Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CheNuevara


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

CheNuevara
Final (43/16/7) Ended 12:48, 2006-07-27 (UTC)

– CheNuevara has thoroughly impressed me with his strict fairness and impartiality and his ability to bring warring sides together to achieve consensus. This was amply demonstrated during the recent fracas on Democratic Underground. Needless to say, an article on such a controversial political topic brings out heated passions on both sides, and a full-fledged edit war was developing or underway, when Che stepped in, calmed both sides down, and initiated a process which achieved amicable consensus over the controversial issues. I suspect that his politics differ from mine, but he's demonstrated that he can go beyond politics to enforce WP:NPOV, WP:EL, and other Wikipedia policies intended to keep bias out. He'd be a welcome addition to the Wikipedia administrator team. VoiceOfReason 16:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination :) - CheNuevara 09:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support, despite the low edit comments I can see you have 'changed your ways', I was a little unsure about the low article edit counts but you are a good active participant in AFD which wins some points with me. I think you would make a good admin -- Errant talk (formerly tmorton166) 09:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Reggae Sanderz 09:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) *Reggae Sanderz has just over 50 edits, most of them from RfAs.--Chaser T 03:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. DarthVad e r 09:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support and good luck. :)  Mostly Rainy 09:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, no apparent reason to oppose (always a good thing). RandyWang ( raves/rants ) 10:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support good user. Seivad 11:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support have only seen good things really, H ig hway Return to Oz... 12:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support I'm concerned by the low number of edits to the mainspace, but it seems you still have made major article contributions (per your answer regarding translating a couple pages) and I don't see a large reason to believe that would make you a bad administrator that would abuse the additional privileges. -- joturn e r 12:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support This Fire Burns Always   13:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Froggy 13:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please sign in and vote. Tintin (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, for the reasons for which I nominated him VoiceOfReason 14:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support While the edit count is a little small I know that this user is dedicated to wikipedia and its principals. I've only had good contact with him, so it is a pleasure to support. Th ε Halo Θ 14:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support No problems here. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  16:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Cliché Support Computerjoe 's talk 17:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom.-- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 17:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral - Aceptable explanation for the mistaken action of defending a link in violation of WP:EL. No support because judgement in case is wrong, but at least judgement exists. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 12:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Strong Support reconsidering his role in the conflict, we were actually both doing the right thing against forces on both sides arrayed against us. It's still a violation of EL, but EL isn't a policy, and he makes it clear that he saw it as questionable. In light of review of answer, change to strong support. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But thats Your judgement though... :D --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 12:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Hipocrite, for your willingness to reconsider. I appreciate it a lot. And I'm very glad that everything worked out for the best on that article. :) - CheNuevara 18:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support meets all my criteria and looks like a great user. As long as he keeps using edit summaries from now on he'll be an excellent admin.  Eluchil404 18:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * M e rovingian (T, C, @) 18:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I always thought CheNuevara was already an admin! He is levelheaded, fair, and a very good contributor, editor, and vandalism-reverter. 85% edit summary in both major and minor edits is acceptable, in my opinion. All in all, I think CheNuevara will be an excellent admin. Good luck! Srose  (talk)  19:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Cliché support. 1ne 22:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Seems fine after glancing through edit history. Let's cut the requirement creep, shall we. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support It's no big deal, afterall. I don't think the user will abuse the mop... -- негідний лють  ( Reply 05:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Ter e nce Ong (Chat 09:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - I have no idea what that feeling was, but if the best the oppose crowd can come up with is "Not enough edits" then I've no doubt you'll make a great admin. Good luck! &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 10:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) *Thanks for the willingness to reconsider! If you've got any questions, please ask! - CheNuevara 11:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. 1500 edits over a number of months means the candidate isn't going to go berserk and start deleting stuff at random, so there's no objection there.  Appears to be willing to put the tools to good use.  And no substantiation of accusations that the candidate doesn't know policy, which appear to be based solely on edit count (as if lurking couldn't get you excellent knowledge of policy).  I have no compunctions supporting; not a big deal, remember? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Low edit count doesn't mean the end of the world. --T e rrancommand e r 04:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, if I had any question, he's more than shown me that he's worthy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Standard Support (no particular reason to oppose or remain neutral), Edit count ~1500, > 3mo here, check. (that's my nom criterium to shut up the editcounters). Understands trifecta, check. Understands foundation issues, check. All check. Kim Bruning 19:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Seems sane and level-headed enough, and not too new for me. I would appreciate more use of edit summaries; it's not a deal-breaker but it's something an admin should recognize the use of. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, because Chuck Norris will kill me if I don't. -→ Buchanan-Hermit  ™ / ?!  21:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - Passes my basic standard of "I don't think that user will make a mess with their mop and bucket.". Active participation in AfD demonstrates an understanding and respect for process, as well as usefulness of admin tools. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. There's nothing wrong. Alphachimp  talk  18:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Very strong support I am disappointed that the routine methodology of edit counts is cited as a reason to oppose, when we clearly have an outstanding candidate here, who has amply demonstrated his responsibility, level-headedness, knowledge of policy and ability to interact with other users in his accomplished resolution of the Democratic Underground war. The difficulty of such a negotiation should not be underestimated, nor the restraint needed to maintain civility under intense pressure. He has proved he is an exceptionally able and responsible individual, and he deserves exceptions to be made for him. He at least deserves more than a statistical analysis.  