<!-- Please place new nominations for adminship at the top, above the most recent nomination. Please leave the first "----" alone, and don't forget to include the "----" line separating the new nomination from the previous one. -->
<!-- Please place new nominations for adminship at the top, above the most recent nomination. Please leave the first "----" alone, and don't forget to include the "----" line separating the new nomination from the previous one. -->
Note: Although this page is under extended confirmed protection, non-extended confirmed editors may still comment on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.
If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.
One trial run of an experimental process of administrator elections took place in October 2024.
About administrators
The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.
The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
Nomination standards
The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account.[2] Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".
There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.
In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[3] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.
In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[4] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.
If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.
In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.[5]
Final: (58/2/0); Ended 18:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
G.A.S (talk·contribs) - Another slightly unusual nomination. This user is a longstanding, hardworking contributor, civil, respectful, knowledgable. He's never asked for the tools because he's never had a huge need for them, but we've argued the issue of "need for the tools" to death at WT:RFA. The fact is that this user is trustworthy, has a thorough command of deletion protocols and even if we only granted the tools to facilitate him to do his own occasional G6ing, that's a nett benefit. Incidentally, I think that this thread quite neatly encompasses a number of good admin qualities, displaying a desire to interact gently with someone causing problems, appropriate and flexible attitudes toward deletion and great civility.
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: Although I do not plan on actively tackling administrative work, the administrative tools will greatly help with non-controversial maintenance. I am also aware of a frequent need – even now – for administrators at CAT:AB. While I do not plan clearing the backlog on a daily basis, a change of pace often helps to keep me motivated.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have been in "conflicts" in the past, but these are usually limited to a difference in opinion: I strongly believe in WP:BOLD and WP:1RR, so I would not really say that it is a conflict, per se. I prefer to have a discussion, and if we are at a deadlock, a third opinion. Regarding stress: I prefer to remain calm during discussions, and thoroughly think about a proper response; often discarding a response if it would not resolve the issue at hand. Taking a break also helps to think things through.
4 Do you agree with every wikipedia policy? If not please give an example and tell why.
A Sorry for only seeing the question now: To be honest, I agree with the current policies, (at least last time I looked—they do seem to change from time to time;) ). They do seem well written, and even when they are not, it seems easy enough to get clarification from the relevant talk pages. I do believe though that WP:IAR should be interpreted with common sense, as some editors uses it as a blanket excuse to disregard standing policy (esp: WP:NFC).
Now if you are talking about guidelines as well; this was not always the case: I did not agree with the original rewrite of WP:FICT, as it was written very strict - resulting in a major "purge" of fiction related articles. The guideline has been changed since, to the point where I tolerated it (and after seeing some of the fiction related articles, strongly support the rewrite1 - Though the guideline does not have broad consensus at the moment.); and I do find it redundant to WP:NOTABILITY.
1 The new guideline has its advantages, note that our project has 34 featured lists, and many more in the making.
If I do not agree with a (proposed) policy/guideline, I usually take the matter up on the relevant talk page, as I believe it is everyone's duty to give their opinion, not just accept it silently.
Sometimes I do find that there are too many guidelines (often contradicting each other), but I believe that they were written with the best intentions in mind.
5. Can you describe an instance of original research you've dealt with (or at least witnessed) on an article you've edited?
A:I cannot recall a recent incidence at the moment, as Tokyo Mew Mew (which was quite subject to it) is quite stable at the moment. Collectonian is lightning fast in reverting such additions, so by the time I find it, it has already been reverted.
6. Can you list some instances where you've removed trivia from anime or manga articles?
A:Trivia currently discourages the mere removal of trivia.
7. Can you list some anime/manga character articles that you've nominated for deletion as non-notable?
A:Having read the comments below, you are abviously aware of my involvement regarding WP:FICT. It is my stance that articles should only be deleted as a last resort; as I prefer merging articles – especially non-notable ones – to a mother topic (Currently this is the method preferred by WP:FICT as well). I have initiated a few mergers (1, 2), though at the moment I am more busy calculating the extend of mergers needed (Backlog). I have also had a hand in getting over a no-hope situation regarding List of minor characters in Tokyo Mew Mew and the individual character articles (Though I have to admit, Collectonian has done a lot of the actual work;) ). I also prefer using speedy delete or PRODS to AFD. (Though they are harder to prove, being deleted and all).
I was aware of the magnitude of your involvement in drafting guidelines based on your edit count on that page (as reported on this RfA talk page), but I did not read your ~100 edits to try and figure out the nuances of your position. So, my question was not rhetorical. Thanks for summarizing your position. VG☎12:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. If you came across a user talk page from a newly registered user that said something to the effect of "I am thinking of killing myself." what would you do? (Wikipedia:SUICIDE is not policy).
A:A very interesting question—lucky I have not had to face that situation yet. Without having read Wikipedia:SUICIDE, I have to mention that I am not a councilor or psychiatrist by profession, and acknowledge that I do not have the skills necessary to dissuade a person intent on committing suicide. The next step is obviously to get further advice on the matter. Having read through said essay, the steps provided seems to be the route to follow: Taking the case to the Administrators noticeboard is a good start; from there on I would more or less step into a background role–commenting on said board, but not directly to the user. Note that the above actions would only be taken if there is no doubt whatsoever that said comment does not hold substance. (e.g. indicated by an emoticon, and by the context. Though that is still a sick joke.) G.A.S17:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/G.A.S before commenting.
Support. Recommend not diving in the deep end if this RfA is successful; there's a lack of significant experience in a few areas. However, I get a good feeling that G.A.S. is mature and won't abuse admin privileges. Tan | 3917:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support for now. I'm logged in with my public account, so I don't have time to do my usual scrounging around, but from my cursory glance it appears the candidate will be a net positive. However, I will return with my regular account and a more solid assessment later. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coming back to validate my previous comment above. I will indeed stick with Weak Support. Not quite as much experience as I'd like, but I think you'll be okay. For being an anime editor, I couldn't find any evidence of editing the best anime, but oh well. Useight (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - while I normally prefer a potential admin to have more experience in some areas and at least 10,000 edits (5,000 in the article space), in my interactions with G.A.S. through our joint work on Tokyo Mew Mew and as members of the Anime and Manga project, I have found him to have the right sort of personality and temperament to be an admin. He is very fair-minded, even tempered, patient, and has a strong sense of personal responsibility. I was actually surprised to see his edit count wasn't at the 10k mark yet, as I have often turned to him to be a voice of reason in some heated discussions or to help out where an impartial third opinion is needed. I feel certain that G.A.S. would not abuse the admin tools and would take his time to educate himself about an area before he began working in it and would make an excellent admin. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 19:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I recommend that you don't let it go to your head. I was first inclined to oppose per this, as the last thing we need is more elitist administrators, but upon further reflection, it's probably just naiveté rather than something more sinister. HiDrNick! 20:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per response to ecoleetage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs) 15:07, September 29, 2008
Support A good reason for wanting the tools, and sensible enough to learn about new areas before working in them. I think its better that the people who do the work behind the maintenance deletion carry them out as well, once they are known to be reliable, for they are more likely to understand the situation than some random admin checking CSD. DGG (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. G.A.S has shown a high level of thoughtful judgment in my experience, so I trust he'll be similarly thoughtful as an admin. --erachimatalk03:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. You are way more inclusionist than I am, but that's not a reason for me to oppose you. I wish you good in luck clearing up the anime/manga articles, even though I'm skeptical that your approach will be able to keep up with influx of new stuff in that area. Anyway, for your approach to have a fair chance of succeeding, more admins active in that area are needed, hence my support. VG☎13:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support A bit lower edit count (<10,000) than I normally like to see, but he seems very mature. I can't see any real problems with handing him the mop as of now. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Deny This guy has really spent the time needed to be an admin, so I am not sure I trust him. It seems like he is doing all the "right things" just to be politically correct and when he gets the serious admin powers, he might use them for bad things. Anyway! We have too many admins as it is! It is causing too many problems.24.14.33.171 (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No matter what anyone else says, this will always trump any other oppose as the most epic of all time. "He would make a great admin, it's just so suspicious!" Erik the Red 2 ~~~~22:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the arguments are very similar, actually, and that one didn't even get indented. It basically comes down to "User looks too good/is too perfect and is doing the "right" things to get the tools and this isn't necessarily the way he'd act if he became an admin. Enigmamessage14:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - I disagree with admins who believe there *must* be a "best way" to handle deletions or that deletion (or inclusion) is a "last resort". Some things do not belong. Merging everything ends up importing weak material to otherwise good articles that gets excised later anyway. Additionally the answer that the editor doesn't really plan to do admin related tasks leads me to question a real need for the tools. Finally? A touch weak on main space edits, especially with all the AWB edits being done. I think this is a fantastic editor and contributor and encourage them in this RfA as my single oppose is unlikely to lead to it's failing, but I can't endorse this request.--LogicalPremise Ergo?21:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I see your point about merging, I have never said that a 1:1 merge is preferred, this goes without saying, along with major cleanup. This also depends on the situation: Within the type of articles I am active, merging has historically provided really good results, i.e. List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters as opposed to the individual articles, which was often full of original research, excessive plot details, excessive fair use images, edit wars about trivial details, etc. While deletion is a good option for some articles, the situation is often complicated by the fact that such articles are transwiki'd, i.e. to Wikia. In this case we need to keep the edit history visible to comply with the GFDL; i.e. by redirecting the article to the nearest alternative (the mother article). Same goes about lists of episodes as opposed to individual articles for episodes.
Neutral, for now The answer to Q1 seems strangely wishy-washy. The candidate is applying for adminship, but doesn't intend to be "actively tackling" the duties of an admin? The candidate doesn't plan on using the admin tools to clear the backlog, but perhaps for a "change of pace" he'll do a bit of cleaning up of the backlog? I may switch over to Support as the RfA progresses, but at the moment I don't get the impression that the candidate is enthusiastic, let alone serious, about adminship. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should clarify a bit: Regarding the change of pace: When I take up a huge project (No. 1), I do not complete it all at once, as that gets too tedious—every so often I take up an alternative project, also of an non-article/administrative nature, and help to clear the backlog (At this time, No. 2, assessing unassessed articles within WP:ANIME's scope, and before that, tagging ~350 articles within WP:GUNDAM's scope). See it as a learning curve as well: Instead of jumping into the deep end, I prefer to get accustomed to this role one step at a time. As for serious: I am always serious about a role of responsibility. G.A.S18:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I'm curious what level of article work you expect in a candidate. G.A.S. aided in pushing Tokyo Mew Mew to GA status (and nearly to FA), and certainly is well aware of the nature of article quality per his work in the assessment department and cleanup department of WP:ANIME. I know that candidates should have experience in editing articles due to how their tools affect the editing process, but not every editor needs a bucketload of articles of high quality to understand this. Just putting this out there. —sephiroth bcr(converse)21:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if he ever got it to FA I would support, and it's nice to see a collaborative effort too. While I don't ask for a bucket load of GA's, I would like to see more than one. — Realist223:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm just noting that in many cases, especially with WikiGnomes such as G.A.S., the candidate may not have a whole lot of experience with DYK, GA, and FA, but have a clear grasp of article quality and what goes into editing due to gnoming activities. And FWIW, Tokyo Mew Mew is currently at FAC. —sephiroth bcr(converse)01:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't encourage article writing solely to ensure candidates grasp article writing. It also gives you many other skills useful to dispute resolution; NPOV, BLP, Undue, Recentism, reliable sources and a foundation in communication, collaboration and consensus work. Fundamentally, if an administrator cannot understand these policies inside out they aren't gunno be much use in a dispute over article content. Article writing, if your in the thick of it, gives you these skills. Simply memorizing the policies isn't enough. We've already had one recent candidate who thought "consensus" was more important than fact. — Realist208:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that I follow – and participate in – discussions at WT:ANIME and WT:MOS-ANIME closely, as we discuss these specific issues quite regularly at WikiProject level. Though I do not know of the candidate you speak of, you are right in saying that these items often require professional judgement, not just a count of votes—as often happens. The main question is often "what is best for Wikipedia"? (the main idea behind WP:IAR) Rouge action, esp against consensus, is often disruptive, and causes great upset amongst editors. In these cases I prefer further discussion, as it is often one editor (e.g. from the Project) vs. multiple editors writing an article about their favourite show. At WP:ANIME, these items are often referred to the project page for further discussion, and I believe that helps settle the issues.
Recent discussions which I can recall are regarding the proper/inproper use of Fair use images (1), Reliability of sources (2), the spelling(!) to use (3), article content (4), et al. G.A.S09:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't got time to look at these links right now, however I will do so over the next 2 days. If I haven't responded in 48 hours someone feel free to remind me on my talk page. — Realist214:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning towards oppose. (switched to support) Not much indication that any of his activity required him to grasp non-trivial policy issues despite the semi-automated high edit count. There are still some unanswered questions that may sway me, but the facts I've seen so far:
virtually no vandalism reverts or reports to AIV
no participation in AfD, or even adding PROD or CSD tags
"cleanup" means mostly adding thousands of tags with or without AWB
no indication what he plans to do with the admin tools
The only saving grace is his involvement in drafting guidelines for notability in fiction. But, I doubt he's ready for adminship; I encourage others to ask more questions, since the previous experience of G.A.S is hardly conclusive for this RfA. VG☎22:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No vandalism reverts – AnmaFinotera usually beats me to them. I do not report to AIV regularly, as I have not performed vandal partrols in a while. The articles I watch are not subject to frequent vandalism though (Even {{Ph:Starting a new page}} has been quiet recently). Users also seem to stop vandalising pages when they get to {{uw-vandal4}}. Futhermore, only active vandalism should be reported to AIV. It usually happens that I am clearing up after a vandal had his spree; though this has not happened in a while.
No participation in AfD: While I do not necessarily comment, I am aware of Anime related deletions. I find it fruitless to comment if I agree with clear consensus. I would have speedied Dbxxx though, as it seems to be nonsense, and on closer inspection, possible copyvio (Though it has already been PROD'ed).
Regarding "grasping non trivial policy issues" — the one policy I will and have taken actions for is regarding copyvio[1]. Note that I have not removed the content immediately, as I first tried to contact the appropriate webmaster to obtain permission. G.A.S06:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Buckshot06 (talk·contribs) - Buckshot06 is a prolific contributor to articles on military history and modern militaries and has brought two articles to FA status and created a large number of high-quality articles. In addition, he works tirelessly behind the scenes to tag and assess articles, tidy up categorisations, add internal-links and fix mistakes. This exceptional work maintaining articles led to Buckshot06 being one of only 22 editors to have been awarded the Military History wikiproject's highest award, the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves. Buckshot06 has an excellent record of treating other editors with respect and engaging in cooperative editing, and makes good use of the dispute resolution process and relevant policies/guidelines whenever he is involved in a serious disagreement. As a result of his track record in maintaining Wikipedia and working constructively to resolve disputes, I strongly believe that he would make a great administrator. Nick Dowling (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Thankyou Nick, I accept the nomination and please, feel free to answer additional questions. If I am accepted as an admin I would make myself open to recall (think that's the term). Buckshot06(prof) 14:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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: I do a lot of low-profile tedious 'grunt' work, category creation for example, following on from the patterns that have been set before. Cleaning up stubs, XFD, proposed deletions, etc. I hope that the admin tools will increase my effectiveness in this work, and as I get more familiar, I'll hope to start contributing more widely, vandal chasing, for example. I would like to contribute to closing AFDs and speedy deleting as well. I'll stay mainly within WP:MILHIST, as I have done, unless I have specific familiarity with an issue.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
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: Previously I've been involved in several very minor conflicts, and one major, long-running dispute, over the actions of user:Mrg3105 (in common with dozens of other editors). Mrg is extremely single-minded, and does not believe much in WP:Consensus. I tried to remain civil and rational, pretty successfully I believe, and sort things out in cooperation with other editors, often including the coordinators of the WP:MILHIST project. Mrg3105 has now been given several blocks, and is now under a community editing restriction, and is behaving himself. Since he was placed under that restriction I've had no further conflicts with him.
4. Would you carry out any administrative action regarding Mrg3105, e.g. protecting an article he has edited recently, or blocking him?
Good question; maybe I should have said something about that in the sections above. I've got a history with Mrg3105, and thus I feel I cannot take any admin actions unilaterally. If I felt that any were required, I would want to discuss it with other admins and/or the WPMILHIST coordinators first. If they didn't agree, I wouldn't take any action. All the coordinators are aware of Mrg's ways of doing things, so I believe they as a group could provide an appropriate set of checks and balances.
4.1 Do you feel that the coordinators of MILHIST have any jurisdiction over matters such as this?
A No formal jurisdiction, but a lot of wise heads with several having admin tools themselves. Rather a good group to seek counsel from.
5. You state above that you will make yourself open to recall; under what circumstances would you recall somebody else's administrator position? I realise this is a question more akin to RfB, but I'd be interested in finding out your opinion. Caulde14:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Caulde. For the first six months or so, I wouldn't feel I had enough experience to recall anyone - if I felt it was necessary, I'd talk it over with other admins and probably also consult user:Kirill Lokshin. In general, they would have had to have two or three instances of badly misusing their admin tools without admitting their errors or fixing them. After six months I'd probably want to consult anyway too. If that doesn't clarify my position enough, say so, and I'll expand some more.
6 When would you block someone for incivility? How do you define incivil?
A: I was more thinking of silly new page deletions than blocks when I signed up for this application, but fair question. Incivil would be a repeated (that's important) questioning of a wikipedian's good faith, knowledge, behaviour, etc - casting aspersions, basically. Any block would only take place after a couple of warnings, consultation with more experienced people and a WP:Cup of tea on my part. Buckshot06(prof) 21:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7 When would you block someone for stalking? At what point does legitimate checking on a users contributions become stalking?
A: Basically same as above; would hope to get a number of more experienced wikipedians inputs before I start going to block people, though that might change as I gain experience myself in the role. I think the key about the change from legit checking to stalking comes with the behaviour of the possible stalker; if it's used as a platform for personal attacks, as everybody's entitled to scan contributions, and Special/Contributions is only one of the possible ways to do that. As long as we stick to debating the subject, with sources, I believe that's legit. But blocking in general, I think, is something I'd approach very carefully; not an everyday thing. Buckshot06(prof) 21:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is the funniest thing I have read here so far :) Buckshot06 at one time "contributed" so much "legitimate checking on a users contributions" in my case that I raised an AN/I for stalking, and he cited sources only once (one source). In the end he was told to lay off my editing--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8 If someone was to irritate you.... but without breaking the rules.... what would you do? Block or Talk to them.
I would very much hope that I'm mature enough to talk to people for a good long while before thinking of blocks. In my disputes with Mrg3105, I've approached a number of long-experienced wikipedians on and off line to double-check my views and proposed actions, and I would continue that policy before thinking of blocking anyone. Buckshot06(prof) 20:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9 Do you agree with every Wikipedia policy? If not please give an example and tell why?
A: As user:W. B. Wilson says, the No original research policy 'mildly stifles the creation of very focused historical articles.' I have some material from the Public Record Office, Kew, UK, that I would very much like to add in to some articles, but it is not authorised. Also, there are some extremely authorative forums out there, where people with really respected skills and knowledge are congregating, but we cannot use that data. However, I understand the reasons for the rules and I am not advocating that they be changed; merely, as with W.B. Wilson, it does hamper my article work sometimes. Buckshot06(prof) 20:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your posts here are starting to border on harassment. I assume you said your piece in your 10K oppose; please stop badgering the candidate. This question, being vague at face value, is apparently a loaded one and refers to some past disagreement with the candidate. Tan | 3901:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?
A: Both are important, and in the hypothetical above, both are acting in accordance with policy(!) I believe we're here to improve things all round, so I would hope that in a case such as this, some of the involved people discussing things would investigate and stand up for the affected edit - in a talkpage discussion, without an edit war on the page. That would go for a non-summary article; I watchlisted World War II for a while, and there, with the page size limit, in that case, probably going back to the consensus version would be better - but someone would have to find a source! Difficult to give an answer to a hypothetical question, as it's so case-dependent; if you wish to point towards a real case on a page, please re-ask and I'll do my best to answer. Buckshot06(prof) 20:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that some time has passed since you answered this question, perhaps you might want to try again to express yourself in different words? You dismiss the substance of this open-ended question as merely hypothetical, but that rhetorical tactic is evasive in this context. As I see it, Asenine crisply summarized the focus: "Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?" If you don't construe this question as deserving a more thoughtful and revealing response, my question becomes "Why not?" --Tenmei (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?
12. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If not so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?
A: My activities are much more likely to be affected by my academic schedule, involving my total wikitime, rather than getting the mop. I would however, trying to answer your question, probably drop back a little on obscure referencing for things like Task Force 145 and pay more attention to deletion and new page patrolling (grr.. the garbage that sometime people write!!)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Buckshot06 before commenting.
Let's not go down the path of "we think you're a knob, so your vote doesn't count anymore". Deal with vandalism the way we normally do. If he's going to additionally prove why his RfA didn't go through, so be it ... you vandalize RfA, you're next RfA will be even less successful. BMW(drive)12:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've received an email from Buckshot saying that he's having some difficulties getting access to the internet, so it may take time for him to respond to further questions. Nick Dowling (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent editor, very friendly and helpful. I've never seen him be abusive with tools or be anything but civil in the times I've encountered him, and his work speaks for itself in its quality and quantity. Skinny87 (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - His logistical work for the MilHist Project is outstanding. I can't wait to see what he can accomplish with admin tools. Cam (Chat) 17:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Civil, helpful, dedicated, self-effacing and modest. A great article writer with sufficent project space contributions to demonstrate clue. Clearly won't make mistakes and will check first before acting. Frankly a pleasure to support. Best Wishes. Pedro : Chat 17:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Everything looks good to me, I think he'll do fine as an administrator. I would recommending archiving your talk page one of these days, it's quite long. Fortunately, I have this mouse, great for scrolling. Useight (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has the requisite experience in the only significant respects, and his conduct shows that he has both the faithful intentions and the necessary clue not to cause concern in any technically demanding adminsitrative functions with which he may not be terribly familiar. the skomorokh18:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the most effective editors of the Military history WikiProject, which helped me a lot when I was at my beginnings here on WP. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support A hardworking, balanced and trustworthy editor who relishes the grunt work so necessary to advancing Wikipedia; my only hesitation is that he’d have to spend less time on MILHIST and AIR articles. Askari Mark(Talk)21:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Has a lot of experience and generally keeps his cool in content conflicts. POV pushers and fringe theorists can be quite challenging in that respect. I looked at the diffs posted by Maedin, but I don't see any problems. IMHO, none of those articles require a more drastic action that the one taken by Buckshot06. VG☎22:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - Weak given the distinct lack of activity in the project adminy space, however, your answer to question 1 gives me confidence that you will stick to what you know (AFD for example) and gradually improve/move on from there if you ever desire to do so. Wisdom89(T / C)22:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not being sure as to the right name for the recall process absolutely clinched it for me. :-) Requesting mindless droning through the project space from a candidate that could be improving the encyclopedia is silly and hurts Wikipedia. Giggy (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have interacted with this user for a while now given our shared interests in MILHIST. I have been involved in the heated discussions over Mrg3105 hence my questions above. I think they have been answered to my satisfaction though I don't agree with that definition of civility; disagreeing with someone is not incivility, calling them an idiot for disagreeing is. Given that you have stated you want to avoid that particular department of the admin ship, I have no reason not to support. Buckshot06 has shown his commitment to Wikipedia through his long time here, he has built up a body of knowledge about how everything works and has a good amount of experience. Not every admin needs to have spent their wiki-life buried in XfDs and the circular ANI cesspit; if their daily contributions will be enhanced by admin tools, then that is fine by me. I feel fairly confident that Buckshot will not abuse the tools so I offer my support. Woody (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the candidate is a solid contributor with a good head on his shoulders. I have no concerns over him having access to the tools. -MBK00403:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this where the Jane Fonda Fan Club is meeting? Oh, sorry, that's seriously the wrong queue! But while I am here, a salute of Support for a worthy candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Knowledgeable and trustworthy Wikipedian. Good temperament as displayed on this RFA and in his work on Military Articles. Will be more helpful to the Project with the additional tools. FloNight♥♥♥17:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nick Dowling said it very well: Buckshot06 has an excellent record of treating other editors with respect and engaging in cooperative editing. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - On principle I do not consider adminship a necessity for editing articles, and oppose use of adminship in any issues that affect editing article content. So what does Buckshot06 need these tools for? Is there a shortage of vandalism-hunting bots and Wikipedians?
