MichaelQSchmidt's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of 03:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC):[reply]

(({2|))}

Based on this edit (well, in combination with the one before it), I don't think you understand, Michael, what the concerns are. It's not a matter of people worrying that you'll close AFDs in which you've participated. That'd be a quick way to find yourself in a lot of hot water. The issue is that people don't trust you to close any AFD. Your views and voting history leave a lot to be desired. If you're willing to vote to keep such horrible and unworthy articles as you have, it's likely you'd be willing to find consensus to keep where none exists. It's likely you'd be willing to give weight to votes that are worthy of none. Your judgment has legitimately been called into question. That is what people are concerned about. It's not specific to AFDs in which you've voted or BLP AFDs. It concerns all AFDs. Lara 21:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically my position. Don't trust him to get any of the important judgement calls right. I'm also far from convinced about the "firing" of the "publicist" and concerned about the self-contradictory, meandering explanations on the RFA page.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100%. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I trust Michael to close AfDs 100%. As a general observation, I have found inclusionist editors far more objective when closing AFDs than those who claim to be deletionists or anti-inclusionists, whom I frequently see closing discussions as delete for which any neutral editor would have closed as "no consensus," "merge and redirect," and in some cases even "keep." I would say such admins as DGG and Casliber lean slightly inclusionist, although I do see both argue to delete more than say I do, and yet they do not close discussions as keep that they might otherwise want kept. Similarly, I do not make non-admin closes even for discussions that look like snow keeps. I do by contrast see the opposite with admins who lean in the deletionist direction. To suggest that Michael would not follow the path of other inclusionist leaning admins like Casliber and DGG is to assume bad faith and to do so with no real basis. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second what A Nobody said, with the caveat that I have not seen inclusionist or deletionist tendencies in closing AfDs that weren't dealt with shortly afterwards.

To be clear Lara, you are stating that you don't trust him to follow the policies of Wikipedia and think if would "go rogue" and do whatever he wanted? — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As his nominator, you're not doing him any favors. This request is beyond saving anyway, however; so I guess it doesn't matter much that you've decided to go for the "let me completely skew your words and distract from the point" technique. Anyway, since A Nobody mentioned inclusionists and deletionists, it's also worth noting that Michael's definition of each, as expressed in his answer to one of Chet's questions, was a bit ridiculous. That he is clearly an extreme inclusionist yet claims not to be is also concerning. Own up to your positions. I'm normally a deletionist. Extremely so in cases of BLP. See? Not difficult to identify one's positions. Lara 23:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

right, so you are, and I think that totally explains your opposition. If you want to reduce the coverage of Wikipedia , then your way makes sense, though nothing will excuse your language. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, DGG. My opposition has everything to do with me being a deletionist and nothing to do with your candidate having serious editing issues. Clearly. Lara 20:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "completely skewing your words to distract from the point", I'm asking if this is what you meant, because that's the way I took it. I am asking for clarification.

Personally, my position is that I see the labels too often as ways to vilify those with whom one has a disagreement; "extreme inclusionist", "rabid inclusionist", and "militant inclusionist" are just a sampling of the labels used in this RfA. Each use is intended to marginalize MQS, despite the fact that not one of them has an actual definition ("militant" implies violence to get your way, "rabid" implies irrational behavior). I can also agree with you that he has the tendency to "root for the underdog" and take a lower view of WP:RS than others. I also think he's giving the article one last chance to show notability. I think some of the works he has asked for should not have been kept, but that was his opinion on the matter and I'm willing to respect it, much as I respect yours. I've disagreed with him on some AFDs, but I also think he's willing to accept consensus and knows when he's been "beat".

