Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Werdna

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

Werdna

Final (43/19/2) ended at 01:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC). Withdrawn early by candidate

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept. After a two to three week break, a period of staying away from RfA, two and a half months total since my last one, approximately 400-600 edits (I haven't been counting), a username change, and a period of watching for RfA improving, I think I'm ready to give it a third crack. — Werdna talk criticism 11:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Apparently not. This was quickly turning into a pile-on oppose, with a number of very valid concerns. I've got better things to do than deal with the opposes here, who all have legitimate concerns. It's time I started working on one of the multitude of technical projects I've got planned, instead of wasting my time with RfA. Thanks to all who contributed, on both sides. — Werdna talk criticism 01:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I'll work on the regular backlogs (CAT:CSD, history merges, WP:CP, PROD, watchlisting of AIV, answering {{unblock}} requests), I'll use the rollback ability to further my vandal reverts, and many of the tools may come in handy for some of my coding (checkpages, own userspace deletion, self-blocking of my bot if I can't switch it off, all that jazz). Also, I'll try to keep an eye on AN, ANI and PAIN, for anything that needs intervention. Additionally, I'm almost always in #wikipedia, so I can easily deal with any requests for assistance there. Beyond the tools, I'll continue to make minor edits in articlespace, make comments on policy, maintain Werdnabot, help out new users and all those things that Wikipedians do :-).

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I'd have to say that my greatest single achievement, and what I'm best known for on Wikipedia is Werdnabot. Werdnabot currently maintains archives for 169 pages, making in excess of fifty to one hundred edits a day, to a current total of eleven thousand. What is also little-known is that Werdnabot can bypass double-redirects, although nobody seems to know that (I'm planning on having it scrape the move log and automatically check for them). Apart from that, I've done a fair bit of vandalwhacking, and received a barnstar for that. I've also done what I like to call "Random Article Patrol". This is where you click "Random Article", and check the article over for any inconsistencies, non-sourcedness, copyvios, and such, and then repeat. I've also contributed to policy debates, notably on ANI, and most recently on the talk page for Requests for adminship. Finally, I know this doesn't have much to do with Wikipedia per-se, but I thought I'd mention it anyway, I'm a channel operator on #wikipedia, and I regularly root out trolls (and, admittedly, the occasional good-faith person, who I'll unban after a brief discussion in private message).

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: In the distant past, I have been involved in a lot of silly ones (notably the Brandt issue, the HRE thing on my first RfA, the "No incident", as it was dubbed, on my previous RfA). From each of these conflicts I've learned a lesson, and each of these showed me that the best way to resolve a conflict is to talk to the involved parties in a neutral and non-threatening manner. More recently, I've been involved in a few disputes on my refactoring of some discussion pages (removing irrelevant comments and such), however my reaction has been to follow the one revert rule, and if I'm reverted, leave it for somebody else to deal with. I was recently the subject of a post on ANI about this refactoring, and my response was to make an appropriate response on the ANI page, and remind the user in question to use our Dispute Resolution process (which is currently shockingly underused) before bothering with an ANI post — in this case, the first step, calm discussion, resolved the issue by me allowing him to revert my change. Apart from this, I've also been involved in the debate regarding Carnildo's Request for Adminship and associated controversy, and the recent publicgirluk "debacle".

Question from Dlohcierekim

4: In your 2nd RfA, the question of incivility and hotheadedness was raised. What has changed, and how can you assure the community that this will not be a problem? :) Dlohcierekim 13:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A: Ah, good to see somebody's doing their homework. I'd like to start my answer by noting that the civility issues were mostly raised in my first RfA, where I completely lost my head and said something stupid. I've learned since then to maintain my calm — A strategy I use is that if I feel at all overly involved in something on Wikipedia, I leave the topic for at least an hour or two. This gives me enough time to think through my position. In response to the concerns on my second RfA, which were regarding dealing with another editor in a threatening manner, I've determined since then that it's always best to double and triple check that I am

assuming good faith, and to comment on others' behaviour in a non-threatening manner. I think the last month and a half has shown that this attitude has paid dividends in avoiding saying anything I've regretted on Wikipedia (that I can think of :-)). — Werdna talk criticism 13:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Optional Question from Jcam

