Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ali'i

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

Ali'i

FINAL (70/55/14); closed 18:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ali'i (talk · contribs) - Aloha! I am Ali'i and I would like to go through a Request for adminship, and am self-nominating because I am power-hungry. Well, only sort of. I don't really think I need administrator tools, and in fact would vow not to use them in all but the most grievous of circumstances. I never once thought I wanted to be an administrator, and think the stratification between users is generally abhorrent. I am a true believer in the fact that adminship is not that important. If this passes, great. If not, great. I'm not really bothered one way or another.

However, other people may see this differently. Lately on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship and Jimbo's talk page there has been discussion about it being a bigger deal than before. I am hoping to show that it is still not that big of a deal. I am not trying to be disruptive, as I am going through a regular process.

• For stat counters: I have roughly 3,600 edits (not sure how many deleted contributions I have made... probably not THAT many). I'm sure an administrator can get those numbers for you.
• For XfDers: I do not really participate in deletion discussions too often. An occasional Miscellany for deletion, but to be honest I can't remember the last article for deletion I commented on. (Apparently it was April 4th, but before that... it was the 22nd of October)
• For featured articlers: I can't say that I've written a complete featured article, nor contributed a piece of featured media.
• For edit summaryers: No, my usage isn't perfect, but neither is it truly relevant, in my opinion. I try.

Now to where I (probably) shoot myself in the foot:

I am not going to answer any questions that do not directly pertain to contributions I have made. I don't really play in hypotheticals, nor do I feel opposition made because of a failure to answer optional questions holds much water.

Yes, I have had a few problems and run-ins in the past, but I'll try and be open and up-front about them so you don't have to go digging:

1. I have had some run ins with Orangemarlin over a couple of issues, specifically one episode on the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed‎ article. I tried to correct some direct quotations, was reverted, and fell into a small revert war. (It was back on April 13th if you want more information.) Since then, however, I have apologized to Orangemarlin for my part in our dispute, and I think we have generally put things behind us.
2. On September 21, 2007, I told FeloniousMonk that he made a "fucking terrible call" by blocking Ferrylodge. Other less-than-pleasantries were exchanged between Odd nature, and maybe a few others regarding this. I was a (non-party) participant in the Ferrylodge arbitration that followed.
3. Probably a few more, but these are the two that stand out in my mind currently, and where I honestly expect to get good faith opposes.

As I said, I vow never to use my administrator tools in any area I have a conflict in, and can't ever see myself using the block button (except maybe following discussion on Requests for comments/usernames where I try and contribute), the full protect button, or the deletion button. I don't participate much in deletion discussions, and I don't think getting the tools will change any of that. And if I screw up, I'll be happy to relinquish my tools, because they don't really mean that much to me (which is why I won't be fighting much in the oppose section).

So to end on a more positive note, I do help the encyclopedia. That's the point. I have tried to do image work that no one else seems to really want to do. I am proud of many of my contributions. Any time you see a "-1" in my edit summaries, that is where I removed material that could not be sourced, or, and more likely, added a source to a Biography of a Living Person (Shameless Plug/Desperate Plea) that was tagged with {{fact}} or some other template requiring references. I tried to build Wildlife of Brazil, almost completely built List of United States Representatives from Hawaii, helped some other US politics and Hawaiʻi-related articles, and have tried to work in other areas to combat a systematic bias. I have tried to revert vandalism when I see it, and help discussion between editors butting heads. I have tried to "get around". Really anything you need to see is located in my contribs (or maybe the wikidashboard). Well, I guess I'm ready for the beat down which is associated with a request for adminship. Mahalo nui loa (thank you very much). Have at it. --Ali'i 17:02, 12 June 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: None, to be honest.

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

A: See nomination.

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: See nomination.

Additional optional question from PouponOnToast:

4. You are currently engaging in a series of extended dispute resolutions regarding a group of editors who have edited articles on Intelligent Design. You have been openly critical of omnibus RFC's in that process. Why? What alternative do you think would work? Why? What have you done to resolve the dispute?

A. I'll actually answer this one since it's based on something I've actually (sort of) said. I am not necessarily critical of all omnibus requests for comments, just that one in particular. I don't have have better answer to what should be done, but I know as it currently stands, it's not going to do much help. For other editor's information, the request for comment in question is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Intelligent Design‎. --Ali'i 17:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Keepscases:

5. Have any of your contributions been made while under the influence of alcohol or drugs?

A. While I enjoy a libation every now and then, I can't say that I've ever edited while drinking. (Sorry?) --Ali'i 17:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you are of Legal drinking age, you should try it some time. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Dusti please do not remove this question

6. What is the difference between a block and a ban? What is a cooldown block and when should it be used? These questions are to show your knowledge of admin related tasks.

A. Wikipedia:Blocking policy. --Ali'i 17:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from xenocidic

7. You say you won't use the tools except in all but the most grievous of circumstances. Could you describe one of these circumstances, or perhaps explain why a simple report to WP:AN/I wouldn't work just as well?

A. Good question... a hypothetical... but still one I should probably answer. And hopefully put to rest some concerns of others here as well... hopefully you don't mind my using your question as a launching point. This is a serious request for adminship, and not some exercise in soapboxing/point-making. Some situations I can see me using the tools: Perhaps blocking a name following discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. Maybe if there was a user putting phalluses all over the place, I'd block them too. If personal info was being inserted into a page I was editing, I would delete the versions with the info so it could be oversighted. But I don't ever see myself getting to the point where I disregard the incidents noticeboard. For those such as Dusti saying they don't know how I view/understand things, I can only assume they haven't actually looked at my noticeboard contibutions, nor my username request for comment edits, etc. I do understand policy, but I don't feel it necessary to copy-paste from various policy pages to somehow "prove" that I do. Would this request be going smoother if I did that? Perhaps. But that's not me. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Question from Dlohcierekim -- answer if you please. I suspect I will like the answer.

8. What is your opinion of this essay ? Is it something you can agree with?

A.

Optional question from SheffieldSteel

9. Just so we're all clear on this: Do you want to be an administrator, and if so, why?

A. Yes. To help the encyclopedia. Do I intend to use the extra buttons, no. Would they come in handy if I ever did need them, yes. --Ali'i 13:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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

• Links for Ali'i: Ali'i (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/Ali'i before commenting.

Discussion

• For some reason, your deleted contributions are being counted. I think its probably the apostrophe :) Rudget (Help?) 17:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• I'm starting to wonder about this user, no admin work and one of my questions pertaining to adminship work was removed. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 17:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the candidate indicated above that those sort of questions wouldn't be answered. That Ali'i doesn't want to help out at particular noticeboards or do other regularized admin work isn't necessarily a problem. It doesn't mean that he won't ever do admin work - just none planned at the moment. The question in this process is generally whether we trust someone enough to give them the tools, and how often they will actually use them is sort of irrelevant to that question. Avruch^T * ^ER 17:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: I wasn't the one who removed the questions. Although at this point I can't see myself answering them. I see they've been re-added though, so hopefully that assuages anything on that point. --Ali'i 17:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, but knowledge in admin related areas is desired. How can you completley trust someone with the tools if they don't know how to use them or how to appropriatley use them? By answering the question, it shows knowledge/understanding in the area. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 17:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, when you think about it, there's really only restrictions in the real world against buying guns. Pretty much everyone is allowed to buy tools, so long as they don't ask the clerk to show them "where I might find hammers, so that I can bludgeon that man outside your store". :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's pretty clear this is more a policy discussion rather than an RFA. Support and you're saying RFA is no big deal, oppose and you're saying it is...--Phoenix-wiki 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm opposing, somewhat under the premise that being an admin is no big deal. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Disagree, I feel this more of a discussion over can we trust Ali'i with the tools and does he/she know how/why/when to use them. How much knowledge do you have of the policy and can you make decisions that follow policy? Granted I agree with NBD, but you have to be cautious when handing out the tools, and I'm not so sure that Ali'i is ready for the tools quite yet, due to lack of participation in admin related areas, and the answer to my question abve. As far as your last statement, then everyone should support every RFA. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 18:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Nope, many peope think adminship is a big deal, and there's nothing wrong with that. You're the only opposer so far I feel has really taken into account the candidate, leaving out all the RFA stuff.--Phoenix-wiki 18:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I just think that RFA should be about the canidate and his/her strenghts and weaknesses, not about everything else. I don't make a criteria sheet for RFA, I think "Ok, if he/she were the only admin avaliable, would I be able to trust him/her to do the right thing correctly?" Dusti^{complain/compliment} 18:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• I hope the closing bureaucrat takes into account the fact that just one of the opposes actually shows any evidence the candidate might not make a good admin (Kralizec!'s oppose). Most of the rest are frivolous complaints about the nomination which is really irrelevant to the decision we're making here. Al Tally ^talk 02:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Surely nobody really believes that this – or any other RfA – isn't a vote, however frivolous you or I may believe the opposes to be? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• S-s-s-seriously? Are you serious? --Rory096 02:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am serious actually. Why do you ask? How many candidates have you seen pass with less than 70% support, or fail with more than 80% support? Let's just cut all that bollox about "quality of argument" right out of the equation; it just doesn't happen. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's admittedly exceedingly rare, but so is the vast majority of opposes being completely baseless and irrelevant to the actual process of determining whether or not the candidate would abuse or misuse adminship. Mind you, it does still happen occasionally. Carnildo 3, Danny and Krimpet come to mind. --Rory096 02:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I can think of only one, which passed at 63% support. Can you spot the difference between that RfA and this one? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm kind of starting to wonder if people are actually reading what I have written. I strive to assume good faith, but how people can turn, "This is a serious request for adminship, and not some exercise in soapboxing/point-making." into, to paraphrase, "zOMG, he's making a Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. How dare he?" is beyond me. Yes, I wrote, "I am hoping to show that it is still not that big of a deal." But perhaps I should have written, "I am hoping to become an administrator AND show that it is still not that big of a deal." (I kind of figured that the first part was implied.) Alas, I can't really see this request passing at this point. Maybe I should have just gone through admin coaching, copy-pasted cookie cutter responses and tried and obscure who I really am. I was kind of expecting a bunch of opposes, but not in the same form as I am currently receiving. Although I can't see this passing, I still hold out hope and will not withdraw (not that I'm making too many friends with this current post <wink>). Mahalo to all. --Ali'i 17:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I read it, a few times. Reading other opposes, it looks pretty clear that they read it too. Some editors think we should hold very little weight in the actual way a candidate goes about handling their own RfA. Others, like myself, believe that for many candidates it is the first time they are really in the spotlight and being evaluated under pressure. Hence, it becomes a great tool to evaluate certain very important qualities of adminship. I don't expect you to agree with all(or any) of the opposes, but I do hope you can understand the reasoning behind them. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Pressure? Asking for a couple of extra buttons is not pressure. It's not as if not getting the tools will mean anything. I don't get kicked off Wikipedia, do I? ;-) I understand the opposers, I just don't think they "get me" the way I had hoped. ʻAʻole pilikia. --Ali'i 17:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Asking for a couple extra buttons" doesn't sum up what RfA has become. Ask virtually any candidate whether they felt to be under pressure/stressed out (especially some of the more prolific ones), and I'm quite sure they will say yes. Also, most of the time, we can't even kick off the worst contributors... an editor of your quality I hope would never be in danger of being kicked. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Not only can we not kick off the worst contributors, but we can't create a reasonable process to allow people who haven't broken anything to have tools they may or may not ever use. You just have to take a laid back approach and appreciate that it is entirely possible to fail an RfA if a couple of people decide they don't like your signature. C'est le wikivie. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Whatever happens, Ali'i, you should be glad you can still contribute as a non-admin. RfA is far too orienteted towards those whose lives revolve around adminship and who're gonna crash, burn, and leave if they can't have teh toolz. You won't, becuase you don't need them. Keep it up. giggy _(:O) 03:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Consistently performs well, shows great judgement particularly in the areas I've seen him. Rudget (Help?) 17:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   I would, however, ask the candidate to down the humour in the nomination statement, otherwise he runs the risk of being opposed. Rudget (Help?) 17:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   If I'm opposed, I'm opposed. I'm not going to cry over it. And who says I am even trying to be funny? :-) --Ali'i 17:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   well this edit summary had me doubting the seriousness of this effort. Dlohcierekim 19:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Delete User obviously has an excess of humor. (Where'd I leave that trout). Dlohcierekim 17:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Assuming this is legit, and the avant garde approach to RFA has my eyes spinning counter clockwise, Weak support based on found no reason not to and candidate has sufficient time and experience to use the tools. Assuming he will. I can't oppose based on the "no use for the tools" argument-- don't believe in it. If this is a bad joke for the sake of a WP:POINT, well, I'm still looking for that trout. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