As for "vote counting" and believing he will place a higher emphasis than is warranted, are you saying you believe he will give undue weight to opinions that are not rooted in policies like WP:RS, but instead will allow keeping an article based upon emotional arguments or (god-forbid) personal/professional relationships (such as in his relationships with people in Hollywood)? If so, I can certainly understand your opposition. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that it's always so easy to pigeonhole oneself, Lara - I've been told that I was "too deletionist" and it rather surprised me, so I don't have a problem with Michael not describing himself as you and some others see him; perception's relative. I think you'll find plenty of editors who don't think those labels are particularly useful, and perhaps that's why we don't easily define ourselves by them. I understand the concerns that this would be an admin willing to close questionable articles as "no consensus" or "keep" based on his participation in AfD up until now. It would be insulting to say that the existence of either strongly inclusionist or deletionist admins proves that this would not be a problem per se, but I don't think it's necessarily fair to extrapolate his ability to judge consensus on his willingness to help form it. WP:DRV seems a better test of that. From what I've seen, this candidate is likely to be more reasonable than many existing admins and would be a net gain for the project. If he becomes one and my judgment is faulty, we still have DRV to check his work, so I don't see what the problem is.--~TPW 23:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to reply on my talk page, but this works just fine. What we're saying is that he can't be trusted to be an admin, purely because of the way he currently edits AFDs. A Nobody is a rabid inclusionist, and therefore I would be more surprised if he didn't want Micheal to close AFDs than if he did. He won't just go rouge, he'll give (as Lara said) weight to votes that are worthy of none. I've seen it before, and I'm sure I'd see it again with Micheal. The inclusionists love to count votes instead of actually weighing votes per policy, and when they have an inclusionist mindset then they will probably give undue weight anyways. I simply do not trust Micheal to actually follow our policies, as he has shown a lacking of comprehension of them on every AFD he's commented on. Why should I trust someone to be able to walk, let alone run, when they have no legs to stand on? — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, I have actually argued to delete more frequently than some of those who oppose Michael argue to keep... Moreover, I have probably supported a bunch of admin candidates since my name change who have argued to delete many articles I might have argued to keep. And we see far more deletionist admins give weight to weaker delete votes than stronger keep arguments when they close. Yet, we just don't in reality see inclusionists admins like say Everyking doing the same. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be something to do with the fact that he doesn't close AfDs at all. If he has started to do so, please let me know. Ironholds (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which goes to show that an inclusionist has lived up to his "campaign promise." If we assume good faith, then we have no reason to doubt Michael would not be as impartial as he suggests here. Indeed, there is no evidence, Michael would go on some kind of article keeping frenzy just because he is an admin. After all, one does not need to be an admin to close discussions as keep. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So one inclusionist keeping a promise means we should assume another would, when that user isn't even honest enough to admit to his beliefs? Assume Good Faith has a limit, and that limit is around the time the user decides that passing an RfA through dodging questions and giving deliberately vague answers is more important than being honest with the community. Ironholds (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not just one, but many inclusionist admins do not close contentious Afds or ones for which they could potentially have a bias. The hypocrisy that I am seeing in the oppose sections is from those on the opposite end of the wikiphilosophy spectrum who either support, ignore, or do themselves close discussions that any neutral editor would close "no consensus," "merge," "redirect,", or even sometimes "keep" as delete out of their own bias. Moreover, I have participated in hundreds of deletion discussions (Afds, MfDs, etc.). I have a good sense of who if anybody is an "extremist" and Michael is not. It is little more than character assassination to say that he is. What he is is someone who actually tries to find and add sources to articles (isn't that what we are supposed to be doing here, i.e. building an encyclopedia?). I have encountered deletionist accounts have declared they would never argue to keep (and I checked, they never have!). That is extremist. By contrast, Michael does argue to delete. I don't know if some who say don't like me or some others are giving him an unfair shake because he has been in agreement with someone like me in a handful of discussion and if so, then for shame, because here we have a moderate editor who actually builds articles being maligned as if he were someone else. The comments being levelled at him are what someone would say about me c. 2006 on Wikipedia when I admittedly had a lot of ignorance about this project and edited according to that ignorance. But not Michael in 2010. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/A Nobody. You have been unwilling to discuss your editing in more appropriate venues and should not do so here.   pablo_hablo. 08:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MQS's supposed Wiki-philosophy is the main, if not the only, reason behind the opposing faction. There is, in fact, no evidence that Michael will let any "extremist" philosophy sway his use of Admin tools. It looks far more likely that it is the ideology of the Oppose faction which is behind the ridiculous accusations, exaggerations and outright false allegations contained in several Oppose statements, rather than any basis in MQS's actual record. Case in point: This implied "Are you now or have you ever been an Inclusionist?" question. If he answers "yes?" He's tarred & feathered as divisive. If he answers "no?" He's tarred & feathered as dishonest. Since he answers "I try to improve articles", he's tarred & feathered as evasive. The Inquisitor's reaction is the pre-determined, the answer is just a formality... Dekkappai (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like getting involved in RFA arguments, but I'm going to come in here; Dekkappai, you're pigeonholing. As you presumably remember, myself and DGG effectively carried the torch for the battered "reasonable inclusionism" idea of "if there's enough out there to write an article on it, it generally warrants an article" back in 2007 when the post-Siegenthaler arguments that set the tone for modern-day Wikipedia were in full flow, and I don't think even the most fanatic ARS-er could ever accuse me of being remotely deletionist (although I do think the "merge to a list" option should be taken far more often with the sub-stubs, instead of keeping them orphaned and unread). However, I can concede that there are good arguments in favour of deletion in many cases even if I don't personally agree, and that those overrule my personal opinions. From my interactions with MQS, I have no confidence that he can detach his opinions from his actions; I feel he thinks the same way as Everyking when it comes to deletion, in that ten bad arguments outweigh one good one. The difference is, Everyking acknowledges that his view is considered inappropriate, and has undertaken (and has faithfully stuck to the promise) not to touch AFD. MQS, on the other hand, is explicitly talking about closing AFDs. You may not agree with me, but the fact that people aren't agreeing with you isn't any kind of deletionist conspiracy. (I find it hard to imagine a less likely conspiracy than the 'Oppose' section; as Ironholds rightly says, many of the people there would happily push each other in front of the traffic.) – iridescent 16:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's got to the stage where it would be preferable for Michael to withdraw from this RfA, then reapply in a few weeks time, and in his new application make a promise, in the manner of Everyking, not to close AfDs. PhilKnight (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a solution. No candidate should make promises to eschew any admin action. Such promises are not binding in any way, for one thing, and for another RFA is an assessment of whether the community at large would trust a user not to abuse their Special Admin Powaz™. There's no such thing as "Admin-lite". Support, oppose or remain neutral but don't expect anyone to volunteer to stay out of any area. (They may choose to do so, but cannot be compelled to.)   pablo_hablo. 18:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remain neutral? I'm supporting. Anyway, I'm not compelling anyone, but I think it's likely this RfA won't pass, so he should consider withdrawing. Also, if he did make a promise similar to Everyking's in another request, I think he would have a good chance of succeeding. PhilKnight (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I see now that that is ambiguous. I wasn't implying that you were neutral, just that neutral is the default position before one chooses one of the other two options.   pablo_hablo. 19:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this RFA has little chance of passing but I don't think MQS should withdraw. There are quite a few people who I hope will look back on this train wreck and realize it was not their finest moment, but MQS is not one of them. Yes, he did crack once when answering Q's, which is not good, but I can kind of understand how when you wake up and see some pretty blatant and personal labelling aimed at your character, it's hard to be perfect. I'm not talking about degree of inclusionism, I'm talking about words like "lying" and suggestions of a sekrit agenda. Why should he let the vitriol chase him away?