Buckshot06 claims he does "a lot of low-profile tedious 'grunt' work, category creation for example, following on from the patterns that have been set before. Cleaning up stubs, XFD, proposed deletions, etc. I hope that the admin tools will increase my effectiveness in this work". As it happens his idea of "grunt work" is what is commonly known in Wikipedia as a "gnome", someone who identifies formatting or spelling errors. Grunt work is actually expanding articles and adding citations that make articles more authoritative. I'd like to see a consistent record of that from Buckshot06.
Buckshot claims he participates in "category creation for example, following on from the patterns that have been set before". When I tried to rationalise the categories in the Category:World War IIhere, he was one of the first and most obstinate opposers, but at the same time not offering any alternatives.
Cleaning up stubs means what? To me it means making them rated Start by expanding and adding references, but what does it mean to Buckshot? On the whole Buckshot06 contributes little in terms of significant article creation, expansion, or quality improvement, preferring article maintenance tasks. I hardly think this warrants administrative tools as any editor can perform these effectively without.
Buckshot06 also says that he has "tried to focus my work on militaries that are not covered by our US-heavy systematic bias." which is untrue because he has in fact done quite a bit of work on US military articles.
Buckshot06's two featured status articles, Russian Ground Forces and Military of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, even with with much help by others, are written with neither knowledge of Russian or French. In the case of RGF, the article was only so rated based on the technical MoS and layout criteria and I think needs reassessment. The article on Congo lacks citations from Congo sources, so can hardly be considered a quality article. Creation of the Russian military districts (bar two), and all the Chinese military regions, were really at start level at best because again Buckshot06 lacks language and subject are knowledge to create encyclopaedic articles ion the subjects. If this level of "achievement" was acceptable as a criteria for excellence in a reference work, almost anyone could claim to be an outstanding contributor, as in for example the editor adding geographic locations in Madagascar. The large number of Russian army and division articles, and the main list articles List of Armies of the Soviet Union and Divisions of the Soviet Union 1917-1945 are in fact copied from predominantly one source, and are even at that incomplete, and incorrect. Buckshot06 has steadfastly refused to accept for example that a Soviet division recreated after destruction during the Second World War are new divisions regardless of the number, and needs a separate entry.
It is my thinking that Wikipedia awards such as WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves can not be used as a means of assessment of an editorial contribution because the represent subjective personal opinions of other editors.
Buckshot06 is a heavily conservative mind-set that reflects his contributions in policy discussions. For example he steadfastly opposed proposal of naming articles in MilHist based on best expert source rather than on common English names, and supports naming of articles based on consensus votes rather than their actual historical names.
Buckshot06's "major dispute" with me started when I asked him to collaborate on articles in the area of the Second World War Eastern Front subject area. Initially it involved disagreements on style, but after a while I realised that Buckshot was essentially stalking me, making corrections in virtually every article and expansions, sometimes within minutes, while not actually making any suggestions, expansions of his own, or other actions that I would call collaborative. Later when I realised there were problems with continuity and legacy of articles on Soviet/Russian unit articles, Buckshot06 obstinately countered me in every way despite having no actual knowledge in the area. More bizarrely, he defended continuity of Soviet unit history into Ukranian unit articles despite these belonging to a separate independent state! Why? Because of personal allegiances with a Ukranian editor. This, has been a feature of Buckshot06's contributions in Wikipedia - he is loyal in his personal dealings with other editors to the point of blindness to the issues he defends on their behalf, regardless of the issue.
The only reason Buckshot06 can claim that his dispute with me is "in common with dozens of other editors", is because he is using a cumulative count of all participants in article votes on a total of four articles (I think), all involving titles. Of these "dozens" many have been opposed to me on purely nationalistic grounds. I have been "extremely single-minded" on the subject of WP:CITE. I have insisted that article quality is not subject to the policy which guides the process of WP:Consensus, and therefore I do not believe in consensus as a means of editing articles, including by votes.
Although Buckshot06 has "tried to remain civil and rational", he failed to provide sources for his assertions, insisting rather single-mindedly on status quo, even when this is based on highly unreliable source such as David Irving. This is the reason I have failed to keep my equanimity, along with instances where other editors had pursued same tactics, because I think my interpretation of Wikipedia objective of being an authoritative reference work largely depends on articles that are acceptable in terms of meeting criteria of academic experts who can recommend Wikipedia for use by others, and not ban its use as is the case now. Whether or not editors have remained "civil" is not a part of that criteria, and is therefore peripheral to the issue of article quality. If Buckshot06 claims that he has remained civil while steadfastly preventing improvements to Wikipedia quality, then I would consider this a hollow achievement.
How does me being given several blocks relate to Buckshot06's request for adminship? I am not under a "community editing restriction" because it has not been supported by the entire Wikipedia community. In fact I have not seen even a few thousand of the 70,000 consistent editors acknowledge this "restriction", therefore I ignore it for what it is, a means by Raul654 of preventing me from contradicting his voted-in change in the article title. Doesn't sound quite like I'm the villain of the century when details are known, does it Buckshot06?
I am not "behaving myself". Because I do not recognise "community restrictions" imposed by the virtue of a bureaucratic position in Wikipedia, I have and will continue to speak my mind on issues related to article quality. Aside from Buckshot06 I have interacted with dozens of other editors, and have yet to be cited for incivility where nationalistic bias in Eastern Europe has not reared its ugly head. I strongly hold true to the policy of citing sources and a very recent example of how this is done is in Battle of Longewala which I was asked to take a look at. I think I have resolved that dispute with no need for votes or use of administrative tools.
Its true that I have had no further conflicts with Buckshot06 because I have decided not to communicate with him, this not being productive at all in article editing. However, it is not true that Buckshot06 has had no conflicts with me since the imposition of the so-called "restrictions". He reverted my renaming of an article in the Eastern Front based on noting other than his preference for fewer words, although the article title comes from a gaming forum as far as I can tell.
Buckshot06 is simply angry with me because of my opinion about his decision to insist on using David Irving as a source for the names of three articles. Quite frankly I don't care. Every person's emotions are their business, and I have not started editing in Wikipedia to change anyone's behaviour, or to have my behaviour modified. If Buckshot06 follows basic premises of Wikipedia article quality policies when interacting with me, he would never need to even consider the issues of consensus and civility, but he has not. I would suggest that before Buckshot06 gains administrator tools, he needs to try and learn how to edit first
Comment Mrg's statement that he's had no recent communications with Buckshot other than in regards to the Battle of West Ukraine (1944) article is not correct: he recently posted incivil comments on Buckshot's user page and talk page in relation to Buckshot's preparations for this RfA: [2][3]. I'd also note that Buckshot has consulted widely during the disputes he and Mrg have been involved with by correctly using the dispute resolution process to gain external perspectives. From what I've seen, Mrg generally does not do so, and often is not supported by any other editors. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's because I'm not here to create social networks. Anyone is welcome to comment on the relevant talk pages, but Buckshot06 goes out and garners support from friends who block-vote. I had not seen much consistent participation in the range of articles Buckshot06 has chosen to block my contributions in by any of the group that suddenly materialise for the dispute resolution process, which suggests to me they are there only to offer support to Buckshot06 rather than from editorial interest in the subject.
What is civil or uncivil is highly subjective Nick, and you do not determine what that is. There is such a thing as abuse of administrative tools, and I have seen lots of it when the first admin to block me failed to explain why, and the second failed to read the diff. No admin so far that issued a block has bother to justify their reasoning to me beforehand, so I still don't know exactly why it is that I have been blocked four times, maybe Buckshot06 will eventually block me indefinitely as no doubt he is itching to do. Where there is a will there is a way as the saying goes--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Buckshot uses the standard dispute resolution process, which calls for seeking external views if an argument gets bogged down by posting on relevant wikiprojects talk pages and/or contacting uninvolved editors directly. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Mrg's statement that he has “yet to be cited for incivility where nationalistic bias in Eastern Europe has not reared its ugly head” is also untrue; mrg has a long history of incivility toward anyone who disagrees with him on just about anything. Among the “community restrictions” he has specifically declared himself immune to are WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:CON. Askari Mark(Talk)03:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. My disagreement has been consistently about use and abuse of sources in substantiating article content. This issue has nothing to do with WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:CON, but they are used to bait editors to then effect a block, a well worn tactic to invite use of administrative tools--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with that Roger? I think that a translation by a twice-convicted fraud and Holocaust denier or a hanged Nazi memoirs that bear little resemblance to much of what transpired on the Eastern Front deserves that epithet. I reserve it for the worst of military history works. Buckshot06 refused to consider that there may be other more reputable and authoritative sources to base Wikipedia articles on. It was never explained to me why I am not allowed to use words of my choosing in characterising war criminals, and why that is uncivil. I think the very act of Keitel being hanged, and Irving being temporarily removed from the civil society justifies my perception of their "contributions" to military history--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Someone injecting variations of f*ck every few words in a sentence [4] better stop claiming the moral high ground of civility. VG☎ 13:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I've misread the long indictment: mrg3105 is not claiming to be civil, but rather the right to be uncivil because he is... right. VG☎13:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is neither what one says, or how one says it, or how civil one remains while saying it, but what purpose the expression serves.
Bin Ladin is always very eloquent and polite as he explains in his videos, with a smile on his face, how anyone who oppose fundamentalist Islam needs to be killed. Not that I compare Buckshot06 to Bin Ladin (just using an extreme example illustratively), but in that case he steadfastly defended the article about a Soviet operation named based on oneGerman source despite all other evidence or Wikipedia policies...politely. An it didn't matter that the source is actually not a very good one!
Have you ever seen an older schoolboy taking a ball away from a younger one, and then standing there with a smile holding it up in the air, and asking the younger child to say "can I please have the ball back mister, pretty please" although it is his ball in the first place? What psychologist call that is a bully, not being civil. This behaviour is now exemplified in Wikipedia as a sort of online bullying that also comes in group form--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on mrg's statement: Is there a shortage of vandalism-hunting bots and Wikipedians?. Note, the most recent AIV backlog was cleared 13 minutes prior to my writing this. Just saying... ArakunemTalk15:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A1 I do a lot of low-profile tedious 'grunt' work.......I hope that the admin tools will increase my effectiveness in this work I don't understand why you're willing to take such tedious work by yourself, because nobody force you to do so. Besides, having admin tools is not intended for yourself, but for the community. --Caspian blue (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now: I'm just not sure. Buckshot has obviously made substantial contributions to military-related articles, but he appears to have very limited experience in admin-related areas. Looking through a month's worth of contributions, I found at least two ([5][6]) articles where he has placed tags for notability, which could perhaps go to AfD, and five or six participations in XfD discussions. Also, a prod2 which was blatantly removed, without discussion, by an IP 8 hours after being placed by Buckshot ([7]) was never followed up. I'm not suggesting that other people should use a watchlist in the same way that I do, but it seems reasonable to have watched this and followed it up (possibly with a re-instatement & a user warning? Sending it to AfD so it's more visible?). I am not convinced that a user should have used rollback before gaining its use as an admin, but I do note that Buckshot doesn't have rollback status or experience with undoing, reverting, warning users, etc. And no speedy deletes? Correct me if I'm wrong, of course, there are only so many contributions I can search through, lol :) A few more thoughts: I don't see that many indications of how Buckshot handles himself under fire. I've seen that a fair proportion of his edits, even from a month ago, are still the latest edits on the articles. Not to be dismissive, but it would appear that he has been working largely in an area where there is not so much conflict and activity as to warrant quick responses. Also, I fully accept that he has had documented trouble with user Mrg3105 and I do not know the nature of those problems, but a few days after Mrg3105 created an article, Buckshot added an {{accuracy}} tag with the edit summary "this guy is smoking some serious weed" ([8]). To sum up: I guess I just don't see a need for the tools, and I do not feel confident that, with the tools, he would not make several errors, which a more experienced candidate would have already come across and be able to avoid. Maedin\talk17:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on my own neutral: I'm genuinely asking this out of curiosity and not in an attempt to poke anyone. I haven't been involved in the processes here for very long, so the fact that I'm (very nearly) a lone voice with some concerns isn't too surprising, :-) The nature of my curiosity is regarding the current RfA for Tadakuni. I see Tadakuni and Buckshot as very similar editors, in that, so far, they have pretty much been project co-ordinators, mainspace contributors in specific areas, and have more or less avoided the vandals and the namespace. If I'm looking at the right figures, then Buckshot has almost exactly double the number of contributions that Tadakuni has, and assuming Tadakuni were to double his contributions, respecting all current percentages, then Buckshot would have only (roughly) 1.5% more namespace contributions. That isn't a big margin. Neither of them are rollbackers, and both of them are stating in their RfA that, should they become administrators, they would like to contribute in cleaning up vandalism. They seem to be missing the same point, a point which earned Tadakuni a couple of opposes. And some of the oppose !votes state that Tadakuni doesn't have enough namespace experience, but are !voting support here. Buckshot's namespace contributions appear to be limited almost exclusively to XfD, which would be fine, except he says, "I hope that the admin tools will increase my effectiveness in this work, and as I get more familiar, I'll hope to start contributing more widely, vandal chasing, for example. I would like to contribute to closing AFDs and speedy deleting as well." He could be speedy deleting (tagging) now, chasing vandals now. A solid, trustworthy, reliable editor – check. Experience – not so much? Have I missed something? At this point, I certainly think I must be! I know these things are nuanced and never cut-and-dry, and that there are other factors, like Tadakuni's sporadic edit summary usage. But surely the majority of opposes there seem at odds with the supports here? Please feel free to move this to the talk page if it seems more appropriate, and if anyone wishes to respond and hopefully explain, then you're welcome to do so on my talk page, too. Thank you! Maedin\talk19:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Maedin for your thoughts and comments. Did the sections of my edits that you looked at include the time spent new page patrolling - for which I'd like to be able to act more quickly rather than have to queue things for other admins' attention? There are also a good number of speedy deletes in there as well. No, I don't use bots - sorry, I'm a bit of a manual wikipedian(?!). In regard to the edit summary you hi-lighted, there is a story behind that, involving that page as a semi-content fork and Mrg as an editor who (a) has aimed more foul-mouthed abuse than I've ever seen from anyone at me - I'll go and search out the diffs should people wish - and (b) though he knows a great deal about the Eastern Front, knows very little of the Royal Navy. Most of the 'stations' he listed there would see RN warships only once in every few months, and are not 'stations' really in any naval sense. I'm sorry to say that sometimes, like the diff above, I've descended a little from my usual politeness in response. Buckshot06(prof) 19:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The list is that of historical Royal Navy stations, not their frequency of visits. I note that despite your self-professed expert knowledge of the Royal Navy you had not continued to reference the list as I thought you might--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Buckshot, thank you for your response. I admit that I probably did not look far enough back to have come across new page patrol edits, and I certainly did not mean to imply that you should be carrying that work out with the use of bots! I am also a "manual Wikipedian", which isn't a bad way of phrasing it, actually, :-). I am not too worried about the somewhat uncivil edit summary and accept your explanation of the situation, and the extenuating circumstances would have tried the patience of most people, probably. I had hoped to see a few more responses here from people who supported you, regarding polar votes on a similar situation, but failing that, I wish you success in your RfA – indeed, it appears as though my neutral is un-heeded and certainly not a hindrance! (In fact, I've just seen that it's been called "silly". Alrighty then! That's fairly emphatic...lol) Maedin\talk11:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you care to elaborate? Like mostly why you felt the need to publicly state you are neutral for now? I mean if you are neutral for now, why not just stay silent and come back when you have actually made up your mind? « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 20:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I was neutral, as per below, was that many of the questions had not been answered yet. I think I have enough information now to make a decision. RockManQ (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And as per below, my question still stands. Why did you feel the need to tell us your mind wasn't made up? I mean, if your minds not made up, then just come back when it is. I do want to argue about this, it's just something to think about in the future. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 21:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really, could you please stop badgering people about their choice of voting "neutral". Maybe their concerns never get addressed, and they are truly on the fence. People have full right to say "I don't necessarily oppose, but there's something missing here...", or "I don't quite support yet, but..." and that's why neutral votes occur. It's valid, it's still useful..you're right, they should at least say WHY they're currently neutral, but accept it, please. BMW(drive)09:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral at this point. There's a whole whack of questions above with no responses that I would actually like to see the answers to, mostly regarding civility. Until then, I can't vote either way. BMW(drive)12:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then please do tell, why you felt the need to even comment in the neutral section, if you yourself have not made up your mind on the candidate. Also, it is ironic that you stated "I can't vote either way," as you actually did vote...neutral. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 20:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh, not really; looks like you need to look up the definition of irony. I believe he means he can't vote support OR oppose (can't vote either way) not that, regardless of whether his request for answers is granted, he can't vote. Ironholds21:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Irony: "contrary to what was expected." I would expect someone stating that they can't vote either way would actually not "vote". Thus it is ironic that he actually voted. As per the tally on top of the page, neutrals are counted, and are a "vote" in an RFA. Also, I understood what he meant, I was just stating the apparent flaw in his comments, that there is no point voicing yourself in the neutral section if you intend to reevaluate and move your position. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 21:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er ... not like re-evaluation hasn't occurred before in RfA. I think a neutral vote is still important, especially based on "why" it was neutral. If there's no additional information/incentive to change the vote, it is still a vote. People don't change their minds...they make a new decision based on new information. BMW(drive)12:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bwilkins, have answered all the questions put to me - is there any specific extra information you're looking for? I'd be quite happy to provide it if you wish. Buckshot06(prof) 19:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Final (75/32/4); Ended 10:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Rfa Withdrawn By Candidate
IMatthew (talk·contribs) - I would like to draw you guys' attentions to IMatthew. IMatthew is a very dedicated user, helping primarily with the realm of professional wrestling, whose WikiProject he is quite active in. As far as article writing goes, he has an FA, an FL, 9 GAs, and 3 DYKs, so he is definitely experienced in that regard. I think the best thing about IMatthew is that he is always eager to learn and to ask questions, which has helped him to develop as a Wikipedian. With that said, I submit him to the community's consideration, and hope that they will review him in an impartial light. bibliomaniac1523:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: My main area of interest is in professional wrestling related articles. I have had one article promoted to FA status, one to FL status, ten to GA status, and three that appeared on the main page in the DYK? column, all of which are professional wrestling related articles. Along with my work with the professional wrestling project, I plan on working in other areas of Wikipedia such as WP:RFPP. I have experience with RFPP, requesting pages there that I believe need protection to prevent IP and new user vandalism. As an admin, I will start to work at RFPP, protecting articles that need to be protected from IP’s and/or new users because of an edit war, conflict of opinions, or plain vandalism. I try to check WP:AN and WP:ANI every day, and whenever I feel it’s needed, I post my opinion on a certain topic. If a topic has a clear consensus, I will not participate in the discussion to avoid WP:PILEON. The final area of Wikipedia I will work in is WP:XFD discussions, mainly AfD and MfD. I will close AfD discussions and occasionally MfD’s, if and only if there is a clear consensus on whether to keep, delete, redirect, or merge the article. Lastly, I will also look for pages marked with the “admin backlog” template to assist there.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions to Wikipedia are definitely my article writing as a part of the professional wrestling project. As I said above, I’ve raised many articles to good and/or feature quality articles. I wrote the entire The Great American Bash (2005) article, which is a Featured article. I’ve written and/or expanded another handful of articles as a part of the professional wrestling project’s pay-per-view expansion sub-project. I’ve also had about four of them raised to GA status. Some of my other good contributions are at WT:PW, the talk page for the pro-wrestling project where you can always find me helping other users, offering assistance when needed, participating in discussions, and helping reach consensuses when necessary.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I try my best to avoid ever getting into conflicts over editing. I can’t remember any conflict over editing that has caused me stress. Whenever a user/IP starts edit-warring, I try to settle the issue with the user either on their talk page, or the article’s talk page. If the user refuses to cooperate, I ask another editor’s input on the situation. Only one issue that comes to mind involves banned user User:ChristianMan16 (formerly Hornetman16).. It has happened before that a sockpuppet of his has turned up, in which case I’ve contacted administrators that are familiar with him, which would result in the sock being blocked.
4. I was looking over your previous votes in adminship discussions in an attempt to ascertain your views on adminship. Consider the following hypothetical RfA candidacies, including how you would vote and why:
First, suppose candidate User:X is nominated for adminship. User:X has a wonderful record of consensus-building, article edits, vandal-fighting, and so on, and is generally an exemplary candidate. However, User:X has stated in his answers to the standard questions that being an admin does not really interest him, and that he would use the tools only "rarely." User:X goes on to state that he is only running becuase User:Prominent, User:Respected, and User:ImportantPersonnage insisted that he do so becuase of his excellent non-admin work.
Second, consider User:Multilingual, who is an admin on two other Wikipedias, say, Turkish and German, both of which have different policies and are of reasonably large size. User:Multilingual has a near-native command of English and is widely respected on both tr.wp and de.wp. User:Multilingual has a substantial number of edits, but far less than normal candidates here at en.wp, say, 1900 well-balanced edits. How would you vote if this was a self-nomination? How would you vote if User:Multilingual was nominated by en.wp admin User:RespectedPersonnage?
A: First off, for the first user running, I would probably support. The user would obviously not mis-use the tools, and although he says that he would use the tools "rarely," he would still use them, "correctly." If the user really had no interest in being an admin, I would suggest that he'd not submit the RfA in the first place, but otherwise, he'd be a great admin whenever he used the tools. Not all admins are active 24/7. For the second user, if he came onto the English Wikipedia and has already demonstrated an outstanding knowledge of our policies and guidelines which can be proved, then I would support. But, if he had only 1900 edits, I might oppose based on a lack of experience on the en.wp. These two factors basically even the other out, so I might vote neutral.
5. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?
A:This is a tough question, as a consensus can be made to be more powerful, or to change a policy. Verifiability is important as well though. I think it would depend on the exact case, and most likely a consensus would be slightly more important. Honestly, I feel they balance each other out, but consensus would win in a race, if you know what I'm trying to say.
To tell you the honest truth, this was my original answer: Verifiability is more important to me. If the newbie has a reliable source and can verify his information, I’d say that should go in place of consensus. However, the consensus should not be ignored, I would find a way to work with the users that established the consensus to work out a way that the consensus can be verified. and then, this comment made by User:Coffee made me re-think the answer. Which I should not have done. I hope you all can forgive me for my bad answer but as I've said, all I want to do is assist the community with the extra tools, and I'd like you all to understand that I messed up with this answer, and not hold it against me in the future. Thanks. iMatthew (talk)11:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that some time has passed since you answered this question, perhaps you might want to try again to express yourself in different words? Your rhetorical tactic is evasive in this context. As I see it, Asenine crisply summarized the focus: "Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?" If you don't construe this question as deserving a more thoughtful and revealing response, my question becomes "Why not?" --Tenmei (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability is more important than consensus. Lets say that an IP address posts a comment on Tom Cruise's talk page that read, "I went to school with Tom, and I know for a fact that he has a scar on his left leg from falling off his bike in fourth grade." Over the following day, many additional IP's comment the talk page and concur that it should be included because they believe the first IP is telling the truth. A consensus is then formed between the IP's that it should be included in the article because the IP claims that he is telling the truth. Then, an established editor comes along and removed the information from the page, and comments on the talk page, saying "The information presented is not notable and can not be verified by reliable third party sources." The registered user would be correct, and the information cannot be added. Verifiability is more important than consensus. iMatthew (talk)17:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?