Would the project be better with him as an admin? I think there is no doubt. Tyrenius 23:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * CheNuevara's response to "Optional question from Stephen B Streater" below is yet another demonstration of his maturity, understanding, intelligence and ability. He was asked to provide a list of policies to prove his knowledge of them. Instead he sensibly used initiative for re-angling the request in a way that not only answered it, but provided a context and understanding that wasn't even asked for, but provided a far more useful answer. He showed his thorough understanding of the background and context of polices, as well as their relationship with guidelines and essays. On top of that he was able to comment meaningfully on them. This level of knowledge, insight and ability is of a far higher standard than that required of or demonstrated by many (one might even say most) successful RfAs. In the face of this, any insistence on a priori requirements based on numerology seems to defeat the purpose for which they were devised. Tyrenius 16:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I will support someone who is interested in mediating and others say he is fair. BTW, I'm not voting Support just because Kim Bruning questions everyone who opposes :D --HResearcher 13:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning everyone who opposes... sheesh! :-) Anyway, since RFA is gauging consensus, it's quite ok to ask people questions to discover where that consensus lies, and why. Kim Bruning 13:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support the user's experience in the article talk area outweighs the apparent 'small' number of mainspace edits. Some of the oppose voters below said that Che is clearly a good user and has the right intention and the right way of doing things - yet people are upset about his number of edits. A person may have 50 edits and have written 40 Featured Articles and 10 forms of policy for all we know - an edit count does not an editor make, as I like to put it. See Editcountitis. In his time here, Che has done a lot of good in what some are calling a short amount of time. It's as simple as that, really. Would Wikipedia benefit from having him as a sysop? Yes. Should we expect him to make a mistake or two on the way? Of course, who hasn't? People learn from their mistakes, and the world won't explode if a new sysop makes a tiny goof; it happens all the time with the more "experienced" ones. Cowman109 Talk 15:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per Celestianpower and Cowman; inasmuch as I am altogether confident that the user will not abuse or misuse (even if avolitionally, through ignorance) the admin tools; and in view of his disfavoring of WP:LIVING, the succinct explication of which evidences much insight. Joe 04:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Proto ::  type  10:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Proto, do you mind if I ask one or two questions? (feel free not to reply). What are/is your admin criteria and/or particular reason for support? My own position is that 300 article edits are too few for adminship; do you concur or is that an inadmissible position (i.e am I suffering from editcountitis)? Best, Moreschi 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My criteria can be found here: User:Proto/standards. They basically sum up to 'user must not be an ass'.  Proto ::  type  10:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That's perfectly clear. Moreschi 10:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support: analysis of work quoted in nom and comprehensive answer to my question indicates to me that Wikipedia would be better off with this editor as an Admin. It's not too late to add WP:V to the list BTW. Stephen B Streater 12:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) *Thanks for taking the time to look into my activities and reconsider. It means a lot to me that you'd make the effort to so thoroughly go through what I've done. :) ... By the way, I did include WP:V, only as WP:VERIFY (duplicate shortcut) under my second category of policies I like. - CheNuevara 13:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. Like I said, you seem to have a good understanding of policy. Stephen B Streater 13:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support: per nom. One of the first people I met here that could focus a conversation without digressing. Ste4k 16:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Meets 2/3 support  Gang sta EB   ~(penguin logs)
 * 3) *Wow! That was fast. Thanks for reconsidering. Out of curiosity, can I ask what made you change your mind? - CheNuevara 11:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Changed from oppose as commented on my talk page. -- Szvest 18:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
 * 5) *Thanks for reconsidering! - Che 09:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Excellent answers to questions. A Thinking Wikipedian. Should do well with admin tools. -- FloNight   talk  22:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Per the thoughtful answers the candidate has given. I think this editor will make a fine admin regardless of time/edit criteria... support ++Lar: t/c 02:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Per Tyrenius, go for it. Yank  sox  02:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Sorry to potentially cost the nominee the counting of vote two above. I saw it after I looked over your RfA and decided to support, so probably +1 -1 and the net effect is zero. Supporting based on lack of past wrongs, impressive situation referenced by nominator, and response to Q5 below.--Chaser T 03:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Oppose - Sorry, he fails my standards in the areas of At least 1000 article edits; and 85% major and 85% minor edit summary usage (although that may be excusable because he has changed recently). Remember, this is foremost an encyclopedia, so I believe that 1000 edits to the article space are necessary.  Also, the very low rate of edits concerns me slightly. If someone can convince me I may change my vote to a neutral. — Mets 501  (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed to Neutral
 * Please note, I'm not trying to change your opinion (I only want The Tools if the rest of the 'pedia thinks I should have them) but I would like to give a little context to one thing you pointed out. I've been abroad in Germany this year for studies, and it's been a lot of work with very little time for many other things. My edit frequency is much higher pre-August 2005 (before I got here), in February 2006 (on winter break), and since the middle of June 2006 (since the semester's winding down). Once I'm back in the US (in a few weeks), my life will be a lot easier (reading in my native tongue takes a tiny fraction of the time) and I'll be able to keep up this more regular contributing frequency. - CheNuevara 14:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you checked what he's done with his time here? Kim Bruning 18:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Im just curious Kim, why do you question everyone who opposes CheNuevara? I didn't notice you carrying on with the same passion in other RFAs. --HResearcher 13:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Answered on your user talk. Kim Bruning 08:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose inexperience, edit summaries. This RfA is premature. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Unlikely, meets my nomination criteria. Can you explain why you think CheNuevara is inexperienced? Kim Bruning 18:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose very liberal with the "minor edit" option, but viewing his contribs, I see no reason to think that this is a guy with about 1500 standard edits. His participation in AfD is standard if not better than average, but still, 367 is not nearly enough.  This year, the editor only began editing heavily in Jan/Feb, dropped off the face of the earth, and then came back in June.  With about 1500 more edits, particularly to the Wikipedia namespace, I'll be happy to support.  You seem like a very talented editor. AdamBiswanger1 17:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Too high a number to check. Are his current 1500 edits ok? Kim Bruning 18:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In my humble opinion, it is not even close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adambiswanger1 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 24 July 2006
