Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Latics


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

Latics
Final: (10/14/6); Withdrawn by candidate at 03:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

- Hello, all. I'm self-nominating myself, which I know Kurt will oppose—but I'll go for it anyway. I've been active since June 2007 (formerly under Crassic before an account USURP) and, at last glance, have a little over 7,000 edits on the English wiki. This past month, Acalamari was gracious enough to grant me the rollback feature which I have made very good use of, CORRECTLY. And I am now hoping that, with a few more buttons, I can help out the current admins and effectively fight vandalism a bit better—of course going through the correct procedures. Thank you for your time. :) Feel free to pick at my contributions and ask any questions. Just a sidenote, I've undergone adoption since my failed, pre-mature RfA.

But on another note, I will be a bit tied up this coming weekend. So if it takes me a while to respond to any inquiries, you know why. ;) Latics (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: As my contributions speak for themselves, I'll likely look to take part in WP:AIV, and eventually some WP:CSDs once I get a bit more in-depth of the subject.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I suppose there are two, both football related, of course. Oldham Athletic A.F.C. seasons and List of Oldham Athletic A.F.C. managers are probably my top two best contributions to the Wikipedia. I'm currently cleaning up and expanding the two articles to, in the future, make a push for possibly featured lists.
 * Edit: I also just wanna add to this list, I've basically overhauled the Oldham Athletic main article over the past several months. From March 2007 (before my first edit) to my most recent edit]. Overall, I've expanded many things connected to the club substantially including templates and pages regarding specific seasons. Edit: 10:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: If I recall correctly, yes, I have been involved in minor conflicts but nothing too serious. I've dealt with the problems quite simply, by taking a little break from editing. Ha. If I'm ever at a crossroad in editing, I'll usually go read up on the rules for certain situations and eventually determine what would be the better road to take.

Optional questions from   Ase ' nine ' ''
 * 4. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?
 * A: Well, I would definitely have to go for veribiability. Jimbo has said it best (though I probably butchered the comments), no content is better than unsourced content. I'd likely talk to the newbie and editors who were involved on the talk page and figure out whether or not the source of information is valid and the concensus should be overturned. If I'm not mistaken, I've dealt with something similar—but maybe I'm just going crazy right now. :\


 * 5. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?
 * A: Perfect, I think I just had something similar just happen. :) I recently aided several users that had issues, either with me or just needing a little help before taking any bigger steps. But with admin powers, I know that questions will likely be flying my way more often and I'll be more than willing to take up the task of helping any new members, or those who just don't know.
 * User:Meisfunny: I recently helped the user with proper image licensing, and after they received a bot message, made a little cleanup of their work. (View here.)
 * User:JuneSiren: I reverted his edits several times to Terry Smith before helping him establish a separate article which they were attempting to create, much to my ignorance. Ha. I pointed the user on where to go, and offered any further assistance. (View here.)


 * 6. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?
 * A: If you can see my previous 2–3 months work, I really don't know if I would be able to keep it up the edits in terms of numbers due to an upcoming job and somewhat busy weekends. But in terms of current activities, my line of work would likely stay very similar. Though I will likely become more involved in the Wiki community (XfDs, RfAs, etc.) and help out anyone in the community. AIV will likely become a bigger part of my editing, though. Because like I've stated before, vandals get under my skin. :)

Optional question from RyanLupin (talk)
 * 7. In what situation would you administer a cool-down block. This question is entirely optional.
 * A. I very likely wouldn't. Cool down blocks generally, as I've seen, don't work at times and the user comes back more irritated or just up their vandalism or whatever they were doing to begin with.

Optional question from  Gtstricky Talk or C'''
 * 8. So why do you want to be an admin? Try not to give the typical 'I want to help the project' answer. Thanks.
 * A. To some extent, yes, I do want to just help the project. But I generally do a lot of vandal work and FPCs—though that obviously doesn't require an admin. I honestly just want to help out with AIVs, and as an admin it will help me expand my work here. That is, getting more involved with the community through possibly RfAs, dispute resolutions, etc.


 * Yes, someone below has stated their concern over my IP bias. The only thing effected by my seeing some numbers instead of a name, I just keep tabs on what specifically they are doing. When reporting someone for AIV or whatever else, I have no personal bias as I've seen vandalism by both IPs and somewhat established users.

