Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fordmadoxfraud

Fordmadoxfraud

Voice your opinion (talk page) (37/10/5); Scheduled to end 05:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fordmadoxfraud (talk · contribs) - I not terribly long ago crossed the threshold of 10k edits, and recently received my first DYK (for Ephraim Kingsbury Avery), both of which I'd a while ago decided to use as arbitrary markers to nominate myself for adminship in the event I hadn't already been nominated. I'd also recently come to feel that Wikipedia is developing an atmosphere increasingly deletionist in character, emphasizing exclusion and exclusiveness, a tendency that has driven good friends of mine, good contributors, from the project (friends IRL, that is; I don't truck with using Wikipedia as a de facto social networking site), and I wanted to see more avowedly inclusionist contributors get the mop. Instead of just eyeballing the RfAs, I thought, why not me, then? Also, on a less dire level, I think diving into new WikiJobs might be fun.

I do my regular vandalism-reversion over my morning coffee, but I'm happiest writing articles, particularly on the more fringey aspects of comics, crime and classical scholarship. I spend a lot of time transferring and Wikifying articles from the public-domain Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, a project that I suspect will take up most of the rest of life, or Wikipedia's life, whichever comes first, seeing as how I'm only about 70 pages into a 3000 page encyclopedia.

I liberally assist Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, though I don't really consider myself a member of any of them. I'm just happy that my interests coincide with theirs. Ford MF (talk) 05:34, 16 May 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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I reckon I'll take it slow at first. Like everything else on Wikipedia, I'll learn by doing, and experiment until I find tasks that are both satisfying and in need of doing. WP:XFD, WP:AIV, WP:CSD. The honest truth of it is, never having admin tools before, I'm not entirely certain where I'd ultimately apply them, but have no doubt that I'd ultimately find my niche.

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

A: While articles like Chemistry or History of the United States get the press and attention and comparisons to traditional encyclopediae, I think they're a comparatively minor part of the success and beauty of Wikipedia, as they are, by and large, exactly the same thing you might be offered from, say, Brittanica. I consider Wiki to be less the hit count of its superstar articles, and more the sum of its (possibly only quasi-notable) breadth. I contribute to Wikipedia what I, as a consumer, would like to get out of Wikipedia. To that end, I'm proud of the articles I've written that I hope make readers first think "Wow, Wikipedia has an article on that?", and then, "Huh. This is a really thorough article actually." For example: Homer Van Meter, or Billy's Topless, or Calvin Demarest, or Ellis Loring Dresel, or Anna Adams Gordon. Or, in the spirit of classical obscurantism, Dyteutus. Wikipedia should be a resource that people turn to first for information on anything, and I like to think I help insure that that "anything" will be there.

Also, apropos of nothing in particular, I'm really proud of my contributions to Wikipedia via my work at Commons as User:One dead president. I think all articles should have a strong, visually distinctive lead illustration.

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 guess the most vigorous and prolonged disagreement I've had was over the Rob Liefeld article, mostly with User:B.Soto whom I hope would report an eventually successful negotiation for consensus, despite a strong disconnect with our feelings about the article. In a nutshell, there was a great deal of material in the article that I felt violated WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Loathing of Liefeld on a personal and artistic level is widespread and well documented, but mostly in (lots and lots of) non-notable websites and forums. There was some edit warring involved, and the article eventually got locked down. So I created a sub-page of the talkpage and started cobbling together a draft of a new version of the article that I thought would be agreeable to everyone involved, and invited everyone to contribute. We all eventually came to a mutually acceptable compromise, the article was unlocked, the draft made the official version, and I had the draft sub-page speedy deleted. And everyone went home happy. Or happy enough, I suppose.

Optional Question For Zginder

4 What do you consider the most important Wikipedia policy and Why?

A: I'll avoid the boring, true, rather cut and dried answer of WP:BLP (since its violation could pose a credible threat to the Foundation, both material and otherwise), and instead say Wikipedia:Verifiability, as it is probably the least subjective of the content policies, and the bedrock of notability. A strong devotion to WP:V insures that Wikipedia will both expand to encompass obscure articles and will be able to defend itself against critics who think certain subjects are just too damn silly. There's no better weapon against AfD than a well-organized series of in-line refs to good sources; paying more attention to WP:V and WP:RS could save a huge number of deleted articles. WP:V also acts as a natural valve for dubious statements, since not being able to verify a statement should give editors pause about whether or not that statement belongs in the article at all.