 * Can you show me some diffs that are unacceptable at this point in time? Kim Bruning 08:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose I might be able to if I searched, but opposition on the grounds of inexperience is a common and accepted custom, and I see no reason to challenge it now. AdamBiswanger1 13:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. :-) How did you establish that this user is still too inexperienced? Was this on the basis of edit count alone, or were there other factors? Kim Bruning 16:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If the nominee has made 373 Wikipedia edits, that means that he has had at the very most 373 unique XfD discussions. I think that around 200 would be a more likely number, which is simply not enough by my standards.  It also means that he has edited at the very most 317 articles.  So, in essence, yes.  By edit count alone. AdamBiswanger1 19:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, I'm not even sure I have done that many XFD discussions the past couple of years. . No wonder all the diverse committees and wikipedia organisations are having trouble recruiting suitable candidates from the ranks of admins. Decent organisation-skilled people apparently need some different set of criteria.  Very enlightening. Thanks for your time! Kim Bruning 19:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure! AdamBiswanger1 19:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose as per Crzrussian, low edit count and edit summary usage. Roy A.A. 21:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Same question as to Crzrussian? Kim Bruning 18:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose -- too few edits -- about the same as I have and that's sure not enough. I'd be happy to support in the future. (Comment: I'm probably more conservative and cautious in voting than most voters, so don't take my opposition personally.)--A. B. 00:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you know the trifecta and the foundation issues? Would you like me to nominate you? Kim Bruning 18:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Kim, I have no idea what these issues are. If you want to nominate me for anything, it should not be for admin or anything involving trifecta and foundation issues! BTW, I appreciate your engaging in blunt discussion re: this RfA -- RfAs are important. Feel free to say more here or on my talk page.--A. B. 13:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose for too few edits and low edit summary usage.--Jusjih 01:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a big job to read through 1500 edits already. Have you done so? Kim Bruning 18:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose 1500 edits is too few, recommend withdrawal and resubmission in future. Michael 02:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What number is sufficient to you? Did you read through all his 1500 edits, and do you still have questions? Let's look at that. Kim Bruning 18:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Fails my criteria due to lack of experience, and number of edits (which suggests a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines). --Wisd e n17 16:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't quite follow your logic as to why CheNuevara lacks understanding. Can you explain? Kim Bruning 18:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding "lack of understanding" I want to emphasize that this nomination was entirely my own idea; I did not even discuss it with the candidate before making the nomination, although I will admit to seeing Template:User wikipedia/Administrator someday on his userpage. If there's anything inappropriate or untimely about this nomination, the fault is mine and not CheNuevara's. VoiceOfReason 19:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Low usage of edit summaries!!! Changed to support. -- Szvest 17:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
 * Low usage of edit summaries is no big disaster really, but ok. Kim Bruning 18:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose : (changed to Support) Too few mainspace edits for me. More edits and candidate will have had a chance to better demonstrate how he relates to other editors. Stephen B Streater 07:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Main namespace edits don't show how you relate to other editors. Kim Bruning 18:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As you edit, you come into contact with other editors who may have different views on how an article should develop. Seeing how people go about resolving questions of content is helpful in determining whether they should be given the extra responsibility Adminship entails. Stephen B Streater 12:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That kind of interaction typically happens on mainspace talk. The situation at Democratic Undeground was shown as an example. Apparently he had enough edits to be involved in that. How does that particular situation factor in your overall opinion, and (apologies, but suppose I'd better check) did you review that situation before forming your overall opinion? Can you show an example or diff of an interaction occuring in an article helps that you'd use to form your opinion? (not nescesarily to do with CheNuevra?). Kim Bruning 19:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I often put up an opinion early in the process. I have changed my opinion, both for and against, as I absorb the evidence presented. The work on the Democratic Underground sounds good, though I haven't had a chance to study it yet. I will do if I'm still thinking of opposing near the end of the debate, as this is the sort of evidence that will sway me. Also, significant time spent here is good - over a year I believe. As an Admin, CheNuevara will be spending considerable time dealing with articles and article disputes. I would prefer more experience of standard practice. 343 article edits and 256 article talk edits doesn't fill me with confidence. I will find some edits which have helped form my opinion of people for you. Stephen B Streater 21:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've now looked through the epic which is CheNuevara's work on resolving the disputes at Democratic Underground. If this solution sticks, it will demonstrate that CheNuevara will improve the encyclopaedia as a good Admin. As it is all so recent, it's hard to tell whether this will be the case, but given the reasonable time CheNuevara has been with the project, the thoroughness of his work on this dispute, and the respect he has garnered from the participants, I will change to support if the edit warring has not restarted by the deadline. Stephen B Streater 22:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting! Thank you for taking the time to talk with me. Kim Bruning 02:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm reluctant to pick apart someone's editing style in public without their consent. If you would like more feedback on how would interpret particular edits, I could look at yours and discuss it with you on your talk page if you like. Stephen B Streater 12:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that on wikipedia, your edits are public, and you have to be able to explain every single edit you've made in public. So I'd have no trouble with looking at any single persons edits. Especially not at a request for adminship. If you'd like to look at my edits, that's fine too. Kim Bruning 19:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose as above; too few edits. Objectionable username.  