Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rory096 2


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

Rory096
Final (60/50/18) Ended Mon, 09 Oct 2006 03:25:48 (UTC)

– Looking at the recent massive backlogs, and continuing to be annoyed that I don't have the tools when I need them and end up having to annoy admins on IRC, I'm here. I've been on WP for like 10 months, I have too many edits and too much backlog clearing experience (and too little of a life). I don't particularly care if I succeed on RfA, but the tools would be helpful to me. --Rory096 00:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See also:Requests for adminship/Rory096.


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yep. --Rory096 00:41, 2 October 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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: I would clear backlogs at CAT:CSD, WP:PUI, CAT:NR (which I created), CAT:NS, CAT:NL, and some other TLAs as I came across them. I would also help out on WP:AIV and do some vandal fighting.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I would describe myself as a WikiGnome, so I'm probably most proud of my backlog clearing, such as Special:BrokenRedirects which had about 10,000 things in it a few months ago and took me about a month to clear (as it only shows up to 1,000 at a time). I'm also proud of my image copyright work such as WP:UI, though that's been empty for quite a while because the enwiki toolserver is down, and my work on reverting vandals.
 * EDIT: How could I forget? I've been improving and sourcing Cannabis (drug) over the past view months, trying to make it FA-worthy. I've gotten it up to a GA and hope to try FAC again in a couple of months. --15:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: Of course. I've been blocked (for real, discounting jokes) 3 times, two of which were for my work during the transition to the current dated prod system (the one using CAT:PROD) after the toolserver went down and PRODKEY was shown to not work correctly. After I urged Sceptre to edit Template:Prod to switch to the new system, I started doing the necessary changes to change the current articles to the new system (which involved substing prod and fixing the date), which is when Kelly Martin blocked me. Another admin reverted him, but then the creator of PRODKEY reverted back to the dated prod system and when I was unblocked and the creator of PRODKEY personally requested on the prod talk page that somebody do the necessary substing, I started doing it. (Note that I thought this was perfectly all right because the reason for my first block was that I hadn't followed consensus in substing, but since there were no objections to the new system and now even the creator of the old one was asking for the substs, it seemed clear that there was consensus.) I was then blocked again by Kelly, and was later unblocked by Linuxbeak after Joshbuddy went to the trouble of actually writing a bot to fix it.
 * My other block was a circumstance where I made a joke on Lightdarkness's RfA that Pschemp felt was in bad taste (though I wasn't acting in bad faith), and I am sorry for that. Other than these two incidents, I have not really been in any major disputes, nor have I ever been RfCed or RfAred.


 * Question from T REX speak 01:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4. Have you written any encyclopedia articles or do you have any major contributions to an article besides doing backlog jobs? T REX speak 01:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've written a few stubs, but I'm not much of an article writer. See User:Rory096/ArticlesICreated.
 * Optional Question
 * 5. It seems as if there is some concern in regards to this edit, in which a userpage was redirected to Bitch. Could you perhaps provide the context which led you to make the joke and perhaps shine light on the your views on using admin buttons for humourous endeavours? (Basically, I'm just asking how far you would take a joke with the added capabilities that the admin buttons will potentially afford you)  Don't feel at all pressured to answer, by the way, as it is one edit out of thousands you've made.   hoopydink Conas tá tú? 02:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the late responses, I've been sick and that means confinement to the dorms (which don't have wifi) here. It was entirely a joke, in which jasabella made a comment about how her userpage should redirect to Bitch and then I did it, and it was similar with Mike shortly afterward. At the time, neither had objections to the edits (though of course I presume that they wouldn't want their userpages kept that way), and I was in the process of self-reverting when Gogo Dodo beat me to it. I would never do anything like this in any other namespace, as that would be disrupting the encyclopaedia or the running thereof (while in userspace it's akin to vandalboxes, and doesn't really make a difference). Note that I and my big red button have actually been the subject of jokes with admin tools (see my block log ), and though I don't mind those at all, I wouldn't use the tools in that way myself.
 * 6. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?--Mcginnly | Natter 23:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably never, except in cases where they blatantly vandalize repeatedly. I'd focus more on vandalism reported by pgkbot and deletions.
 * 7. Guess what? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Chicken butt? (Why did that just pop into my head? I feel like I've heard it before. Is it a common response to that?) --Rory096 15:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Dammit, that's what I was going to say! Oppose, he's READING MY MIND! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * General comments


 * See Rory096's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.


