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

Diez2[edit]

Ended (32/18/6); Extended 48 hours by Cecropia. No consensus to promote. --Deskana (banana) 19:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diez2 (talk · contribs) - I have been editing rather actively for about 7-8 months now, and over that span of time, I have come to greatly know Wikipedia policy. I have done a lot of things, but I mainly work in the notability, anti-vandalism, and editing abuse departments. I used to do a lot of new page watching, and now I do a lot of RC patrol. I am the founder of Wikiproject Notability, an effort to sort the 10,000+ borderline articles into "Notable" and "Non-notable" bins. I used to work as the "director" of WP:ACID as well. One shortcoming that you may notice in Q2 is that I don't edit articles very often. I do have a 1000 mainspace edit count mostly due to reverting edits, and I have a 1200+(correction, 1000+) deleted edits count due to all the new pages I tagged with a db template, but I really don't do much in the department of article contributing. However, I do know a good article (and a bad one) when I see it, as proven by my WP:GAC work and my Special:Newpages work. After all, administrators are maintenance workers. Anyway, feel free to comment, support, or critique me in the discussion below. Thanks! Diez2 18:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would work with WP:AIV, WP:RPP, (which can accumulate a backlog very quickly), closing AfDs and help enforce CheckUser results and ArbCom decisions. It may seem like a lot, but I can devote my time to each one.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As I stated above, my best contributions to Wikipedia aren't to an article, but to maintenance around the Wikipedia space portion. I do enjoy working in WP:GAC, although I have found that I have less time to work with it as I did before. I also feel that my edit reverts and newpage tagging are some of my best work, because that work only goes to help Wikipedia maintain its quality of articles.
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: Occasionally, I have reverted edits that were not vandalism, but looked like it. I am usually able to keep a cool head about it. If I am indeed wrong, I simply apoligize and move on. Also, If I am right, I do not gloat over the other user waving a banner saying "I'm right and you're wrong." I simply state how they are wrong using policy in a civil manner and move on.

Optional Question from Trusilver:

4. Could you explain under what circumstances you feel it would be appropriate to block a user for vandalism who has not been given a "final warning"?
A: Well, under WP:AIV policy, a vandal has to be given that "final warning" before he/she can be reported there. However, if the user violated WP:3RR, is a vandal sockpuppet, an open proxy IP, or violated an ArbCom or Community-sanctioned decision, a block would be necessary. Diez2 23:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions by DarkFalls

5. What are, in your opinion, the three most important policies on Wikipedia, and why?
Just to be clear on this question, are you talking strictly about policies, or are you including guidelines as well? Diez2 18:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was specifically talking about policies, but on second thoughts, you can name some guidelines and essays as well... --Dark Falls talk 06:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. Sorry for the delay... One of the most important policies is Wikipedia:Consensus, because everything, from the Village Pump to the WikiProjects to the AFDs and even this RfA, all works off of consensus. As outlined in numerous essays, consensus is what makes Wikipedia tick. (Of course, consensus can and has been superceded by IAR, but only when applying common sense and good faith.) The second policy would be Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. Wikipedia is not a forum or a debate area for which different sides can be heard, but rather, it's a place where the facts can be told without taking sides. I've seen how this can be hard to do, but it must be enforced or else it will make articles look as stupidly as this, where the 2 extremes are so far apart from each other that it's impossible to really tell what is fact and fiction. (for the record, this dispute is currently undergoing arbitration) Finally the 3rd "policy" (it's really a guideline) is Wikipedia:Notability. You can see my reason for this here, and although my comment here is a response to various statements made by a user, it does cover this point. I have worked plenty with notability, and I find that it is an extremely necessary guideline for the maintenance and well-being of Wikipedia. Diez2 04:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. What is the importance of the IAR policy, and when will you use it/not use it?
