Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AzaToth 3


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

AzaToth
Final (59/24/10); Ended Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:33:24 UTC

He has worked extensively on anti-vandalism, also extensive work on templates and infoboxen (including consensus building), and on featured content. Seems ideal candidate, was nommed before, now has more experience. Rich Farmbrough, 10:10 9 January 2007 (GMT).


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept &#8594; Aza Toth 15:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Optional statement: Ok, this is me, Carl Furstenberg, I have been around since a year now I think (or more). Have done some work in the template namespace, have also made some additions to the mediawiki software that is live now. I might not be the perfect article writer, but that I feel is not a negative thing for an admin.

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:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: As I have done some extensive vandal fighting, I feel it would help me to be able to block vandals. Also if I get admin bit, my fist job would be to help out clearing out Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Also as I'm a maintainer of a couple of scripts is Mediawiki:Common.js, it would help me to be able to make quick updates if needed.
 * 1a On your previous nomination you stated that your primary interests are templates, many high-usage tamplates are protected, thus the admin bit is handy. Indeed you have one of the most impressive record of contributions to the template namespace. Have your interests switched now to vandal fighting and WP:CSD? Your contributions there seems to be much less impressive Alex Bakharev 08:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I can't say there are a specific article that I'm particular pleased about, I have mostly done minor things to many articles.


 * 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: Sometimes I might have been a bit too bold, but I have tried to try to keep my head calm and tried to enable a discussion about the matter. Reecently I was a bit too bold when updating the nomination procedure at WP:FPC, but even if some disagree with the new system, I hope we can gather consensus on something that is simpler for new users that the old system was.

Optional questions from 
 * 4. What are the five pillars of Wikipedia and why are they important?
 * A: They are the philosophy that defined wikipedia, that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it's not a democracy. The importance lies in the fact that the project strives to uphold them. I don't see any reason to define them here, as they are all nicely defined on Five pillars, but they are Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is free content, Wikipedia has a code of conduct and Wikipedia does not have firm rules.


 * 5. Why is wheel warring a bad idea and what steps should be taken to avoid it?
 * A: wheel warring is bad as an administrator should be able to hold a high code of conduct, to be able to compromise and to be able to take a no for an answer. (Wheel warring is a struggle between two or more admins in which they undo another's administrative actions)


 * 6. Who has the authority to ban users?
 * A: There is no single person, except Jimbo Wales, who has the authority to ban a user. Aside from that, the community as whole may inflict a ban on a user, if there is a clear consensus that the community want that. In the event when there is no clear consensus, it may be upon the Arbitration Committee to decide if a user should be banned or not. Also the Foundation has in it's power to ban users if they see it necissary.

Other optional questions
 * 7. Can you please elaborate on why you think lack of open source code is a reason to oppose a bot that handles one of Wikipedia's most insidious problems, main and main page FA vandalism? -- Cyde Weys  21:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A: I want to be able to examine the code and to comment and/or propose changes without the risk of breaking any proprietary license agreement. As this is a bot which need the sysop bit set, I feel it's even more needed to be able to control the underlying code for eventual bugs, one probable risk is that it get the time wrong, and unprotect most of the main page a day too early.


 * This question isn't related to an RfA. If this were an RfB, yes, but opinions on other RfAs aren't relevant to adminship. --Rory096 02:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur, and fail to see what Q7 and Q8 have to do with AzaToth's RfA. This looks like retaliation for taking an unpopular stand, frankly. -- nae'blis 20:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 8. Can you guess how many complaint emails OTRS receives for each shock image that appears on the main page? -- Cyde Weys  21:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A: I have no idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if they count in hundreds.


 * Cyde, what does this question have to do with anything? At least Q7 was tangentially related. This seems like petty sniping, and certainly makes me question the usefulness of your previous question, which already seemed unhelpful and more importantly, unrelated. Snoutwood 21:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional question (or questions) from :: Eagle 101 (Need help?)
 * 9. As Wikipedia grows, and its search engine ranking increases, this is causing some people to use Wikipedia for search engine optimization, and to generally promote their website. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? If so, how high?