 Optional Additional question from Frank (candidate is free to not answer, of course, but I don't really consider it optional)
 * 9. The opposes based on a bias against IP vandalism seem legitimate to me, but an analysis of your 15 edits to WP:AIV shows 6 being reports of named users, 8 being reports of IP users, and 1 additional edit. First of all, this is not a large volume of activity at WP:AIV, especially for an editor that wishes to spend time there. Second, while the quotes supporting the perceived bias do look unfriendly to me, the numbers shown at AIV don't seem out of line. Can you please clarify (defend?) your position regarding anonymous editing as stated on your user page?
 * A. I'm not unfriendly to IP editors any more than I am to users that are logged in. I realise that only 14 users reported to AIV isn't a lot of activity, but I'm really not quick to jump on someone for one or two unconstructive edits. If you look at the users reported by me, the admin looking over the edits has had no issues with blocking them—temporarily or indefinite. But overall, yes, I do dislike IP editors but understand they have helped Wikipedia grow but many of the IP editors I have come across, those who edit biographies, have not been entirely constructive. But as my contributions state for themselves, I don't truly have a bias against anonymous editors—I just watch them more closely.

Optional question from xeno cidic
 * 10. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined  and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
 * A: After such vulgarity thrown my way by the user, I would likely consider not even bothering with giving him a third chance. If I were to allow the IP to edit again, I would likely give him information to read (similar to that on the welcome template) about how to appropriately edit Wikipedia, including how to add citations for edits similar to that of the 11:18 edit. After doing such, I would monitor his activity very closely and, if he were to return to vandalism, would not hesitate at reinstating a block—whether it be a longer time period or an indefinite block.

General comments

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


 * Links for Latics:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Latics before commenting.''

