Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Superbfc

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Superbfc

Closed as failed by

1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Talk to me? 01:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I gladly accept nomination.
—
talk | cont ] — 23:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]


Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Like a policeman with a weapon, I actually hope not to have to use it too often. Curious as that may sound. As with every venture in life, learning bit by bit with an open mind is how I will approach administration, so I have no pre-determined aspirations at present, only that I hope to do the Wikipedia project justice. I've learned in life that you have to take things step by step so that is exactly what I will do. I will approach the task of administration in the same way as I have learned the ropes of Wikipedia - by observing others and making any improvements on their failings if necessary.
See also (5) below.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Although I don't "own" the article, an article which gives me great pride is
Holy Trinity, Sunderland
 which I have written from scratch, and which demonstrates how I have learned to use the Wikipedia language, how to write in an Encyclopedic style, and how to correctly reference and present articles. The images in the article are my contributions also.
On the other hand, the articles Republika Srpska and André Milongo are examples of articles which I didn't start, but for some reason I got involved in their editing in an attempt to bring them up to Wikipedia standard, or improve the quality of the article. I believe that demonstrates my ability to work in subject areas I'm not immediately expert in, without adversely affecting the end product.
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: Yes, and I have always sought to both (1) use robust logic and (2) see it from the other person's perspective in order to gain a balanced view which benefits the project overall. I can think of three instances where after initially being in dispute with an editor, I have actually gone on to help them in the task to which I was initial hostile/sceptical.

Optional questions from Edwin Herdman

4. You characterized adminship partially as "a policeman with a weapon." Police departments have methods for preventing and responding to abuse of the tools of the trade. Could you provide a generalized summary of what you would do in the following circumstances:
a.) A notable television personality makes a comment on his show and users start vandalizing Wikipedia. You notice that some of them were warned before.
A: Thank you for engaging with me and asking challenging questions.
I would semi-protect the article for about 1 week, and monitor the situation at the end of the protection period if the furore hasn't died down. If the users have been given a last warning, I would block them; if not, I would issue the relevant-level warning template
—
talk | cont ] — 01:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, I did not mean to specify that the article itself was vandalized, merely providing Colbert as an example of a personality that instigated attacks on Wikipedia articles. The pattern of Colbert-inspired (and generally mass-media-inspired) vandalism, to my knowledge, is that there is a short, intense period of vandalism with a relative lack of vandalism later. Some of the vandalism in such attacks often comes from otherwise productive contributors. --Edwin Herdman 01:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now I'm not so clear what you are getting at. Do you mean to say that editors begin to add thinly-veiled criticism of the protagonist, e.g. like
WP:NPOV
is potentially compromised?
If they are productive contributors, I would
talk | cont ] — 02:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Apologies for the confusion (and especially the edit confusion just now; I can't blame Superbfc's signature for getting things so horribly wrong). When I said "I did not mean to specify that the article itself was vandalized" I meant the Stephen Colbert article - I was using Colbert as an example of a celebrity capable of instigating a spate of vandalism attacks. Again, sorry for the confusion. --Edwin Herdman 02:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
b.) Two users are trying to outdo the other in an AfD with claims that the other party has violated
WP:AGF
.
A: I would temporarily block them for 1 or 2 days to allow the discuss to proceed with other users' comments, and warn them about civility and good faith.
—
talk | cont ] — 01:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
This is also based on some recent experiences of mine. Would you not first take the step of reminding people that part of AGF is Assume the assumption of good faith and see if there was not a cooling-off? As written the question implies that things appear "out of hand" and disrupting the process, but I would ask the admin to still consider trying to implement a cool-off period. --Edwin Herdman 01:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, but if they are worked up by something, how likely is it that they will heed another's point of view any differently to their warring partner? Not being in the position to block anyone, I've not had to consider this kind of decision, so it's food for thought. Thanks for the pointers.
—
talk | cont ] — 02:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]


5. In your current work as an editor, how would the admin tools help you be more productive?
A: In answer to (1) above, I did neglect to mention my patrolling of recent changes and new pages. I would therefore be able to speedy delete obvious candidates, e.g. Patent Nonsense or Non-Notability, and also catch vandals on sprees. I have also had some input in watching users who upload images without correct tags, and I would also use admin tools to delete images which are eligible for removal.
—
talk | cont ] — 01:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Optional question from The Transhumanist

