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

Werdna[edit]

Final (186/5/3); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 23:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Werdna (talk · contribs) - I’d like to present Werdna for your consideration. He joined the project in July 2005 and has steadily contributed since then. When it comes to adminship, a key question to ask is whether you trust a candidate – well in this case, there is a reason to trust Werdna more than more – he is a developer so has already shown his dedication and trustworthiness to the community. Developer access is of far greater significance than the sysop tools, and he’s used the access responsibly at all times. On wiki, Werdna has done plenty of vandal fighting and he clearly understands when to block a user, but the need for the tools comes from technical aspects of the project such as being able to edit the mediawiki namespace. He currently has to find people to do this for him, which is sad considering he’s a developer. I expect him to carry on concentrating in this area and the tools would simply make things easier for it. I can of course trust Werdna, and I believe him having the tools would be a real positive for the community. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. — Werdna talk 05:57, 21 May 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: As Ryan says, my current primary role is as a developer, and I intend to keep MediaWiki development as my top priority, as it's what I'm good at. Nevertheless, you'll notice I regularly do ten or twenty minutes of vandalfighting, and I anticipate that admin tools will help me here (blocking, instead of AIVing). In addition, I'm often around when incidents occur requiring administrator intervention (vandalbot attacks, and so on), and I'm not shy of clearing backlogs in various processes as the need arises, as I've been doing with the Spam Blacklist on meta, where I have temporary adminship for that purpose. You'll note that, while I don't really have a lot of experience with AfD and so on since a few months/years ago, I've been an integral member of the Bot Approvals Group, which must assess requests for bot approval for their usefulness, harmlessness, and so on — a task which usually amounts to judging consensus between approvals group members, operators, and other interested users.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions to Wikipedia are, and have always been, my work as a developer. I'm responsible for some of SUL, the Global blocking extension, the undo feature, cascading page protection, the redesign of Special:Userrights which made some new permissions like ipblock-exempt, rollback, and accountcreator easier to grant, and numerous other features and bugfixes over my one and a half years as a developer. My contributions to Wikipedia, however, have not been limited to MediaWiki development. I run a bot (Werdnabot), and I have contributed substantially to the Bot Approvals Group's efficiency in dealing with requests for bot approval. As mentioned earlier, I've done some vandalfighting. I've even (shock, horror) contributed to some articles, too. While I don't see myself as an excellent article developer, I tend to do occasional quick makeovers of articles that need updating or referencing, as I did with Cityrail.
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: Those of you who know me will know that I took half a year or so off, between March and November 2007. I did this because I found that I was getting into a few too many conflicts, getting distracted from development work, and becoming a little useless to the project. Prior to this, I had undergone four requests for adminship, and each failed over a single, very specific message: I didn't handle myself well in conflicts. Those of you who know me will know that I was quite young (15), and it's perhaps unsuprising that I was a little hot-headed. It's now been about eighteen months since this last request for adminship, and I think my behaviour has shown that I've matured quite a bit in that time, and learned that conflicts are always resolved bettwe with a cool head. When I ended up in a conflict, I used to head straight for an argument. While I spoke my mind (which is a good thing!), I was insensitive and undiplomatic in doing so. Now, I tend to look for the best way to move forward, and I'm much more careful when posting. I have therefore encountered very little conflict in the six or so months since I came back from break. That is not to say that I have not had disagreements: in particular, there was a dispute over the naming of Earliest-serving living president of the United States, and with my use of overly technical language in Introduction to genetics (to pick two random examples from my talk page). In both cases, I think I presented my argument quite a bit better than I would have previously (see, in particular, my calling a title 'retarded' two years ago, instead of coming up with a better one, and explaining why it was better).
Optional Question by User:Until(1 == 2)
4. A long term helpful user has recently become very uncivil, resorting to insults in a content dispute. You notice this and warn the user. The next day you see it again and issue a final warning telling the user they will be blocked if they continue. They respond by saying "Fuck you, you little piece of shit, I know the policy and I don't care, now fuck off!". How would you proceed? If the question itself makes assumptions about your actions that are inaccurate please specify
A: The first thing that strikes me here is that I should not be making rash or unilateral action. There's obviously a problem which is not simple and clear-cut, and it's not clear that waiting to block is going to cause damage. So, in reality, my first response would be to ask for advice or guidance from others. However, since this is a hypothetical, I'll detail what I see the best thing to do as, so that you can use this question for its intended purpose. I suppose it would be appropriate to point out to the user that their behaviour has changed significantly, and to ask if there's any particular reason for it. It is unlikely that a good-faith user has suddenly become irredeemably uncivil. It is therefore inappropriate to give the user warnings, or to threaten them with blocking and so on — as they point out, they know the policy, and pointing the policy out to them creates a lot of heat, but not a lot of light. So I would not have given them 'warnings'. A conversation about it, however, is warranted, so long as it is done in a 'nice' way, aiming to fix the problem, not to beat the user into submission.