5: In the past year, it seems that there have been an increase in administrators being desysopped usually either for losing their cool in a pressure situation or abusing their power. After a couple of months, many of these former-admins subsequently seek the position again. Given that there are now over 1000 administrators on the English wikipedia- the vast majority of whom serve the community well, should someone who has shown they cannot be trusted with the responsibilities of an administrator ever be allowed to seek the position again ? Would you be willing to take a pledge saying that if, hypothetically, you were ever desysopped that you would NEVER seek the position again ? Jcam 16:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A: I believe that every person deserves a second chance. Giving a second chance does not include permanently banning a user from gaining administrator privileges. The Arbitration Committee has, in the past, enforced restrictions on re-requesting adminship. If the arbitration committee and the community support the candidate regaining adminship, I see no reason to refuse it based on past mistakes. Accordingly, I refuse to enforce similar restrictions on myself. — Werdna talk criticism 23:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Werdna's edit count is available on the talk page
• See Werdna's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• First, Second RFAs – Chacor 11:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support as nominator. — 
   talk
   ) _{11:15, 10 September 2006}
2. Support, has improved since last nomination. —
   Xyrael / 11:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Support -- I had thoughts of nominating this editor myself. No need for that now. A good candidate. - Longhair 11:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Edit conflict weak support. – Chacor 11:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support like last time. --CableModem 11:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Quadruple Boople Edit Confloople Supportation - Seems to know how things work, plus is sane. Sane users make good administrators. Therefore, Mr. Werdna would make a fine and dandy administorator. —
   (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Troppus... niagA --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 11:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support, He truly deserves to become an admin. Always a hard and diligent worker. - Zero1328 _Talk? 11:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Delist - wasting our time on people who are already admins. —Celestianpower ^háblame 11:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC) (this comment is to be taken less-than-seriously)[reply]
10. Strong support for this civil, friendly user who has contributed enormously to the project. --Nearly Headless Nick 11:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support about time. --james^(talk) 12:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support. "I thought he already was an admin!" (pardon the cliché). In all seriousness, Werdna has always struck me as a responsible and diligent editor. I run into his username all the time while fixing vandalism or the like (usually because he's beaten me to it), and I see him frequently in various Wikimedia IRC channels, where he is a responsible channel operator and a fun guy to boot. And to top it off, he runs a bot responsible for thousands of useful edits. What more could you want in an admin? I have no qualms about giving him the keys to the mop closet. --Slowking Man 12:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Suppose. One of the best there is. Rebecca 12:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Strong support. Any user who makes the effort to create a robot to improve the project strongly deserves adminship. Good luck! --Alex ^{(talk here)} 12:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Adminship is not now and never has been a reward for technical skill in making bots or even being a developer for the project. -- nae'blis 01:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

15. Edit conflict-support - of course! — Gary Kirk | ^talk! 12:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support same as last time - for the exellent work he does here. Gwernol 12:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support per nom. --
    talk) 13:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
18. Support: It's time Werdna moved onto bigger and better things. --  Netsnipe  ►  13:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support for his good work and cogent statements --
    ^(talk) 13:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
20. Support based on contributions to the project and strong answers to questions (1-3, and I hope soon 4 now 4 as well). The concerns raised on prior RfA's and in the Opposes below are legitimate, however; please make an extra effort to remain civil even to those you strongly disagree with, and use the block tool very conservatively to begin with. Newyorkbrad 13:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. Seen this user around, good impression. enochlau (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support. I've also seen this user around and i believe he is trustable and could do great things with sysop powers. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support, very solid qualifications. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support,
    talk • contribs • Bot
    ) 14:32, 10 September 2006(UTC)

    Support per of answer to my question. Could not find real indication of hotheadedness or incivility.  :) Dlohcierekim 14:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Switch to oppose. :) Dlohcierekim 23:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

