Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SoWhy

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

SoWhy

Final: (123/15/8); ended 02:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. SoWhy 18:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: 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.

Questions from Pedro

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.

5. What are your criteria for granting rollback?

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.

Optional Question from User:WereSpielChequers

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. SoWhy 18:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Random, Optional Question from La Pianista ^(T•C•S)

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? :-)

Either. You could give me multiple responses, if you like. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 20:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

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.

Optional ;) Questions from User:NuclearWarfare

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. SoWhy 07:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Protonk (talk)

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.

Optional question from SchfiftyThree

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.

Question from Keegan

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).

Optional questions from  Asenine 

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)

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).

Optional question from Juliancolton (talk · contribs)

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.

Optional Question from User:Tutthoth-Ankhre

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.

Optional question from Tbsdy lives (talk · contribs)

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.

Optional question from Aqwis (talk · contribs)

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.

General comments

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

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/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 SoWhy 22:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• I find the argument that SoWhy is not interested in content to be flawed, as 59% of his edits are to the mainspace. Thoughts? Maxim_(talk) 22:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

  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)

  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. Keeper ǀ 76 01:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

  ("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)

• Comment - many lengthy discussions on both "support"s and "oppose"s have been excised to this RFA's talk page. If you wish to continue them, do so there. fish&karate 13:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Nom. --Dweller (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Co-nom. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Co-co-nuts? Erm, anyway. I have seen SoWhy getting involved in many difficult situations and certainly looks like admin potential. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
4. So why not? --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 19:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Sure. Everything I've seen has been fine. May as well. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

   Support As with WBOSITG, I've seen SoWhy around quite a bit in difficult situations, and from what I've seen, he'll do just fine with the tools. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC) changed to neutral

6. 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. Ironholds 19:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Knows guidelines extremely well, can really help as a sysop. —Sunday | Speak 19:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

   naerii 19:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

8. Support per WP:SoWTHN. The candidate is a good editor who has sufficient clue to be a good admin. No concerns. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Support I already offered to nominate him, but I'll just support now. -- how do you turn this on 19:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Support - No concerns here. Xclamation point 19:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Support good natured and evidence of pedia building. Can be trusted.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Support See no reason to oppose. LittleMountain5 ^review! 20:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Support. No worries. --Kbdank71 20:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
14. Support Seen him/her around. No worries. Seems competent, seems committed. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
15. 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. ϢereSpielChequers 20:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
16. 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)
17. Support Per well-thought-out answer to Q7. Also, seems to have the right temperament for a great admin. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 21:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
18. Support Based on the answers above, and seems sane and rational. I don't have any reason not to trust them. rootology (C)(T) 22:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
19. 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 :) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
20. Support, a helpful and rational user, I have no concerns. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 22:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
21. Support - user OK. macy 22:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
22. Support Any RfA candidate with such lame oppose !votes must be ok. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
23. 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)
24. SoWhy not? iMatthew (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
25. Support I've seen him around. Sam ^Blab 23:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
26. 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)
27. Strong Support for an editor with a record of sound and constructive contributions. Granting the tools here would to the advantage of the 'pedia. X Marx the Spot (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
28. 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)
29. Support from answers given, seems to have the right attitudes and is unlikely to go crazy. Userboxes? Pah! --Rodhullandemu 00:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
30. 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 • talk 00:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
31. Support I have seen him around the Wiki, especially on ANI. Also a trustworthy candidate. SchfiftyThree 00:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
32. Support Userbox makes this user's NPOV and otherwise great editing look that much better. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
33. 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)
34. Per bizarre, conspiracy theory opposes, oh and great editor too! — Realist² 01:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

    (content excised to talk page) fish&karate 13:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

    • Extended discussion is located here. Everyme 23:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

35. Support - Per Pedro. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
36. 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)
37. There's no Santa support. Everyme 03:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
38. 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. bibliomaniac15 03:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
39. Support No major problems. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
40. Support. Atheism shows good judgment. Oh wait, a review of the candidate's edits shows them to be competent and capable as well... RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 06:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

    Knock it off. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

    I agree. Ryan, that was pretty offensive. bibliomaniac15 21:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

    How on earth was that offensive to any reasonable person? It was rather funny, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