 * Note that I'm currently at boarding school (though I hope to be getting out soon), so I haven't been very active in the past two weeks or so. --Rory096 00:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * (moved from !vote section for clarity. As with Shanel, I've known Rory for a while, and know him to be a good guy. The Jasabella thing was a userpage joke. You can find similar page-blanking, and similar joking from Essjay, Mindspillage on Sean Black's userpage (page has been since deleted), and a multitude of other highly respected contributors. I have no problem with Jasabella and Rory having a little joke. Michael Billington's diffs are somewhat lukewarm &mdash; I think that was a little over the top. The combination of these two factors leads me to believe (hopefully mistakenly) that Rory may use his sysop bit in a practical joke, and end up getting an often-used IP autoblocked, or block for three minutes or so and not be around to de-autoblock, or something of this nature. Again, I'm leaning towards a trust that Rory will know where the line is, and ensure that his sysop bit is not used for jokes &mdash; Editing jokes can be reverted by anybody, however jokes using the sysop flag can cause technical mayhem that needs to be fixed up by another experienced sysop, or even emotional damage to a user who took a joke the wrong way. Finally, while I realise that this is past behaviour, his block log, and subsequent use of a "block" bar in his signature in what appeared to be a type of defiance leads me to be a bit edgy about his attitude should he be reprimanded for use of his sysop flag. I've brought up here only what I believe to be relevant to adminship, and the sum of them is, in my opinion, not really significant enough to deny him the sysop flag. I am not, however, completely comfortable in supporting his request for adminship, and will leave it as "Somebody Else's Problem" until more information emerges. I'd also like to add a quick response to those who are opposing because he doesn't care about his RfA that much. I believe that this concern is silly &mdash; this is the kind of administrator we want, somebody who will not compromise their principles for a position of perceived power or authority (emphasis is on perceived here, as admins have very little additional power or authority, perhaps only a little extra respect). I have no patience for those (some come to mind, but I refuse to name names) who have as their entire objective on Wikipedia, gaining the sysop flag. Users who are here simply to gain adminship are not the type of editor we want. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 12:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * After some thought, and by seeing the ridiculous lynch-mob that has formed over a joke that was not harmful, and has been terribly misconstrued, I have decided to switch to support. I find the belief that a user is, apparently, not trustworthy with the delete, protect and block buttons, because he has something like (gasp), personality, and is capable of having a joke around with somebody on IRC hillariously laughable. I am quite amused by the holier-than-thou attitude shown by some of the opposers in stating that a joke around on IRC makes somebody untrustworthy. This belief is misguided at best. So, in order to counteract the apparent lack of understanding in what we look for in our sysops, observing Rory's behaviour and improved maturity, speaking to a number of other users, and reconsidering the idea that he may use the sysop tools in a manner detrimental to the encyclopedia, I have decided to switch to a strong support, and encourage those on the other side of the fence to take a good look at themselves, and perhaps consider lightening up. This RfA says so much about why it is widely believed that our Requests for Adminship process is flawed at best &mdash; and has turned into a mudslinging match, driven by our friendly RfA regulars. It demonstrates the very worst in Wikipedian nature, and if there were two RfAs that I would pick to demonstrate why it's broken, it'd be this, and the political sham that was Ambuj.Saxena's. Most Disappointing. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 09:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Oh, and I forgot to mention this. I've read through the !votes on both sides, and found very little evidence that more than twenty or thirty percent of the !voters have considered the request for more than about two minutes. I see very little commenting, I see very little evidence of actually digging through for context. Diffs can be a very evil thing &mdash; they present a single action without any context whatsoever. The diff of Rory redirecting Jasabella's userpage to bitch is very damning without context, appearing as vandalism/personal attacks. However, in context, there was no malice involved, and it was a simple light-hearted joke. With that context, stating that the user is unsuitable for adminship is laughable. I doubt that there are not ulterior political motives involved here. !votes like those from OLP show little more than a veiled personal attack backed by ten seconds of research. OLP decided that it was appropriate to call Rory an "Absolute jackass", without any valid evidence, other than that pointing to the redirection of Jasabella's userpage. I don't really think veiled personal attacks, citing malice in a situation where it had been quite definitively determined that none existed, should be even allowed on requests for adminship, let alone counted as a valid !vote. The attitude with which this request has been taken sickens me, and shows an overall attitude on RfA of "we will judge you, and you will submit to our examination", along with an attitude of making judgements based on very little evidence or research. I hope that a cluestick is applied to this request for adminship, and the RfA-dwellers in general. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 09:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What about the MichaelBillington diff which as far as anyone can see wasn't an IRC joke? I'm also confused as to how you can get from "this user has a tendancy to joke around" to "this user wouldn't misuse/abuse the tools", because the two go hand in hand. -- Steel 09:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw this, and read it, and concluded that it was not a serious matter. We all like to joke around a bit &mdash; it may not have been an IRC joke, but it was certainly a joke, which was misinterpreted by Michael. If it is considered vandalism, he should have been blocked or warned for it. I'm also expressing concern about Michael's racketeering for !votes against Rory on IRC. Whatever happened to our trusty Dispute Resolution Process?. People seem to think that ANI is the first step to resolving a dispute. This is mistaken. To address your second point, I trust that Rory will know where the line is &mdash; this is not to say that the issue is not of concern to me. Furthermore, I believe that if Rory were to make a joke with his sysop bit (this is strictly hypothetical, I don't believe he will), it would be something like a 1-second block of another contributor he knows. This has a marginal, if any negative affect. I do, however, encourage those with concerns to monitor Rory, in order to ensure that this does not occur. Rory will be useful in clearing backlogs, as many of these personalitiless administrators seem to ignore these days. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 09:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The word "racketeering", I'm sure unbeknownst to the people who have used the word here, has criminal overtones, at least in the United States. See racket (crime). Let's agree that this term should not be used. Newyorkbrad 20:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflicted) I was just told that you think I am 'racketeering' for !votes against Rory. This is untrue. The only thing I've said about the RfA was two lines informing Jasabella of the drama here. I'm not sure where you got the idea I am racketeering... My opposition is not "strong oppose", as I too see it as a small issue (hopefully a one-off as well), I nearly voted neutral even. For anyone interested, I have nothing against Rory at all, he is a good editor, but one that has made his share of mistakes. Werdna: Please PM me as to what lead you to think I am racketeering, I'd be interested to know. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * From what I've heard, you and a number of other contributors who like to hang out in the #wikipedia-cabal-en channel asked others in the channel to oppose Rory's RfA. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 10:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I can back Werdna's comment up with logs, if need be hoopydink Conas tá tú? 11:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Yesterday afternoon (my time) The channel did discuss the RfA, it was not a "let's all go and oppose" thing at all - we originally said it was about time he went for RfA (me included), before I remembered what he'd been up to earlier september. I dug up the diffs and it wasn't long before some of us (and this is still only 1/2 of the 10 people in the channel) decided we'd oppose instead. There is no vast conspiracy to oppose the RfA, and I certainly was not 'racketeering' as Werdna alledges. I say again that I have no strong opposition to Rory, but i do have strong opposition to being accused of racketeering or for oppose votes. If Rory were back here in 3 months he'd get my full support - but not right now. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Werdna, you've been in the channel. You weren't around when Rory's RfA was discussed, but there was no forcing anyone to vote in any particular direction. There were comments from both sides of the fence and consensus was, at one point, that most of the users there would oppose - but there was nothing suggesting anyone was being forced to vote either way. In fact, currently, consensus is erring towards supporting the RfA in that channel. Hoopydink, post the logs if you wish, there's no rule against it. My point is, the discussion in the channel was rather an attempt to have everyone vote. Channel ops (which unfortunately amounts to everyone) and people leading the meeting constantly urged for everyone to have their opinion, and the idea was to, where possible, come up with a decent rationale for voting in either direction (thus having something worth pointing out to potential voters in the discussion). It is interesting to note that currently members of the channel are all over the place in terms of their stance on the RfA, and always have been (In the meantime, I've gone from strong support to strong oppose and back to weak support). Drumming up opposition for the RfA never occurred. I'll post logs in a second if I can find them. --Draicone (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This discussion is being continued in other venues. It's not specifically relevant to the suitability of this candidate. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 12:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A log of the channel from Draicone's logs is available on request.
 * As an aside, I would question the wisdom of having an IRC channel with such a name. It's not exactly helpful for dispelling misunderstandings about the project. Yes, I know you know there is no cabal, but a random chatter in #wikipedia (where the other channel is often mentioned) doesn't. Zocky | picture popups 16:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I was on #wikipedia-cabal-en at the time that Draicone (under the nick [Draicone], and not ]Draicone[ which was in fact CableModem) made a comment of the nature "The cabal compels anyone sucked into their power vortex to oppose Rory096's RfA..." (huge approximation) – at which point I found the RfA (which was previously unknown to me) and voted support. This was an IRC casual joke, in no way "forcing" an oppose vote (although I see many present on that channel have since voted oppose) made in the same manner as Rory096's comment to Jasabella (who has since voted support, and condemning any opponents of this RfA on the grounds of that discussion/comment). If people are going to oppose Rory096 on the grounds of an IRC discussion, then presumably those present on #wikipedia-cabal-en at the time of this discussion/comment (including myself) should be the subject of an RfC (or RfArb)? haz  (talk)  e  18:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to reiterate my concern for those opposing per Rory's stated indifference to the RfA in general. I have much the same attitude: I would find the tools helpful in doing what I currently do on Wikipedia, however they are not essential to me, and, in this situation, Rory is not following this RfA obsessively. How does this matter? Are you guys so used to having people who desperately want adminship that you fear a loss of emotional control over them? Since when was this even relevant to his abilities to operate as a sysop? I really don't understand the ridiculous use of this as a reasoning for opposing. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 03:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)