Pr oh ib it O ni o n s   (T) 10:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) *Can you please explain why you find my username objectionable? It's not the political statement that you might think it is; I have an explanation of it here if you're interested in finding out why I chose it. But we have other sysops with political-sounding names, like User:Capitalistroadster, and sysops named after notorious historical figures, like User:RasputinAXP - CheNuevara 12:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) **Fans of Rasputin and capitalism proponents are harmless. OTOH, Che Guevara was a psychopath responsible for thousands of executions and general nastiness. I'd oppose, say, User:Hitleriffic or User:PolPotHead or User:KidStalin too. I don't agree with your rosy assessment that "Che Guevara's original plan, even if that's not the way it panned out, was to break down the long-entrenched barriers between all manner of different people who would have made a much better society together than apart." Hence my objection to your username.  Pr oh ib it O ni o n s   (T) 15:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) ***Well, you're free to hold that opinion, of course. I won't try and change your mind, because this isn't the place for that sort of discussion. - CheNuevara 16:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) ****Note that my opposition isn't primarily based on the username, nor on the quality of your edits; it's the relatively low edit count and, to a certain extent, the failure to use edit summaries. You should try again in a couple of months once you have a longer track record. Regards,  Pr oh ib it O ni o n s   (T) 16:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) *****Well, although I do have the "someday" tag on my userpage, this nomination came as a complete surprise to me. And I figured nothing bad can come of a nomination -- either I would be sysopped, or the community would express to me why I shouldn't be sysopped, giving me a new list of things to work on in order to make myself a better contributor. So really, either way, everybody wins :) - CheNuevara 16:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) I regret opposing because I think the user shows a lot of promise, but there arn't enough edits for adminship to be right at this time. Later, when there are enough, my support is very likely unless something really ugly happens in the meantime. --Improv 16:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Heya Improv! Can you explain your admin criteria? Kim Bruning 18:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi... I primarily want to see a good mix of time and number of edits, without much problem behaviour relative to that and a good attitude. CheNuevara has the time and the attitude right, I just don't think that he's edited quite enough yet. I personally like him, and the next time he applies I think it's very likely I'll give him my support, but I don't think that time has yet come. I only rarely visit RfAdmin, and typically only get involved with those who I've bumped into in some form. It's unfortunate that I feel I have to say "not yet" to someone who left a good impression on me. --Improv 04:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I see, though he's certainly edited more than I did when I got promoted, that's one of the reasons I'm a bit surprised. Are there particular areas that he's weak in that I've missed? Kim Bruning 07:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming there are any particular areas, just that he hasn't edited enough for us to really know (or enough period) for sure yet. --Improv 14:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, you must be using more stringent checks? (do you have a link to your criteria or so? And thanks for your time so far :-) )Kim Bruning 08:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have them written down anywhere, because they're primarily an expression of my judgement. --Improv 12:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Really, really sorry, but the edit count is too low, particularly the "main" edits. Clearly a very decent editor of great talent: come back in a year or so and there should be no problems. Moreschi 16:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OMG!? A year? That's a really long time. Why did you choose such a criterion? Kim Bruning 18:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 300-odd mainspace edits? Not enough for me to have confidence in an admin. I'd like some more experience; maybe a year is too long to wait, but certainly six months (and/or 700 mainspace edits would be nice). Basically I think that Improv's comment above is right (and Mr Streater's response sums it all up nicely); some more article work and less chat. (BTW, "really" has two Ls, and it's criterion, not criterium). Best, Moreschi 13:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Those are just numbers. How does number of edits equate to experience? Are you familiar with bot and software assisted editing? How will you know more after 6 months than you know now? Kim Bruning 19:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Specifically, 1 year is more of a criterion we have for an arbitrator or bureaucrat. This means that by your criteria, it would seem that someone could be on the mediation committee or the arbitration committee, or have the bureaucrat flag set, before one should consider supporting them for adminship. Kim Bruning 07:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Listen, I'm getting more than a little tired of having to come back here again and again to explain my reasoning. It's not so much the time I'm worried about; the values I suggested were merely guessses as to how long it would take for an acceptable number of edits to be reached. A year, six months, one month, one week sitting glued to the computer 24/7 - whatever. I simply feel        that one cannot become an admin with only mainspace 300 edits; it is damaging for Wikipedia's credibility and shows that you need to get out there more and actively edit the encyclopedia to gain more experience . By the way, I don't think my criteria of 700-odd article edits is unreasonable; I remember seeing one guy who had a criteria of oppose unless the candidate at least had one featured article to his credit. Article edits are ultimately what WP is all about, and they are how you become acquainted with the nuts and bolts of our encyclopedia. Moreschi 17:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No one's making you come back and defend your opinion; you've stated your position clearly enough, and if you'd like to ignore Kim's questions, go ahead, and no one will think less of you or your opinion for it. But I have to request that if you do continue to come back and make comments, please don't use aggressive- or uncivil-sounding edit summaries. It sets a bad example and reflects badly on this process. - CheNuevara 19:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Apologies; that was out of order, and I'm sorry. I got exasperated, and by the look of Kim Bruning's talk page I'm not the only one, either. This kind of proactive campaigning is new to me when it comes to RFAs. Is it a one-off, or now a new part of WP procedure? Again, I apologise. Moreschi 21:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Apologies as well, and I'm not campaigning. I'm just asking people using edit count and time criteria to explain their reasoning, as I'm investigating RfA. It has always been wikipedia procedure that you're expected to answer for yourself when asked (so no, not new, and no sympathies from me either, know what you're getting into! ;-) ) and I'm using that to do some reasearch into edit count criteria, for use on RfA itself. Thanks for taking the time to answer, and sorry for irritating you. Kim Bruning 08:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: Despite being there for 1¼ years, he needs a lot more experience with edits and WP's clockwork before he really can get that mop. Try again in a few more months. --Slgr @ ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's quite a long time. Can you show me examples of where inexperience has lead him astray? Kim Bruning 21:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, does not meet my minimum standards for number of edits and activity. Stifle (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And yes, Kim, I really mean it. Experience is something that comes only with, well, experience. They could be the best three hundred and ... edits in the world (or even a tribute to them, but that's still not enough experience with Wikipedia to be a sysop. Stifle (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't even need to ask. Fantastic! :-) Though people should explain their motivation without needing to be asked, of course. Thanks so far. :-) Would it be ok to ask for additional clarification, perhaps on your user talk? Kim Bruning 02:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly what clarification do you need? Stifle (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I'm sorry but 300 edits to the main namespace are way too few. I feel this Rfa is premature try again after getting more experience.