Optional questions from jc37
In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policy and process related to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
  • 5. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
  • A: When it is necessary to protect the wiki from damage, where such protection is best achieved by a block. This includes repeated vandalism, revert-warring, personal attacks, and so on. Note that, while blocking is not supposed to be punitive, blocks which appear punitive can have a preventative role. For example, blocking for personal attacks, and the three-revert rule are made after the fact, and therefore cannot possibly be used to prevent particular damage. However, these types of blocks form a deterrent (both specific deterrence — deterring that user from making further personal attacks, and general deterrence, setting and maintaining community standards).
  • A: When it is necessary to protect a particular page on the wiki from damage, where such protection is best achieved by disallowing unregistered and new user edits, or non-sysop edits. Therefore, it should primarily be used to prevent vandalism. If only a few users are revert-warring on an article, then we should consider speaking to and blocking the users instead.
  • A: Deletion through the Articles for Deletion and Proposed Deletion processes is labour and time-intensive, and for some pages, there is little value in requiring them to be put through those processes. Therefore, in accordance with the general principle outlined in the snowball clause, the community has identified some classes of articles which are unequivocally extremely unlikely to survive a deletion process. These form our speedy deletion criteria. So, to comply with the spirit, rather than the letter of the law, we should speedy delete pages only where it would be highly improbable for that page to survive a deletion process, and where it strictly meets the criteria outlined in the speedy deletion policy. If there is any doubt, it should be put through the appropriate deletion process.


  • 6. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.
  • A: Consensus is a strange beast. It is a cross between who has the best argument, and who has the most numbers, and tends to function better when there's a lot of engagement by interested parties (i.e. responding to each other, considering each other's opinions). It is more than the majority, and more than the supermajority. With a proposal, there are a number of viewpoints that people can have: They may agree with it. They may not care about it. They may disagree with it, but "agree to disagree". They may disagree with it. If everyone falls into one of the first three categories, then we have consensus. However, if there are people in the fourth category, then you need to have a closer look. Perhaps those users make very very compelling arguments, and therefore those arguments deserve extra weight. You must then weigh up the arguments and respective numbers in the four categories and make a decision.

Different procedures need different methods for determining consensus. In particular, some methods have a presumption in favour of one outcome. For instance, at RfA, DRV and AfD, and in proposing new policies, the changes are 'rejected until there is consensus for change'. However, on a talk page, it's more about choosing the best of two or three options. Therefore, unless there seems to be wide agreement and acceptance of a decision in, for instance, RfA, DRV or AfD, it is wise to make no change.


  • 7. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
  • A: What's John Quimby from Wikia doing editing Wikipedia? Anyway, the first thing to do is to speak to both, indicating that they should discuss it, and leave it in its current state. Remind them that one day with the m:wrong version on top will not cause the world to end, and ask them to be reasonable, and to compromise. If they continue to revert, it is a good idea to start thinking about blocking them. We should, at all times, keep the response balanced, and avoid taking sides. It is critical to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Optional Questions by User:Deacon of Pndapetzim
8. If you were an admin patrolling AN/3, how would you handle this report?
  • A: The issue in what you've pointed to is not edit-warring. The three-revert rule is intended to deal with edit-warring — indeed, many of the changes look like something which could be construed as BLP issues. The issue there seems to be article ownership, if anything. Therefore, I would not block the user, but I would leave a note on his talk page noting this.
9. Do you believe that wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and how they interact with the community's normative culture, function more to facilitate social order within the community or more to promote editing quality? Do you believe either of these goals clash in practice? If so, how would you address this?
  • A: Excellent question! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Therefore, a big concern in policies and guidelines is making Wikipedia produce a high-quality encyclopedia. However, Wikipedia cannot do this in isolation. We need editors, and editors don't want to work in an environment where they are personally attacked, subjected to random blocks, and generally have a bad time doing their work. Therefore, the two goals of providing social order and promoting quality of editing are symbiotic — they support each other, and we need to do both. However, problems do arise when these goals conflict. For instance, the issue of linking to "bad sites" such as Encyclopedia Dramatica. We need to work out whether our policy against this is for a practical reason (like, for example, that those sites are obscene and offensive and we don't want to send viewers there), or an ideological reason (editors don't like the idea of linking to a site that's done X, Y and Z), noting of course that if enough editors hold an ideological concern, it becomes a practical concern, because upsetting those editors is a bad idea. Practice trumps ideology. Always. So, to sum up, our policies and guidelines promote both of these ideals, and, while there is the occasional conflict, these goals are usually symbiotic.
Optional question from Filll
10. Please answer, in essay form or multiple choice, the eight AGF Challenge 2 exercises found here. Directions are here. Multiple choice might be easier and less time-consuming.
