Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alexf

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Alexf[edit]

(40/9/6); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 01:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexf (talk · contribs) - Alexf began editing Wikipedia regularly in July 2006. Since then he has made over 10,000 edits, including 5,600 to mainspace. He is an excellent vandal fighter, with 260 reports to WP:AIV and 20 requests for page protection. He has good article writing experience, having improved many articles on South American footballers. He also participates at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football and Wikipedia:WikiProject Argentine football. Alexf has shown himself to be a civil and mature user who can be trusted with the tools. Epbr123 (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination. -- Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 01:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I do a lot of anti-vandalism work. I have requested user blocks at WP:AIV many times, with more than 98% success rate. I can only think of two or three instances when it was denied. I have made it a point to go back and see what other vandalisms recently blocked vandals have done, as many editors neglect to go back for a few days and clean up after these vandals. I also make it a point of checking WHOIS and have added many WHOIS and SharedIPEDU tags to their Talk pages. I have found many times a backlog in WP:AIV. Don't know if it is because of my local timezone, or when vandals are especially active. I can especially contribute and help to alleviate such backlogs. -- Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 01:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have had a love and thirst for knowledge since childhood (many, many moons ago). I have always loved encyclopedias. I get annoyed when I am reading a topic or article and find redlinks. I have done a lot of work in translating from Interwiki (primarily es:WP and also pt:WP) to try to cover those gaps and redlinks. I am an active member of a few Projects, mainly related to South American History, Wars of Independence, Geography, and also Football (soccer). I have contributed to, and started many articles and plan to continue doing so. I also have uploaded many photographs and contributed them to articles (as photography is my hobby). -- Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 01:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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: Not really. I can only think of two or three instances where edit wars ensued. I have always tried to stay clear of potential WP:3RR issues and have always warned other users in the fray to be aware of it themselves. I have asked on occasion some other trusted users for an informal look (as oppossed to a formal mediation process) to defuse the situation and avoid 3RR. -- Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 01:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Solumeiras

4. How would you deal with a persistent editor in a content dispute who refuses to engage in talk-page dialogue with other editors, and every time, he's blocked, he returns with a new sockpuppet and disrupts the article?? How long would you protect the article for?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solumeiras (talk • contribs) 14:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A. That's a good question! I have actually had this issue in the past with one particular user that was fixed on being a WP:SPA and doing good faith edits but without WP:RS. When he did not like the reversions and warnings he came back and again as different sockpuppets with the same purpose. It was not too difficult to tell it was the same user as his English was not that polished and the different sockpuppets made the same edits in the same article and left complaints in my Talk page using the same broken English. Then he started vandalizing my User and Talk pages. What I did was explain to the user(s) why he needed to provide WP:RS and to better use the article's Talk page to ask instead of reinstating controversial edits. I reported each and every sockpuppet and properly tagged the accounts plus the original as sockpupeteer. Eventually, after being blocked on the sockpuppets, he came back and started editing properly (always on the same article) and to my knowledge has improved as an editor. How long would I protect the article? I wouldn't unless absolutely necessary and then for a couple of days to allow him to cool off. In cases of WP:SPA I prefer to deal with the vandal(s) directly instead of article protection. That said, I have requested semi-protection on occasion (and in my example it would not have worked as some of his puppets were named accunst, not IPs). -- Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 14:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. In an Articles for deletion debate (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game (game) or a deletion review debate where large amounts of single-purpose accounts appeared to say Keep or Undelete, how would you deal with the situation?? Taking into account the fact that AfD and deletion review are not a vote, how would you handle the situation?? Where would your interpretation of the blocking policy come into it?? --Solumeiras talk 16:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. Interesting question.This particular example shows what appears to be meatpuppetry, a practice I do not condone at all. I'm not sure your question is clear to me as it refers to blocking more than the AfD itself. If meatpuppetry is proven, or has strong evidence of it (I would look at the IP Addressess in question and their previous edits to try to ascertain or otherwise get a feel for these anon. editors), I would consider blocking to avoid disruption of the AfD process. To me Wikipedia is not a game (no pun intended with your example), but a serious project which I strongly support. I would warn the editors properly that their actions are suspect and could be facing a block if it continued. I would comment something of the kind in a note in the AfD document for people to see. I would block as needed if warnings are not heeded. -- Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 22:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Oni Ookami Alfador

