't have described their author as an "obsessive person" in the edit summaries to those diffs. --Kyoko 12:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

    The person in question was edit-warring and committing 3RR violations in an obsessive fashion. I call a spade a spade. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 17:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

    To quote Wikipedia's policy on no personal attacks, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." -- Kyoko 18:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

    Having looked at this, I'd say "obsessive" is a fair comment on that user's overall behaviour. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

17. Oppose. I don't trust this user. Doesn't answer questions, doesn't really seem committed to the project (based on their quality and quantity of edits), and I have a gut feeling they would not use the tools well at all. --- RockMFR 22:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    I am quite confused how you could think that I am not committed to the project. Unlike some people (and I do not mean this in any insulting way), I have a job, family and social life to attend to. How much time do you expect people to spend here? -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 17:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

18. Oppose. Can't even answer the questions? Get real. stop wasting our time.Rlevse 22:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    Mind the personal attacks please. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    How's that a personal attack? It's not a personal comment about the candidate, just his behavior here. Please read the page you linked to. --W.marsh 22:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    I felt it was quite rude. Does that count for anything, considering that it was directed at me? -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 17:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

    To say "stop wasting our time" is implying his RfA is a waste of time, and perhaps implying Earle is as well. And the "get real" could be insulting. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    That's pretty ridiculous... you could spin any criticism as a personal attack if you stretch it that far. The point of NPA was never to outlaw criticism. Maybe it wasn't a very civil comment, but it wasn't a personal attack either. --W.marsh 22:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    It wasn't criticism though. What can the candidate learn from that? That not answering the questions means he'll be a bad candidate? Or that his RfA is simply a waste a time? Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    No... his point was pretty clearly that he feels not answering the questions is a waste of his time. That's a criticism of an action the candidate took (or didn't take, in this case). He didn't say "oppose because you are a waste of time", which would have been a personal attack. Again, you should read NPA, this is covered there. Rlevse's comment probably wasn't very civil, but calling it a personal attack is incorrect and just coming off as stubborn at this point. --W.marsh 23:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    I read the page, it still comes off that way to me. Please don't resort to ad hominem arguments, we're having a polite discussion here :) I understand your view, but it specifically states on this page Please keep criticism constructive and polite.. That oppose was neither really. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    Then why didn't you say cite the RfA suggestion, instead of citing NPA, which clearly isn't the thing to cite here? You cited the wrong thing, just admit it or stop replying. That's why I said your actions were stubborn, you apparently can't admit you made a small mistake... I never said rlevse's comments were civil, i just said they weren't personal attacks. --W.marsh 23:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    Perhaps I did cite the wrong thing; however, you didn't need to respond the way you did. I'm trying to be as polite as I can here, and I find "just admit it or stop replying" to be a little aggressive. We're just having a discussion, and I don't want anyone's feelings to be hurt over one oppose :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

19. Oppose - a refreshing approach, but spoiled completly by a lack of commitment to the defined or accepted process. If a proposed Admin can't be respectful of the rules, and fails to understand the human factors - how can he be an Admin? Rgds, - Trident13 23:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
20. Oppose per above stated reasons.--Jersey Devil 23:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
21. Oppose Nihonjoe's Additional Question 4a sums up the grounds for my oppose. Everyone knows the process for becoming an admin. I cannot reconcile the stated desire to become an admin going hand-in-hand with not fully accepting the process. Katalaveno^T_C 00:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
22. Strong Oppose pending answers to questions.--Wizardman 00:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
23. Oppose. I could care less about the answers to the question, but the diffs of incivility, and the general demeanor in this RfA is a bit troubling. I think you have the experience, but you just need more work on the civility issues. Nishkid64 00:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
24. Oppose Just about everyone knows that there are deep problems with the RfA process. However, until we come up with a better solution, you should just try to work with it. Your attitude shows a lack of respect for the community's processes (however problematic they might be) and that's exactly the kind of attitude we desperately need to avoid in admins. Pascal.Tesson 01:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
25. Oppose Whew, this is a tough vote. I don't think I have had such trouble making my decision since Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 2. Here we have a candidate that blantantly ignores policy (per questions and civility) and not a particularly high edit count for an admin candidate. (Yes, I know its editcountitis.) On the other hand, he has years of experience and is definately bold and appears to have little fear of response to his boldness. After viewing the basis of each argument, I have decided that I have got to oppose. The lack of regard for policy is not good at all in an admin candidate. Sorry, but I am going to oppose. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
26. Oppose. Flagrant disregard for established standards. --Deskana (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

    What does this have to do with adminship? I like my RfA candidates to be bold and individual, not wimpery slaves to process. Picaroon 17:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

27. Oppose per comments to Gwernol. This user is obviously uncivil, and has even admitted it. Seems proud of this deficiency. {Slash-|-Talk} 02:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

    Excuse me, but I have never admitted any such thing. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 17:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