25. Support - FireFox sums it up perfectly, Werdna has a lot more power than most admins on this site atm w/ Werdnabot. I see no issues in handing over the mop which will help in bot work a bit :) -- Tawker 15:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Rama's arrow 15:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support - Per Slowking Man - I seriously thought you were already an admin - as you aren't one yet, I think you should be, so I support
    rtinp23 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
28. Support. Definetely.
    Voice-of-All 16:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
29. Strong support great contributor who's done some great work. As I mentioned in the previous RfA, the objections there seemed unusually insubstantial, and I don't see any substantial new ones raised. Opabinia regalis 16:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. I can trust this user with the tools. Ral315 (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support with the promice asking fellow admins for help when you get stuck on something.
    ^{wat's sup} 16:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
32. Support. -
    iablo 17:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
33. Support - good contributor. Michael 17:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 17:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support I thought you were an Admin. but seriously Good edirot with experience Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 18:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Weak support, after reading the previous RfAs and oppose reasons they seem rather trivial and shows the user has character. So support.--Andeh 19:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support per nom. Anger22 19:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support!!! - He isn't one yet?!
    ct|e 21:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
39. Support just like last time --rogerd 21:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support --
    Ligulem 22:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
41. Support, of course, would make a great admin. --Rory096 23:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support. G.He 23:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support People are opposing due to Werdna's actions in IRC and because he voices his opinion? Those are not reasons to oppose. Why should candidates for sysopping be forced to hold no opinion whatsoever, shut their mouth, and simply fit in with the crowd? I for one, believe that the RFA process has some major flaws that need to be addressed (the Carnildo RFA is addressing some of those problems by showing bureaucrats can have more power). As for consensus, if consensus is damaging to the encyclopedia,
    Cowman109^Talk 00:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

1. Oppose Recently Werdna booted and banned me from #wikipedia with a rude comment that announced his please in taking the action. My entire comment on #wikipedia was saying hello and asking to chat with him later. It is obvious that Wernda is upset about his last RFA because he raises the issue repeatedly on several wikipedia related IRC channels and RFA talk. Unfortunately his rash action shows me that issues related to incivility and poor judgment remain and Werdna can not be trusted with admin tools. FloNight 12:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   As has been said before, and will be said again, #wikipedia isn't Wikipedia itself. Judge him by the work he does here. – Chacor 12:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   In my vast experiences, Werdna is a fair op on #wikipedia. Whatever happened is probably blown out of context, and or proportion. --CableModem 12:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   IMO, discussing his current RFA on IRC is another sign that he does not use good judgment. FloNight 12:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm gagged from talking about it now? Wow! These RfA restrictions just get tighter and tighter... — Werdna talk criticism 13:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   When has #wikipedia ever been a official and regulated forum for anything serious? --  Netsnipe  ►  13:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose. Barely a mention in the nomination of the previous RfA - and not even a link to the RfA's under the old username. Chacor provided, but this really should have been something done by the nominator or the nominee - to say nothing of discussing in detail the objections raised therein. Besides, two months (part of which was a wikibreak) is really uncomfortably short. -
   talk/email 12:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Comment: I don't really think your !vote should be swayed by something I left out of the nomination, but I apologise for missing it in the first place. — 

   talk

   ) _{12:49, 10 September 2006}

3. Oppose. Reading through the previous failed RfA's does not give me confidence about this editor's ability to act as a cool, calm and objective admin. His attitude towards FloNight, regardless of forum, is highly inappropriate. I am interested to read his response above to Dlohcierekim. Crum375 13:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I see his response to Dlohcierekim, but I don't see any mention of the issues raised by FloNight above. Crum375 13:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm unable to provide any response to the first of the issues raised by FloNight, as I don't recall them. I'm actually mildly interested — I don't recall ever seeing her on IRC, although she's obviously been reading discussions from tonight based on what she's said there. A quick grep through my logs shows nothing to do with FloNight, at least not under that nickname. I'm mildly curious, as I'd like to think she's telling the truth, but believe absolutely that I wouldn't ban somebody for opposing my RfA. — Werdna talk criticism 14:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Here are FloNight's comments in support of her Oppose vote in the 2nd AfD:

   1. Poor judgment. Werdna648 showed a Lack of Commonsense by accepting a RFA nomination while engaged in a dispute. Given that the dispute involved Participants in a RFA, I think Werdna648 showed remarkably poor judgment. Additionally, Werdna648 showed poor judgment by accepting a RFA nomination immediately after acting as nominator for a RFA that failed because the candidate did not understand key Wikipedia and Foundation policy. While I would not oppose for Werdna648's support of Simetrical alone, it would have stopped me from supporting Werdna648 nomination by either skipping the RFA altogether or leaving a Neutral comment.

