Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guest9999: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Neutral: changing decision
Line 118: Line 118:
#Per Le Grand Roi, I have reviewed those AFDs and I think your views on deletion are excessive. Taken seperately those AFDs aren't a problem, but when viewed as a whole they represent a concerning pattern.<small>'''[[User:Naerii|<font face="verdana" color="#CC0099">naerii</font>]] - [[User talk:Naerii|<font face="verdana" color="#CC0099">talk</font>]]'''</small> 14:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
#Per Le Grand Roi, I have reviewed those AFDs and I think your views on deletion are excessive. Taken seperately those AFDs aren't a problem, but when viewed as a whole they represent a concerning pattern.<small>'''[[User:Naerii|<font face="verdana" color="#CC0099">naerii</font>]] - [[User talk:Naerii|<font face="verdana" color="#CC0099">talk</font>]]'''</small> 14:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Sorry but I think an admin who gets involved in deletion should have more experience of article building so you can view AFD from the other side. Combined with the AFDs cited above I can't support at this time. [[User:Davewild|Davewild]] ([[User talk:Davewild|talk]]) 15:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Sorry but I think an admin who gets involved in deletion should have more experience of article building so you can view AFD from the other side. Combined with the AFDs cited above I can't support at this time. [[User:Davewild|Davewild]] ([[User talk:Davewild|talk]]) 15:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
#'''Weak Oppose''' per Le Grand Roi and others. I would not feel comfortable with you closing AfDs. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 16:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


=====Neutral=====
=====Neutral=====

Revision as of 16:00, 18 May 2008

Guest9999

Voice your opinion (talk page) (33/8/1); Scheduled to end 16:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Self-nomination. Account held for around 16 months, active contributor for 10 months, approaching 5600 (undeleted) edits. I think I’ve made (and learnt from) the biggest mistakes I going to make and have recently found myself editing more in areas where the tools could be of use. Guest9999 (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: One area I would I would like to work would be the closing of AfD discussions. Articles for deletion is an area I have been involved during my time on Wikipedia and whilst there have been many occasions where my opinion differed from the final outcome I think I have enough awareness and understanding of the various relevant policies and guidelines and enough experience in AfDs to be able to determine what consensus (if any) has formed. I would also like to help out with CAT:PER as I understand (from experience) how frustrating it can be to spot an uncontroversial mistake in an article and not be able to do anything about it – although I realise that this is an area where much caution is required. Additionally I would also hope to help clear backlogs for speedy and proposed deletions. Eventually I would also like to become involved in other areas where the tools could be of use such as the requested move process, requests for page protection and at the 3RR noticeboard although currently I think I might need more experience before working in those areas. I imagine if I had access to the tools I would make more contributions to WP:DRV, WP:RFA and the various administrator notice boards, as the ability to see deleted material and contributions (without having to ask another user) would make it easier to comment in some discussions, particularly those involving material that has been speedy deleted.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Whilst I am generally pleased with my overall contribution I hope my best work is still to come. So far I have not created many articles and none of those I have started have progressed past the stage of being stubs (examples: Michael Francies, 3,4-Dichlorobicyclo(3.2.1)oct-2-ene). In terms of other article content I’m proud of, there are a couple of articles that I think I helped save from deletion or get undeleted (examples: Love That Dog and Howlin' Rain). I think I'm most proud of the (few) navigational templates I’ve created including Template:Toy Story, Template:Nancy Drew, Template:John Irving and Template:Magic Circle. One particular area where I hope I contributed to a positive outcome was with Harry Potter related articles. After being part of - and causing - conflicts early in my Wikipedia "career" (see question 3 for more details) I created a list of articles on topics which I thought may not have been notable which led to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter/Notability. The outcome of which (as the list now shows) led to a mass clean up operation which has made the subject matter clearer, more cohesive and easier to navigate.
