Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CTSWyneken


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

CTSWyneken
Final (29/34/6) ended 22:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

– has been a trustworthy, high-quality Wikipedian since June 2003, with the bulk of his activity (nearly 3,000 edits) occurring over the past year. His primary contributions have been to topics on Lutheranism, Martin Luther and Christianity in general. My ongoing experience with him at the Jesus article has left me particularly impressed with both his scholarship (he is the master of properly citing material) and his equanimity in dealing with diverse (sometimes quarreling?) editors. In addition to being an all-around nice person and member of the clergy, his editorial credentials are impeccable; in fact he is the coordinator of Project Wittenburg. I am very pleased to make CTSWyneken my very first nomination for administrator. -- M P er el ( talk 20:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this kind nomination. -CTSWyneken 21:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Support Oppose
 * 1) Support with absolute pleasure! -- M P er el ( talk 21:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Looks alright. Nephron  T|C 22:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. The opposition seems unable to launch a countering argument of sustainable merit :). Wait, this nom just started today...well...hmm, I still vote support. Homestarmy 22:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per my criteria. Batmanand | Talk 23:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. I followed Talk:Jesus for a short while and was very impressed by CTSWyneken.  --Allen 23:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support A knowledgable and experienced editor. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  00:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support He and I have frequently been on opposite sides of issues on the Jesus talk page, but he has always conducted himself in a proper manner in these disputes, and I feel he would conduct himself in the same manner as an administrator. -- Drogo Underburrow 01:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support per Allen and Drogo Underburrow.--Andrew c 01:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, unlikely to abuse tools. Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk? ) 01:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support per nom. Bucketsofg 02:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. From what I've seen of CTSWyneken at the Jesus article, he is extremely diligent about providing citations, and I see no reason to think that he would abuse admin powers. john k 02:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. It seems that CTSWyneken is a very experienced Wikipedia user and without a doubt I submit my vote of support. Cheesehead Fan 03:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Always willing to compromise and seek peaceful solutions to conflicts. Stays even tempered works for NPOV. — Aiden 04:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. As per Aiden and John k. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 04:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support For one, there is only one admin to every ~1,220 articles and ~1430 users. I.E., they number at less than 0.1% of the total population on Wikipedia. I'd say that is too few. At least 0.1% would be adequate. An idea you should apply if deemed necessary- Watch any new admin's actions closely for the first thirty days to make sure they are fit for the job. --Shultz IV 08:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support His edits always seem pretty good to me. rossnixon 10:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. KHM03 (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Wikipedia needs diversity, people from every walk of life. CTSWyneken has proven that he is eminently able to negotiate. I would ask that the persons that oppose him would please reconsider. drboisclair 12:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Why not?--Jusjih 15:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. --MonkeeSage 17:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Strongly Support. Per Aiden, John K, and Schultz IV. He has always been a calming influence in heated disputes... a necessity for problem resolution. --StanZegel  (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support, clearly an excellent editor and no reason to fear misuse of admin tools. Palmiro | Talk 23:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) As one of those who worked with CTSWyneken on a compromise on Martin Luther and Martin Luther and the Jews, I support his nomination. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support, a mature editor who I am sure will be conscientious in his use of adminship tools following the guidleines and policies associated with those tools, including the postings of warnings.--A Y Arktos\talk 21:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support I have eddited with CTSWyneken before, and have found him to be a good editor --T-rex 03:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Weak Support Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: &#39;&#39;Have A Nice Day&#39;&#39; 21:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support per john k, though I also agree with Adam's comment in the neutral votes, and hope that that shortcoming could be improved before the next nomination if (as seems likely) this one is unsuccessful. AnnH ♫ 18:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support Very good editor, honest person. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 22:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support ~ Whopper 01:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Almost strong oppose. (Even if the edit counter is faulty right now) It shows that he only has 29 edits to the Wikipedia namespace. Although he might have a little more, maybe around 40, because the editcounter being broken right now I can't tell how many he actually has. Would like to see more Wikipedia namespace edits, at least 200, to meet my criteria for administrator. In addition, his answers to the questions below aren't very convincing. M o e   ε  00:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I had a bad experience with this editor at Martin Luther and related articles. He seemed determined to delete all mention of Luther's anti-Semitism (which was extreme and unambiguous) from Wikipedia, repeatedly deleting even a link to one of Luther's texts, invoking copyright law because the link led to a translation. In the end I had to stop editing the articles because of his intransigence and revert warring. His partners on the Luther articles were User:StanZegel and User:drboisclair, who engaged in this exchange, with StanZegel expressing the view that: "Jews should learn Christian charity: forgiveness and not consuming hatred. Yes, insults may have been given, injustices may been done, but that happens to everybody. Get over it! Get on with life! Competitive Victimhood is so unbecoming." I'm also concerned that CTSW has almost no project edits. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the relevance to this Candidate of a talk page comment that he did not make, that was made by someone else (me) made about a third editor constantly pushing an extreme POV with gross intoleance? It might make some question whether this opposition is stirred up in good faith or not. -StanZegel  (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * (no response yet to this question) --StanZegel  (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * One example (of many) of CTSWyneken deleting relevant, properly sourced information just because he didn't like it. (And not deleting it once, but many, many times to the point of being disruptive.) Although the information about Luther's anti-Semitism was pushed right down to the end of the article, even there, CTSW tried to keep the section as short as possible, deleting quotes from Paul Johnson and even from Luther himself. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that, contrary to the claim, I was a part of a give-and-take on these pages to represent all sides of the scholarly debate. I worked there to properly document the information in the article and did a great deal of work to verify citations. This often required adaptation of the notes and the text. Please examine the first two paragraphs of Martin Luther and the Jews to see the final version. I do not believe it demonstrates that I am "determined to delete all mention of Luther's anti-Semitism."
 * On the copyright issue, please see Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews/Archive 2.
 * Rather than getting into a she-said, he-said here, however, may I ask that concerned editors view the record. Barring that, please ask the opinions of others who worked on these articles. --CTSWyneken 02:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there should be diversity of opinion among Admins in order to ensure that everyone from every POV is represented; many of us feel that we are not fairly represented among Admins. drboisclair 15:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Here drboisclair suggests that we should vote for CTSWyneken because he represents a certain POV. This admission, by one of CTSWyneken’s closest collaborators is another example of why he should not be an Admin. Should we be voting for Admins on the basis of their POV’s? Admins ought to be Wikipedians not POV warriors.Doright 21:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Au contraire I was saying that he had a NeutralPointOfView by seeing to it that all POVs were represented. drboisclair 03:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Few project edits suggest that editor is unfamiliar with wiki-process. Xoloz 00:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose- mainly due to low Wikipedia namespace edits (only 29), with only a few votes on WP:RfA and WP:AfD. The edit summary usage is slightly too low, at 81% for major edits and 64% for minor edits. Near 50% of the edits have been on Jesus, Martin Luther, Martin Luther and the Jews, and their talk pages, and the range of editing is pretty narrow, with nearly all pages edited more than once being related to Christianity. Also, per User:Moe Epsilon, the answers to the questions below aren't very informative. AndyZ t 00:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Slimvirgin. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Per Above, Only one image, not active enough with the Wikipedia community. Please fix this and try again.  Masssiveego 01:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Needs more time.&mdash;thames 02:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per SlimVirgin and Moe. Nothing personal.  -- Cyde Weys  02:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, too narrow a focus, not enough participation in the day-to-days of what it means to be an admin. If all he's going to do is edit, he doesn't need aminship.  User:Zoe|(talk) 02:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose CTSWyneken is always polite, and I've worked well with him, but I think his focus is still very narrow. Broader experience would be quite helpful. Jayjg (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per SlimVirgin and Jayjg. Grace Note 03:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose due to an extremely narrow range of editing and also a lack of involvement in procedural matters. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 03:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose per User:AndyZ &mdash; A dmrb♉ltz ( T | C | E ) 03:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose per Slim, Moe and Jay. JoshuaZ 04:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose, too little community participation. J <font color="#00CC00">I <font color="#0000CC">P | Talk 05:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Weak Oppose a bit more edit distribution would be well recieved. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"> <font color="#D70000"> _-M   <font color="#ffffff">  o     P-_     06:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose Concerns about narrow focus of contributions and answers to the questions aren't convincing. However my main concerns are that for somebody who mentions vandalism fighting as a reason for needing the mop, he has never posted to WP:AIAV and doesn't seem to regularly post warnings on user talk pages when reverting vandalism. TigerShark 06:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose - very low on Wikipedia namespace edits, and, while I don't have a threshold, actual article edits could be higher too. Recent (March 2006) edits on WP:AN/I suggest unfamiliarity with the warning/block process. &mdash;Wh o uk (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose - very less contribution to wiki space. Shyam  ( T / C ) 10:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose, not enough projectspace edits. <font color="#0000FF">Roy <font color="#FF0000">boy cr ash <font color="#FFFFFF">fan [[Image:Flag of Texas.svg|30px]] 11:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose per Slimvirgin and Moe -- Andy123  (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose Lacks diversity regarding article selection. Netkinetic 12:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose I agree with the assessment of Generic69 regarding the conduct of CTSWyneken: "This is one of the most ridiculous, petty, and vindictive things that I've ever seen here on Wikipedia, and that's saying a whole lot." He is too "motivated by ... personal hostility and not by any bona fide concern ..."  ref Is this conduct you expect from an admin? My experience with CTSWyneken is that he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. One of his documented strategies is to enlist other Lutheran editors not as Wikipedians but as Lutherans to assist in his POV wars and prosecution of those who would defy his seemingly insatiable drive to control the content of "his" articles. For example, CTSWyneken says, "could you do me a favor and look in on the Talk page of Martin Luther and the Jews." He continues, "It is proving very difficult, since I'm the sole Lutheran voice here at the moment." ref CTSWyneken, then thanks his mate here for reverting non-Lutheran contributions ref Doright 04:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: User:Doright has long been the primary antagonist of the candidate. Without the scholarly qualifications CTSWyneken has in the subject matter, Doright constantly tries to push a POV into article and then complains when CTSWyneken removes material that has been fabricated, misquoted or distorted. He sometimes gets unsuspecting editors to replace it for him. His comments should be viewed in light of that prejudice. (I believe that Doright has also been previously banned for a year, under another name, for similar tactics.) --StanZegel  (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See section below Questions for the candidate numbered 5, 6 and 7. Also, see here for documentation of an example of my style and an unsuccessful attempt to accommodate what the link refers to as “The SDG” (e.g., CTSWyneken, StanZegel, drboisclair) enforcement of their POV. (forgot to sign 01:33, 23 April 2006 Doright)Doright 19:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * StanZegel, supported by CTSWyneken has plastered all over Wikipedia that I'm a "sock puppet for a banned editor." Never once do they provide any evidence or even the name of the banned editor.  This should give you a feel for what to expect if he becomes an admin.Doright 19:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Moe. jaco  plane  01:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Can't support a candidate whose shown such minimal interest in administrative processes, regardless of other factors. To do so would be to endorse the unfortunate trend of administrators who, at best, use admin abilities only as a convenience, or even worse, become edit warriors with nukes. Nothing personal though, I've never heard of this candidate, I'm not saying he's that type of user, but I can't support until I know he isn't. — Apr. 20, '06 <span class="plainlinks" style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">[09:28] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>
 * 3) Oppose per the many valid concerns raised by other oppose votes. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, reluctantly. This was close, and I almost supported, but in the end I have to agree it would be good for the nominee to have a little bit broader range of editing, as well as increasing the use of edit summaries. Will almost certainly support in the future if this is addressed. Jonathunder 23:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong oppose. I would have loved to support, but the references provided by several oppose voters are highly disturbing and seem to shown an agenda. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 07:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - admins need to have an even-handedness - a neutral voice. CTSWyneken should be an editor. - Richardcavell 12:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, likely to abuse tools.  <font color="#007700">Proto  <font color="#555555">||   <font color="#007700">type   12:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What an outrageous fabrication! What evidence do you have for this? CTSWyneken is a consensus builder -- much more patient at it than I would be. He has been very good about requiring those who post nonsense to provide necssary scholarly documentation. If you want to vote against him just to support the view of some of your friends, then just say so. To make up unfounded allegations is irresponsible. --StanZegel  (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose -- Talks too much. John Reid 23:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats absurd. Talking too much? Well, were coming up with more and more reasons to oppose now aren't we? Communication is essiential in Wikipedia and I wouldn't fault anyone for doing that supposedly "too much". M o e   ε  16:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Too much posting on talk is almost as bad as too little, Moe, because constant debate about every single little point drives editors away. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 16:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I never said that was bad, POV pushing by anyone is thought of is bad, but maybe John Reid could have clarified a little by saying more than "talking too much". M o e   ε  16:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Constant debate about every little point" is often resented by those trying to push a POV, but may be necessary to keep the integrity of the Wikipedia high. We have seen too many examples of the uninformed POV-pushers having the dedication to keep up their mischief that good editors get driven away. Your criticism, SlimVirgin, transparently seems more designed to promote your sabotage of CTSWyneken's candidacy than to promote collegial consensus to produce and protect good articles. --StanZegel  (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Doug Bell and Jonathunder FloNight   talk  14:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose and that's a rare vote for me. I'm not entirely pleased to see the very narrow focus of edits, but even worse there seems to be some serious POV issues.  As diffs above show as per Doright and others, this editor seems to have an explicitly self-identified POV and is interested in pushing it.  An argument that he should be an admin because his POV is underrepresented (this argument was made above) is easily the worst argument I've ever seen made on RfA EVAR. --Deville (Talk) 21:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. That's also a rare vote for me. S/he does not seem to be actively involved in fighting vandalism, assisting new users, or any tasks that may be made easier through having SysOp tools. I feel this editor seeks adminship only to gain an upper hand in disputes, of which s/he has had many. I was bothered by many of the answers to his/her questions below--s/he seems to merely sidestep the question and attempt to provide the answer we want to hear. Most particularly, I was bothered by his/her answer to number 4 (although I strongly detest hypothetical questions), where the obvious answer is "You don't take sides!" The correct solution, IMO, would be to semiprotect the article and aid the users in finding a compromise, or to get the help of others who may know more about the article. Again, that merely affirmed my belief that the user is intent upon becoming an admin merely to help push his/her opinion in disputes. Long story short, though I don't feel adminship is that big of a deal, I truly do not feel that I could trust this user. AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Needs more participation in process. Mailer Diablo 01:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral per Mailer Diablo. DarthVader 02:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. A great editor, but needs more participation in the community.--Adam [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px| ]] [[Image:Flag of Brazil.svg|25px|  ]](talk) 03:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral. Per Adam. Computerjoe 's talk 08:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral. Per Adam, for me not a reason to actually oppose.  F e  tofs  Hello! 11:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral, leaning towards oppose, per Adam. --kingboyk 03:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments


 * See CTSWyneken's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool and the edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.


 * Note: The toolserver is currently down. As of 05:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC), CTSWyneken has 3152 total edits, 895 of which were in mainspace. (According to AmiDaniel's Edit Counter)
 * To some of the opposing editors concerned with narrow focus, does not spending endless hours reading and footnoting articles count for something? There is room for diverse editor skills, some broad and general, some more focused.  All do not have to be jack-of-all-trades, do they?  I would hope someone's demonstrated integrity, character and wisdom, as well as knowledge of Wikipedia policies would be of prime consideration. -- M P er el ( talk 10:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that most of his 840 edits to articles are to five articles only, all but one of them Luther-related, and that is a very narrow focus for an admin; and with almost no edits to the project, he's unlikely to have sufficient knowledge of our policies or process either. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 11:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, most of my article edits and new articles are in the fields related to religion. This is my field of expertise in which I am published. Most of my labor have been in trying to achieve consensus and use my listserv moderating discussion and research skills on two subjects filled with much emotion. The result is, with editors of very different backgrounds, the near constant controversies in the Luther article and Jesus articles have died down and the result is what I and my fellow editors are very proud of. I am not exaggerating when I say dozens of hours of research and talk page negotiation and moderation are involved here. Are you saying that wikipedia wants to discourage experts from contributing in their fields?