Optional question from Renesis13
 * 10. You mention making "quick updates" to MediaWiki:Common.js, as the maintainer of a couple of scripts. Can you expand on this?
 * A: There is for example one script I'm maintaining that changes things on the main page, if the backend code that renders the main page (or the whole wikipedia for that matter), or if a serious bug is found, someone need quickly update the script.
 * (Follow-up) 11. What is your scripting experience (Wikipedia, personally, professionally, etc.)? -- Renesis (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A: Professionally I'm studying computer technology. In the situation of javascriipt (EMCAScript) and Wikipedia, I have mostly updated older/broken or more slow version of scripts. If we are talking Wikipedia and programming in general, I have done some upgrades in the mediawiki code base, for example a rewrite of the table parsing code, and other things, like the rel2abs parser function. Other things there is some bugfixes in the texvc ocaml source that renders all the matchematical equations on the site. If we are going back to javascript, one thing that I havn't done much, is opbject oriented programming in emcascript, becasue they are using prototypes instead of classes.

Optional question from :
 * 12. Why did you recently create ? Does this have anything to do with User:Misza13?
 * A: Misza13 wanted to show me how a usernameblock looked like, as we had a discussion if it was needed to give a notice on the blocked users talk page, or if the block summary was sufficient. I just choosed a user name that would get a high probability of getting blocked.