6. Canvassing has been raised as a concern by other editors. What is your view on both your past actions and the guideline in general? Knowing what you know now about how the community at large feels and given your own experiences with this, how would you deal with another user in an AFD, RFA, or similar discussion if the evidence showed to you that they had participated in such. Also, how would you assess an AfD that you think may have been influenced by a user's canvassing?--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. Oh. Believe me: I have learned the lesson. I was impressed by the responses to it I received here. It made me re-read the guideline a few times to fully understand how my original understanding and the responses clashed. I saw my orignal transgression as friendly notices. I came to understand, why it is inappropriate in an RfA and I have already apologized for it. It was wrong and have learned from it. To answer your question, in the future if I had learned of such transgression I will first assume good faith, as it was my own case here, then investigate, ask the editor(s) some questions and try to ascertain their intent and possible damage. If I feel it may possibly skew the results of an RfA or AfD or similar, I will say-so openly and point it out for other editors/admins to have a heads up and act accordingly. -- Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 13:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from user:dustihowe

7. Above in question number 2, you seemed to kinda skirted around the question. What do you feel is your best contribution to Wikipedia.

Erm, the candidate did answer it (to my satisfaction anyway) by providing a link to User:Alexf/Articles. WaltonOne 21:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A. I will elaborate. I see myself as wearing two main distinctive hats. One as an editor, another one as a vandal patroller. As a vandal patroller I have done a lot of work to keep WP tidy and clean. I have eliminated obvious spam, blatant inaccuracies, hate messages, etc. As an editor I already mentioned the articles and categories I have written, translated, or contributed to. I am most proud of the work I am doing (work in progress) on South-American history articles. There are many gaps, mostly already covered in Interwikies that I am working on translating, fixing (I do have a good body of books and encyclopedias on the subject to draw upon as I was always interested in history). Take for example the gaps in small, but important historical articles like Roca-Runciman Treaty which I started in Sept 2006 or Viceroy Rafael de Sobremonte which I started in Dec 2007, as examples. I am not an English major or a gifted writer but I do what I can to improve Wikipedia. -- Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 13:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Another question from user:dustihowe

8. How do you feel about AOTR?

A. A good idea. I will set myself as open for recall. I believe adminship is no big deal but it entrusts editors with more tools and therefore many more responsibilities. I would not have accepted the nom if I did not feel myself capable. I do, but it is not enough. The community has to be comfortable with it. I am open to inspection on anything I do here, not only because everything is recorded and logs are kept, but because nobody is perfect or infallible. The community should have an easy way to comment, if they choose so, and be able to point out mistakes or ask for recall if they see some egregious ones or conduct unbecoming. I'm for it. -- Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 13:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Malinaccier

9. What is your opinion on Userbox content?
A. By now you probably have seen my collection of userboxes. I think they are fun and add something interesting, but they are sometimes overdone with way too many or too many silly ones. As for the link you provided, that is a more serious issue where userboxes cease to be fun. I am against censorship and agree with WP:NOTCENSORED. That said, I do not condone racism and hate messages. For example, talking about the slave trade in an article where it is relevant you could mention segregation and epithets used, in moderation. Putting those same epithets in an userbox as a personal statement is something entirely different. It should be, and already is, governed by policies such as WP:CIV and Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content_restrictions so I see the issue as already covered by policy and guidelines. -- Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 13:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum: it is also valid on the issue of WP:IU. I have reported inappropriate user names in the past that violated this policy, which I strongly support. We are building an encyclopedia here, not a place for blatant hatemongering, racism, and political discourse. -- Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 13:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from AndonicO