3. Support. No big deal, and I like your honesty in the nomination. --Kbdank71 17:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Support This should clear up Malleus Fatuorum's question Hiberniantears (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Support (switched from Neutral), but I strongly urge the candidate that, however not-a-big-deal he believes the tools to be, his use of them can indeed end up being a very, very big deal. Tread lightly. Having the tools isn't as important as having the trust of the community, and I think Ali'i has that trust, so I can't not support his request. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Yup. Seen you around, always pleasant and civil and informed. Good at mediating issues between editors. Won't abuse the tools, and you say directly that you'll give them up if you do. That shows that you trust the community, which means I for one trust you right back. You answer to Optional question number 6 was the perfect answer by the way. Shows you know where to get help when you need an answer. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Seen him around for a while. Does good work editwise. Seems helpful, polite and friendly. Has a deft touch, more or less. Gets the wiki way. Unlikely to blow up the wiki. Adminship is no big deal. No compelling reason to oppose. ==> Support ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Trust him. Admire his honesty, although not so much the pointyness... But in real life, sorry, in real editing, his actions seem near flawless. When he would use the tools, I'm sure it would be only good calls. Merzul (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Changing this to a wholehearted support based on the excellent answer to Q7. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Support Why not? He seems trustworthy and generally a sane person who wouldn't make awful calls. Agree with Keeper76 and Lar. --Tombomp (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Support Per OrangeMarlin. Ability to bridge gap is key. Will support or oppse. Reviewing users contributions to recent dispute resolution now. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Support I believe she really cares about the project and won't abuse the position. BradV 19:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Support - no trason not to. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Weak support per the answer to Q7. It is weak because, while the candidate has vehemently denied this, I can't help but get the feeling that they are requesting the tools as some kind of validation of their efforts. xenocidic (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Support. Doh! What was I doing opposing? Luckily I managed to find my thinking head. Every editor should have the tools, whether he or she intends to use them or not. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    Educate me, Malleus. Admins have accidentally locked up the servers for 30 minutes in the past; is there no longer any possibility of damage to Wikipedia by a "rouge" admin, or by someone who gets access to an admin's computer? Have Wikipedia's admin-tool-vulnerabilities been fixed? I'm happy to say that I trust this editor, but won't we create problems for ourselves if we set a precedent of saying that people can come to RfA, say that the amount of admin work they plan on doing is "none", and expect a mop? If there is no expectation that someone will act like an admin, then what do we do about the next hundred people who apply to WP:RfA without any real intention of doing the work that goes along with getting the tools? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    P.S. Please don't hear the wrong thing from "educate me", guys, I have great respect for Malleus. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    butting in What exactly constitutes "acting like an admin"? Aside from simply being responsible, I don't see what else to go with. As an admin myself, I honestly have no idea what actions I can take to lock up the servers... accidentally or otherwise (although I am now curious to get to the botton of that gap in knowledge), and I don't think that makes me a threat to the project. It seems like the worst thing this editor has done is censor an attack on another editor, which is less an irresponsible act, than a polite one. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    This is almost certainly the wrong place for this discussion, and I wouldn't dream of trying to educate you in any case. Locking up servers is something that anyone with a bit of technical nouse could do, no need for admin tools to do that. My basic position is that every editor should have access to the tools (perhaps with a few exceptions like the block button), to be taken away as soon as they're abused. But as I say, this is probably not the place for that discussion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    Dan, are you concerned with Ali'i being a rouge admin or a rogue admin? I was not aware of Ali'i being approved by The Supreme Cabal Regime of Wikipedia. Dlohcierekim 20:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    I like this candidate. I'm concerned about setting a precedent that it's okay to start off your RfA by saying that you won't do and won't take questions concerning admin work. I'm concerned what new applicants that would bring in, and I'm wondering how we would justify voting against the next person that says the same thing...or are we going to say that that's okay for some, because we like them, but not for others? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    It would certainly be wrong if that was anyone's sole criterion for support. But let's be honest, hasn't RfA already become a beauty contest? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and people are free to not do work if they don't wish to, even if they're admins. If we trust people with the tools (as you said yourself), they should be given them, in case they do see a need for admin tools at some point. By your logic we shouldn't give anyone adminship because there are vulnerabilities and people can gain access to their account! Yes, we should set that precedent, as there is not (and should not be) a requirement for anyone to do work on Wikipedia, including admins. --Rory096 21:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

15. Weak Support - I have very serious reservations about giving tools to someone who says they have no intentions of using them. Having said that, I can't help but imagine that, sooner or later, they will get used anyway. Intentions, however good they might be, are often altered by the realities of situations. In the event this editor ever is in a situation where the tools are needed, I think the encyclopedia would be better off with him having them. John Carter (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Support - Pretty much what Keeper76 said. Restepc (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
17. Think of it this way. The user's honest, something that we really need in admins these days.. Wizardman 20:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
18. Strong support incredible nomination. He knows how big a deal adminship should be. But this support isn't frivolous, I'm really impressed with Ali'i's work and have seen him be a calming and refreshing voice in discussions. He would be a terrific administrator. EJF (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
19. After reading this RfA, I've decided my decision to support is an easy one. Tell me, has anyone provided any evidence to show that Ali'i will abuse the tools? Not at all. For starters, I'm baffled over opposition regarding the first three questions: why answer them if the candidate already pretty much answered them in their own nomination statement? Why say the same thing again? As for need...that doesn't matter either: Ali'i will do what many admins do and just use the tools when it's necessary to use them; it's been said many times before, but no one "needs" the tools: they're just technical features to help improve the encyclopedia. I'm very sure that if Ali'i had given the "standard answer" to question 1 (i.e. something like "I want to delete pages that meet the speedy deletion criteria, do work at WP:RFPP and protect pages if necessary, help manage WP:AIV, and close WP:AFDs", she would have more support just for saying that, and that's saddening. I'm also trying to work out why there's opposition and neutrals saying "adminship is not a reward or a trophy" and that this is a "point nom": where did Ali'i say she was looking for a reward for her work, and how is this nomination "pointy"? This RfA is different from most RfAs I've seen, but I wouldn't say it's pointy, and it was easily submitted in good-faith. Now I go onto my next point: we often complain about how RfA candidates "all seem to be similar/the same" yet when someone who is different to the "mainstream candidate" applies, they get opposed, yet Ali'i isn't less experienced than those candidates at all. In addition, Ali'i has a strong sense of humor, which is a very necessary quality, and is honest, also very necessary. With my own interactions with Ali'i, I've found her to be knowledgeable and polite, and I'm sure that if she was made an administrator, she would do just fine. Again, nothing has been provided to show that she would be abusive, and given that fact, plus the reasons I mentioned above, this is an easy (albeit long) support. Acalamari 20:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    Ali'i is a she? I may have to rethink my support in that case. I've always thought that pre-pubescent/teenage males make by far the best administrators. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    See, this is why I used gender neutral language. =) xenocidic (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    To be honest, I just assumed Ali'i is a she. Maybe I'm wrong? Acalamari 21:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    Frankly, my gender has no bearing on my editing. You can call me a he OR a she; gender-specific (even wrong gendered) language does not bother me. As long as people know to whom the pronoun is referring. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