41. Support - his edits, judgment and clue are good. This is extrinsic from his religion (or lack thereof), and his userboxes are not causing any hesitation here. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
42. 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 Law} _{talk at me} 07:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
43. To balance out the idiotic oppose reason. John Reaves 07:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
44. 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)
45. 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)
46. Support. Per the noms. Positive contributor to the project in many varied capacities. Cirt (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
47. 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•talk 11:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
48. One Userbox War is enough. We cannot afford another one. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
49. Support No reason for concern, a net positive to the project. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
50. Support Good user so why not? ;) abf /talk to me/ 12:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
51. 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. --Nate1481 13:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
52. Support Upon review of SoWhy's contributions; seems fine. -SpuriousQ (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
53. SoWhyNot? Stifle (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
54. 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)
55. Per John Reaves. Avruch ^T 14:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
56. Support Nullifying Andrew Kelly's "vote" as illegitimate grounds.--Tznkai (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
57. 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)
58. 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 Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
59. Support Beliefs and ideals aside, SoWhy is a worthy editor. They have my full support. Jordan ^Contribs 16:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
60. Support - looks like a solid enough editor; editing and judgment surrounding it is the important thing. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
61. Support. Good contributions and good answers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
62. Support - good contributions, fine question answers, people opposing over a userbox is perhaps going too far... Ale_Jrb^talk 18:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
63. Support - I can't find a reason to oppose, he will make a fine administrator IMO. Landon1980 (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
64. Support - Good answers, good contributions, and his anti-religious stance should not make him a villain, but an individual. bigjake (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
65. 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)
66. 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)
67. 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)

    (content excised to talk page) fish&karate 13:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

68. 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) SGGH ^speak! 00:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
69. 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. Keeper ǀ 76 01:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
70. Support per Keeper76. - Icewedge (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
71. 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)
72. 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. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
73. 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)
74. Support because of the userbox.

    Imagine there's no countries
    

    It isn't hard to do
    

    Nothing to kill or die for
    

    And no religion too
    

    --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

    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 Law} _{talk at me} 06:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

    If my oppose vote is stricken then this support vote (among others) ought to be stricken as well. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 06:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

75. 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."---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

    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)

    (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 SoWhy 07:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

76. Support Good editor. Darkspots (talk) 07:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
77. Support per Andrew Kelly. Garion96 (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
78. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ is repressed but remarkably dressed 12:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
79. Suppport SoWhy aren't they an admin yet? Solid contributor. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
80. Support in hopes of balancing out some of the absurd opposes. Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
81. Support. Good editor. I read the opposers' concerns and I find them unpersuasive. AdjustShift (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
82. So Why Not ??? : Everybody has personal beliefs and opinions , but no problems as long as they don't push them into Wikipedia. I have to trust you. Does Userboxes make bad admins ? No way ! Best wishes... ( From one of the coordinators of WP:Christianity ) -- Tinu Cherian - 15:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
83. Support per Andrew Kelly indeed. HiDrNick! 16:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
84. Support Carba (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
85. Support cos I'm an inclusionist and he'll be a great admin. SpecialK(KoЯn flakes) 16:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
86. 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)

    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)