A:When a user becomes so bogged down in red tape or if the rules do not permit him/her to make or do something in good faith, then that user should ignore all the rules bogging him/her down and just "do the right thing," if I may take the words of another rfa candidate. For example, Trusilver mentioned that if a user only had 20 edits which were all vandalism, you shouldn't have to just leave a "final warning" on the user talk page and leave it alone; you can go straight to a block. Diez2 18:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another (and probably better) example is when I have to decide the consensus on AFD noms. The vote tally would come into play, but the major decider would be the arguments that each side makes. Hypothetically, if the minority side did make a better argument than the majority side, and if it seemed common sensical to follow the minority side, then IAR would come into play. Diez2 02:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Deskana

7. Will you consider changing your username? --Deskana (banana) 12:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Yes, I will. I did not realize that an admin named "Deiz" existed (not that I really bothered to check :-)). I don't exactly know what I'll change it to, but I won't deal with it until after this RfA. Diez2 18:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realize changing your username while this RFA is open would only cause greater confusion, but I don't think your decision to change it should be contingent on whether the RFA passes or fails. —freak(talk) 19:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but even if this RfA fails, I'll probably try again in the future, and I don't want my username to cause any confusion. Diez2 04:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question by User:Vodak

8. Would you please provide your most recent curriculum vitae?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand this question. Are you asking me to post a résumé here? If so, then what should I post? Please analyze my contributions and logs to get a good idea of who I am and what I've done. Thank you. Diez2 05:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Thesocialistesq:

9. Would you be open to Admin recall? If so, under what conditions? If not, why not?
A. I do agree with WP:RECALL, although I did not know of its existence before now. I see it as a nicer way of getting an admin with supposedly bad judgement (such as one that violates policy) to resign without having to file an RfC, and then an RfAr to have a user desysopped. It seems similar to what Wikisource does with its administrators. Once you pass something equivalent to an RfA there, you are granted adminship for 1 year. After that 1 year has passed, a "confirmation discussion" is held over whether or not to keep you as an admin. Usually, these discussions pass, and the user is held as an admin for another year. The only difference is that these discussions are scheduled, and do not result due to someone saying (and others agreeing) that you have bad judgement. Finally, as I see it, admin recall is not handled lightly. Only 7 admins have been nominated for a recall, and only 1 has actually been recalled (who was later resysopped in another RfA), since this program has started. In a nutshell: WP:RECALL is a way to politely cut through the red tape and ask an admin to resign before things get ugly. Diez2 05:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I forgot to add the conditions :-). I would let something happen like Crzrussian's recall, where he let any admin vote, and chose the votes he thought came from users in good standing, per the definiton given on WP:RECALL's page. If 6 users in "good standing" came forth and said that I needed to be recalled, then I would accept the petition and ask the stewards to desysop me. Diez2 06:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Diez2 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Support. You are well qualified, and your involvement with the wikipedia space (which really makes the other spaces run smoothly) is exemplary. J-stan Talk 19:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support User knows policy and understands that quality of articles is a priority here. Won't abuse the tools. T Rex | talk 19:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support—Diez is definitely somebody I'd be happy to have working alongside me as an Administrator: he has an excellent knowledge of policy and guidelines, has contributed to some great projects, tried his hand at XfDs, and is courageous enough to admit that he's not an article writer at heart. Best of luck, mate, and I hope to be seeing you with the mop in a week's time! Cheers, Anthøny 20:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support From what I can see you are qualified for adminship. I certainly hope the vote is in your favour! Deliciously Saucy 21:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support -- I for one would prefer more mainspace edits, but because of this user's strong efforts elsewhere in the project, I would have to support. There's more to this encyclopedia than building its content, we have to make sure it's done properly too. This user has made great strides in seeing that this happens, and it is for that reason I would have to support.The Kensington Blonde Talk 22:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support A experienced Project space editor, I think he will make a excellent admin. Good Luck!--Hirohisat Talk 23:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Daniel 00:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC) I confused this user with Deiz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (who is already an administrator). Reconsidering vote based on initial perception. Daniel 01:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Everyone should be an administrator. A.Z. 03:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. --Boricuaeddie 03:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone should be an administrator, and then have their tools taken out according to community consensus if they become abusive, only to have a second chance within a few months, and so on ad infinitum, unless they either become a non-abusive administrator or give up. A.Z. 18:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That would not be effective, as we would have to clean up messes created by new users who blocked productive ditors and deleted featured articles and there would be chaos. But, alas, this is not the place to discuss this. --Boricuaeddie 20:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a good place, it doesn't cause harm to anyone. About chaos and effectiveness, I wrote an essay, User:A.Z./Imagine. A.Z. 21:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Cute (I'm not being flippant; I really like it.)--Chaser - T 21:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! A.Z. 21:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support This user is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support This user has a good history with WP policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewedge (talk • contribs)