20. Support - editor makes good contributions, no reason to suggest that they will abuse the tools. As far as I can tell, the only people who shouldn't get made into administrators are those who the community cannot trust to use the tools. Such a lack of trust may arise from limited editing experience, or from incidents in the user's past. I was recently made an administrator - in my RfA, I said where I would like to use the tools, but there isn't anything binding on me to actually use them at all. If we can trust a user, then it doesn't matter if they actually have a plan to use the buttons or not. That's my support statement, anyway Fritzpoll (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
21. Support. There does not appear to be any reason to believe that the candidate would either abuse or misuse the admin tools. The opposes are based, in my opinion, on deeply flawed logic saying that we should care about whether or not they'd actually use the tools (as if this weren't a volunteer project) and that we should oppose because the candidate has given some insight into their personal beliefs on the nature of Wikipedia. These are hardly valid reasons; we should be concerned only with whether or not +sysoping the candidate might bring harm the encyclopedia, and by all indications it will not. --Rory096 21:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
22. Support, hard working, easy-going user that would not be a pain in the arse if she were to get the tools. Also, per the self nom, I see the user is bold. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
23. Support Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review}
24. Al Tally ^talk 22:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    Did you change your mind since [1]? - Bobet 22:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    No...? This user doesn't appear to be inactive, they made edits just today. Al Tally ^talk 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

25. Thank you for adding pizazz to the RFA process! I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 22:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
26. Support don't particularly like the tone but in essence I agree with the sentiment and I doubt the user would abuse or misuse the tools. Guest9999 (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
27. Support, per above, user needs to use edit summaries a little more Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 22:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
28. Support. I've been thinking about this one for a bit, but I'm going to have to support. You've done well as an editor and are polite, civil, and knowledgable enough for the tools. I don't quite care for the "I won't use the tools" attitude you have (I think you will of course), but that is no reason to oppose. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
29. Hmmm, what have we here? An editor asking for editing tools, seems to be saying s/he doesn't plan to use the controversial bits. How odd. No admin coaching? No admin mill participation? Nothing that could be labelled mandarinship? What is Ali'i thinking? Oh, yeah, that adminship is something we give to people who won't abuse the tools. Having clashed with Ali'i a couple times, I feel comfortable with the idea of giving him/her the keys to the closet where we keep the mops. Guettarda (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
30. Support Ya dunno ya need them (tools) until ya need them. I trust him... and if ya dont make it, dude, moral support wooty. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
31. Support per those above. I was initially concerned about your lack of sufficient answers to questions and the fact that you aren't very willing to perform admin tasks, but (per Malinaccier) the fact that we'll have an admin that we can trust to use the tools well, should you choose to use them at all, is enough for me to support. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 00:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
32. Support per Rudget. Shapiros10 WuzHere  01:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
33. Strong support per nomination, answers to Q1-3, and user's brilliant attitude. giggy _(:O) 01:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
34. Why the hell not? I see sufficient understanding of the community and policy. I don't think it's "POINTy" at all; he's merely being truthful about what he'll use the tools for, which I think more admins should do. Too many candidates answer the questions in a specific, calculated way in order to appeal to the most users. Ral315 (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
35. Support I see no reason not to trust the user. Dean B (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
36. Support, no reason to believe this user would maliciously misuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC).
37. Support demonstrates more than enough judgment and independence of thought to be a fine admin - hats off to Ali'i for refusing to play the RFA game. nancy ^(talk) 19:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
38. Excellent answers to questions six and nine. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
39. Support I like your style, you're not an arse kisser. A very refreshing RfA. RMHED (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
40. Support To be honest when I first read this nom I thought it was a joke or a WP:POINT. But I've read all your further posts and I just misunderstood. I see some who's judgement I respect, and who know your work better then me, support. And I believe some of the opposes have gone too far. And I guess it'd be wrong to hold it against you that you've never had the pleasure of editing drunk per Q#5.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
41. Support The user isn't going to abuse the tools. The user isn't going to use the tool improperly in good faith; indeed, the user isn't planning to use the tools, and rather, only intends to use them when the need arises. No reason to oppose here, CrazyChemGuy (talk · contribs) 23:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
42. Support despite the peripheral funny business about will he/won't he does he/doesn't he - I doubt this nominee will abuse admin tools if he acquires them. — Athaenara ✉ 01:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
43. Support He or she is very smart, fair, and conducive to neutral outcomes. Okole Maluna.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
44. Support The admin tools are no big deal, and this user clearly has the capacity to use them appropriately if he ever chooses to do so. What's wrong with using them sparingly? AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

    Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the RfA process on Wikipedia. Your RfA worked and has been supported. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your recent RfA goes above and beyond in terms of humor, frankness, and honest expression, and constitutes a breath of fresh air in violation of a proposed policy against sarcasm. I find it unfortuante that so many others feel your RfA should have been directed to the sandbox instead. Thank you. AubreyEllenShomo ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 07:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

45. Support. Thoughtful, trustworthy user. I don't see any reason not to support. ~ Eóin (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
46. Support. A sensible, scrupulous editor. The lack of eagerness to go around enforcing the law (pressing magic buttons) reassuringly suggests a non-authoritarian personality, and her performance wrt an article that shows far more intelligence than does its subject (I looked through its talk page archive) reassures me that she'll do a good job of pressing those buttons when she needs to. Morenoodles (talk) 10:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
47. Support - Also, really like answer to question 6. Garion96 (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
48. Support - no evidence he'll misuse the tools, I'd call this kind of situation a good place to bring in the "no big deal" thing. He doesn't need the tools, but he's a respected and trustworthy editor and I see no reason to deny them to him. Plus I think his answer to question 6 was exactly what that oft-seen question deserves. ~ mazca ^talk 12:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
49. Support, while unorthodox, I see nothing in either the nomination or candidate's history to lead me to believe that he would misuse the tools. If he doesn't use them that often, so what? This is a volunteer project, there's no quota. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
50. Clueful and trustworthy. I expect Ali'i will find something useful to do with the extra buttons from time to time. Even if it's only once a year, that's fine. No shortage of tools. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
51. Support Pretty much the same ticket I ran on; whether there is sufficient trust to be handed the mop, not whether it was going to be used in a particular space (or at all). I think the candidate will not abuse the tools. I note the edit summary percentage isn't high, but am going to trust the candidate to always communicate in this matter when they do use the extra buttons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
52. Support. The nomination is witty (and I seriously think that Wikipedia can do away with the always serious, grumpy type Admins). His/her user history shows that the person can be trusted with the tools and whether he/she chooses to use it or not depends up on him/her. Best of luck! :-) Shovon (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
53. Support We haven't always seen eye-to-eye, but I don't think Ali'i would abuse the tools. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
54. Support I admire his courage.--Bedivere (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
55. Support Seems like a good guy to me. We need more brahs on this wiki. Amerique^dialectics 00:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
56. Support. I think the compromise approach to dispute resolution is better than the "use the tools" approach. ("Vow" is a bit too strong of a word, though.) Bwrs (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
57. Support - Basically I'm always suspicious of people who are overly ambitious to get a position of power, like adminship. Ali'i's relative indifference of whether he'll become admin or not is quite refreshing. Based on his record, he seems to be an editor of (more than) good standing, understand WP.GOODFAITH and the importance of compromise. --Nat Miller (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
58. Support. To be quite honest, I can't really say why we should give Ali'i adminship, but there really isn't any reason NOT to do so. I think it's clear that Ali'i won't (ab)use the tools. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
59. Solid answers to the questions, very enlightening. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
60. "I wish I said it" support - I agree with the nomination's sentiment that RfA is a joke. Treating it as a joke is totally appropriate. By the way, can anyone point me to the discussions concerning how and by how much !votes are discounted? The Transhumanist 02:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
61. Support no reason why not. BlueQ99 (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
62. Who does need the bits anyhow? We could use more decent people that don't take everything here so gravely serious. Additionally, Q6 shows me that you know where to look, if you have questions. It's a shame some people would have preferred that you copy the answer from one of the other 2500 rfa's to date, or the cheat sheet... Additionally, while I generally don't read the questions after they get past 8, Q9 shows that you're here for the right reasons :) SQL^{Query me!} 14:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
63. Support Looks like a solid contributer and is not a run of the mill candidate to boot. Also per Christopher Parham. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 01:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
64. Incredibly, ultra powerful, heroically unstoppably, Super sized, King sized, over the top, above and beyond, no bones about it strong Support - anyone with the balls to answer Q1 as bluntly as you did is definitely someone whom can be trusted with the tools. I wish more rfa spotlight people had the tanacity to answer Q1 like you did. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
65. Support - The user lives in a tropical climate just like the one found where I come from, if she can resist the heat this time of the year surely adminship will be no big deal. Jokes aside, having reviewed the user's contributions and the opposes below, outside of Kurt's usual copy-pasted (and in this case rather ironic) "power hunger" jusfication, only Kalizec!'s oppose seems troubling, but not sufficiently so to oppose or go neutral. I don't foresee this use misusing the tools and her demeanor seems positive. - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
66. Strong Support - I, like most of the other supporters, not only like the humor this candidate exhibits, but I have been given no real reason not to support. I've RfA'd twice, and obviously did not so well. How smart is it to not take it so seriously? Genius in my opinion. I took it WAY too seriously. Adminship, when used, is serious to a degree, but not using it all the time like some other users might want, isn't serious either. I'd rather have an admin who doesn't use the tools at all, than one who uses them inappropriately. This user seems like the kind to use them appropriately, and sparingly which I think is perfect. some admins get upset in RfA's when the candidate declares they won't help in a specific area, or when they get the impression that they'll help in an area they think doesn't need much help. just cause they won't help in YOUR area, doesn't mean they won't be helpful. Once again, great answers, and you seem like you know what you're doing! Good luck! Carter | Talk to me 14:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
67. Support -Dureo (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
68. Support. Why not? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    See below?? :-) --Ali'i 12:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

69. Support, great answers to questions #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8 and #9. A refreshingly... different candidate. :) --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 13:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
70. Support I trust that he wouldn't abuse the tools, he's made a good contribution so far, and even if he only acts as an admin once, its still a positive contribution. I can't see any reason to oppose.Stanstaple (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I suggest you wait a little and get a few more conrtibutions under your belt. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 17:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Plus, you can find your total contribution number (including deleted ones) in my prefs.