I don't really see a point to promising not to close AFD's either, if he started making closes to fit a personal agenda, I really think someone would notice. If he made bad closes, he would be asked to stop and I would be among the first to ask. If he kept on, it's a short trip to ArbCom and I would lead that journey too. However, when (if) he tries again, he definitely will need to do some better asplainin'.

I would add that another reason to keep it open is that he's a sucker for punishment, but God only knows how that would get spun over the next day or two. :) Franamax (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer think he should withdraw. His RfA is bringing the issue of deletion out into the open. Because he supports ConstEdits, it is implied he will ignore consensus. Yet there is nothing in his edit record to support this. Also a full record of this will be helpful for future reference. The real issue for me is "the way" he is being taken down. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As previously said, provide some evidence of organization or shut the hell up. Ironholds (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That comment could be taken as suggesting that unwarranted slurs were cast, or that there was collusion. Interesting that you chose the latter interpretation. There have been suggestions that !opposes were coordinated, which naturally arise when 11 opposes come in 2 hours. Or it could be that it was lunchtime on the West Coast and people were checking in. There have also been suggestions that the early !supports were coordinated, but same thing there really. We won't know and people's opinions are people's opinions anyway. The problem has always been the nasty tone of the discussion and I can't imagine how "shut the hell up" helps to solve it. Franamax (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I drew that conclusion because he's repeatedly, on this page and the main RfA page, directly gone "these opposes are organized". Nothing suspicious about it. When I've got somebody repeatedly parroting this idea without providing any evidence for it I tend to get rather frustrated. Ironholds (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[R]epeatedly parroting this idea without providing any evidence could go right under the site logo actually. ;) It describes so much of English Wikipedia... :) Franamax (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Iridescent. I don't doubt that there are some fairly thought-out Opposes. But I'm saying there is a huge problem with ideological partisanship here, and none of it comes from MQS' side, though it is implied that it is, and is used as a reason for the torpedoing of this RfA. Just grabbing a few at random from the bottom up: "Inclusionist Taliban", "extreme inclusionist views", "heavily inclusionist viewpoint"... Need I go on? The fact that the initial oppose was from an editor who Emailed that he'd use his Adminship to oppose "extreme inclusionism" is, of course, purely coincidental, but interesting nonetheless. Dekkappai (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great news! I have found the leader of the Inclusionist Taliban - see Mr Big - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@TPW: I hadn't considered that he may vote based on personal Hollywood connections. I haven't seen anything that suggested he might. Based on his voting history at AFD, I question his ability to accurately attribute weight to arguments. Basically, he makes arguments in AFDs that are wholly worthless. They rely on unreliable sources or otherwise are completely unsupported by policy. Am I to assume that he would attribute no weight to the same sort of arguments made by others? I can't imagine that he would disregard arguments he agrees with, even if they're outside of policy. The fact that he argues for retention outside of articles is really a non-starter for me.

@Ret.Prof: Please stop harping about his edit history when it's abundantly clear that you haven't looked into it. No one with the smallest shred of clue could fail to determine from his AFD contributions that he is an inclusionist (extremely so, in my opinion), and that his comments there show an unfortunate misunderstanding of our most important policies.

@Dekkappai: My comment to Ret.Prof sort of applies to you too. I can't really take your generalization of the opposition seriously.