   2. Not acclimated to Wikipedia culture. Werdna648 does not seem to be well acclimated to Wikipedia culture, and does not fully understand how to administer key policies and guidelines.

   a. An administrator (or an experienced editor) needs to lower the heat in a dispute not raise it.

   b. Does not understand that blocks are not punitive. If no harm is caused by an editor's actions, even if they technically break the rules, then they are best ignored.

   c. Wikipedia policy is made through consensus building. Werdna's threat to boycott RFA seem misguided at best and could be disruptive. See User:Werdna648/RfA Boycott.

   3. Does not tolerate stress well. Currently does not have the attitude needed to be an admin. Reality on the ground is that a large part of being a Wikipedia admin is tolerating people making rude and stupid comments to and about you. This comment by Werdna shows me that the temperament for being an admin is not present [1]

   "...And I think it's ridiculous that I can request explanation for a vote, be called a stupid troll, give a slightly badly worded advice that the offender may be blocked, have hostile edit summaries directed at me, and be accused of "abuse", "harrassment" and many other patently ridiculous things. And after all that, Duncharris hasn't even had a slap on the wrist, and I have to deal with this crap. That's not right, and it shows fundamental flaws in the way RfA works. That is the reason for the subpage you describe, and much of the reason for my cynicism of the RfA process.

   (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)"[reply

   ]

   I also think we need a better explanation from an admin candidate as to why he would create a subpage promoting boycott of the RfA process. If the explanation is already given somewhere and I missed it, I apologize. Crum375 14:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   There is widespread agreement that the RfA process is broken, a sentiment which Werdna is most certainly not alhone in sharing. Since when did prospective admin candidates lose their right to speak up about the process itself? Rebecca 15:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree that we should all work to fix what we perceive as 'broken' or even 'imperfect'. But advocating a boycott is disruptive and non-constructive. I don't think FloNight would have a problem if Werdna648 simply proposed improvements to the RfA process - in fact she may consider that as bonus points. Her (and my) problem is when someone promotes

   disruption to achieve his/her goals. Crum375 15:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Wow. I wasn't aware that avoiding RfA was disruptive. If you truly believe that a personal avoidance of RfA is disruptive, please

   WP:POINT violation — particularly considering other users are trying to have it temporarily suspended. Is having no new administrators promoted for a few months really going to kill us — we already have more than one thousand ones perfectly capable of looking after us. — Werdna talk criticism 23:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I think there is a distinct difference between proposing a temporary halt to the RfA process until it can be improved, vs. creating a personal sub-page promoting a boycott of the process. The first method is constructive, while the second can be viewed as disruptive. I hope you learn to recognize the difference, even if you don't see it today. I also hope that you truly take to heart all the constructive criticism leveled at you, from RfA1, RfA2 and this one, regardless of its outcome. My personal feeling as of now is that you still need to do some brushing up on