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 wouldn’t say that many areas of editing cause me stress, when I first started contributing Wikipedia on a more frequent basis I had a tendency to get over excited but I now try to keep a cool head at all times when editing. The biggest conflicts I have been in again came when I first started editing Wikipedia more regularly. I decided to propose the deletion of or add notability tags to literally hundreds of articles relating to Lord of the Rings (examples: [1], [2], [3]) as well as making two mass nominations at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bay of Andúnië and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Green Dragon). Not surprisingly (in hindsight) this attitude did not go down well with the users who spent their time creating, maintaining and improving those articles. Heated discussions with User:Carcharoth (here, here and here) and User:IronGargoyle here and here) followed by a discussion at the Administrators’ Noticeboard (here) led to me withdrawing the AfD nominations and realising that the actions I took were not appropriate to the situation – especially since WikiProject:Middle-Earth was in the middle of an ongoing clean up operation. In that situation I basically backed away and let them get on with it. At the same time I got into similar conflicts over Harry Potter related articles with the mass nomination of several articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinner's End and the individual Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spells in Harry Potter as well as a a deletion review. During this period I got far too excited and did not always act in a civil manner (for example [4]). In this instance the situation did eventually improve and after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horcrux in which I made some quite patronising comments (for example [5]), I realised that the way I was acting was not conducive to collaboration or forming a consensus. Instead I then helped start and took part in the collaborative, discussion based effort at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter/Notability mentioned above. More recently around two months ago I was involved in a minor conflict with User:Woody due to my then misunderstanding of the speedy delete criteria as they related to non free content (relevant diffs [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]). I was completely in the wrong, apologised and have since tried to fill the hole in my knowledge that was shown up. Whilst editing Wikipedia I think it is always important to remain calm and be civil and that is how I would hope to act in any conflicts I might be involved in in the future.

Optional question from Zginder

4. What do you consider the most important Wikipedia policy and why?
A: Choosing just one I think I'd have to say Wikipedia:Ignore all rules not really because of the ignoring rules bit but because I think it reinforces the idea that all actions taken whilst editing should be made in order to improve or maintain Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Trees Rock

5. How Can we trust you with the Mop.
A: I'm not exactly sure how to answer but I'd hope that through my history of contributions in various areas I have shown that I will not intentionally abuse the tools and am unlikely to accidentally misuse them. Guest9999 (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Nsk92

6. As a follow-up to your answer to Q4, have you used the IAR rule yourself and if yes, could you point to a few specific instances? If not, could you provide a few instances of the use of the IAR rule by other editors where you thought that the rule was applied appropriately?
A: The only time I can remember specifically referencing the "rule" was this request around two months ago to have a prodded article deleted two days early - it was eventually deleted as a G2 candidate. I don't know how many specific instances of using the rule I can point to, I generally think of it as an ethos by which to edit Wikipedia, I may not specifically invoke it but there will usually be a couple of times a week where I have to stop and consider whether what I'm doing is actually in the best interest of the encyclopaedia or re-evaluate a position I've held because I was delving to deep into the minutia of a policy or guideline rather than adhering to the spirit in which it was written and the community consensus behind it. As I indicated in question 4 I believe that it is not the ignoring of rules but rather the improving (and maintaining) of Wikipedia that is the core message of the policy. Guest9999 (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Guest9999 before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. Support, see no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, per User:Guest9999/Rollback, seems to take great care with his actions, realizes his mistakes, and takes steps to correct them. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 16:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support: Looks to be an excellent contributor, why the hell not? RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:43, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support. Has lots of experience with deletions, is a mainspace contributor, doesn't rely on scripts, and is civil. He has made a few mistakes, but is always apologetic and rectifies the error. Meets my criteria. Useight (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I have reviewed a large chunk of Guest999's recent AFD contributions. The candidate had added real value to every discussion they have participated and the only occasion when their recommendation did not mirror the eventual close was when fresh information came to light. This is clearly an insightful editor who does understand our inclusion criteria and who would close AFDs with maximum levels of that illusive clue. What I really like is that all the contributions demonstrated careful attention to detail and thinking through before commenting. Spartaz Humbug! 16:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Seen you around, especially at WP:WPHP. Malinaccier (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Aye Been impressed with this editor whenever I've seen them. Black Kite 17:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support For knowing what WP:IAR means!!! Zginder 2008-05-17T17:19Z (UTC)