Eight essay responses is, in my view, manifestly excessive, considering I responded to 6 earlier today, and it took me the best part of an hour. Luckily, I have my own subpage where I answer these questions, at User:Werdna/AGF Challenge Exercise Answers. It is a work in progress, with currently one of the eight responded to in point form. I will probably go and do another one at some stage before the week is out, and work on them as time permits.
Of course eight essays are a lot, which is why I suggested multiple choice. If you think it is time consuming answering them, you should try writing them!--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok how about 2 short essays instead of 8? But of course, this is all optional. You prefer the Original AGF Challenge to the new AGF Challenge 2?--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Zginder

11. What do you consider the most important English Wikipedia policy and why?

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support Very excellent candidate. MBisanz talk 06:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - I know the history of this candidate and, yes, no problems here from me :) - Alison ❤ 06:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I've also seen this user around doing constructive editing. Probably at bot approvals if I recall. I trust this user with the tools. Regards, RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 06:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Of course you have my support. But you knew this already. Where Werdna applies himself, he does a fine job. I'm not interested in seeing article edits, because thats not what hes here for. He can be trusted with the buttons. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, Very good editor e.t.c. Also very helpful ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 06:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Excellent candidate. Good luck! Midorihana みどりはな 07:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Supportyes mopify.--Hu12 (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support- I actually thought you were already an admin. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 07:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. About time... —Dark talk 07:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - As per Steve Crossin, I thought you were already an admin! Astral (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Granting of +sysop is for one reason - to help make Wikipedia better. Clearly Werdna will use the tools to do just that, and to save him time and frustration in having to get others to edit the MW interface. A clearly positive move for WP here. Pedro :  Chat  08:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Net positive user, happy administrating! Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 08:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support as nom. Good luck buddy. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Al Tally talk 09:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 09:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support You've got mine my fellow Sydney wikipedian:) Roadrunnerz45 (talk 2 me) 09:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong support Pffftttttt. Khukri 09:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I thought this guy was an admin already. Looks like a great candidate who will be a net positive with the tools. --CapitalR (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. EDIT CONFLICT SUPPORT --Chris 10:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support because he's probably already coded himself admin privileges anyway via a backdoor, so this is just a formality ;) --Stephen 10:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Werdna has my trust and I am confident in his ability to administrate. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support no concerns, and + sysop would be a sizeable benefit to the project. Nick (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support -- a reliable developer? Why certainly! Good luck = ) --Cameron (T|C) 10:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - trustworthy and competent. PhilKnight (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. In my experiences with Werdna he has not steered me wrong. MessedRocker (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Neıl 龱 11:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. No problems. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support absolutely. Gwernol 12:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support No problems here! --Siva1979Talk to me 12:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - Strong editor. Lara❤Love 13:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. No worries seen the bot, trust the user. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. As someone that opposed previous RFAs , it is a pleasure to fully support now. Based on my longterm observation of Werdna, he is much better able to handle the admin tools now. Giving him the tools will be a benefit to the project as he has many talents that will be enhanced by having the tools. All the best, FloNight♥♥♥ 13:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Werdna is crucial to the bot-development community. If we can't trust him, we're already screwed :) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong support No worries about the tools and they'll come in handy with vandal fighting.--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support This is long overdue. Ryan makes a compelling argument in his nomination, and I fully agree with him. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Most excellent candidate - are they not already an admin? I was sure they were! BlueGoblin7even 14:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 14:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, obviously trustworthy and intelligent, appears proficient with policy. J Milburn (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Dlohcierekim 14:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. I guess it's time now Secret 15:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support He has good use for the tools, and he's mature enough now. I particularly appreciate his candid discussion of this possible concern in the questions. DGG (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong Support: Shows a need for the tools and I have no worries about the user misusing them, after all, you can screw up a lot more as a dev than a sysop. Werdna has done a sterling job as the former, so why the hell shouldn't we give him the tools? RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:10, May 21, 2008 (UTC)
  43. Support Royalbroil 15:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Needs the tools; no evidence he'll misuse them; proven himself trustworthy: what else is there? Olaf Davis | Talk 15:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, his knowledge and experience on wiki will benefit the project even more with the tools. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 16:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support His knowledge of MediaWiki and his other contributions to this site are a net positive that makes me support this user at this time. Cheers, Razorflame 16:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support due to nothing major that stands out. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. naerii - talk 17:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong Support - someone forgot to tell me he was up for RfA. :/ I trust Werdna :) And per WP:BITED :P -- Cobi(t|c|b) 17:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. I'm Mailer Diablo Paranomia and I support this message! —paranomiahappy harry's high club 17:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Anthøny 18:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Why not? Celarnor Talk to me 18:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. BOT: Support. lulz. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Great credentials; assumed he already was an admin. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - I don't feel that age should be taken into account when opposing or supporting a candidate, at least not if we're going to simply refer to the user's previous RfA. Per Pedro, the tools are required for a single thing - benefiting Wikipedia. From the candidate's statements, I can only arrive at the conclusion that the tools would only boost this user's good potential, and they would be an overall asset to the project. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Same as last time Keegantalk 20:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. I thought he already was one. Sceptre (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Besides your membership in an illegitimate group, I have no concerns. Monobi (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Looks good. GlassCobra 21:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support What else is there to say? LegoKontribsTalkM 22:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Werdnabot is a good tool, and it belies me why a developer doesn't have adminship. Vishnava(talk) 22:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Strong support, obvious decision. Wizardman 22:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support, although I'd prefer the same things brought up by Gurchzilla below. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Of course. Húsönd 23:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Definitely. Mr.Z-man 00:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Sure. Cbrown1023 talk 00:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Won't abuse the tools. — Wenli (reply here) 00:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Appears to be a fine candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Why the hell not? Ral315 (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Werdna knows what he's doing. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 02:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Yes. DS (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Strong Support -- An able, dedicated Wikipedian who will make good use of the tools. On a side note, I see this RFA topping WP:100, maybe even WP:200. --SharkfaceT/C 02:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Definitely. He's been doing good work. Singularity 02:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. The high level of proven clue outweighs and mitigates any other minor concerns. Daniel (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Strong Support - too smart to be an admin, Cratship please :) ....--Cometstyles 04:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Unquestionable support. This contributor is experienced in a wide variety of areas, but mostly I support because he is a trustworthy, level-headed editor whom should have been adminned already. Valtoras (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. $trong $upport $! Dfrg_msc 06:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Yeah, OK. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Strong support Absolutely. GDonato (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. I generally respect and value the opinions of those in the neutral and oppose sections, and would like to applaud them for being so willing to voice their minds. At the same time, I've been able to observe Werdna's participation and growth in various areas of the Wikimedia community, over time, and I think having him as +sysop would be of net benefit to this project. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support, this one is really a no-brainer in my opinion. More than qualified to have these tools ;).¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Good user. SpencerT♦C 11:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. I've observed Andrew on many occasions round this wiki and Meta. Continually impressed, I feel that not does Werdna show a comprehensive understanding of policies but also an underlying coherent principal of the administration of Wikipedia. An excellent, outstanding perhaps, candidate. I respect those opinions of those in the oppose and neutral sections, however, I do believe that the experience both here and elsewhere removes any minor concern I may have. Rudget (Help?) 14:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Hate to use a cliché, but I really did think Werdna was already an admin. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Jaw-dropped STRONG Support!!!!!!!!1!!1! What????!! You're not already an admin?????!!!! J.delanoygabsadds 15:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support No reason to oppose, no issues for concern, candidate will be a net positive to the project. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support - Sure, Tiptoety talk 16:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. Looking over your last RFA, I'd have to agree that you weren't yet ready. However, now is definitely the time to promote. I'm not taking WerdnaBot into consideration, as I don't consider bot work in an RFA (see my admin criteria page), just your own work, and I think your work is good. I don't really like that you have more Wikipedia namespace edits than mainspace, but since you do have over 1000 mainspace, that's not really a big deal. Useight (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Kusma (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support I don't know the prior history, but the answers to the optional questions are mature and well considered. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support - should have been an admin long ago. --B (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support, for all the right reasons, not that you need any more...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support I THOUGHT HE WAS ONE ALREADY O_O. Kwsn (Ni!) 19:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Werdna+sysop=Happy Wikipedia. Need I say more? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. Should have been one a long time ago. It just proves (along with Cobi's case) how bot-operators are often looked down upon by the community. bibliomaniac15 20:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. Should have been one a long long time ago. feydey (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Very yes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support. No, I want to be support #100. :D Maxim(talk) 22:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Play fair please Maxim! Ryan Postlethwaite 22:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevah! :D Maxim(talk) 01:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support. WP:100 --  jj137 (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support. Dang, all the reasons to support are already mentioned by people above. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. support issues from past RfA's are long in the history books. Has definite need for tools and shown a positive history.Balloonman (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support. Long experience, a huge amount of technical and MediaWiki work. ~AH1(TCU) 23:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support Yep, no problems here. WP:105. « Milk's Favorite Public Account ( talk) 00:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Qualified candidate, decent answers to questions, no issues, will make good use of the tools ... happy to add my superfluous Support. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support Certainly more than qualified. Responses look good, plus I have the most extreme level of trust for this specific nominator's judgement. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 02:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support improved Werdna. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support can be trusted and net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support. I kinda agree with Gurch below that I hope you will keep doing the good stuff you are so good at and avoid getting sucked into admin drama. That being said, I see no reason you can't be trusted with the extra buttons.--Kubigula (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support. Sure. Good idea! --Thogo (Talk) 10:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support, of course. — Str4nd (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support, need a mop to go with your wrench! — xaosflux Talk 15:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support - great answers to the questions, qualified, not seeing anything recent that demonstrates maturity issues. People change, and in this case, for the better. PGWG (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. support —DerHexer (Talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support absolutely. KTC (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support - Looks good. Sorry for piling on.  ;-) JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 21:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Why not? --Carnildo (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support, Already admin-like material! Just needs the title! WikiZorrosign 23:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Strong back from the dead support. Werdna's a capable user who's done a ton for this project, and would make a great admin. --Rory096 23:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support: --Bhadani (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support. I have known Werdna for about 1.5 years now, both in a Wikimedia and a personal context. While some users have voiced concerns about his maturity, it is my personal experience that he is very mature and capable. I have no problems whatsoever with him having admin tools.--§hanel 03:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support because Shanel told me too. (Given the number of reasons provided above, I guess I can be lazy.) —{admin} Pathoschild 03:31:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  123. Support per lolcat. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Admin cat supports this candidate.