   WP:CIVIL, and maybe a few others. Remember an admin has to serve as example to others. Crum375 00:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Ah, I wondered when this would come up. The perhaps badly-named "Boycott" page was speedily deleted at my request, seeing as it was for nobody except myself. It was, first and foremost, a reminder to myself to stay away from Requests for adminship at that time, as i felt it was quite unfair on candidates who had not really done much wrong, and was too controversial to participate in without making somebody dislike you. I'd like to point out that while I may be the only person to put it in a perhaps awkwardly-named subpage of my userspace, I'm certainly not the only person who believes this — I've seen a number of comments on the talk page for RfA along the lines of "I'm going to join the growing ranks of editors who ignore RfA and get along with editing". I'd go through my specific reasons and some case studies I used when speaking to Jimbo about RfA about a week ago, but frankly this isn't really the time or place. After keeping an eye on the process for a while, I felt that the process had improved, and decided to again seek re-nomination — As the tools would be useful to me. — Werdna talk criticism 15:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment: Given that two very experienced members of the community are asking for the bureaucrats to refuse to promote any more administrators until the RfA process is changed,I don't think we can hold this matter against Andrew. Newyorkbrad 17:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose I have not seen sufficient improvement since the first and second Rfa's to support. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong oppose. I found the candidate's comments during the recent discussion
   here
   quite revealing:

   • If Carnildo screws up, he'll be quickly deadminned, and any damage can and will be easily repaired. I'd like to see this treatment extend to other RfAs that haven't passed on ridiculous grounds. Ambuj.Saxena's and my second one come to mind.
   • ... I personally think that a promotion should occur if the candidate gets simple majority support and a bureaucrat is willing to promote.
   • What everybody seems to be forgetting is that the RfA had a simple majority. Therefore, you were pleasing more people by promoting than you were pissing off. This 75-80pc rubbish is unnecessary, and only a guideline.

   So what can we see from this?

   • The candidate believes that his previous RFA failed "on ridiculous grounds"; looking over the discussion in question, I believe this to be a grave misjudgement of the issues raised, and question whether the candidate has, indeed, learned anything from the experience.

   • I have the right to express my opinion on the result of my previous RfA. Are we the thought police now? Incidentally, my opinion, if you're interested, is that the concerns were valid, but not substantial enough to block an RfA. — Werdna talk criticism 23:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   • Of course you do; but the manner in which you chose to do so is fair game. Characterizing legitimate criticism of your behavior as "ridiculuous" suggests that you have not taken the (quite important) issues brought up in your previous nomination to heart. Kirill Lokshin 23:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   • Did you read my answer to questions 3, 4, and the tail end of that comment. I believe these show that I have indeed taken the issues to heart. — Werdna talk criticism 00:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   • The candidate has a gross misunderstanding of "consensus" (which is admittedly hard to pin down, but most certainly shouldn't be boiled down to "simple majority support" either).

   • I stated that consensus should be up to the judgement of the bureaucrat with a simple majority — that a simple majority is the bare minimum required for consensus, and that bureaucrats should not be punished for using a numerical metric for judging the result of an RfA. — Werdna talk criticism 23:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   • "...you were pleasing more people by promoting than you were pissing off" is precisely the wrong way of approaching consensus; your response here indicates that you don't recognize that. Kirill Lokshin 23:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   • Interesting. You do have a point here. I'll try to wait a while for closing AfDs if I gain the tools, in that case. — Werdna talk criticism 00:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   • The candidate fails to understand the full effects of certain admin tools. It is not the case that "any damage can and will be easily repaired"; the lack of recognition of the personal (rather than the technical) effects of certain actions is what got us into that whole mess in the first place.