  9. Support - Any editor that is willing to be instantaneously honest, upfront and candid with past mistakes, realize when they've made some errors and take responsibility for them has my utmost respect. I think with this attitude you will make a fine administrator. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Yup. Easy one. No qualms from me. Excellent answers to questions, including question #3 which is a toughy. Nice work, happy to support. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support -- per Wisdom89. Good luck! --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong support - Learns from mistakes, very well intentioned, everything this encylopaedia needs in an administrator. Why the hell not? asenine say what? 17:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Per Useight, good distribution of edits, i like his rollback page, seems like someone who wants to learn from mistakes, wouldnt abuse tools. Self nom doesnt bother me. See no reason to oppose. Good luck. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 18:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Definitely meets my criteria. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Support -- A particularly strong candidate for the mop. Hell, I thought he was already a sysop! --SharkfaceT/C 19:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support good answers, attitude. Honesty and frankness in recounting past errors and conflicts is most commendable. Vishnava (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - WP:WTHN if i'm honest. Very honest and open about past mistakes, plenty of good experience in admin related areas. There is simply no reason to oppose, although I can guarantee you'll get at least one.. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 19:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Mr 9999 clearly has able experience to be a great admin and I have no concerns that he'll abuse the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - Has good record with edits, the rollback page is a definate plus... but the biggest thing is that he is willing to admit and try to fix his mistakes Jsmith86 (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Self-noms usually make me a little uncomfortable, but after reading the existing commentary here and reviewing recent edits, I believe this candidate is "in it for the right reasons." Good luck! --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 20:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Very strong support User has proven exceptional ability to stand on own two feet by self nomming even though he knows he'll take flak for it, and not having to hide behind more well known editors, has demostrated ability in the mainspace, and many other areas, and his answers tot eh questions were absolutly brilliant.--Phoenix-wiki 20:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support – I’m sure that opinion caused a few heads to turn, coming from me :-). I am in full agreement with Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. I believe Guest9999 has a tendency to express his/her opinions from the deletionest side of the fence. However, every time he/she has expressed their opinion, it has been well thought out – well within policy - logical and more importantly civil. I believe that is what we are looking for inAdministrators not necessarily individuals who agree with our point of view, but individuals who will respect our point of view when it differs from their own, and will judge on all points a view. I believe we have a name for that,consensus I trust you with the tools. Good Luck.ShoesssS Talk 20:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support: I've been waiting for this one for quite a while. Good luck. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Mmm hmm MBisanz talk 21:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support A highly qualified candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support per rationale in answer to Q.4 (and lack of obvious mop wielding deficiencies) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per good AFD participation. KleenupKrew (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support I do not view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Great AFD work and nice Q4 answer. RedThunder 23:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mass nominations of articles of substatially varied quality and many instances in which the articles nominated or argued to be deleted were in fact kept is not really "good AfD participation" or "Great AFD work." And on the revserse, even the "keep" that I found was in an AfD that closed as delete. He may have been spot-on in some instances, but as indicated below, there are a considerable amount of problematic cases. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support' No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support— I would trust this user with the mop. Guest9999 seems to know his way around Wikipedia and its policies rather well and I trust he will use his admin tools responsibly and constructively, even if he is a bit of a deletionist. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 01:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  31. Support. An editor with good temperament, good contribution record, and an honest attitude. The initial answer to Q4 worried me a little bit (I would not want a user who actually applies IAR all the time become an admin) but the answer to Q6 clears out that worry. I would have also liked to see a somewhat more extensive record of the main space contributions, but in the grand scheme of things it is not a big deal. A very deserving candidate overall. Nsk92 (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Good user, trustworthy. SpencerT♦C 02:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Contributions show good knowledge of policy, and that the candidate is willing to acknowledge & correct mistakes (eg here - since nobody is perfect, that's a good quality). Additionally, candidate remains calm and points towards policy when faced with incivility (eg here). Jakew (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Very strong oppose due to overly harsh inclusion criteria and weak arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of the Phoenix (organisation), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dutch