 * Is there any reason people started !voting on this RfA 20 minutes before it was transcluded to the RfA page? -- Steel 00:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * RC patrolling, perhaps? Nacon kantari  01:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase that. Is there any reason why people started !voting on this RfA 20 minutes before they're supposed to start !voting? Before it had been accepted, even. -- Steel 01:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And at least one person wasn't RC patrolling at the time. -- Steel 01:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Now hang on a sec, I'm on wikibreak, will you grudge me my right to vote? I'm opposing anyway. --Draicone (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not picking on you personally. All I was doing was illustrating that not everybody who supported the RfA before it was transcluded was RC patrolling at the time. Your contribs happened to be the first ones I checked. -- Steel 15:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Rory did mention the RfA on IRC, but then apparently couldn't load the RfA page to transclude it. I don't think it's his fault that people voted early, really... some people just don't get that you need to wait until everyone can see the RfA. --W.marsh 02:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hence why that particular part of my oppose has been struck. -- Steel 02:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just out of interest, how does a 'support per nom' vote work in a self nom? --Draicone (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I urge the closing bureaucrat to take special note that the opposition, while quite valid, seems to be basing their judgement on one or a few diffs out of literally thousands upon thousands of edits. hoopydink Conas tá tú? 19:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be churlish of me to oppose simply because he opposed me. However, to see several comments below that he not only oppposed me but "campaigned" against me on IRC (as I am not on IRC I did not know of this until now) I am deeply troubled. The 5 last minute oppose comments now make more sense.  I have already had concerns with admin actions that were discussed on IRC and presented to the community as fait accompli.  The use of IRC as a back door (to achieve any particular outcome) bothers me.  I don't know that I can say anything else useful here. Thatcher131 19:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think people are mistaking the Tangential oppose section for the oppose section, thus affecting our vote counts. Any second opinions? But seriouisly, this RfA appears to have fallen apart. Its the first I've seen that people have had to create a whole new section for opinion (Certainly in this case the neutral section isn't appropriate for the extra 8 votes or so) so I say we restart the thing and inform all the voters. --Draicone (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Unneeded. Mackensen created the second oppose section to reflect opposition not based on the then-current pile-on reason of a couple of diffs.  It's unorthodox but since this is supposed to be a discussion to determine if there is consensus to promote, I don't see a problem.  There are positive and negative comments in the "Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)" section, too, and I know some people who only comment in that section as a matter of principle (because this isn't supposed to be a straight vote).  I have every confidence that no matter how many opinion sections there are or how they are labeled, the bureaucrats will be able to figure out whether or not there is consensus to promote. Thatcher131 03:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is interesting, looking through my logs, Mike was joking around about the edits the entire time it happened. I can't publish them without permission from him, though, so I've asked him at User talk:MichaelBillington. --Rory096 15:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Jasabella has given permission, just waiting on Mike. In the meantime, however, you could look at User talk:Rory096 which is a slightly joking comment ("Oh yes, this to, should I get out my trusty ? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 04:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)") --Rory096 15:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Permission granted here :-) (*runs off to read his logs to see if he's just gotten himself into anything bad*) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well, here are some excerpts. I have to keep them short because otherwise they wouldn't make sense because I can't include other people, but they reflect the general sense of the conversation, and how Mike was feeling the entire time (or at least gave the impression that he was feeling. Note that the edit to Jasabella's page took place at [00:23] and Mike's at [00:30]. Spaces of 1 line refer to the same conversation, but with things removed, and spaces of 2 refer to different conversations.


 * [00:10] any mindless backlogs for me to clear?
 * [00:13] oh well
 * [00:13] i'll just have to do something that doesn't really help anything
 * [00:13] at least it's doing something


 * [00:14] * rory096 goes off to cat rds


 * [00:15] god, catting rds is so fucking useless


 * [00:16] i'm bored


 * [00:22] User:Jasabella redirects to Bitch
 * [00:22] lies
 * [00:23] i could make it do that
 * [00:23] congrats


 * [00:23] i just did
 * [00:23] but i dont care about you!


 * [00:24] jasabella: no, i mean i made User:Jasabella redirect to Bitch


 * [00:25] i tried to self revert
 * [00:25] apparently i wasnt in time


 * [00:26]  rory: you now have a 0% chance of getting sysops, down from yo0ur 1%


 * [00:27] dammit
 * [00:27] good thing i'm logging all this
 * [00:27] i can exonerate myself
 * [00:27] except i cant publish it


 * [00:29] omgz i got warned
 * [00:29] by Mike42, not the reverter


 * [00:29] * rory096 vandalizes Mike42's userpage
 * [00:29] actually
 * [00:29] good ideda
 * [00:29] idea, rather
 * [00:29]  rory096: :P


 * [00:29] LOLOLOLOLOL
 * [00:30] he [Gogo Dodo] warned me


 * [00:32] LMFAO
 * [00:32] THE SAME GUY REVERTED MIKE'S USERPAGE


 * [00:33] i'm gonna tell him my bot is out of control and i cant stop it


 * [00:33] * WikiTeke itches to hit the red button
 * [00:33] the red button hasnt been pressed in 3 months
 * [00:33] go me
 * [00:34]  me warns rory again


 * [00:34]  freakin dial up, it took like a full minute to save


 * [00:35]  Oh dear, my bot seems to be out of control and I cant stop it. Help! --Rory096 04:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * [00:35] lmao