Discussion

 * You'd probably been better off waiting until after the weekend, to free yourself to answer questions.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace  09:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly so, but honestly it'll likely only be Saturday night so it might not be too bad. If a few others jump on board with the idea, I'll take a little break from it. Latics (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You said you went through adoption since your premature RfA? Would you mind telling us, who adopted you and how long you were adopted? I am just curious btw, so you don't have to answer it if you think it will influence people too much.  So Why  10:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's fine with me. User:Arknascar44 adopted me. I couldn't really give you a time frame for how long the entire thing lasted, as both he and I had some wikibreaks during the whole thing. But if I were to guesstimate, I would say ... 4 months? We never really did finish the adoption as he hasn't been very active in 2008. But other than just the 4 months, I've expanded a little bit outside of everything he gave me the heads up on. Latics (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Shocking, this nomination is going to sink over the IP issue, *Realist shakes his head in disappointment*. — Realist  2  19:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * PLEASE READ. Okay, I think I need to take a time out to explain my stance on IPs, vandals, whatever. YES, I do truly detest vandalism—which I don't see a problem with, I don't think any of us are pro-vandalism. I have nothing against IPs other than the fact that I closely pay more attention to their edits. Yes, I would support mandatory registration but until that is put to a vote, I have no more power on the issue than any other user here. I removed the statement from my userpage, though I am slowly expanding the entire page. My battery was running low and therefore, really couldn't spend a lot of time just fancy-ing up my page. Regarding my opening statement, I was in no way attempting to make a personal attack or anything else against any specific editor—just, to some extent, trying to add a bit of humour here. So if anyone found that offensive, I deeply apologise. Hopefully I have addressed some concerns. If you have any more, PLEASE leave a note here or my talk page, whichever is more appropriate. Latics (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I withdraw my self-nom. I'm sorry, I just really want to stop this before I do or say anything I shouldn't. Latics (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support Seems fine to me. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  09:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak support - Not found anything wrong so far, but if something worrying turns up I'll probably switch. That said, your questions are very vague.   Ase ' nine ' '' 09:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support — I've done a quick, preliminary check of your contributions and can't see anything immediately worrying about the candidate. Assuming nothing else comes up, no reason to believe this user wouldn't be a net positive to the project. Wow. The recent news of your anti-IP editing is a real concern. Somehow, I never checked your user page and this deeply concerns me. I'm switching to neutral, but depending on how you answer Q9, it may end up in oppose. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1)  naerii  10:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Nice Mainspace edits, I'm still lookinig in contributions   Antonio Lopez  (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm seeing good contributions overall, and no red flags. The dig on Kurt is a little off-putting, true, what with WP:AGF and all that, but it's likely intended to be tongue-in-cheek. Maybe. Still, no reasons to oppose that I can see. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, moved to Neutral per below. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 23:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 *  Support Switching to "Extremely strong oppose" &mdash; On a review of contribs, Latics seems to be a low-key editor with a solid commitment to the project, a history free of drama or strife, and apparent good judgment. If given the tools, he will certainly continue along the same lines.  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 14:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am switching to an extremely strong oppose. Though I reviewed his contribs, I didn't check his userpage, so I missed the statement of prejudice against IP editors that has others opposing him.  Obviously, his statement goes against everything I stand for on Wikipedia.  I did not suspect that such a benign editor could harbor such a strong dislike of anonymous editing, one of the pillars of this encyclopedia.  I am ashamed to have supported this RfA.  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 17:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - I like honesty. — Realist  2  15:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Abstain, per oppose of User:Iridescent. Deleted userpage comments prior to nomination. —  Realist  2  01:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak support, up from Oppose While I expressed my worry about the unfunny Kurt comment in the opening sentence (see below), I will acknowledge the candidate has the capacity to be an effective administrator. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Contribs look good, civil talkpage, clear communication style, a desire to help out.  Been here long term, good at what you do.  Go slow with closing XfDs if that is what you wish to do.  Also, Kurt will be opposing this RFA (unless he has had a drastic change in philosophy overnight, I suppose that's also possible), I don't see any problem with you stating as much in your nom statement.  You didn't say "kurt sucks because he'll oppose this", you said "Kurt will oppose this".  A statement of fact, not opinion. Good luck!  Keeper    76  16:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Responding here, I'm really not very happy about the "IP stance" that you've taken on your userpage. Use this RFA as growth, to fully investigate the value that "anonymous editing" has (yes, some is vandalism, but really, which of us are not "anonymous"?).  You need to revisit your stance on IP editing, one that I do not agree with personally.   Keeper    76  20:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Moving to oppose  Keeper    76  01:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Specialist admins are OK with me. Has focus on area for which tools are requested. I see self noms as prima facie evidence of having the self-confidence needed by admins. This goes against what many people think, but I see "per nom" at deletion discussions as indicating that the user has looked into the matter and agrees that the reasons given for the deletion hold water. My caution for the user is to be more vociferous in the future. The Kurt statement simply shows the candidate knows that particular score and has stuck to his guns firmly and civilly. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  17:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Going neutral per Mr IP. anonymous editing is a fundamental principle.  Dloh  cierekim  19:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support You are civil, intelligent, contributor who will make a fine admin. No reservations. nancy (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per Keeper. Really, I see nothing incredibly worrying. XfD is an area you want to ease into though, so keep that in mind. Your Kurt comment in the nom was harmless and insignificant, but here on Wikipedia (especially around RfA) people like to make things a big deal, so don't take it personally.-- Koji Dude  (C) 20:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Cautionary support. Without the IP comment this would be a full support.  You have all the experience needed to become an admin, but I warn you not to discriminate against IPs and new users just because of their status.  You will be asked to make judgement on disputes involving IPs and senior editors as an admin.  Other than this, you're perfectly fine. Malinaccier (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Moral Support I still think you have a lot to learn, however, there's no evidence you'll abuse the tools —— RyanLupin • (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I for one understand being against IP editing, even through I have no strong feeling either way.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace  00:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
Oppose Switching to Weak Support (see above) You don't start a request to become an administrator by insulting someone. To make a spin on that famous line from Jerry Maguire, you lost me at "Hello!" Ecoleetage (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair the candidate, it does sound like more of a joke than an insult. Kurt does oppose all self-nominations, the candidate has noticed that. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 13:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on. It was an observation, not an insult.   Ase ' nine ' '' 13:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignoring if it is/isn't an insult that's a mighty bad reason to oppose. While reasoning is down to each voter, i'd personally advise switching to neutral if that's the best oppose you can think of. Ironholds 13:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the one insulting is Ecoleetage, "you lost me at 'Hello!'", that seems you did not even read this RfA page, that is not an inappropriate way to participate in a RfA.  Antonio Lopez  (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment back Sorry, but I am sick and tired of Kurt being singled out in every RfA. It may have been amusing once or twice, but it seems like every RfA has to include some sort of Kurt joke. An administrator is going to have work with people, and you don't work with people by setting them apart as a punchline. If the candidate wishes to strike that comment, I can assume good faith and move my vote elsewhere. Sorry if I seem harsh, but this is unfair to both Kurt and the RfA process. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (Commenting before this gets shoed to talk) Then Kurt can have some damn respect for people. If people don't want to be criticized than the simplest way to make that happen is to not continually behave in a manner that invites criticism.  Kurt opposes almost every single RfA in a comment that drips condescension toward the nominee.  We rush to his defense whenever someone calls him on it and we push things aside (rightly) when people question it, so why are we taking the next step of protecting him from being irrelevant?  In my opinion we are heaping WAY to much gravity on the situation.  Kurt is going to oppose this RfA.  This candidate mentioned that oppose in order to make a joke about it and to diffuse the result.  Kurt is a big boy.  He can clearly dish out criticism.  Let's not spend needless man-hours shielding him from the fallout. Protonk (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't like Kurt's comments, ignore them. He has a right to his opinion and we have a right to our opinion of his opinion. But, ultimately, we have no right to turn him or anyone else into a standing joke.  I am moving my vote to Support, which is where I wanted to put it initially.   Hopefully, this RfA and the ones to come will focus on content and not contributors. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, I don't want to badger you, but why is it the right answer to ignore Kurt's comments about contributors but castigate others for their comments about Kurt? Protonk (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're a bit late -- I already moved my vote to the Support column. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose STRONG Oppose Too many 'per nom' and other two-word votes at AFD that add nothing to the discussion. Few examples:  The IP bias, per his userpage quote, "Before you accuse me, I'll admit it—I do dislike IP editors and strongly support mandatory registration. In other words, I HATE VANDALS." turns this into a strong oppose. I can not trust the user with the tools. SashaNein (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Dislikes IP editors. Keepscases (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh, I missed this. Was there a specific incident?  I may have to switch to oppose.  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 17:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * His userpage. I have the quote above. SashaNein (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting this. I can't believe I !voted to support.  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 18:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Rollback was granted rather recently and I would like to see more activity in admin related areas. Besides the anti-vandalism activity with 15 AIV and RPP reports respectively, I see rather few substantive contributions. E.g. i didn't find many CSD notices and the one of today also indicates that more experience might be needed. You have a lot of mainspace edits, but many seem to be small updates and other fixes related to football. A wider experience would also be helpful to deal with whatever comes across you when you wield the mob.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Oppose I have to oppose for the fact the user will only work actively in one area. (AIV, see answer to Q1)-- LAA Fan  16:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? You'd rather they say (probably untruthfully) that they will work everywhere, and be all things for all people?  