@The accusation of collusion from opposition: lawl. A good number of us put effort into avoiding each other. We may believe Michael is unfit for adminship, but I can guarantee you he's not so bad that it would bring enemies together. "UNITE TO BRING DOWN MQS?" No. Lara 02:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On just the one issue, that if a label were to be applied it would be "inclusionist" - yeah, that would be the label I would pick. :) No shadow of a doubt that MQS prefers to keep articles if they can be kept. The differences arise on whether the candidate would make bad AFD closes based on misreading of policy or consensus, on which honourable people may disagree; and over whether there has been some kind of stealth attempt, "lying" as it were, to fool people into supporting by crafting responses so as to conceal a hidden agenda. I'm rather confused on that last bit, I don't usually fall for simple tricks. Franamax (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see it a little differently. I do not see the opposition based on inclusionism as reasonable. The concern seems to be that he would give too much weight to the expressed consensus if it agreed with him, instead of a neutral interpretation of the rules. I don;t think he would, but I think at least some of the people who are arguing against him would in fact do just that, and they are equally wrong. The rules are made by the community, and the community, not individual administrators are the ones who interpret them. All we admins can do is to see what the opinion is of people in good standing who are not giving totally irrelevant arguments. If Coffee really thinks that he as an admin has any more voice in evaluating the nuances of policy than any experienced person here, he's wrong. He -- and I -- and all the rest of us --were evaluated only for a basic understanding. If we all had to say the what the right interpretation is, we would not agree with it any more than RL judges do. There are too many people here who are individually very sure what the right argument is--it's their's. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, closing administrators are given latitude to discount opinions wider than only rejecting "totally irrelevant arguments". Were that not the case, I think your comment would be more valid. ^Bongo_matic 05:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have consistently voted to overturn all such closes to deletion review in either direction if they seem unreasonable, and overturned is what usually happens to them. Agreed the discretion is a little wider than I summarized. There are, for example, a few policies that do trump the others. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Well said, DGG. I am more concerned at the outright hostility and complete absence of WP:AGF. People are making outright accusations of lying, comparing him with mass-murderers/rapists/etc, accusing him of militantism (an armed revolt?!? Really?), etc. Reasonable people can disagree. That doesn't necessarily make the side with whom you disagree "evil". It certainly doesn't mean they advocate an armed revolt or killing people. Dial back the rhetoric folks and strike out the portions that equate a disagreement with murder. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith has nothing to do with it. The opposition opinion can, more or less, be boiled down to "he has bad judgment." Clearly the supporters disagree and think he has good judgment. But for me or anyone else to decide he has "bad judgement" has nothing to do with "bad faith" or ideology. It's an opinion arrived at by examining the candidate. Good judgment is the most important thing for an admin to have; if it wasn't, bots could do all the admin work. So if Schmidt's vociferous supporters want to convince others, they should try to convince the opposition that the things it takes as evidence of bad judgment (for instance, arguing for the use of "Babepedia" as a reliable source) are not so.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Good faith has everything to do with it. Opposes based upon "he has bad judgment" is a valid opinion, as far as I'm concerned. It's how they feel and they are allowed to express those feelings, regardless of whether I (or anyone else) agrees or not. The only issue I have is the hostility and severe hyperbole in an attempt to vilify the nominee. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's RFA. That's how it's been for years. Whether you like it or not (and most of us don't), it's not going to change. RFA, like most everything else on this project, is impossible to change (or improve). This is the jacked up process we're forced to go/send people through. Good candidates and bad alike get hammered for things they've done and for things that others misunderstood. How they react is a consideration to some voters. I get the impression from comments on this page that Michael snapped in response to Coffee in the question section. That, in my opinion, would be understandable and I wouldn't fault him for it. Others probably would/have. As it is, however; many opposers have listed valid reasons outside of just the AFD issue. Some supporters seem to be attempting to draw attention away from the various concerns and discredit the oppose section based on disagreements about his participation in AFD, the label of "extreme inclusionist", and over the manner in which the arguments were presented. This isn't going to save this RFA. Concerns over the hostility present can also be attributed in part (not wholly, of course) to Ret.Prof's relentless and uninformed badgering of opposers both after, before, and again after his support of the candidate. Comparisons to murder and such, however, are always stupid and the editors who made those sorts of comparisons should be ashamed. Lara 18:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators are doing nothing to help Michael at this point. You're only making matters for him and yourselves worse. Lara 12:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...A good many, if not a majority, of the Opposes use variants on "bat-shit crazy Inclusionist"-- well, until it's pointed out that's a non-PC way of railroading an excellent candidate, and they slap little figleaves over their blatantly ideological reasoning-- yet pointing out so is called "pigeonholing"... "Have you heard about Dekkappai? He points out that people who label other editors are doing so? Eww, how gauche! A pigeonholist! I NEVER associate with pigeonholists! They're so divisive!"... It's logic like this that makes these... ah... "discussions" so fun... and productive... I'm being a sarcastist, of course... Dekkappai (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is arguing for the use of Babepedia as a reliable source evidence of good judgment? I think it's a clear fail of the sourcing guidelines, and believe that people that argue for the use of such sources don't really understand how important reliable sources are. If you have an argument that i'm wrong, i'm willing to listen.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was an AfD on a porn subject, and MQS looked at porn-related sourcing to determine the subject's existence and possible "notability". That this one link, out of thousands of edits, has been so consistently hammered on just proves the tar-and-feather show going on here. Dekkappai (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could provide about 50 equally as dubious stretching back about a year if you'd like, though it would take me some time. It's being used as a recent example of an ongoing pattern. But if you'd like, I'll come back here with an extensive list. Let me know.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this RfA is pretty much below the ol Mendoza line at the moment anyways, isn't this the point where some kindhearted admin/crat comes in to euthanize the whole thing? Tarc (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, that practically never happens. Either candidate withdraws or it runs the full time period. Tan | 39 13:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake then. Looking back now on old failed RfAs, it seems that is only done for absolutely hopeless cases, i.e. WikiGreekBaseball. Tarc (talk)