As mentioned below, despite my crowing for inclusionism, in AfDs I do probably vote to delete more than keep by a slight margin, a reality about which I have mixed feelings. There is an inertia to those debates. I think that even though a "no consensus" defaults to keep, AfDs slightly privilege the deletion of articles simply because it's easier to say "Delete, violates WP:RS or WP:OR" than it is to fix it, which is often hard work, and often in a subject area you care little to nothing about. If you're lucky, it's a matter of digging up sources on the internet, but often it's not, and it's easy to fall into the trap of "Well, if I can't fix this, no one can." Easy for me at least; I often have to remind myself to distinguish between content that is not yet verified from content that is unverifiable. The former is a boon to the project (not as much of a boon as actual verified content, but still), the latter an unqualified detriment.

And finally, as a comment on my incivility documented below: XfDs and vandal fighting are chores to be performed only in a good mood. You spend too much time doing them and you develop a bunker mentality wherein every IP is at least potentially malicious, and these dumb new article creators just want to sully with frivolity this project to which you devote so much time and effort. It is true that, as mentioned below, I have flown off the handle slightly in my edit summaries. Those comments are mistakes, and not, I hope it is easily demonstrated, typical of my general character as a Wikipedian.

Optional Question from DGG (talk)

5 What is your opinion of the use of 19th century sources for verifiability, both for facts and for notability ?

A: Well, I'm all for it obviously. Speaking for the subject area in which I am most at home, classical scholarship, the use of 19th century sources such as the DGRBM poses very few problems due to the general pace of the field. By the 12th century, guys like John Tzetzes had already figured out a lot of what we know now, and a little more in some cases, given their proximity to the original sources, and by the time you hit the 18th and 19th centuries with cats like Fabricius and William Smith, pretty much everything had already been written down. Discoveries both archaeological and technological do of course still occur (a lot of the changes in the field in the 20th century have been more ideological, honestly), and there is nothing about stubbing from 19th century sources that prevents 20th century updates from being overwritten to the article. I do feel very strongly that stubs are the literal lifeblood of Wikipedia. Casual editors are far, far more likely to improve an article they see as deficient, or too short, or expanded upon by recent scholarship, than they are to start it from scratch.

But anyway, that's classics. Extrapolating, I think you have to take it field by field. Mathematics would work fine with older sources (a proof is a proof, no matter the century in which it originated), the natural sciences slightly less so. But anyway, all information cited on Wikipedia should be modified if it is superceded by clearer, more modern, more factual, more verified information. Older sources are no different in this respect.

As far as notability goes, I think august resources like the DGRBM, or DGRA, or DGRG (among others; those are just my favorites), coming from an era ruled by the credo "filter, then publish" (because "publish, then filter" was not technologically possible), have already done the work for us, for which we should be thankful. There is little, if anything, contained therein about which you could definitively say "No one, no classics scholar even, would ever need to look this up." And even if you were to say such a thing, I don't think the straight number of look-ups (or lack thereof) is a necessary, or even good, signifier for an article's value to the project. Generally, when you talk to people about how they use Wikipedia, they say they come here to look for one thing, one obvious thing, and then wind up surfing for a great deal of time afterwards, being edified by wherever the links take them, often to a great many articles that previously would have been so far beneath their notice as to be virtually subterranean.

Also, it's pretty easy to demonstrate notability in most classical history articles, as most things have been of interest to one person or another, this scholar or that, for millennia. You just have to dig up the verifiable sources to prove it. Worst case scenario that means a trip to the library.

Optional Question from RedThunder

6 What are the reasons that you deserve to be trusted as an administrator?

A: This one threw me for a loop. Why do I deserve to be trusted? I'm almost afraid that anything I say on this subject will poison me by default, but if I were to enumerate the reasons: I have no history of edit warring that wasn't taken to the appropriate forum when the time came. I have never abused any of the tools available to me now, as a regular editor, so there's no reason to suppose I would wax irrational with the extra buttons available to me as an admin. I have never voted to keep an article merely because keeping articles was a virtue in and of itself; I give the high sign for deletion, I think, rather frequently. I have no history of abuse or incivility outside some quite rare cranky edit summaries made likely because I had had no coffee yet. The vandals I've brought to AIV have been sound and reasonable candidates for blocking, based on persistence of vandalism and resistance to warnings, and I have offered no reason to cause anyone to think I would block maliciously. Likewise the usernames brought to UAA.