A: Sure, back in June. User:The SRS has been editing in userspace more than he was told he should be. When confronted about it, he lied and said his account was hacked. On the discussion in the link, myself and User:The Hybrid tried to help him, as it was proven he lied. (Mine and Hybrid’s replies here). Since then, SRS has become a productive editor, and has learned to edit constructively in the mainspace. SRS has also learned to come to me for advice now. I recently offered to re-design his userpage, so that he wouldn’t have to worry about it’s appearance (as he constantly tried to make it look better). The result is his current user page.
7. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If not so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?
A: My current activities will continue, as I will help perform administrative tasks for the professional wrestling project. The project only has about two active admins, so I will be available to help out there, like always. I will not drop anything that I currently do, but instead be equally as active in other areas of Wikipedia.
8. You've made an administrative action and another administrator has rolled it back without notice. How do you respond?
A: Well, if my action should have been rolled back, then I wouldn't have any right to get mad, but if it was say a controversial block, or something like that, then I would try to discuss it with them before further action took place.
9. Say you see an administrator block a user for a completely unfair reason. Would you take action? If so, how would you react?
A:Well again, I'd discuss it with the admin; unless it was a block for disagreeing with the admin (or something similar) - then I would probably unblock. iMatthew (talk)22:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: I would discuss it with them and try to be reasonable. If they for some reason didn't listen and continued to vandalize, I would of course block them for the appropriate time period.
Actually, I think that the guidelines listed there successfully adhere to all Wikipedia policies. Nothing looks bad there. Am I answering the wrong question? I'm slightly puzzled. iMatthew (talk)14:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11.a Simplified variant: Do you think a WikiProject should be allowed to set up arbitrary standards for the inclusion of verifiable material, like WikiProject Firearms are doing with their "guideline" on "Criminal use"?
A: Only if those standards meet Wikipedia's guidelines.
In my own words, those policies do seem to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. The project's guideline says that it has to be a notable event to be included in the article, and per Wikipedia's notability guideline, the example events are notable. iMatthew (talk)19:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. You want to close an AfD of an article of a part-time wrestler who has something of a following on (at least) the Internet, but whose article does not cite any reliable sources. 5 opinions say that because no-one has been able to find substantial coverage by reliable third party sources, the article fails WP:BIO and should be deleted. 3 other "delete" opinions say that, in addition, he has not competed in a competition of equivalent standing to a fully professional league and fails WP:ATHLETE. 4 opinions oppose deletion because they believe that his some 2,000 Google hits to forums, blogs and enthusiast-run websites, as well as coverage about him on the website of his wrestling association, indicate sufficient notability. 3 "keep" opinions say that (according to the wrestling association's website) the wrestler did twice participate in a contest transmitted on Pay-TV, which makes him also notable. Some 5 other "keep" opinions are by single purpose accounts or IPs; they make WP:ATA arguments to the tone of "Save! because hes a great fighter and wiki has information on everything!" How do you close the AfD, and why?
A: It seems like "delete" votes have a better reasoning that those who wish to keep. We should not keep articles because fan like him. If he fails WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE and has no reliable third party sources, I'd probably delete the article. Forums, blogs, and other websites like those can talk about anybody they choose to, but they are not reliable sources whatsoever.
13. Could you please tell us whether you have reached the age of majority in the country in which you live?
A: From what I've seen, all that this question brings in pointless drama and long discussion at WT:RFA. I'm choosing not to answer this question, sorry.
14. Per this RfA Support, can you clarify why you don't think translating an article from an unreliable source with an online translator, without consulting or being able to read the original sources, is not an "alarming" breach of our core WP:V policy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: In that case, I know how EOTW feels. He made a mistake in that situation, and he must be feeling just what I am feeling, which is regret for what I/he did/said. I believe that he has learned from his mistakes, as have I and I don't see that as alarming anymore.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/IMatthew before commenting.
Discussion
Comment Let me just let everyone know, that I will be available all weekend during the day. I am not home on weekdays though from about 6:30-3:00. iMatthew (talk)00:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously ... opposing for this is just dumb. It's a bad question to begin with (the change described is not "trivial"). And if there is "consensus" for the version not supported by the newbie, it at least is helpful to ask the question of "why" rather than just automatically pigeonhole the problem into a prefab solution. If the fence has been put there, ask yourself why it is there before tearing it down. Maybe the newbie is right and this is just new information that was not available before. Maybe the newbie is wrong and the "source" is a widely discredited attack piece from a biased "news" source. But coming up with an automatic rule to a philosophical question (as this question asked) is not possible. Rather, it's best to keep an open mind and consider each side on the merits before rendering a decision. Yes, verifiability is one of our key principles but sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming verifiability without first asking why the article says what it says is a bad idea. IMatthew, you have nothing to be ashamed of - in either answer. --B (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I'm a bit confused by the attention given to the question inviting IMatthew to rank verifiability and consensus. Neither of these would be an adequate answer. Verifiability is not a property that a piece of information either obviously has or obviously does not have. We often disagree about what counts as verifiable and what does not (we see this problem in the ongoing arguments over what counts as a reliable source). This means that we determine what is verifiable by finding consensus. I guess if you wanted to be really finicky you could say that consensus, as embodied in our discussion-based model for making decisions, is logically prior to verifiability -- we can't begin deciding what's verifiable and what's not without first establishing a method of making decisions. But verifiability and consensus are so closely intertwined in all actual situations, and so fundamental to Wikipedia, that it would be an altogether different project without either of them. Consequently it makes no sense at all to insist on abstractly ranking them by importance. This question is so misconceived that I doubt we can learn anything about IMatthew from his being unsure about how to answer it. I echo B's remarks, and encourage voters to ignore the question and IMatthew's answers. — Dan | talk00:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question was specific enough that verifiability trumps consensus was reasonably clear as an answer. That said, I agree that there is no sense in going overboard on the response. Better to examine his record than focus on a single answer! --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 01:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not wanting to add to my Oppose, but it appears the candidate has took some of the Opposes from his Wiki-Friends personally:
The point of doing this quietly was to avoid drama, but here goes.
As you can see, I remove my friends list from my userpage a few days ago. I felt that it was not necessary, and I didn't necessarily want to delete it just yet. I blanked the page - in no relation to anybody's opposes.
The professional wrestling project has turned to crumbles in my opinion. Most people there lack a sense of humor, and when somebody leaves a friendly note, it is removed - there is no reason for that. I will continue to edit professional wrestling articles, but I no longer wish to be a member of the project. This was nothing to do with the RfA or anybody's opposes. It's something I felt was best for me.
I do not want to get into your last point. If you'd like to know my reasoning, I'd be more than happy to e-mail, but I don't feel bringing it up in Wikipedia space, it will not do any good.
Support My interactions with iMatthew have been positive and good. Clearly a trustworthy editor, with a couple pieces of featured content as a bonus. I have full confidence iMatthew will make a terrific admin. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone00:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I know him to be civil and trustworthy. Does good mainspace work. Seems knowledgeable in the areas in which he desires to work. I believe he'll do fine as an administrator. Useight (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't see anything alarming or contentious. User has experience in the areas they wish to employ the mop. Nice article work. Wisdom89(T / C) 04:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Abstaining. Something alarming has come up. The answers to many of the questions are simply unacceptable. Not comfortable supporting any longer. Wisdom89(T / C)19:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gadji beri bimba clandridi / Lauli lonni cadori gadjam / A bim beri... – oh, this is iMatthew, not I Zimbra? Sorry, wrong queue. But while I am here, Support, of course, for a worthy candidate (even if he's not part of Talking Heads). Ecoleetage (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - my interactions with iMatthew have been positive, he just needs to edit more out of professional wrestling, but he tries his best. I've known him since he got here to learn Wiki's ways as User:Hardyboyz27, since then he has evolved into a great editor.--SRX14:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes – a good, reasonable user that will be a net positive. No reason to consider not supporting here; I've looked through his conversations with others and he appears to maintain good civility. An experienced user, and most of all, I trust that he'd make decent decisions. :-) Cheers, Jamie☆S9314:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Sound candidate, good clue level, good humor, communicative. iMatthew? i like it. Keeperǀ7615:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC) moving to neutral, many concerns raised after my initial support that I hadn't noticed. Not enough to oppose though.[reply]
Support. I'm satisfied the candidate is aware that unverifiable content cannot be added to articles even where consensus exists, and similarly, that verifiable content cannot be added to some articles where no consensus exists for its inclusion. Nick (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support My interactions with iMatthew have been positive and good. We are good friends and I support Matt all the way, plus he is my co-adopter. I'm sure he will be a net positive to the community.SaveUs.Y2J10:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
iSupport – I've known iMatthew for a while now, and have had nothing but good interactions with him. Very civil, helpful, acts like an administrator already, and giving him the tools would only benefit Wikipedia and our community. If he wants to help the community of the extra assistance with the tools, and if he knows how and when to properly use them (which he has proven to me), then I have no problem with Matthew becoming an administrator. Respectively yours, RyRy (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - In regards to the opposes due to his answer to question 5, I think that iMatt simply worded what he was trying to say incorrectly. I edited with him for months, and I've seen him defend policy in the face of local consensus, saying bluntly that policy trumps consensus due to policies actually being large consensuses. He understands what a policy is, and that local consensus has no bearing on whether or not it should be enforced. Anyways, I support sysopping iMatt because, to a large degree, he has already filled the role for some time. He's deserved the mop far longer than he realizes. His humility is what attracted me to him when he arrived on Wikipedia, and I watched him develop into a fantastic editor more quickly than almost any other editor who has arrived during my Wiki career. iMatthew will make a fantastic administrator; he will not only fill his role well, but bring honor to the title. Between his humility, knowledge, willingness to question himself, and deep-seated respect for Wikipedia's policies and community, he is everything that an administrator should be. No, wait, he is everything that an administrator should aspire to be. The Hybrid03:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The interactions I've had with Matthew in the past have been very positive. Matthew will make an excellent admin. His dedication and hard work on professional wrestling related articles, combined with the fact that he seems to be a good guy, leaves me feeling confident that he can do the job. CadenS (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The original answer to Q5 was poor, but don't see any other problems (and other answers were fine - particularly impressed with answer to Q13). The support of those who have worked with him persuades me that this was just a blip and he is aware of the importance of verifiability. I can't see him misusing the tools. Davewild (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Partly per wholly positive previous interaction. OK, he cocked up a rather tricky question (Q5). He learnt from it and held his hands up. The ability to learn and be honest about a mistake is a key thing. We can undo errors. We can't enforce honesty or a learning mentality. For sure we don't need admins making endless errors but I feel IMatthew is very unlikely to provide additional workoad through mistakes and a lack of WP:CLUE and more likely to benefit WP with +sysop. A Net Positive. Pedro : Chat 21:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While the opposers' concerns below have more merit than do the opposes in many RfA's, I believe this candidate has a good level of experience and understanding of policy in the areas where he has indicated he intends primarily to use the tools. His answers suggest that he would ease relatively slowly into more complex areas as to which he has acknowledged his familiarity with policy is less complete. As with all new (and experienced) administrators, I would urge the candidate, if successful, to consult with colleagues rather than to act unilaterally in any situation where he is unsure of the correct way to handle the issue. If this RfA is unsuccessful, I urge the candidate to continue his work on Wikipedia and try here again in due course. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support My experiences with this editor have been positive and fairhanded. Additionally, I feel that NewYorkBrad's statement above reflexts the remainder of my opinion on this candidate. Many thanks, Gazimoff09:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support if the only reason to oppose is question #5. I'm having a difficult time imagining this. The edit is "reasonably trivial" yet it replaces some amount of text and adds a source? This is not relatively trivial. It's a bad question and I don't fault IMatthew at all for not coming up with a perfect answer that pleases everyone. --B (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "reasonably trivial" doesn't match the remainder of the context describing the edit (one which ought not be marked as "minor"), but this is just a hypothetical example to add context to the primary question ("In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?") which is as straightforward as they come. The question does not become more difficult to understand just because the candidate answered it poorly, and without any indication that "reasonably trivial" was a source of confusion I'll add. Consensus does not override policy unless it is specifically a consensus to change the policy (as a hypothetical this would be entirely kosher as some polices do suck, but policy change cannot and does not happen on the talk page of one article). Of course rules can be ignored if there's a good enough reason, but the example above does not provide enough information to determine whether IAR is appropriate (so we have to assume it isn't). Personally if this was the only question on the RFA I'd give him half-credit (for acknowledging that policy can change), but keep the other half (pitying the fool who thinks WP:Verifiability should or is likely to be changed for the sake of one article), then oppose on a tie-breaker (for believing that consensus "would win in a race" against a policy that nobody is actually trying to change). — CharlotteWebb14:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm going to go out on a limb that if Matthew has an FA and the other article credits that he does, he will be able to assess such policies as verifiability and consensus. MBisanztalk13:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've known iMatthew for ever now, he's allway's been one of my best friends on here and I can definatly say he will not abbuse the tools and will do a great job. To sum it all up IMatthew is a great user and will help Wikipedia in great way's. SteelersFan9417:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support from the evidence of the candidates contributions and this RfA I do not think that they will abuse the tools and find it unlikely they will accidentally misuse them. I think the user has the relevant knowledge of policy and the demeanour that if the tools were ever misused once informed they would act in the way I would hope an administrator too act. Guest9999 (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support very good editor, knows what to do and what not nto, and seems to know when a user is doing something right or wrong and will take action if necessary. SAVIOR_SELF.77703:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support because an ability and willingness to think through a issue or problem in a process which moves towards a constructive outcome benefits everyone and ensures prospects for growth over time --Tenmei (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose; I don't have any a priori objections to administrator that plan on using the tools rarely, but I admit I'm a little worried when you plan on using them in the areas where you edit; this is the place where you should not be using your tools because of your involvement. Given that you have little experience in other areas, I'm not comfortable giving you the tools. — Coren(talk)15:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to use the tool in all areas of Wikipedia, but what I meant was that I will be using the tools where I am involved, performing tasks like at WP:PW/ANC - moving articles that have a consensus, and some other areas. iMatthew (talk)15:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are opposing because he doesn't have any experience in areas where he doesn't edit? You want him to have tons of experience in areas where he doesn't edit? Isn't that a paradox? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~15:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your oppose makes absolutely no sense. Whilst I will badger no further, saying "you should only use the tools where you don't spend your time" is an utterly ridiculous oppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asenine (talk • contribs)
Opposing for this reason is not 'utterly ridiculous'. An admin who intends using the tools in the areas where he/she edits is more likely, ceteris paribus, to misuse the tools than an uninvolved admin. It is a legitimate cause for concern (though not necessarily a basis for an oppose - one should probably examine the editor's past behavior for that).--Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 02:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'd need to see clear understanding that using your tools anywhere near articles where you are significantly involved as an editor, or regarding editors with whom you interact significantly while editing those articles, is a big no-no. — Coren(talk)18:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are circumstances where administrative actions can be take "near" articles you are significantly involved in - e.g. granting a clearly uncontroversial {{editprotected}} request, blocking someone who has been blanking a WP:GA, etc. The idea, rather, is that one shouldn't make "close calls" or even "almost close calls" on articles in which they are significantly involved. --PhilosopherLet us reason together.17:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed per handwaving answer to 5, which demonstrates a lack of policy knowledge, and for his off-base and contradictory comments at a recent RfA. Badgering RfA candidates for their humor is quite WP:BITEy. Do we really want someone who doesn't know enough about fundamental policies to answer a question that routinely gets asked in RfAs, someone who makes contradictory statements, and someone who attacks people for harmless humor to decide page protection? He stated that RFPP is his first choice for use of admin tools. As the recent Sarah Palin ArbCom case demonstrated, this is one of the most sensitive areas of adminship. Based on the applicant's previous actions, I cannot trust his judgment in such as sensitive area. Good article writing does not require adminship. VG☎15:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
VG, I know you really want WSC to become an admin, but please do not let that interfere with your judgement in this RfA. Your rhetorical questions are not helpful either. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~15:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion about my reason is simply false. I'm not jeering in wresting match here (pun intended). I have not yet !voted for WSC either way, and I'm the one that added this negative, but objective, comment on WSC's RfA. I need more information on WSC's RfA before I make a decision on that issue; I've asked a question quite a while back there, which has yet to receive a reply. Also, I've edited exactly zero articles in common with WSC, so I know little if anything about him/her. Please do not jump to baseless conclusions about my motives. VG☎18:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed based on question 5 also. Local article consensus can not trump one of the pillars of wikipedia. I am also concerned about the contradictory statement given in the WSC RfA and wonder how that looks when he is explaining his decisions and policies to a newbie. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Consensusis a core policy, if not the mother policy. It has the power and legitimacy to overrun or create exceptions to all other policies, which in turn were also fruits of consensus. Húsönd01:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. The greater community decided to apply our core policies to all articles. Said greater community consensus cannot be overruled on a local level by a niche consensus. Daniel (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, Daniel. Local consensus is seen as representing the entire community in a proportional ratio. Consensus formed by the editors of one particular article is no different than, let's say, consensus formed by the participants of an AfD. All users may participate, and those who do participate are seen as representing the rest of the community. In this highly hypothetical scenario of a local consensus stipulating that WP:V should be overrun, then one has to assume that there must be a good reason for that. If doubts exist, as e.g. bias shared by an unusually high number of participants, then we have mechanisms for bringing the issue to the attention of the greater community. RFC, for instance. Or, simply contact an admin or experienced, uninvolved user. But going against consensus is, under no circumstance, the right attitude. Húsönd03:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there happen to be say ... 25 of us who are somewhat intent on being weenies, and we "gang up" on a rarely-edited article, and we all come to the "consensus" that a team of Australian Cattle Dogs once beat the Florida Marlins in an exhibition baseball game, and only 3 people "oppose", does the lack of verifiability get trumped by our gross misuse of consensus? I use a rather silly hypothetical situation because there are numerous situations (especially related to politics or military history for examples) where this type of mass-but-false consensus occurs. BMW(drive)12:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of situation simply does not go unnoticed long enough for anything even close to a consensus to be formed. But even if it did, a user can't go against consensus just because everyone else seems determined to go against WP:V. If there is consensus for something so clearly wrong, the user who detects the wrongdoing must bring it to the attention of other users. If the wrongdoing is evident, then the biased consensus will swiftly collapse. This highly hypothetical situation shouldn't really have been used in the question, as the answer can hardly avoid sounding rather ambiguous. Should he have answered "oh no I would immediately enforce WP:V against all" then he would have been opposed by a horde of users concerned about his haste and lack of will to find out why on Earth was there a consensus for that in the first place. Húsönd17:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, Daniel is correct, at least with respect to his general factual representation. m:Foundation issues does set out broad principles that ought to guide the operations of all of the Foundation’s projects (and a few associated operative policies), the amending of which is, one supposes, the province only of the Board of Trustees (it is sometimes argued that those principles themselves are subject to IAR, which is understood by some as flowing naturally from the third principle—”the ‘wiki process’ as the decision mechanism on content—but it is not at all clear that that principle would extend to the ignoring of other of the Foundation issues, to the determining of community-wide policies [as against to the determining of content], or to the ignoring by a small segment of a given community of principles supported by that community in the context of one single article; it is not contemplated, in any case, at the very least, that a given project should be permitted to adopt a practice inconsistent with NPOV, the one true Foundation content policy), although it is imagined that the Board should prove willing to respond to the meta community were a broad, cross-project consensus to develop at meta for the altering of a given principle, and, ultimately, for the altering of any of the Foundation’s bylaws, vision, and values, although the restructured, more insulated (to the disappointment of many of us) Board may be more willing to situate itself opposite the community of users (editors and readers) than would have a Board constituted under the old format. I have across my time here been a grand advocate for the preservation of the partial sovereignty that each project’s community enjoys, widely and often noted that there is very little (or even less) here that is immutable, and criticized stridently the idea that a single editor or admin properly substitutes his or her interpretation of policy for that of a broader group of editors where he/she thinks the latter editors to have erred in some fashion inasmuch as certain things are beyond debate and as “a consensus cannot override policy”, which is plainly true but rarely useful (or, at least, rarely usefully used), and so I am not, I should say, in sympathy with whatever broader assertion Daniel might mean to make (for one, to the extent that he suggests that WP:V is immutable or follows necessarily from m:Foundation issues, he is wrong, although he is right to say that a poorly-visited, insular, and narrow discussion can not bear out a consensus for community-wide change and that even as policy means to be descriptive, such that changes in policy should follow changes in practice, we would not do well to begin ignoring WP:V in the absence of a clear community directive toward that end, and that where a policy has guided the project since its infancy and has been (at least tacitly) embraced by millions of users (readers and editors) [as, even if implicitly, has each of the five pillars] should not be changed but after a widely-visited, month-plus-long discussion, for reasons that need not be recited here); I mean only to offer (an exceedingly long) statement of fact, one that is sometimes lost on both those who sit firmly in the "nothing is immutable" camp (amongst which number I count myself) and those who assert categorically (especially, one finds, when occurs a discussion in which the community understands and applies policy in a fashion they disfavor) that “a consensus cannot override policy”. Joe19:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? No, I'm talking about the Audi Q5 of course. Boy do I hate that car, but I bet that's the general consensus anyway, so it's probably ok if I just insert that into the article, no? Everyme04:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to strong oppose per updated answer to Q5. If there is one thing we need less than an admin who doesn't really understand the relation of WP:V and WP:CON, it's an admin who would opprtunistically answer the way he deems most "electable" and doesn't have or stand by his own attitude. Also per his attempt to get out of answering my own Q11 by pointing to his updated answer to Q5. Absolutely not. Everyme14:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even stronger now that he said those guidelines are completely ok (Q11) and, by extension, that he deems arbitrary standards for inclusion of criminal uses as conforming to policy and the spirit of the project. No way.Everyme16:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe iMattthew is ready for adminship. Looking at his admin coaching page, I'm not exactly filled with confidence. There's a lot of general lack of knowledge shown in most of the page, such as not knowing AOR is not binding, not knowing vandalism removal is excepted from 3RR, not knowing why a wheel-war is bad, not knowing IPs cannot create new pages, not knowing userpages are almost always protected upon request, not understanding that dicussing with the owner of a vandalbot is not likely to be productive, not knowing bans only apply to en.wiki, switching the definition of the word neutral with its opposite (in this example, he also shows lack of thoroughness, saying he didn't even fully read the line he was being tested on), not knowing G4 doesn't apply to speedies, not knowing unverifiability is a reason for deletion. Granted, these answers are two to five months old, and he should probably be more knowledgeable by now. However, the page is so positively rife with examples of his lack of clue that I am very concerned. I also just get a general vibe of being too eager for adminship from the page. Looking further, I see he has both a signature shop and a guestbook page. While those aren't neccesarily bad things, they don't seem like particularly mature things to have. And finally, on question five. Consensus is always determined with respect to policy. Therefore, consensus on a local article cannot override verifiability. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't wish to vote (or even to "!vote"), but I do have to agree with the above point regarding question 5. It is not a question of policy versus consensus. Policy is based on consensus: that of a large number of users, reached by discussion in a centralised and highly visible place, and applicable to the project as a whole. Just because views which oppose policy happen to dominate on a particular one of the 2+ million article talk pages doesn't mean that those views represent consensus. — Alan✉08:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like you all to take in that during my admin coaching, I was learning. That was well over a month ago, and I was learning. I went into my admin coaching ready to learn what I needed to learn. All of which you listed above, I have learned with bibliomaniac15. iMatthew (talk)11:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not something I want to do, but Q5 does raise a few concerns. I agree with Seresin on many points, and having looked at the admin page of iMatthew, I would expect a candidate to know that IP's cannot create pages and most of that stuff. Also, consensus on local articles almost certainly does not override Wikipedia-wide consensus, same with the MOS I guess - a particular project cannot have a MoS that is 100% against Wikipedia MoS. As a suggestion to the Candidate, I would suggest exploring new areas on Wiki, "Widening the Wings" I'd call it to gain more experience. I'm almost certain, should this fail, that you'll learn from past errors/mistakes and pass the next RFA with flying colours. D.M.N. (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as I said above, I was learning during my admin coaching process. I've come out with all of the knowledge I needed. I've also struck out and re-answered question 5. iMatthew (talk)11:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also have the same concerns as those expressed above, and I think the only way to resolve that concern is by gaining more experience and trying again at another time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was not incorrect at all, it was misinterpreted by iMatthew (and you). What I was saying was that a consensus of idiots does not mean that it should overwrite policy, therefore verifiability can't be changed or determined by a bad consensus, however a good consensus can leave policy behind to create new policy or to just improve the article. Please tell me how that is wrong. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per q5. It's not really the answer (any of them) that's bugging me. It is the way you answered. According to yourself, you thought of the answer, read an rfa opinion, and then decided to answer differently. Then, following negative responses here, you changed your answer. To me it seems that you, in both answers, just answered based on what you perceived as popular opinion. This of course is just my perception on things, and may not be the case. But at this time, I don't feel that I can trust you with the tools. RamiR16:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with your opinion. That is exactly my impression on the candidate.--Caspian blue (talk)
Oppose per Rami R. This comment springs to mind, and could be applied here. I can't trust him to make (as he plans to in Q8) controversial blocks. An admin should not so impressionable, and should think for themselves. EJF (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Coren and Rami R. I've known Matt along time and talk to him quite frequently via IM. However, as Rami R said, you seem to have answered question 5, looked at another RfA, and changed your answer based of others comments and what you read. Like Rami R said, this may not be the case, but that it what I perceive. Sorry, but that is just how I feel. --LAX18:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the candidate's answer to Q5. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding, not just a lack of knowledge on a technicality. Having changed the answer, the candidate seems surprised by Caspian Blue's oppose. He seems to feel that that as long as he got the answer right eventually there should not be any concerns regarding his policy knowledge. However, with a mistake this fundamental, the candidate needs more time to understand and demonstrate that understanding. TigerShark (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - I went back and forth on this one, but I think you misinterpreted what I had said in my !vote on that RFA. I specifically said it depends on what and who the consensus is, in Q5 you were given a specific incident which should have been handled differently than you answered. I think likewise you might misinterpret policy wrongly, or consensus. Sorry but I have to oppose. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Q5 (sorry) - being an admin isn't about going with the flow if it is against policy. There are other reasons why a minority source may be a problem. also noted and agree with seresin's issues. Maybe hanging out in an area where conflict resoloution is needed, like article merges or deletions is worthwhile. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose due primarily to the Q5 concern. An ability and willingness to consider new facts and opinions when taking a stance is a good trait, but the way it was handled here seems to be an overly eager desire to give the "right" answer and appease folks. Sometimes admins are called upon to take actions that are not immediately "popular" and may indeed raise the ire of many involved editors, rather than appease a crowd. Shereth18:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what your comments suggest. From what I see, you came up with an answer, decided for whatever reason not to use it, then when people started opposing, you changed your answer to your "original answer," which was pretty much the opposite of the initial answer you posted, citing a comment by another user on another RFA as a reason for not using the planned answer initially. I really can't think of any other way to explain that chain of events that wouldn't also result in me having reason to oppose. Mr.Z-man01:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry about this, hope I don't get on your bad side, but I never paid attention to the answers to your questions, and then I ran across Q5, and it puzzled me as admin should know that consensus should never be ruled out of the situation, I also have to give a reluctant oppose because you mainly only work at Wikiproject Professional Wrestling, you need more exposure to other projects and other areas in Wikipedia, as well as increasing your Wikipedia exposure. Sorry.--SRX23:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry I have to do this, but, I think its necessary. The fact of the matter is that the answer to Q5 is/was alarming. Matt, your a great editor and I respect that a whole lot, but I don't think your ready to receive the tools. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)23:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Reluctant NotNow Oppose- Sorry Matt, from my interactions you've always been polite, you always greet me when I log onto IRC, you're hardworking and honest, and I actually came here expecting to be squarely in the support column. But the fact remains that being an admin attracts trolls, vandals, and nutjobs extraordinaire and if you have never really experienced controversy, you can't really know how you're going to react. I don't see a huge problem with your answers, even question 5 wasn't really a deal-breaker for me. I just don't know if you're ready to be plunged headfirst into the swirling toilet of adminship. Unless something insane happens or this passes, I will support your next RfA for sure. Keep the faith, man! Shana tova!-- L'Aquatique[talk] 02:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was rather concerned when I saw this RfA go up the other day. I have seen IMatthew around and while I believe wholeheartedly that he is a very well intended, good faith user, there's something about the comments I've seen from him that makes me very uneasy and I'm just not comfortable with giving him admin rights. The admin coaching page is quite troubling to me as it displays a surprising amount of lack of clue and while I don't really care about the Q5 above, I think the fact he gave an answer which wasn't what he really thought reflects a lack of maturity and a desire to blow with the wind of popular opinion. I am rather concerned how this might affect his decisions as an administrator, that he might do or say things according to what he thinks others want him to say or do, rather than what he really believes is right. I'm very glad to see he has contributed some excellent content in the form of FA and GAs, but I'm not impressed with the "My Spacey" aspects - his shops and his focus on user and user talk page (about half his total edit count is to user/user talk and he has double the number of user/user talk edits than mainspace contributions and I think this is unbalanced for a non-administrator). So unfortunately I can't support this RfA. Sarah 05:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Addit: And I'm afraid that this sort of biz [14] just confirms and reinforces my concerns about maturity. Sarah15:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a nice enough guy... but I am not sure this candidate is ready to be an admin, per Seresin's concerns, which I share. Also, while I do not think age is a reason to oppose a candidate, unwillingness to even answer whether or not one is of the age of majority on the grounds of "likely to cause drama" seems evasive. It is a reasonable question and deserves an answer. Also "signature shops" and guestbooks are not part of our core mission. ++Lar: t/c12:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Q5 stuck out to me, as did the main focus on Wikiproject wrestling. Perhaps a few more months of more varied experience. --Banime (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While it is of course your right to decline to answer question 13, this causes me to proceed under the assumption (in view also of your focus on wrestling) that you may be a minor. I am of the opinion that, because of the real-world impact of admin decisions, minors should only be admins if they have displayed exceptional merit. This unfortunately does not seem to be the case here, as shown by your response to question 5, in the criticism of which by many here I join. Sandstein 21:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ok wait... you asked an "optional" question, and then you oppose because the person chose not to answer? You question is not really optional, and you are saying that if you don't give out information that you don't want to, about your private self, I will oppose. I find that to be a frankly horrible idea to have at RFA. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the question is optional in that the candidate is free to answer it or not. But, as with all questions here, we are free to oppose if we don't like the answer we get, including a refusal to answer. If you read my comment above again, you will find that I am not saying what you think I am saying. Sandstein 07:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per answers to some of the questions, particularly 5. Also, my working with this candidate on a previous sockpuppeteering case related to WP:PW left me feeling decidedly uneasy as you went after a particular editor who'd been socking and had been duly dealt with. For some time later, you brought them back to ANI on other issues and this left me with the impression that you had a streak of vengefulness with I definitely do not ever want to see in an admin. I'm sorry, but it's been to soon since that for me to feel comfortable supporting - Alison❤04:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. per Q5. As someone pointed above, local article consensus can not trump one of the pillars of Wikipedia. It is important for an admin to have a very good understanding of the policies of Wikipedia. AdjustShift (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Nice article work etc. But it's all rather "safe", would have liked to see work on more controversial topics/BLP's, to see how you handle content disputes/draw consensus. Hopefully you won't victimize us article writers by dragging a content dispute over to AN (something I was just victim to lol). — Realist215:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well as an admin you will have to deal with a lot of drama, and probably a lot worse. I don't feel your field of writing has brought those skills. Your opinion in a content dispute will be sought on numerous occasions. Then all the issues of recentism, BLP, undue etc etc come in. I just don't see you doing it. This isn't an oppose however, it really isn't. Also, I generally get a lot of slack for taking this line (I envision Wisdom breathing heavily over my shoulder right now :-)). Just my 2 pesetas. Good luck. — Realist215:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing – seriously, Realist, this is fuzzy reasoning. You see more drama than average because you work on BLPs for high-profile celebrities, but 99% of our articles are uncontroversial. The vast majority of my contributions are to railway stations, shopping malls and geographical articles, where the controversy never rises above the "is The Serpentine a lake or a reservoir?" and "does the level of detail on this map justify forcing the image width wider than usual?" level (yes, both of those were genuine – and surprisingly foul-tempered – conversations), and most other editors are in a similar situation. I'd imagine wrestling gets more argument than most other areas as it tends to attract some of our more excitable contributors. – iridescent15:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rattled a few cages here. Firstly, I've commented voted neutral like this a few times, always causes an issue (nothing to the degree Kurt's opposes do...Although where is he these days?)... anyway, so like I was saying, this isn't an oppose and thus I don't think I'm being the "bad guy". I'm just saying that it wouldn't bother me in the slightest whether or not Matthew was an admin. We live in environment at the moment where cry babies can "win" editorial disputes by throwing their rattle out the pram (is pram the correct English spelling?) driving more experienced editors away, and frankly, I don't think admins know how to handle it. Screaming children should be given a chance, then clamped down aggressively. Likewise, content that breaches BLP, undue and recentism should be dealt with quickly and removed without mercy. Wikipedia is being-over run by the masses, the socks, the trolls, those with an agenda, while experienced editors are pushed aside. On that point I agree with a comment SandyGeorgia recently made. In the current environment, I'm not so sure the admin army being dominated by those who are passive is so good. However this might be a general issue that I have with what's going on. I will stew on this a little while. Meanwhile I have to go back to protecting the encyclopedia from the flies that wish to destroy it, it will be very difficult though, we are all treated exactly the same, we are no different to the flies, only there are fewer of us. Great. — Realist216:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And my point has been proven with the answer to question 5. I'm sorry but Matthew should know better as an article writer. The screaming children shouting "we win, we win", when they have their "consensus" NEVER overrule the actual mission to build the article. Forget the background noise, silence it if you must. The goal is to make a good article, not please the masses. I'm most unconvinced that you could deal with an editorial dispute over article content. Wikipedia is not a democracy and we are not here to make people happy with "consensus". See this is what pushes serious article writers away. I won't switch to oppose, I know you mean well. But it's not an administrates job to make everyone happy and united. Administrates are there to make life easier for the article writer, to silence the racket in the background. I'm not sure you can do that. — Realist220:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Coren's oppose. It's not enough of an issue to actively oppose over, but I'm also uncomfortable with people who explicitly plan to use admin tools on "their" articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iridescent (talk • contribs)
As opposed to people who use tools on other people's articles? If it's for the betterment of the project, what does it matter what article it is? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~15:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about this comment Iridescent, A: My current activities will continue, as I will help perform administrative tasks for the professional wrestling project. - iMatthew doesn't state he will use in on "professional wrestling articles" - I think he means like moving pages to new locations where only admins can only do it per consensus (see WP:PW/ANC where discussion takes place) and blocking clear sockpuppets. I strongly doubt he would use tools to wheel-war. D.M.N. (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at "Q. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?" "A: My main area of interest is in professional wrestling related articles". Note that I'm not opposing. – iridescent16:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is usually something that causes me to become leery, but I've had enough contact (or at least seen Imatt around enough) with the candidate to get a feeling for his neutrality/rationality. In the past, this has always been a red flag because it creates a potential COI problem. I can understand the oppose and then neutral. Wisdom89(T / C)17:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Iridiscent (sp?), was that you saying that because he posts mainly as a Professional Wresling fan, he doesnt get your vote? PXKT/C23:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral but leaning toward support. The initial response to Q5 is troubling and I don't know what to make of the rewrites. The SandyGeorgia question is troubling because the candidate is running on the quality of article content and any question by Sandy would then be troubling. The response to Q2 is a cause for concern but I don't have enough experience with the candidate to know if it will be an issue down the road. I liked the responses to most other questions (good job with q4 and 11 in particular) and you seem to be a great editor and the number of edits on user and article talk pages tells me that you probably like consensus over conflict (as also your initial response to Q5 :-)), all good qualities in an admin. I'll probably end up supporting but will sit on the fence and watch for a day or two first. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 15:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Statement by closing bureaucrat
As this was a moderately close (by the numbers) RfA, I felt I'd be doing the community a disservice if I didn't provide my rationale for why I felt there was sufficient consensus to promote Tadakuni to administrator.
The opposes, on the whole, do outline areas where the candidate could make improvements. Some of the specific areas outlined are a lack of edits in the project namespace, which suggests an ignorance of Wikipedia policy and guideline. However, as other editors have pointed out, there is not necessarily a correlation between the two; I don't want to say that the arguments were negated, as that suggests that the editors were summarily dismissed (which they most certainly weren't), but the community is obviously of two minds on the matter. However, most all participants, most tellingly the opposers and those that were neutral, tended to be vocal about Tadakuni's positive contributions to the project.
Taking all this into consideration, I think it is fair to say there is enough support for the candidate to warrant a promotion. However, I must stress that I believe Tadakuni should find one or two seasoned administrators to use as reference points for any administrative questions he may have to allay the concerns of the opposing editors; the concern over inexperience is a real one, just not dominant enough to warrant a failed RfA. EVula// talk // ☯ //00:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tadakuni (talk·contribs) - Tadakuni is easily one of the chief contributors to topics related to Japan here on Wikipedia. He has over 12,000 edits, including extensive work on samurai clans, establishing a standard format for clan articles, and raising several to Good Article Status. Tadakuni has also done extensive work repairing the damage caused by now-banned user User:Exiled Ambition, who created hundreds of extremely poorly written, stubby, ungrammatical, and occasionally plagiarized articles on samurai-related topics. Tadakuni has been active in discussions on WP:MILHIST and elsewhere, and as far as I can remember, has always contributed to discussions in a mature and constructive manner. I believe he would make an excellent administrator, both in terms of making good use of editing tools to improve articles and in terms of contributing responsibly, calmly, and in an informed and mature manner to discussions and debates. LordAmeth (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination and thank LordAmeth, both for the nomination and for the assistance he has given me in the past several months. If mad an admin, I hope to use the added capability to better patrol Japan-related (especially Japanese history-related) articles (whose quality is still, in many cases, pitifully lacking compared to other WikiProjects), and improve their quality all around as best I can. Tadakuni (talk) 05:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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: I intend to do what I can to keep WikiProject Japan free of vandals; I'd also like to keep an eye on new articles, especially new history-related articles.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my best contributions to Wikipedia are the following: Tsugaru clan, Nanbu clan, and Satake clan; I also take pride in having gone through every single article I could find by User:Exiled Ambition and clearing each of copyvio. I consider these my best because in the case of User:Exiled Ambition, I was removing unintelligible gibberish that he'd stolen and poorly reworded; in the case of the clan articles, I believe I have gone above and beyond average in improving and lengthening them. Japanese history content on Wikipedia is generally very poor; for many people who are interested but not able to use Japanese, this is the only information on the internet. That being the case, I am focusing at the moment on quality rather than quantity; my dozens of edits on each of these articles will prove that. Oh, and before the recent developments in the wake of E.A.'s banning, my best contributions to Wikipedia were my extensive edits to Tokugawa Yoshinobu, as well as my extensive overhaul and rewrite of Shimabara Rebellion, which had once been so bad that it made the news.
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: In some cases where the other editor has been difficult to work with, I have opted to compromise or just drop the issue entirely (see my interaction with a certain IP user on Talk:Katō Kiyomasa, who regularly posts at length on Talk:Samurai and Talk:Bushidō). Perhaps the most notable conflict I have been involved in has been with User:Exiled Ambition, who is infamous in some circles for his repeated, blatant copyright infringement and poorly-written pseudo-intellectual gibberish. I tried to work with him, tried to reason with him, tried to suggest things to him for many months; finally, when he would not stop, I notified an admin (User:Hoary) and got the ball rolling on trying to negotiate one last time. When that fell through and he refused yet again, and got more and more angry and hostile (and when I produced evidence of his plagiarism), we moved to ban. In a nutshell, I tried all avenues of peacemaking and negotiation before moving, with the support of others, to have him removed (which I consider the final option- the "nuclear option," if you will). In the future, I intend to conduct myself similarly, and to work with the support and cooperation of others.
4. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?
A: If it's a prominent page, then per Wikipedia:Etiquette, working toward agreement (i.e. consensus) is important. But if it's a page no one's touched in a long time, and where there's not much (or zero) discussion going on the talk page, then I believe it more important to be bold-- as long as what one posts is verifiable, of course.
Now that some time has passed since you answered this question, perhaps you might want to try again to express yourself in different words? Your rhetorical tactic is evasive in this context. As I see it, Asenine crisply summarized the focus: "Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?" If you don't construe this question as deserving a more thoughtful and revealing response, my question becomes "Why not?" --Tenmei (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?
A:See the recent exchange at User_talk:Tadakuni#Deletion. Howeever, the user was banned soon after as a vandal.
6. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If not so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?
A:My current activities (i.e., improving Japanese history-related articles) will continue. However (to elaborate where I should have in the original Question 1), I plan on increasing the amount of new article patrolling I do, as well as monitoring and participating in Wikipedia:AIV and Wikipedia:ANI (I have been involved in ANI in the past, and have watched it for awhile).
7. Suppose you come across an IP address that had engaged in serious vandalism for months and had been warned and blocked multiple times before, with blocks ranging from 24 hours to three weeks, and with no constructive contributions to Wikipedia. Suppose you see this IP vandalising again. What would you, as an admin, do and what kind of block, if any, would you issue?
A: Warn them one more time, and then indef block them. There's no reason to put off blocking an IP that has been the source of that much trouble.
Followup: For clarification, can you cite relevant policy or a similar situation to this one as an example of this course of action? I know these questions can get tedious; I'm not looking for a long reply. I am just interested in seeing how you are mapping your intended action to previous action and/or policy you've seen, as a means of making sure we're on the same page. Frank | talk 21:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Please describe, in your own words, the meaning of an indef block and describe some circumstances when an indef block may be appropriate.
A: An indef block is something I saw with my own eyes in the case of User:Exiled Ambition; it means, as the name says, that the person is indefinitely blocked, but can contest the block on their talk page if they think it's unfair. An indef block, I feel, is appropriate in cases such as E.A.'s, where the user has been making unconstructive edits or commiting vandalism without ceasing, has been warned about it sufficient times, and people have tried to reason with him/her and tried to help, but have either been spurned or ignored.
9. Your answer to question one doesn't really show understanding of what admins do, per WP:ADMIN. Can you confirm you have read that page, and understand it? Is there anything you'd like to add or modify in your original answer?
How would you like me to confirm...summary in my own words? If this can be clarified, I'll gladly answer your question in full.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Tadakuni before commenting.