I never do AIV, never will.  He wants to "do AIV", he'll be good at it from what I can tell from his contribs.   Keeper    76  16:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, that gives me something to think I about. I changed my !vote to Weak Oppose for now. I don't mean to work in all areas, but actively contributing in 2 or 3 admin areas would make me support.-- LAA Fan  17:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose IP editing is fundamental to Wikipedia. I cannot support editors who have a bias against IP editors&mdash;the vast majority of IP editors are not vandals. It appears the candidate has become jaded by too much anti-vandal work. Sorry, but I can't trust Latics with the tools to block fairly, given that AIV is where he plans to work. EJF (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, I have to agree with EJF and SashaNein above. IP editors are vital to the continuing growth of Wikipedia, and administrators should not have a bias against them. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 17:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Extremely strong oppose, switching from support &mdash; Wow, I reviewed his contribs, but didn't check the userpage. I'm so glad that others spotted Latics' statement of prejudice against IP editors and his desire to see them eliminated from our project.  That goes against everything I stand for on Wikipedia, and I am ashamed to have supported this RfA and given this user my trust. Anonymous editing is a pillar of Wikipedia, and I cannot support those who seek to destroy our foundations. I would sooner support Willie on Wheels.  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 17:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly, this is like me Opposing someone for not liking Magnum, P.I. (which happens to be the best TV Show ever). His opinion on IP editting, while it is something I strongly disagree with, is no reason to oppose. It's an even worse reason to liken him to WoW.-- Koji Dude  (C) 20:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Magnum PI doesn't edit here, so you won't be reverting him, blocking him, reviewing his unblock requests, or mediating or semi-protecting articles he is interested in. And you won't be doing any of this as a "trusted member of the community". If anyone thinks Latics' attitude won't bear on his admin decisions, I am here to tell them they are in dreamland.
 * BTW bad job protecting the main RFA page proper, it very much gives the impression that we are not welcome here (on the project). Only my indignation led me to click around enough to get to a page i could actually edit. 86.44.30.227 (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In this context I was refering to the show, not the character. Everyone likes Tom, silly. :-) I'm not going to comment on the protection thingy, I had nothing to do with that, but I think we should WP:AGF instead of predicting Latics will make biased and wrong decisions. Obviously he's against IP's, but I don't see any evidence of him actually taking an action because of that bias.-- Koji Dude  (C) 23:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Koji, I feel very, very strongly that the permanent abolition of IP editing would destroy Wikipedia. I love Wikipedia and believe in our mission, so I cannot offer my support to one who advocates a policy which would destroy this place. I particularly cannot support putting such a person in a position of power and influence.  As 86.44.30.227 points out, a prejudice that strong will always come out, and at the very least it makes every IP editor feel unwelcome and unwanted, which is a big problem already.  We have Latics up in the question section telling us that he has no "bias" against IPs...sure, he only wants to see them permanently banned, every last one of us!  (And I can tell you now that if I couldn't edit without an account &mdash; if I had no choice in the matter &mdash; I would have to leave the project.)  I didn't mean to liken him to Willie on Wheels, or to insult by comparison, but rather to literally state that I would sooner vote for Willie for adminship.  The vandalism we face from anonymous editors is meaningless compared to the greater vandalism that results when persons in positions of power dedicate themselves to knocking down a pillar of the project.  I should have vetted this candidate more thoroughly before I voted to support.  I must remember that checking contribs is never enough: check the userpage history!  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 04:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And I just want to clarify that I don't usually oppose on the basis of policy stances. I have voted for many candidates who strongly disagree with me on a range of wiki issues, and in fact this is my first (maybe second; can't recall) oppose !vote under this name, period.  I reserve opposition for cases that I feel very, very strongly about.  Someone who is seeking to prevent an entire massive and productive class of editor from helping the project in their preferred mode &mdash; essentially, to shut millions out of the project on the basis of the petty infractions of the few &mdash; is the exact sort of person I must oppose.  I don't see this as a frivolous issue.  I see it as a frontal attack on the very spirit of our project. Sorry if that offends anyone, but his comments about IPs offend me.  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 05:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I am switching from Netural to oppose because of the comment about Kurt in his opening, and the comment above where he bluntly said he dislikes IP's. As Wisdom said in the Netural column, you shot yourself in the foot. America69 (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you have to bolden it? Those words are irritating enough as it is. — Realist  2  18:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel better already. — Realist  2  18:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Opened the nomination by taking a swipe at another editor. Pass. Townlake (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose If you're going to tell people you're matured since your last RfA, perhaps you shouldnt start by taking a pot shot at another editor. To make this clear, I am not opposing because you made the comment, but rather due to questional maturity.   Qb  | your 2 cents  01:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - I can just about overlook starting an RFA with gratuitous rudeness and SHOUTING, but... While I'm on record as saying I believe account creation should be mandatory, that is not the same as your "I do dislike IP editors and strongly support mandatory registration. In other words, I HATE VANDALS" stance. Also, AGF notwithstanding, G7-deleting your old userpage – complete with inflammatory "This user highly despises Barack Obama" – immediately prior to an RFA has a whiff of track-covering. No. – iride  scent  01:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, he did make all that hate stuff go away back in May. Hopefully, there was a realization that expressing views so strongly is not appropriate here. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  02:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Ack.  Too many issues.  Didn't catch the "political affiliation issue", which brings up POV issues, I was willing to overlook the IP editing issue as something you needed to be careful about.  Overall, too much for me to support.  Moving to oppose.   Keeper    76  01:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Sorry, but IP editing is a foundation issue, and is just as important as the remaining four. Require registration would be the same as subverting any of the others, say, our free license or NPOV. Also, not liking the Kurt Weber thing or Q10 (don't indef an IP). Wait a couple months for this to blow over, keep working at AIV, and them come back. Paragon  12321  02:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Netural leaning Oppose Two things stand out. 1) The answers to your questions are short, and for Q3, do you have any examples. 2) That Comment about Kurt in your opening sentence was not approiate, if anything, I find that a little bit rude. America69 (talk) 10:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC) #:I apologise completely if you found the comment rude, I was just adding a little humour and was not trying to AT ALL to take a shot at anyone inappropriately. As for specific examples of q. 3, I'll go through my contributions and attempt to find it. As I've said, I believe I recall having a similar experience but I'm not 100% certain on the thing. Latics (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I don't see anything wrong with the Kurt comment, which wasn't insulting or degrading. but I'm neutral until I can look at contributions more thoroughly. Protonk (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Followup to my comments. This editor seems to be in hot water due to comments about IP editors.  I think that these comments are being wildly misinterpreted.  As an admin, this editor will have no more power over supporting mandatory registration than any of us (read: zero).  His conflation of "IP editor" with "vandal" is unfortunate but probably results from a lack of knowledge rather than some underlying prejudice.  I would suggest that the candidate read Vandalism does not matter (the title is meant to be shocking rather than fully descriptive) and take a long hard took at Statistics.  The basic idea is that a staggering number of contributions come from once in a while IP editors.  Some small percentage of that is insertion of things like "Penis" or "my teacher is gay" into an article.  The vast majority are small corrections, insertions of factoids, etc (although watching WP through Huggle it looks like the only things that every get edited are articles on reality TV shows and the WWE, oh, and articles describing parts of the world where two countries have different names for the same rocks).  Most IP editors SEEM like vandals or at least seem anti-social because they usually are not familiar with the rather complex social conventions here.  We are used to editors behaving in a pretty specific fashion, when an IP makes a comment on an article page or doesn't understand the mess of acronyms we throw at them, we assume that they are either stupid or purposefully disruptive.  This is common in social systems like this.  We all implicitly understand the norms of behavior and we assume (as humans tend to do) that others do as well.  As a result, we tend to treat IP editors...well...like crap.  This is where the fervor in these opposes is coming from.  I don't know if you can salvage this RfA, but the first step is to come to terms with the objections about IP editing. Protonk (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Staying neutral from support due to concerns about IP editors. As Wisdom said below, you shot yourself in the foot on this one. Sorry. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) not going to pile on - You shot yourself in the foot.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Going neutral per Mr IP. Anonymous editing is a fundamental principle. I would recommend removing that statement from the userpage and gaining more experience in the admin areas in order to remove the perception of anti anon bias. The comment indicates a lack of readiness for the tools. Enthusiastic reversion of unconstructive edits and education/warning those responsible are not the same as "hating vandals." The two are easily confused. Experience sufficient to have the tools should bring on an awareness of that difference. Blocking is a last resort, to be used only with those for whom education and assumption of good faith have proven futile. When one "hates vandals," it's too easy to forget that. Cheers,   Dloh  cierekim  19:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, not the part about WoW.  Dloh  cierekim  19:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) There are qualities that make me want to support, and qualities that make me oppose. I don't think the IP thing &mdash; I hate vandals &mdash; was meant to be as harash as some of you are taking it, but anyway, this editor is pretty helpful to our project. However, some qualities make me think you are not yet ready for adminship. -- Lord   ₪   Sunday   19:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, from support. I disagree with your stance on IP editing, and - from a prospective admin, it's a stance, not an opinion. It also means that, unfortunately, every administrative action you take in regards to an IP edit or editor would be suspect. I don't think you'd act in anything other than a proper fashion with IP editors or edits, but there it is - it's a perception of bias, and it's enough. I'd even remain at support if you clarified your position on your userpage, saying "You know what, I said this, but I meant this" or something. But, when I went to your userpage to find the quote that has created such a stir, I didn't see it - until I saw your recent edits, where you removed it without fanfare at this diff. Even a note here along the lines of "Per your concerns, I've removed the offending quote..." would be fine - hell, we've had candidates change their username as a result of their RfAs - one comment isn't the end of the world. But not mentioning your removal feels like an attempt to brush it under a rug, which bothers me. Sorry, you're a great editor, but... ugh indeed. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 23:27, 28 August 2008 (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.