In short, I do a consistently good job, and I get along with most folks, even when being provoked.

And regarding the WP:BLP concerns voiced, all I can say is that I am aware something like celebrity sex tape is a dicey area, but I don't have any kind of record of WP:BLP problems or violations at all. And I think my history of keeping genuine BLP violations out of the article speaks for itself ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]).

It is true I argued strongly for the article's retention when it was nominated for deletion, on the grounds that it did not violate BLP, but I was far from alone. The debate closed as "no consensus" rather than "keep", but more one admin put forth arguments not dissimilar from my own, and apparently did not feel BLP was being too rudely manhandled (e.g. User:Kubigula, User:Jengod, User:Jayvdb, User:JodyB--not to drag their names into my RfA or anything; we might have agreed on one issue in whole or in part, but I am in no way saying any of these editors are or were in support of me). There were, of course, admins who disagreed with me as well. I'm just saying that this is clearly a case on which reasonable people can disagree.

While this was ongoing, I also went to the talkpage to engage my fellow editors and discuss which entries on the list, and what citations, specifically, were problematic. None took me up on it (beyond broad arguments for whole-article deletion that had yielded no consensus), and certainly not the nominator. At the very least, BLP did not apply to all, as not everyone on the list was alive (Marilyn Monroe, I am told, is quite dead). I think the most problematic thing was that one of the sections was titled (perhaps misleadingly) "Rumored sex tapes", as it was more a section on debunking old chestnuts, cases where the subject herself (e.g. Streisand) had addressed in reliably sourced interviews the existence of the tape and dismissed it as a hoax, and cases widely reported on, but in which the putative subject denies it is her (tho Reuters and CNN still feel cool dropping her name in the article).

I confess that I do believe that reporting prevalent butfalse information as such, or reporting a living person's rebuttal of persistent rumor, is as important as reporting positive factual information. Kevin Spacey's article neutrally reports the persistent rumors of his homosexuality, Marilyn Monroe's reports the sex-tape hoaxes (that is to say, things she has not done), Abe Vigoda's that he is not in fact dead (yet), &c.

General comments

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

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support. You weren't kidding about crossing the 10,000 edit threshold "not terribly long ago", you have 10,020 edits. Doesn't do quite as much communicating with other editors as I'd like, but at least he does it manually instead of using Twinkle. Has 40 reports to AIV. He's been around a long time, so I don't think experience is an issue. Does some manual article work as well as automated vandalism reversion for over 6000 mainspace contribs. Excellent candidate from what I've seen. I didn't like this edit summary, but it was the only one I could find like that. Actually, no I found another one here. Please try to remain coolheaded in edit summaries. Useight (talk) 06:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

   re:10k edits. I wasn't sure which number was was the reliable one. Kate's tool says 10,020. The number of edits listed on my preferences page, however, is 10,615. Ford MF (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

   The one in your preferences is a server count that includes your deleted edits. The one for Interiots tool is a "scrape" gained from your contributions. Also, just a heads up, but when replying to comments on a bulleted list you need to use #: and not just a colon. Ta! Pedro :  Chat  06:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

   Duly noted. Thanks! Ford MF (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