   Actually definite oppose! No admin work?!? What the? StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 17:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Stewie, based on your first oppose note, I garnered you may not have checked this candidate. Your second note kind of confirms that. He has 3,600 edits ranging back to 2006, actively editing since the beginning of 07. If you wouldn't mind, could you clarify "wait a little and get a few more conrtibutions under your belt"? Thanks. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose. I remain open to changing my mind if the point behind applying for tools that there is no intention to use is clearly and persuasively explained though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Look. No admin work!?! Why are we here????? StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 18:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose - I’ve read the nom statement, not once but twice, then reviewed the contrib history, and have to oppose this one. Even with assuming good faith, right away I have to question such an essay put within a nom statement. It simply, in my opinion, does not belong in an RfA, although an RfA is most certainly the place where you can the most people to read it. Right away, bells go off when we have a candidate 1.) Needing to tell us that they don’t care whether or not they pass, 2.) Already making statements about the lack of weight in certain types of opposes, and 3.) Various vows about where they will and won’t use the tools. If I support, it is for a candidate’s judgment, meaning I don’t need them to make vows to me. As for the optional questions… just a few days ago I was defending Tan’s right to not answer certain kinds… but to make a flat out statement that you don’t want to answer them and the answers shouldn’t have weight? I disagree with that. The main reason I am opposing is not because of major worries in contrib history. I reviewed, it seems alright, candidate is certainly willing to get hands dirty and wants to help improve the encyclopedia. However, in the spirit of No Big Deal, this oppose is obvious to me. Candidate doesn’t need to use the tools, but to nominate themselves and then proceed to make a POINTy statement which basically says they don’t need to be an admin? To me, this is the opposite of no big deal. This is bringing an essay to perhaps the biggest stage on wikipedia to have people read it and discuss it and the candidate. My final point: this very nomination makes me worry that candidate may wield their status as an admin to help make certain points about Wikipedia, not to use any of the technical tools, which is really the point of +sysop. I encourage fervent discourse to improve the project, which it appears the candidate is involved in, but I'm not going to help give someone the admin label just because of that. Abuse of tools? No. But possibly an abuse of the perceived status bump, and I can’t support that. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Why have you put POINT in big capital letters? It's impossible to diiscuss anything without making points...you mean "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point", yet there is no disruption.--Phoenix-wiki 18:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   I felt the nom statement was making a point about RfAs in general, not this candidate. I guess disruptive might be a strong word here, but otherwise I think my oppose made my stance clear. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Yes it is making a point about RFAs general.--Phoenix-wiki 18:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose This isn't based on the refusal to answer optional questions, but for not showing at least a small understanding of admin related tasks and issues. Seems like a great editor, but before I'm willing to trust someone with the tools, I have to know that you can use it correctly and know how/why to use them. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Isn't going to use them. Naerii - Talk 18:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose Ironically, if Ali'i gave me a reason why he would use the admin tools, for example to answer requests at WP:RFPP (which is generally a low-stress page that doesn't get backlogged), I would have no problem with it. He's been a user in good standing for more than a year, and his move log shows sufficient familiarity with MoS and site policies. However, if Ali'i simply wants to make a point about how receiving admin tools should be no big deal, I'm not interested in supporting such a statement. Adminship is a user access level. If you need the access level, ask. If you don't need it, don't ask. If you're not sure whether you need it, think about it for a while, and then ask. I hope that makes things clear from my end. Again, I'm not really opposed to granting Ali'i the tools, but I need a reason to do that, and I have none. Yechiel (Shalom) 18:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose I basically trust this editor, I like their focus on product, and I have no problem with the fact that they don't want to do any admin work. But admins can cause a lot of trouble if they want to, and if we hand out mops just as a way of saying "good job", then sooner or later, someone's going to screw things up. This is an example of how the lack of other RfA-like processes screws up the RfA process: if this editor had a better way to get community-wide acknowledgement of accomplishments, and gain some form of stature, they would probably be doing that, since they don't really want to be an admin. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Adminship is not a reward or a trophy. If there was a way to get the tools, and have no one even know I'm an admin, please point me to that way, because as it stands, I don't want to draw attention to myself. I am not interested in some false "status". If I wanted compliments or acknowledgement, I would have done an editor review. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Okay, I don't follow. In answer to the question, "What admin work do you intend to take part in?", you said, "None, to be honest." If you didn't intend this as a vote on your trustworthiness, then why are we here? I am not against community-wide votes along the lines of, "Yeah, they seem like one of us", and it would be nice if that happened at WP:ER or anywhere other than WP:RfA, but at the moment, there's no other place where this kind of process happens, which I think causes problems. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Since supports have been trickling in, and I respect the supporters, I went back and had another look, and I'm sorry, I come to the same conclusion. If I had seen diffs from the supporters that showed that Ali'i is on the road to learning more about what goes on at Wikipedia, it might have made a difference; I haven't been able to find support for that. I used the "search an, ani, cn, an3" tool offered above, and I got one hit, which was Ali'i's upload of a guy giving someone the finger. Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is supposed to show that Ali'i knows policy, and I don't see any evidence of that, only that Ali'i is thoughtful and pleasant, although I only went back through 3 archives.

   I guess I see Wikipedia as a collaboration between a small minority of people who try to get involved in a lot of different areas, and a majority of people who are content to do their own projects. Ali'i, you're doing good work, and I love the fact that you aren't interested in admin stuff. If this RfA fails, and if some day you develop an interest and curiosity about some of the things that admins do that might be relevant to your work, then read up on whatever it is you're interested in, try it out a bit, and as far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to come back to RfA at any time and make the case that this is a new direction you want to go.

   Someone who is generally careful, like Ali'i, who wants to stay focused on what they're doing and not learn a bunch of admin stuff is completely entitled to some kind of community review process that gives them credit and acknowledgment for what they're interested in and what they've done. I'm not sure if WP:ER is the answer.

   I reject the arguments from supporters that what Ali'i really meant was such-and-such. An analogy: In 2000, Al Gore had a solid record as an environmentalist, and George W. Bush had a solid record as a Texas oil man. Shortly before the election, Bush announced that he was changing his positions and would now support even tougher environmental measures than Gore would. Of course, after Bush won, it was back to business as usual. The punchline is that these same voters claimed that it wasn't their fault that Bush turned out so bad, that they had no idea that he was going to do the kinds of things that he had been doing his whole life. It's not a good idea to give Ali'i support just because they say they're going to start doing things they haven't done before. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

7. Oppose on the non answers to the questions, also, because user states they don't intend to use them. — Ѕandahl 18:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose [2] Matthew (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Opposing for removing clearly unconstructive talk? I can think of a few reasons to oppose, but that isn't one of them. xenocidic (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   There was a concern raised on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I saw that it added nothing to the encyclopedia, was inflaming the situation, and removed it. --Ali'i 19:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   So? Censoring a user's comment does not "unspeak" it. Matthew (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

9. Opppose the attitude and spirit are well and fine, but proper answers are meant to give an idea whether/how a candidate wants to be useful and how conscious he/she is about understanding what the tools are, what/when they can be used for and what/when they shouldn't be used for. Vishnava _talk 19:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose A good sense of humour is one thing, but the level of flippancy being displayed here does not give rise to much confidence. --Ecoleetage (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose, because the nom makes no sense to me. If you are not going to use the tools, there's absolutely no point in nominating yourself for adminship. And yet the comment to Dank55 above makes it seem that you're interested in the tools? The contrived nomination statement only shows you're looking to draw attention to yourself and your 'controversial' ideas about adminship, and this isn't the correct forum to do that (try the talk page). - Bobet 20:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose per Gwynand. WP:POINTy nomination, and doesn't seem to show good judgement. Adminship is not a big deal, but it's not not a big deal either.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 20:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    Would you mind running that one by me again? Adminship is not a big deal, but it's not a big deal does not compute. If it's "not not" a big deal then it's a big deal; still doesn't compute.--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    It's not not a big deal. It's a medium deal? xenocidic (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    Yeah, it's in the middle. It's not a huge deal, but it's also not a small deal. I think Jimbo said sort of the same thing on his talk page but he used big words that I can't remember.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 20:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry, we edit-conflicted (this is becoming a busy page). Just to satisfy my pedantry, "not not big = big", no matter what St Jimbo has to say. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    Malleus Fatuarum, I'd (pedantically) have to disagree...If one accepts, say, that "not big" is equivalent to "small", then "not not big" is equal to "not small"; only a binary something-must-be-big-or-small situation necessitates a reading of "not small = big". Both simplifications, yours above and mine here, suffer from a false dichotomy. It's perfectly obvious to me that "it's not not a big deal" was used to highlight the existence of a "bigness spectrum" (if you will) regarding RfA. I'm inclined to agree with KojiDude, if I've interpreted this correctly. — Scientizzle 23:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry, I was just relying on my expertise in boolean algebra. I do fully understand that expertise has no place in wikipedia, so all I can do is to apologise for having knocked you off your horse. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