 * [00:36] oh well, fun's over. back to catting rds


 * It doesn't show me in a particularly good light, and isn't exactly damning evidence that Mike's not really telling the truth, but I think it's reasonably good evidence that Mike wasn't upset about the vandalism on his userpage. Nowhere (including in the unpublished parts) did he say anything about him even really caring that his userpage was vandalized or that he wasn't happy about it. Note that the "warnings" don't seem to be serious (to me), though Mike can correct me if I'm wrong. According to the most recent stats, I said 4650 lines on IRC last month, and had about 1200 contribs. Things like this are not a major part of anything I do in relation to Wikipedia. --Rory096 19:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what I was saying in my "oppose" - some people have blown the incident way out of proportion for something which should be a non-issue and were existing admins were involved. However, this incident aside, from IRC I get the feeling that Rory does not take Wikipedia seriously, and sees adminship as some sort of game.  I do not trust Rory to get admin tools and not go all "silly" with them.  I think admins need to demonstrate much more maturity.--Konst.able 19:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) I-wanted-to-be-first support. --Keitei (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, won't abuse the tools. Nacon kantari  00:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong support  Strong oppose Weak support - I suppose I shouldn't hold the redirect incident against him, and we need more people to clear off sysop backlogs. How about we give him a chance and see how much work he does on the sysop backlogs in his first month? --Draicone (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) sapport we need more admins who will work on backlogs.Geni 00:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong support, committed user that would use the tools responsibly. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 00:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong support per nom.--Coasttocoast 00:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong support per nom. Rory would use admin tools responsibly. He also has a boatload of experience. Hello32020 00:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I exaggerated with boatload xD "Decent" is a better term :) Hello32020 01:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong support would be very productive and an asset as an administrator. --W.marsh 00:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Ixfd64 00:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support yea I guess Jaranda wat's sup 01:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Disregarding his conduct on Thatcher's RfA (which I will forgive), I particularly appreciated his (eventually successful) attempts at compromise in WP:SRNC, which was on the verge of falling apart before he came in. I also appreciate him facing his past (aka block log) on this RfA, unlike many others who attempt to sweep it under the rug. --physicq210 01:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Switching to neutral. --physicq210 02:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support why not? - M i k e  ( T r i c k o r t r e a t ) 01:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, lovely self-nomination, I stand here until something more comes under oppose. (edit conflict, wow that's a big signature above).-- Andeh 01:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, good self-nom, cliched "I thought he was an admin already" support. --Core des at (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Will become a good admin. DarthVad e r 01:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Good user, good history. Dryman 01:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom. Michael 01:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support although please don't play games regarding blocking if you get the tools - its quite risky. Rama's arrow  02:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - for someone who wants the tools this much, I don't see any reason not give them to him. :-) &mdash; Khoikhoi 02:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support but no Russian roulette with the block button please. ;) Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong Support Yes, the whole "bitch" thing was rather immature and inappropriate--but at the same time, isn't it just so ridiculously irrelevant? If Rory096 has not demonstrated through his tireless and devoted work that granting him admin tools would only make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, then I don't know who has. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Strong support, this user is a great asset to the encyclopedia. His last RfA failed due to very valid reasons, but its been a long time since then, and Rory has definately matured. All those diffs presented by the users opposing need to look at them as harmless jokes which were reverted immediately. I think users just need to ask themselves the question &mdash; "How will Wikipedia benefit with this user getting the (sysop) status?" and perhaps they wouldn't be as overly decisive. Just look at the thousands of vandalism-reversions he's made and his contributions to XfDs, are these two diffs enough to undermine his enormous contributions to this encyclopedia? &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 06:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - I don't think Rory would be careless with the mop. The diffs being mentioned look like a joke to me with no lasting harm done. Everyone has some fun at some time. - Aksi_great (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support, Rory won't misuse the tools. Good editor and will make a good admin. --Ter e nce Ong (T 07:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. - Mailer Diablo 08:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, has done lots of useful work for Wikipedia. Don't understand how a silly IRC prank is connected with not trusting this good user with the tools. Kusma (討論) 09:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support Changed mind, blocks weren't particularly recent. --Alex (Talk) 11:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. Has been blocked. Doesn't appear to care that much about this RfA. --Alex (Talk) 10:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Good natured admins are in short supply. Jokes should not be construed as incivility, quite the contrary.  P eople Powered 12:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Not enough admins like him. haz  (talk)  e  13:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, I thought you already were one...-- A c1983fan(yell at me) 19:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong support. He's a good guy, often helpful, and I trust that he won't abuse anything.  That's all I need. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong support. Very good user who would be a credit to the admin corps. I don't punish people for jokes that were done (apparently) in good faith. Grand  master  ka  20:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * How is he being punished? --Alex (Talk) 20:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry... "Punished" is too strong a word I guess. Substitute "oppose". Grand  master  ka  07:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Support I think that on balance the encyclopedia would be better off having Rory able to clear administrative backlogs and such, but the points raised by "voters" below, especially Werdna do trouble me there seems to be a pattern of taking jokes a step to far which could be quite destructive in an admin. I assume Rory would not do that but would feel much better if he would tone down the attempts at humour.  Eluchil404 20:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I see no reason to oppose, and particularly not for the reasons cited by most of the "oppose" voters. --Carnildo 21:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Canderous Ordo 22:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, bitch or no bitch. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose  Neutral Conditional support, on the basis that Rory isn't stupid with the tools. We need backlog clearers. Daniel.Bryant 02:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) support the workings of this encyclopedia would benefit by giving rory the tools, which meets (is) my criteria. The bitch thing was obviously a joke gone bad,  and shouldn't be held against him--imho.  -- he  ah  05:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support as the blocking admin on the bitch incident I support Rory, as I do trust his judgement in admin related tasks, which he often seeks opinions on. I blocked Rory for 15 minutes a little bit ago in what is being phrased as the "bitch incident", but it was not a hard block and not related to the encyclopedic funtion of Wikipedia.  Good faith jokes should not be a sole criteria for adminship, or else my joke move of Swatjester's page should have, inappropriately, sunk my RfA.  I trust Rory with the tools to clear logs and not abuse the admin hat.  The qualifications for an administrator should not be that the user does not engage in practical jokes, especially ones that "victim" is involved in.  We're not a playground, but a silly joke should not be exemplary of performance.   Teke  (talk ) 05:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral Switched to Weak Support &mdash; See comments section. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 03:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support As the supposed "victim" of the "bitch incident", I implore any people who have voted against this RfA solely because of the said incident to please reconsider their decision. The said incident was indeed an IRC joke misinterpreted by some and I wish to sincerely apologise to Rory096 for all the grief I have caused him. I trust that Rory096 understands the nature of and responsibilities for the tasks he will be undertaking and I am confident that he will have much to offer the community as an admin. Besides, an admin with a sense of humour is much nicer to have than an power hungry authoritarian one! :) -- Jasabella 10:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * For me, the issue isn't the supposed personal attack (if I thought there was one, I would be opposing), but rather the readiness to pull practical jokes and risk causing wastage of time. If anybody voted against Rory because they thought that the bitch redirect was a personal attack, I too urge them to reconsider. Zocky | picture popups 12:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong support. Rory is a skilled and incredibly productive editor, experienced in nearly every aspect of project space, overdue for the mop. He might make give us a practical joke here and there, but never in article space. He's got 23,752 edits and counting, that's more than all but one of his oppose voters. He's not going to abuse his admin tools. I'm quite willing bet my own sysop bit on that. — freak([ talk]) 17:13, Oct. 3, 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you implying that there is some sort of minimum edit count to be eligible to make an oppose vote? Though I don't disagree with anything you said, that comment could easily be taken to mean that. Steveo2 19:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to disenfranchise anyone, though there is one voter I have a hunch might be a sockpuppet. However, I am actively implying that a sense of humor is something which, for some people, develops with increased editing experience. Others just don't get it, and that should really remain their own problem. — freak([ talk]) 19:55, Oct. 3, 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support great editor, despite everything said here. Computerjoe 's talk 18:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support good editor who could certainly use the tools to become more productive. No biggie  hoopydink Conas tá tú? 19:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support: Wikipedia can always take a little more risk. In any case, we have been subject to a number of risks; his actions have been blown out-of-proportion, and we have done this in many RfAs. --Bhadani 12:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) A total workhorse. Rory, do sign on to Category:Administrators open to recall so we can take the bit back if you doesn't learn the boundries. But adminship is no big deal, and this user is already making a valuable contribution. Seeing the support of editors I respect and who are total hard-asses gives me total comfort that only good will come of promotion.  I therefor endorse this product and/or service. -  brenneman  style="color:black;" title="Admin actions">{L} 12:34, 4 October 2006
 * For the record, I'd definitely sign up for that, I've thought it was a great idea since it started. --Rory096 13:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Good user, can be trusted.  We all make mistakes, do we not? --CableModem 12:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yesh. We all do, MableCodem. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 13:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The juxtaposition leads me to say: Plagerism is the sincerest form of flattery, Mimsy! - brenneman  style="color:black;" title="Admin actions">{L} 23:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. I trust Werdna's endorsement, and am thoroughly unconvinced that some minor silliness is going to keep Rory from doing good work. After all, I put dicks on peoples' userpages but people seem to put up with me being an admin. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support' - I was at first apprehensive about his controversial edits. However his answer to hoopydrink seems to explain the incident. I trust the judgement of the many experienced editors/admins who have endorsed him already. Moreover, the large amounts of vandalism reverts show dedication; and that he can make good use of the extra tools.-- thund e rboltz(Deepu) 19:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral Changed to Support - I've known rory for awhile now, and I can definitely say that he's gotten a lot more mature from the time of his last RfA. That being said, I think rory still needs to learn when to tone it down. Jokes are fine, but realize that there is a line, and that they can easily be misinterpreted without the context. Otherwise, rory is a fine candidate, and wouldn't abuse the tools.-- §hanel  07:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't the best idea, but people are making too big a deal about one IRC joke.-- §hanel  11:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 13:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. WTF happened to Assume good faith and "adminship is not a big deal"?? This looks like an American presidential/gubernal smear campaign. Rory is a good contributor who could need the admin tools. So give them to him. Jon Harald Søby 14:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak oppose.  I'm not concerned with the bitch thing, but am unsure about the other user's page, and I generally feel that Rory is presently lacking in good judgment, although his dedication to the project is quite commendable and I like him as a person.  A couple more diffs to add to the above, albeit rather dated:  Held against an adminship candidate the fact that "only" about 8-10% of his edits were to Wikipedia: space (discounting Hangman);  opposed an adminship candidate for an action taken outside of Wikipedia, that was clearly an honest mistake, and which was entirely unimportant anyway. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh, screw it. Our need for more admins and the amount of time Rory will put in more than outweighs his occasional immaturity and poor judgment.  The routine and boring stuff isn't going to call for super judgment calls. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Support. Upon reconsideration. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 22:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support editor manifests the qualities needed for an admin, although the joke might have been childish, i doubt he will act this way henceforth. Wikipediarul e s2221 23:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support&mdash; An occasional lapse in judgment is hardly fatal&mdash;I certianly make enough to be tolerant to the worst example cited here. I'll support a WikiGnome. Williamborg (Bill) 06:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support People need to lighten up. Obviously qualified to be an admin.  Eusebeus 15:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak support. Weak because of the issues raised around, but still, why not? Misza 13 19:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per DanielBryant and inasmuch as I am rather confident that Rory will neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools, such that I conclude that the net effect on the project of his being an admin will be positive; as I set forth in my RfA guidelines, I think the net effect standard, at least in such cases as one reasonably can reach a conclusion as to the prospective effect, is the appropriate one at RfA. As Xoloz, I am concerned about the disruptive tendency of some of Rory's edits (which, to be sure, do not follow from any disruptive intent)&mdash;even if I find a comment to be altogether innocuous and might wonder about those who disfavor such a comment, disruption is disruption&mdash;but I think it fair to assume that such disruption will not persist (for one, jokes must, I suppose, be confined to those whom one knows will not take offense and ought to be situated so as to be relatively isolated).Joe 04:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. I'm sure he'll do well as an administrator. enochlau (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Pepsidrinka supports. 15:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - He'll be fine. It's just a mop. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 18:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, good user, does unappreciated small stuff, but an awful lot of it. — CharlotteWebb 21:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Not because I think it will make a difference to the outcome, and not because Rory096 particularly deserves adminship, but on principle, because I think Wikipedia as a whole would benefit from it – Gurch 22:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) After seeing him campaign hard so recently against Thatcher's RfA, here and on IRC, including misreading of comments, I must oppose at this time. Jonathunder 00:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have some diffs to support this? Nacon kantari  00:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I strongly oppose Rory096's adminship per this diff: . While I understand that this was meant as an IRC joke, the fact that Rory096 finds calling someone a "bitch" funny makes me question his maturity. Ral315 (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Jasabella said, on IRC, something like "User:Jasabella should redirect to bitch." --SPUI (T - C) 03:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to SPUI's comment, and in general, I want to make it clear that I'm not opposing because of personal attack worries; I fully understand that Jasabella encouraged it. It's not completely over lack of civility in users either- again, I understand this was requested, and civility is often overrated.  My problem with the incident is that I think it notes a general lack of judgment on his part, and one that I'm not sure I've even seen him seriously admit to, or even comment on, one way or the other.  Simetrical's diffs on RFA are also quite annoying, and the aforementioned Thatcher131 RFA is just another symptom of this.  Ral315 (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per both Ral315 and Jonathunder. I felt that Rory's campaign against Thatcher131's RfA went too far, and I question if it became too personal, and if he will exercise good judgment in difficult situations.  Sandy 01:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I got double-counted when new category was added below: removing from count here. Sandy 22:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Per lack of real article contributions. It's not much to ask that someone being promoted to a higher rights level on an encyclopedia has actually contributed to it, and can explain and adhere to the various article writing policies. Per the maturity concerns above. Per advertising this RfA on IRC and allowing people to !vote before it was transcluded to the RfA page. -- Steel 01:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC
 * While I do also oppose Rory096's adminship, and all other concerns are probably valid, it should be noted that I was on IRC when this was being mentioned, and when he was made aware that people were !voting on his nomination, he transcluded the page almost immediately. Ral315 (talk) 01:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That bit's been struck. -- Steel 02:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to expand my oppose to include the Michael Billington diff, and his attitude on IRC as pointed out by MatthewFenton. -- Steel 09:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, I didn't advertise this on IRC. I haven't even BEEN on IRC since I first transcluded it. --Rory096 15:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - per Ral315. Zaxem 01:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose - sorry Rory I almost never oppose RfAs, but as this is at 77% support I feel I must. The REDIRECT Bitch thing was only 4 <--sorry, only 3 weeks ago. This is completely unnacceptable for an admin. Gl e n 02:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge that was invited by User:Jasabella on IRC, although I agree its poor judgement. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 03:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - This diff - res ipsa loquitur - Richardcavell 02:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 07:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ral315. I don't know the background for that edit, but I struggle to think of any acceptable justification. --After Midnight 0001 02:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC) switching to neutral --After Midnight 0001 13:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Ral315. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - That's not all he's been up to, he did this on my user page. Per Glen S "This is completely unnacceptable for an admin." Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. per the diffs listed by Michael Billington and Ral315, and for his actions on Thatcher131's RfA. Although obviously not a userpage vandal, the two diffs listed really make me question this candidate's understanding of how admins are expected to behave. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 03:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose On his last RFA, I really wanted to be able to support him in good conscience, but couldn't due to reasons explained there. I really hoped he's get his act together and listen to the criticisms, then there was the "joke vandalism" incident and his response/defence to it which only underlined how bad things are with this editor (see here for relevant ANI archive).  Not only can I cannot trust this editor with the tools, but his behaviour seems to be worsening with each successive RFA.  Absolutely no way. Pete.Hurd!
 * 2) Oppose per diffs provided by Michael and Ral315. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Oppose I'll AGF on the story of why the redirect was made, but Michael obviously didn't give permission for the edit to his talk page. Such an act is, if nothing else, very wasteful of people's time. Xoloz 08:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Completely not true, they were tied into each other and he had no objections just after it happened. I'll show the logs as soon as he agrees to allow it. --Rory096 18:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Pete.Hurd, Xoloz ~ trialsanderrors 09:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per many above, and per the fact that Rory himself "[doesn't] particularly care" if the RfA is successful. In addition, he's been blocked like a dozen times, but all but a couple seem like jokes. I have a huge problem with admins "joke-blocking" people. -- Kicking222 11:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it particularly matters if Rory cares or not. You need to ask yourself, whether Wikipedia would benefit with him having the tools? Is he likely to abuse his tools? &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 12:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not caring about the tools is a reason to assume they would misuse them. -- Steel 13:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Ral315, and matthew fenton, misbehaivor ST47 Talk 12:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Maybe later, but not now.  I rarely vote at all these days, and almost never negatively.  However, I believe in the original principle that "adminship should be no big deal."  Granting it to someone who is somewhat controversial could make it a very big deal, I fear.  As Admins are easier to get than to get rid of, I will vote no this time.  If Rory proves himself (as I trust he will), there will be plenty of second chances later on.  For now, let's not take a risk. David Cannon 14:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. The "bitch" redirect is quite enough to oppose, and coming to RFA so soon after that is bad judgememt. Also, a personal gripe, but this RFA is "IRC this, IRC that". I want to see admins with sterling work on wiki, and I get suspicious when IRC is mentioned more than once in an RFA. --kingboyk 15:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. The diff that Michael provided is dated for September 8th - not even a month ago. This user, through jokingly vandalizing userpages (at least twice in the past month!), has proven his complete lack of maturity.  Wikipedia isn't a place to goof off with your friends, especially if you're an admin.  Admins cannot vandalize.  What would happen if, as a joke, this user blocked someone from IRC?  Or several people?  Or the wrong people - those who didn't even know that it was coming?  Bottom line: Admins are the "official face" of Wikipedia.  They have to be mature.  This user simply isn't.  6 months of good behavior, and my mind could change. <b style="color:green">Srose</b>  (talk)  16:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Regretful oppose changed my mind again due to the concerns about these joke blocks. Not suitable at all. Otherwise a good editor. Very sorry. --Alex (Talk) 17:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Superlatively strong OPPOSE. This guy vandalises userpages for amusement and we're thinking about making him an admin? It's hard to believe. If the redirect was just an IRC joke, then that's O.K, but the Rory-on-wheels business demonstrates such spectacular immaturity that I hate to think about what would happen if this user got the tools. No way. Moreschi 17:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. The redirect thing was a joke so it's fine but the page blanking is terrible? --Rory096 18:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose talented editor, but recent "joke" was not what I expect of an admin.-- danntm T C 17:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose. A good editor, but one big mistake like redirecting to "bitch" makes me worried about you. Keep up the good work in other aspects of Wikipedia, but seriously take a good look at Wikipedia protocol before applying for adminship again. -- Nish kid 64 18:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose The recent redirecting of a page to "bitch" is a major concern here. This is not a behaviour which should be ignored. However, do not lose heart over this mistake of yours and carry on making good edits to regain the faith of your fellow Wikipedians. All is not lost and try again after a few months. I also acknowledge that everyone makes mistakes but your recent "joke" was only about three weeks ago. -- S iva1979 <sup style="background:yellow;">Talk to me  19:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, I'm sorry but "BITCH" is not acceptable for a normal user let alone an admin, even if it was a joke. Also does appear to have other instances of very inappropriate "jokes" in addition to the bitch incident as well as being indifferent to the position. My oppose stands. JohnnyBGood    t   c  VIVA! 23:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong oppose per all above. Also I don't see anything in article contributions to the encyclopedia. T REX <b style="background:darkgreen;font-family:Tahoma;colo:yellow;">speak</b> 00:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose: Well, the "bitch" incident is just a bit too much. I can't support in light of such a breach in judgment so recently. Come back when it's a ways in that past; would be more likely to support then. Heimstern Läufer 04:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Regrettable, since Rory has done good work, but two serious and fairly recent breaches of good faith editing is too much. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong oppose. Christ. This guy's a *expletive* (his behavior is unacceptable). I got the vibe that he was a*expletive* (his behavior was unacceptable) from his opening comments at this RfA and was further convinced when I saw a diff mentioned above where he redirected someone's userpage to "Bitch". Hell no.&mdash; OLP 1999 06:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, let's try not to get off the path of this RFA, which is to judge whether Rory is worthy of the adminship mop. This isn't "let's judge his character" time, or "I think he's an 'expletive'" time. He is up for community discussion and consensus, so please let his actions speak for themselves and don't fan the fire any more. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 01:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: Joking around on IRC is all very well, but the 'bitch' redirect unnerves me somewhat. My oppose, though, is not on the action itself, but more on the level of judgement displayed by coming to RFA within just a few weeks of that, which Rory knew had been on the ANI.  It indicates that he doesn't necessarily take things as seriously as they need.  Also, I'm confused by a self-nom with an opening sentence that "I don't particularly care if I succeed" - particularly in the light of Matthew Fenton's quote below.  There's just too much that's off with this one.  Come back in a few months.  --Mnem e son 09:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Not only for what Pete.Hurd, Jonathunder, and Ral315 said, but when I saw "I have too many edits and too much backlog clearing experience" I realized I'm never going to find a less humble person. Moreover, he has not answered the optional questions, and I think he didn't care about the other users' oppinion. How can I support someone who doesn't care abouth the others and insults them? —Argentino (talk/cont.) 19:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose A hard and diligent worker, but I am not convinced that giving him the tools will improve the project.--Runcorn 21:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Oppose Changed from support. No user should vandalize and make personal attacks, let alone admins. -  M i k e  ( T r i c k o r t r e a t ) 01:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong oppose because of this, which occurred less than one month prior to this nomination. John254 02:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. I had intended to support when I saw this listed at the top of the page, but after reading some of the things listed here, I can't do so in good conscience. I don't like the casual vandalism, and I REALLY don't like the focus on IRC. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't like him going on IRC? Uh, that's a bit weird... &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 23:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Although I've voiced my support above, I do feel empathy with this objection. The instant chat focus was far more of a concern for me than the jocular edits.  While it can be a great tool for co-ordinating effort, it's also a unique amplifier of intemperate thought.  A quick "I might do foo" is often met with a hail of "Be bold!" war cries.  I'd hope that, if promoted, Rory would be judicious in applying IRC input to adminstrative functions.  brenneman  style="color:black;" title="Admin actions">{L} 03:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose - although he seems to be a rather good editor, many diffs floating around both below and above my comment show what I take to be a severe lack of judgement. --Storkk 19:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per maturity concerns surrounding the userpage vandalism. Also, Rory's absence during this RfA does not look good. --  tariq abjotu  10:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. It's unfortunate when one moment of incredibly poor judgement can lead to so much damage to one's reputation, but it's important that we do our best to minimise such things when they come from admins. Three months from now, I propose that the community put this behind them -- for now, I must oppose.--Improv 20:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose It worries me that Rory could not see the full context of Thatchers banning comment. It worries me even more that he would think lobbying for people to vote against an RfA in IRC is even close to acceptable. Since I have never been in IRC I don't know how true this is, but from comments here it seems unacceptable. Certainly these two incidents make me wonder if Rory is really astute enough to not rock the boat by misusing the admin tools. David D. (Talk) 07:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Opposes like this are the ones that get to me, much more so than the ones about the "bitch" incident which I feel are clearly misguided (a lot of stuff seems to be taken out of context on RfAs recently). I was involved in the highways debate, and eventually mediated it successfully. Even though I may not have expressed the context as well as was possible in my oppose vote on Thatcher's RfA, I certainly did consider it when deciding whether to oppose, and it's because of the context that I only did so regretfully and did not strongly oppose. I was there, I saw how heated it got at times, but I still felt that even in that context, threatening to ban SPUI just for disagreeing with the result and not for actually doing anything like he was before the RfAr wasn't a very good thing to do; we shouldn't ban users who are extremely constructive (at times) and have been reforming from their disruptive ways. However, this isn't an RfB and all opinions are (should be) weighed the same on RfAs, so I would say, as I've said before, that votes of candidates on other RfAs shouldn't be relevant to their own RfA because it doesn't affect anything they would do with adminship (unless they did something that indicated that they would abuse power, of course). As for the AppleBoy thing, that's not really what happened, it was more like an off-hand remark that was taken the wrong way by Appleboy. --Rory096 13:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Alas, SPUI has departed voluntarily, and Thatcher is still an admin, and I feel like I've been shot in both sides of the head. So the point is probably moot now. — freak([ talk]) 20:59, Oct. 7, 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose: don't like the Bitch comment, though don't know enough about it to know if it was really bad - a bit risky though. Also, I'm starting to dislike IRC for a place to discuss important decisions, as the record of the discussion is not universally accessible. Also opposed Thatcher131 witch hunt. Stephen B Streater 21:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Improv, Tariqabjotu, Mike1, Ral315, and John254. 1ne 22:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Tangential oppose
 * 1) This section I've crafted for people who aren't piling on because of IRC over this supposed "bitch" remark. I can name dozens of sysops who've said worse. Civility is important, but sensible conduct is even better, and the two are at best interconnected without being directly related. I've seen plenty of civil folks exercise ridiculously poor judgement, which just makes it all the harder to explain why they made a mistake. Civility doesn't equal good judgement. Now, moving on, my opposition is rooted directly in Rory's responsibility for the fiasco which ensued over Thatcher's recent (successful) RfA. He focused a trenchant opposition on one comment, a comment with which the people actually involved in the dispute didn't have a serious problem. Dozens then lined up behind that one comment. If you're going to be the first person to oppose an RfA, and if you're going to do so in strong terms, then there's a responsibility incumbent to weigh the context and give an informed reason. RfA functions as a pile-on because there are, as yet, three places to register preference. Consider this a fourth. Mackensen (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Ditto for the reasoning for my opposition; the bitch comment only further confirmed my concern. Sandy 17:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, I just don't think Rory096 is ready for the mop and bucket yet. As Mackensen said above, I can think of more than a few sysops who are short on civility and several who are usually civil who have shown poor judgment occasionally.  I still don't see the overall maturity level here that I'd expect from an admin.  From Rory's own statement in the nom request he doesn't even seem to care particularly if this RfA succeeds; which is an odd statement to make on a self-nom.--Isotope23 20:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak oppose. Weak per the comments from Jasabella above, but still an oppose. This user knows his stuff, I think, but I hate calculated indifference. If you don't particularly care, don't nominate yourself. Marskell 21:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Adminship isn't a big deal for me, but it would be useful. --Rory096 15:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, but colloquial language has what effect it has. "I don't particularly care" creates a poor first impression when looking at a self-nom. Marskell 20:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, not because of the IRC joke in particular but because of an overall lack of even temperment, good judgement, and civility in the face of adverse opinions. Rory could benefit from a bit more of a life and a bit less IRC, in my opinion. -- nae'blis 02:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's probably true. --Rory096 15:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose The directions at WP:SRNC were to not leave comments when voting. Rory096 disobeyed this directions and kept putting the comments back in when reverted by a judging admin. This attitude is not acceptable for an admin. (diffs, , , , , , ) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  01:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose we can surely do better. No answer to my question (2 days ago). --Mcginnly | Natter 22:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you'd care to do more than half a second's thought and research, you'd know that adding this RfA is his most recent edit, and he's noted at the top that he's at boarding school. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 23:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he already noted that, and figured that if a user can't be online during his own RFA, knowing that he'd be at boarding school and have trouble logging on, that maybe he should have at least noted this. Don't assume that others are idiots.  Ral315 (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ral, he says "Note that I'm currently at boarding school (though I hope to be getting out soon), so I haven't been very active in the past two weeks or so" - Ok, thought I, so now your active again and will be able to respond to your own RfA. This candidate isn't even bothered whether he gets adminship or not - so 1. he's not bothered, 2. apparently doesn't have the time to devote to adminship. yep it's 'oppose' for me.--Mcginnly | Natter 11:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry about this, I didn't foresee becoming sick. --Rory096 15:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose BOOM headshot! ;P (this oppose is in response to a request for opposition by the requestee) --AppleBoy
 * 2) Oppose Per seeing him on IRC, Rory is a nice guy but he is rather immature and doesn't seem to take Wikipedia seriously at all. The IRC-related-vandalism incident pointed out above, however, has gotten bloated way out of proportion (note that there was an existing admin involved in this joke, User:Teke, and the block was a "joke" block no matter what has been claimed, I was there).--Konst.able 04:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Not willing to trust Rory with the tools, IRC stupidity or not. The IRC "joke" only serves to reinforce the thought that he might not use the tools right. – Chacor 05:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Rory and others involved in this situation here need to understand that adminship is serious business, and is not a joke. Now, I'll admit that people often do stupid stuff on Wikipedia, including me, but that still gives you no incentive to goof off here. Admins who do the above are often severely scrutinized for their actions, and they should be. Maybe it's best you think about your actions in the future before heading upstairs. You have come a long way, though. // Pilotguy  ( Have your say ) 13:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) 'Oppose I don't trust admins who use IRC. Admins need to use wikipedia and not hide their discussions by chatting in the irc channel. I will support you if you start logging the irc channel or give me a link to the logs. - Lapinmies 17:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, admins communicate via IRC because they don't trust you. Same with the other users. If you continue to encourage policy violations, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — freak([ talk]) 20:41, Oct. 7, 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you care to tell me what policy this user violated, without the idle threats? <small style="font-family:Tahoma;">thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the one about public logs being against policy? WP:IRC: It should be noted by all users that all official Wikimedia channels now prohibit the publishing of chat logs publicly I suppose encouraging people to go against this could be construed as disruption... Shrug. --Keitei (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I do log IRC, by the way, though I can't publish my logs or give them to you, sorry. --Rory096 17:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "I don't trust admins who use IRC." Bad reason to oppose. 1ne 22:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Hmm. I came here to support, but I'm not so sure now. I have no opinion on the Thatcher131 RFA - if there's a time to say why you think somebody is not admin material, RFA is that time. However, I find the Jasabella->Bitch redirect and the edit to MichaelBillington's page a little too eyebrow-raising. Zocky | picture popups 03:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - I know your a good user but I dont like this attitude on IRC (along these lines "..F*****G HELL! I need to be an admin NOW!") - Also redirecting Jasabellas user page to Bitch and then claiming "She made you do it.." - I dont like that either, come back in December and you will get my support. <small style="font-family:Tahoma;">thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * To clarify, she didn't make me do it, I did it of my own volition as a joke. As for the first part, I use IRC to vent my frustration on Wikipedia, which occasionally is based on my having to annoy admins on IRC until they listen to my request (often to clear a backlog, which they often don't have time to do, which is why it would be good if I had adminship). --Rory096 15:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral – thought I might support, but the diffs provided above are a little too immature for my liking. &mdash; riana_dzasta wreak havoc''' 13:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Netural, great user, though it's a bit too soon for a RfA after that "Bitch redirect" incident.-- TBC Φ  talk?  15:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral I'm just not happy about pulling userpage stunts such at the aforementioned 'Bitch' redirect. I would lean towards support once suitable maturity has been demonstrated. (aeropagitica) 17:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral, leaning to oppose - user doesn't care if the nomination succeeds. Punkmorten 18:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral per Werdna. Needs more maturity, but I think he's heading in the right direction. Try again in a few months. --Aaron 19:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral per the above comments. RFerreira 22:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Neutral I particularly appreciated his (eventually successful) attempts at compromise in WP:SRNC, which was on the verge of falling apart before he came in. I also appreciate him facing his past (aka block log) on this RfA, unlike many others who attempt to sweep it under the rug. However, I share the same concerns with Rschen7754 above, in which under said pretense I switch from support to neutral. --physicq210 02:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral I don't think Rory would abuse the tools, but the fact that he doesn't much care if this RfA suceeds, seems to contradict his self-nom. To say you want to clear backlogs, and essentially show a desire to help with janitorial chores, yet not really care if the RfA suceeds, is substandard in my opinon. Other than that fact, I think Rory would make a fine admin. K O  S |  talk  05:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutral This should be my last decision. A very good editor, but cannot support due to concerns from opposers. --Alex (Talk) 12:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Neutral The practical jokes seem pretty harmless. Still the user will likely benefit from a few more months as an editor. Since this RFA is not a big deal to him, waiting a few more months is the best choice. --FloNight 13:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Neutral Per the comment from Jasabella I'm moving to neutral. I still question some things here, but I guess that since I don't use IRC yet, I'll never have the background to form a proper opinion on this one. --After Midnight 0001 13:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Neutral. This is a tough one. The bitch thing doesn't really bother me, but the overall cavalier attitude makes it difficult to support. Despite that, I find this user's commitment to the project to be immense, and certainly they would be an asset as an admin. Closing bureaucrat can consider me as leaning towards support. Themindset 17:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Neutral I feel like the United States choosing not to sign the Treaty of Versailles... (I'm not big on history, is that an accurate parallel?) Anyway, I really don't want to be pulled in to this controversy, and I'm not even sure that I understand it. Though Rory096 seems to be a very hard-working user, I've read things that make it sound as though this user doesn't care so much about sysop duties. If anyone feels as though my remaining neutral is unjustified, and would like to tell me that I've misunderstood anything in this RfA and should vote to support or oppose, please do. Steveo2 19:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Merovingian - Talk 01:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) I'm no stranger to silliness myself, but it is absolutely essential that an admin know when to be serious and when to have a little fun, and Rory does not seem to know when silliness is appropriate. I didn't oppose because Rory has done some great things, and if he just works out these problems I will definitely support in the future. --Mr. Lefty  (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Neutral Although I think that Rory096 has Wikipedia's best interests in mind, his reactionary statements on irc make me question his volatility. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 17:07, 5 October 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.