User:Trusilver/What is adminship


 * 1) Adminship is not a promotion.


 * 1) Adminship is not a badge of honor.


 * 1) Adminship is not the nuclear football.


 * 1) Adminship is not a mechanism for winning an argument.


 * 1) Adminship is not license for misbehavior.


 * 1) Adminship is not a big deal.

If I don't understand it, it's obviously wrong

 * Oppose I start checking out the candidate's contributions and discover that he thinks that DGAFism is a "serious editing policy". He has edited that essay repeatedly and so seems to support it.  This does not seem an acceptable attitude or mode of expression for an admin.
 * Strong Oppose if he's a Wikipedia Review editor he has too much time on his hands and will certainly expend it doing something contentious, pointless, and without consensus over here when their servers are down.

You want it too badly

 * Oppose Anyone who has been through 5 (or is it 6?) RFAs just wants it too badly for me to be comfortable.

Why am I a dick? Because I can be.

 * Oppose. Is this really a serious nomination? If it is, then I'll be happy to provide a shed load of reasons to oppose it.
 * Oppose Too many asshole admins.

You don't live up to my unrealistic expectations

 * Oppose: Little to no involvement in template, category, file, and portal namespaces shows a lack of versatility, although these are more obscure areas of the project, it is likely you will come across something here.
 * Oppose 7 new articles doesn't cut the mustard sorry. Not enough of a real content contributor.

I don't like your userboxes!!!

 * Oppose "Secular humanist" userbox, which appears to have been designed by the candidate himself, shows poor judgment. There are many ways to describe oneself as a "secular humanist" without needing to state that "religions can be harmful", and the qualifier that "religious belief is fine" is nonsensical in such a context.  What are religions without religious belief?  Elitism is elitism, sugarcoated or not.  An administrator having this confrontational and divisive userbox would make Wikipedia a worse place.
 * Oppose! This person seems bias towards certain topics. I know this from the userbox things on his user page.

You aren't correctly following a non-existent policy

 * Oppose per question 8. I know a term limit is rarely done; but it ought to be done; recall is ineffective - especially since the admin is judge in his own case.
 * Oppose. Candidate has not committed to a term limit or to specific recall criteria. Sorry. No other concerns.

I'm jumping on the bandwagon of irrationality

 * Oppose I completely agree with NigelPScott! This editor is far too biased to serve as an administrator. Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality would suffer with this editor as an administrator.

I don't like your signature and/or username

 * Regretful Oppose, not because of the contributions, but primarily because of the user name. Admins are usually the first brush with authority that new users come across, and I don't think it will give a professional impression if that admin is named 'Catfish Jim and the soapdish'.
 * Oppose I can't support candidates who don't use real names.

Because I said so

 * Oppose, nope.
 * Oppose WP:WQA is a bad joke, anyone involved in that nonsense shouldn't be an admin.
 * Oppose. I feel as though I have no choice but to oppose this nomination for the voiceless among us.
 * Oppose Too many administrators currently.

You pissed me off once, Now you are marked for life

 * Oppose I found this nomination while noting this editor throwing his weight around. While I am awaiting a response to what issue in the WP:MOS opposes the edits he is dominantly making, the intense activity for this kind of repetitive edit, without discussion, alone tells me THIS IS NOT the kind of person we need having advanced power here on WP.  Its an attitude of his way or the highway and is bordering on POV.  We need admins who work with a situation, not wholesale delete or revert everything that they disagree with.

Your mode of nomination displeases me

 * Oppose The large number of co-nominations indicates pre-RFA vote stacking. A good candidate doesn't need four nominations.

Look at how impressive my use of latin is!

 * Oppose Pledges to be open to recall are made ad captandum vulgus. Any individual willing to make such a pledge is not an acceptable administrator.

I forgot to take my medication this morning

 * Oppose. This seem like another sham RFA for the foundation to hand over the bit to someone they like. The should do it directly.
 * Oppose - per the nomination. This user is a servant, he doesn't require the tools to freshen mah drink. :)