  124. Support Yes please. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  125. --Abrech (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support. Werdna has matured. He will use the tools responsibly. Axl (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Pile on Support RedThunder 12:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support. I'm frankly amazed this wasn't the case already. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 12:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support - Excellent candidate. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support Almost didn't recognize the name without 'Bot' at the end.--Koji†Dude (C) 16:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support - great contributor. Good luck. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support - Better late than never. VegaDark (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support. I very much trust Werdna with the tools. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 19:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  134. SupportGood luck.Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 19:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  135. Gurchzilla has a point.. :) but still.Support anyway. Why? ... Knows where his towel is, unlikely to blow up wiki, gets it, and is working on deft touch. Net positive by a wide margin. Sorry for the delay. ++Lar: t/c 21:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support - knowledgeable, dedicated. GracenotesT § 21:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support Will not abuse the tools in my opinion. Orderinchaos 22:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support - I would have liked to see more mainspace substantive content contributions, but the answers to your questions were thoughtful and demonstrate that you obviously have a wealth of knowledge to work from. I try and not be an ageist, but sometimes I do find myself giving younger people a particularly hard shake... but I remember when I was younger and wanted more responsibilities online and how passionately I approached my contributions and feel that you are likely to be just as enthusiastic. Broooooooce (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support. — E ↗TCB 22:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support. Thanks Werdna for all you do here! Gwen Gale (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support, unequivocally. —Animum (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support Experienced and trustworthy. κaτaʟavenoTC 00:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support - I opposed one of his previous RFA's. No reason for an oppose anymore. Garion96 (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support Cenarium (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  145. support I hope that Werdna will not get too involved in content issues since he doesn't have much experience with them, but other aspects of the project will benefit from Werdna having the mop. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support As per been around since July 2005 and see the concerns of earlier RFa have been overcome.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support - Great candidate. --Chetblong (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Strong Support →Christian.И 09:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support - fully qualified candidate & another fine Ryan Postlethwaite nom ;-) Lradrama 09:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support, obviously, a fine candidate. No reason to believe that they'd abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  151. Support, trustworthy user, MediaWiki developer — VasilievV2 12:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support Mallanox 13:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support NoSeptember 13:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  154. Strong support; surprised you're not an admin already! —TreasuryTag—t | c 14:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support: (from neutral) After talking with this user, and getting some more information, I can happily support now. My apologies to the candidate for not checking things a bit better than I did before. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support is already a great asset to the project. -- lucasbfr talk 14:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Pile-on support from me; thought the user was already an admin and definitely wouldn't oppose him being one. Heather (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Okay, I'm dumb. I haven't even voted support yet. Clearly I do so let's just get that formality out of the way. Mike H. Fierce! 18:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support Why not? He's a developer on Wikipedia, and therefore will need the tools for the MediaWiki namespace. The extra tools will help him accomplish more, and that is a good thing for Wikipedia. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support more than ready now. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support - Pile on support - clearly can be trusted with the tools. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support— Werdna definitely can be trusted to use the mop with responsibilty, and knows policy quite fully. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support: There's nothing that I can really say against the candidate here. More than ready for the mop. -- Nomader (Talk) 02:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support - rather shocked to find out he isn't an admin already. JPG-GR (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support - looks great! Fully support. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support, thought he already was one. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support, I swear I supported already but apparently not. Previous concerns seem to have been dealt with most satisfactorily. and I see absolutely no compelling reason not to grant admin rights. ~ mazca talk 13:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support, More than ready. Ceoil (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  169. One step closer to WP:200 Support. Per the many dozens of supports above. I only wish you had mroe time to edit here! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support Thought he was already an admin. Definitely deserves the tools. --Charitwo talk 20:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support - Yup, and closer to 200. Sunderland06 (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  172. I suppose its now pileon, but I support. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support, fine user who will make a fine op. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support This seems to be about time....Modernist (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support I've seen this user around, being constructive and level-headed -- the tools will be in safe hands. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Definitely: Werdna is clearly experienced, and has great knowledge of policy. Wikipedia will benefit strongly from him having the tools. Acalamari 23:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support. If he's already a developer, he clearly has a use for and can be trusted with admin tools. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support - An excellent Candidate. Is unlikely to abuse the tools. PookeyMaster (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support Coming late to the party, but +1 to what Ryan said. -- Avi (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Weak Support: No reasons to think that he will abuse the tools. The developer background is an added plus. I would like to see more activity from him as 4.7K edits for 3 years is not an indication of an active Wikipedian. Reading the previous RFAs give me a reason of concerns , but that is a loooong time.. and I dare to believe that he has matured enough to have the mop. Good luck-- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 04:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Stong Support As Above.....all of it :-) Prom3th3an (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support Ashton1983 (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Massive super-dooper-mega strong support: How can a developer not be trusted with these comparatively minor tools?...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 15:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support - looks good: meets my standards, no concerns raised, around for a while, and can be trusted with the tools. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support -I don't see why not. Mellie ❤ 22:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support -Good edits, and very strong answers to the questions. I cant see any maturity issues remaining from previous nominations, and in my opinion being nominated by another, experienced editor shows you must have some merit. People change, and with Werdna it has evidently been for the better. Ironholds (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Mainly upon reading Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Werdna_2. Maturity and temperament issues were raised there. Lack of experience is an issue that time will solve- temperament is not. Also, he does not appear to understand the disadvantages of IRC as compared to the wiki. We need to work to make IRC less important, not more. Friday (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I find IRC rather useful. It is only the opinion of some that it is a problem. However, you are entitled to your point of view. 1 != 2 14:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Different tools for different purposes. You can drive a nail with a wrench, but anyone who doesn't see that a hammer is better is not fit to be carpenter. Friday (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Friday, I find Werdna to be much more even tempered now and make much better decisions. (I'm truly glad that I'm not held accountable forever for the things that I said and did when I was 15.) FloNight♥♥♥ 15:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's great, but forgive me for being slow to believe he's gone far enough, yet. By his own admission he's still at least several years away from anything resembling adulthood. Making better decisions than a 15-year-old is hardly a good recommendation. Give me 5 or so more years of level-headedness and you'll probably have me convinced. Friday (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of good admins on wikipedia and other projects that are 15, maybe some that are even younger. I don't think you should base your decision on age anyway. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 15:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, if there is a demonstrated lack of maturity then fine, but a person's age is not really relevant when we have contributions to go on instead. 1 != 2 15:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm taking people's word for it that the points in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Werdna 2 were legit. Maturity was a commonly-given concern in that RFA. When we have someone who was opposed for lack of maturity, I want compelling evidence that this has improved. Going from being a 15-year-old to being 16 or 17 is not compelling evidence. One of the real-world criticisms of Wikipedia is the undue influence of high schoolers in some chat room. Giving positions of responsibility to more high schoolers in some chat room surely doesn't look good. I don't like doing things that risk bringing the project into disrepute. So, opposes based mostly on age are indeed quite valid in my book. I know people will disagree with this. But if we ignore age and look only at maturity, I still see valid reason for concern. Friday (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like to point out that that RFA is over 1 year old. People change alot in a year. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 15:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Children change a lot in a year. Adults.. not so much. People gain more experience as time goes on, but lack of experience is not the concern here. Temperament is not likely to magically change just by the passing of time. Friday (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So now he is an adult? If so, are your maturity issues satisfied? If not, then he is presumably a "child", and ergo will have changed? Knowing Werdna, will it not have been for the better? Anthøny 09:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the point Friday is trying to put across isn't simply the age issue, it's the fact that there's been maturity issues in the past with Werdna as well. When you put age and maturity issues together, it can take a lot to get a candidate back on track, and a significant number of years before they have passed the stage when they are likely to make immature comments. I can certainly understand the oppose. That said, I'm with Flo up above on this one - I've watched Werdna since January last year, and I'll admit, in January, some of the things he came out with really annoyed me and I thought I'd never support him with the tools, but he has come on a remarkable ammount over the year, with both excellent work on wiki and off, taking critisism to heart and learning from mistakes. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "I don't see myself as an excellent article developer" speaks volumes, especially when this is held up as one of Werdna's proudest contributions to mainspace. I'm well aware that a significant element of the community believes that content-writing does not matter much to understand Wikipedia; however poor judgment is much more common among administrators with little interest in content creation, but a greater interest in mindless vandalism patrol or controlling the little plebs. Secondly, many areas of Wikipedia (pseudoscience and racial topics jump to mind) are plagued by a lack of admins willing to make nuanced decisions on content in their roles as a mediator or in their efforts to combat disruption; I suspect a lack of understanding amongst the administrative corps of core content policies such as verifiability, original research, neutral point of view and the treatment of fringe topics is to blame for this. Not being able to appreciate these concerns that content writers have is very difficult without having contributed significantly yourself. Don't get me wrong, Werdna is a competent developer, but developers develop and I prefer administration to be left to people with more experience with articles: those things we're actually here for. east.718 at 16:44, May 21, 2008
