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

Moralis[edit]

Ended 02:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC) - (41/56/10)

Moralis (talk · contribs) - Excellent editor who has been with Wikipedia for quite a while and deserves to be an admin. I've found him always helpful, professional, and polite, even when dealing with trolls. He's helped out a lot on The Black Parade and other related articles, and really deserves this for all his hard work. mcr616 Speak! 01:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I feel honored just seeing this page come into existence. I accept.

A comment in that empty space up there says that the candidate may make an optional statement here, so I will.

My edit count might not be as high as some users', but a lot of what I do is RC patrol. I've made a lot of posts to AIAV over time, and adminship would certainly cut down on that. The reversion tools would also be helpful. I've got a masochistic interest in doing the various things that a lot of users probably consider mind-numbing, like addressing copyedit backlogs, and staring at an IRC readout of recent changes, looking for oddities to fix.

Recently, I've developed a strange interest in mediation. This started out as simply butting into discussions, but over the past couple of days, I've found myself getting involved with the Mediation Cabal, which has given me a unique perspective on the various issues we have with each other as Wikipedians.

I've often considered adminship a long-term goal, thanks to the various small ways it would help me with RC patrol. I also decided a while ago that I would never nominate myself, however, so I'm pleasantly surprised to have ended up at RfA anyway. --Moralis (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: Cutting down the backlogs at WP:AIAV and WP:RfP is a biggie. Responding to speedy requests, as well. It's my basic intention to keep an eye on everything that could potentially become backlogged (the Administrative backlog category might be helpful) and then spend too much of my free time keeping that from happening. --Moralis (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I've done a lot of revamping of The Black Parade, but I'm mainly proud of being dubbed a "Vandal Huntar" by User:Ryulong. I spend a fair amount of my free time on RC patrol, mostly via IRC. And I have a LOT of free time- I'm unemployed right now. --Moralis (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2007 (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: For the most part, conflicts with other users have involved mistaking a legitimate edit for vandalism, and this always means a prompt apology and restoring the material I've messed with. Most recently, I was involved in an NPOV dispute, but I think I remained appropriately civil throughout. I had just submitted a Mediation Cabal request when the dispute died down. --Moralis (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. You edited as an IP before? Good for you! Do you remember which IP address or addresses you used? We can then look at those edits too. --Kim Bruning 19:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for being long in responding. I didn't notice this question hwere until just now. Unfortunately, I didn't have a static IP, and I also wasn't keeping track of my edits at the time, so I can't provide such information. Thanks for being interested, though! --Moralis (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional Question from User:Bucketsofg.
5. What is your interpretation of WP:POINT? Does the non-standard organization of your present RFA fail it? Does my question?
My interpretation of WP:POINT: "If you disagree with a policy(/guideline), attempt to change it reasonably through our policy-making system. Do not create violations to prove that the policy is flawed. Also, don't create a situation where the policy is used even though it plainly doesn't apply/isn't reasonable. Basically, if you can't make your point through traditional discussion, you probably haven't got a point. Don't use underhanded means to try to make one anyway."
In other words, "Obey the spirit of the rules. Don't ignore them to make your case, and don't abuse them to make your case."
I don't believe that this RfA violates WP:POINT, because the format of an RfA is not policy, to my knowledge. Please correct me if I'm wrong- I haven't paid too much attention to RfAs in the past- something I intend to change now that I've seen how the discussions usually go.
I also don't consider this terribly underhanded on the part of the user responsible. This is, as stated, an experiment. If it works, it might become something we use in the future. It might not. I don't know. Since this isn't a policy violation, I don't see anything wrong with trying something out and seeing how it works.
I don't think WP:POINT applies to your question. While it may have been a leading question, I don't see how WP:POINT addresses that. It was a legitimate question about my interpretation of a policy, and that's a perfectly good question to ask an RfA candidate. --Moralis (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely optional and possible frivolous question from Physchim62
answer at your own risk
7. Under what circumstances would you be willing to ignore all rules?
A. I think WP:IAR is very similar in its message to WP:POINT and WP:SENSE, insofar as all of those policies implore the user to enforce rules only with respect to the spirit of those rules. Primarily, if it's appropriate to Ignore All Rules, you're already dealing with a WP:POINT violation. There are also situations in which "consensus" may be ignored if that consensus is a result of meatpuppetry- primarily, I think, where a number of users have ganged up on a smaller group more for the purpose of being right than to actually accomplish anything.