While I have not personally interacted very much with Tadakuni, I am well aware of his excellent work. He has done much to improve articles dealing with Japanese history and samurai. Particularly note worthy is his constant use of references which are often so lacking in other articles. I have only seen quality work with a mature attitude. Wikipedia could hardly go wrong with him as an administrator. Keep up the great work. It is appreciated. Bendono (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I enthusiastically support Tadakuni. Based on his many contributions to fields I follow closely, I believe he will be a trustworthy administrator on Wikipedia. Fg2 (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Tadakuni's committment to improving the quality of Japan-related articles is obvious, and allowing him access to a few extra buttons is unlikely to cause him to go berserk. I also like the way he's not afraid to call a spade a fucking shovel, as in "poorly-writ the project space. The fact that you focus most all of your attention on the 'pedia is great. Most admin tasks aren't that difficultten pseudo-intellectual gibberish". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe he's not 100% on all admin processes, but I doubt he'd mess up and he doesn't sound like he's going to go on a spree of doing dumb things. He's clearly a good user, and I don't see an RfA should fail just to come back in 3 months for some minor details that I believe he'll take to heart and fix. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to net positives? — Who cares if he hasn't participated in an AfD if he has no intention of working there. The candidate has stated they want to keep WikiProject Japan free of vandals. We need more admins like you—content-focused and well spoken :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taking the WTHN route. Who cares if he doesn't have much AfD work? Moni didn't have that much and she passed. I don't think it's very fair to oppose someone who gets almost no recognition for his huge quality edits. Furthermore, gnomes are the best people for adminship. I'm also confused with that, since HH didn't pass once and is currently #2 on WBFAN. I think that's plain ridiculous. —Sunday • (Testify!)11:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - if a candidate has no intention of working in AfD, their AfD contributions are irrelevant. Tadakuni isn't going to abuse the tools, works well with others when they aren't sure about something, and is an excellent general contributor. Absolutely no reason why they shouldn't. Ale_Jrbtalk12:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say which was stupid. No attacks from me. But some are stupid, so if you feel you need to "subtract" more points, sobeit. This is an article writer, not a vandal. Needs the tools to make Wikipedia better. I've never worked with Tadakuni, but even just a brief view of his contribs shows someone that is here for the right reasons and shouldn't have to ask some flake like me to move a page over a redirect or block an obvious vandal. Keeperǀ7617:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Attention to detail is the hallmark of Tadakuni's work; but the more significant effects of Tadakuni's contributions are illustrated in those crisp edits which caused me to ask myself, "Why didn't I think of that?" or "Why didn't I see it that way?" No less important, Tadakuni's willingness to commit to a long-term project is matched by an ability to follow-through on that commitment. The expressed interest in being an administrator becomes a plausible next step. --Tenmei (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is no adminship topic draft. If someone gets the bit and never wants to to a history merge, why should we insist that they be familiar with the concept of history merging? at no point, ever, ever ever ever ever, will an administrator be forced to close a deletion discussion. We are, of course, empowering him to close that discussion if he wants, but if he doesn't express an interest in doing so immediately, we should judge that on two things: will he (just assuming the male pronoun here) dive right in or learn how the process works first? If he makes a mistake, will he accept criticism and work to rectify it. If the answer to those two questions is yes, then great. If no, then that would be a great reason to oppose. I guess in general I don't buy the "admin experience" argument. I can make >50 reports to AIV (I have), but that doesn't make me any better at actually physically blocking someone. Since 90% of those reports were made by huggle (which now automatically sends a report for vandalism reverted after a final warning), those are even less helpful. Furthermore, experience at things like AIV AREN'T HELPFUL for general admin wonkery. It is an easy up/down to block a user who inserts "poop" into an article after being warned several times not to. We are, in fact, proposing to do so with a script. The hard part is getting a complex request where guilt is not cut and dry (or maybe not even present) and assessing that request on its merits. Will the editor make the right decision in THAT situation. Will they block someone on the say-so of someone else? Will they help mediate a content dispute? Will they de-escalate conflicts? None of that has to do with project-space edits. This is a process to see if an editor has gained the trust of the community. A better way to determine if the candidate has earned that trust than counting edits is to look at the content and context of his contributions. Do they show someone who is thoughful, reflective and helpful? That answer appears to be "yes" here. Protonk (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Well said Protonk. I have yet to file a report at AIV, and I have yet to respond to someone else's. Good process, mind-numbingly easy I imagine, but good grief. Keeperǀ7618:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support RFA makes me laugh. Here right now on this page we've got one guy being opposed for not writing enough articles, and this guy being opposed because he does write articles. A good contributor is a good contributor no matter their chosen area of expertise, we shouldn't try to force people into areas they're not interested in before they can be admins. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While you don't have much experience in the projectspace, you've been editing for quite a long time and have done a lot of good for the project. You've got the experience and intelligence to succeed as an admin. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk)20:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Personally, I think it's about time we start promoting solid article-writers, rather than those who are most adept at navigating the bureacracies. Also, what Protonk said--no one (outside the fishbowl of RfA, that is) will ever DEMAND that this user (close an AFD, evaluate a GA, close a sockpuppetry case, craft a bot) that he hasn't himself chosen to do--and you know what? I trust that if an admin sees something that needs to be done, and finds himself interested enough to want to try, that he'll LEARN how to do it. People are not static entities--neither are admins. IMHO: if an admin is smart enough not to use tools he/she doesn't understand, or to ask first, then he/she is worthy to be an admin. I think Tadakuni is smart enough. Thus, support. Gladys J Cortez20:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've run into Tadakuni on many Japan-related articles and through those collaborations I"ve come to find him a quality editor who wants to improve the product. While a lack of admin experience would lead me to go neutral/oppose on some, my experience with Tadakuni makes me think he'll ask questions when unsure and learn what he needs to be a good admin. Not already knowing everything related to being an admin is not a bad thing in this case. TravellingCari23:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to add which hasn't already been said, but I'm going to let that stop me. Every little helps in adminstuff, just like it does in building articles, and there isn't any of it is rocket science. Tadakuni seems to be a solid, sensible editor, with plenty of experience. Sysopping him would be a net positive, surely. Angus McLellan(Talk)00:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not a compelling answer to question 1. However Tadakuni has excellent contributions and a reasonable understanding of policy. Axl¤[Talk]16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see absolutely no indication that this editor will overstep his knowledge when using admin tools. I also have no problems with his lack of WP-space articles because he has not indicated a desire to work in those areas. If he wants the tools to keep articles relating to Japan in good condition and to delete the couple of nonsense/cruft articles about Japan that show up, more power to him. I know I certainly can't tell whether a lot of Japanese-related articles are legit or not and I daresay the vast majority of both editors and admins here can't tell the difference either. Having an active article-writing admin in your area of interest is an invaluable asset to any Wikiproject because you don't have to fully explain the entire situation in order to get what needs to be done done. I know I am extremely thankful that David Fuchs is an admin whenever WP:VG-related articles start getting hit, and I'm sure Tadakuni will provide similar assistance to other WP:Japan members when they need admin help. Sysopping him will definitely be a positive to the project. Thingg⊕⊗21:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Lack of edits to the Wikipedia: space looks like a positive to me. We currently have too many admins that do nothing but monger drama in to learn. I became an admin with basically no experience in admin areas. It wasn't a big deal. Now should be no different. So, same as always: Do the candidates contributions leave the impression that he may abuse the tools? No. Is it reasonable to AGF for this one and assume the candidate can be trusted? Yes. Does the candidate appear to be capable of being taught? Yes. Jennavecia (Talk)13:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Tadakuni is a dedicated user who has made few mistakes. I'm confident he would do well with the tools. VG☎17:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Protonk, Thingg, and Jennavecia. Seems strange to me that an RfA for an editor with 12,000 edits, two years' experience, and 80 WP-space edits is in danger of failing, when a candidate with 6,000 edits, one year's experience, and 300 WP-space edits would probably pass with little to no concern about 'experience'. AlexiusHoratius23:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although it's slightly disconcerting to see the lack of namespace edits, admin processes can be learned and taught. Tadakuni is a great editor overall and I feel will make a good administrator. --Banime (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. What's wrong with a potential admin wanting to spend their admin time furthering the project they are part of instead of the neverending noticeboards? --Smashvilletalk21:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support in one of my rare RfA contributions; a lack of experience in certain areas is not really relevant, because I believe I could trust this editor to know when to act on their own judgement and when to seek assistance. All the prerequisites of a thoughtful, trustworthy, effective admin appear to be present. EyeSerenetalk12:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support If successful, take it cautiously when you are acting in an area you do not have experience of. Overall am confident candidate will not misuse the tools. Davewild (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - user comes across as sensible and I am confident he will take it slowly in unfamiliar areas. There is nothing so magical about adminship that cannot be learned by someone with decent judgment and the ability to ask when unsure. WJBscribe(talk)20:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems experienced enough. Just make sure you stick to the areas you're most familiar with, and if you decide to branch out, just take it slowly. Acalamari22:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support—I'm not particularly swayed by the arguments presented in the opposition. Having poor edit summary usage is a matter of ticking a box in the prefs and that problem is fixed. For AfD experience, it's not like he's going to close them. As WJBsribe said above, closing an AfD can be learned on the job very easily. Finally, Tadakuni can, and will make good use of the tools. It's false that article writers have no need for the tools; whether it's a history merge, a semi-protection in case of heavy vandalism, deleting a self-uploaded fair-use image that will no longer be used in the article, or even auto-patrolling a new article, saving a new page patroller time, they are still simple tasks that can be done by a trusted article writer, instead of an editor solely dedicated to cleaning backlogs. We need more admins, and all admins; we need every type of admin, not only backlog-cleaners, who will make at least 50 actions a day. Maxim(talk)00:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Oppose aside from this one edit[15] back in June the candidate has never participated in any AfD's until three days ago when he nominated eight pages for deletion (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8), seven of which were immediately speedily deleted, by a varying assortment of admins, and closed early. In light of this appears it seems that Tadakuni does not know or is unable to determine which types of articles merit speedy deletion, which is worrying in someone who says "I'd also like to keep an eye on new articles", which I assume would involve application of the deletion tool. - Icewedge (talk)00:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly honest, due to unfamiliarity with it. As you can see, most of my work has been editing rather than involvement with AfD or patrolling, though I'm working on changing that. -Tadakuni (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have the unfair advantage of being able to see his deletion history while you can't (let's not go there…) – aside from copyvio tagging, his first tagging (for AfD) was at 01:16; within an hour he'd stopped sending things to AfD and CSD-tagging them instead. As an inveterate sender-of-things-to-AfD-when-I'm-not-sure, I think someone who veers towards getting a second opinion on things they're not sure of is A Good Thing. Normally, a lack of involvement in deletion would be a warning flag for me at RFA, but for someone who clearly doesn't intend to delete articles I don't see it as an issue. (And I don't see any incorrect deletion taggings). – iridescent01:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can only agree with Iridescent here. Deletion is complicated 3-way process with lots of rules for each avenue for deletion. Tadakuni was initially erring on the safe side, and learned quickly from his initial experiences. If anyting this is an argument for supporting him. VG☎16:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above - I think it demonstrates that you need to learn processes a little better before becoming an admin. You are obviously a trusted user and I would enthusiastically support after some sufficient amount of time to demonstrate an understanding of admin-related processes. --B (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even though the candidate is a great article writer, that doesn't excuse having only 81 Wikipedia namespace edits. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~02:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of "wikipedia space" edits is prima facie evidence of someone that is here for the right reason, namely, making a better encyclopedia. Keeperǀ7618:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You could use some more experience in the project namespace, getting a feel for the areas. Other than that, I think I would support in a few more months (the standard 3-6). Synergy05:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of experience, to put it mildly, and a curious answer to Q1 (the candidate appears to be confusing admin duties with WikiProject coordinator duties). Ecoleetage (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Asenine -- Is it possible to encourage you to reconsider your opposition? I single you out from amongst others who appear to echo a similar point-of-view. For me, your "optional" questions were singularly thought-provoking; and Tadakuni's characteristic response has caused me to be bold in proposing that you reconsider a judgment which may have been too hasty.
• You explain that you feel inclined to withhold support because of a "worrying lack of experience;" but I see that glass as half full, rather than half empty. My support has evolved precisely because of Tadakuni's experience -- and because of contributions which are no less significant and necessary because of their specialist range. In this context, I assume the weltanschauung which informs your opposition is conventional because of the others who have responded in a similar vein; but I wonder if you might consider re-framing your view of relevant factors?
• Rather than focusing on what you perceive as lacking, I would invite you to re-examine the strengths Tadakuni brings to bear -- including the strong support which has been earned amongst those who have closely followed serial contributions which are well-grounded in English and Japanese sources. --Tenmei (talk) 02:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ask my questions at every RfA. Most of them are not for the benefit of myself, but for people who want to ask such questions but either don't want to put the candidate through the trouble of writing answers, or simply can't be bothered. Questions are publicly available for a reason, you know. And I'm not a fan of being badgered, either. Asenine 11:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A troubling lack of wikipedia mainspace edits and an edit summary usage that's worse than my own. Nice article writing though. — Realist2 14:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Removing oppose, consider this a neutral. — Realist217:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low wikipedia space contributions makes it hard for me to put any confidence/trust into you (as an admin). Q1 is sort of ify too, I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest there.--KojiDude(C)18:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, a great content contributor. However, as usual I do not really consider article building to, in itself, qualify anyone to wield the admin tools. They are, after all, tools that are not particularly useful in article building, and unfortunately your contributions to the areas the tools would be useful in seem sporadic and, in places, inexperienced. ~ mazcat | c20:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, you have great article building skills. However, per comments above, your lack of experience in admin related areas is troubling. Come back in 3-6 months with more experience in those areas and I might support. RockManQ (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per WP:NOTNOW. An excellent content contributor and certainly a trusted editor who will not intentionally misuse the admin tools. However, being an admin requires a certain minimal proficiency in WP policies and guidelines, which is usually demonstrated by experience in at least one admin-related area (XfD, AIV, etc). With so few projectspace edits and a fairly weak answer to Q1, the candidate does not have such experience yet, particularly not in the area of intended admin work. The answer to Q7 confirms this weakness. Unlike registered users, IPs are virtually never indef-blocked. Instead, in cases of continual misconduct, IPs are given a series of blocks of escalating length (e.g. 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, etc). Please get a bit more projectspace experience and re-apply in a few months; there'll be no problems then. Nsk92 (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just wanted to say that I don't think that the fact non-admins can be vandal-fighters is a good reason to oppose an RfA. I mean, obviously a non-admin can fight vandals (I do so myself when I find the time), but it would be far easier and more effective if I could block them myself after seeing them make several consecutive unconstructive edits than wait the 10-15 seconds for someone to check out the AIV report and make the block. I realize that wasn't your only reason for opposing, but the fact that the candidate is a vandal-fighter shouldn't be a reason to oppose imo. In fact, it would make me more likely to support in most cases. Thingg⊕⊗20:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, let me elaborate. I wasn't opposing for his answer to the question, I just don't find clear in what areas exactly he would contribute. "I intend to do what I can to keep WikiProject Japan free of vandals" is very vague. Is Tadakuni only plan to fight vandals in the WikiProject Japan? Is he going to just watch those vandals, or also participate in WP:AIV and other parts of the vandal-fighting projects? That's what I was trying to get at Thingg. DiverseMentality(Discuss it)05:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At this time only. Based on everything so far, once you have more admin-type work under your belt, you should be a sure thing. rootology (C)(T) 05:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
neutral - I'm loath to support based on the lack of project space contributions and taciturn non-answer to question 1. If the candidate could elaborate further, much obliged. Wisdom89(T / C)04:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I was going to support until I noted the lack of communication evidenced by the proportion of talk page edits to mainspace, and the amount of edits without an edit summary. I feel that the most important tool an admin has is communication, and given that this candidate has made much of the problem in having Japanese related articles improved owing to the lack of understanding of the language, so I cannot support unless there is some acknowledgment of and undertaking to improve this aspect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Changed to Support. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just that s/he attributed the lack of quality in Japanese articles to the fact that few en-Wikipedian's can speak Japanese; while s/he can, and English, they don't seem to practice it as often as might be considered useful... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand; are you saying I should teach other people Japanese in order to "improve the aspect" of understanding Japanese among en-Wikipedia users? Tadakuni (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. I am saying that you do not communicate enough in your editing, while acknowledging how lack of the ability to communicate effects - for example - Japanese related articles. i.e. You are aware of the consequences of lack of communication, but do not apply it to your own interactions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as edit summaries go, point taken, and I am trying to work on that at the moment (if you check my contributions for the last couple days I think you'll notice they've gone way up). As far as the lack of discussion on talk pages goes...very well, but bear in mind that most of the articles I edit are on topics that while notable lack the kind of interaction that most other articles on Wikipedia seem to produce. There are a handful of people who even periodically work on articles in this field (Edo period Japan, which is a rather niche field as far as Wikipedia editors' professional expertise goes), and I think all of them commented here. While I'll gladly interact with others on talk pages where there's real interaction happening, what's the point of essentially talking to myself on pages like Talk:Matsudaira clan? Still, thanks for what you've pointed out, it is food for thought. -Tadakuni (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, nice answer - and I see your point regarding talkpage editing. I don't see much point in changing my !vote at present, given the circumstances, but I will likely support in a future Request (as long as those edit bars for the last couple of months have no or very little red at the end of the blue). Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC) ps. In your preferences page you can request that WP forces you to make an edit summary. It can help you pick up the habit.[reply]
Re-reading what I said right at the beginning, since you have understood my concern and undertaken to address it then I am duty bound to support. So I shall. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per answer to question 1 which shows confusion over adminship duties. When one applies for a job, they should know exactly what they're applying for. A mismatched answer like that shows a lack of understanding of the job. However, great article work, and I don't think an oppose from me would be helpful. -- how do you turn this on19:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the underlying issue not in your interpretation of the admin "job"? While it's true that administrators can do all sorts of weird and wonderful thing us mere mortals cannot, they are as you say volunteers. So if they have no interest in certain aspects of the job, like closing AfDs for instance, why should they be forced to demonstrate some skill in that area? Any more than regular editors should be forced to take part in FAC reviews, for instance? Doesn't make any sense. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it at all necessary for admins to work everywhere and have experience everywhere. I do expect them to understand what admins do though. His answer to Q1 gives me the impression he doesn't really. -- how do you turn this on 19:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Moving to support. -- how do you turn this on22:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I want to support, but I can't. Let me make this clear- Tadakuni is a great, valuable editor. He's done great things, particularly with WikiProject Japan. However, he remarked he wanted to keep his WikiProject 'free of vandalism'. To me, this sounds more like a job to do with WP:BROOM rather than WP:MOP. I usually look for a reasonably well-rounded administrator candidate when I support. Of course, I recognise that each admin usually will have their own *specialty*, and there are always exceptions. However, I believe that some more experience is necessary before Tadakuni runs again. I count 2 edits to AN/I with this. I see none to AIV, for a admin candidate who is more or less stating he wants to focus in vandalism. I'm also concerned that Tadakuni doesn't fully understand an admin's job in the community. Also see less than perfect use of edit summaries. I'm leaning towards oppose. IceUnshattered[ t ]20:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, I've been here a while, (though my name may seem unfamiliar as I've recently been through wp:CHU). I first considered going for admin in September 2007 because I wanted to edit a protected page, but after realising what a big deal it was I thought I'd hold off a year before applying and see if I still wanted to do it. Since then I've reverted a fair bit of vandalism, using almost every variant that Arnon Chaffin has to offer. I think that the only vandals I've reported who haven't subsequently been blocked are the ones who were being blocked whilst I was reporting them. As well as reverting vandalism and welcoming newbies, I've:
Got through my difficult early period without actually getting blocked for edit warring, (both my current and former home IP addresses seem to have behaved themselves as well).
I think I understand why Gnaa, Nigeria doesn't yet merit a mention on GNAA though it may well do so yet as it probably exists, and I know why the trolls of the same name don't merit a mention.
I've made some hopefully useful edits, including to some quite controversial pages. My watchlist currently includes a comic, a Scientist, a Rock Star, an island, a ring and a couple of rude words that I'm not going to link to from here.
My involvement in getting stuff deleted has been minor butusuallysound, and has been growing since I've started patrolling New Pages.
I've been a Rollbacker for several moons, and I hope you'll agree that I've used that tool responsibly.
Recently I've started hanging out at wp:ani and wp:fac (though at FAC I usually just proofread and make the odd tweak rather than comment).
I appreciate that some Wikipedians regard the current desysopping process as imperfect, but instead of offering some non-standard recall process for myself, I'd suggest that those who are uncomfortable with the system review the whole desysoping process.
I'm olde enough to have run computer programs with punch cards, but believe I'm still as responsible as I was as a teenager, so please don't hold my age against me.
The only situation that I can think of where it might be appropriate to Ignore all rules and use cool down blocks would be the purely hypothetical one where both edit warrers were clearly inebriated and needed protecting from themselves.
Yes this is a self nomination. Not sure whether that's a sign of being more power hungry than those who go through other routes, or if that is a good or bad thing; but if anyone has analysed what happens to self noms as admins and can show that self noms make bad admins then I'll withdraw.
Should consensus override verifiability? Hmmmm if the consensus is "Please please no more examples of Moai in popular culture" then yes that overrides a verified source that some Aquarium has full size fake Moai in its shark tank. Equally if someone found a source that called Sean Connery British rather than Scottish then I'd stick with consensus (or at least look for another source as I did in this incident), but normally yes verification trumps consensus.
This has been a fascinating and interesting few days and I thank you all for your participation. If I succeed I will of course thank you all individually. However I'm conscious that even with two of my first three Opposers having moved to Support, the figures so far indicate that I may not become an admin on this attempt and I'm aware that blanket thankyou messages from unsuccessful candidates are not good form.
Some of you who've opposed me have done so with various permutations of "not yet", if I fail this time and you were just being polite then feel free to send me as frank a private Email as you want, I have a very thick skin and would rather know my failings than have them emerge unexpectedly.
Some of those who oppose me have done so at least in part because of my use of humour in this nomination; if so I'm happy to repeat that my humour is either self deprecatory or targeted at the process of RFA, it is not targeted at others, or at the role of admin and I hope you are reassured by the seriousness with which I have engaged with the subsequent dialogue. Though I'll fess up to this my use of humour in my more than 13,000 edits has been rare and will remain so, and despite all the scrutiny an RFA attracts not one diff has emerged so far to criticise my use of humour elsewhere. ϢereSpielChequers13:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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:
Non-contentious or consensus based edits to protected pages.
Deleting the sort of attack and non-notable pages that I've been nominating for speedy deletes.
Blocking vandals of the kind that I've been reporting to wp:AIV.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I search for easily confused words like Doe snot/Does not that cause errors that spellcheckers don't pick up. Cavalry/Calvary was a good hunting ground, as was Thier/Their, Crowed/(Crowded, Crowned, Crowd), Planed/Planned, Crowed/Crowded and Formally/Formerly. Then I searched for "posses " and found 603 with circa 90% of them errors. Many of these typos had been on Wikipedia for a long time before I fixed them, so in that sense it is probably more useful work than competing with the hugglers to be the first to revert vandalism.
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: Oh loads, but I wouldn't say any were really stressful. Most are on talk pages, mine or the articles I mentioned above. There are two particular ones on the archive of my talk page; one where I decided to walk away from a topic because I don't believe that consensus is possible between my views and those of other editors on that issue, and the other was with user:Otolemur crassicaudatus but I think our paths have subsequently crossed without further rancour.
I'm afraid that this is going to sound like a copout, but I deliberately don't have criteria for this yet. If sysoped and immediately approached for Rollback I would refer the applicant to an admin who did grant rollbacks. I'm sure that after a while I would start granting Rollback, but only after discussing criteria with experienced admins. I have said which areas I feel ready to start taking on admin duties, and would be unlikely to get involved in other areas for some time. ϢereSpielChequers20:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've now thought further and would like to expand this answer slightly. I've created my draft Rollback criteria which are:
I would look at the requester's contributions and specifically their reversion of vandalism to check that they understood what vandalism was.
I would review their contribution history and behaviour against my past experience of rogue users to see if I felt I could trust them not to use Rollback for vandalism.
I would review their history and especially their record of blocks or other conflict to see if I could trust them to use Rollback in good faith and not as part of an edit war. This does not mean I would automatically decline Rollback to a vandalfighter who had also been involved in edit wars, but I would expect their assurance that they would only use Rollback against Vandals, and probably pay more attention to their subsequent contributions than otherwise.
If they had a close relationship with another Admin or senior Editor such as being an adoptee then if appropriate I would check with that admin or editor.
If they had previously had Rollback taken away I would want to know why and by who and what had changed that would justify their having a second chance. Needless to say if the admin's involved were still around I would consult them about such a request.
5. You say that you are prepared to delete attack and non-notable pages through the C:CSD process. What actions would you take on encountering the following as an newly created article tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7'
"PDO Pdf creator is a simple to use .pdf creation tool that renders all Microsoft documents into Adobe .pdf format. It has been reviewed by several trade magazines and is in use on hundereds of thousands of computers today."
A.Well A7 is wrong because notability has been asserted. However we already have an article PDFCreator that looks somewhat similar to me. So I'm going to assume for the purposes of the question that after I'd checked them out both the creator and the CSD-flagger of the article and are newbies and not the same person, and also that the article name was PDO Pdf creator or very similar; In which case I would make PDO Pdf creator a redirect to PDFCreator, put a note on the creator's page explaining what I'd done, asking them if I'm correct in thinking that this is the same product or a close variant thereof, with an assurance that if I've made a mistake and they are unrelated items I can undo things. Then I would put a thankyou note on the CSD-flagger's talk page explaining what I'd done and and what codes to use in future - hopefully as diplomatically as was done to me. Oh and unless I was really rushed I'd make sure that both got an appropriate {{Welcome}} if they hadn't already had one. ϢereSpielChequers19:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. An editor reports to you that User:FooCorp is editing its own article (FooCorp). What do you do as an admin and why? VG☎21:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A.Look at User:FooCorp's contributions, and talk page and the edits that have been made to the article FooCorp. This scenario could be anything from spamming by a company to a company trying to remove vandalism about them, the extremes of that are relatively easy, spammers who ignore warnings get blocked. Vandal fighters are vandalfighters, if Foo Corp the Chinese supermarket employs User:FooCorp to remove racist graffiti from FooCorp then the time to discuss COI and single user accounts is after the vandalism has been fixed. Assuming it isn't extreme enough to be that simple, I want to check if WP:COI has been breached, (and also if there are other group companies in their contributions). If not or if there are signs of good faith then I would explain that editors must be individuals not companies, recommend they consider a user name change and that they read wp:coi, and cut their teeth on unrelated matters before editing any articles where they might have a conflict of interest. Lastly if the editor had simply approached me as an admin then I would thank them and tell them about wp:aiv and or WP:UAA as appropriate. ϢereSpielChequers22:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Why do you mark so many of your edits minor? Just in your contributions to the project space it seems like over 95% of the edits you have marked as minor do not fall under the standard definition of a 'minor edit' as held by the rest of the Wikipedia-community.
A.
My understanding was that the vast majority of my edits were minor, but I do have minor set as a default which may not be wise. However I've just reread Help:Minor edit and that has two categories reverting vandalism and fixing typos which I believe each account for a lot more than 5% of my mainspace edits. Probably another 5% of my mainspace edits have been disambiguations such as Queen to [[Queen (band)|Queen]], and my understanding was that they counted as a third category - correcting Wiki links. Could you tell me which two of those three you consider should be marked as Major edits? ϢereSpielChequers23:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: By the project space I meant the 'Wikipedia:' namespace (that is what I have always taken it to mean). Edits such as [16][17][18][19] (and many others) should un questionably not be marked as minor edits. - Icewedge (talk)07:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?
A:This is the question I've seen on a few RFAs and which I tried to preempt with my paragraph above:
"Should consensus override verifiability? Hmmmm if the consensus is "Please please no more examples of Moai in popular culture" then yes that overrides a verified source that some Aquarium has full size fake Moai in its shark tank. Equally if someone found a source that called Sean Connery British rather than Scottish then I'd stick with consensus (or at least look for another source as I did in this incident), but normally yes verification trumps consensus."