 * If you are concerned about my knowledge of policy and wiki culture, please feel free to ask questions below. Pose situations I might encounter as an admin. I'm willing to answer. At the very least, I'll learn more that will be useful as an editor. Those who have interacted with me before can then vouch as to whether I'm likely to act as I say.
 * I'd also appreciate suggestions, perhaps on my talk page, as to what you all I think I should be doing that I'm not. --CTSWyneken 13:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's worth mentioning here that it's possible to be an excellent, conscientious editor and still not fulfil many people's criteria for adminship. Comments on RfA, although they will naturally include comments about contributions, are aimed at establishing suitability for adminship and shouldn't be taken as a judgment on editorship. As Guide to requests for adminship says:
 * The nomination process is not intended as a forum for voting on a nominee's popularity or strength as an editor. It is a forum by which consensus is generated on whether an editor should be given administrator rights. An editor should not construe the outcome of an RfA as praise or condemnation of their efforts as an editor. Instead, it is an evaluation of their likely ability to appropriately use administrator rights.
 * &mdash;Wh o uk (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate this observation. What I'm trying to understand is why limiting activity, more or less, (Indiana High School Forensics Association is a bit out of my subject 8-) ) to one subject makes me unsuitable for admin duties. Can you all help me understand why this needed? --CTSWyneken 14:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, for me (I am not voting as it seems it would not make a difference), editing one narrow group of articles is not as important as the lack of edits in Projectspace. This suggests two things to me. Firstly, that you may not have enough knowledge of Wikipedia policy to be effective as an administrator. (Though you could have read a lot but posted little.) Specifically, I saw it mentioned above that although you are interested in reverting vandalism, you have never edited WP:AIV. AIV is a very important tool for vandalhunters. The second thing that it suggests is that you may not need admin tools. In fact, for an editor with edits like yours, having admin tools can be more a distraction from your strengths (actually building an encyclopedia) than it would add to your abilities. Admin tools are more for janitors than encyclopedia-builders. Don't get me wrong, you're a fine editor&mdash;I just don't think you need or should have the admin tools. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've not used the AIV because, with perhaps one exception, I've not found it necessary to do so. I've been more interested in preserving the content of pages than in tracking down individual abusers. Mostly, that is because I feel it is not my place. I do not like harassing admins, when one or two reverts will make the problem go away. I've also not liked warning IP address user pages. I want to deal with the vandalism, but am conflicted about bothering hundreds of people to go for one scribble kiddie. This would change were I an admin, in that I would feel increased responsibility for the wiki. I've also preferred to avoid asking for blocks on users or filing RfCs, if a way can be found to work with or work around an editor. Again, I might be inclined to warn and block more were I an admin, for the same reasons as just stated. --CTSWyneken 15:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that some of those who oppose this candidacy on the basis of "a narrow range of edits" support the candidacy of HumusSapiens who also has a narrow range of edits, raises the question of how legitimate a consideration that really is, or does it depend upon who the editor is, and what the subject of the range of edits is. Could some of those applying the factor selectively give an explanation, please? -StanZegel  (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no comparison between the two editors. Humus has an edits/page average of 4.6, whereas CTSWyneken's is 9.6. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 14:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Replying only to this narrow and specific point, any reasonable comparison of their edits immediately shows the vast differences in their editing patterns. For example, over 50% of CTSWyneken's Mainspace edits are to just 3 articles; by comparison, Humus sapiens top 3 articles comprise 5% of his Mainspace edits. This raises the question as to whether those claiming that people are "applying the factor selectively" are doing so based on their actual edits, or instead based on who the editor is, and what the subject of the range of edits is. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the reasons given for some of the "oppose" votes is rather strained and unreasonable; namely, these two reasons: Neither of these appear to be valid reasons to oppose adminship. 