Rules are enforced for the wrong reasons all the time, although in a lot of cases, those issues don't exactly make it to the public eye, because they're often localized disputes. Sometimes this take the form of content being deleted "per policy," when it very plainly does serve a purpose (users have axes to grind, for the most part). A lot of people use WP:NOT or WP:NOTE to remove articles or content as advertisements or vanity when what they really need is some TLC, rather than death by fire.
A lot of content is also removed that, while the rules do provide for its removal, just isn't hurting anybody. Of course I respect WP:NOT, but exclusionism can be taken at least as far as inclusionism, and it sometimes is. I tend to ask myself whether I can envision a reader finding the article helpful (read: useful- interesting and useful are two separate issues) and if the answer is yes, I will generally support the content's inclusion, regardless of what the policies have to say about it. It's my opinion that, in general, if content is useful to somebody, it's made Wikipedia more useful as a whole.
Needless to say, the result of an AfD is still something that must be respected (that particular rule generally should not be ignored). If approved, I'll obviously act according to the community's wishes, regardless of my opinion. I do think there's some validity to the argument that if content is really appropriate it'll find its way.
Basically, ignore all rules applies to content whenever inclusionism makes sense- and I will not pretend to be able to describe when that is, as it's kind of a case-by-case decision for everybody, based on the merits of the content in question and how they stack up against policy. IAR applies to all guidelines and policies when enforcement just plainly isn't fair- the unfortunate thing is that what I consider a common-sensical toss-out of a rule might to you be a flagrant violation. That is both the beauty and the curse of a collaboration. I feel like I haven't answered your question very well, but as of now, I'm quite tired and can't think of more specific examples. I hope this gives you a decent idea of what I'm getting at. --Moralis (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that my use of the word "policy" in the above is for the sake of simplicity (not having to type "policies, guidelines and conventions" every time I refer to them). I am fully aware that not all of the pages I've noted are necessarily "policy." --Moralis (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from User:TimVickers
If a point in an article is disputed between two editors, and both can produce some reliable sources to support their position, what is the correct way to reflect these two views according to the WP:NPOV policy? Should the two points of view be separated into two equally-sized "criticism" and "defense" sections? Or should the two points of view be merged together into one section split evenly between the two perspectives? Are there any other questions to address before making this decision?
A: Much of my answer to this question is, obviously, situation based- while the relevant policies are very clear, where content fits into them isn't always. The first thing that needs to be established is whether the sources furnished by both sides are indeed reliable and being used correctly. For example, I was recently (briefly, I have now stepped away because I have lost my neutrality) involved with a mediation case involving the ethnicity of the article's subject. One of the main points being argued was the subject's daughter's interpretation of the subject's ethnicity. Some users claimed that she was a secondary source, because she was obviously not the article's subject. However, because of the unique nature of the information she was supplying (it reflected her own ethnicity as well), many considered her a primary source (the position I took).
Once the reliability of sources has been established, it needs to be determined how significant each viewpoint is in relation to the others. At the surface, this involves looking at how many sources each side has provided, how mainstream those sources are, and a little bit of common sense: does one viewpoint really overshadow the other, or can we be reasonably certain that each view is relatively equal in prominence? This is one point where I may disagree with other editors- I believe that if more prominent and more verifiable meant the same thing, policy would just have us count sources and give proportionate weight.
That last part is often the most contentious work, but once you've established how prominent each position is (and therefore how much weight is "due weight") you now have the impossible task of helping the editors come up with a version of the content that 1) is NPOV and 2) is acceptable to both parties, or at least is so clearly in line with policy that there's absolutely nothing else you can do for the dispute.
Whether the content should be split among sections is entirely dependent on the situation. If the content is a major focal point of the article, this makes more sense than if you're mentioning a small aspect of the subject. I don't think neutrality policy is clear on their being a "correct" way to format anything- that's more of a manual of style issue, if anything. --Moralis (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is an excellent reply to the question. The relative weights that should be given to the two positions is indeed the core of the policy. Inexperienced editors often think NPOV means "equal weight to both sides", but I think your clear grasp of the policy to the contrary is evident in this reply. TimVickers 19:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

I did indeed. I really wish I'd made an account, so I'd have that history to point to now. I also think I'm pretty good at absorbing info, but that's just me talking myself up ;) --Moralis (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Arbitrary break 1[edit]


Arbitrary break 2[edit]