supercentenarians, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sycamore Trails Pool, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter newspapers and magazines (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spelljammer crystal spheres, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wade Load, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patronus Charm, i.e. subjective claims of "not-notable" when community consensus believes otherwise. Other arguments based on consensus-lacking Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United Kingdom locations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of volcanic eruption deaths, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bestselling novels in the United States, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spells in Harry Potter (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinner's End, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bay of Andúnië, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bay of Andúnië, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Green Dragon, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LJY-Netzer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schmuck, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Augustus Hilton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compass direction using a watch, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compass direction using a watch, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banishment in the Bible, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hate sex, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Shell (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24 Hour Propane People, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cartoon Wars, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in the Firefly universe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horcrux (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Richler, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Published alternate histories, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magical portrait (Harry Potter), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken (young gay), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Browncoat, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrial Book, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadgeek, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity (2nd Nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese people, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Marine Ltd. (Peel Engineering), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American philosophers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wooster School, etc. i.e. overly biased against lists and fiction articles as well as questionable mass nominations of articles with widely different quality from one article to another. Please note, it is not merely that I disagreed in some of these discussions, but he argued to delete all of these examples and none of them were in fact deleted. Moreover, I rarely if at all noticed instances in which the editor argued to keep. One that I did find (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Thwaites) in which he argued to keep actually closed as delete. Yes, I know that I argue to keep a lot, but there are actually dozens of times that I have nominated or argued to delete as well. Also, some seem concerned with the username. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to point out that following a discussion my username was unanimously deemed acceptable, that was in February 2007 and I haven't had any comments or complaints since then. Guest9999 (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, fair enough on that point. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, basicaly your opposing cos this guy is a deletionist and nommed a few articles you like for deletion? That's a stupid reason, I disagree with half the policies here on wikipedia and it does't affect my judgement. I'm a strong inclusionist, but I think that's a very bad oppoe.--Phoenix-wiki 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am basically opposing because he has overwhelmingly nominated and argued to delete articles a tremendous number of which were kept. It is one thing to be a deletionist, but be on the side of the argument that ultimately has consensus more often than not. These are a large number of instances in which his arguments were totally against consensus and thus if he wants to work in closing AfDs, it is a major concern for the community if what we have as evidence of his understanding of inclusion criteria is overly restrictive and counter to actual community consensus. We are not talking about a few articles "I like". MOST of those listed above were in AfDs that I did not participate in. Moreover, many of these nominations were mass nominations for articles with incredibly diverse degrees of quality and importances. Thus much of what I cited as examples were in fact unconstructive time lost that could have been better spent. It shows a lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is, i.e. a combination of genral encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. And again, even when (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Thwaites) he argued to keep, the discussion actually closed as delete. And for the record, I would not merely oppose someone, because they are a deletionist. I have argued and even nominated to delete articles as seen at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions and have even included deletionists on my list of nice Wikipedians. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposing someone for expressing a minority opinion or an opinion noone agrees with is absurd, he's allowed his opnions--Phoenix-wiki 21:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he is indeed allowed his opinion; however, it is important that admins interpret policies and guidelines in a manner that has consensus, otherwise we will be left with questionable AfD closures and likely DRVs as a result. Moreover, why would I or anyone for that matter support someone they disagree with? I would not vote for someone in an election who is on the opposite side of me on issues, nor would I think anyone else would for that matter. But in any event, the concern here is being on the opposite side of consensus BOTH in delete and keep instances and to a considerable degree. That does not mean the candidate has never done good work or that I disagree with all of his stances in AfDs. There are nevertheless enough instances of mass nominations of whole groups of articles in which the various articles mass nominated vary considerably in terms of individual notability and sources. There are also some instances in which even he as nominator withdrew, i.e. cases where instead of nominating, the candidate could have improved the article with sources first as deletion guidelines encourage. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response I was part of the AfD debate on Charles Augustus Hilton. This Admin candidate opposed my opinion on the subject. However, I saw nothing in his comments that would disqualify him for Admin consideration. If anything, he contributed to a spirited discussion and I welcomed his participation in the debate. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that these mass nominations and nominations against specific kinds of articles against consensus add up and as we have no other basis to go on regarding how the candidate will close AfDs other than looking at his arguments and nomination patterns, we need to acknowledge that so many instances of being on the opposite side of consensus is a concern as to how the AfDs will be closed based on the candidate's understanding of our policies. Having such restrictive inclusion criteria, on top of one of the few instances I could find a keep being for an AfD that closed as delete, bodes negatively on the candidate's understanding of our inclusion threshold and means that he is reasonably likely to close based on a misunderstanding of the community's actual consensus. I would be much more relieved if I saw more in the way of evidence of article building or even more frequent keep arguments in ones that did in fact close as keep to better indicate the candidate's understanding of what does in fact belong on Wikipedia, if our community really does agree on that as admittedly "encycloepdic/unencyclopedic" and "notable/non-notable" carry with them degrees of subjectivity. What is important is that we have administrators who understand and appreciate what goes into article building and are willing to respect those articles they may not personally like as their colleagues and fellow contributors who work on them typically do see encyclopedic and notable value in such articles. Understanding what it takes to build articles and defend them in AfDs allows for empathy with those contributors whom the admins may disagree with. Avoiding deletion arguments on vague or subjective "unencyclopedic" or "not notable" grounds is helpful as well as doing so demonstrates objective judgment in closing these discussions. Within the discussions themselves, it really does not matter what people argue, but the closure does matter a lot and we need clear evidence that articles will not simply be closed as delete because they happen to concern list of fiction related topics that the closer does not personally like. Unless if I have overlooked somewhere in which the candidate has closed a bunch of AfDs (and if I did, I apologize), I can only really go with what he nominated and how he argued as indicative of how he would likely close and what he hopes to accomplish with the deletion tools. In any event, I think it important that we do not risk potentially contentious closures or deletions and the editing history evidence simply gives me such concerns. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Oppose Per Answer to Q4. Trees Rock Plant A Tree 20:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, I'd consider that probably one of the better responses. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude, his answer to both your question and Q4 were absolutly brilliant, we need more admins with attitudes like that. I can't se any reason for the oppose...--Phoenix-wiki 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying there's no reason to oppose when two editors have offered reasons to oppose is somewhat insulting. Imagine if someone opposed claiming "no reason to support" when others had already offered reasons to support; doing so would insult the supporters. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a great straw man. I said I can't see any reason for the oppose as the answer to question 4 was great. so please stop trying to discredit me.--Phoenix-wiki 21:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I would hope you can refrain from calling others' opinions "stupid" or "absurd" in the future. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Never called anyone's oppose stupid in my life...--Phoenix-wiki 11:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Imagine if someone opposed claiming "no reason to support" - How crazy would that be.. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 21:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)The issue is that a person with strong deletionist tendencies may close a debate with a biased viewpoint as delete when no consensus may have been appropriate.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Srry I meant My Question (Q5) Trees Rock Plant A Tree 22:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Trees Rock... I also don't exactly understand your question. What are you asking? --SharkfaceT/C 04:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am asking how can he assure us on him being a good admin. Trees RockMyGoal 04:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then how does his answer fail? He's saying that the proof of his abilities can be found by reviewing his actions. Last I checked, actions speak louder than words. --SharkfaceT/C 04:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It Just wasn't convincing enough. Trees RockMyGoal 04:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Trees Man, but this oppose (and, indeed, your question) really troubles me. Guest's response was that he will not abuse and is unlikely to misapply the tools -- that should be everyone's first (but by no means only) criterion for adminship. But it is impossible for a candidate to back up such an assertion concisely enough to fit into an answer to a Q. It is a !voter's responsibility to do the research necessary into a candidate to decide whether or not he finds this answer credible.