--Aldux 02:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's another 250 to mainspace talk. What are you looking for specifically? That way we can tell the candidate what to improve on. :-) Also, which qualitative criteria are you looking for? Kim Bruning 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For comparison, I turned down a nomination when I had 1856 total edits, 760 in main and 419 in talk. I'm glad I did, because I know a lot more now then then. If Che had had more experience would he have done the same? I'll ask a question below. Stephen B Streater 06:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * AHA! I already questioned him on irc, and have him down as understanding foundation issues and trifecta. As long as you stick to those, you'll do fine as an admin or mediator (medcom likely, medcab certainly).
 * I wonder how many people at this RFA actually know them though :-/. Somehow our guidelines are a bit of a mess to search through and prioritise. Kim Bruning 07:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * oppose I have standards  Gang sta EB   ~(penguin logs) 21:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As do many people. I'm asking several people here to detail what standards they're applying, so that we can take that into account in future requests for adminship. Do you have a minute to point out what standards you are applying? Kim Bruning 21:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Not enough experience and fairly low activity levels. I also find the incessant questioning of opposing users a bit annoying. I won't count that against the nominee as they have not been heavily involved in it directly. I would have suggested that they request such questioning to stop, but it looks like it might be having the desired effect - not on me though. TigerShark 19:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Kim Bruning's motives for her questioning are entirely her own, although she is entirely open about them (see below), and I've noticed she's asked such questions in other RfA's as well. To say that they are "having the desired effect" is to ascribe far too dubious a motive to my lack of interfereing. As I said above, I'm interested in everything that everyone has to say about me, whether or not I'm promoted, because the criticisms that people have of me will help me become a better Wikipedian, which is really what everyone wants. Besides, I would not be comfortable asking people not to say and ask things on my own RfA and, aside from once concerning possible minor incivility, I haven't and don't expect to. - CheNuevara 20:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * CheNuevara is entirely correct that it's not his place to start telling people what they can and can't do on his RfA. That would certainly count against a candidate. Kim Bruning's efforts are part of a more general project of his(?) and not specific to this RfA. I have pointed out to Kim that it could appear like undue advocacy to the disadvantage of the candidate, as seems to have now occurred. Tyrenius 20:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose 300+ main space edits. We are here to build an encyclopedia. Administrators clearly need more experience. Joelito (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Way too few main space edits.  I don't understand why we would even consider making a newbie into an admin. &mdash;  Stevie is the man!  Talk 07:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) *I don't really think the term "newbie" applies to me. Perhaps I lack the experience that you're looking for, but I've been on Wikipedia for 15 months, and even in times when I haven't been editing, I've been reading. When I think "newbie" I think someone who has just recently signed up. - Che 09:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral - I have this ominous feeling that there is something that means I shouldn't suppiort, but I have no idea what it is. I'm either going cenile or am totally insane. Probably both, so I'm staying neutral (please try and persuade me to change my !vote, since I have no idea why I'm voting neutral...) &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 09:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral
 * Changed to support. &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 10:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I will be happy to address any criticisms you have or can come up with, and of course take them in stride. If nothing comes to mind, well, that's cool too. Bottom line is, ask my anything you like, and I'll be more than happy to respond. - CheNuevara 10:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral. Needs more mainspace edits to tilt me over to support. Themindset 17:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral per Themindset. Baseball,Baby!   balls  •  strikes  18:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral, needs more experience. - Mailer Diablo 20:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) [[Image:symbol neutral vote.svg|15px]] Neutral, Edit count to low for my liking, all though this user has been here for some time. Matthew  Fenton  ( contribs ) 16:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral - changed from oppose; after looking through more edits, he has created a few articles, which shows article experience, and I like the answer to the optional question. However, I'm worried about this diff — Mets 501  (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Admittedly that wasn't the most technically correct thing to do, and I would probably do it different tomorrow, but I'll explain why I did it. I was creating a composite article out of several stubs, and I had already redirected one or two of the stubs to the article, which did not yet exist. I wanted to put a placeholder there in the case that someone got redirected to the blank article before I finished writing the text and uploaded it. In retrospect, it was the wrong way to go about it, but it was well-intentioned. - CheNuevara 18:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) It's a proper template Template:Inuse. It was actually proposed for deletion on May 28 and kept. CheNuevara only used it for 10 minutes before a nicely presented article appeared in its place. This was well within intended limits. It made sense, as a courtesy, to stop any potential edit conflict. It seems to be in more extensive use on the French Wiki and I've never seen it before on the English one. I guess that is another manifestation of CheNuevara's extensive knowledge of all things Wiki. Tyrenius 18:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I assumed he meant the fact that I signed the article namespace. Template:Inuse is not in use very often (haha), but I think it's fine to use for creating articles. - Che 18:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have made that clearer. I fully support the use of the template (I have used it myself and love it).  I was concerned about signing the article namespace and I wondered why he would create a blank article with the template to say it was being created instead of just creating it 10 minutes later.  Those have been answered, though I choose to remain neutral.