Durin, I mean precisely that it's easier to understand a discussion when reading the arguments in favor of the candidate and those in opposition separately rather than reading all comments in chronological order. Sure, it's still the same set of comments but then why not sort them by alphabetical order of their contributors? Sorting comments semantically is a natural thing to do in any debate be it an RfA or a debate about whether Pepsi tastes better than Coke. Pascal.Tesson 20:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except, this is supposed to be a discussion...not a vote. You can't sort a discussion. --Durin 20:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really that difficult to sort a discussion where every contributor starts with a boldface support, oppose or neutral? I'm all for thinking up ways of reforming RfA but I do find this particular experiment to be unconvincing. Pascal.Tesson 20:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion is --> that way. --Durin 20:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that this is not a vote. –RHolton≡– 03:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think in this case, it seems to me that Moralis was right. Please do not assume that you are all-knowing and always correct. --Aminz 08:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop patronising. I am absolutely wholeheartedly opposed against this kind of RfA. If Moralis supported this change, it shows poor judgement in my book. That's all I said. Errabee 08:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Errabee, your edit summary reads, "This recent action shows poor judgement and poor grasp of procedure. Therefore oppose." Are you opposing me on the basis that I reverted your reformat of this page? If you're opposing me because you don't like this format, while I find that unfair (as I am not responsible for the format, just because it's my RfA doesn't mean I formatted it) I can accept it. If you're opposing me on the basis that you disapprove of my reverting your edit... well. Like I said, I'm not opposed to changing the format of this page back to "standard." I just think it needs to be discussed first, rather than being done out of the blue by one user. Furthermore, I think it needs to be done in one edit to be sure that no comments are erased by accident in the process. Also, while I appreciate your support, Aminz, please do be nice =P --Moralis (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I question your decision to agree with this experiment. So while technically you didn't reformat, you accepted to having it done, which amounts to the same thing. Besides that, I think it should be made clear on this page that this is not just some mistake in format, but an experiment. Errabee 09:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Errabee, the format of this RfA is an experiment in a new format. Having been mooted by a group of people who think it would work better, we looked around for someone who would be willing to try out the format, and we found Moralis. There's discussion ongoing at WT:RFA about the formatting issue, you're welcome to participate there if you don't like the format, but I think it's verging on childish to express opposition for a reason that has nothing to do with the question at hand, namely whether the candidate should be given the mop. --bainer (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It tells about the way Moralis makes decisions. Anyone with just some common sense could see that this change of format would turn this process into a mess. If Moralis hasn't seen this happening, he lacks the ability to foresee consequences of his decisions, which is an important quality in an administrator. As such, it has everything to do with the question at hand. Errabee 11:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I certainly hope the bureaucrats are capable of seeing this for what it is. Opposing someone for the format of an RfA is frankly absurd. We move Wikipedia forward in part by experimenting. The value of an experiment is not reduced by whether that experiment fails or succeeds. Moralis should be applauded for being willing to be a guinea pig, not burned at the stake. Further discussion on the merits of the format is --> this way. Stop targeting Moralis. --Durin 13:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'll try to show some mercy by changing to Neutral, although I still think it was terribly ill-advised to consent to conducting an experiment that was doomed to fail from the start. It has never been my intention to target Moralis. Errabee 14:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was told that I'd been selected as the "test subject" because at the time of the reformat I was the user with the fewest comments on my page, or the most even distribution (it was around 11/6/6...ish). --Moralis (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Arbitrary break 3[edit]