1.) If you have a.) a smaller number of admins who flit all around the wiki, you get the same result as having b.) a larger number of admins with specialized focuses. In fact, on option-b you get a better result, because you are likely to have the same distribution of administrative presence and better article quality, because individual admins would have a stronger impetus to improve the articles within the range of their specialized focus, which by a cumulative effect would result in better articles all across the wiki. I suspect that this is how it actually works; some admins edit mainly chemistry articles, some mainly legal articles, some mainly philosophy articles. But these biases are acceptable, even commendable, while a religious bias is taboo. 2.) Every editor has an agenda. Unless they are mentally disturbed, they would not be putting in the effort to edit on WP without having a purpose or aim. So the implication seems to be that CTS's personal agenda is at variance with the "proper agenda" (namely, to improve WP within the bounds of the policies and guidelines). But this is not necessarily so. One's personal agenda, e.g., "to let people know about the wonders of modern particle physics," does not necessarily impair their ability to execute the proper agenda. If one is able to work respectfully with other editors, to build concensus, and so forth, then there is no reason to suspect that their personal agenda is detrimental to the proper agenda. I'm not saying that you need to "support" CTS's adminship; I'm only saying that the two reasons listed above don't appear, to me, to be valid reasons for opposing. » <span style="font-family:vivaldi,tempus sans itc,comic sans ms;font-weight:bold;">MonkeeSage « 15:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Limited range of edit topics.
 * 2) Has an agenda.
 * Isn't this RfA meant to be closed by now? DarthVad e r 04:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments Subsection Candidate's Response/ NonResponse to Questions I think the section Questions for the candidate may be reserve for the candidate's answers. Perhaps, if others want to comment on questions, answers by the candidate or non-answers perhaps this may be the place to do it.Doright 09:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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 am most interested in swiftly reverting vandalism, semi-blocking pages in cases of severe vandalism and helping enforce the rules of the wiki. -CTSWyneken 21:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I am most pleased with my contributions to the Martin Luther article and the Jesus article. The former gave me a chance to learn the ropes and find ways that my experience as a listserv moderator needed to be adjusted to working with other editors. -CTSWyneken 21:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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: Since I have a penchant for weighing in on controversial subjects, I do end up with a lot of friction with others. It has only gotten out of hand twice and in both cases I was able to work out comprimises with the editors willing to play ball. I intend to do a lot more conflict resolution work in future engagements. -CTSWyneken 21:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 4. How would you resolve the following conflict: A new user edits an article which leads to a revert war with a member of the arbitration committee. You think that the new user's edit improves the article. Neither party will yield, compromise or give you any additional information. Do you side with the new user or with the member of the arbitration committee? — Preceding unsigned comment added by American Saga (talk • contribs)
 * A: Assuming a few things: the new user is a registered user. There is a discussion, probably heated, on going. I've just come to the page cold and have never edited there myself. I've had no personal interaction of substance with the parties. I'd remind myself of two things: it doesn't matter who the editor is, we all have equal standing here and, as an admin, my opinion of which edit is better is irrelevant. If I feel strongly or think I have a solution, I would weigh in as an editor and invite another admin to fill the role of mediator.


 * Assuming I'm going to work as an admin, I'd check to see if any rule violations, such as 3RR, NPOV, CITE and NOR, etc. are involved. I'd note on the talk page any ad hominems, insults, etc. This sometimes works, though often not. Since a new person is not likely to have a trail of violations yet and an ArbCom member would know better, I would try an informal warning of any violations. If they continued, I would try again a time or two. Finally, I would try a formal warning. If that failed, I'd block the offending party for a short time.


 * If no violations are in play, which is the most likely situation, I would ask kindly if every would agree to a moritorium. If not, I would revert the page to the state it was in before the edit that touched off the war was made. I would then block the page for a few days or until the parties can agree. Such a block worked well on the Jesus page, where passions arguably run as high as anywhere in the wiki.


 * My guiding principle would be to be as least invasive as possible and to keep the page in its most stable form.