10. I noticed you don't have e-mail enabled: is there a reason why this is so? And do you plan to enable it after this RFA? How, if at all, important do you think allowing others to e-mail you (especially after an RFA) is?
A. It is definitely a good idea, and has now been enabled. As an editor I always received/answered in Talk pages promptly and was content with it. As an admin I feel it is relevant and important to be more available. E-mail option is now open. -- Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 13:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Orderinchaos

11. User:Tearaway88 signed up two days ago and made some edits to a couple of New Zealand articles. If their edits had have popped up on your watchlist, how would you have handled them? Would it be safe to assume good faith of this user based on their edits? Orderinchaos 20:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A. Gave a quick read to the newspaper article referenced. This guy has deleted some text that was more-or-less referenced in the supplied citation (about some local celebrity named Larkin). His comment for the deletion was not civil and he violated NPA in his following comments. I see he has one warning. I would have restored the original text and maybe copy-edit it (I'd have to read it in more detail before doing that). I would have warned him again for his other edits. I don't think he displays proper wiki etiquette and is definitely abrasive in his comments. Good faith? It seems that way as he is adding seemingly constructive edits, but his tone has to soften some and be more civil. -- Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 21:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Nothing wrong with the edit history, interesting edit span. Beat nom! SpencerT♦C 01:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as a WP:WPF member who has seen Alex around the place. Conscientious editor. Woody (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support A whole lot of edits recently, all good. No problems with edit summary usage or contribs. Good luck. Timmeh! 02:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Slightly Weak Support looking through contribs and deleted contribs reveals an editor who is certainly experienced on the vandal fighting side of things. Indeed there were very few declined WP:AIV reports out of many. I get the impression you have a lot of football related articles on your watchlist! My issues are minor, and not enough to oppose but for the community it's only fair to point them out. 1) Other than a bit of WP:AFD contribution, you have done nothing really in deletion areas. However you haven't stated you want to go near deletion processes in the questions so fair enough - just go slowly if you do. 2) I noticed two rather brusque comments on your talk page that you won't reply to another editor on their talk unless they sign. As an admin you'll get far more complaints about your actions, often from new users who may not be aware of four tildes. Please remember that even if they are complaining, a civil and respectful response may help us to retain a valuable editor for the future. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  10:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On balance I have restored my support. The editor has "learned his lesson" (ugh! - horrid phrase) and it will not benefit the project to possibly loose this potential admin (with the tally at 80% as I type). Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  22:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support All looks good ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Looks fine to me. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. I have had many encounters with Alexf, most notably his support of WikiProject Argentine football. He has created a number of articles on Argentina related subject matter and is often reverting vandalism on my watchlist. From my experience he is a trustworthy editor and should be allowed the tools that will allow him to make a greater contribution to the fight against vandalism King of the NorthEast 14:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support As per others.  Sunderland06  14:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support As a regular contributor to Spanish football league articles (specifically related to FC Barcelona), I've found myself running into Alexf routinely and I don't recall a single instance where that was a negative. A tireless anti-vandalism worker, really, and someone who seems to have a fairly complete grasp of the wiki world. Isaiah (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, good vandal fighter, nothing in history that suggests he will misuse the tools. Burzmali (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, as canvassing doesn't really worry me much, and this user is a good editor. · AndonicO Hail! 16:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Abstaining, pending the reply to question 10. · AndonicO Hail! 12:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support It would be a shame to lose a good admin over a minor mistake. Epbr123 (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - yes, why not? Deb (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Although the canvassing is frowned upon, I believe it to be an innocent mistake. I don't believe it's grounds enough to deny an otherwise qualified editor the opportunity to help the project via adminship. Bleeding Blue 20:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak support - Great candidate except for the canvassing bit, which may indicate lack of knowledge of policy. In any case, he should go to WP:NAS when chosen, sooner or later. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Yeah, canvassing sucks and they shouldn't have done it, but that is not reason enough for me to oppose. Jmlk17 21:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. It's difficult to canvass as an admin, you can always push the button yourself. I suppose you could canvass for a community block an WP:AN/I, but you don't have to be an admin for that, and you also would have to be really vindictive too... (come visit me and help me push the edit button! I need help because I have a big head and little arms! RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 23:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support While canvassing is frowned upon, I don't feel that's reason enough to oppose this user, given that their contributions have been great. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 00:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Canvassing is good. See here for my rationale. This user appears to be a good candidate. Majorly (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. As Majorly says, this user appears to be a good candidate. I happened to know about the RfA before the canvassing took place, and I was going to support anyway. Acalamari 02:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Yeah, ok. Majorly makes a strong case against WP:CANVASS-based opposes. So fuck nuke WP:CREEP (the bureaucratic ill not the guideline addressing it, mind you). Malleus Fatuarum's rationale is still valid, but I'm wildly eager to make a point of supporting for the sake of sanity. User:Dorftrottel 07:08, January 18, 2008
  22. Support - one misstep (and the canvassing was that) does not a failed admin candidate make. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - While I do feel that the canvassing issue was an unacceptable lapse in judgment, I think that this user has learned his lesson and will not be doing anything of the sort in the future. I feel that aside form this, the user is a good candidate. Trusilver 18:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Tentative support after a quick review of contribs, assuming that there's nothing else other than this canvassing issue. - TwoOars 19:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. No reason to make this vote oppose NHRHS2010 20:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Notifying a few other users should not be viewed as canvassing. Having worked for a politician in real life, I know what canvassing is, and leaving a few polite, neutrally-worded messages on talk pages isn't it. Yes, I know that in theory such notification skews the sample, but I don't think this is seriously problematic. Those editors who have worked with a candidate before are those who are most qualified to judge that candidate's fitness for adminship - and experience has shown that they don't all necessarily vote Support. We would only have cause to worry if candidates were stacking the vote by recruiting armies of supporters who shared their own ideological viewpoints, and that is not happening; besides, any candidate who was dishonest and power-hungry enough to do that would probably not do it openly on-wiki. So all in all, I don't think that the alleged "canvassing" is a sound reason to oppose. The only solid argument I can see is the fact that the candidate's conduct, in contravening the commonly accepted interpretation of WP:CANVASS, may demonstrate unfamiliarity with RfA procedures; however, I don't see this as a deal-breaker. WaltonOne 21:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Walton, no issue with your !vote but, "Those editors who have worked with a candidate before are those who are most qualified to judge" is not applicable here. Look at the neutral from User:Daniel Case. This candidate solicited editors who did not really know him. Sorry, I respect your support but check your rationale on your defence against opposers and neutrals please. Pedro :  Chat  21:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right - a mistake on my part. However, in that case the solicitation of votes is even less problematic - if the editors didn't really know him, there's no reason why they would be more favourable to his candidacy than anyone else, hence it doesn't skew the sample. So my vote doesn't change. WaltonOne 22:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) No Biggie, and I'm not opposing the candidate. Just an (unblued!) point/ question. Pedro :  Chat  22:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - I'm going to be bold. I suppose I've set off enough about this already, and I see this as the only way of apologising. Good contributions, good answers to questions. Rudget. 22:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - Canvassing is indicative of ignorance of community sentiment, not ignorance of policy. You can be an excellent admin focusing solely on policy (i.e. vandal whacking and mop-and-bucket activities) while keeping out of more political areas. If you've kept your nose clean for over a year and 10K edits while helping with vandal whacking, you deserve trust. —dgiestc 08:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support I'm very happy with the answers given - we all make mistakes, but it's the self-analysis afterwards that's important (i.e. not making the same mistake a second time). Nothing I've seen shows a propensity to abuse the tools and his understanding of policy exceeds the mere mechanical. Well thought out and investigative approach to my question also. Orderinchaos 20:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Despite a bobble over WP:CANVASS, he seems like a responsible editor with good knowledge of policy. Very small pet peeve: all your edits seem to be marked as minor which I have some difficulty believing. Willingness to admit mistakes is always a plus as is looking up relevant policies and guidelines when necessary. I'm a policy wonk and I will still own up to gaps in my knowledge. (but don't tell the cabal or I'll catch it good.) Pigman☿ 03:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Not likely to abuse the tools. Lawrence Cohen 23:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Canvassing doesn't mean he will misuse the tools. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - nice wide area of interest on the 'pedia when looking at his contributions. Never been in any situation that would make me doubt his trustworthiness. He apologized for the canvassing and I believe it was a genuine mistake. Poeloq (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Why the hell not? Ral315 (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Weak Support Please go slow. There may be a tendency toward trigger-happiness. Unfortunately there is sometimes a tendency among WP:AIV participants to hit too hard and fast with warnings. Sometimes a full set of warnings, with time between for the message to sink in, can be effective in stopping vandalism. It is pointless to block someone after they've already stopped, and counter productive to block those who are not really committing vandalism. The canvassing is concerning. Though the last time I read WP:CANVASS, it did not prohibit canvassing, it is certainly disruptive and definitely to be discouraged. Not quite enough for me to oppose as I believe the benefits of promotion to the project outweighs the detriments. Dlohcierekim 03:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong Support - Wikidudeman (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support nothing to indicate that the tools would be abused or misused. RMHED (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Canvassing rocks, and so do you. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 00:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose. A lack of awareness that canvassing is frowned upon (rightly or wrongly, I'm sure we all have our own views on that) makes me suspicious that there may be other more important guidelines and policies that the candidate is also unaware of, as Rudget hinted at above. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose as a result of violations of WP:CANVASS and candidate not remembering that the policy exists. Sorry - Avruchtalk 20:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops - it isn't a policy (thank goodness!) Majorly (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Even if you forgot the rule, canvassing isn't the best idea off top - and indicates being out of touch with the community's zeitgeist. east.718 at 21:13, January 17, 2008
    No, it indicates being out of touch with the RfA cabal. Oh, wait... Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You should know what The Cabal™ wants if you dare venture in their den, much like how you should be familiar with a situation before taking action :-) east.718 at 08:13, January 19, 2008
  4. Oppose per WP:CANVASS and the above-mentioned risk of nom not knowing other policies/guidelines. -- Iterator12n Talk 22:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Malleus. The user should have known that, at a minimum, canvassing would be controversial. Failing to take note of that is a sign of poor judgment, so I'd support a bit more of a wait before the editor is given the mop. Xoloz (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose For me, while canvassing is not breaking a policy, it does indicate a poor judgement and that is not something we need in admins Whitstable (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose I was once blocked for canvassing due to my lack of awareness on Wiki-policy and Wiki-etiquette. Any person who violates this guideline is making a mockery of the AFD RFA process and as such should not hold the power of the mop. Sysops are expected to play by (and enforce) the rules. They are not meant to be politicians. --Sharkface217 01:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh? How is it a mockery of AFD? Majorly (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, my mistake. --Sharkface217 20:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Concerns about sometimes inappropriate/mistaken use of user-warning templates apparently leading in two cases to blocks based at least partly on misunderstandings and/or mistakes, detailed in my post on the candidate's talk page. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, per canvassing. Life is just like self-assembly furniture - if you don't take the time to read the instructions, it is likely to all fall apart. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank goodness most people see sense and ignore that silly guideline. And by the way, where in the instructions does it say not to tell anyone? Majorly (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Life has instructions?! Can I have a copy of yours because my model didn't come with any instructions ;) Kingturtle (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral - sadly canvassing makes me wonder about user's knowledge of this policy and there was perhaps a unintentional selection bias. Fear of a low number of (votes) at an RfA doesn't mean you have to send many messages to other editors. However, really this is not a very serious concern as adminship is no big deal; nevertheless I feel unable to support, but I hope you learn and become a good admin, as you appear to be a good editor! EJF (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral I won't oppose but I really don't like canvassing. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  17:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - This editor in general has good contributions, but I think the canvassing issue was a big disappointment, from someone who should have known not to do such a thing. I won't oppose per your good contributions and good answers to questions. Rudget. 21:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fuck WP:CANVASS as a guideline. But it's an ironic truth that someone who doesn't know that canvassing is generally frowned upon doesn't make a strong point for their candidacy. User:Dorftrottel 22:33, January 17, 2008
    Buddy, not censored is one thing but do you have to use expletives here? Pedro :  Chat  22:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course not. But it's as succinct a summary of my opinion as it will get. User:Dorftrottel 23:28, January 17, 2008
    Ack, where's the soap? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Temporary Oppose pending explanation: Neutral, leaning towards oppose: Seems like a good editor. However, a quick look at his contribs shows, at the time of writing, 13 notices to other users about this RfA, which I'd say violates my understanding of WP:CANVASS. Wizardman 16:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wizardman: if I transgressed, I sincerely apologize. I honestly did not remember WP:CANVASS which I just went to read. What I did was inform several admins and users I had dealt with in the past ("friendly notices"), so they could come and express an opinion. In no instance I have suggested or told how to vote, just that the RfA was open and to please vote whatever way they wanted. Again, I sincerely apologize if I ruffled some feathers on this issue. No intent on my part other than to avoid a short attendance and having too few votes cast. -- Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 16:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You notified 14 users in a three hour time period, and as far as I can see, I can't find any form of lengthy discussions between you and those users (which would seem to be what you suggest in saying "inform several admins and users I had dealt with in the past") - canvassing is an significant problem and can sway discussions right across the wiki. If anything, canvassing is the single biggest problem we have at XFD when it comes to discovering how a calm debate may have turned nasty whilst we turned our back for a few hours. Failing to remember issues like this may indicate further areas where you may need to know, and after all, isn't remembering not to canvass common sense? Rudget. 17:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll change to neutral, since he's a good editor otherwise and I'll WP:AGF. Wizardman 23:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - I know for good he is a good and trusted user, but he ignored what I feel to be a very important behavioural guideline such as WP:CANVASS. But I am sure he just did it in good faith, so I am casting a neutral vote. --Angelo (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IIRC, people have received opposition for calling RfA a vote. User:Dorftrottel 11:15, January 18, 2008
    If you have a quick look here, you can realize I am not the only one using the "vote" word here. I know for good this is not a vote (in fact I am sharing with you the reasons behind my neutrality), but obviously you're expected to voice either your support, opposition or neutral stance to the subject debated here (that is what I'm doing here). If you don't agree about the way RfA is designed, this is not the right place to discuss. --Angelo (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying to point out that we're talking tradition here. RfA is not traditionally regarded as a vote, just as canvassing is traditionally frowned upon. Not supporting a candidate for breaking with one tradition, while yourself breaking the other in your rationale seemed worthy of pointing out. User:Dorftrottel 22:18, January 18, 2008
  4. Neutral, as I was one of the canvassed editors too, and I wasn't really familiar with Alexf's work outside of AIV reports. Daniel Case (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral per everyone else who has mentioned WP:CANVASS I'm an infrequent editor so have never come across this user before, so have to go by what I'm seeing here. And what I'm seeing here is good answers to questions but a large question mark because of forgetting such an important policy, that could very easily sway an RFA. Even if it wasn't realised to be policy, common sense should have dictated that making people you think will support you aware of an RFA is inappropriate. Common sense isn't a good trait to be missing from an admin, nor is forgetfulness regarding policy. But, good answers to questions so I won't opposeCaissa's DeathAngel (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    May I point out that WP:CANVASS is NOT policy (guideline < policy)? · AndonicO Hail! 22:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral Until above questions are answered. Dustihowe  Talk  20:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alexf&oldid=1146642233"