*Oppose, unfortunately. While I think he'll make a great admin in a few months, I would prefer not to have anyone who thinks "interesting" or "useful" are valid AfD arguments evaluating or closing AfDs. I think some more experience will help with this, and I imagine next time around I'll be on the other side. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I can go for that. Changing to support based on a good answer to that and a willingness to discuss and clarify. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And a Comment: Entirely unrelated, but the formatting of this RFA is obnoxious at best...as if removing sections and a number count will change this process from anything other than a vote. ^demon[omg plz] 02:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to prefix the logical operator NOT (!) to "vote"! ;-) --Iamunknown 03:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll call it a !vote when RFA stops being a vote. ^demon[omg plz] 04:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, someone else who finds the (!) prefix very very annoying... I agree totally with demon here; this is just a way to gain publicity. In my opinion, any editor who is ready to try & disrupt & weasel his way around process in bad news. As I stated above, when a RfA reaches WP:200 as they rarely do, or even WP:100, which poor buero is going to have to sift through all this mess to get what we already have, a tally. admittedly, tallys aren't the best method of deciding, but it makes it a hell of a lot easier. Will oppose below. Regards, Spawn Man 08:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Disrupt RfA? Excuse me? Nothing is being disrupted. This RfA is the way RfA used to be run. Gosh, I guess RfA must have been a shambles back then, and nobody was promoted. Bureaucrats are NOT charged with counting votes. They are put in their jobs to evaluate consensus. A vote tally has NOTHING....NOTHING'....to do with consensus. If you want bureaucrats to count votes, then we might as well get a bot to promote candidates. --Durin 12:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's any more difficult to read than a sorted debate would be. If you're going to judge me based on my responses, edits, etc., then reading other comments isn't necessary. If you're going to judge me based on other comments, well, the comments are no more difficult to read than they were when they were separated into categories. I think the major effect that this has had is to create more conversation on this page, for better or worse. I'm not defending the format- but I don't see how it's unusually difficult to read, just to tally. --Moralis (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not "arguing". In fact, I even stated in my response that I wasn't defending the format- I was just responding to your comments in what I think was very clearly a civil and intellectual way. Your response is overly hostile, and it looks like you're just taking out your frustrations with the format on me as a candidate. While I will not question your !vote, I think you've overreacted a bit just in general, and I'd ask that you at least remain civil if you're going to participate in this dicussion. --Moralis (talk)
Not for the first time in this debate you accuse someone who disagrees with you of being 'angry' with you. You say you weren't defending the format and then immediately defend it by saying that's it's as easy to read as the standard format, despite endless posts from lots of different people telling you the opposite. Calling your own comments 'intellectual' while terming mine 'overly hostile' is not making me warm to your position. I had no opinion about you as an candidate, but based on this little discussion I now think you're unsuitable. How could you even presume to 'question my vote' for example? I'm being perfectly civil, it's you who chose to enter into a debate about my simple comment that this format is a complete mess. Nick mallory 08:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Moralis, thanks for agreeing to be the guinea pig in this experiment in RfA reform.
  2. I sure don't hold the new format against Moralis. In fact, I am worried that one by-product of this experiment may be that a few editors may hold this RfA's formatting against Moralis in a future RfA
  3. This format was worth trying -- and now that we've tried it out, I can say I certainly don't care for it. AfD ≠ RfA.
    1. Article inclusion is supposed to be based on objective evaluation of objective criteria; an admin is within his/her rights to close against consensus if the consensus is clearly very flawed and in contravention of policies and guidelines. As I understand it, the AfD comments are made to assist the admin.
    2. By contrast, RfA is an inherently subjective measure of community trust and confidence. We don't have objective criteria and a bureaucrat's closing an RfA against community consensus is just not right. As I understand, the community decides and the bureaucrat just executes that decision.
    3. Tallies provide some transparency to the rest of us as to how well the closing bureaucrat's action matches the RfA consensus.
    4. Tallies also tie into the various color-coded RfA summaries (such as ((User:Dragons_flight/RFA_summary))) many of us have on our user pages -- they help us track what's going on and which RfAs to go back to a second time.
  4. Moralis, I think you have excellent admin potential, temperamentally. Thanks for putting your foot in the water this time and I look forward to supporting you in a future RfA when you have more experience. --A. B. (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like your way of commenting :-) I do disagree with a few points.
I think RFA *is* supposed to be objective. It's not a popularity contest; it's a way to figure out if someone will act well as an admin.
Both AFD and RFA have been deeply flawed, but to my surprise, at some point RFA deteriorated so far that it actually became worse at determining whether someone should be admin than AFD is at determining if a page should be kept.
The refactor on this page is one way to try to improve the quality of RFA again.
So in summary, I think that the fact that we're having such a calm conversation in the first place actually disproves some of your points. :-)
Once again, even if I do disagree with some of them, thank you so much for your reasoned arguments! --Kim Bruning 21:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would trust this user as an admin, and am purposely not putting my opinion in boldface. Abeg92contribs 01:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Moralis has shown, throughout this RfA, a great tact that is an asset as an administrator, a willingness to discuss with others and a desire to help out and interpretations of key policies that I wish had come from my mouth because they seem so in line with what I think. I would definitely trust Moralis as an administrator. --Iamunknown 02:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Arbitrary Break 4[edit]