28. Oppose Far, far too combative both in his handling of this RfA. WjBscribe 02:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
29. Almost strongest oppose. If you actually had a good reason why you won't answer the questions, it would be fine, but your rationale boils down to "RfA is broken therefore I don't have to if I don't feel like it". Apart from the complete absurdity of that logic, complaining, IN YOUR RFA, about how RfA is broken is quite enough to get me to oppose for general stupidness. And please explain how I'm supposed to trust that you will follow other processes? For reference, strongest oppose is someone I think will vandalize with the admin tools whenever they don't have a good day. -Amarkov moo! 04:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
30. Oppose Not enough experience, no need for the tools. The declining of the questions leaves me with very little information. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
31. Oppose Declining to complete the standard questions not only demonstrates a contempt for the process of wikipedia but removes the opportunity to judge what you have learned since the previous RFA. How can I trust you with the tools if you can't even be bothered to tell me how you now intend to use them? I suppose you could say that you haven't changed anything from last time but that implies that you haven't learned anything from failing last time, or even worse, that you don't believe you have anything to learn. No thanks. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
32. Oppose. This oppose vote is a no-brainer for me. This candidate seems to believe that it's perfectly fine for him only to follow Wikipedia policies and practices which he believes (based purely on his personal opinion) are "non-insane"; and that he should be perfectly entitled to completely ignore established policies and practices which (again based purely on his personal opinion) he thinks are "insane". I for one do not feel I can trust someone with that kind of attitide with admin tools. Zaxem 07:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
33. Oppose, yes, the boilerplate questions are stupid, don't answer them. However, not answering questions asked by actual people (in the 'questions to candidate' section) doesn't work. If you did become an admin, would you just ignore people when you didn't feel like answering their questions? That attitude's just completely wrong. - Bobet 11:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

    Please don't misrepresent what I said. I was referring to the boilerplate questions, as most people have understood. I am probably going to answer some of the personal questions soon. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 17:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

34. Oppose I would like to see an editor answer the questions before nominating themselves for administrative responsibility. This is because you need to show that you have taken into account policy and consensus - something you may have to do a lot of when an administrator. Sorry for being too negative; this is something that is easily sorted and I look forward to a third request for adminship in the future. If you have any problems with the RfA system, discuss them on Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

    That last sentence of your comment reminds me of a Dilbert cartoon along the lines of "if you're having trouble accessing your email account, please email us." Picaroon 17:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

35. Oppose; sorry to insist on the questions, but that really bothers me. Those questions essentially ask "please tell us why we should trust you"; not answering is sort of saying "trust me, I will not screw up", without giving any further evidence in support. This is exactly the worse answer one does not want to have here. Tizio 18:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
36. Oppose per Tizio and Casmith_789. Michael 19:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, leaning toward oppose. He's been inactive for a long period, and has a low edit count (for an admin candidate) and low participation in the project space. Also, I don't see why you wouldn't answer the questions. Have you been in any conflicts? What are your article contributions? We have no clue. - Anas ^talk? 15:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Leaning towards opposing him. The only reason I have not voted against him is because I do not believe in voting against someone unless I think they will be abusive. Sorry:( James, La gloria è a dio 16:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral. I will probably change this to a support if you can answer the standard questions. -Mschel 17:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral - I don't really know you at all and we've not bumped into each other yet. Answering the standard questions would give me a good idea as to what you are like and what your opinions are on issues. Without those, I have little to go on. Per User:Mschel, I'd prolly revise this if you could at least have a go at the questions - Alison^☺ 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral per above. Real96 23:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral until you put in good faith answers to the questions.-- danntm ^T _C 00:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Neutral I do not want to oppose this user. I suggest that you do a lot more edits; especially in the mainspace and Wikipedia-space. 1700 edits in not enough at all; and even 3000-4000 edits can be considered barely enough. Acalamari 01:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

   Please consider carefully your opposition based on edit count. Not so long ago, 3-4000 edits was a lot, and for a user who doesn't use automated scripts, it still can be. This user has been here for five years, with an increasing edit/month tally if that's important to you, but it took me nearly a year to gain 4000 edits, and my RFA passed unanimously. Voting based on what you believe the community consensus is, rather than your own opinion, merely reinforces bad conventional wisdom. -- nae'blis 13:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

8. Neutral I respect your stance on the RfA procedure, but it requires people to be familiar with you in order to vote intelligently in the RfA. Since your rate of edits is not that high, it's inevitable that there are not that many people who both know you well and participate in RfAs. When you're asking strangers to trust you, you have to give us something to go on. —dgies^t_c 03:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
9. Neutral I think even semi-flippant answers to the standard questions would be better than none. I try to get an understanding of candidate's personalities by reading those answers and then examining contributions prior to RfA (thereby hopefully removing any influence made because of the RfA itself). -- Richard D. LeCour ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

   This seems disingenuous. He has not edited this RFA at all since several of those optional questions were added, and I believe flippant answers in the past have gotten people opposes as well. -- nae'blis 13:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

   Not saying that a flippant answer would warrant a Support. Just saying that any answer is better than none, as it is easier to judge based on something rather than nothing. Also, not claiming that he edited the RfA. My point here is that I personally do not consider/weigh any regular edits made after the date of the RfA in my decision, only those edits/contributions made prior to the RfA. -- Richard D. LeCour ^{(talk/contribs)} 19:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

10. Neutral due to removal of my questions. I don't think grandstanding in your RfA is the proper forum for seeking change in a particular process. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)