2. Support. Clear evidence of 'pedia building. I have no problems with more careful consideration of content rather than outright dismissal of it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)msub
3. Support Outstanding! Here is a true contributor to the encyclopedia with 2 years experience and 10,000 edits. We are incredibly fortunate to have him as part of the project and also willing to be an admin. The criticism below of his honesty about inclusion seems unwarranted. I too am concerned about irrational exclusion, but this is not to say that those of us with such a concern are advocating an open-door to junk. Good luck! --Kevin Murray (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Weak Support Was originally neutral, see below. I've since reviewed the candidate's action in a load of deletion debates, and I'm satisfied that the inclusionism thing isn't a problem: keep votes all seem to be intelligently thought out, and there are plenty of delete votes where that's the sensible course of action. Article building seems impressive. Still slightly concerned by the civility / AGF concerns mentioned by Collectonian below. Checking through his talk page edits I believe they're the exception rather than the rule, but It'd be easier to feel sure about that if such a high proportion weren't just templates (hence my 'weak' support). On the whole though, looks good. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Support His inclusionism doesn't seem too extreme, as he does often argue to delete articles. I think he can be trusted to remain neutral when closing AfDs. His comments are sometimes prickly, but not too bad. Epbr123 (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
6. Support -- per my love for manuals! Manual reverting shows time and effort being put into the 'paedia! Good luck! --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. I'm not worried about the inclusionism one bit. Keep up the good work! Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
8. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
9. Support- hard working (monotonous writing, manual editing) and a good writer. Intelligent and trustworthy. The whole inclusionist thing doesn't bother me, apart from worrying me a little that people are so concerned about it. J Milburn (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
10. Support Good balance between the areas of contribution. No concerns about misuse of the mop and bonus points for self-nom given the auto-opposes that come with it. --Gwguffey (talk)
11. Support per Kurt (No, I'm not picking on him.) Kurt seems to be saying that user would do fine, except for being a self nom. (I've already beaten that dead horse today, and my arm is sore.) Candidate seems to have the requisite knowledge, understanding, and experience to not abuse the tools. User has a concern that we are sometimes overzealous in deletion. That's true. Sometimes we go too far the other way as well. That's neither here nor there. Net positive. Dlohcierekim 15:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
12. Support excellent editor, has plenty of experience and cares about content writing. I have no concern at all. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
13. naerii - talk 15:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
14. Strong Support The answer to Q2 is bar none the best answer to that question I've ever read at any RfA. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
15. Support a self-nom is prima facie evidence of a willingness to work. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
16. Support – I chuckled to myself when I read the Support and Oppose opinions! What one individual views as a negative, and states that as the reasoning for opposing, another editor may view as a plus. Me, being one such editor. Over 10,000 edits – reviewing all of your talk page, no sign of incivility, even when confronted by a hostile editor – a user since 2006 with a consistent edit count. I trust you with the extra buttons. In fact, I view it that if you do make a mistake, it will be on the side of caution and inclusion rather than recklessness and deletion. Good luck to you. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    Well said. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 17:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

17. I assume people who have been around a while should get the extra editing tools unless they have shown themselves to be untrustworthy or liable to create friction or problems. I look for reasons NOT to support a candidate rather than reasons TO support. I was a little concerned by some of the civility difs shown below, and then a little more concerned at lack of evidence of consensus building through negotiation and talk in talk pages - the bulk of FMF's communication has been warnings to IP vandals. But these are not solid reasons not to give someone the tools. The civility comments are very minor and I'm sure FMF is going to take on board what people are saying about those. And there is evidence of some discussion and debate on a few talk pages, plus FMF appears aware enough of the need to let people know what he is thinking, and giving people warnings, not to fear that FMF will act first and explain afterwards. Support. SilkTork *^YES! 17:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
18. Moderate support. I would like to see more experience, but this editor seems to show promise.--Filll (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
19. Support per the strong answers to the questions and my belief he will not abuse the tools. Davewild (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
20. Support User seems mature and was able to give us insight into their thought process on some complex issues and although I might not agree with all of it, diversity is rarely bad. and per WP:AGF and the fact they used the word "reckon" in their answer to question 1. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
21. Hurrah After reading the thoughtful answers to questions, I'm sure this user will not abuse the tools. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
22. Support. I've weighed this out, and cannot bring myself to do anything but support. You have a logic based, and well written, way about you, which is the best we can hope for in a typing world. Useight's edit summaries worried me at first The edit summaries that Useight pointed out worried me at first. Your response above is spot on. My only advice, whether you get the extra tools or not, but especially if you do get the extra tools, is take it easy on the edit summaries. No need for all caps, EVER! Once you are the one that starts deleting things in the speedy cat, and once you are the one that closes a debate as delete, your talkpage will most certainly and directly become rather ridiculous. Respond nicely, directly, honestly, and completely. Follow up. And most importantly, don't stop being an article builder. Oh, and don't use all caps. All my rambling to say, as a total picture, I trust you with the mop. Best of luck. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    Keeper, could you please reword "Useight's edit summaries worried me at first"? It sounds as if I was the one who made the worrying edit summaries instead of the one who pointed out the worrying edit summaries. Thanks. Useight (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    Heh, sorry Useight, that's obviously not what I meant, but I can see that's exactly how it reads. I meant of course, Fordmadoxfraud's edit summaries, that Useight, above at Support #1, happened to point out. Sorry 'bout that. Fixed above. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