6. What does BFC stand for? The Transhumanist    22:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: BFC = Brentford Football Club. Although I'd made a few edits without an account, I'd signed up in order to write the article on
talk | cont ] — 23:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Optional question from Blackjack48 (talk · contribs)
7. After a recent MfD, many Wikipedians are debating the use of
spoiler warnings in articles about books, movies, and stories. Where do you stand on this issue and do you use spoiler templates when reading these types of articles? Thank you. Blackjack48  ♠ ♣ 01:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
A: I think, properly used, spoiler warnings are useful. However, there appears to be no real consistency in their use. Often, a page will have "start of plot spoiler" without a corresponding "end" tag. I would like the policy to be that all plot spoils should be correctly warned, with some kind of "hide" function before. Or, alternatively, the plot spoiler could be kept in a subpage, and transcluded with a "show" function.
—
talk | cont ] — 01:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]


General comments

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

Discussion

  • Yey another RfA unlikely to pass because the candidate told a few people! :) Majorly (talk | meet) 00:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's quite a bit Majorly: [1] . --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really. That's hardly any, considering the spam that gets sent out after failed RfAs :) Also, it doesn't show they'll abuse admin tools, so not a reason to oppose. Majorly (talk | meet) 01:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are continuing to sidestep the main issue here. It may not be reason to oppose, but why in God's name is canvassing for support votes necessary... -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 03:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I won't sidestep the issue. Opposing someone for canvassing is one of the dumbest reasons I can think of. The nature of RfA has made candidacies almost identical to real life political campaigns. The candidate's every move is scrutinized. They have to have spent their entire Wiki career saying and doing all the right things, and not pissing any of the wrong people off. If I were running for adminship right now, someone would probably oppose me for making this very comment. What politician doesn't canvas? Wouldn't you rather it be transparent than having the candidate send emails to people, which probably happens on most RfA's anyway? --Spike Wilbury 07:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm still pretty inexperienced here, but all the same, your comment seems to say more about the problems with the RfA process than anything else. Personally, I think certain kinds of canvassing(i.e simple spamming) should be avoided, but this particular case seems aboveboard. As for having to always say or do all the right things, I feel that an admin has to appear reliably trustworthy and levelheaded; unfortunately, with page histories, mistakes are probably too easily dredged up, but that's Wikipedia for you. Lindentree 07:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay, so it happens. This RFA will fail, if people do it, their RFAs will fail, but just to prove a point? Enough editors hate it, so trying to prove its worthiness is moot. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 18:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would not have minding being canvasses to look at the afd, but I do think it intensifies the popularity test aspect to be asked to come here if "you wanted to support me"DGG 03:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Superbfc expanded on his reasons for wanting the admin tools in optional question #5. Many people are referencing question number 1 but number 5 provides extra context. --Edwin Herdman 23:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For the record, none of the people who I "canvassed" has voted in favour of me, and in fact one has voted against and two voted as neutral. So much for the theory of skewing consensus.
—
talk | cont ] — 01:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Exactly. So why do it... -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 02:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mistakes are made to be learned from
—
talk | cont ] — 02:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
So it would seem. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 04:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question- I have a question regarding the candidate's answer to question #5. Is "Non-Notability" part of the criteria for speedy deletion? Thank you.

Spread the love! 15:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

A: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion A7 reads:
— broadly-speaking, that indicates "non-notability"
—
talk | cont ] — 20:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]


Yes, but Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Non-criteria reads:

Thank you.
Spread the love! 15:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
With respect, if I were to see any article which asserted notability, even if it were not notable and from my experience of New Page patrolling, I would not tag it for speedy deletion. As far as I'm concerned, the criterion you mention is a sub-set of CSD-A7, if you interpret "assertion of notability" as precluding it from CSD-A7
—
talk | cont ] — 23:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]