It seems that many opposers don't trust him to close things appropriately. Would a pledge by the nominee to only close as Keep those discussions with a 3-to-1 ratio (or higher) of keep votes with the agreement that he'd give up his adminship otherwise satisfy your concerns? It seems what you fear would be addressed. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point you're rearranging the chairs on the Titanic, and you're making both the candidate and yourself look worse and worse. No one can be held to a promise or pledge made at RFA, and therefore no such promises are substantial. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 15:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promises made during RFA are made ad captandum vulgus, and demonstrate unreliability. Hipocrite (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Either pass the RfA with no restrictions, or not at all. The community is speaking quite loudly on this RfA, so the issue is taking care of itself. BLGM5 (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't trust him to do anything that requires good judgment. It is not "just" about AFD. The attitude and thought process he's revealed in AFDs also often serves to support the maintenance of weak original research, unsourced claims, and can color content far beyond deletion/retention. There are many existing articles that should not be deleted but nevertheless are atrocious because of the attitude towards sourcing and verifiability he has put on display. So that wouldn't do it for me (and i also agree that such promises are worthless and beside the point: If someone needs to promise to wear handcuffs in order to become an admin, well, probably better off without them).Bali ultimate (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ECx3)

1. Why not? I certainly would hold him to his word. If he were to break his word, I would call on him to resign he adminship.
2. Should he choose not to, I would be happy to take it up with ArbCom and I think a lot of his supporters would do the same
3. It seems as if he's set a significantly higher bar: he's pledged to not close any AFDs period.

I will happily ask for his resignation or take it to ArbCom if he breaks his word on this latest pledge.

To hipo, what specious reasoning is there? He's attempting to address the concerns of the opposition. Why is this a bad thing?

To bali, all admins agree to have restraint. Why would that be a bad trait? — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will accept promises made during RFA when Elonka is desysoped by force. Until such time as promised made during RFA are binding, promised made during RFA are an immediate disqualifier in my mind, and have, and will continue, to vote such. Hipocrite (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What did Elonka do? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She made a vow in her RFA that if (something like) six respected users (or admins?) asked for her to resign her tools, she would. I may have the number wrong. Anyway, people were upset with her work in ArbCom enforcement or some problematic area the AC had asked her to deal with, BUNCH of people asked her to step down, she refused. That was the point that the majority of the community seemed to lose all faith in CAT:AOR to the point that RFA candidates vowing to be open to recall were opposed for having bad judgment. :| Gotta <3 WP. Lara 14:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close, but I'd argue the reason she was recalled was because she wikilawyered to have an RFC regarding her conduct deleted - see [1]. Hipocrite (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL @ "take it up with ArbCom". Easier to just keep him from getting his hands on the mop, which is how this RfA is unfolding. Better safe than sorry. BLGM5 (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, i think he has terrible judgment. People with bad judgment make bad admins (since much of what admins do -- or should be doing -- requires an exercise of judgment). Your "reasoning" is also bizarre, since its necessary implication is that "everyone who promises not to abuse the admin buttons, should be given the admin buttons." That's not how the real world works -- and it's not even how wikipedia works. Plenty of RFA's fail -- the system is in fact set up so that some RFA's fail.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that everyone who is an admin has also agreed to not abuse their powers. Those who have abused their powers or have lost the trust of the community have been desysoped in a matter of days (many resign their adminship before they are stripped). To assuage your concern and that of others, he has further limited himself. Instead of acknowledging that this addresses your concerns, you somehow twist this to say he's even less qualified? — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure he withdrew the nomination. Are you sure you want to keep this up? AniMate 05:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]