13. Oppose No evidence that the candidate needs or will use the tools. WT:RFA would be a better place to contest your perceptions about the process than here. --John (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose. The "no big deal" thing, said several years ago in a different WikiEra by a guy who isn't exactly up to speed on the current climate here, needs to die. It's a big deal - every single RfA for the past year is testiment to that. If you don't want the tools, and you're not going to use the tools, what's the point of this RfA? To cause a scene? To prove that a priviledge you don't want and will not use is not a big deal? Gwynand is right, and Ecoleetage hit another point - flippancy isn't exactly what I'm looking for in an admin candidate. Tan | 39 21:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    One man's flippancy may perhaps be another's sense of humour. Personally, I'd prefer if it was mandatory for admins to have a sense of humour, wouldn't you? It would save an awful lot of unnecessary trouble IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    I agree that a sense of humor is sorely lacking in many editors, not just admins or admin candidates. To my eye, however, this isn't appropriate. I like it when my boss or coworkers can lighten up and say "fuck" over by the water cooler, but I don't say it in the job interview. Tan | 39 21:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    What's wrong with not having a sense of humour? I don't have a sense of humour, many admins don't :-p--Phoenix-wiki 21:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    This is a job interview? What's the pay? I thought it was simply an opportunity for the community to express an opinion on whether this candidate could be trusted with the additional admin buttons or not. Is being caught in possession of a sense of humour a felony in your world? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    Ah, spectacular. Let's assume something is true and good just because it's current practice. Never mind what things should be like and that RfA is seriously flawed; RfA shows adminship is a big deal, therefore it must be true! --Rory096 22:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    Nice sarcasm. Now let me have my opinion, please. Tan | 39 22:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    This is a discussion, where people are free to respond to and (attempt to) refute others' comments. --Rory096 23:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with bringing humour to Wikipedia. Hell, I occasionally drop egregious puns in the AfD discussions, just to give the proceedings a bit of oxygen. But there is a difference between funny and being flippantly sarcastic. And if this is the level of response being presented now, I would hate to imagine what will come up in the event the candidate becomes an Admin and winds up in some sticky/nasty administrative business. That is strictly my opinion; others have their opinions and more power to them. --Ecoleetage (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

15. Oppose. The reason for nom makes no sense to me. --Kaaveh (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose. I do love a good sense of humor. I like to think that I have one, perhaps not as visible on Wikipedia as in real life, but answering Q1 by saying you won't do any admin work at all, and answering the blocking vs. banning optional question by simply linking a policy page...well, I think requesting adminship should be a bit more serious than that. Useight (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    That's not exactly what the candidate said- not intending to do any specific task is different from not doing any work. I frequently come across various things that require an admin to deal with, but that doesn't necessarily mean I deliberately seek them out. And, to be frank, that block/ban question is a bit of a joke. It's not like this is a live quiz where it might be of some benefit, to see if they actually know something like that. Candidates can easily just look it up at the policy pages if they don't know, or just look at any of the dozens of other RfAs where the correct answer is given already. Questions asking for simple facts don't really increase the information available to make a decision about a candidate. --Rory096 22:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    If I may quote the question above: "1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?" I'll also quote his answer: "None, to be honest." I take this to mean that the candidate does not intend to do any admin work. Also the copying and pasting of a policy instead of taking a few moments and writing something out means to me that if some user happens to ask him a question, he may just paste a link as his response. This is not effective communication, which I believe is an important trait in an admin. Useight (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    I don't see that as really what the candidate meant; I took it as "I have no intention of using the tools anywhere, but I'll do so if I see a need." The answer to question 7 seems to confirm this. As for the block/ban question, the candidate said that they would not be answering abstract questions of that sort, whereas they certainly have not said any such thing regarding normal communication, so I see no reason to believe that the same thing would happen. Yes, the candidate could have written it out, but that would honestly just be a waste of time, for the reasons above. --Rory096 23:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

17. Strong Oppose Correct adminship is not a big deal but it does require a good deal of deliberated consideration because the work performed should leave that part of the community effected by an administrator's action in less doubt than it was in before the action was taken. Humour is fine - but I am left in much doubt by your own nomination.--VS ^talk 22:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Adjusting to Strong Oppose - Kralizec!'s diffs as detailed at oppose 23 give me even greater concern - and the candidate's responses do little to assist. The reality is (as others have said) we, the community have a right to consider the candidate's request based also on the application itself - going through diffs is helpful and sometimes completely necessary but it is not the only valid process for determining our view.--VS ^talk 23:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose Lack of admin-related experience. Epbr123 (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose - Per the answer to question 1, 2 and 3. The nomination was ill-conceived. Wikipedia is not a hierarchy. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    Isn't that the point he's trying to make? Guest9999 (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    So they say, but the reference to power hunger (even if it's a semi-facetious line) concerns me. Secondly, the user seems to be treating RfA as an empirical experiment. So, no thank you. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    As I said in my support, why did Ali'i need to answer the first three questions if she already answered them in her own nomination statement? Why have repeat answers? As for "treating this RfA as an empirical experiment", why do you think that? I have no reason to believe that this is a joke and/or bad-faith nomination, or an experiment, for that matter. This RfA is just as legitimate as any other. Acalamari 23:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    The scary thing is that I agree with you. The user actually believes this is legitimate, yet comes across as wanting to make a point, prove that RfA is not a big deal while insisting on not using the tools. I am unswayed, unimpressed and flatout do not want to see this user become an administrator. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

    If that is the point, she's failing miserably. Adminship=the tools, and if someone's not going to use them, there's no point in starting an rfa. They're just making the adminship seem like more of a big deal by ascribing it any significance beyond that. - Bobet 23:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

20. Oppose - Unconvinced that user can be trusted with the tools. Shot info (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
21. Oppose. An unnecessarily POINTy self nomination. I'm uncomfortable giving adminship in these circumstances. The tone of the nomination speaks to the candidate's judgement and temperament. Singopo (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
22. Oppose. Adminship is important; look at recent arbcom cases. Ceoil (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
23. Strong oppose as I believe this editor has neither the temperament nor the maturity necessary for an editor entrusted with the tools. For example, when Melsaran (talk · contribs) contacted [3] Ali'i asking him not to change others' talk messages [4], Ali's response was an incredibly snarky "Meh. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."" [5]. When Melsaran patiently pointed out that Ali'i's behavior was in violation of the WP:TALK guideline, Ali'i had the exact same derisive response [6]. When other editors voiced the same concern [7] over Ali'i's violation of WP:TALK, his identical response [8] and later elaborations [9] clearly showed contempt for existing Wikipedia policy and guidelines. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

    Thank you for actually going through my contribs, and basing your oppose on hard fact. To respond, I was merely quoting the text everyone is presented with on every "edit" page. I don't think hyperbole was useful for the encyclopedia in that situation, so I had merely given the actual numbers. I maintain that helping the encyclopedia will always trump some arbitrary guideline (that if I wanted to wikilawyer, I'm sure I could show how what I did fell within). Mahalo, Kralizec!.--Ali'i 13:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, but there is no way you could "wikilawyer" to show that editing another person's comment is improving the encyclopaedia when that person doesn't want it edited. The main reason I supported you is because you seem to learn from past mistakes, and you listen to others. (The fact that people on opposite sides of the current ID-WR dispute are supporting you speaks loudly in your support). Although I will not change my own vote, I would feel a lot better supporting you, if you did apologize for the "Meh" responses. Thank you, Merzul (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

    If you do not think that could be wikilawyered, you must not have dealt with wikilawyers. (Anything can be wikilawyered.) I'd start by saying that it is a guideline and not policy, and move on to the fact that it only states that you shouldn't change the meaning of the words, and it states that "Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed", and then to top it off I'd just say that they don't own their comments and get into lengthy discussions about the meaning of each word, etc. I won't apologize for this because the way the comment was presented (in an abuse report), the language used was hyperbole "blocked him for the umpteenth time", serving to poison the well against the blocker. A better approach would be to remain factual, not enflame the situation by making over-the-top claims, and use real numbers instead of exaggeration. Inflaming the situation was not helping the encyclopedia, and anything that doesn't help the encyclopedia can be fixed by ignoring arbitrary talk guidelines and doing What'sRight™. If people don't understand that, that's not my fault. (and if any of that still really offends you, please don't hesitate to do what your heart tells you). Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

    Good answer.... I don't consider that WikiLawyering though, and an answer like this would have been better than "Meh." ;) Anyway, of course, I'm not changing my vote, strong support. Merzul (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

    Ali'i, while your attempt at rationalizing your violating WP:TALK may at first blush appear to be quasi-valid on the surface, have you stopped to consider what would happen if everyone followed this principle? Who decides what exactly the super subjecting phrase "doing What'sRight™" means? Under pseudo-logic like this, editors in a content dispute could go crazy editing each others' messages in order to trim out anything they considered to be hyperbole or exaggeration, all under the banner of "it was not helping the encyclopedia!" Can you imagine how much of a chaotic mess that would turn WP:ANI, WP:AN, and the other noticeboards into? I fear that this short-sighted attempt at defending your own violations further illustrates you as an unsuitable candidate for adminship. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

24. Serious Oppose - per Bobet, Singopo, Ceoil, and the others who expressed similar opinions. But I'm happy to discuss this whole RfA process with the nominee at the talk page. :) Beam 04:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
25. Oppose per Tan. I started from the top, and stopped at Tan's oppose. While I like his attitude and contributions, I think this RfA is a little premature. — _Maggot^Syn 09:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
26. Oppose As much fun as this non-request request is, the user appears to have zero experience in admin areas. Ali'i may or may not use the tools frequently, but with no evidence to show they will be used correctly, I cannot support. - auburnpilot talk 13:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

    Admin areas? Like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, etc.? --Ali'i 13:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

    Just to chime in here, because I asked Dusti a similar question outside the RfA, what do people mean when they are saying he is not working in "admin areas"? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

    Discussions are nice, but what I want to see is an understanding of the application of the tools. Reports to AIV, RFPP, UAA, or to a lesser extent, closing deletion discussions. In response to xenocidic's question, Ali'i mentions blocking vandals, but I see no evidence that s/he understands when a vandal should be blocked. Ali'i also mentions deleting revisions so that they may be oversighted, but that shows a lack of understanding, as the edits do not have to be deleted in order to be oversighted. Maybe if Ali'i's deleted edits showed an understanding of speedy deletion criteria, I could be swayed, but they don't. - auburnpilot talk 13:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

    Oversighting takes some time, and edits are almost routinely deleted while the oversighters can be contacted. Limit the intitial exposure and the like. And to stand up for myself some more (which I didn't want to do), I don't ever plan on working at those "three" letter acronyms with my tools, and see no reason currently to work there now. E kala mai (sorry). --Ali'i 13:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

    Auburn, my oppose is based on Ali'i's first answer of "none" (of these). Are you saying "and" or "or"? That is, do you believe the candidate should have knowledge and some experience in all of the areas you mention, because otherwise, you have no way of knowing if they will jump into some new area and screw it up? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