  10. Support: To balance out Matt57's frivolous oppose vote below. The obfuscated one 08:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the user's first edit. --Dark Falls talk 08:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The obfuscated one, please give a more informative reason. --Deskana (banana) 12:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. No reason not to - this user looks great! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 10:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I feel self nomination is okay as normally asking others to nominate involves backdoor canvassing.Feel no reason to oppose.Harlowraman 10:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - good editor, not sure about the concept that every speedy delete tag should automatically equate to a user talk warning - if someone is creating a large quantity of nonsense pages, they could just be given a final warning. Addhoc 11:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, to balance out Kurt's stupid vote below. And because I think Diez2 is a) not a mental and b) could use the tools, so will be fine. Neil ╦ 11:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support there is nothing wrong with this user; I agree with what Neil said. Acalamari 16:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Not warning writers of speedy tagged articles does not seem like a reason that I would oppose for. Captain panda 18:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, good maintenance work, would use tools well. Tim Vickers 19:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support- from oppose, per the reasons there. --Boricuaeddie 20:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I have no further comment, neither constructive nor witty. Sorry. -- Kicking222 01:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Seems like a good editor, no reason to oppose, has done good work and would use the mop well (anyone willing to take on notability backlog in a sensible, non-blanket kind of way earns my respect). Orderinchaos 09:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 18:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per all above. Opposers' reasons do not bring up any valid concerns. WaltonOne 14:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per Kurt Weber. It's a risk I'm willing to take. —AldeBaer 21:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support I forgot that I had done an editor review for the candidate in March. I offered a few points of criticism, but that was 3 1/2 months ago, and I trust he has acquired substantial additional experience. Shalom Hello 04:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Clearly to be trusted with the tools. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 11:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Good answers to the additional questions (if somewhat terse answers to the standard ones), and the issues raised below don't bother me. Dekimasuよ! 15:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Changed to neutral. Dekimasuよ! 01:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom and subject to a name change to avoid confusion. Pedro's concerns have been adequately addressed as far as I can see. --John 18:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Changed to neutral.[reply]
  26. Support - Looks like he could use the delete button to remove junk. I find the oppose reasons not at all compelling. I believe he'd be a net gain to the project, having the tools. Friday (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Appears to be dedicated, willing, and able to help keep the proect running smoothly as an admin. Cla68 20:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per the nom and users promise to change their username. Looks like a good candidate, needs the tools.--Sandahl 21:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Changed to Neutral.--Sandahl 03:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support as a credible, experienced user with a good use for the tools. I strongly encourage a username change and openness to recall.-- The_socialist talk? 07:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support ~ Wikihermit 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, he knows the policies well and seems to know about the mop. Marlith T/C 00:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support as I feel Diez will accomplish positive outcomes with admin tools CitiCat ♫ 05:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. We were all new once, too. New people make mistakes. You've done it, I've done it, and, Diez2 did it, too. And, this user was honest and upfront about it, to boot. Not to mention, most of the cited issues were months to nearly a year ago. I just don't see a reason why I wouldn't trust this user with the mop... I hope, some day, it's not held against me, that I forgot something... Particularly, when there's a bot out there that does it anyhow... (I know, I CSD a lot too, I've seen the bot...) --SXT4 06:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose I have a 1200+ deleted edits count due to all the new pages I tagged with a db template fine - yet a review of your last two thousand contribs shows no warnings to any users that their article had been tagged for speedy deletion. This sugests either you have not made these 1000+ CSD tags but I assume the faith you just simply don't bother warning - which is strong enough for me to oppose as it shows a total lack of courtesy, something essential in an admin. Sorry. Pedro |  Chat  19:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I should clarify, I used to do newpage editing, which is why those edits don't show up in my last 2000. Diez2 19:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at his first 500 edits shows warning on user talk pages. Lara♥Love 19:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, indeed warning do show up, vandalism warnings - and the 98 edits to WP:AIV are good. However simple numbers re:beyond the last 2000 - candidate has made 1290 user talk page contribs. The candidate asserts 1200 + speedy tags. A quick review shows numerous talk page edits in batches regarding project work. Therefore the candidate has not advised users in by far the majority of cases of the speedy tag,(diffs to show he has are of course welcome) hence my oppose stands. Sorry. Pedro |  Chat  19:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize there is a bot that warns people of speedy deletions, right? [1] While it's nice for the tagger to notify the author, it certainly isn't required. Also, looking at the user's deleted edits, an absurd number are in fact speedy tags. - auburnpilot talk