    Hey East. The thing is, Werdna isn't going to be getting involved in the stuff you mention. I'm well aware that the tools come in a package, but he solely needs the tools to help in his role as a developer. He's trusted enough with that, and he just needs the ability to do technical aspects on-wiki, such as editing the mediawiki space. You've got no problems with him coming getting involved in content disputes - simply put, he won't touch that. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Like you said, it's too bad that we can't hand out the tools separately or change the role of administrators in the social power structure... plus there is always the consideration that people, especially young people, can change: to provide a weak-assed anecdotal example, I promised to combat vandalism and completely avoid the technical side of Wikipedia... as it ended up, I lost interest in that and all I do these days in chase around disruptive editors when I get the heart to do so and keep cooking up evil adminbots. :o) In spite of myself sticking to my guns on content-writing, I find Werdna's answers to the questions that came after my opposition to be so thoughtful... so intelligent and in line with our norms that I can't help but think that there would be some measurable benefit for the project if Werdna were to become an admin... I can no longer oppose in good conscience anymore. east.718 at 10:47, May 22, 2008
  2. The main reason given for Werdna to be given the tools is to assist in development work. I agree that a developer should be given access to the tools appropriate to the job - but not that a developer should be given tools to block users or delete articles if the individual has questions about their temperament and judgement, as is the case here. I hear what Werdna is saying about having matured since the previous RfA, but I'm concerned when I start looking at recent history and find this questionable prod, this very poor speedy, this blind revert of accurate material, which was also marked as "minor", and I've now stopped looking. I have found enough evidence in the edits of the past few days which coupled with Werdna's past history indicates to me that Werdna hasn't got the secure judgement required of an admin. SilkTork *YES! 11:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand by the prod. The revert was because I saw an IP changing dates/numbers without a source — usually vandalism. Note that the revert was a net benefit, because the IP came back and added a source. The speedy was a result of looking at the top few lines, which included a mishmash of wikitext, citations, and other random nonsense, which looked quite bizarre, and as a possible copy-paste copyvio to me. The remainder was off my screen. Obviously, if I were to actually delete it, I would have taken a closer look at the whole article. — Werdna talk 11:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear what you are saying, and for a normal user to be making reverts without checking I understand, though it is not something I condone or would do myself - but I would like somebody who is looking to be an admin to be already displaying evidence of good, careful judgement. I didn't look far to find those errors of judgement, and those, coupled with concerns from the past, doesn't give me confidence. Now, it is up to each individual person to make their own assessments on how they judge a candidate. I have found things which have given me some concern, and I have given my reasons and my evidence. Your explanation of why you made those errors is welcome, though - unfortunately - gives me even greater cause for concern - that you applied a speedy tag after looking only at the "top few lines" looks a little careless. It is unfortunate for you that these incidents are so recent as it doesn't give me confidence in the assertions of "maturity". I wish you well, and it looks like this AfD will pass with you getting the tools. However, I feel it appropriate to give my concerns and my reasons for my concerns. SilkTork *YES! 12:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, not the top few lines, the top page. I just saw a mess, particularly seeing as my browser window was pared down for vandalism reverting. Anyway, thanks for your input and so on. Of course, it's still early days (a day or so after the start), so I'm not convinced the RfA won't turn around ;-). — Werdna talk 12:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The revert was because I saw an IP changing dates/numbers without a source — usually vandalism.[citation needed] Saying it don't make it so, and nor does confirmation bias. While it's hard to object too strongly to removal of unsourced content, it's easy to object to viewing the correction of unsourced content as vandalism based on who makes the edit. IPs make these corrections all the time when they see inaccuracies, and they make the encyclopedia more accurate even when they do not make it more verifiable (in which case we can add a fact template). I hope you change your outlook should you become an administrator, or indeed in any event. :) 86.44.28.186 (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I very rarely participate in RfAs (actually, I think this is the only one so far— other than my own). But, I think that it's unfair to expect a spotless record from any potential admin. Actually, I'd go so far as to say that I'd be more likely to "object" if someone truly did have a perfect pre-admin record that was void of mistakes, as it would demonstrate to me that someone may know policy a little too well and may be trying too hard from the get go, which seems somewhat ominous to me. I'd be much more comfortable with a candidate who has minor mistakes on their record, as it helps demonstrate that they are, indeed, human. --slakr\ talk / 03:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - Per SilkTork. This is almost definitely going to pass, but I don't think that is a good thing. asenine say what? 06:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Approved STBotl bot but refused to respond to this querry. --Duk 14:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Therefore he shouldn't be an admin? I fail to see the logic. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 15:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He is in somewhat of a position of authority with the bot group (apparently), and therefor has responsibility that goes in hand. The responsible thing to do would have been to participate, when asked, on resolving problems with this bot that he approved. So I'm not going to support a person who wants more authority but but doesn't live up to responsibilities he already has. And besides, ignoring an honest request like mine is just plain rude. Of course I could be wrong, and I'm 'all ears' for Werdna's reply. --Duk 15:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked him yesterday and he hasn't responded yet. You're not opposing him for unresponsiveness. You're opposing him for having a weekend. It's not as if he's responded to other people and ignored you. --JayHenry (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He was on line another four hours after my request. But like I said above - I'm sill willing to listen. --Duk 18:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More like he quickly came online just to post this, saying he'll be busy for the next few days. Hence why he didn't reply to your question immediately. Al Tally talk 18:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Speculate all you want. It's Werdna I asked to hear from. --Duk 19:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What? Nobody is speculating. You asked to hear from Werdna and so he quoted Werdna for you. --JayHenry (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally I would not try to discount anyone's feelings on a subject, but as far as your feelings or whatever were concerned with "being ignored," I think it's safe to say that you should just get over that. Mike H. Fierce! 21:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally I would not try to discount anyone's feelings on a subject -- why now?