 * 1) Neutral. Fails my standards but appears to be strong in other areas. Bring up edit summaries and edit more then tell me when you go for admin again so I can give my support. Ifnord 18:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Merovingian - Talk 03:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) *Can I ask why you changed your mind? Just curious because you didn't mention a reason. - Che 09:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * She says on her user page she helps newbies ;-) Stephen B Streater 09:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * Hmmm, several opposers have interesting ideas about edit count criteria, so I've asked several of them for clarification. IMHO There's nothing wrong with asking each person personally and separately, as long as it's done politely. If the discussions get long though, we might want to move them to user talk or RFA talk. Kim Bruning 18:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Kim Bruning's questioning seems to be part of a more general project rather than the relentless advocacy which it might appear to be. Tyrenius 12:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm open about what I'm doing. That's also part of consensus. I've answered everyone who's been asking me questions on my user talk page and you can track down my answers to them on their own talk pages. One interesting constant I've spotted is that some people start out by assuming bad faith when you try to apply consensus based methods to RFA. This suggests that while RFA is still officially listed as being a consensus based process, it might have drifted away from its roots a bit, let's see if that can be worked on in future. Thank you very much to everyone who has responded so far! :-) Kim Bruning 13:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If I can perhaps weigh in on this, as the actual person in question ... I made Kim's "acquaintance" on the IRC chat the other day while talking to a different person about a different user's RfA. For the obvious reasons, I can't go into incredible detail here, but we talked about WP policy, and she asked me about the Trifecta and the Foundation Issues. I don't know if she was familiar with my wikiwork before that, but I was not familiar with hers. But my answers to her questions (which are related to my answers to Stephen B Streater's question below) obviously convinced her that I'm the kind of person she wants sysopped. Now I respect the opinions of all those who disagree, for whatever reasons. But I do think she has some points worth addressing ... namely, the RfA process and the description of the RfA process don't really jive, as written now. I've never voted in RfAs before, but I've read a few, and that's something I'd noticed beforehand. - CheNuevara 15:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "The character test". Over time I have come to the conclusion that the single most important qualification for an admin is good character, by which I mean someone who is intelligent, balanced, civil, aware of and sensitive to others and able to interact well with them especially under pressure (i.e. diplomatic), restrained even good-natured under criticism, yet firm, stable, patient and co-operative, putting the project before personal considerations and still showing a willingness to learn. These qualities are generally what an individual brings from RL into the project, and it quickly becomes apparent if they are present when someone is challenged, criticised or exposed to conflict and stress. The major cause of bad feeling and difficulty with admins (as with other editors) is when an individual fails in these qualities. We should be looking for these qualities of character as the priority. Tyrenius 16:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

All edits. Voice -of- All  23:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Viewing contribution data for user CheNuevara (over the 1459 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ) Time range: 427 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 23hr (UTC) -- 20, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 2hr (UTC) -- 20, April, 2005 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 42.34% Minor edits: 92.64% Average edits per day: 20.21 (for last 500 edit(s)) Article edit summary use (last 228 edits): Major article edits: 60% Minor article edits: 98.86% Analysis of edits (out of all 1459 edits shown on this page and last 14 image uploads): Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.27% (4) Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 1.92% (28) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 6.72% (98) Superficial article edits marked as minor: 55.21% Unique image uploads (non-deleted/updates): 9 (checks last 5000) Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 665 | Average edits per page: 2.19 | Edits on top: 9.6% Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 19.88% (290 edit(s)) Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 20.22% (295 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 6.24% (91 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 51.2% (747 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 21.73% (317) | Article talk: 17.27% (252) User: 12.27% (179) | User talk: 9.73% (142) Wikipedia: 25.57% (373) | Wikipedia talk: 11.17% (163) Image: 1.17% (17) Template: 0.55% (8) Category: 0.41% (6) Portal: 0% (0) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0.14% (2)
 * See CheNuevara's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

Username	CheNuevara Total edits	1433 Distinct pages edited	657 Average edits/page	2.181 First edit	22:47, 19 April 2005 (main)	       313 Talk	       242 User	       179 User talk	138 Image	       17 Image talk	1 Template	8 Category	6 Category talk	1 Wikipedia	367 Wikipedia talk	161
 * I would like to raise an issue myself which I foresee coming up in this discussion: namely, my low percentage of edit summaries. I admit to a less-than-desirable percentage of edit summary use in my first year of Wikilife (since last April). I recently, however, submitted a request for editor review, upon which it was pointed out to me that I need to use them more often. Since then, I have (I'm pretty sure) used 100% edit summaries, not just in the article space but in all namespaces. The fact remains that in that time I have not accrued enough major edits in the article namespace to heavily influence this statistic. I believe, however, that a look at my contributions for the last few weeks will demonstrate the fact that I took this criticism to heart and intend to, from now on, absolutely use edit summaries in all my work. - CheNuevara 09:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Edit summaries? Who cares? Could we see his edit count, though? Moreschi 11:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My edit count, thanks to Interiot's Tool2. I would like to note that a lot of the userspace edits are my sandbox - CheNuevara 11:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just wanted to say, as the nominator, that I realize that Che's edit count was perhaps a bit lower than average for admin nominees, but as a veteran of a number of bloody Internet political battles on dozens of forums, I'm still amazed that someone was able to wade into the middle of a brewing one and get all parties to calm down and reach an amicable solution. That's the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia work; that's what enables Wikipedia to have articles on controversial topics without degenerating into an endless series of flames and edit wars. It seemed to me that that kind of consensus-building ability would be extremely valuable in an administrator. If the consensus here should be that Che needs more experience before being elevated, I very much hope that this nomination won't hurt his chances in the future. VoiceOfReason 01:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