 * Does this get to it for you, or do you need more? --CTSWyneken 03:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 5. Honesty and integrity are essential requirements. Making false claims to control the content of an article and intimidate others is a serious matter.  Yesterday, the veracity of your claims on the Martin Luther page were questioned.  Will you provide the requested evidence to substantiate your claim?Doright 07:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: User:Doright has long been the primary antagonist of the candidate. Without the scholarly qualifications CTSWyneken has in the subject matter, Doright constantly tries to push a POV into article and then complains when CTSWyneken removes material that has been fabricated, misquoted or distorted. He sometimes gets unsuspecting editors to replace it for him. Because of that background, it is obvious to me that this question is not asked in good faith, but is another attempt to bait the well-respected CTSWyneken, and I believe that CTSWyneken should not waste time responding to it. --StanZegel  (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is typical of transactions on the pages where CTSWyneken has most of his edits. Therefore, it may be worth noting the following:(1) The failure of the candidate to address serious questions that arise regarding his potential abuse of admin powers (which is the purpose of an RfA);  (2)  That StanZegel’s “Note” is merely 100% ad hominem and does not address the issues raised;  (3)  That the questions provide fully documented links so that the reader can immediately determine the truth basis of the questions whereas StanZegel’s “Note” provides nothing but hot air.  StanZegel has never produced a scintilla of evidence to support his claims regarding me (A) pushing a POV, (B) fabricating material, (C) misquoting,  (D) distorting, (E) getting an unsuspecting editor to restore my contributions to Wikipedia after he or CTSWyneken have removed them; and finally, (4) The absurdity that CTSWyneken does not have the time to respond himself so that he must do it for him while at the same time talking out of the other side of his mouth on this very page saying,  “(no response yet to this question)”.Doright 09:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your own ad hominem attacks against both CTSWyneken and StanZegel are unbecoming. I felt I had to say something, but I suspect I'll just be the next target on your list. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 09:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 6. Concerns have been raised about your potential abuse of admin tools. Indeed, notice here, on a Talk page, the abuse of tools available to ordinary editors. Your related edits on the Talk page suggests an agenda other than improving Wikipedia.  For example, if your goal was to improve Wikipedia, how do you explain your failure to provide the essential information?  How would you describe your agenda in that particular discussion that has been described by others as vindictive and your arguments as ad hominem?Doright 21:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See Note under #5, above.
 * 7. This question asks about Power, the power to revert. Via what powers are you able to know that an edit does not reflect the views expressed in an article that you have not read? For example, here you admit to a priori censorship.  That is, you state that the edit does not  "reflect or quote the writer."  Yet, you state that you have not read the writer. [“… I have not read this article. I have not, but intend to – “.  See here for more context.  On other occasions you have intentionally deleted material even from talk pages that you don't agree with and in still others context swizzling.  Should we fear your powers of administration?[[User:Doright|Doright]] 22:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See Note under #5, above.
 * For the sake of peace, I have been ignoring the comments of user Doright for months now. To engage him is to invite personal attacks and abuse worse than on display here. I have no interest in an escalating war of words anymore. If anyone doubts this, I invite them to examine Doright's contributions. This is the last I will say on this matter. --CTSWyneken 15:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What you see here, in CTSWyneken's “answer” is typical of the kind of “problem solving” that I’ve seen CTSWyneken demonstrate on the articles. He doesn’t address the essential and properly referenced matter, disparages my character and enlists others that share what he refers to as his “Lutheran voice” to do the same, while maintaining a sanctimonious tone.


 * Deville, in his/her opposition states: “As diffs above show as per Doright and others,…this editor seems to have an explicitly self-identified POV and is interested in pushing it. An argument that he should be an admin because his POV is underrepresented (this argument was made above) is easily the worst argument I've ever seen made on RfA EVAR.”


 * Jareth in his strong opposition to your candidacy stated: “I would have loved to support, but the ‘’’references provided by several oppose voters are highly disturbing’’’ and seem to shown an agenda.”


 * AmiDaniel statesI feel this editor seeks adminship only to gain an upper hand in disputes, of which s/he has had many. “I was bothered by many of the answers to his/her questions”Doright 18:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The above 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.