Support

  1. Support as nominator, don't forget to transclude when you finish the questions. :-) —The preceding
    talk • contribs
    ).
  2. Support Looks good. I encourage all candidates to canvass their rfa, nothing wrong with it in the slightest. It's just a guideline, and
    WP:GRFA is an essay... best of luck my friend :) Majorly (talk | meet) 00:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  3. Support - When a bunch of people who don't understand policy/guidelines themselves... then you are obviously a good candidate. Really... who gives a damn you canvassed at the end of the day? But... you need to tone down a bit Supebfc and not argue.
    Matthew 01:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. Support - Good candidate, terrible oppose reasons. Can we just forget the
    IAR, since these are extremely minor little things. Cool Bluetalk to me 01:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  5. Strong Support Per Majorly.--
    U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 02:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  6. Pro. I discovered an admin blocked a user indefinitely for violating 3RR just once (and I noted that user seemed quite reasonable in the discussion I witnessed, as both sides were). Candidate's comments lead me to believe that they will block only as necessary, and if there are disputes candidate will listen to reason. All admins must undergo a learning curve, and while some will object that admins should be in perfect command of all rules at the beginning that doesn't make the need for more of them any less. This is the important thing I take out of the answers to my questions above. I blame myself for making things somewhat ambiguous. I do not particularly like the comment to ignore another user, however, because it either is combative or the user did not notice that the user had been unblocked. I do not want to set up a Catch 22 for this user since we all want the candidate to both appear nonplussed by the candidacy process, but also sufficiently interested to provide adequate reasoning on the hot issues. I feel that in the future I will start asking candidates this: How patient are you? How many rounds back-and-forth before a block? (If you answer with a number, you fail the question; you're supposed to ask another admin for assistance). :) --Edwin Herdman 06:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak Support. As per my comments in Tenebrae's recent RfA, I believe that canvassing for RfAs should be allowed. The people best qualified to evaluate an admin candidate are those who have worked and interacted with that candidate before, and informing them of an upcoming RfA is not harmful. However, my support is weakened by the fact that the candidate clearly isn't aware of the prohibition against canvassing, which suggests s/he may not be fully ready for adminship.
    Assistance! 16:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  8. Moral support - has the makings for a future admin. Just needs to become more familiar with Wikipedia's policies, and understand why they are so important to uphold. Starting with
    WP:CANVAS. The Transhumanist    22:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Canvassing is neither a policy, nor is it important. Majorly (talk | meet) 22:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a policy, but the sentiment of many is that it is important. As canvassing, if unopposed, would tend to vote-stack, I'm not bothered that it results in quick opposition. Any RFA candidate who fails because of canvassing can always try another time. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Recent canvassing concerns is still there if you want to kick it into motion again. ··coelacan 22:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Per
    No big deal. TTalk to me 23:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  10. Weak Support per Majorly and T —MrSomeone ( tlk • cntrb ) 19:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support—sysopship
    Anthøny 19:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  12. Support-Seems like a user everyone can trust but why are you opposing because he/she is canvassing, canvassing is not wrong. I don't see anything wrong with that, so we're saying that if you see a campaign ad you will most likey not vote for the that person eh?Arnon Chaffin Review me? Talk 23:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Sorry to be a splash of cold water, but spamming strangers' talk pages for an RfA is a sign of... perhaps a lack or experience? I looked at your edit count page etc., poor use of edit summaries. Many months with no edits; this is tireless? I haven't been voting in RfAs for a while and won't be around to vote next time you're nominated... but I say wait at least six months and contribute more regularly...
    Ling.Nut 23:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. Oppose-You weren't active for a few month before this March, and you've been canvassing user talk pages saying "if you're going to support me, say here". --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose- This is a strong oppose. I object to your reference to police officers. Admins are not police officers they are not given weapons like guns, but are given tools like a contractor. You in no way should be an admin--William Henry Harrison 00:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose struck as user is a sockpuppet of a banned user. -- nae'blis 22:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like this comment from a non-productive user ignored. The policeman comment was an analogy.
    —
    talk | cont ] — 00:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Since apologised to WHH. Saw that he/she was blocked and suspected trolling/maliciousness/foul play. We all make mistakes and we shouldn't hold people accountable for previous minor indiscretions. - SUPERBFC, 23:44 2007.05.26 (UTC)
    Ummm...I don't think that you get to have William Henry Harrison's vote be ignored. That isn't how this works as far as I know, but hey, I am still a bit inexperienced in voting on RfA. I do however think that calling somebody a non-productive user is a bit negative. —Gaff ταλκ 20:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmm...? Where does that leave me now, given that a lot of people have voted against me on the strength of my criticism of someone who was, in fact, a troll/vandal/whatever??