23. Support per Keeper.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 20:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
24. Support For a great response to my question. Zginder 2008-05-16T20:30Z (UTC)
25. Support. I've looked at both sides of this, and I see no conflict with my criteria. Good luck. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
26. Support support support. Strange to me that being up front about philosophical bias (Inclusionism) would count as a strike, also that self-nom would necessarily be seen as power hunger-- haven't you ever looked at a situation & gone "gosh, I wish I had the tools required to fix this." Not only does FMF labor on things like ancient greek what-nots, he also participates in the debate on more controversial articles-- I for one want admins who pay attention to the nooks as well as the peaks. --mordicai. (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
27. Tentative support - Would probably be beneficial, however I feel that this user will allow their inclusionist philosophy get in the way of closing XfDs objectively by consensus, i.e. giving undue weight to openly inclusionist contributors, or disregarding certain arguments for deletion as weaker than they really are. An administrator's judgement towards closing an XfD discussion is confined to determining what consensus states, not that administrator's personal judgement towards the article's worth of inclusion. —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
28. Very weak support -- Collectonian brings up some very valid points. I do not know, however, if that is enough to justify an oppose. --Sharkface^T/_C 23:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
29. Support - Y₀? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
30. Support - I find the tinge of sarcasm to be prima facie evidence of an experienced editor who will continue to be a net positive while (gasp?) having a wee bit of fun. The opposes below are duly noted, but I hope we aren't setting the bar at only giving the mop to "perfect" editors.  Frank  |  talk  02:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
31. Support - enthusiastic contributor; will do the job with integrity. Vishnava (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
32. Support. Given his deletion arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlito and Santino Marella, criticizing him as an inclusionist is simply not accurate. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
33. Experience with mainspace disputes, clueful, no obvious concerns. Daniel (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
34. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
35. Not very impressed with the "Oppose, not in my political party" comments below. This isn't Congress. This is a good user, a patient encyclopedia builder, and nothing to suggest that because he said the word inclusionist he would therefore ignore consensus. The candidate even acknowledged he argues to delete as often as keep. Somewhat absurd and definitely unhealthy bipartisanship. The candidate's only mistake was not realizing that "inclusionist" sentiment (when he's talking about not biting new users) was politically incorrect. --JayHenry (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    I don't think it's a matter of differing philosophies. On the contrary, it's about having strong leanings to pseudo wiki-ideology that is causing people to be wary and take pause of the situation. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    The pertinent question though, Wisdom, is do you, and anyone else in the oppose section, honestly feel that this particular editor will close discussions based on his own philosophy, or based on consensus of whatever discussion he is closing? I don't see any evidence for the former, and I'm a bit awestruck by the opposes by anyone basing their assumptions otherwise. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    As a matter of fact, yes Keeper my friend, I do. His introduction speaks for itself. He is more or less disillusioned by the apparent pervading "deletionist" mentality. He also basically said we need more "inclusionists" who are administrators, indicating that he fits the bill. First off, I don't like splintering Wikipedians into fractions. Second, the user then goes on to explain that he will be highly active in deletion discussions. I am completely uncomfortable with such a declaration. My oppose, I am afraid, stands. I know this might be on the brink of WP:ABF, and I apologize to those who view it as such, but sometimes people do support with their gut, likewise, I am opposing based on a similar intuition that stems from the candidate's own words. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    As he notes, he argues to delete as often as keep. His offense, evidently, was mentioning inclusionism. Oh by the way, being aware if and concerned about driving off new users unnecessarily (which is what he was actually talking about when he uttered the verboten epithet) is a very important issue. --JayHenry (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

36. Support good answers, and I'm not too concerned by the Oppose arguments. Johnbod (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
37. Support No indication that this candidate will abuse the buttons, or that they don't have the breadth of experience to understand their use. I loath the username (as I quite enjoy Ford Madox Ford) but that is no reason to alter my thinking regarding the candidature. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

    Well, I certainly don't have it because I dislike the man; he's probably my favorite writer. It was a rhyming thing, I think. It's been with me so long (I used it long before I came to Wikipedia) I don't even really remember why I took this name. Ford MF (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