Update: I have decided to claim full responsibility for the format of this page. As it would seem that users are going to judge me based on the format regardless of my position, I hereby declare my support for this RfA format. As the format of an RfA is not set in stone, I do not believe this to be a violation of WP:POINT. WP:POINT is not intended to protect the status quo- users of Wikipedia are encouraged to "be bold."
I apologize to those who are offended by my choosing to allow the reformat. Please keep in mind, however, that this format is merely an experiment- some users would say it is working, while others believe it is failing miserably. Determining whether something works is the very purpose of an experiment. The only people whose lives are made more difficult by the format are the b-crats, and at least one crat has stated that they'll need to see the format tried before passing judgement on it. So here we go, trying it out, so that you all can point to this RfA as an example when you argue about it later.
If your complaint is that you can't follow the discussion- well, at risk of sounding sarcastic (and I apologize if I do), you're all just as capable of reading comments in chronological order as you are of reading comments sorted by their meaning. In closing, if you're going to vote based on the format of this page, please remember that RfA formats are not policy (or even in a guideline), and there is obviously no consensus on what is the "proper" format. I believe that accusing me of a breach of policy or procedure is factually inaccurate, but if someone would like to refute that assertion, I'm quite open to criticism. --Moralis (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Dang! I had already supported! --Kim Bruning 21:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Too bad I can't support twice. :-P[reply]
  • Go Moralis! Go! Woohooooo! What a blatant testimony to an editor getting it. This guy deserves editor of the month or something. --Durin 23:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. And I said I wasn't going to bold my opinion... Oh well. Abeg92contribs 23:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep your hostility in check. I did not make any anonymous edits while my laptop was damaged (not missing, as I mentioned above) and in the shop (Apple Store sent it to Tennessee for repair, Tennessee sent it back with a note saying "we'll fix it for $900," Apple sent it back with $900, Tennessee sent it back to me... twice). If I were able to make anonymous edits while that were going on, I would have been able to log in, so making edits as an IP during that period would have been pointless. No, I took a Wikibreak during periods of not having my own computer, as I was working during the library's open hours anyway. No. I made edits as an IP during the period between my first five or so edits, and the rest of my edits- a roughly year-long period of time.
And no. I cannot lay claim to any specific IP edits and I don't understand why you're so hung up on it. Whether or not I edited as an IP is not the basis of my candidacy. I have stated several times that I don't expect users to take me at my word on that. I only ask other users to review the contributions I have made as Moralis and judge me based on those.
Even if I could lay claim to specific IP edits, I wouldn't. Then we'd get into a much uglier discussion about whether or not those were really my edits. Seeing as I wouldn't even be sure, there's no reason to expect anyone else to be. Frankly, I just don't see why you're spending so much time focusing on this issue. Have I edited as an IP? Yes. Can I provide examples? No. What more do I need to say? I think it's a pretty straightforward thing.
I'm sorry if I seem reactionary here, but from your comments above, you seem to be rather angry over my inability to attribute IP edits to myself- and that strikes me as a very poor reason to be angry. --Moralis (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, as far as you think I'm feeble minded. I'd already decided to support earlier. I do automatically support people who take responsibility for editing their RFA pages, but meh. Finally, hey, if Moralis really *could* sway people just by nice words... well, I keep telling (and showing) people that that's the very very best kind of admin. So there you have it. --Kim Bruning 01:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually Christopher your interpretation is incorrect - My response glib prose of others is written in the plural and is not referenced at Moralis. It follows on from the comments of Durin and Kim Bruning and I mention their names. Glib is defined here You will note that Durin (who appears to have a strong interest in this nomination) states the following in his comment Go Moralis! Go! Woohooooo! What a blatant testimony to an editor getting it. This guy deserves editor of the month or something. - which is glib - and that is not meant to be offensive to Moralis, (as I have now said on 3 occasions) or in fact to Durin or Kim Bruning. As for your comment on measuring excellence - whilst you may see the fact that I argue that his lack of a large quantity of edits as being unhelpful in proving his excellence as unfriendly - I am simply stating it as my interpretation of a fact. And for my money that is something that a would be administrator (or their supporter/s) should be able to make comment on - or to ask me for further clarification (you will note again that I had immediately in two places - for all to see - explicity stated that I was not angry with him/her) - without any person assuming (in bad faith) that I am angry.--VS talk 03:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to leave this alone, but conversation is taking an ugly turn and I feel obligated to step in. I didn't mean for you to think that I was accusing you of being angry, VS. I was letting you know that your comments came off that way, and asking why you were reacting that way. I thought I was pretty level-headed and understanding about it, but I guess I still came off as emotional or frustrated and for that I apologize. I would argue that your wording was unfortunate, and I confess that the running sentence in your first comment read like sarcasm to me when perhaps I shouldn't have.