    —
    talk | cont ] — 23:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Oppose Is canvassing seemingly random users for support. Says, and I quote "If you support me please indicate so", then includes a link here. Sorry, but that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth for me. Jmlk17 00:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also curious why a user who recently left Wikipedia would nominate...just wondering. Jmlk17 00:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may, the "seemingly random" users are all users who have left a comment on my talk page, if you must. They are people who have obviously commented about my work on this project, or have had some other kind of contact with me on Wikipedia. Please be more circumspect before criticising me, after all, I didn't self-nominate, but thought I should give it a go as I was nominated.
    —
    talk | cont ] — 00:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I'm commenting on the
    canvassing you have done. I removed the random users issue above per your comments. Jmlk17
    I'm changing my vote to neutral, per further thoughts and information. Jmlk17 22:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per
    WP:CANVAS vio. Admins should have a grasp of all major policies. A user who needs to canvas for votes doesn't deserve the tools yet. I suggest you withdraw and try again in a few months. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Canvassing is the only reason you oppose? That doesn't seem to be a very convincing reason.
    Talk to me? 00:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I don't think a handful of messages to users who have already talked to me constitutes canvassing. I don't want to enter into an argument, but I feel a little harshly treated here.
    —
    talk | cont ] — 00:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Are you both going to attack every editor who opposes you for canvassing? Canvassing is a serious issue to me, as it skews consensus. It is a valid reason to oppose and RfA as an admin needs to be able to understand basic policies as well as consensus. We can't have an admin going around messing with consensus. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am merely attempting to stand up for myself where I am being harshly treated. I can accept criticism where justified and therefore fair.
    —
    talk | cont ] — 00:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Please read
    WP:GRFA is a recommended read before an RfA) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Before commenting on
    WP:CANVAS, maybe you'd better read it a bit more thoroughly. It's a guideline, not a policy, and it's not set in stone. Cool Bluetalk to me 01:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I am well aware it is a guideline, but it also says in that notice "It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow." Just because it isn't set in stone doesn't mean editors shouldn't follow it. I wouldn't oppose for canvassing if it was an essay instead (As
    WP:GRFA is) but a guideline is another matter. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    This RFA is going to fail because of it, so the specifics of its contents at this stage mean nothing. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 03:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak oppose We could always use some more administrators, but spamming others' talk pages is a sign of lack of editing experience. Just get some more editing practice. See if you can get a list of the most important Wikipedia policies. Don't give up! Go for it! ;-) A•N•N•A hi! 00:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose- From the user's response to
    Spread the love! 00:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  6. Canvassing per above. Also you don't get to state whether a oppose comment is ignored or not. This is also pretty concerning, as it reflects a lack of understanding towards Wikipedia's policies. A little more experience in Wikipedia, and I'll probably support. --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 00:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose I would definitely support. Except for the fact of the
    canvassing. His userpage also in a since has canvassing on it. On the top, there is a bar that states I have been nominated to be an admin. If you support me, please indicate so on the RFA page. Thank you. Basically support me or don't vote. The user attitude concerns me as well. Especially concerning some of his responses to opposes. --Random Say it here! 00:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  8. Oppose for three reasons. The answer to Question 1 doesn't really explain what you intend do if you become an admin, so I don't see any particular need for you to be one right at the moment. The canvassing is a secondary issue, and is certainly "bad form" even if nothing else. A third point is the incivility shown towards one of the other contributors here: RfA is a place where you'll be critiqued, and simply asking for a critique to be ignored isn't a great idea. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Oppose Per question one as well as incivilty on RFA. Seems like the candidate doesn't need the tools.
    Real96 00:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  10. Oppose, the things your nom said you're good at (improving templates and copyediting) are things you can do without administrative privelages. Your answer to number one even said that you don't intend to use the tools. so I'm going to havfe to oppose.