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, 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 make it a point to participate in AfD regularly, every day when possible, including to look for instances of copyvio that are missed. I watch recent changes for vandalism, and I recently acquired the VandalProof tool to aid me in that. I also regularly check up on the Wikipedia backlogs, particularly the NPOV disputes (many of which, as I've noticed, turn out to be copyvio issues). As an admin, I would like to take part in the closing of AfD discussions and the execution of speedy deletes. Rollback would be helpful in my recent changes patroling. I would use the protection/blocking privileges sparingly and reluctantly -- I would always rather see an issue worked out than enforced -- but they could possibly be appropriate and useful in attempts to mediate disputes.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I've translated two full-length articles from the German Wikipedia, Katholikentag and Mainz Cathedral. I've been working on Walk to Canossa, a significant historical even which was a stub when I first found it. Also, I opened and had a guiding hand in WikiProject Buffyverse, which has flourished into a vast project which has touched many articles. As part of that project I've pioneered efforts to merge minor characters, saving time and space for both readers and editors, such as Sunnydale High School students and Initiative members. I'm also developing a navigation tool for easy Wikipedia surfing, found here.


 * 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: I doubt that there is a single Wikipedian who has contributed significantly over a lengthy period of time who has not rubbed elbows with any other user. The important thing in my mind is how one responds to these incidents. I always try to be fair and level-headed in my dealings with Wikipedians, preferring to work out and understand the other editor's point of view. The most significant incident that comes to mind was a disagreement with User:Paxomen over an ambiguity in some of my text at WP:Buffy. After discussing the matter at some length, we realized we really didn't disagree, we just said it differently, and both went on our happy way editing our separate articles.

Optional question from Hipocrite
 * 4. Your solution to the DU problem was to include all of the links that would have caused any sort of conflict, regardless of their adhereance to guidelines. Do you feel that all of the links kept were acceptable in terms of WP:EL, with specific attention paid to a blogspot blog (9) that was added by a drive-by spammer(4)(3) that has little or no fact checking(2), and adds little to the article(1)? How would you apply this method of resolving edit conflicts to more serious policy disputes, like WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 11:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A: My solution to the DU problem was to remove links that had a clear remove consensus, and use my own judgment on those that didn't, as per my reading of the guideline. The links which were clearly to be removed were removed, and the links which were not necessarily clear-cut removes were, for the most part, kept in order to allow further discussion and evolution. (I took your opinion into account, by the way, when I made my decision, but I interpreted the guideline differently than you and therefore came to a different decision. Your methodology, though, was amusing and quite appreciated.)
 * Specifically, the CU, LU, and NU links I felt were relevant as demonstrations of the cultural reaches of DU. The DUFU link was a more sensitive case, in my eyes, but I ultimately decided (after careful reading of not only the consensus "votes", but also of the discussion leading up to the process) to err on the side of caution and keep the link as a resource to back up the "Criticisms" section of the article.
 * The guideline WP:EL is just that: a guideline. My judgment was that the page (which does not sell a product or contain significant advertising, releasing it from 4, and which was removed at one point but put back by a different user, releasing it from 3) was relevant given the information in the article (1), and, while it is not of particular quality or reputation, it's the best that we've found at the moment (9), so it's an ample compromise. Please note that I did include a note in the links section that, should a more appropriate link be found, it should probably be replaced.
 * In short, I interpreted the guideline WP:EL as per the other guideline WP:CON. WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V, on the other hand, are all official policy and thereby non-negotiable under local consensus (although overall community consensus can, of course, affect them). In cases of guidelines, I feel that the best possible solution should be sought, which is what I attempted to do. In cases of policy, there is (almost always) a correct solution which needs to be followed. I am of course absolutely ready to put aside my personal opinion in cases where there is a "correct" solution as per policy and do take the correct course of action. - CheNuevara 12:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from Stephen B Streater
 * 5. The mood here seems to be that people like what they have seen of you, but are concerned that your lack of edits indicates a lack of experience. Please can you indicate your level of understanding of policy by listing all the policies you know (with Wikilinks). Many people may also incidentaly find the links useful. Stephen B Streater 06:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * PS Bonus points for guidelines you follow and essays you like. Stephen B Streater 06:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A: I'm going to answer this question a little differently than I think you intended; if, upon reading my answer, you feel follow-up is necessary to find out what you're looking for, please don't hesitate to inquire further.