However since you've asked the question I'll take the opportunity to expand my answer slightly. In terms of practical actions for me, if the situation fitted into one of the scenarios that I've outlined then I'd try and explain matters to the newbie, if not then I'd ask the consensus editor(s) what they think of the new source and proceed from there. ϢereSpielChequers13:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?
10. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If not so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?
A:I think my answer to Q1 covers the areas that I would be more active in. As for areas I'd be less active in, well I've partly covered that in q2, in that I've almost completed my search for certain easily confused words. Equally I've taken certain disambiguation projects as far as I can, so I'd need to find another disambiguation that interested me and where I had or could readily obtain the requisite knowledge. So I'm looking for my next challenge - which is I suppose one reason why I'm here now. ϢereSpielChequers14:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an RFA so all questions are welcome, and I will try to answer in the tone and with the detail that they deserve. Questions that I have anticipated and already have a prepared answer for are liable to get answered quicker than ones where I have to think, doublecheck for trip wires or do other research. Though I have taken part in quite a few recent RFAs and read many many more I would not describe any question asked so far as "hobbyhorse", (q1-3 are of course boilerplate). As several obvious and relevant questions have not yet been asked, the total (including unnumbered ones that are implicit in oppose and support statements) may well reach 42. Which is a very long way of saying "I bow down before the wisdom of the Keeper" ϢereSpielChequers10:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Applicant is marking large and substantive talk page edits as minor when this is clearly inappropriate, e.g. [20] (you can easily find more on the same talk page, but this isn't an RfC on the applicant). VG☎20:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Vasil, I have now trawled through my talk page and archive and am fairly sure that no-one had previously pointed this error out to me. As mentioned elsewhere I have now changed my default setting, reread the policy and while this is one policy I would support some changes to, I am now editing in accordance with policy. My thanks for bringing this to my attention. ϢereSpielChequers11:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would be fair to make a vote either way, but I think this nomination doesn't sound very professional or intriguing. If this doesn't pass, I suggest the candidate returns in a month or two either with a nominator, or a better written self-nom. Regards. -- how do you turn this on00:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been to XFD a few times, and may well spend more time there in future; But on almost every occasion I've been there so far I've tweaked the article, rather than entered the debate as I think it's unfair on the author of a candidate for deletion to leave obvious typos in it when they are irrelevant to the discussion. However as well as lacking XFD experience I'm probably too much of an Inclusionist to admin on XFD for the foreseeable future, hence it is not one of the things I'm currently offering to help admin in. ϢereSpellCheckers11:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on the candidate's suitability, but interesting nomination statement. And people who complain about "lack of seriousness" should loosen up a bit. I believe that the spirit of wikipedia is that we keep it slightly informal and allow people to be creative, instead of being all bureaucratic and uptight about it. - TwoOars05:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. A bit thin on the resume, but nothing to suggest that this user will abuse/misuse the tools. Most of the rationales in the opposition I find rather unconvincing. Shereth20:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - probably would be fine, the answer to Q1 is convincing, and there is plenty of experience. 'Weak' because of excessive use of memes, however I'm possibly just being grumpy. PhilKnight (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Shereth. Unique contributions per Q2, by the way. (I do not see the user's sense of humour--which is evident even in his user name--as a reason to oppose. Rather, I think it lends some warmth and joviality to the project.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - Weak because of a conspicuous lack of article contributions beyond reversions, however, I'm supporting because I do believe that you will perform adequately in the areas you've specified. Wisdom89(T / C)08:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - I don't oppose, at this time, as I do sincerely think this editor would be a great admin in the appropriate areas, however due to heavy contributions to the mainspace I give weak support. Would not misuse given permissions and would do well in WP:CSD and vandalism reversion. Keep it up. - PoinDexta1 | Talk to Me | 09:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The lack of article building does not make me believe that the candidate would abuse the tools in any way nor, as per areas of interest indicated in the nomination speech and Q1, that they would get involved in an area in which they are not well versed, such as content disputes. Furthermore, I find that the nomination speech has a mature tone underneath the light-hearted humour and I believe that the project would benefit with the candidate's access to the buttons. Good luck. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Long time user, positive contribs in gnomish and article building behind the scenes, and an absolutely brilliant self-nom. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Don't let the killjoys scare you off, humor is welcome and appreciated, and RFA needs the freshening up. Brilliant nomination. Keeperǀ7616:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I noticed you managing to unconfuse an article I couldn't make head or tail of on my watchlist recently. Well done. You're a decent guy, and I don't think you'd mess up. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just saw this comment in the oppose section : As for defending my work, well actually I've consciously tried not to, if that's not assuming good faith and not being abusive, I don't know what is. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good answers to questions. I would be very careful about your first answer to Q1. Most fully protected pages in articlespace should probably not be edited at all. But the rest of the answers show intelligence and reflection. PLZ NO MOAR CAT PIC KTHX? Protonk (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Advice noted and accepted on both points, especially the second. I did make some edits to Sara Palin before it went fully protected, and having just taken my first peek in weeks at both her article and Barack Obama's I can see they both still have tweaks I put there a month or so back (though I now have to page down to see hers), and one reason that I quoted certain pages from my watch list is that they are very contentious semi protected pages where I have made some talk page consensus based edits. ϢereSpielChequers20:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having a sense of humour and posting a cat picture does not necessarily mean he considers adminship a joke. From what I've seen of his wikispace contribution, the spiel chequer does his/her research and that is serious enough for me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, overall, I like the attitude, I like the question answers, I like the myriad of small-but-smart contributions. And as a bonus, I like cats. I have no concerns. ~ mazcat | c22:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Morbidthoughts and Mazca. Lighten up a little, friends. I see no reason not to support WereSpielChequers. Hardworking, fine answers, and a sense of humor as well. SIS01:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Answers are not perfect. However Chequers' WikiGnome contributions are remarkable. He knows where to find policies and act sensibly. Axl¤[Talk]08:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support lolcats in RFAs. Opposes are in large part more of a joke than the way the user seems to be taking the RFA, which is to say not much at all. Find something legitimate to oppose about. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender13:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like, for example, a dubious understanding of WP:CSD#A7 and a conviction that creating a redirect then going off and asking another editor if it's correct (thus ingoring WP:OR)? Just a thought Sawtjester but maybe you mind find a reason to support other than "because people are opposing" which seems to be you attitude. I don't oppose lightly and your concept that the opposition is "in large part...a joke" is insulting. Suggest you redact. Pedro : Chat 17:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest away. It's not happening. How many of the opposes are actually legitimate reasons based on meritorious arguments, rather than "He's taking it like a joke". I notice you're not condemning their !votes as being insulting to the person standing for RFA? Oh, and the "in large part" was meant to exclude the people opposing for legitimate reasons. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender17:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your rhetorical question (How many of the opposers...) - mine. But since your support seems based on the opposers arguments being a joke, and my oppose is based on hard evidence as demonstrated by questioning and responses I'm sure the rest of the community can decide whose opinion here is better backed up through fact and unbiased consideration. Appologies to the candidate for this discussion which no longer seems germane to their request for the tools. Pedro : Chat 20:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Pedro, Coffee and anyone else whose concerns about my candidacy are evidence based. Can I ask if one you would care to check any of the three parts of my answer to question 1? Unless I've missed it, no one has looked at the edits to semi protected pages that I referred to in my nom and come up with examples that show I'm not yet ready to move on to "Non-contentious or consensus based edits to protected pages". Nor has anyone challenged the statement "Deleting the sort of attack and non-notable pages that I've been nominating for speedy deletes" with an example of me nominating something inappropriately - though I'll fess up to one prod decline a couple of months ago, User talk:WereSpielChequers/Archive 1#Jim Stanton after which I had the good sense to check out the user who had just cut the article by 90%, and didn't go to AFD and try to dispose of the remaining 10%. Thirdly re "Blocking vandals of the kind that I've been reporting to wp:AIV." how many of the AIV reports that I've made are worth bringing here with a suggestion as to how they should have been done differently? ϢereSpellCheckers16:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading this correctly (and I may not be) I think you're basically saying - "look I'm competent in the areas I want to work in". Assuming that's what your message is, fair enough, yes, I mostly agree. The issue from me is that the toolset comes as one package. Moreover I've concerns (per Q5) of your general experience before asking for more tools. I'm sorry, I respect your intentions, but I hope you understand that there are times when a bit more experience will result in a much more "prepared" administrator as opposed to one who may make errors that could cause more problems than the benefit they bring. I'm not saying "never" - I'd never say that. I'm just saying not at the moment. Best wishes. Pedro : Chat 18:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support People don't like the formatting and presentation of the nomination? Lighten up. This isn't a special ritual formula where if you don't say it correctly the evil demons will burst out and devour the planet when you try to first use the admin tools. Look at the candidates contributions. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG SUPPORT - I looked over the candidate, as I always do. Then I read over the votes, as I always do. Only, I only made it through a handful of opposes before I decided that was a waste of time and decided he clearly deserved my support. Wow. This process gets more jacked by the day. An admin with a sense of humor? *GASP*... DO NOT WANT *facepalm* The WP:NBD is outdated and an epic ridiculous reason to oppose. There's a fundamental difference in opinion by many people on the big deal status of adminship. Anyone who clearly understands what adminship is the the potential damage a careless admin can cause at this stage in the project knows that adminship is, in fact, a big deal. That and the fact that you're basically elected for life. Backlogs need help, candidate has been on the project for a great deal of time. Has gained experience, as he pointing out in his nom statement before the dreaded cat pic (O NOES), and we can't expect every admin to start out knowing it all on day one. Do his contribs give the indication that he may abuse the tools? No. Is it reasonable to AGF on this one that he can be trusted? Yes. Do we need anymore stuffy, unfunny admins bringing down the morale of this place? Hell no. Clearly this project is losing its sense of humor. That's tragic. Jennavecia (Talk)13:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - not sure what was wrong with the answer to Pedro's second question; while it's true that software isn't A7-eligible, I think the candidate's response to the scenario was actually better than it would have been if he's just removed the tag, as correct as that would have been. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Oppose at this stage as (aside from a couple of stubs) I can see no content-creation/editing in your history other than uncontentious cleanup. While I don't subscribe to the "must have 10 FAs" school at RFA (I've never once worked on one), I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or The Wrong Version gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do. If you have got some article experience which I've missed (it doesn't have to be GA/FA, just something to show you understand the people the admins are here to serve) I'll happily change my mind. – iridescent19:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, well spotted. Not particularly recent and having reread them I think I need to go back and make many changes, but I have added thisand that, a few paragraphs in total to Easter Island and related articles. As for defending my work, well actually I've consciously tried not to, and left the Easter Island pages off my watch list for some months. ϢereSpielChequers20:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Striking oppose as that seems reasonable (one of the problems with bulk-minor-edits is they "hide" the significant edits in your history) – iridescent14:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per both above. I feel like you are not taking this serious, in a certain way. The picture of the cat really shouldn't be there. Also, you said "but after realizing what a big deal it was" - I'd like to remind you that adminship is no big deal. You nomination also suggests that you may at one point use a cool down block, which is not acceptable.iMatthew (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Switched to Support. iMatthew (talk)22:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Humor is a good thing here, especially with all of the personal attacks that happen every day...who cares if he wants to joke about it a bit? I'm sure that he is taking it seriously, and he simply wants to make people laugh a bit when they come here. I did. He will not abuse the mop and will help Wikipedia. That's why I support him, and you guys should be too. Cheers, —the_ed17— 19:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm leaving my normal criteria behind on this one, even though you have a lot of contributions that's not always what matters. You don't seem to be taking this seriously for one thing, and you don't seem to grasp what being an admin is; the cat, the joking nature of your self-nom, all give me a bad impression of what you think you'll be doing as an admin is. There are quite a few things in your self-nom I don't like, but I'll just mention one: the fact that you seem to think that verifiability trumps consensus most of the time, that actually depends on who the consensus is, and what the consensus is; our policies are made from consensus so any consensus that leaves policy is more or less new policy, or as it can be used WP:IAR. I might change my mind depending on what other people have to say here, but right now I don't think you are ready. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, you don't seem to be taking adminship seriously despite stating "...but after realising what a big deal [adminship] was...". Incidentally, I consider that a wrong POV. Please see WP:NBD. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if that wasn't clear, but it was wp:rfa that I was referring to as a big deal, not being an admin. I'm familiar with wp:NBD and I'm here as per q1, I'm asking for the tools because I could make use of some of them. ϢereSpielChequers08:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come off it, it's not like he wants to run for office, he's not taking it as a joke at all, the application it's self is very well presented, the cat is light hearted. It's not as if he's slapped you in the face, you are being pedantic. Metty (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Very well presented"? The nomination statement is very difficult to follow due to the lack of bullets for the list of accomplishments, incomplete sentences, incorrect capitalization, and subtle jokes making it difficult to tell when he is being serious and when he is joking. ("I'm still as responsible as I was as a teenager" - does that mean that we shouldn't trust you to accept the potential legal consequences of your actions?) Honestly, the internet has destroyed everyone's spelling and grammar skills and it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with my oppose !vote above, but I would not at all call his statement "very well presented". --B (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re your query about my age comment, no I am not trying to avoid the legal consequences of my actions. Long ago I was a very responsible teenager, and I like to feel that age has not jaded me and I still have the principles and integrity that I had in my youth. If the age profile here is similar to my experience at Wikipedia:Meetup/London 13 then a large majority of you will be much younger than me, and if so I ask you not to hold that against me. ϢereSpielChequers18:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per incredibly sloppy and unprofessional nom statement, 161 Wikipedia space edits and an astoundingly low (124) main talk edits, given his mainspace edits, which, for some reason, are all minor, even though they are not. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~02:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of my mainspace edits are minor; reverting vandalism, correcting typos and correcting links. However three editors have made this point, and I've changed settings to default to not checking the minor edit box. Also having reread Help:Minor edit I'll concede that some of my edits such as this do add content and therefore should not count as minor. Thanks to all three of you for bringing this to my attention. ϢereSpielChequers06:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Problems all over the board, to be honest. It would seem that the candidate has inadequate experience, and whilst they may not be taking this RfA 'as a joke', I do believe that they are not taking it seriously enough. Adminship is no big deal, but it is a bigger deal than it is being made out to be. Asenine 13:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to do this, but I must oppose. I do really love humour, as most people around RFA are quite stuffy. However, your only real mainspace editing (not including minor edits) are stubs. This could be forgiven if you participated in places that help people with article (AFD, FAC, FAR, etc.), but I do not see much (forgive me, I didn't search too long). Again, really sorry about this, but I do not think you can be an admin just yet. Your friend EddyO.D.Wiki[citation needed]13:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you didn't really look closely at his contribs, and you don't think he'd abuse the tools, and you don't actually want to oppose, but you're going to anyway? Well, whatever floats your boat there Eddy. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Terrible answer to my second question (the answer I was looking for was "Software does not fall under A7"). I'd have forgiven that but your apparent overlooking of some questions to answer others (as well as you nom) seems to indicate that you need to work on your communication skills. Mostly however your slightly bizarre idea that you'd create a re-direct from one article to another on the basis of the name being vaguely the same seems to indicate more general Wikipedia knowledge/experience is required at the moment. Weak, beacuse the nomination does embrace the spirit that becoming an admin is no big deal. Oppose because doing admin things is very much a big deal.Pedro : Chat 20:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, low level of Wikipedia-namespace edit indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Also, adminship is not a trophy; if anything, it's more responsibility with no reward. Stifle (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per Erik the Red 2. The sloppiness and unprofessional nom makes me feel his adminship will be sloppy as well. Also, his best contributions are fixing spelling errors. As his response to oppose number six says, he states The vast majority of my mainspace edits are minor; reverting vandalism, correcting typos and correcting link. I fail to see large contributions on his part to Wikipedia. DiverseMentality(Discuss it)20:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I too found the attitude in the nominating statement to be fairly problematic; plus a very low level of Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk participation (170 edits in about 1.5 years of having a registered WP account). Nsk92 (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you give an indication as to what level you were looking for? While I haven't analysed them over time I suspect my 54 reports to AIV could well have started over a year ago, but the other ones such as at RFA and ANI are likely to be mostly quite recent, so while those 170 edits are not much more than 1% of my total the proportion from say the last 4 months is probably somewhat higher. ϢereSpielChequers23:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose I have to agree with much of the above - tone of the self-nomination (although I appreciate and expect humour more than most); the use of the "minor edits" for so long, which showed either a callous disregard for policy or a complete failure to understand "minor"; overall lack of experience ... which could be the precursor to my first two points. BMW(drive)12:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; For me, the tone of your self-nom played in your favor, but I'm affraid your lack of policy understanding (almost certainly cause by simple lack of experience) is fatal. — Coren(talk)12:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose, at least for now. I'm actually very much a fan of the style of this self-nomination; that's definitely a big point in your favor. Unfortunately, the answer to Pedro's question, as he noted, was off, and there seems to be a lack of participation in other key areas. Apologies, I think you've got the right temperament and the tenure, but there are still some weak points, as Coren noted. GlassCobra10:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - lolcats are generally wild cards (and it this case, it did not exactly fair you well). I think this candidate has the proper sense of humor to handle the drama, but the inability to put together a clear explanation of why this candidate should receive the mop bugs me a little bit. As an administrator, there will be frequent times where proper explanation and articulation is necessary to portray why policy is enforced, why certain articles are changed, why users are blocked, etc. If WereSpielChequers wishes to run for adminship again in a couple of months with solid contributions, grab a nomination or just try again with a well-written self-nom, I'll consider supporting, but not now. Sorry. - Jameson L. Taitalk ♦ contribs23:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting... which is only good in an admin if they are doing the right things in an amusing manner. I think that once this mindset has been directed at a few articles and some of the more mundane chores then it will likely to be of benefit in a future RfA. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Provisional only. I am not sure; you seem like one of those candidates that wanders aimlessly into RfA expecting to get through by accepting every point thrown at you. I would have to see some strong evidence of admin-related activites with good community interaction and an excellent track in most aspects of what is needed in an admin. That cat is off-putting at the moment, not because of what it is, but rather what it represents. Caulde20:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now – looking at the two edits that you cite above as examples of your work, this edit is missing a few punctuation marks (not a big deal except that you cite your attention to detail as a strength), and this edit contains a couple sentences that seem to have an unencyclopædic tone, and maybe one or two sentences that seem as though they might be a little bit non-neutral. Bwrs (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually as I said in Q2 it is my ability to spot typos that I consider my main strength, though I think my punctuation has improved through my involvement here. As for the examples from September last year, well as I said when I cited those two "having reread them I think I need to go back and make many changes". I'm hoping that none of my article edits from the last few months will be found to be non-neutral or having the wrong tone, but the week is yet young.... ϢereSpielChequers06:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Matty, We are a third of the way through this RFA, and I hope that your concern about my use of humour in my RFA self nom is at least partially allayed by three things. Firstly despite all the scrutiny that I have been under during this RFA, no one has yet suggested that I have used humour inappropriately in any of the more than 13,000 edits I had made before this RFA began. Secondly my humour here has been either self deprecatory or targeted at the RFA process, I do not use humour to attack others. Thirdly and most importantly I hope you'll agree that my answers to various questions and concerns show that I take the role of admin seriously. PS Answers may be slightly delayed in the next 36 hours as have to go on a little trip, though I hope to be able to log in a couple of times from this my alternative account. However I will be logged on for a large majority of the last 48 hours of this RFA. ϢereSpellCheckers16:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my gosh, are you serious? Are you saying that he has to go to AfD the deletion pages so that he will get opposed in his next RfA for gaming the system and trying to "level up"? *Sigh* not many people are going to know everything when they become an admin. I'm sure that many of them don't! Give them a chance to learn on the job. Cheers, —the_ed17— 02:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my comment, and how is it not a place for OJT? Are you saying that potential candidates for adminship should familiarize themselves with everything administrators do? (No, I'm not mad, by the way, no matter how those questions sound.) —the_ed17— 18:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen with its combination of policies that one can read up and precursor behaviours on which one can be judged, adminship is a great example of on the job training (remove a few of the optional questions and it would be a near perfect example of OJT). I believe it would be a good idea to reduce the OJT element in becoming and remaining an admin, which is why as I mentioned in my nom I did the questions. But as none of the participants in this RFA have mentioned any of my responses there I think it is safe to assume that any attempt to move RFA away from OJT is going to be an uphill struggle. Also as I said in my nom I started looking at the RFA process a year ago. To expand on that slightly, I've been following at least some of the threads about admins who've got themselves desysopped. The pattern as I perceive it is that failures of judgement and or probity lead to admins being desysopped, and that it happens far far too often. WP:RFA needs to focus on gently redirecting the ambitions of good editors who might make the sort of mistakes that lead to desysopping, reducing the OJT component could be one way to do that. There are others but I'm getting far enough off topic and will keep that for another forum. ϢereSpielChequers12:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral--I can't even articulate a good reason for why I'm on the fence about this candidate. It's entirely a gut-level reaction; something about tone, I guess. And yet I'm a lolcat partisan, and yet I have a sense of humor...I really, really, really wish I could say what it is about this RfA that sets off my Gladys-sense; suffice to say there's SOMETHING. I can't oppose with no good reason, but my conscience just won't let me give an unqualified support at this time. WSPCH, I truly don't mean to be cruel or personally-insulting; there's just something about this request--and it's NOT the lolcat!--that doesn't quite sit right with me. When you run again, I'll surely consider you again. It's just...I can't go either way right here, right at this moment, under these circumstances. I think that's got more to do with me than with you, honestly...sorry, friend. Gladys J Cortez23:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
SoWhy (talk·contribs) - Long-term user, who has recently become much more prolific. Handy vandal-basher, with some clue on deletion process, though slightly less than experienced at XfD. I've grilled him lightly at his talk page, and his recentish editor review also offers some useful insights. Looks a goody to me. Dweller (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nomination by Cyclonenim (talk·contribs) — I originally added a support to this RfA thinking it was live, but alas it was not. However, now I'm here, I feel like I should probably give a co-nomination to SoWhy because his RfA is on my watchlist, meaning I have a lot of respect for the guy. What SoWhy lacks in WP:AfD is made up for by his countless (go ahead and try) contributions to WP:AIV, and I presume, without him evening filling out the below questions yet, that's where his activity will be most noticible. Definitely a net-positive all round, being a person with no intent for anything but improving the en-wiki. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept and am grateful for Dweller's trust and his "grilling" and for Cyclonenim's co-nom and his kind words. SoWhy18:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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: Well, as both my nominators point out, I am interested in helping with WP:AIV. I am also a new page patroller and thus am tagging stuff for speedy deletion (or proposed deletion, so I intend to do that as well. And last but not least I am always keeping a watchful eye at WP:RFPP and would like to help with page protections. And, finally, I am of course watching WP:AN and WP:ANI already and have tried my best to help people there. At the moment this consists mainly of guiding them but I'd like to be able to help them immediately. Currently there are days when I log in and see reports or requests that have not been handled for hours and I'd like to do what I can to help with that. I will not be working in areas I have few experience in, like AfD (as pointed out in the noms), until I have gained some. Unless it's a clear case that is of course.
So, for people who do not want to read all that above: AIV, AN/ANI, CSD/PROD, RFPP and everything else I see that need to be done. :-)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Well, I am a WikiGnome, so I will not gain any support for GAs/FAs written. I have none, because I am not able to write so much at a time.
So my answer is: Most contributions I did are quite good in my opinion. As for things I did myself, I think I quite like List of NCIS episodes which I expanded vastly and am still maintaining mostly, there not being a NCIS WikiProject. Or my rewrite of the plot summary of Nation (novel). I write when I see something needing expansion and I know of the subject but I usually fix and expand in little ways or create needed stubs where I know of the subject (like with A Hundred Million Suns). But, to repeat myself, I am mainly fixing/helping with stuff, not creating 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: Who hasn't? I usually try to avoid having stress with other users, trying to talk to them or trying dispute resolution.