    May I ask, Trees Man, what you are looking for further than what Guest provided? Your question seems to be an attempt to wrap up an entire RfA into one question, but RfA is supposed to be a discussion. So, what is it you're looking for that Guest does not provide? - Revolving Bugbear 13:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad oppose thats just your opinion. Trees Rock Plant A Tree 22:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course...that's the whole point of commenting...to voice your opinion...your oppose was alos voicing your opnion...--Phoenix-wiki 11:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/On Kurt and RfA.--Koji†Dude (C) 22:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol, I call for a policy change. From now on if someone is a self nom, we should start the counter off at (0/-1/0), that way Kurt doesnt have to bother himself with all this. ;-) --Realist2 ('Come Speak To M') 22:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    *cough* Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kmweber. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 22:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that's just walking into WP:NPA territory. You have to WP:AGF and assume he doesn't base his opinion on any sort of grudge from his ancient RfA.--Koji†Dude (C) 22:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring only to the fact that it was a self-nom. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 22:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But what does that have to do with this. Trees Rock Plant A Tree 22:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nvm I figured it out. lol. Wow. Thats very hypocritical. Trees Rock Plant A Tree 22:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been brought up countless times before. Just because you might be incapable of changing your mind over the span of nearly three years, doesn't mean you should assume everyone else is. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm linking to H2O's essay again for all of you who haven't read it. Kurt is one of the finest Wikipedians around and undeservedly gets bashed for his votes here. He's a man of principle, one who sticks by his guns. More so, he constantly contributes to the project itself, building articles and overall improving the actual pages. It's a pity his votes here have made him so contentious; his wisdom, article building, and dedication to the project (even when he's constantly berated) are qualities that are vital for Wikipedia admins. He even has a sense of humor. Shame on all of you who continually bash Kurt, a man who fights for what he believes in and is not swayed by those who dislike his personal views. --SharkfaceT/C 03:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sharkface217 has a point here. I disagree with Kurt's position and with his reasoning but you guys really need to lay off here with this "hypocricy" stuff and refocus on the substance. Criticize the argument, not the person. Nsk92 (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kurt's votes are troublesome not because he is standing up for what he believes in, but because they verge on personal attacks. Saying something like "self noms trouble me", "I do not feel comfortable with someone who wants to self nom", or "I cannot support someone who actively seeks adminship" would be fine. But to call someone "power hungry", where I come from, is a personal attack, and wrapping it in Latin doesn't change that. Kurt is more than welcome to his opinion, and no one should begrudge him the way he votes in RfAs, but he should do it civilly -- which accusing someone of power hunger is not. - Revolving Bugbear 13:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said, bugbear. I think you pretty much nailed it there. If Kurt softened the language he uses in his self-nom opposes, it would go a long way to lessening the negative reactions. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 15:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - sorry, I found dealing with all the deletionism shenanigans at AfD highly unpleasant. However I do notice you've been there less lately, which is a good thing. I can't support until I see some more article writing to get some empathy into the situation from the other side. I think that is essential in this case to make for a well-rounded admin. If you had a GA under your belt I'd happily support and will help you write one if you want whether or not this nom succeeds. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Poor article building skills. I suggest that you improve articles to at least GA status so you would appreciate articles more. I don't want you to have admin tools (specially because you will focus on Afd's) until you know how it feels like in the other side of the Afd equation.--Lenticel (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Can't support here. Experiences with this editor in the past have been negative; found him to be somewhat standoffish and hostile in the AfD of Spells in Harry Potter months ago, and the examples from Le Grand Roi demonstrate that his AfD behavior has not changed much. GlassCobra 13:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Le Grand Roi, I have reviewed those AFDs and I think your views on deletion are excessive. Taken seperately those AFDs aren't a problem, but when viewed as a whole they represent a concerning pattern.naerii - talk 14:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Sorry but I think an admin who gets involved in deletion should have more experience of article building so you can view AFD from the other side. Combined with the AFDs cited above I can't support at this time. Davewild (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak Oppose per Le Grand Roi and others. I would not feel comfortable with you closing AfDs. Wizardman 16:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral

Neutral Waiting for answer for Q4. Trees Rock Plant A Tree! 19:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I'm not entirely sure about your question. What exactly are you asking? --SharkfaceT/C 19:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was all ready to support, even strongly, but after looking at Le Grand Roi's diffs I'm going to hold back on whether I support or oppose, and I'm even leaning toward the latter. Wizardman 20:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Guest9999&oldid=213264686"