    As cool as grapes..." 01:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    This is a generic statement: Being good at and focussing on copyediting and improving templates does not necessarily mean that the user should not be an admin. Admin tools should be given based on competence, experience not necessarily because of the fact that the user prefers not to block editors or actively participate in AFD. Many high-profile templates are protected and it would require these priviledges to edit them. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Per canvassing. The note on his user page is OK in my opinion, but the talk page spamming is not. --Mschel 01:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Here we go again. A candidate has advertised his/her RfA to users in their talk pages. This is something that I do not like to see in RfA candidates. I cannot support. Captain panda 03:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Saying "I would like this comment from a non-productive user ignored." in response to a (in my opinion-) valid oppose, and the canvassing, means this is a strong oppose. That, and you have an annoying signature which takes up four lines of code. Daniel 03:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose, the fact that the candidate is completely oblivious of what is obviously a progressing hate for canvassing is nothing short of disappointing... -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 03:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose The concerns above are putting me of supporting, your response to
    Man 11:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  16. Oppose per the answers to Q4 and the responses to other opposes above. Cheers, Lanky (YELL) 13:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose, canvassing issues. Don't advertise your RFA on peoples' talk pages, and you need more time before running for RFA. You don't really need to have the tools to do such things. Terence 13:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose A little of all of the above, but mostly, as per Daniel, because your responses to people on this page are concerning and do not bode well for how you would cope with admin stress. Sarah 14:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose All sorts of little things add up: canvassing shows that the user did not bother reading the guide to RfA, edit summary is still subpar, response to William Henry Harrison above is completely inappropriate, policeman analogy is awful, answer to optional question 4 is shaky at best and does not show a good understanding of the blocking or semi-protection policies, a month ago, Superbfc did not understand how
    proposed deletion worked [2], understanding of GFDL has also been questioned [3] [4], limited experience in XfD and this example (although ultimately, I do agree with the deletion) isn't exactly the kind of sound rationale we'd like to see in deletion debates. Heart is probably in the right place but not ready for adminship. Pascal.Tesson 15:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  20. I'm
    Mailer Diablo and I do not approve of canvassing in RfAs. - 18:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Dear Mailer Diablo, I know for a fact you have supported candidate who have canvassed in the past. Why the change of heart? Majorly (talk | meet) 18:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In this instance, candidate's canvassing statment suggests partisanship. ("If you support me please indicate so") I explained once in
    Mailer Diablo 02:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Oppose For a lot of what is discussed above and for referring to User:William Henry Harrison as a non-productive user and asking that his vote be ignored.—Gaff ταλκ 20:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll admit that it does weigh in your favor that WHH turned out to be a sockpuppet...still keeping my vote as it stands however. Going to be neutral. I think you will be an admin eventually, but I am just not ready to vote for you now.—Gaff ταλκ 22:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Significant civility matters trump any reason I might have to support at this time. KrakatoaKatie 07:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Poor handling of opposition on this page, and canvassing suggests a lack of understanding of the project's policies and guidelines.
    ShadowHalo 14:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  23. Strong Oppose. —Encephalon 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Reason?
    Talk to me? 02:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  24. Oppose per the police analogy. Being an admin gives you extra tools that you can use to help out -- it doesn't give you a position of authority over the community. You haven't said how you plan to help out with admin work, so I'm wondering what you actually would do given the tools. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm concerned about people's negative interpretation of what was merely an analogy or metaphor. I do not view adminship as authority or antyhing else. And the irony that people are inferring that I think being an admin is seen as so is ironic, as the amount of scrutiny people face here makes me wonder even if Mother Theresa could have been an admin. What I meant by the analogy is that "power" is always better in the hands of people who would be reluctant to use it, not those who proactively seek it out. Like a lot of people have rightly indicated, my contributions do not appear to warrant having admin tools. But so what? I do not want to sit around here all day deleting pages and blocking users, but I would, if given the ability, do it from time to time.
    —
    talk | cont ] — 11:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  25. Oppose This RfA is likely doomed over the cavassing issue. I'm on record as not being necessarily swayed by it but it is clearly a huge issue which an admin should have been aware of. Regardless of how I or anybody else feels about canvassing it seems that there is a strong consensus against it. I sure don't think the banner is an issue on his own talk page. But the quick-draw response to User:William Henry Harrison is terribly concerning especially coupled with some of his comments about blocking (I would likely warn first then block). I believe he's just a little fast with the tools. Sorry. JodyB talk 14:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose I'm big on civility and such, and an admin with a history of being uncivil is not preferred. hmwithtalk 11:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose I keep following hmwith, so please don't think I'm stalking. Anyways, I have a wide tolerance for uncivil commentary, but this exceeds my upper limit. And what's with canvassing lately?Orangemarlin 00:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose While I think the canvassing was just an unfortunate mistake on Superbfc's part (and hopefully a learning experience about what not to do in the future), the answers to questions 1 & 4 cause me to oppose here. Admins are not policemen with weapons, they are simple janitors with mops. We don't need more block happy admins.--Isotope23 20:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's sad, because a block-happy op was exactly what I was not intenting to be. It seems you have misunderstood my policeman analogy, possibly being down to the more liberal policing I am used to in this country, rather than the heavy-handed approach of elsewhere. Ho hum, I am sorry that it has been misinterpreted that way. I've learnt a lot, and will be more careful in future how I express myself. Which makes me think, though, whatever happened to people AGF about what I say?