Please understand that I was not assuming bad faith, which I thought my words conveyed (again, I guess I was mistaken). There are obvious limitations in the effectiveness of communicating by text, and I interpreted the way you were pressing the issue of my IP edits seemed far more hostile than appeared to me to be rational. You also made a couple of comments that several users, including myself, perceived as hostile. My response was intended to try to find out why you were so upset/angry/offended/call it what you will- I now understand that you weren't, but your words did make it seem that way. I'm very sorry if you thought I was trying to make trouble or perpetuate that dispute. I was genuinely concerned that someone could be so offended by this RfA and I wanted to get to the bottom of it =P --Moralis (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Comment I concur completely with your comments concerning Durin's behaviour during this RfA. I am sorry to say that Durin's behaviour is nothing more than a form of Wiki-Bullying. Unfortunately this type of behaviour does occur often in RfA's - and it always in my view leaves a stench of unfairness either for or against the candidate. In my view, a fair editor with Durin's views would sit back and watch the opinions of others without further comment and I say this because try as I might I can not remove the vision of Durin pushing his own barrow expecially when he is the mother of this otherwise reasonable page but appears in this case clearly to be tampering with the research for or against that position. Wiki-Bullying during RfA's should cease and especially so when the bully/ies has another less obvious agenda! Do you have any views on this please Moralis?--VS talk 22:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have several views on this:
  1. Putting me in this position is unfair. While I am sure it was not your intention, your question basically puts me in the position of speaking out against my own support or endorsing what you call wiki-bullying.
  2. Durin might come off as a tad overbearing, but he is not trying to beat a support vote out of anybody and to accuse him of that is just plain rude. While he's probably too blunt about it, he's mostly just asking certain editors to elaborate on their views where they don't necessarily stand alone.
  3. I think that all of you are dragging your hostilities from the format debate here, and that's not fair to me as a candidate or to anyone else as a reader of this page.
  4. If Durin is bullying others by making the comments he's made, you're certainly bullying the same group of people by making these comments. Durin has not claimed that opposers should be ashamed of themselves for opposing- he's claimed that users should be ashamed of themselves for opposing for reasons that he considers blatantly unfair. You're twisting his words and THAT'S just not polite.
Please keep your beef with other users off of my RFA. It's not civil and it's not helpful. --Moralis (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough although I'd also invite you in return to read the answer to the question on IAR. That one, in my mind, clearly shows the inexperience of Moralis. Pascal.Tesson 20:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Howso? I would summarize my answer as, "IAR applies when the policies interfere with common sense." I don't know how else to interpret it. --Moralis (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While that summary might make a decent answer, you also did write things such as "Sometimes this take the form of content being deleted "per policy," when it very plainly does serve a purpose (users have axes to grind, for the most part)." To me, this shows a lack of understanding of WP:AGF. Pascal.Tesson 21:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that some users have an axe to grind is not a violation of WP:AGF. I don't think my comments in any way suggest that I would be going in under the assumption that users have axes to grind.
In other words- my position was that one could Ignore All Rules when a user was enforcing policy in order to grind that axe, not that one should always Ignore All Rules because a user has an axe to grind. Those interpretations of my comments are very different, and I thought I was fairly clear about which was correct, but I guess I was mistaken. --Moralis (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Arbitrary break 5[edit]

Response -- I did not state that all users were meat puppets, I stated that meat puppeting was going on. You seem unable to identify the difference, which I would suggest is further evidence of lack of qualification for admin status. It's also very irresponsible for you to claim that I was guilty of vandalism in responding to massive vandalism from multiple users, and meat puppeting which you yourself observed. For your agreement to help an attack account, users may look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moralis/Archive_1#IABSM_-_Thank_you_for_your_efforts_but
Other users with only a cursory knowledge of the situation were nonetheless able to immediately identify this account as an attack account, but you were not, and claimed that my attempts to fight off the meat puppetry and vandalism were "disruptive," so I'd suggest that you don't have the right judgment to be an admin at this point.
It's also clear from your edit history that you haven't added much of substance to wikipedia articles as an editor, and as such would have no context in which to administer others' editing. Before you administer, you have to understand what's being administered.Larry Dunn 16:01, 19 April 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