  2. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. While I have no reason to explicitly think this may be the case with you, it is not a risk I am willing to take. Kurt Weber 00:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor adds this comment to virtually all self-nom RfAs --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I view pretending that you don't want to be an admin and waiting for someone to nominate you so it doesn't look you want power as psychopathic. Plus, people who like power are welcome to be editors and administrators as much as people that don't. A.Z. 20:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's Kurt's choice on why to oppose in the end. WP:CIVIL doesn't just go away in Rfa's guys. Jmlk17 04:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, however... is that a template, or what, Kurt? :) --SXT4 06:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Pedro. We have warnings for a reason, I want to see a candidate use them. Giggy UCP 01:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I must ask you to look at Special:Contributions/Diez2 from 16:04 16 November 2006. The majority of my edits before this date are user talk edits, and the majority of those edits are indeed warnings to users about their about-to-be-deleted pages. Diez2 01:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a better link - [2] Diez2 01:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In an effort to get some hard numbers on this, I looked through previous deletion tags and checked for warnings. What I found is on the talk page.--Chaser - T 04:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose The reason I asked question 4 was because I feel very strongly that a good administrator working with AIV (or a good administrator working anywhere for that matter) is one that can discern when their own judgment supercedes policy. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy - Wikipedia policy exists to perpetuate the encyclopedia, not vice versa. For administrators working in anti-vandalism, my first question is "when this administrator sees a commercial link spammer whose only contribution is adding links to twenty articles but he's only on a first warning, is he going to discern that this is a vandalism only account? or Is he going to say 'nope! have to have a level 4 warning first!' Process is important, but so is the ability to make snap judgments for yourself - your answer to my question has not satisfied me that you are yet able or willing to make those judgments. You are an excellent editor, but this time I'm going to say nay. Trusilver 04:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed position to neutral Trusilver 05:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose: To balance out A.Z's frivolous support vote above. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    struck out. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To protest a frivolous vote, you are going to cast an equally frivolous vote? I don't see this ending well... Trusilver 05:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Matt57, please give a more informative reason. --Deskana (banana) 12:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose- per Trusilver. If a user's vandalized over 10 pages but only has one warning, he/she should still be blocked, as he/she obviously shows no signs of stopping. If you're not willing to do that (as you stated in your answer to question 4), then I do not trust you with administrator rights/buttons/powers/tools, etc. --Boricuaeddie 16:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect and understand your oppose votes, but I think I misunderstood the question as worded. I thought that you were talking about other ways that a vandal could get blocked, and not about skipping the red tape and going straight for a block. Contrary to Trusilver and Boricuaeddie, I will block someone straight up for vandalism if he has only 20 edits that are all vandalism. Once again, I think that I just misunderstood the question. Diez2 18:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, as I see you are an overall good candidate, so I'll switch to support. --Boricuaeddie 20:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Per Boricuaeddie. Politics rule 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: Since Boricuaeddie switched his vote, will you switch yours as well? Diez2 02:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, a good question. --SXT4 06:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Just not enough overall experience. Jmlk17 22:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Oppose- I first encountered this editor when he prodded the article of legendary romance author Anne Stuart for deletion [3][4]. It was a one sentence article then, but had he done the slightest amount of research he would've found this is one of the most popular romance novelists in history. Luckily this was caught as this likely would've made the press. Someone who would exhibit such reckless behavior should not be an administrator. --Oakshade 23:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this was a mistake, and I realized it as such (otherwise I would have sent it to AFD), but you've got to admit, back in November I only had about 1 month of experience under my belt, and people do indeed make mistakes. I even made a few mistakes the first time I started nominating articles for AFD (back around November-December). People do make mistakes sometimes, and this was one of them. Diez2 02:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point out, that that was almost a year ago. Diez2 seems to have improved GREATLY since then. --SXT4 06:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per a general lack of experience that has manifested in several instances of a disconcerting supersession of due process (see pedro). This user needs a wider range of experience before I trust their judgement with admin powers. VanTucky (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but I don't understand this; I'm getting oppose votes for "following the process" (see Trusilver), and then I'm getting other oppose votes for not following the process? I really don't understand. Diez2 03:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't really speak for Tru, but what I take both arguments to mean is that we don't trust your judgement. Trusilver doesn't think you understand when and how to apply WP:IAR, and I concur with Pedro's statements about your lack of adherence to the letter and spirit of policy. VanTucky (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with VanTucky's interpretation. Trusilver 05:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Pedro. Candidate displays an unfortunate lack of thoroughness, inappropriate in an admin. Xoloz 15:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sufficient doubt, per VanTucky, that I can't support this nomination at this time. Daniel→♦ 05:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me point out once again that I have indeed warned the majority of my CSD tagging (which is what Pedro's vote is about, see talk page), and that it is indeed not required (since we are following the "adherence to the letter") for a user talk warning to be placed on one's talk page. Diez2 15:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak Oppose. The answer to Q6, as expanded, is troubling. The rule for AfD is to weigh the arguments; nose-counting is the lazy approach. Considering the present arguments over deletion and IAR, and the candidate's interest in deletion, he really should understand our policies better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated in the answer to Q6, the vote tally does play a part, but the major decider is the arguments that each side makes, and where consensus leads. I would only let the vote tally play a very small part in my decision. Diez2 19:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is correct as far as it goes; but it's not IAR. That's what's troubling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose I think opening this on Kmweber demonstrates some poor judgement. I personally do not agree with Kurt's voting patterns, and have tried to engage him on his talk page... but I do not think opening an RfC on him will bring about a situation where this user will feel a need to become more constructive in his participation. I also think that you could have held off on engaging him until after the close of this RfA. Hiberniantears 18:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not start that RfC solely because of his oppose to this RfA, but because he has opposed the last 25 self-nominations for RfA, despite notification after notification to take his arguments to the talk pages and/or the village pump, and not to continually violate WP:POINT. Diez2 19:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - no interaction with mainspace or writing articles. Miranda 18:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Per Van and Hiberniantears above, would like to see more due process and diligence, and on the RFC issue, sure we don't all agree with Kurt, but everyone is entitled to their opinion(albeit misguided). Dureo 19:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose User's account is too young, sort of weird to see someone responding to no votes in-thread. - MSTCrow 19:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He made his first edit almost a year ago. What would you consider "old enough" for an account? Leebo T/C 19:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A good question, indeed! --SXT4 06:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Reluctant Oppose; per the answer to Q6. AfD is not a vote, thus ignoring a count of !votes would not be an application of IAR. If the candidate believes that AfD discussions are supposed to be closed based on a count of !votes, then the candidate clearly is not prepared to be closing them. Heather 00:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Clear consensus shouldn't be broken merely by common sense and good faith (Q5), and this user misunderstands the AfD process if he cites IAR to determine consensus. The RfC is a complete waste of time. –Pomte 16:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - Due to lack of encyclopaedic contributions and overall experience.--Bryson 17:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, what specifically makes you think that lack of experience is an issue? --SXT4 06:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did you ask me this and not user Jmlk17?--Bryson 18:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak Oppose per Pedro -- Y not? 22:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral Changed position from oppose after expanded explanation of Q4. I still am not certain of this editor's judgement, but I can no longer justify an "oppose" position. Trusilver 05:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Changed from support per Dureo. --John 19:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral —freak(talk) 19:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC) I suppose I should explain that my reason for changing to neutral is also in light of the candidate's reaction to Kurt Weber. —freak(talk) 10:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. Moved from support per questionable judgment shown in opening the RfC on Kmweber during own RfA. Dekimasuよ! 01:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Changed from support to neutral because of the candidates response to Kurt Weber's oppose.--Sandahl 03:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. I am withholding support due to the response to Q6 (and partly to the Q5, per Pomte). When closing AfDs, the only role of the 'tally' is to serve as a caution to the closer (e.g. before closing as "delete" a discussion where the 'tally' is 10 to 1 in favour of keeping, the closer should consider whether his/her understanding of policy or evaluation of the consensus may be incorrect). However, the fact that the candidate mentioned Wikipedia:Notability in Q5 means I can't oppose. — Black Falcon (Talk) 18:18, 6 August 2007 (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.
Category