38. Weak Support Good answer to my question, but the issues brought up still concern me a bit. RedThunder 11:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. The opening statement does not speak well at all of the candidate's ability to be neutral in dealing with CSDs, PRODs, and AfDs. In particularly, I find it distributing that you seem to feel that people who are "deletionists" as "emphasizing exclusion and exclusiveness" and are prompted by the leavings of your real life friends and own feelings to want to support "avowedly inclusionist contributors." An administrator should be able to neutrally apply the policies and guidelines of the site, regardless of their own personal preferences, and shouldn't open their RfA by unintentionally insulting a large number of contributers in such a way. Some of the candidate's comments on their talk page and in several AfDs do not indicate the candidate has yet mastered the necessary patience and communicative skills to deal with annoying and stressful situations. For some quick examples, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity sex tape the candidate makes several seemingly snarky and sarcastic remarks in response to other people's delete/keep notes. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wikipedias, he accuses the nominator of nominating the list in bad faith with no actual evidence and in total violation of WP:AGF. Useight has already pointed out some questionable edit summaries. In all, I would like to see more evidence the candidate could be neutral and even tempered in dealing with issues, following guidelines, and applying policies. Would also like to see more useful edit summaries. He has a 100% summary rate, but many of them are 1-2 words and rather undescriptive, or auto added by the software when hitting undo. Collectonian (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

   The two examples above don't demonstrate a pattern. The second example is silly; the nominator had an edit history at the article, and that to me smacks of potential for bad faith. The first example exhibits some robust language, not ideal but not directed specifically at a user -- just venting. If this were a pattern it could be an issue. There are lots of Admins with professed deletionist views who have toned down the rhetric on being sysoped, and are great with the mop. Much made of nothing. --Kevin Murray (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose - I am in full agreement with Collectonian above. The fact that you denounce perceived deletionists and laud inclusionary behavior is odd, and somewhat concerning. The two are simply sophistic inventions by a collection of editors on Wikipedia. I dislike such fractionating, and it has no place on an encyclopedia that strives for harmony and neutrality. I feel that such a mentality might cause you to act in a disproportionate manner if granted the bit. Sorry. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 08:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose Per Collect. Major concerns. Five Years 08:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose — While this individual clearly has (or appears to have) a reasonably correct understanding of what should and should not be deleted, that is not enough to outweigh the fact that a self-nom is prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose - I wholeheartedly agree with Collectonian. asenine ^{say what?} 21:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose, although weakly. The user describes himself as being happiest writing articles, and states that he will use the admin tools slowly; based on his responsense I can't see any compelling reason for him to have the tools at all, he is perfectly free to continue to be happy writing articles without them. I wouldn't use Kurt Weber's language above, but I get the impression that the user has decided to apply for adminship based on an arbitrary edit count number and a whim. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
7. Weak Oppose, you seem to have good intentions and obviously I have no problems with inclusionists being the mop, but I'm hesitant per User:Wisdom89's comments above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC).
8. Oppose per Collectonian, and user's inclusionistic attitude leads me to believe he would substitute his personal opinion for policy in the deletion field. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Concerned this user has insufficient intolerance for mediocrity. Not necessarily bad for adminship, but analysis by Collectonian and Wisdom has persuaded me the nom is too risky. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
10. Very strong oppose - doesn't understand BLP at all. I cannot oppose an editor who thinks publishing (about) severely unflattering rumours with little press coverage about living people is acceptable (q.v. [11]). Sceptre ^(talk) 23:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    Er, I don't think it's BLP violation when Wikipedia reports what has been published by credible sources, which in this case are Daily News of New York, Time magazine, etc --PeaceNT (talk) 10:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

11. BLP issues, particularly Celebrity sex tape. Ral315 (talk) 07:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose per Wisdom89, the factional view of Wikipedia is not a helpful one to take. The BLP issues by Sceptre are somewhat disconcerting as well. Mr.Z-man 08:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I can't decide on this one... there are things I like, but there are definite concerns raised by Collect.Balloonman (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral for the moment. Looks like an accomplished editor, but the 'deletionist vs inclusionist' stuff is slightly worrying. Will try and decide after reviewing more edits. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

   Changed to support, see above. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral : as I see no oppose or support reasons -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 12:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral until I have a chance to do a more in-depth analysis of this user's contributions. The answer to question one concerns me, as regular editors can do the majority of the same things that an admin can do. For example, if you had good experience with CSD, you could specify that you wanted to focus on that, or at least try to participate in it as much as possible. To state that you don't know which areas you are experienced in leaves me on the top of the fence until I can take a closer look. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral pending answer to my question. RedThunder 15:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

4. Neutral I really did like you. But the concerns raised, well, concern me. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)