    I don't expect a candidate to have knowledge of all areas, and if you read my own RfA, you'll see I very clearly stated I had no experience in XfD and would never enter that area of Wikipedia. To this day, I still haven't closed any deletion discussions except for a hand full that were also tagged for speedy deletion (which is how I came across them). What I do expect, however, is for a candidate to have some experience somewhere. I look at a candidate's contributions in hopes they will prove that I should trust them, rather than looking for reasons to prove I can't. Here, I see very little evidence (read "experience in admin related areas") that I can trust the tools will be used correctly. - auburnpilot's sock 18:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

27. Strong Oppose. Unconvinced you'd use the tools correctly; very little experience in admin-related tasks and your use of policy links to answer questions hardly inspires support. "I don't really think I need administrator tools, and in fact would vow not to use them in all but the most grievous of circumstances." ..What is the point of giving tools to someone who is unlikely to use them? You dont have to use them constantly of course, but I find it stupid giving tools designed to help the encyclopedia to someone who admits to being unlikely to make use of them. In addition, applying to prove a point makes a mockery of the process. Yes, admins are technically no more important than users, but RfA in a way shows the quality and quantity of your contributions to Wikipedia; debasing that to prove a point is almost disruptive. Ironholds 16:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
28. Oppose - The admin tools are supposed be tools, we shouldn't give them to people who aren't going to use them. Adminship is not supposed to be a social class, user seems to want to ensure it is one. Mr.Z-man 20:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
29. Oppose. Same reason as Mr.Z-man. If you aren't interested in doing admin duties, why run for adminship? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

    The way I interpreted the nomination statement and the answer to question one was that Ali'i didn't plan to work in any particular field of admin work (such as AIV or AFD), and was instead, just going to use the tools whenever they came in handy. Not using the tools and not wanting to work in specific admin areas are not the same thing. The answer to question 9 confirms my interpretation that Ali'i would use the tools whenever it was necessary to use them. In essence, Ali'i will use the tools if she's granted them, she just won't focus on particular areas, and will just use the tools when they come in handy. There are plenty of admins that do this. Acalamari 21:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

    But my first impression on Ali'i turned sour the moment I saw answer #1. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

30. Oppose. I’m really confused by this RfA, In the opening paragraph he states: “I don't really think I need administrator tools, and in fact would vow not to use them in all but the most grievous of circumstances.” Wouldn’t it be easier if you just got an admin to sort out these “grievous of circumstances” as I don’t thing these circumstances will happen often. Q1 confused me and wasn’t very well worded (a few of the above comments have said that he would use I when he needed it – as per Acalamari’s reply). And as to Q6, I’m sure instead of slapping a big link to the blocking policy he could have at least written a couple of short sentences about it, it also shows he has no idea what the blocking policy is as he did not answer the question. Does this mean I can post links as replies? I don’t really think the candidate was very serious when he filed this RfA (or maybe drunk as Keepscases said). If you’re not going to use it why are you bothering to get it? Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 01:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
31. Oppose I have read the talk pages for Rfa and Jimbo (referred to in the second para of the nom) where the question "is being an admin a big deal" is discussed. The answer to this question is "in some senses, yes, and in other senses, no". I thank Ali'i for asking us to confront this question, and for the great work undertaken as a wikipedian. I welcome the opportunity to oppose this nom to express my opinion that admin tools should not be handed out based on "it's no big deal". A sense of humour is a wonderful asset, but an admin should know that it is not appropriate to rely on humour in an application. --Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
32. Oppose I am not concerned with the edit count, but the attitude concerns me, as mentioned by others above. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
33. Oppose I do not believe the candidate has sufficient experience in admin-related areas or knowledge of admin-related policy (although the nomination demonstrates an excellent familiarity with recent WT:RfA topics). How the nomination is worded concerns me. While I don't believe that this RfA is cynical or in bad faith, I am left with the impression that the candidate is seeking to prove a point by making this request. While their contributions to date have been very good, I don't like the idea of this candidate using the tools in a "grievous situation", and then making a mistake due to lack of practice / familiarity / policy knowledge. On a related note, posting a link to a policy page (Q6) is not a good response from an admin; from a candidate, it fails to demonstrate any understanding of policy. Perhaps the risk of awarding these tools is low; judging by the candidate's statements, the reward certainly should be. Given the uncertainty in risk/reward ratio, I can certainly see why community opinion is divided on this. On balance, I would rather not see tools being handed out to an editor who really doesn't care about either gaining or losing them. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
34. Oppose per #1, #2 and #3. Looks that you're not interested in administrator-related areas. macy^talk 21:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
35. Strong Oppose Admits in the nom statement that s/he is only trying to make a point. I find this contemptible. faithless (^speak) 01:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry, what? Can you point to (no pun intended) exactly where the candidate says they're only trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point? --Rory096 02:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

    There is, at least for me, quite a clear distinction between making a point and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I hardly see how the former is contemptible, and while obviously the latter is, I strongly disagree that the creation of an RFA is disruption of Wikipedia to make a point. —  scetoaux (T|C) 04:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

    An editor nominates himself for adminship and says that they will probably not even use the tools, seems to have known the RfA would fail from the start and (most importantly) has freely admitted the only reason for all of this was to make a point. Now we're all participating in this RfA rather than doing something more productive to improve the project; if that isn't disruptive I would love to know what is! As an aside, Ali'i seems to be a pretty decent editor, and I could conceivably support a more earnest attempt at an RfA. But again, if an editor doesn't even seem to actually want to be an administrator, why should I support? faithless (^speak) 21:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    Going to have to call bullshit on you there. I have never admitted or claimed that I was only trying to make a point. I have stated many times that this is a serious request for administrator tools. Please re-read what I have written. And I can't see the harm in guessing that it would fail from the beginning (other than maybe an observer-expectancy type of effect. No harm in low expectations. --Ali'i 21:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    This makes me feel a little more confident that I made the right decision. No, you have no explicitly stated, "I am trying to make a point." But what you have said is, "I never once thought I wanted to be an administrator...I am hoping to show that it is still not that big of a deal." I, and apparently most other Wikipedians, interpret your nom statement as POINTy (though not all share my distaste for it). I agree with you that the RfA process is in need of an overhaul, but making a mockery of the process does not improve it.

    I interpret WP:NBD to mean that all trustworthy and knowledgeable editors should be trusted with the tools (and I think this is the general interpretation). That being said, I do not 'default' to support during RfAs - I want an editor to show that they are knowledgeable and trustworthy, which you have not done. This is largely done by answering questions, which you have flatly refused to do. How are we supposed to judge whether you'd make a good admin? I stand by my comment that you seem to be a decent editor, but your bad judgment (not to mention the fact that you just cursed at someone who paid you a compliment), emboldens my faith in my oppose. faithless (^speak) 23:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    I actually don't have that big of a problem regarding the current request process. Especially compared to other people's opinions. That's why I went through the process as-is, as to not disrupt anything. My nomination statement wasn't really that Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a pointy (sorry, but I try to never use the shortcuts, and dislike all of the three letter acronyms)...

    And which question (excepting the not giving a fuckism one) have I not answered? I answered 1, I answered 2 and 3 in my nom statement, and I answered the others (except for the one I didn't give a fuckism about. :-) A hui hou. --Ali'i 13:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    I don't see where the user admits that the nomination is pointy. Bwrs (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

36. Oppose No apparent need for tools.--MONGO 05:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
37. Oppose Not now, consider admin coaching   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

    Any particular reason? --Rory096 05:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

    Don't worry, Rory. He wasn't asking you to coach the user. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 08:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

    Okay then, let me ask... any particular reason? In my opinion, "admin coaching" tends to be less admin coaching and more requests for adminship coaching. I am not interested in learning how to write a better opening statement, nor have someone tell me I should do more work in X area just so that people will support me, nor have someone tell me better ways to "beat rfa". My contribs tell people what they need to know, and going through "admin coaching" will not make me a better admin, just a better candidate... in my opinion, of course. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

    I agree that some admin coaches are in fact RfA coaches. The rest are admin preps (making better editors, which makes for better admins). True admin coaching would be coaching admins. What good is teaching students how to use tools that they don't even have? It would be more effective to wait until they have access to the tools, and then you can provide feedback on their actual use. Imagine coaching a baseball batter without a baseball bats or a ball because the equipment has been prohibited from the entire process. But yes, coaching of admin activities or of admins does not take place at "admin coaching", making it a misnomer. The Transhumanist 03:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

38. Strong Oppose None is not an answer to a RfA question. Hellboy (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
39. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

    After nominating yourself for the Board of Trustees, it's a pretty breathtaking sight to see you dare to keep these cut-and-paste opposes up.  Ravenswing  04:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    It's okay, Ravenswing. I actually wish Kurt the best of luck in his Board run. Good Luck, Kurt! --Ali'i 13:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks. You know, RfA and the BOT elections are two separate things. Furthermore, I only ran for the BoT reluctantly, and only after several separate individuals pulled my teeth--and I only "nominated myself" on the elections page because the procedure there doesn't allow for anything else. I knew this would come up when I did that, but it took longer than I thought. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    It took longer than you thought, perhaps, because you hadn't been making those Opposes. That being said, nice try. You're surely not inferring that the BOT has less power than admins do, or that nominating yourself for the position involves any less power hunger than a self-nomination for a RfA ... no one forced you to run any more than anyone forces a fellow to self-nominate for adminship. The honorable thing to do would have been to stick to your guns, refuse to nominate yourself and just forgo any position requiring you to do so; the decent thing to do, failing that, would have been to cease making cut-and-paste Opposes to RfAs.  Ravenswing  12:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

40. Oppose I believe that this editor would make a good admin. But if he does not intend to use the tools then there is no point in his having them. And apropos Kurt, whether he is or is not power hungry, at least a little motivation is surely required. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
41. Weak oppose per Anthony Bradbury. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  22:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
42. Strong oppose. From your four declarations you make in your nomination I don't see how you can have sufficient experience to wield the mop properly on any internal processes of Wikipedia. Furthermore, for extreme cases (which probably calls for editors that they very experienced) that you feel you need to handle, we have to be sure that you actually have a clue what are you doing, not taking action just because "I just feel like it". We have no shortage of zOMG DRHAMA! encyclopedia-wide because of admin decisions made in such a manner, like the mop is some kind of political weight. - Mailer Diablo 14:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
43. Oppose for many of the above reasons, especially tone in the RfA. --Faith (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose never thought I would say this, but per Kurt Weber. The sense of power hunger really deters me. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

    Er, what? "I never once thought I wanted to be an administrator, and think the stratification between users is generally abhorrent. I am a true believer in the fact that adminship is not that important. If this passes, great. If not, great. I'm not really bothered one way or another." How does that give you a sense of power hunger? --Rory096 05:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    I am Ali'i and I would like to go through a Request for adminship, and am self-nominating because I am power-hungry. Well, only sort of.