   Given these points, I feel this candidate is likely to cause damage to the project if given the bit. Kirill Lokshin 16:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. Opppose I think that Werdna is in general a good and productive editor. Each concern above by itself would most likely not be enough for me to oppose. However, the combination is worrisome. In particular, what happens on #wikipedia should not be a primary concern as per our normal rules about off-wiki issues. However, for adminship candidates it is reasonable to look at outside wiki behavior if it provides insight into what the user is likely to do with admin tools. In that light, the combination of the earlier No-incident a long with Flo's oppose vote and the concerns raised by Kirill above make me conclude that Werdna would be likely to use the tools in a unilateral fashion with little regard to policy or consensus. I therefore must oppose. JoshuaZ 17:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Weak oppose per above. 1ne 19:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose. Accused User:ALoan of 'theatrics' and a "Meatball GoodBye" when he was feeling sad [2] Considers the concerns raised at his first RFA ridiculous and is still indignant that he wasn't promoted then as Kirill Lokshin's diffs above show. I hope to be able to support in the future if he makes more of an effort to take on board what I think is legitimate criticism of his conduct. Haukur 21:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Have you read meatball:Goodbye? Essentially, it states that a long-time contributor leaving the project is, intentionally or unintentionally, a way to try to effect change. Meatball wiki is a wiki which is quite trusted in the internet community as a source regarding internet communities. I invite you to explore it for a while. I trust it as a reliable source. — Werdna talk criticism 23:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, it's a good essay. But the question here is whether it was appropriate to cite it in the context where you raised it -- a contentious and somewhat emotional discussion of a decision that was stressful for many in the community -- and to pair it with a taunting comment toward a major contributor to the project who was thinking of leaving, basically daring him not to come back. As mentioned below, blanking good-faith talk-page contributions in the same context also showed questionable judgment. I'm still supporting your candidacy at this stage, because your other contributions to the project would be enhanced by your having the admin tools, but questions about your civility and judgment based on events within the past week are troubling. I urge you to take a deep breath and think about how your responses to comments and questions will be perceived before you type anything more on this page. Newyorkbrad 23:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I find it interesting that I'm being opposed here for not giving into an admin who was, as you stated, upset, in what you say was, an emotional and contentious debate. You then turn around and oppose me because you believe I got upset over a debate that you say was emotional for me. You've got a bit of a double-standard here. We can't use the fact that people get upset over something to settle a debate, which is what I was cautioning here.— Werdna talk criticism 00:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   sigh Andrew, read my comments again. I am supporting you. But you're sure not making it easy. Newyorkbrad 00:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9. Opppose as per comments above. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose per Kirill Lokshin and Jossi.
    Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 22:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
11. Oppose Blanking talk page [3] sections [4] doesn’t indicate to me a great deal of good judgment. Good contributor for sure, but not someone I would feel comfortable with the admin bit. Seems to take consensus less than seriously and also has a problem assuming good faith [5]…. Theatrics??? I think Kirill Lokshin sums it up pretty well.
    Rx StrangeLove
    23:01, 10 September 2006(UTC)

    You'll note that I provided what I believed to be an adequate explanation for what I did in the edit summary, and did not edit war over the issue. — Werdna talk criticism 23:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, you feeling that a (good faith, non-vandal) section is irrelevant for example doesn't justify blanking it, it's a talk page. There was relevant material in both sections. And I think the standards should be higher than "I didn't edit war"

    Rx StrangeLove 23:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    I advocate the refactoring of discussion, but all of my removals of what I consider to be pointless or irrelevant sections or comments is always up for reversion or removal. I doubt that this has any bearing on my gaining of the sysop bit, as I'm more than capable of removing comments without it. Given that I'm not editwarring over the removals, why would me having admin rights make it more (if at all) destructive or disruptive? — Werdna talk criticism 23:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Good judgment is always important in an administrator, you may consider them pointless or irrelevant but you are not alone here. Newyorkbrad might have a point, maybe you should step away from this for a bit. You're getting kind of combative and edit summaries like [6] doesn't help.

    Rx StrangeLove 00:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

    ]

12. Switch to oppose per
    User:Rx StrangeLove. :) Dlohcierekim 23:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
13. Oppose, sorry, but there are just too many civility issues for me to support at this time. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 23:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose. Too many concerns about the user's civility and attitude towards consensus and admin powers. Doesn't seem to have taken on board many of the genuine concerns raised by other users in the previous RfA. Zaxem 00:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose, still incivil and terse; myriad individually small concerns lead me to the same conclusion I had in his 2nd RfA; user is not able to discern consensus and deal with stressors well. Continue to be an editor, your stress will be lower, please. -- nae'blis 00:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose - lack of experience with images [7][8] as well as for attacking many of the oppose votes here --T-rex 01:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose per basically everyone above, particularly Rx StrangeLove. Still too many civility problems for me to support right now. BryanG^(talk) 01:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose per Lokshin and StrangeLove too authoritarian and too much wikidrama and disruption abakharev 01:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose per Kirill Lokshin. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]