87. Support per WP:WTHN. Can't find anything to oppose. miquonranger03 (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
88. Support Seems sensible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
89. 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)
90. 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)
91. Suhhportt Ive seem him editing numerous parts of wikipedia. So, why not? II MusLiM HyBRiD II 23:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
92. 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)
93. 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. Synergy 05:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
94. Support per nom. Can't hurt to have another WikiGnome admin. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
95. Support Wha? I though SoWhy was already a admin. Silly me. Whispering 08:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
96. Support SoYes. --SkyWalker (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
97. Support - sure.   jj137 (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
98. 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)
99. Support, a good contributor. He's experienced, reasonable and his answers to the questions are very easy to agree with. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
100. WP:100 Support. Good contributor. I see where the oppose votes are coming from, but if the biases don't show up in his editing then they don't matter. Wizardman 23:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
101. Support. Good contributions — Lost^(talk) 02:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
102. Support. Good answer to my question over trivia, sounds like they will make an excellent admin. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
103. Support - looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
104. Support - looks fine to me too. — Jojo • Talk • 16:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
105. 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)
106. 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". Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 17:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
107. Support: trustworthy, found no good reasons among those who opposed. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
108. 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)
109. Support. Userbox discussion should be irrelevant, this is a worthy candidate. Dayewalker (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
110. Support Great editor , and worked on List of NCIS episodes. Winner!spider1224 22:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
111. "SoWhy" on earth not? (Hurray, 8K edits!) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 04:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
112. 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)
113. Support, would make a good and dedicated admin. --Soman (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
114. Support - excellent, trusted user who will be fine with the tools. The opposes don't concern me at all. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
115. support Has a realistic and non-dogmatic approach to policy.DGG (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
116. Support – Per the below supports. —Animum (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
117. Support Now, I am highly against atheism, but we're not electing this guy for "person-who-decides-what-religon-we-must-all-have" are we? For my actual reason for supporting, he seems honest, so he'll make a good admin. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
118. 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, talk 09:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
119. Support - I may disagree with your personal views, however I do agree that you deserve the mop. --Flewis^(talk) 12:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
120. Support -- response to lady or the tiger Question 14 revealed something about the way in which SoWhy reasons through aspects of an issue. --Tenmei (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
121. Support respect for his contributions, small or otherwise, and I like all of his answers. --Banime (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
122. Support -- no concerns, meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
123. Support I do not know you, but 110+ people vouch for you, so you have my !vote. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 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)

   Not to badger, but don't you suppose it would be better to look at the editor and his contributions, rather than his userboxes? Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

   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)

   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 SoWhy 20:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

   (further discussion excised to talk page) fish&karate 13:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

   • Extended discussion is located here. Everyme 23:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

2. 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)

   Moved discussion to talkpage. Ironholds 01:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   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 • talk 14:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   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)

   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 | Speak 20:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   • Extended discussion is located here. Everyme 23:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose I think admins should be more restrained. There are a lot of things which scream agitated to me. « D. Trebbien (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Per Keepscases and Q2. Giggy (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   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.

5. 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)

   (Lengthy discussion excised to talk page) fish&karate 13:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

   • Extended discussion is located here. Everyme 23:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

6. 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)

   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)

   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 SoWhy 17:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

7. 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)

   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. Everyme 13:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

8. 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. naerii 13:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   (Lengthy discussion moved to talk page) fish&karate 13:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

   • Extended discussion is located here. Everyme 23:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

9. 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)

   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)

   Thank you - that's what I get for deciding to rewrite my statement without proofreading it first! I've amended my comments. Karanacs (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

10. Oppose per Q2--Caspian blue (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

    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.

    Whatever, moved. —Sunday | Speak 23:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

11. 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? -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 14:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logical Premise (talk • contribs)

    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)

    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. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 18:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

    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. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 16:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

    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. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 18:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

    Those reasons make sense to me, thanks for elaborating. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 19:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

12. Oppose - limited experience, and most experience is in non-admin areas. Also pandering to the opposes over the userbox thing shows poor judgment. --T-rex 17:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose, per Q6. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC).
14. 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)
15. Oppose per Giggy. Q2. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

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.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)moving to weak support---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Neutral. I was originally going to support, but after I read the answer to question number ten, I couldn't support a candidate who is unable to be unbiased and seems to be unable to assume good faith. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 03:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   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. SoWhy 07:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   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. --Nate1481 13:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral - Will change to support after a redux on userboxes as per oppose comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   Appears to have been rectified, ya? ^{XF Law} _{talk at me} 11:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Changed to neutral per answers to the questions. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   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, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   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 SoWhy 13:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   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)

4. 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. Caulde 15:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   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 SoWhy 15:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   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. Caulde 16:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

5. 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)

   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.

   Thanks for the long and in-deep statement, I appreciate it. :-) Regards SoWhy 20:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   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?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   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 SoWhy 22:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   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.

   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 SoWhy 16:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

   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)

6. Switching from Oppose to Netural He removed the userbox, which was good, but still it should never have been there. America69 (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

   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!

7. Neutral per Giggy's oppose. I want to express my opposition to the userbox, but similarly think there ought to be better reasons to oppose than just that. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   Not trying to sway you or anything, but I changed the userbox 3 days ago. Just fyi in case you haven't noticed. :-) SoWhy 14:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

8. 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)

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.