    —
    talk | cont ] — 21:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Perhaps I did misunderstand what you intended with your analogy at #1, but I still see something of a disconnect between that answer and how you would deal with the situation enumerated at #4. It's not about failing to
    WP:AGF, I'm simply pointing out explicitly why I cannot support. Hopefully if this RFA does not succeed at least you are getting some valuable feedback for your next go at it... even if the criticism can seem to be a bit harsh.--Isotope23 16:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Absolutely. I wasn't expecting such harsh criticism; but I'm ready for it now, and I'm not letting it put me off my Wikipedia editing. This is obviously going to fail, but I'm encouraged by a lot of the comments, even from those opposed to me; they really aren't big failings, just areas on which I need to work.
    —
    talk | cont ] — 16:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  29. Oppose per incivility (even here on this RfA!) and canvassing. The analogy in your answer to question one was a bit unsettling as well. Like Isotope said, admins are more like janitors than policemen. --132 21:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Honestly, a lot of editors are going to find it hard to support you with the canvassing thing. I didn't really consider that in this opinion, however. Your answers to the questions leave me a little confused about what you intend to do with the admin tools. #1 is really the issue here. Could you possibly give answers that are a little less...philosophical? alphachimp 00:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. You've done a lot of good work, but I think an admin needs to be able to handle disputes and criticism better. Lindentree 00:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I would have supported, but the fact that you half of my edit count this month (and I am in no way prolific) bothers me. Canvassing isn't an issue, I just don't like the lack of activity. Oh, and PLEASE use edit summaries.
    ! 01:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. Neutral I have to say that I didn't find the the canvassing objectable. I'm new to Wikipedia, and I didn't know that we could vote for adminships. Im in agreement that your responsing to the critisms does show a lack of maturity. However this doesn't effect your skill level. You have promise as an adminship once you get some more experience; then I will gladly support you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahunta07 (talk • contribs)
  5. Neutral, to avoid pile-on oppose !votes. Sorry, just not admin-material. —Anas talk? 05:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. You do good editing work, but I can't see much evidence that you'll use the tools very much, so it's hard to identify whether you'd be fully trustworthy with them. I do believe admins should be consistently active in some kind of administrative pursuit. The canvassing approach also concerns me slightly but not enough to merit an oppose vote. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 10:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral - the things that the RfA says you do do not need adminship to complete. That could be a reason to oppose, but hey, Adminship is no big deal. My main worry, like so many others have said, is the canvassing. Canvassing is never a good thing, obviously. If you continue to edit well and do not canvass, you will pass next time you run for adminship. --tennisman sign here! 21:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral Changed from oppose, due to issues surrounding his canvassing. I'm still sticking with neutral, as I do still have reasons not to support. Jmlk17 22:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Q4b may have been a bit vague, but I'm concerned that you went first to the presumption that blocking would be necessary. ··coelacan 22:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral per the canvassing. Whether or not people actually came and supported is not all that relevant IMO. While
    WP:CANVASS may not be policy, that doesn't mean it has no effect. It's still a guideline and "is considered a standard that all users should follow." Knowledge of and adherence to Wikipedia's ruleset is absolutely necessary for me to support a candidate; I consider most guidelines to be part of the rules. If you had kept the message a little more neutral, I might have overlooked it, but you asked only for support. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 05:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  11. Neutral to avoid pile-on. Answer to Q1 is really unhelpful, and further answer in Q5 still doesn't indicate any general knowledge on the policies. On the canvassing issue, I don't think it was the canvassing that bothered other editors, but the wording. "If you support me please indicate so" gives a very negative impression.
    talk 18:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  12. Neutral I made some comments above. I think there are civility issues, that can easily be worked on to allow a successful RfA down the road. About the canvassing issue: a lot of wikipedia editors hang out in IRC chat rooms and I presume blab about their thoughts for RfA. I think that too much is made over the issue of "canvassing" here. Telling people that you are up for RfA should not be a punishable offense. Becoming an admin has got to be a big deal, even though the catch phrase is "no big deal." If somebody is excited about moving to another level of involvement with Wikipedia, how is that a bad thing?—Gaff ταλκ 02:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Superbfc&oldid=1146828485"