One particular user comes to mind, Fasach Nua(talk·contribs·logs·block log). I was watching Italy national football team since the World Cup 2006, because people tend to vandalize teams they do not like. So this user has a certain viewpoint of WP:N and WP:V and went ahead and deleted everything about notable players, citing the lack of sources. I reverted it, notifying the user that he should discuss such deletions beforehand. He started to edit-war, I did a bit but stopped myself. I warned him for 3RR but wrote a lengthy paragraph to him that he should discuss it. It ended at other venues then, at WP:RFC/U (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fasach Nua 2) and WP:ANI but I kept away from it afterwards, because I was biased and did not want to influence the processes. I consider this a good way to go, because input by uninvolved parties will help much more than trying to reason with an user that thinks you are biased against them.
4. What damage, if any, do you believe over-zealous speedy deletions may cause to Wikipedia?
A. Well, they cannot do any damage on the technical level. All deletions can be reviewed and reverted after all. But on a personal level, they can lead to be look BITEy to the page creator. It might scare away potential good editors and I personally think that in doubt it should be avoided and PROD or AfD used instead.
A. The editor should be trusted to not wrack havoc. They should have a good steady edit history without any blocks for edit warring or suchlike (in the last month(s)). If they have not enough edits to judge them, then I'd grant it if a trusted editor, who got it, vouches for them (for example I did so for one of my adoptees). To make it short: The user should be trusted not to use the permission to edit war and if there is no indication that they will, there is no reason to deny it.
6. Do you agree with all of the wikipedia policies, if not what don't you agree with, and what if anything would you do about it as an admin?
A. All I know of, in their existence at least. There is none that I would want to get rid of but some I think that could be changed. WP:N for example is too strict in some cases and I am more for "wiki is not paper" when it comes to discussing articles on the brink of notability. And WP:IUP is too strict but that is owed to the copyright laws I fear. But I will not change anything if I were made an admin. Because the only thing I could try to change would be WP:N but I do not think that needs a policy change - just a change of mind for some people. But there is no admin-button for that ;-)
Clarification: As some people expressed concerns with this answer, I want to add something (which I wrote below in a cmt to Juliancolton):
I just think "wiki is not paper" when it comes to 50/50 cases of notability, as in "When in doubt, keep it". But that does not mean I think everything should be kept or that everything passes WP:N. Just that sometimes I'd keep what others like to delete, based on the fact that keeping it will not cost us anything ("no paper wasted" so to speak) while deleting it may lose us potentially valuable content. But, I cannot stress this enough, WP:N is very important and there is much that fails it, even from my inclusionist point of view. And that's just how I argue in AfDs; no matter what, it would never influence my decisions as admin because the outcome of an AfD is to be judged by the !votes there, not by what the closing admin thinks. SoWhy18:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. This was originally User:Xavexgoem's question, but I like it as well: If you could change one thing on Wikipedia that you think would improve it, what would it be?
A. Hard question. Let me ask a question in return: Something that could be changed or something that is impossible to change but should be changed? :-)
Well, there is not much that should be changed that can be changed - in fact I cannot think of any problem with Wikipedia that cannot be put down to some people acting irrationally and/or destructive. Most processes here work fine. What needs to be changed is the way people act (see Q6 above) but there is no way to do it. No matter how many how-to's you post, how many instructions are written, there is always someone ignoring them and most times they will be annoyed when you point that out. And people keep on edit warring, making personal attacks and suchlike, which is the most disrupting thing here (stupid childish vandalism is a piece of cake in comparison). People's minds should be changed to be less inclined on personal attacks and fighting without being willing to talk...but that's impossible I'm afraid.
8. Do you have any specific policy regarding recall towards recall that you are willing to implement?
A. No, I haven't. Simple as that. I think of course that the admin bit should be revoked if the trust of the community does not exist anymore but I do not have a recall procedure thought out specifically for me. I might do so after a successful RfA but even if I don't, I rest assured that there are already some effective mechanisms in place to take it from me if needed.
9. This is a question that would probably pop up more at a RfB, but I think might be a good idea to ask here: Do you believe that people should be allowed to vote against RfAs for any other reason except general account editing? For example, would you say that people can vote against an admin prospect due to their age?
A. I think that's a good question. And it's easy to answer: No, they shouldn't. They can but they shouldn't. RfA is to determine if someone will not misuse the tools - not a popularity contest or anything. If someone is underage and does a good job, how can the age be a reason for opposing? Or the political opinion, religious belief or philosophy for that matter? Noone is a better or worse admin for being a Democrat, a Socialist, a Christian, an atheist, whatever. They are or are not good admins for their work and their contributions. If their views or characteristics do not influence their editing, how can that be a reason to oppose? But, to be clear, they can do so, if they like. There is no censorship after all :-)
10. This is usually Xeno's question, but I like it too: 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 NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
A. Ah, yes, Xeno's question. It is a tricky situation, no question about it. If I had blocked an IP, I would always try to ask some other admin to review those requests. Because I could not be unbiased, even if I tried very hard. You have the knowledge in your head and it will influence you, so I think someone uninvolved should handle it.
If I really had to decide myself, I think I'd unblock the IP, if I had some time on my hands in the next hour(s) following the unblock and keep an eye on it. It'd be worth a try imho. But as I said I would rather not want to handle an unblock request from a user I blocked for vandalism.
Clarification: I am sorry if it sounded like I was unable to assume good faith. I just wanted to point out that no matter how much you try to be unbiased, your sub-consciousness knows what happened. It will not influence you directly, but you might be influenced nonetheless. My problem is more that I'd assume more good faith than necessary. As I said, I'd unblock the user in this question, even though he did some pretty bad vandalism. But I'd really really like someone else to give their opinion first because the only person who is truly unbiased per definition is the one who was not involved. SoWhy07:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11 I'll try and make this distinct from Q3. When have you really screwed up on wikipedia? What did you learn from it? Why did it happen? Alternately, if you feel you can retain anonymity, you can answer this with a real life anecdote. I'm not asking this in the "job interview" sense—I don't want a "well, I didn't look both ways before crossing the street to volunteer at a homeless shelter" kind of answer. I'm also not looking for an example of interpersonal issues (like a feud or argument), those are covered neatly under Q3.
A: Well, apparently with a userbox about my antitheistic point of view in this RfA. But seriously, I make mistakes, not that seldom I am afraid. Most times I realize them before saving a page. As B pointed out in his oppose, I did for example a very stupid CSD#A7 tagging few months ago. I also did some other mistaken CSD taggings back then but mostly I reverted them and changed my attitude to deletion in general (see Q4). Same with Huggle, sometimes I mistake a good faith edit for vandalism, for example if the subject of the article really said "fuck you, you bitches!". I reverted it but then realized that it was actual content and reverted my mistakes. The best I could do is to learn from it. There are surely more minor screw-ups, but I cannot recall any particular "really screwed up"-case. I will try to remember and will amend my answer (or post at your talk) if and when I recall something.
12. You mentioned in the first question that you are interested in WP:AIV. Here is an optional question that you may answer: A newly registered user, who has been here for less than two months, makes a request for using rollback. The user has spent about 85% reverting persistent vandalism, and has had approximately 15% participating in mainspace work. Upon searching the user's contributions and finding over 150 vandalism reversions, would you give the rights to them? If not, why not?
A: Well, it's a borderline case. 150 reverts are great but not much, because it means they have only ca. 175 edits in total. I would see what the other 15% look like, if there are any indications that they might abuse it. Also, I will review the user's "community"-side, for example if they were adopted (see Q5 above). But going from the facts you tell me, I'd decline it and would ask the user to re-apply when he did some more edits (say ~350), just to be sure. I do not think I'd expect too much (like 2000 mainspace edits) but I'd like to have something to judge upon. Such questions are hard to answer in theory of course, as I pointed out above, and I would never grant rights just based on such numbers alone.
13. Have you ever edited with another account? Bear in mind I have no suspect basis for asking this question.
A: Not really. I registered back in 2004, when my favorite nick name was still available and I never once had a reason to change it. I do have an alternative public account called Yhwos (talk·contribs) but that's just for public PCs and not used at the moment (as I usually edit at home or at work).
14. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?
A: Short answer: verifiability. After all, we can reach consensus that the moon is made out of cheese easily. But that does not mean that the moon is made out of cheese - just that we agreed that it was.
Long answer: In the end, the newbie is right according to policy. But that will not appease the people defending the consensus. The newbie should be advised to discuss the edit on the talk page because there might be reasons for the consensus or sources that just have been forgotten to be included or were removed by a vandal. It is possible... If the consensus version is without sources and the majority advocating it does not want to see it, then I think a RFC is in order to get input by uninvolved but experienced editors. If they majority advocating the old consensus still refuses to change their mind despite the unverifiability of this version, it should be brought to the attention of administrators who can then take the necessary steps. But I do not think that this will happen after an RFC because the RFC should take care of the problem. In the end, Verifiability has to win (that's why WP:CONEXCEPT correctly states that consensus cannot decide that another policy (like WP:V) should be ignored).
Now that some time has passed since you answered this question, perhaps you might want to try again to express yourself in different words? Your rhetorical approach is compelling; and for me, what you've already explained is on-point. As I see it, Asenine crisply summarized the focus: "Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?" If you don't construe this question as deserving a more thoughtful and revealing response, my question becomes "Why not?" --Tenmei (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?
A: Well, I got five adoptees (although 2 of them are inactive), so that shows that I am patient with inexperienced users, a bit at least. As for resolving problems with angry users, well, I am sure I did it whenever I felt able to (mostly on WP:AN and WP:ANI). Sometimes users come to me to complain that I reverted them (like here or here). But most times it was a misunderstanding or a trivial mistake and I tried my best to explain. You will notice, if you browse through my contributions, that I always try to be as patient as possible when someone comes to me and is complaining angrily. I will provide further examples once I recall them. :-)
16. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If not so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?
A: Not being the most prolific article writer to begin with, I think I will just do continue as I did before. I am at the moment already mostly supporting users, patrolling pages, fighting vandals and so on.
So with a mop and bucket, I can block them instead of reporting them to WP:AIV, delete pages instead of tagging them with WP:CSD, protecting pages instead of asking at WP:RFPP or help users with admin related problems at WP:AN/WP:ANI directly instead of having to point out where they should take their complaints to (like when someone asks for page protection there, I will still tell them about WP:RFPP for future uses but I could handle the specific request). So I do not think I will shift my attention much, with exceptions of course, for example when I notice need for admin tasks somewhere I usually do not look at much (like backlogs at WP:UCFD, WP:TFD or WP:MFD).
17. Yous said in your answer to question #6 that you believe WP:N is too strict, and you believe so because Wikipedia is not written on paper. Please explain how you would deal with an AFD on a semi-notable person, with both the editors who believe it should be deleted and those who don't having a strong argument.
A: Before I answer something that does not fit the question, please clarify: Is the question how I would close an AfD with all editors agreeing that it should be deleted? Or how I'd close one with some keep-!votes that have no strong argument but some strong delete-!votes? Or is it about how I would !vote in such an AfD?
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. In an AfD, where keep-votes and delete-votes are the same in quanitity, how would you close it as an administrator?
A: If both keep and delete !votes were the same in quantity and quality (i.e. strength of argument), I'd close it as "no consensus", which defaults to keep. But really only if both sides were making equally strong arguments. If they only are equal in numbers but one side makes the stronger arguments, I'd probably see that as consensus and act accordingly (i.e. close as keep or close as delete/merge/redirect and do the necessary work). But if there is some doubt or if I am unsure, I would consult another admin first, because letting it run for some more time is better than spawning a DRV.
18. If you became in charge of Wikipedia, what would you change? Please speak your mind, not just say the "correct" answer.
A. Well, speaking my mind, I must honestly say: I don't know. There are few things that could do with changes, that need fixing, etc. But I don't think there are any "Jimbo-only-tasks", i.e. things that only the person in charge is able to change. At least I cannot think of any right now. I think in that hypothetical situation I'd leave everything running like it does now, because those problems that exist should be solved in discussion by those affected, i.e. the users. I know that sounds like trying to give the "correct" answer but that's actually what I think. I will let you know if I can think of anything that really needs "the one in charge" be changed.
19. I notice you have the following userbox: "This user likes "Trivia" and "In popular culture" information, and supports their inclusion." Can you explain why you feel that trivia is important for Wikipedia? Please also take into consideration the definition of the word trivia, which is "unimportant (or "trivial") items, especially of information." I am curious as to why you think that unimportant information is important in an encyclopedia, and also how this effects your editing style. Bearing this in mind, many editors wish to clean up trivia. As an admin, would you stop them from doing this?
A. First of all: As with other userboxes, it does no reflect on my editing. Then, I like them, because I think that the project should strife to contain as much information as possible. Bear in mind that this is just what I like, not how I edit. I personally find it nice to read about references in popular culture which might be trivial but be helpful to explain things. I am not a US-citizen for example and when I watch TV shows from there and they make fun of something, I might not understand it. But I can look it up and find out why that was supposed to be funny.
But I also know that there is a guideline for such sections and I will follow the guideline as it represents consensus. As with other questions, I'd never use any admin tools to fight people over anything I personally prefer. Actually, I appreciate it when people cleanup trivia, because they will also sort it, expand out the body of text or create new sections for notes or popular culture references. If I see someone just removing it and I have some time on my hands, I will try to work the removed content back into the article's body of text or appropriate sections. But that is editing, not admin-ing.
20. How do you find having to answer 20 - or more - questions? (on a related note - do you feel they are truly "optional", or mandatory in reality?)
A. I do not mind. I always held the firm belief that there should never be a maximum number of questions to a RfA. If 100 questions are needed to understand what a candidate thinks, then you should ask them. Some need more, some need less, but there is nothing wrong with answering them, I am happy to do so.
As for the side note, it depends on who asks. If user X already voted before asking the questions or already decided how to vote, it is optional because their vote will not be changed. It might change the vote of others who base their vote on if the candidate answers the questions or not. So I'd say they are semi-optional: They are optional for those question-askers who already voted or will not change their vote based on the answer, they are mandatory for those question-askers who will base their vote on it. They are optional for those others who did not ask the question and vote regardless of the answer or do not care if the candidate prefers to not answer it and mandatory for those who will vote vote differently if not answered or based on the answer. As the candidate does not know who thinks how, I guess in reality answering those questions might be more positive than not answering them.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/SoWhy before commenting.
Discussion
Short Notice: While I stay with my viewpoint about the userbox, I agree that it could sound a little like it opposes the people believing something instead of the belief itself. I decided to replace it with User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Lennonist which says the same thing in a way but is hopefully less open to misinterpretation. I do not hope to win over opposers with that but maybe it can avoid more drama here. Regards SoWhy22:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There seems to be a perception that someone not working toward FA articles (or focusing on article building) is not contributing to wikipedia. Quite the contrary, IMHO, because the encyclopedia is made up of the millions of micro-edits made by editors and these edits are equally responsible for making the encyclopedia what it is. They add credibility to the pedia by correcting mistakes, add breadth to the pedia through short articles on every subject imaginable, and help make the content and presentation consistent. Without this work, wikipedia would remain an interesting oddity rather than the interesting, useful, and yes, almost universal tool it is for answering any question under the sun. Wikipedia won't be what it is without the FA/GA builders and it won't be what it is without the micro-editors. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 01:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree with Maxim. I've been an admin for 8 months, and I daresay a good one. I have yet to submit anything to DYK, no GAs, and no FAs. Those are all indicators, yes, of a dedicated editor, and I've supported many admin candidates with those under their belts. But they are not the only indicators of a dedicated user, and to decide otherwise is foolish and shortsighted, let alone downright mean. Keeperǀ7601:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
("A good one?" What? You suck! [j/k]) A plant where they make cars is only as good as the designers + builders + accountants + clerks + security guards + pick a task BMW(drive)13:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I rarely support on RfA's, choosing only to comment on those when I need to oppose, but what the hell. I'd always assumed he was an admin, just shy about it :P. Ironholds19:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support I've gone through a couple of hundred of the candidate's edits without seeing anything to quibble about, and have seen good use of different warning levels. Also I like the answers and on more than one occasion where our paths have crossed the candidate has shown sense. ϢereSpielChequers20:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good, looked at some contributions and everything seemed fine, answers to questions are fine. See nothing that makes me think candidate will misuse the tools. Davewild (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support As a fellow member of the Evil Atheist Cabal, how can I not support? ;) No really, I liked how you put some time and effort into answering the questions. Your edits also show a solid understand of Wikipedian processes. Good luck :) NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work22:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not ideal answers to some questions but good ones to mine :). The opposers need to demonstrate at what times the candidates theological (or rather lack of it) ideology has impaired his ability to edit neutrally. The fact that there appears to be no evidence of this at all through diffs strongly suggests to me that SoWhy would be an excellent admin. We shouldn't need to care what editors believe unless it shows up in their editing - only then is it a problem. Here it is not. Pedro : Chat 22:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Contributions seem solid. I like the answers to questions too, particularly #4. The userbox doesn't bother me, but it suggests you blame religion for your/the world's problems, so I can see why people would take offense to it. If this passes, it'll probably come back to bite you in the ass eventually (taking it down wouldn't be a bad idea).--KojiDude(C)23:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, my mommy says that Keeper76 is my real daddy, and I need to take a DNA test to determine...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: Support for a very, very worthy candidate! Ecoleetage (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Okay, but a few comments make me squirm just a bit. He seems to advise newer users about how to play the system, e.g. to hide their ages, because it might be used against them in a discussion. Also, very strong on policy knowledge, but I don't know if he actually understands how policy works (rather than just what it says) – seems to rely on spewing forth acronyms at people. OTOH, he's a reasonably strong candidate, who's not going to blow everything up. — Werdna • talk00:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per userbox. User does not believe in a supreme being and thus will be fully accountable for their own actions, rather than pointing to the "will of God" or the like. We need our admins to show good judgement and weigh-up evidence, and the userbox clearly demonstrates this quality George The Dragon (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems to know what he's doing and most of his speedy deletion tags were done correctly. A pretty liberal userpage, but I did steal one of his userboxes. Useight (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. So why not? Even from my Christian POV, I find opposing because of their userbox pretty preposterous. After all, this isn't exactly Conservapedia. bibliomaniac1503:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Question 4 did it for me. The user feels the world is better off without religion? Eh, so did Ben Franklin. Perhaps the candidate will invent something. XF Lawtalk at me07:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as long as you promise not to go rogue and block all us crazy theists. But in all seriousness, I've seen this user around doing great stuff for the project, and I find myself quite disappointed by the folks voting oppose because he's atheist. Imagine the uproar if someone voted against a Christian for his religion? Oy vey. L'Aquatique[talk] 07:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Totally Support SoWhy adopted me and has been nice to me, he rocks, is awesome and is very dedicated to the project also to mr andrew k that is a very silly reason in my opinion what i find more relevant is that he is an evil socialist.No Hollaback Girl (talk) 07:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This user-box trifle is just evidence of the differences in culture between the US and Europe. In northern european culture, saying "This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion." would not commonly be considered provocative or divisive and definitely not as something meant to be offensive, but just a statement of opinion well within the acceptable bounds of the zeitgeist. henrik•talk11:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems to have one of the most two of the most important attributes of a good admin (or editor) Thoughtful, and prepared to admit he can be wrong. --Nate148113:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have no problem with his opinions on religion, in fact, I agree with them. Everyone is entitled to express themselves. Perhaps it's a good idea he has those userboxes, because then he's admitting that he has bias if he edits any article(s) pertaining to religion, which would thus prevent him from making any major changes. Additionally, after looking through some of his recent contributions, I see no troubles whatsoever. Will make a competent admin. Utan Vax (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Answers to questions are honest and largely in line with what we would expect from a prospective administrator. I really, really, really don't get the userbox issue. Honestly don't get it. It's 40px by 120px (or whatever). It isn't the end of the world. Would wikipedia be a better place if he had never put the userbox there? Maybe. But I can say that about almost any userbox that announces a personal opinion about the world. I might be better off for not having seen the userbox, but the editor who placed it found it and put it there for a reason. Likely, it was just a lark. Or the user is happier for having put it on there. It is, after all a volunteer project. We do things in our userpace that are inside our comfort zones and most of the time that comfort zone is different than from our activities other places. I might use the word "fuck" on my talk page. It is pretty unlikely that I would use it on, say, the Miley Cyrus talk page. If you think the userbox is polemical, MfD is that way. If you feel that it is not bad enough to merit deletion but crosses some invisible threshold of "bad userboxen for admins", please consider the impact that applying hidden and arbitrary conditions on adminship will have. If you think that this userbox peers into the editor's soul and reveals his true prejudice...you should take a deep breath. Because it doesn't. Special:Contributions/SoWhy is that window to the soul. Please oppose or support based on that link Protonk (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support I first encountered this editor when he was the only one to comment on my Editor Review. SoWhy is civil, active, and obviously supports the best interests of the project. A prolific adopter of new editors, SoWhy provides good guidance to those adoptees as is clearly evident on his talk page. I especially support the full-disclosure of potential COI problems covered by the userboxen on SoWhy's userpage. That is what we are supposed to use them for. An editor who discloses this much about their personal interests is obviously not trying to hide an agenda. I have no concerns about giving SoWhy the buttons, and there is no reason to oppose according to the actual requirements laid out in the Admin policy. Jim MillerSee me | Touch me15:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I would have liked to see a bit more article-writing, but overall a good editor with a solid record. Will be an asset as an admin, particularly at AIV. Nsk92 (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thoughtful answers (better with some of the clarifications) and good contributions. I also like the My WikiPhilosophy section on his userpage. --Jh12 (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. While I don't care about that userbox, I do believe that it is important not to judge users on their real-life stances and views. That said, I will support--though I will caution you not to act biased in any argument involving religion that you are asked to preside over. Malinaccier (talk)21:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would also like to see more article writing, I believe every user, and every admin, is an article-worker first and everything else second, regardless of how good they may be at the second. However, I see no issues with this user, and I especially like the lack of attempt to tackle areas of wikipedia that the user has no intention of facing, just to satisfy RfA questions. A user who can pick and choose what they wish to work on is an admin who is doing RfA for the right reasons, not just to have every single fancy button (of which there are in fact very few) SGGHspeak!00:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. User has clue. User has opinions. Clue outweighs opinions. Find me one, even one, diff that shows SoWhy acting with bias. I haven't found any. The userboxes are stupid SW, get rid of them, they aren't worth the trouble. You, however, are an excellent admin candidate. Keeperǀ7601:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good answers to questions, has shown the ability to handle the...silliness that often comes along with being a Wikipedian. Be warned - it's only going to get worse once you get the bit. :-) faithless(speak)04:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Pedro. Frankly, everyone has opinions about just about everything. These opinions, whether expressed or concealed, should only become an issue on Wikipedia when they impact the user's actual editing - or in the case of an Admin candidate, when they would impact his use of the tools. Having seen no allegation to this effect, the opinions are irrelevant to my decision. --PhilosopherLet us reason together.04:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - There's been more talk on here of that blasted userbox than his contributions, which are good. Enough for me, you'll make a great admin. Matty (talk) 05:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I've seen from this process is that if you can oppose for reasons stemming from a userbox, you should be able to conversely support. If that's the case, whoever ultimately decides RFA would have to find those to be a wash. Great song, and great way to convey that something immensely popular, when reworded slightly, becomes a contentious source. XF Lawtalk at me06:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support for changing the user box. It bothers me somewhat that SoWhat doesn't see the difference between making a blanket statement of fact "User is a supporter of X" or "User opposes X" is different from one that makes commentary on said position. That being said, he was willing to change the box nonetheless. While I wouldn't have concerns about a person who had a box saying, "User opposes communism" it would be different if somebody said "Communists are the cause of the world's problems."