Apart from "I am going to start out with basic maintenance work (WP:PROD, WP:CSD, WP:AN3, WP:XFD, repairing technical issues with articles and page moves etc.)" Did you ignore that part? Majorlytalk 18:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Ottava, can you elaborate? You seem to have a
bone to pick with anyone at RFA looking at recent RFAs. I think support or opposition should be on Admiral Norton's actions and question answers, not adminship itself. Spinach Monster (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
I'd be happy to withdraw my comment if you can show me an instance where Ottava has supported, my intention was not to offend anyone but to ascertain whether Ottava opposes Admiral Norton because They(or whatever pronoun) don't agree with Admiral's qualifications to be an admin, or Ottava believes that nobody should be an admin. That in itself matters to me in regards to judging the value of !pronoun's !vote, and !pronoun's !vote any way they want,
but the reasoning behind that !vote is just as important as the !vote itself. Spinach Monster (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
The interesting thing about The Cryptic C62 vote is that here Ottava is opposing a user because he "doesn't need the tools" and doesn't intend to use them enough, whereas over at Cryptic, Ottava is supporting a user who explicitly said he doesn't intend to use the tools a lot ("I do not intend to "go looking for trouble", that is, to close AfDs or block disruptive editors. I intend to "let trouble come to me", that is, to continue doing my article work and simply make deletions where necessary") because Ottava
Rjanag put it succinctly in regards to evaluating the !votes.
by consensus, and in that light, everyone's comment is open to scrutiny if necessary in order to obtain a common understanding. Nevertheless, I think if we continue this discussion, it should be elsewhere, I fear that we are diverging off the topic at hand, which is related to Admiral Norton's ability to be an admin and any perspectives towards his ability or inability to be an admin. Spinach Monster (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Come on Spinach Monster, you can't give up that easily! Let's take a look at Mr. Rima's RfA stats. Hmm, a nice 35 RfA votes. 19 opposes, 4 neutrals (which are essentially opposes anyway). 23/35 is 66%. Okay, so 66% might not sound too bad, but come on. If you only received 66% support at a FA nom, or a policy discussion, the vote would not pass. And because Wikipedia is not a democracy, as you point out, we must make it clear to the closing 'crat why this oppose should be counted less. Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't clear enough before, I believe that Ottava should be able to !vote any way Ottava wants, and
we can agree to disagree. However, I can't agree if the reasoning is "We don't need any more admins", and I want to let the closing 'crat know my disagreement with such an opinion. If Norton is good enough, he should be an admin, if Norton isn't, he shouldn't be. Spinach Monster (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I think the majority of the above should be moved to the talk page and linked. Regardless, - Majorly, that seems to be a temporary thing at best, and doesn't necessarily require the tools. You can work on Prodding, CSDs, etc, without tools. I don't really see the need to let him test things out for a few months before moving onto dispute resolution. The whole basis seems to be unnecessary. This seems to be another hobby admin request and not something serious. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