 * General comments


 * See AzaToth's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion



Support
 * 1) Naturally. Rich Farmbrough, 10:21 9  January 2007 (GMT).
 * 2) Strong support, great template wizard and nice guy. Kusma (&#35342;&#35542;) 16:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, thought he already was one. Oppose reasons in the last RfA aren't valid and wouldn't apply now anyway. --Rory096 16:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong support for this great candidate. Template king and a very nice chap. &#12484; &#1052;&#1080;&#1096;&#1072; 13 16:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Excellent nominee, but I would expect better answers, especially to question 3.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   16:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Certainly.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  17:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Weak support. Great user. Weak answers, but good enough edits that I'll give him the benefit of the doubt -- Wizardman 17:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support per range of contributions. (aeropagitica) 17:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support per specialized purpose and stated need (those wishing to oppose should read the previous nomination). However I do wish you'd expand on any concrete examples in Q3 a bit more. -- nae'blis 17:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support, although I'd prefer longer answers to the questions. Yuser31415 18:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. What shall I say more? --Ligulem 19:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Per Wizardman and per #7. Transparency brings credibility, which in turn helps the project. No reason I know of to oppose. Just H 20:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support You simply look great. I have total trust giving you admin. tools. Gan  fon  21:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support --Majorly (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Changing to oppose.
 * 1) Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67)talk 22:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak support No problems, except for the very weak answers. You should really expand these answers. &#8592; A NAS  Talk? 23:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, the answers could be a little more elaborated but the work so far is fine. --Tone 23:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Jo  e  I  23:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Your work speaks for itself, why worry about questions? --Tango 00:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong Support- excellent rvv and template work, need I say more? Cheers to   2007 !  Us  e  r:Sp3000  00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per nom and User:Tone. --Oden 00:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Weak support. Better question answers would be nice, but I'm really hard pressed to oppose simply because of questions. -Amarkov blahedits 01:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Encountered the user before, positive interaction. RyanGerbil10 (&#1059;&#1087;&#1088;&#1072;&#1078;&#1085;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1077; &#1042;!) 01:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Interactions have been positive. Good answers to the questions, though they could have been briefer. His comment at the ProtectionBot RfA was a cause for concern, but not enough to oppose. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support As I said at the first nomination, I think he'll do good work on the mechanical backside of Wikipedia with the tools. --  stillnotelf   is invisible  04:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Why do I have to keep doing this? Enough already. Give him the tools. JoshuaZ 05:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Although your answers are weak, I have seen your work here for Wikipedia and you certainly deserve the tools.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  06:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support because then he can clear AIV rather than backlogging it – Gurch 17:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support per other. -- tennis man    sign here!  18:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. I'm satisfied the nominee could use the tools and will not abuse them. Agent 86 18:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support This user looks honest, and I have seen his work on many occations. FirefoxMan 21:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support good admin candidate --rogerd 22:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. This is an editor who I think will use the admin privileges responsibly and who will be conscientious about admin tasks. BlankVerse 02:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. Would have been strong support, but some of the answers to the questions are a little weaker than I'd have hoped. Grutness...wha?  07:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Support--Duk 07:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - Questions are a tad too..short, but overall, I think you're a trustworthy user, great with templates, and will use your admin duties responsibly, and respectfully. Before this RFA, I seriously thought you were an admin. (looking at some of the other votes, it seems as if I'm not the only one). -- theblueflamingo  Speak 07:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Definitely, JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2007-01-11 11:57
 * 24) Support Terence Ong 13:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Support thought he was already adminned.  Grue   17:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  17:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Strong Support - Good user, been around a long time, stays polite even in trying circumstances. Long overdue. To the opposers, he's not eloquent (in English)... but that wouldn't stop him from being an excellent admin. --CBD 19:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Support, per CBD and my own interactions with him. They've mostly been from afar, but they have confirmed my belief that he will a) use the tools well (and, by the way, actually needs them), b) not abuse them, and c) is a fine Wikipedian who builds the best Goddamn templates this side of anywhere. Snoutwood 21:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yay, I get the magic vote! Snoutwood 21:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 22:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 13:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Good hard worker, friendly, no reason for me to oppose.  delldot | talk 16:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support a good user. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, his long history of excellent work easily outweighs his slight struggles at jumping through question hoops. the wub "?!"  23:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Weak Support Would be a good admin but miss certain things required for adminship.-- PrestonH  | talk  |  contribs  |  editor review  | 03:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Respected editor. --Mardavich 09:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support -- Vision Thing -- 12:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. I'm confident that this candidate will not misuse admin tools. SuperMachine 14:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Good user, unlikely to misuse the tools. NoSeptember  19:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Oppose votes, as usual, verge on the ridiculous. Most existing admins wouldn't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the policies, and would only be able to answer the interrogation here by looking up the pages in question. There is no practical difference between blocking and banning a lot of the time, particularly since many blocks are dished out punitively, regardless what the policy says about them. I see no problem with opposing adminning a bot, particularly one based on closed-source code, and wanting the tools to fight vandalism. No one who opposed it suggested that the purpose of the bot was a bad thing. What counts is that AzaToth seems to be an okay user and given that it's "no big deal", not a promotion to the nobility, there's no problem with his being adminned. Grace Note 06:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) The user is a veteran, they've demonstrated their knowledge of wikipedia. I don't care about how long the answers are, they're answered, with as little fuss and personal perspective as possible, which is fine with me. I am surprised to see that many oppose votes have not been changed since Aza answered the requested answers. I accept Aza's faulty TFD nom as a learning lesson, anyone who has done XFD work knows that mistakes are made. On a brighter note, Aza is both a bot programmer and an extremely active vandal fighter. Based on this, I trust that the candidate will be an active admin who will not let dust grow on the admin buttons. I Support. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - great vandal fighter. Khoikhoi 01:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Weak Support you could have avoided all of these questions by creating something like "test account," but this whole issue should not be attached more importance than it is worth, as should concerns over your short answers. You have experience and will use the tools to better the project by blocking vandals.  Dar-Ape 21:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Weak support per Amarkov and Dar-Ape. Having supported rather strongly ten months hither, I was surprised to find myself to be, as others, beset by several (not entirely allayed) concerns, but I remain, I think, convinced that the candidate's judgment and conversance with policy are such that he should neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools and thus that the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin should be positive.  I would hope that, should this RfA succeed, AzaToth would be especially circumspect when acting qua sysop in the areas about his&mdash;for lack of a better word&mdash;qualifications for which some have been troubled (e.g., evaluating candidates for speedy deletion, as against, say, visiting AIV or partaking of template/scripts work).  Joe 07:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Dr Zak 13:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Great user, but answers are woefully insufficient. I will consider supporting if/when AzaToth expands his answers. - crz crztalk 22:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose &bull; Doesn't understand the concept of block vrs ban, or many of the inner workings of Wikipedia, it seems. Look into the incorrect answer to #6, learn why it's wrong, and I may withdraw opposition.  Cheers, &#9998;  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 22:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) *comment I wouldn't say I had an incorrect answer, more that I read the question different than you, I read it more of a technical point of view, thus who can ban a user. I can see if I can reformulate the answer from your point of view. &#8594; Aza Toth 22:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) *I can see now, that I mixed up block and ban, sorry for that :) &#8594; Aza Toth 22:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You have a bit to go before I can support you with the mop, regarding learning policy, but learning and willingness to learn is a good trait, and I can't oppose someone who takes criticism well. As such, I have withdrawn my opposition.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 20:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per answer to Question 6. I assumed good faith in my original support, but together with the generally poor answers to the other questions I am changing to oppose. --Majorly (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Really weak and vague answers to all questions, especially Q6. I would have expected a bit more elaboration on blocking there.  Nish kid 64  22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) * have update A6 now. could you point on some other wauge and week answers, so I can try to better my self? &#8594; Aza Toth 23:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose You seemed to have skipped over question #2 which is a really important question. Question 2 is your opportunity to show that you have contributed to areas an admin is expected to know about. Your answer to question 7 does not address the ongoing main page vandalism, I would like to hear your alternate solution to this very serious problem. Your answer to question 3 does not tell me how you deal with confrontation, which as an admin you will have to do often. Your answer to question 1 is very limited, blocking users and CSD, do you have experience with WP:CSD and WP:AIV? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Based on his excellent template work, I would've been tempted to support if the answer to question 1 had been 'edit protected templates and .js files', despite his serious lack of engagement with article writing. But I can't support someone who wants to block vandals but is confused about blocking and banning. My one interaction with this user did not leave me with a positive impression of his communications skills, which would be a minor matter if he were committed to specializing in templates, but is relevant if he's planning to make heavy use of the block button. Opabinia regalis 02:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * comment I can understand your point of view. I mostly mixed up the words "block" and "ban", as for me a block is a subcategory of banning. I have never been in a situation to ban anyone (if we exclude blocking of vandals), so yes, my expertise in that particular area is somewhat limited, I have mostly taken care of the daily vandalism, and reporting to AIV. &#8594; Aza Toth 02:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought about this and decided the only thing to do here is ask you to elaborate. What do you mean by 'a block is a subcategory of banning'? WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN clearly suggest that they are related but distinct activities. Thanks. Opabinia regalis 07:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocking is not a subcategory of banning, if anything, a ban is a type of block, but a very carefully agreed upon one that is permanent. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment with respect, if you read WP:BAN you will see that a ban can be either fixed duration or permanent. If we are going to oppose this user on grounds of his not being clear on this, then we must not ourselves be seen to be unclear.--Anthony.bradbury 22:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * True, regardless, I have many points in my oppose. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is fascinating, guys, but I was hoping for an elaboration from AzaToth. Opabinia regalis 02:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I would expect an admin candidate to have stronger answers to the questions. Also what is up with This TFD? Arjun  16:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * the wdefcon TfD was a mistake I made, I got the impression that many people didn't want it, so I thought perhaps a TfD was a good choice then, but it was a failure from my side, and if you oppose because of that, I understand, but remember that it was not my intention to upset people. → Aza Toth 02:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per crz and others, question answers leave me unsatisfied. Mango juice talk 18:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose per Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_5, which took place just 5 days ago and exhibited a clear lack of basic understanding of deletion policy. Proto ::  ►  10:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - per Proto. That was basically a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination, which is probably worse than ILIKEIT and just plain unacceptable in admins. Policy does count for something. There also seemed to be questions about the ways in which IRC was related to that nomination. Moreschi Deletion! 19:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, I have no reason to think the user will abuse the tools, but I do not have the confidence that they will not be misused, even if done so in good faith. Very weak answers to questions, and I have concerns about deletion policy knowledge, both from the recent examples listed above, and older ones (e.g. nominating meatball for deletion because it needed some cleanup) Regards, MartinRe 19:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per crz, Opabinia regalis, and Moreschi. Especially the why was the template nominated aspect of the TfD. We've had quite enough IRC-related wikidrama. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Weak answer to question 2 especially, and the wdefcon TfD. –Llama mansign here 23:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per many of the points brought up above. I think a little more experience may be good before twiddling the bit here. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 23:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose; I appreciate your answers to my questions, but I just can't support now. I'm a little worried about your eagerness outweighing thoughtfulness when it comes to vital things such as the interface pages and scripts, and your answers to the standard questions don't tell me enough to be comfortable supporting at this point. I hate to be cliché but you seem to be doing a good job and I hope you keep up the hard work. -- Renesis (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose various worries already well-stated by those above, but particularly for weak answers which are such an important aspect of RfA. Sorry. --Dweller 10:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose not overwhelmed by answers provided and CFD of Wiki-defcon. The Rambling Man 14:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose per incorrect and almost incomprehensible answer to question 6. - Merzbow 01:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what is wrong with his answer? It seems to be pretty much in line with what the banning policy says. Did you think of blocks instead of bans? Kusma (討論) 13:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (Note: AzaToth updated answer 6 right after Merzbow's post . --Ligulem 16:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC))