---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon06:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've often felt that the cause of the world's problems are human beings. I wonder if I should put that in a user box (as one could read that as a personal attack on everybody acording to some arguments below and on the talk page). Pedro : Chat 07:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) @Balloonman: Hence I changed it. I always thought it says "I am against religion", not "religion is the reason for all problems". But as you pointed out, it can be read differently and thus I changed it to one that hopefully does say what I always intended it to do. Regards SoWhy07:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm a little concerned that the thing in which this candidate is most proficient is the recycling of Wiki-acronyms for the benefit of the questioners, but I can find nothing in his edit history that would be a concrete cause for concern, and he seems reasonably competent in Wikignomery, so, barring any reason to oppose... Ford MF (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, although I am personally an atheist, I would hope that would not be held against me in any similar forum, and my Wikipedia colleagues would assess my candidacy based on my edits, not my religious opinions. Even if you take issue with the way this candidate expressed it in his own user page, I don't see what's any different about it than, say, having an user box that says "I believe Allah is the one true God and Muhamad is his prophet." Ford MF (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - experienced, helpful and civil - a lack of major mainspace contributions has little effect upon how well you will perform with the tools when you've been here as long as you have. I like that you've adopted users - sharing the love is important! – Toon(talk)20:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've seen him in action at AfD, he makes reasonable, well-argumented decisions. He's no wild-eyed inclusionist. The (in)famous user box is a bit "in your face", but he's not a POV pusher, so I don't think he'll misuse the new buttons to further an agenda. I'd rather deal with editors/admins that disclose their biases but observe WP:NPOV, rather than POV pushers with blank user pages! VG☎23:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ford MF, HiDrNick, Tinucherian, Tool2die4, Redvers, Philosopher, Keeper76, Bigjake, Ale jrb, JumMillerJr, Protonk, Tznkai, UtanVax, henrik, L'Aquatique, John Reaves, XF Law, Anonymous Dissident, RyanGerbil10, Bibliomaniac15, George the Dragon, Erik the red, Pedro, Number 57, and NuclearWarfare, mostly. He's also a strong editor who is unlikely to abuse the tools, imo. Jennavecia (Talk)05:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Lara's "short-list". I honestly don't see the issue with the opposition. Much of it is revolving around his mainspace edits, and comes off too pointy. GA/FA has little to do with adminship, if anything. It only means you are a superb editor, not a superb admin candidate. I also don't care about the userboxes on bit. SoWhy looks like he thinks things through before acting, and this is something I look for. I don't see any problems at all. Synergy05:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has been around since March 2004 and has a good track and through I very strongly differ with the user box and views of the User but still feel “ I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. ” Feel the user will be neutral admin as per track.Further every user has his POV whether in chemistry,Religion,Politics etc which others may not agree.The opinion or views of any user should not be a reason to oppose.His or her Track in Wikipedia should be. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support (switched from Neutral.) Skills and interest in resolving disagreements, as illustrated repeatedly in this RfA, override any concerns I previously held. Gonna be a great admin. Townlake (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks fine to me; good answers to the questions, seems unlikely to oppose the tools. Also in protest of Andrew Kelly's incredibly bigoted oppose - it's ridiculous, and the rationale on the talk page really makes me wonder whether, by "independent", he means "this". Bart133tc@How's my driving?17:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Switched from neutral. I feel SoWhy does have the necessary experience. I'm not going to count in the userbox, as I believe that userboxes should not have an influence on editing habits. IceUnshattered[ t ]18:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support per baseless, failed well-poisioning attempt oppose by User:Andrew Kelly, who boasts his own wonderful userbox of, "This user believes that Marriage should be between one Man and one Woman." along with other gems. SashaNein (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support – clearly doing useful work in a sensible way, perhaps not using edit summaries informatively at times, but all the examples I checked were straightforward reverts of blatant vandalism so that was ok. Doesn't claim infallibility :) . . dave souza, talk09:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose based on "The world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion" userbox. If you could have only stopped at the "this user is an atheist" userbox -- which is just fine as far as I'm concerned -- you might have had my vote. Keepscases (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before we all get upset, let's remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground, users are entitled to oppose for whatever reason they see fit, and this RFA has a talk page. Just my 2p. Pedro : Chat 20:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this a good reason to oppose, so be it. I will not comment further here (but I'm happy to discuss it at the talk page if you wish), as I never thought RfA is about editor's personal opinions but their contributions. Regards SoWhy20:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose: This user will just be one more anti-Christian admin. Wikipedia has enough of those. The userbox mentioned above goes way too far. It is a personal attack and just plain wrong. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This vote should be considered in conjunction in commentary on the discussion page, in which the user making the vote stated, in certain terms, that he was opposing the candidacy due to his belief that non-Christians are unsuitable as administrators. — Werdna • talk14:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The vote should be considered only in conjunction with his reason given above. Andrew Kelly has the right to his beliefs, but he has supplied what I for one believe to be valid reasons for his oppose vote, above. This user is not the person running for administrator. If he were, and he was advertising that non-Christians should never be voted into positions of power, that would most certainly be a valid reason to oppose his candidacy. Keepscases (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. Ask him to remove the stupid userbox, for Pete's sake! And then it'll all be over. For those of you who want to argue, go ahead and say I'm wrong, whatever. —Sunday| Speak20:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naerii puts it better than I could. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to air your views about anything and everything. Giggy (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Athiest, for the record. The userbox doesn't offend me (that's not to say I agree with it), but that isn't the point.[reply]
Oppose per the user box. Having respect for those with whom you disagree is an important thing and with that user box on your page, it calls into question your ability to deal fairly with users who believe differently than you do. Also, you are marking substantially all of your edits as minor, even ones which are clearly major. Only reverts of simple vandalism or insignificant spelling/formatting/etc fixes should be marked as minor. I am also concerned about this speedy request. Presumably, anything you would tag for a speedy as a non-admin you would delete as an admin and unilaterally deleting that article would obviously be a really bad idea. You had two minutes between your previous edit and that one. If this article had been something you found in new pages patrol that said "DAVId PUENTE IS MY BESTEST FRIEND EVER" ok, that takes 2 seconds. But it had been around for two years and had multiple (supposed) sources. Two minutes is not enough time to review the sources, review the history (to see if a better version existed previously) and make a determination to delete it. Getting it right is more important than throughput and edit count. --B (talk) 05:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of interest in content writing is a bad sign for reasons I've touched on at length elsewhere. Administrators are the public face of the project, and having a divisive userbox on one's userpage is bad PR. east718 // talk // email // 06:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there's a lack of policy knowledge demonstrated here ("I'd say it needs some larger discussion to reverse that ruling"). There is no ambiguity in the concept that arbcom issues final, binding remedies. east718 // talk // email // 15:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if that sounded as if I thought simple discussion could lift such a ban. I posted that to point out it can't be done, like some people there seemed to believe. I never read that there is no community discussion way to lift such a ruling, just that it never happens. I have not intended it to sound like it could be done. But, now that you pointed out how you thought I meant it, could you please point me to where it actually says that it can never happen? We never stop learning after all. Regards SoWhy17:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Whilst I strongly agree with the userbox in question, I don't think it is a good thing for a prospective admin to be displaying it. I realise that we are supposed to be commenting on contributions here, but to have an admin with such a divisive userbox in place would be both awful PR, and go against policy. Remember the discussion about those 'this user loves redheads', 'this user thinks blondes are beautiful', etc. userboxes? Well this is a lot, lot worse. Asenine 09:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too have been thinking about that point. But seriously, it requires a leap of bad faith to go from this userbox to "he's a religion hater and would let that bias influence his contributions and his use of the admin tools" as some seem to believe. I won't cater to such an unfounded ABF. Everyme13:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care if he doesn't like religion, and I don't have any concerns that he will be biased. I just have problems with anyone that thinks its appropriate or necessary to put statements like that on their userpage. Really, how is it related to anything we do here? What's the point? It's just so stupid. I really wish people would stop posting userboxes related to religion, politics, or any of the other polarising topic areas, because it just causes no end of hand-wringing and hassle for no discernable gain. It just makes people look stupid and childish. Irritating. naerii13:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I am nervous of administrators who believe that WP:N is too lenient strict. Wikipedia has standards for a great many reasons, and the standards are actually fairly low as it is. I'm also reluctant to give the tools to someone with little article building experience. WikiGnomes are incredibly valuable, but it is very difficult to have a full understanding of all of the guidelines and policies that govern article content if one is not creating much. Without that full understanding, it is more difficult to appropriately help those that are having content-related problems. Karanacs (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, he said "WP:N for example is too strict in some cases", which is the complete opposite of "WP:N is too lenient". Also, I fail to see your logic in article builders being greater in policy understanding than WikiGnomes since they are not likely to know the WikiGnome side of policies. SoWhy edits articles making minor edits, meaning he knows some of the guidelines for article building, and he knows the WikiGnome policies inside out. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have no issue with the userbox, that is his choice, but I do have a problem with Q2. Also, Lord Sunday, was it really nesscary to write what is above my oppose? I mean comeon here, if someone wants to oppose on a userbox, so be it. America69 (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Switching to netural.[reply]
Strong oppose to absolutely unacceptable answers on Q1, Q6, Q9, limited XfD experience, FU opinion, and lack of foresight. If you had no inkling that userbox would cause you a problem at RfA, what else might you well-meaningly but inadvertently fail to take into consideration when making administrative choices? --LogicalPremise Ergo?14:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Logical Premise (talk • contribs) [reply]
Ah. The quest for 20/20 foresight! So elusive, yet so desirable. Hindsight is so much easier :-) Still, if perfect future vision were a requirement for admins, or for any other job (the Secretary of Treasury and any number of political or financial leaders leap to mind), no one would ever be employed! You judge us mortals too hashly! --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 15:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. I don't require perfect foresight. I require some LEVEL of reasonable foresight. I'd never try for RfA because I'm a jackass and I get snippy. While I work to maintain my cool, I know that as an admin I'd face situations where I'd lose that cool and I might perform actions using the mop that were bad. Foresight tells me that applying to be admin is a bad idea. In this case, I can't believe the editor in question would have started this RfA if he knew it would touch off a firestorm, since I AGF. So I assume he didn't see it. Is that a reasonable burden? I think so. --LogicalPremise Ergo?18:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind elaborating on a few of those? I can see what may be objectionable about question 6, but i'm interested as to what made Q1 unacceptable, particularly given that he specifically said he wasn't planning on hitting AfD due to lack of experience there. I'm also interested in your thoughts on Q9. ~ mazcat | c16:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have problems voting for admins who are going to contribute in the easy areas of admin. If he's not experienced in AfD , then he doesn't get my vote since that's one of my requirements. Q9 was simple: I'm sick of people trying to legislate how I think and how I should be able to participate or vote. Suggesting that age, or your personal background, or any of that has no bearing on your ability to administrate, especially in controversial areas...*shrugs* My vote is my vote, and Q9 simply strikes me as dismissive. --LogicalPremise Ergo?18:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - limited experience, and most experience is in non-admin areas. Also pandering to the opposes over the userbox thing shows poor judgment. --T-rex17:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Giggy and T-Rex. Limited experience in admin areas and poor judgement in choosing an offensive userbox. This candidate isn't quite ready for the shiny buttons. Majoreditor (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now I have some concerns... but I'll have to look closer before I say anything solid. I've seen things that I like in SoWhy, but I've also seen some that I'm uncertain of... and think he needs to be vetted closer than I can right now.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 21:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)moving to weak support---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon06:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if it sounded like I was unable to assume good faith. I just wanted to point out that no matter how much you try to be unbiased, your sub-consciousness knows what happened. It will not influence you directly, but you might be influenced nonetheless. My problem is more that I'd assume more good faith than necessary. As I said, I'd unblock the user in Q10, even though he did some pretty bad vandalism. But I'd really really like someone else to give their opinion first because the only person who is truly unbiased per definition is the one who was not involved. SoWhy07:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think acknowledging your biases and trying to avoid them is the closest you can get to a NPOV on an issue you care about. Interestingly if you read WP:Neutral Point Of View it make similar comments. Similarly on the good faith point stated in WP:ASG is that it is an assumption after a user has demonstrated repeated bad faith by their actions, 'keeping an eye on them' is simply sensible, to see if they have actually reformed or just looking for a way to cause more trouble. --Nate148113:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Explaining my reasoning further. Some of your answers aren't bad, but the answer to #6 concerns me slightly, though it may just be my personal opinion. WP:N actually has very loose criteria compared to other encyclopedias, and while I am an inclusionist myself, I'm not sure I feel comfortable giving an editor with a "wikipedia is not paper" mindset the mop. This is not my only concern, however. Your answer to #2 also concerns me slightly, as, after all, we are an encyclopedia, and thus article writing should be a top priority. However, I initially supported for a reason. I'm going to watch how this RfA plays out for a bit, maybe ask a few questions, and I might be inclined to switch back to support. Cheers, –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone13:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments on that, if I may:
As for Q6, I just think "wiki is not paper" when it comes to 50/50 cases of notability, as in "When in doubt, keep it". But that does not mean I think everything should be kept or that everything passes WP:N. Just that sometimes I'd keep what others like to delete, based on the fact that keeping it will not cost us anything ("no paper wasted" so to speak) while deleting it may lose us potentially valuable content. But, I cannot stress this enough, WP:N is very important and there is much that fails it, even from my inclusionist point of view. And that's just how I argue in AfDs, no matter what, it would never influence my decisions as admin because the outcome of an AfD is to be judged by the !votes there, not by what the closing admin thinks.
As for Q2, I understand what you mean. I try my best to write things and it can happen (as the example I provided there) that I will go and write 5k text from scratch. But most subjects I have knowledge about are already written quite well. And while this is an encyclopedia, it's open nature calls for people who clean up after the others. So while I try to write articles and contribute in major ways to them, most of the time I do what suits me better. Sometimes I regret that I lack talent for obscure hobbies or major rewrites and so I do what I can to make this a better place. Regards SoWhy13:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Juliancolton, I think you underestimate the value of wikignomes in building the encyclopedia. Without their efforts, the pedia will have many good articles of FA quality (such as the many you've worked on) but would neither have the breadth of coverage that it does have now (which is what makes it more interesting than the Britannica) nor would it have the many eyes that catch and fix small errors or inconsistencies that give the articles credibility. While article writing is important, article fixing is just as important. (As for Q6, do note that the candidate did say that this is his/her opinion and added 'there is no admin button for that'.) --Regents Park (smell my socks) 13:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I came to support (because of the good, and sometimes excellent, comments by SoWhy in various places around en.wp) but that userbox may be a divisive issue, which may represent more than what it says at face value. Caulde15:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the fuss about it seems to take its toll but what happened, stays happened. As I said before, I'd remove it if there was a policy against that but currently I think JimMiller put it best in his support: By displaying the userbox I do not only disclose my point of view but I make sure that everyone knows about it and my motives would become clear immediately if I were ever to decide to push some anti-religious agenda. As I said on this RfA's talk page, I think this RfA should not be about the userbox but if people think it is a "divisive issue" as you put it, it needs to be discussed with the community.
That being said, I am happy to see that you have returned to the project and I have to thank you again. Your words at my editor review is part of why I accepted this nomination for adminship. Regards SoWhy15:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too, am glad. I do agree it helps to an extent that the disclosure of views such as this, is to be benificial overall; since then, if any situation were to arise (which I likely doubt), the potential conflict of interest is discernible. Nevertheless, until that time, the PR management of such a userbox is in poor taste; I am sure you understand my rationale (its similar to East718's in the oppose section) and understand it forms only part of a neutral. I will not find myself in oppose, unless something more significant is to be brought up in discussion, which, as before, I doubt. Caulde16:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
My opinion of this candidate is not something that can be sorted comfortably into simple "support" or "oppose" categories. Although I believe this user has a tremendous amount to offer this project, I have a number of issues with this him; firstly, he is a tremendously active new page patroller. I believe he may be slightly over zealous, bitey even, and his answer to question 4, Well, they cannot do any damage on the technical level. All deletions can be reviewed and reverted after all. But on a personal level, they can lead to be look BITEy to the page creator. It might scare away potential good editors and I personally think that in doubt it should be avoided and PROD or AfD used instead. does not give me confidence. Speedy deletions are exceptionally bitey, and while they can be reverted, they rarely are, and most new users who have pages speedily deleted will not understand the immense bureaucracy required to have the deletion reverted.
Secondly, his choices in userboxes are not what I would call pacifist. I think the problem with the "thinks world would be better without religion" userbox is that most religious will interpret "the world would be a better place without religions" as "the world would be a better place without you". His userboxes with political opinions, advocacy of certain philosophical and political systems etc will also cause conflict. Personally I believe in the separation of real life and wiki, and so have no non-wikipedia related userboxes, and I advise the candidate to do likewise if he wishes to change the opinions of these opposers. It looks like this is going to pass anyway, but I still strongly recommend the candidate, and anyone who has userboxes that are to do with real life, to remove them. They state your opinion, which causes debate, which eventually leads to argument, incivility, ad homonym, and finally much drama on a noticeboard. Userboxes are just a pain IMO.
Thirdly, his views on copyright, fair use and wikipedia are "unsatisfactory" in an admin to be polite. Wikipedia is free in all meanings of the word, meaning we are free for anyone to use without copyright restrictions. Having fair use images restricts the freedom of this site, as readers cannot use these images the way they would use our articles. Copyright violations should also be speedily deleted, not only because of the repercussions of allowing them, but because they cannot be freely used by our readers to "spread the knowledge"
I absolutely agree with his views on notability, and his answer to question 6: wiki is not paper, and we can allow much more content in than other encyclopedias, though I do think we have to draw the line somewhere. I also strongly agree with his answer to Q7, there is not much wrong with process here on wikipedia, there are problems with users. He is right when he says that established users acting destructively are many times more damaging than the thousands of vandals we get every day.
His answer to question 9 is particularly relevant to this RFA, people are opposing based on real life things, though as I said above, I strongly advocate the separation of real life and wiki, I don't think anybody is entitled to userboxes that have statements to do with real life.
His answers to Asenine's questions were rather interesting. I agree with his answer to Q14, I have seen a scenario identical to this occur on a rather controversial page, and consensus won in the end after many references to WP:IAR, which was really irrelevant as what they were doing wasn't improving wikipedia. His huge amount of work with new users, in adoption and the like, gives me confidence in him, he will help new users and answer all inquirers. I would like to see some evidence of him taking insults well however. I am quite uncomfortable with non-writer admins, so I suggest he does some work in that area, even if it is only 1 GA.
His answer to question 9 is particularly relevant to this RFA, people are opposing based on real life things, though as I said above, I strongly advocate the separation of real life and wiki, I don't think anybody is entitled to userboxes that have statements to do with real life.
Finally, his answer to JulianColton's question wasn't exactly what I was looking for. Rather than closing as no consensus, which defaults to keep, I would relist to help generate more comments. As an aside, I am confused as to how he can hold such views on notability and yet be a rather prolific speedy deleter.--Serviam(talk)19:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just answer to some of those concerns because I fear there might be some misunderstandings:
I know speedies can be BITEy, that's why I said they should be avoided if there is some doubt about them. I just wanted to discern technical and personal effects of speedy deletions.
I chose my userboxes to show everyone what I think and as JimMiller pointed out above, I also think that those serve to disclose what I think and show it to everyone, i.e. putting my cards on the table. I think there was a war about that in 2006, as MailerDiablo points out on the talk page. I am sure he can fill you in on the details what happened back then.
My views on copyright are my own. That's what I always thought. But as I pointed out in Q6, it's the law and (being a law student after all!) I will of course adhere the law to the letter. Like my political or philosophical standpoints, that is nothing I'd ever let influence my work here, as an editor or, if it passes, as an admin.
As for the answer to JulianColton's question, you are correct of course. I understood it that there was much discussion on that AfD so that relisting would not have brought any more users to it by all reasonable expectations. After all, you cannot relist forever if there is no consensus, in the end you have to face that outcome one day. Of course, if there were only few comments which are not enough to show real consensus, I'd relist it.
The problem with your user box, isn't that it shows everyone what you think, but rather that you are taking making a political commentary in a manner that puts people who disagree with you down. I have user boxes on my page showing my political and religious affiliation for that exact reason, I have no problem with that. It would be a different thing if I had a user box that said, "People who believe X are Y" or "If you support X then you are part of the problem." Saying that you are an athiest or even proud to be an athiest is one thing, it's when you put down those who don't share your belief system that it creates an issue. Your user box blames people who hold a different view than you on the worlds problems. Do you understand the nuiance there?---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon21:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't. I am sorry. I think the userbox says "X is the reason for the problems" not "People who believe in X are the problems". I have seen many userboxes like "this user is against communism" or "this user is against fascism" or suchlike. They do not imply that the user in question automatically is against all communists or all fascists. I at least never ever thought this could be seen the way it is seen here. As I wrote multiple times now, I cannot quite understand why none of the users who see it that way, have told me on my talk page or filed a MFD for the userbox. But I also think that this shows that there should be some discussion about it. Because every user box that is against a certain point of view can be seen as an attack on those who hold that particular point of view.
But while I stay with my viewpoint, I agree that it could sound a little like the way you described. I decided to replace it with User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Lennonist which says the same thing in a way but is hopefully less open to misinterpretation. I do not hope to win over opposers with that but maybe it can avoid more drama here. Regards SoWhy22:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, really torn here. I've seen SoWhy around a lot and have no doubt from a contributions perspective they'd make a great admin. However, userboxes are a contribution to the project, and the RfA process is all about examining and questioning users' prior contributions to the project. I think their content should be fair game here (which could be good or bad), and the divisiveness issues on religion do resonate with me. Further, I hate to invoke this, but the userbox layout raises WP:NOTMYSPACE issues in IE6 - the page looks fine in IE7, but in 6 the boxes overlap and render the page graphics soup, which would make the candidate difficult to take seriously as someone charged with helping keep the project tidy. Townlake (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Switch to support.[reply]
Hmm...well, I changed the userbox, see above, but I am more concerned with the user page issues you talk about. I never tried it in IE6 actually but it's valid CSS and tables and should display correctly. Hmm...very strange, indeed. As for your WP:NOTMYSPACE concerns, I just used those userboxes to avoid having to write it down (I got a homepage and a blog already so I don't need my userpage as a webspace). But you are correct, it looks weird in IE6 and with resolutions below 1280x1024 (I got 1600x1200 so I don't notice such things usually). I will have a look at it and think of a way to rebuild it to avoid such problems. Thanks for that SoWhy16:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've enjoyed our Talk page discussion on this, and I'm pleased with how quickly you sought to address the concern. Leaning Support at this point. Townlake (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral t'wards Support Gahh, indecision. I'm really caught. His answer to Asenine was remarkable, but the rest of his questions weren't particularly spectacular. I have seen SoWhy do some truly great things, but I'm not sure that the buttons are right for him. I haven't seen him that much in admin-areas (but then again, I didn't dive in and look, nor am I myself particularly active in admin-y areas), so I'll be Switzerland for now. IceUnshattered[ t ]20:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Switching to Support![reply]
Neutral I see no evidence that the candidate will be anything but a good admin with their actions. However, the userbox is a red flag that I also object to. Someone put it well when they said "admins are the public faces of the community", and this is true. New editors, sometimes editors with contrary beliefs, will search out admins to help them. If they came across a politically divisive userbox, one which they may be offended by, it's highly unlikely that they will want to request help from the candidate. This is the only issue. I'm also concerned by the candidate's defence of the userbox, and failure to see how it could be a problem (even if it doesn't turn out to be one). Best wishes, PeterSymonds(talk)09:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.
The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.
Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert
{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}
At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.
While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.
Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.
^Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.
) —Animum (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