    That gave me a bad tone right away. And it just didn't leave me. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    Ah, you seem to be missing the joke there. Compare that phrasing to oppose #39. --Rory096 05:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, obviously a (massively failed) joke, as I've stated elsewhere. --Ali'i 13:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    I indented my vote. I apologize for misreading/misunderstanding it. Sorry. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

44. Sorry to oppose. Does not meet most of my standards for sysops. Maybe another day. 19:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

    No need to be sorry, Bearian. One, your oppose makes no real difference at this point. Two, you shouldn't ever feel bad for stating an opinion you feel is correct. However, do you have a link to your standards, or would you mind articulating them here, so that I may know how to improve? Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

    Don't be so pessimistic. Nearly all of the opposes here are frivolous and have nothing to do with whether or not you'd make a good admin; the closing crat, by all objective measures (except "RfA is a vote") should discount them. (Then again, perhaps it's I who should not be so optimistic that anyone nowadays would actually think of RfA beyond it being a vote.) --Rory096 05:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    Well, I would generally agree with you, and might think the crats would do that, but only if the support percentage was a tad higher. It's about what, 56ish% right now? Maybe if it were closer to 65-70%, they could cut some slack, but we all know it's not going to happen. Should votes such as Naerii's (#4) be discounted, perhaps. Will it be, highly, highly unlikely. --Ali'i 13:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

45. Definite, if not strong, Oppose Let's leave aside Kralizec's telling Oppose, however much I find editing someone else's talk page comments for anything short of gross obscenities or vandalism incredibly obnoxious. Let's leave aside all the other good reasons listed to Oppose. Let's leave aside that he quite explicitly has no use for the tools nor intends to do any actual admin work. What I'm left to wonder is how in the merry hell sixty people support this nom??? There are many sound reasons to find the RfA process completely broken, but this takes the cake. Some of the same people who above say "sure, whatever, we need more humor" to an unqualified candidate who declares up front that he doesn't need and won't use the mop are the first ones to scream on other RfAs "ZOMG!!!! He doesn't have 100% edit summaries/enough XfD experience/enough AVI edits/too many talk page edits/not enough talkpage edits/not enough articles to FA/whatever my personal hobby horse de jour is!! He's plainly unqualified!!"  Ravenswing  04:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    I am no. 46 of the sixty. Are you asking me as one of the sixty, or are you asking about the total of sixty? If the former, do you really want sixty replies? Or is your question merely rhetorical? Morenoodles (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    Uh, there was one question in that brilliantly observant oppose, and it's obviously rhetorical. Tan | 39 17:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

46. Strong Oppose"I am power-hungry. Well, only sort of. I don't really think I need administrator tools", why the heck would you even say something lke that. That and the fact that you dont have the experince needed(or at least what I think)to be an admin.Gears Of War 05:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    Why? Let me guess... For those of you unfamiliar with the goings-on here at RfA, the nom was referring to Kurt Weber's perpetual self-nom oppose - according to Mr. Weber, self-nominating is "prima facie evidence of power hunger". "Power hungry" is apparently starting to become an affectionate slang synonym for "self-nom", and self-noms are starting to embrace it. Rock on. And then there's the issue of need... Who needs the tools? Nobody. Who needs to edit Wikipedia? Nobody. Why are we here? To help. But do we need to help? No. Need has absolutely nothing to do with it. The nom was simply poking fun at the bullshit reasoning that passes for logic at RfA. :) Lighten up. The Transhumanist 08:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, it registered "fail" at being a joke. --Ali'i 13:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

47. Oppose Doesn't need the tools. Deli nk (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
48. Oppose He won't use the tools. He said so himself. So there's no point in giving them to him. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    By the same token there's no point in denying the tools either. Unless you're trying to make a point yourself that is of course. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    Well even though adminship is no big deal, and the fact that he is a trusted user, some motivation would be helpful if he was to be granted the tools. If he doesn't care if he gets the tools or not and doesn't plan to use it except in extreme circumstances, there is no real point. Oh, and oppose per answer to Q1 and Q6. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

49. Oppose, we need admins who are willing to use the tools whenever necessary, not in the most grievous of situations. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    Why? Most of the actual work done in the encyclopedia does not require administrator tools. I have no interest in closing deletion discussions, protecting pages, etc. Why should I be required to to be an administrator? Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    I agree that the current fetish to demand that admin candidates be expert (at least where said expertise dovetails exactly with the commentator's philosophies) in whatever each individual commentator's personal hobby horse happens to be is silly, but there's an obvious answer to your question. What an admin IS is someone who applies certain specialized tools to do tasks requiring those tools. Someone who has no use for those tools and declines to perform any admin tasks doesn't need to be an admin. Someone who is perfectly content to do whatever maintenance tasks comes to hand that doesn't require the use of such tools doesn't need to be an admin.  Ravenswing  23:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    As others have said elsewhere, who needs to be an admin? Anyone can contribute without adminship (or not contribute at all). Why should we only give adminship to those who will definitely absolutely use it almost all of the time, and not to those who will probably only use it occasionally? And if we do want to make that distinction, where do we draw that line so it's not arbitrary? (Hint: You can't, and not giving adminship to those who could use it but probably only will do so occasionally is a bad idea.) --Rory096 23:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    I rather foolishly accepted nomination for an RfA, withdrew when it was clear it wouldn't clear consensus. I've made over ten thousand edits since then, done AfD work, vandal fighting, brought several articles to FA and GA, the whole nine yards. Plainly I've managed to make a contribution without admin tools. Of course the process is arbitrary, and demonstrably the process is broken as well, but you're setting a straw man argument up here. Ali'i didn't say he would only do admin work occasionally. He said he pretty much wouldn't do it, period.  Ravenswing  03:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    Well, in that case you've shown that you can contribute effectively without tools, so you clearly don't have a need for them. Does that mean you shouldn't get them? I don't think so. The candidate did not say that they wouldn't use the tools ever, they said that they didn't intend to use them; in other words, they wouldn't seek out places to use them. As detailed in question 11 and various responses in this section, the candidate would likely use the tools, though sparingly. --Rory096 04:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    I don't think you can fault a commenter for taking "[I] can't ever see myself using the block button (except maybe following discussion on Requests for comments/usernames where I try and contribute), the full protect button, or the deletion button" and "[I] vow not to use them in all but the most grievous of circumstances" at face value. As you point out she did amend those statements later, and considering she also said "I won't be fighting much in the oppose section" and "If this passes, great. If not, great. I'm not really bothered one way or another" (and wrote a novel about how it could still pass if the bureaucrats would disregard every reason she disagrees with on the talk page), she might just be using reverse psychology. That doesn't mean I'd trust her even if she did intend to use the tools at this point. - Bobet 06:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    Heh. ;-) --Ali'i 12:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    I agree that we need more administrators who are active, but how does that preclude us from promoting admins who are not so active? There's no limit to the number of admins we can have, and we can use all the help we can get. What's wrong with one more person helping, even if they won't use the tools all that much? --Rory096 21:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

50. Oppose. Users come to RfA asking us to trust them. This nom does nothing to instil trust. Particularly regarding appropriate use of humour. --Dweller (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    Just for clarification, which use of humor was inappropriate? The power-hungry/self-nom thing? Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    I'm not one for bashing those brave enough to step into RfA. We need more admins and I respect those who open themselves up to criticism. You've already racked up a substantial opposition and for those reasons, I didn't and still don't want to write a lengthy piece here spelling out just how unimpressed I've been by your attitude toward this RfA. However, if you're genuinely bemused and seeking feedback, feel free to drop me an email (my email is enabled) and I will go through things point by point. --Dweller (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks, Dweller. Will do. Gracias. --Ali'i 15:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

51. Oppose, it's not a badge. If you don't intend to use the tools, I dislike the concept in "awarding" them just to assuage your ego and show you how uberimportant you are. That being said, some of the reasons for opposition ("He isn't taking it SERIOUSLY!") are funny in themselves. Neıl 龱 10:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    Of course it's not a badge. That's what I said about 4 days ago. (Oh, unless you were trying to be ironic by saying that only people who have done X and Y and said Z get "awarded" with it as a trophy (and withheld from those who haven't)... in which case, I guess I missed the irony here) I'm not seeking adminiship to "assuage my ego". I'm seeking adminship to help the encyclopedia. I'd be more concerned with someone who was over-eager to use the tools rather than someone who doesn't intend to use them, but would as rarely as necessary. Please see question 9 for more information. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

52. I kind of liked some of the humour and gentle knocks at the rather staid RFA process at first. But I got the impression early on that this RFA would be convoluted at best. And tonight (although made earlier) I see from the candidate "I understand the opposers, I just don't think they "get me" the way I had hoped" as a statement from the candidate. Yep, well I'm afraid communication in a text only medium is damn hard. In fact, part of the reasons my first RFA passed was myself poorly communicating what I thought was funny and insightful when others felt it was sarcastic and bitey. However admins need to be able to communicate efficently and clearly. The fact you may not use the tools is immaterial to this argument - there are many searches on Wikipedia that would identify you as having +sysop - and indeed at near the top of the list given your username. So - the subjective crunch - Do I feel confident in you being able to use admin tools to the standards the community expects if it was asked of you, and could you do this effectively without issue and with effective communication? - No. Do I believe that you would deny flat out any request for use of the tools, thus mitigating my proposition? - No. Hence oppose. Sorry and Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  19:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    Again, there is absolutely no reason to be sorry. Thank you for your sound and articulate comment. --Ali'i 19:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