 * A couple of things need to be discussed before discussing policy. The reality of the situation is the Foundation Issues -- the principles upon which the entirety of not just Wikipedia but Wikimedia is based, namely neutral point of view, open content, free content, and the fact that Jimbo knows what he's doing. All Wikipedia policies and guidelines are subject to the Wikimedia foundation issues because, without them, there is no Wikimedia. (Note that the foundation issues call "wiki process" the "final authority", and Jimbo the "ultmate authority".)
 * The next thing to mention is the Trifecta, which is the spirit of Wikipedia: neutral point of view, not being a dick, and ignoring all rules. If it could be relied on that, at all times, all Wikipedians would adhere to these ideas, then a large contingent of policies and guidelines would fall by the wayside as being redundant and unnecessary.
 * Fact of the matter is we're human, and so we have policies and guidelines. Here's my opinion on them:
 * Wikipedia policies that I find to perfectly exemplify both the reality and the idea behind Wikipedia:
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:C
 * WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA
 * WP:STALK, WP:LEGAL
 * WP:OFFICE
 * WP:NBD
 * Wikipedia policies that I find to be good, helpful, and properly thought out and formulated (but less ideal than the ones above):
 * WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY
 * WP:OWN
 * WP:VANDAL
 * Wikipedia policies which are necessary, and which need to be followed, but aren't particularly stellar and should only be referenced when they have to be (ie, when the above and common sense are not sufficient):
 * WP:BLOCK, WP:BAN, WP:3RR
 * WP:AP, WP:DR
 * WP:DEL, WP:UNDEL
 * WP:BOT
 * Wikipedia policies which I feel are broken, ambiguous, or troublesome:
 * WP:SOCK - This policy is heavily and unfairly condemning of people who use alternate accounts for legitimate reasons (which, according to the current incarnation, are basically Jimbo and people with stalkers).
 * WP:NOT - In my opinion, the #1 overquoted policy around. There wouldn't be any real need for this policy if the above policies were more uniformly and properly in practice, both by editors and admins. Besides, defining something by its negative is the second most gargantuanly backwards task that one can undertake, next to this.
 * WP:NAME - The box at the top says it's a policy. The first sentence says it's a guideline. Need I say more?
 * WP:INDEF - Poor man's WP:BLOCK
 * WP:FUC - The text of this page is good, except it's contingent on WP:FAIR, which is broken and ambiguous.
 * WP:COPYVIO - Unnecessary fork of WP:C
 * WP:IUP - Too much how-to and not clear enough on the real information, most of which is already covered in WP:C anyway.
 * WP:U - Far too ambiguous to be universally fair.
 * WP:LIVING - This shouldn't be necessary at all. The policy is that a certain class of articles must adhere to policy. ...What?
 * Not to say I would disobey the above policies in the last category, but I feel they need to be very carefully interpreted before they are levied. They also tend to lead to wikilawyering.
 * Guidelines are a whole new issue. Policies are the "What", and guidelines are the "How", in my opinion. Guidelines ought to help Wikipedians follow important policy, but it seems to me recently that everything has or will soon have a guideline, when in the most cases simple common sense would do the trick. People quote WP:PORN BIO, WP:SONG, and WP:ORG all over the place, even though WP:NOTABILITY isn't even a guideline. The basic notability guidelines are in some circumstances useful, but are not the be-all/end-all and cause all manner of trouble if they are taken as such (which they very often are).
 * Essays, of course, pose an even greater problem, because they require no community support at all. Every useful essay is an interpretation of the fundamental policies.
 * That being said, the guidelines and essays I find useful and, for lack of a better word, good, are the following: WP:BOLD, WP:CON, WP:SENSE, WP:DICK, WP:SPIDER, WP:BEANS, WP:IAR, WP:SP, and WP:WAI. All other guidelines can be derived from these guidelines plus the above policies.
 * I've noticed a huge push on Wikipedia towards regulation in my time here. My feeling is that, if more people concentrated less on introducing new guidelines and amending the old ones, and spent more time paying attention to the core ideas of Wikipedia, then we wouldn't need the scores of guidelines we have.
 * In short, as an admin, I would focus on the principles of Wikipedia. Naturally I would observe policy and keep guidelines in mind; there's no question of that. Without policy the project would descend into anarchy. But all of the above should describe Wikipedia principles, not proscribe them. That's my understand of not just Wikipedia policy, but Wikimedia reality.
 * Cheers! - Che 11:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from Lar:
 * 6. (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 22:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A: Regarding administrator recall: Yes, I was aware of this, and I think it's a rather good idea. Adminship is not knighthood -- it's not 'granted for life', and an admin's actions should be scrutinized. The description as it stands now, however, seems to me to be a bit easy to game, and any process brought up by this method would have to be very closely watched to ensure all involved are acting in good faith. All in all, however, an admin is accountable for what he does. It would be great if all admins were confident enough in their activities to put themselves in that category. I would definitely place myself in this category, as I think it's the right thing to do.
 * Regarding admins of a particular color or dissidence: I had also seen this before, and it amused me. Every admin is going to make decisions now and then that leave somebody unhappy; making light of the situation through something like RA is a lot better than making trouble because of it or starting a feud. In any case, I think the humor in RA far outweighs the actual statement it has to make. While I don't plan on acting particularly reddish if I am sysopped, I would take it with grace if someone placed me on this list.
 * Peace - Che 08:18, 25 July 2006 (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.