User:Isarra/RfA

$username
[ Voice your opinion on this candidate ] (talk page) (76/33/18); Scheduled to end 

Nomination
– $description $signature


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Incident reports, AFD, RFCs, DR, civility enforcement...


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Some articles, dispute resolution stuff, someone who didn't leave


 * 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:


 * Optional question from $otheruser1
 * 4. Something about socks...
 * A:
 * 5. Previous accounts?
 * A: Disclosed to arbcom, privacy concerns, no existing sanctions
 * Comment from arb confirming that user was in good standing, nothing that would affect current candidacy


 * Additional questions from $otheruser2
 * 6. Something about determining consensus...
 * A: There is no one good way to determine consensus. The only way about it is to use one's brain, think it through, and consider various and differing aspects of the matter depending on what it is. Even unanimous support for a proposal may not mean anything depending on context, considering scope, technical feasibility, or who is involved. ACTRIAL, banned users, etc...


 * 7. Incident on ANI, how would handle... what would you do, do you agree with what he did...
 * A: No experience with this, would ask folks for help, did ask folks on IRC to see what they would say, was accused of canvassing


 * 8. Something else...
 * A:

Comment explaining background...
 * Additional question from $otheruser3
 * 9. Something about personal attacks...
 * A: Rather contentious response...


 * Optional question from $otheruser4
 * 10. Some usernames...
 * A:


 * Optional question from $otheruser5
 * 11. Are you wearing pants?
 * A:


 * Optional question from $otheruser6
 * 12. Views on recall, open to recall, criteria?
 * A: Recall is a needed process on the project, will be open to recall, with the only requirement be that arbcom take the case and make the decision.


 * Optional question from $otheruser7
 * 13. Something completely silly
 * A:


 * Optional question from $otheruser8
 * 14. When editing a semiprotected page, you used the edit summary 'I don't know what these changes are supposed to accomplish but somebody told me to make them.' Could you explain why you did this, and would you do the same with interface pages?
 * A: That one was something about template usage, and no evident harm. Potentially, but if I believed there were a potential for damage I would not make the changes.

General comments

 * Links for $username:
 * Edit summary usage for $username can be found here.
 * Stats have been redacted.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.''

Support

 * 1) Good user, trust them
 * 2) Opposes unconvincing
 * Discussion moved to talkpage
 * 1) Only had good interactions
 * 2) Knows policy
 * 3) Sensible, civil, and willing to step into messy situations and break things up
 * 4) Would have use for the tools
 * 5) Admin score
 * Support
 * Invalid reason; indented.
 * 1) No concerns with tools
 * 2) WTF that wasn't canvassing
 * Support to cancel out stupid opposes
 * Invalid reason; indented.
 * 1) Doesn't make mistakes
 * 2) Good responses, shows clue, understands policy, process, and consensus

Oppose

 * 1) Signature
 * 2) Not enough content
 * 3) Too many edits to ANI
 * 4) Canvassing on IRC
 * Chased me off the project
 * Banned user; indented.
 * 1) Knows policy too well; don't need another wikilawyer
 * 2) Giant collapsed block of text
 * Discussion moved to talkpage
 * 1) Not enough NACs
 * Discussion moved to talkpage
 * 1) Canvassing on IRC
 * 2) Don't trust arbcom
 * Admin score
 * Invalid reason; indented.
 * 1) Edit summaries; editing widly used templates with 'Does this work' not exactly inspiring, nor are summaries such as 'uhhhhhhh', 'more ignored words', 'fix', 'fixes', 'changed the page', or 'did stuff' at all helpful
 * 2) Canvassing on IRC
 * Oppose to cancel out stupid supports
 * Invalid reason; indented.
 * 1) No evidence of handling mistakes well
 * Or poorly
 * 1) Doesn't understand consensus

Neutral

 * 1) Signature
 * 2) Arbcom
 * 3) Don't like userpage
 * 4) Canvassing concerns, lack of content contributions, lack of CSD, AIV UAA, etc contributions, weird edit summaries, butting into other people's business, general attitude
 * 5) Attitude
 * 6) Like what I see, but can't support anyone nominated by $nominator
 * 7) Good user, but above concerns are concerning
 * 8) Arbcom
 * 9) Signature and userpage
 * 10) Canvassing on IRC shows lack of good judgement
 * 11) Not canvassing, but a potential admin should appreciate how things may appear to others