    you should just get over that -- There is nothing for me to get over, you clearly don't know me very well, Mike. Something like this doesn't affect me in the least. It's simply one of the reasons I'm voting opposed. I'm entitled to this vote, just as you all are entitled to gang up on me like a pack of bloodthirsty jackals, I guess ;) --Duk 21:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bloodthirsty jackals? Oh, honey, this is not The Young and the Restless. Dramatic hyperbole is not necessary. Mike H. Fierce! 07:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy crap! This is absolutely incorrect. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, thus all contributions are made voluntarily and no obligations are placed on its editors, even if they've been given some extra buttons so they can be a bit more helpful. Administrators do not have to clear CSD or close AfDs. They just have the extra buttons because we think they won't abuse them, and they can do what they want with them when they want (if they want). --Rory096 20:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    no obligations are placed on its editors that's right, just like no editor is 'entitled' to adminship. --Duk 21:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No obligations are placed on any volunteer of this project, including administrators. All contributors are free to work on whatever they want and do it whenever they want, including never. That does not change if you have the mop. --Rory096 22:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just not sure where you're going with this ... yes you are right, no obligations, whether you have the mop or not, don't need to persuade me of that. What I said is that blowing people off will not help you get the mop, may cause some editors to cast an oppose vote, like mine. That's just the way it is. It's very simple. Rory, I think you are making this more complicated than it is. --Duk 22:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a forum for deciding whether or not Werdna would abuse or misuse administrative tools, not a place to attempt to obstruct their attempts to further improve the encyclopedia because of personal grievances. The fact is that no editor or administrator has an obligation to be on Wikipedia every day or to respond to every query. Therefore, that absolutely should not be held against anyone in an RfA. --Rory096 22:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I mostly agree with what you said. And I'm voting to oppose Werdna's adminship. I guess you can whine all night, but nothing you've said gives me any reason to change my vote. As of right now, Werdna is the only one who has the power to change my vote, not you. But by all means, keep talking if makes you happy! --Duk 22:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you can whine all night, but nothing you've said gives me any reason to change my vote. I'd also keep in mind that a bureaucrat could easily disregard your vote if he feels it's baseless. Mike H. Fierce! 07:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Threats *and* the thought police. What a wonderful Sunday morning. All we need now to really whoop it up are the censors. --Duk 13:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you for real? Honestly. I would call you a drama queen but that would insult the real queens with rubies in their tiaras. Cubic zirconia does not a drama queen make, honey. Mike H. Fierce! 18:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you describing yourself here? I'm trying to imagine it now, with all the glittering bobbles and doohickeys, and an ejector seat strapped to your fat ass ;) --Duk 20:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Duk, that comment was out of line. I strongly suggest you apologize and strike out that comment. Watch your behavior and act appropriately. —Dark talk 07:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Per the temperament issues. --Ave Caesar (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The actions shown by Silk Tork cause me concern. Since we're not evaluating everybody equally, this will obviously pass; my oppose will make no difference, but I cannot support him with those edits. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral, would prefer to see candidate invest their time in MediaWiki development rather than wasting it on adminship drama :) -- Gurchzilla (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral: (to support #155) Somewhat similar to Fridays oppose above; I feel that the candidate is somewhat lacking maturity. I can recall one or two recent events on IRC which were IMHO, inappropriate, and reflect negatively on the candidate. I'm not going to rehash it here however. I am not going to oppose though, but I hope you keep my comments in mind should this RfA pass. Good luck. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral: per above discussions. Antonio Lopez (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Only reservations are based on temperament issues. Don't have an overall problem with the edits or quality of work, however. --Ave Caesar (talk) 20:59, 24 May 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.
Category