 * I see. Thanks. Now that was confusing, although not too wrong. Kusma (討論) 16:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not too wrong to say that the "meditation cabal" has the authority to ban users? Or "prohibition", whatever that is? I'm sure this user is a good guy, but under no circumstances should he be an admin. - Merzbow 04:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * From WP:BAN: "The Committee may delegate the authority to ban a user. In the past it has done so using two mechanisms: Probation and Mentorship." → Aza Toth 12:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "meditation cabal" sounds a lot more like you meant to say Mediation Cabal, which most certainly does not have that authority. - Merzbow 22:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, that is true of course, I have always though that mentorship via an arbitration case would go through the mediation cabal, but I see I was wrong on that point. The arbitration committee assigns a number of mentors to the user, dependent on the case. → Aza Toth 23:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I'm not particularly impressed by his answers; and I confess that I find an incongruity between taking a principled stand against ProtectionBot but wanting the tools to fight vandalism. I don't think he would necessarily abuse the tools, but his answers leave me doubtful. Doc's comment that "I'm just not sure he 'gets it'" rings true for me. Mackensen (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just for the records: Carl dropped his oppose on ProtectionBot (after I had talked with him about that). He had concerns about the code not being open source, together with a considerable number of other Wikipedians, including strong opposer Werdna, a MediaWiki developer, who then went developing that awesome cascading protection feature, which hopefully will go live soon and if works as expected will be much better than a bot (and is open source as well). --Ligulem 18:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Cascading protection is enabled --Ligulem 22:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Nihonjoe. Nacon kantari  18:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Mackensen - I'm sure that more experience won't do any harm. Mart inp23 18:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose: could benefit from more experience first, and a little more knowledge of some of the policies. Jonathunder 18:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you give any example on some policies I must gain more knowledge on? → Aza Toth 18:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose (moved from neutral). Candidate seems very well meaning, but I'm just not sure he 'gets it'. This TFD worries me. Not that he nominated it (I voted delete) but the reasoning and unclear thinking. A bit more experience and maybe I'll be confident enough to support. But I think best not now.--Docg 20:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Oppose Answers to questions not sufficient.  Voice -of- All  22:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * any particular question you had in mind? → Aza Toth 22:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Concerns about gaps in policy knowledge TigerShark 01:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * some pointer to what policy I have gaps in would be welcome. → Aza Toth 01:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral, leaning oppose, per weak answers to questions. – Chacor 00:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral leaning oppose, the weak answers, and misconstruction of the banning policy demonstration in A6 gives be reason for pause.-- danntm T C 02:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral, leaning Support. I definitely think you should elaborate on questions, and after your time and edits here, I would think you'd understand the block-vs-ban policy. Other than that good overall user, who, in my opinion, needs to jump up on mainspace edits. Maybe if you elaborate on questions, I'll reconsider my position. Alex43223Talk 04:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral - Great vandal fighting, but I expect a better standard of questions for a RfA candidate.  Insane  phantom   (please comment on my Editor Review!)  08:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral, I've seen you around and haven't seen anything bad, but those are really some skimpy answers and don't reflect well on an understanding of policy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral - suggest you have another go at Q6... Addhoc 17:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral I also urge the candidate to give more detailed answers, especially 2, 3, 5 and to review 6. But I do trust the user, which would push me towards supporting. Pascal.Tesson 18:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral until my 1a question is answered Alex Bakharev 03:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral leaning towards oppose. Forgive me, I'm in a grippy "back in the days" type mood. I think what we have here is a lack of experience, as evident by the thin answers to some very pertinent questions. Now I'm not talking experience as in any sense of time with the project or edit count but real meat and bones experience in dealing with all aspects of the projects. Experience that would provide ready answers to some of those questions posed above. Far too often we get "numbers impressive" and vote for admins who have been here a certain time or accomplished a certain amount of edits but that is bullocks for what it is worth. 205.157.110.11 10:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, current guidelines for RfAs state that only logged-in users may comment here (see WP:RFA). You are welcome to comment in the Discussion section at the top of the page, or log in if you already have an account. Thanks – Gurch 00:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral: Leaning towards support, however, the answers are not very detailed, as mentioned by Pascal.Tesson and Night Gyr. SD31415   (SIGN HERE)  02:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral leaning oppose. The questions are disappointing, just not policy aware enough for me. I will probably support next time around (assuming policies are applied better). James086 Talk 08:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral pending further explanation I don’t understand your answer to my question. If you wanted to see what the template for an indef blocked inappropriate username looks like, you could have simply asked and been linked to .  If you want to discuss whether a blocking admin should leave this template on the talk page or simply leave a reason in the block log summary, then how does creating an account and getting it blocked answer this question?  By the very nature of the question, you anticipate that either scenario could occur, so what use can be made of the data obtained? Dar-Ape 18:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't any question of how the template looked like, but if the blocking summary was expanded for the blocked user, thus if it would be necessary to post a notice on the user talk page also given information that the account had been blocked, or if a block message consisting of " was enough. → Aza Toth 01:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Change to support. Dar-Ape 21:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I honestly can't support this candidate, because some of his answers are far from satisfactory, but neither can I unequivocally oppose; I am neutral. DS 01:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.