53. I cannot in good faith support a user who will not use the tools. If this RFA passes, this link will be going blue shortly.--Toffile (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    Go for it. The more admins (that use the tools or not) the better. Thank you for making my request for adminship your first stop since coming back! Mahalo! --Ali'i 20:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

54. Sorry. I agree that RfA needs to change somehow, but this isn't the way to do it. GlassCobra 00:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    That's funny, I thought this page was a request for adminship, not a referendum on changing RfA. What happened to commenting on whether or not the candidate was fit for adminship? --Rory096 00:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    I don't understand. I never said I was trying to change the way adminship was granted. If that was the case, I would have brought it up on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. This is a request of a few technical tools, not a request to overhaul the system. Mahalo. --Ali'i 12:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

55. Agree with #32. miranda 17:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

ZOMG Shenanigans! (Strong Neutral), switched to support. Thus, the moral dilemma. On the one hand, Ali'i is an outstanding editor and a voice of reason in most situations where he is a participant. I think the candidate's decision making would not be a risk to the tools, and the candidate is highly unlikely to abuse them. An excellent candidate, earnest in his desire to see the project improved, and whom I would be happy to support.... except that he is clearly (and, to his credit, openly) seeking adminship to prove a point. While not disruptive, in itself, I can't approve of such shenanigans. I reserve the right to switch over to Support, should I be satisfied that the candidate is serious in seeking adminship - and, you know what? I might switch over anyway. But the candidate's statement and answers to the questions above, though open and honest, tweaked me a little. I want to give this some thought. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Leaning towards oppose, but will wait answers for above, just not sure about this one. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 17:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC) switched to oppose

1. Neutral Although I agree that adminship is, in effect, no big deal, I would like to see this user have some experience with it. No experience indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. For example, when I first started getting involved in CSD, I made a few mistakes which I learnt from with more experience. I'm neutral because I know this user doesn't mean to exercise the tools; but, if they are there, I would like to see at least a passing understanding of the policies (shown through experience). PeterSymonds (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral This is a strange RfA, and I am just going to sit back and watch for a while. Keepscases (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral Same as Keepscases. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Do you guys want popcorn? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   *Grumbles* Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Thinking The candidate is very nice in discussions, but I'm not sure I trust them with the tools. Something does not feel right about this RfA. done thinking now SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral Leaning to oppose based on the answer to question #5--Cube lurker (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Striking my neutral. It lacked seriousness and since it's been made clear this is a serious Rfa I don't want to take away from that. Best of luck.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

4. Neutral I usually come here with one of three solid opinions: Support Strongly, Oppose Strongly, or I don't give a crap (so I don't vote). In this case, I give a crap, but I don't know where I stand. If the candidate had come here 6 months ago, I would have jumped all over it in oppose. Recently, however, I've seen some real strong maturity and a willingness to foster compromise. I do not like his recent involvement with various RfC's and the such, but right now, those things are like a gigantic The Blob engulfing lots of people in drama. I'm going to watch the rationalizations of the supports and opposes, and eventually change my vote. I'm specifically interested in SheffieldSteel's "feelings". I wonder what's going on there. My only other concern is wishing the candidate had spent more time building articles, but that may just be picky.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   (At the time of writing, I haven't received an answer to my question) It seems as if the candidate has launched an RfA because they want to find out whether adminship is a big deal. I don't see how that question is going to be answered by this process, which ought to be answering the question of whether we trust the candidate with the tools. But the question I find myself wanting to answer is whether I can trust a candidate who will create an RfA as a research tool, (apparently) joke about being power hungry, and so on. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   I see no reason to believe that this RfA was to prove a point. It seems to me that the RfA is to get adminship to be used whenever the candidate sees fit (but the candidate won't actively seek out opportunities to use the tools), and the candidate is saying that they don't care all that much about adminship because it's not a big deal and they probably wouldn't be using the tools for their main contributions to the encyclopedia anyway. The power hungry thing is clearly a joke, referring to Kurt Weber's frequent assertion that any self-noms are evidence of power hunger. To say that the candidate may have actually meant it is a huge stretch. --Rory096 23:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   "Whenever the candidate sees fit"? I refer you to the answer to the very first question. She doesn't say, "Rarely". She doesn't say, "When I see fit". She says, "Never". Tan | 39 23:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   The candidate does not say "never," in fact. The candidate says "none, to be honest," in reply to a question about intentions to use admin tools, which as established above in the oppose section, is not the same as using admin tools. --Rory096 00:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

   While I apologize for misquoting, I rest my case. Tan | 39 00:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

   Alright, if you say so. By the way, I have no special desire to see this candidate +sysopped, but I strongly oppose tenuous opposition reasons like those stated above, and, more generally, many of the things said here are deeply disturbing and indicative of the problems with RfA. --Rory096 00:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

   There is a problem with the RfA process, but it's what we have. Maybe it should be like the Board vote? Secret and weighted? I don't know what needs to be done, but this isn't working, that's for sure. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

   It doesn't even seem to be the process itself that's the problem, but rather the voters' (and I use that word purposely, because it's the people who "vote" that are the problem, whereas the people who realize it's just a process to comment on whether or not the candidate would abuse or misuse the tools generally have the right attitude) perceptions of the whole thing. That's why repeating "it's not a big deal" ad nauseum is necessary; people just don't get it. --Rory096 19:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

   "The power hungry thing is clearly a joke, referring to Kurt Weber's frequent assertion that any self-noms are evidence of power hunger." Obviously... well, I thought it was obvious. --Ali'i 19:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

5. Meh What's the (lowercase) point in giving the sysop bit to someone who probably won't abuse them but probably won't use them constructively? If this is only to (in)validate the premise that adminship is "no big deal", it's missing the mark, I think. — Scientizzle 18:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral - I give you boatloads of credit for being honest. I bet the number of people who think, but don't say, what you typed in your nomination is higher than any of us would like to believe. While I do believe that honesty is a good thing and should be rewarded, (1) adminship is not a trophy and (2) there's no way in heck a pointy RFA is going to succeed. --B (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Neutral Doesn't seem like they'd hurt the place, but I'm still concerned. MBisanz ^talk 20:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Neutral - yeah, adminship is no big deal, but RfA is something we should still take seriously. Shereth 21:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   It's no big deal, but we should take it seriously nevertheless, makes no sense to me. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Sure. Adminship - ie. the state of being an administrator is not and should not be considered a big deal. As far as I am concerned, so long as someone behaves in a civil manner and has shown they aren't likely to go bananas with the mop then it is no big deal to give it to them. The RfA process - the process by which we determine whether someone is indeed trustworthy - is a big deal. It's the only way to ensure that administrators are selected based on reasonable standards rather than given out like cracker-jack prizes or some kind of reward system. Taking the process seriously is what ensures we don't take administrators too seriously. Trying to prove adminiship is no big deal by making a mockery out of the way we select them is nonsense to me. Shereth 22:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral leaning toward support. I thought you'd give a better answer to #6 than just giving a link to the policy, and it doesn't look like you'll really use the tools much- then again, I think you're trustworthy enough and definitely experienced enough to be an admin, so I'll wait until I see something that will change my !vote to support. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Changed to support. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 00:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

9. Neutral. Was leaning to support, after being finally convinced that you foresaw any use of the mop, when I noticed you don't archive your talk. I consider discussion archiving to be a basic social nicety so it can be Googled for those users trying to find old conversations. I seen far too many users blank discussions that cast them in a bad light; I'm not saying you're one of them, but it raises the hairs on the back of my neck. <Picking up the popcorn and making a place for myself on the fence.> - BanyanTree 23:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Neutral - I think you're a good editor and I don't have any doubt that you'd misuse the tools, but things like this give me pause. Adminship may be no big deal to someone who understands how Wikipedia works, but to newcomers and troublemakers (and especially to newcomer troublemakers), the fact that you were entrusted with the tools by your peers implies a position of authority. While admins are fallible humans just like anybody else, that perception that we're supposed to be the people who know how this stuff works makes it even more important for us to uphold basic things like WP:CIVIL and WP:COOL. --jonny-mt 04:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

    Can't help commenting on this. I certainly hope this isn't a suggestion that the full weight of policy supports obvious troublemakers. The whole point of AGF is to give users the opportunity to clarify that they are not troublemakers, not to protect those who have proven to be troublemakers, who should be shown the door as expeditiously as possible. Similarly, COOL is not policy. One would be hard pressed to find any user who is passionate about something who hasn't lost it. I don't know the background behind the linked discussion, so make no statement as to if it was justified or not. - BanyanTree 05:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

    No, I was never suggesting that policy supports troublemakers--just that admins are held to fairly high standards when it comes to dealing with them. In this case, Ali'i seems to have reacted to an editing dispute with a bit of dismissive sarcasm that, no matter how good it may feel (or how many spot-on arguments it accompanies), is never helpful. I cited WP:COOL as a "basic thing" because I think it's a good rule for admins and those involved in disputes to follow, no matter which side you're on. --jonny-mt 06:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

11. Just wanted to comment that opposes for "you won't use the tools enough" are very misguided. We're all volunteers; we don't demand any particular level of contribution. If someone only wants to use the tools occasionally, but does so responsibly, there is no reason to object to this. Friday (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Have been watching this for a while, and have now decided to come down as neutral, for the moment. The nomination is silly, in a way possibly indicating that essential wisdom. Ali'i's help in trying to resolve disputes has seemed pretty useful, from what I recall, so I'll try to check that out a bit more and all being well will be inclined to support. . . dave souza, talk 20:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Neutral -- per Wisdom89 (in the oppose section). Sorry! --Cameron (T|C) 17:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

    Would like this to be moved to Oppose Section or leave this here ? -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 09:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

    Neutral. Bwrs (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

14. Neutral Good contributions, but the nomination doesn't make it clear why the tools are necessary. That said, keep up the good work. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:21, 15 June 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.