Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Simetrical 2


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

Simetrical
Final (78/38/6) ended 04:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

– Today I found out about a considerable issue with Wikipedia. This issue was preventing Wikipedia from functioning at its full potential. The issue? Simetrical is not an administrator. This guy has been around since late 2004, working consistently since then, particularly in the last six months. For the editcounters, he has over 5000 edits, a surely satisfactory count. He's got 1000 edits in project namespace, and has consistent participation in project pages such as Articles for Deletion and the Village Pump. He knows what he's doing, he's sane, and he's going to be of considerable use to the project. Werdna (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: See also my previous nomination, of about six months ago. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nominator. Werdna (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) robchurch | talk 00:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Jaranda wat's sup 00:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Rama&#39;s Arrow 00:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Good question answers.  Mango juice talk 00:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support.-- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 01:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support  hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 00:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. DarthVad e r 00:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I see nothing wrong, good user, will be an excellent admin. Yanksox (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC) I'm going to abstain now, given other concerns. Yank  sox  18:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong support - I've interacted with this user: very polite; would be great with the admin tools. — Mets 501 (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Roy A.A. 02:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support As the nominator said, Simetrical has a significant number of great contributions to project-space. joturn e r 03:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Draeco 03:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Firm Support. Was pleasant to speak with you on IRC regarding the fair use issue, thank you. ~Kylu ( u | t )  04:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How-come-I-don't-know-you-yet-? Support - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Experienced editor with needs of admin tools. --WinHunter (talk) 05:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to neutral
 * 1) Support Why is this guy not an admin yet? Agent 86 06:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support so that Wikipedia can function at its full potential. Yamaguchi先生 06:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Our paths have crossed in the past, and I confident he will be an asset. -- Avi 07:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per WP:1Portal, just kidding. But seriously, no need for more edit stats, I already am confident in this user without stats. Voice -of- All  08:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Ter e nce Ong (Chat 09:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support  --mboverload @ 09:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Absolutely :-). Anonymous_  _Anonymous  09:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Yes, why not? Stifle (talk) 10:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Satisfies my requirements to be an admin. &mdash; Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Good, trustworthy editor will make a great admin --Peripitus (Talk) 12:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support great editor, moved to support per the response below.-- Andeh 12:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support with a Hrm as above. --&#160;Omniplex 13:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Definite support. RandyWang (raves/rants) 13:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) support duh. --W.marsh 14:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) support anything less would be criminal --Vengeful Cynic 14:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support  Jo  e  I  14:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support  older ≠ wiser 14:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Sorry, but changing to neutral.
 * 1) Support We need more users like him! -- S iva1979 Talk to me  18:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Just what I am looking for in an administrator. I know he will do well. -- Will Mak  050389  19:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom, good answers to questions, and insightful essay on adminship on his user page. --Elkman 19:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support with pleasure. Everything below (and lots more on your user page) convinces me you'd make a fine admin. Also, I don't think you need to necessarily recuse yourself from AFD just because of your opinions. It would be one thing if you used your admin powers to close AFDs against consensus, but you seem too fair to do such a thing, and assuming you become an admin, the community will have placed its trust in you to be fair in such situations. If you feel you couldn't be unbiased in that case, though, and do avoid them because of that, then that just further convinces me of your honesty. Great candidate, whatever you may use the tools for. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would hope I'd be able to judge AFDs fairly, yes. However, with such an ample supply of less radical volunteers, it's best for admins with more extreme views to step aside, for form's sake at least. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 20:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) digital_m e (TalkˑContribs) 20:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Dragons flight 21:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC) changed to Neutral.
 * 1) Support Good all-round volunteer; willingness to recuse on AfDs is a good sign of editorial maturity (even if it's unnecessary :) Z iggurat 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) M e rovingian { T C @ } 22:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, and I don't need to say anything else - sometimes silence is more musical than words. Changed to oppose - see below  Phædriel   ♥   tell me  - 22:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support this user will be a fine admin --rogerd 00:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Thunderbrand 03:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Easy support. Plus extra points for great nomination, apply the Simetrical patch. Rx StrangeLove 03:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Strongest possible support. I was almost sure Simetrical was admin already. ~Chris (talk/ e@ ) 03:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, great user, unlikely to abuse admin powers--TBC TaLk?!? 05:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-29 08:01Z 
 * 7) Yes Werdna, Simetrical does look to be the right type. :) --Nearly Headless Nick 09:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support as nominator. Polonium 18:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support &mdash; Vildricianus 21:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support -Lady Aleena @ 23:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) That's hot. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 05:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Experience in all wikipedian fields and will not abuse the tools. - Patman2648 08:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Lupo 09:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Strong Support - I honestly thought he was already! Remove RfA cliche Tremendously knowledgeable and extremely friendly - especially when it comes to an IRC n00b. And, I honestly did! :) - Gl e n 11:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support His June 4, 2006 edit summary was detrimental to both Wikipedia and planet Earth at large. Apart from that, everything looks good. -- Jay  (Reply)  16:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support: --Bhadani 17:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support; --HolyRomanEmperor 20:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support change to neutral &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Good contributor, always assuming good faith. *~Daniel~* 01:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support — The King of Kings  02:43 July 01 '06
 * 3) Support good answers below, combined with a Hrm as above. --Zoz (t) 11:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Randy Johnston (‽) 17:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Seems ok to me. TruthCrusader 20:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - Yes. Iola k ana |T  23:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Yeah. The opposes are weak and bias'ed at best, in my humble opinion.... Looks good, Good luck! -- негідний лють  ( Reply 08:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support -- TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!  16:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. JYolkowski // talk 17:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support – fully deserves to be an administrator – Gurch 18:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. A bold and deserving editor who is not afraid to speak out for what he feels is right. Linuxbeak (AAAA!) 19:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. A lovely man. Supportive and bold, and not worried about treaduing on people's toes to better the project. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HawkerTyphoon (talk • contribs) 00:45, 3 July 2006  (UTC)
 * 6) Support, canidate looks good. Sorry Guy 01:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support My experience with Simetrical indicates to me he'd be an excellent admin. Gwernol 03:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I've had only limited, but positive, experience working with Simetrical. But he looks good "on paper".  Moreover, none of the evidence presented by "oppose" voters strikes me as any actual reason to oppose (nor anything that would even make me lean in that direction... at worst one unclear edit comment, c'mon!).  LotLE × talk  15:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Weak support. I've seen Simetrical around a lot, and have found the user genail; the incident noted below gives me pause, however, especially considering that, as an administrator, you'll catch a lot more flak than you do now and you'll be held to a higher standard of civility. If you're certain you can maintain the detachment you'll need, I endorse your janitorship. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Cabal! Computerjoe 's talk 19:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. I think Simetrical will use the admin toolbox with wisdom and restraint. Haukur 21:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong support I feel that Simetrical's responses to oppose votes were perfectly calm and civil. Furthermore, Simetrical has indicated that if anyone can point to an example of him/her acting uncivilly, he/she will try to change. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. He searches for answers. Although we might end up on different sides of the fence, he was the only one to respond to my inquiry about Iraqi-Template. --Tarawneh 01:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) —BorgHunter (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) This-issue-is-very-serious-and must-be-fixed-immediately support   --james  // bornhj (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support per support by all of the right people and oppose by all of the right people. -Mexcellent 07:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) I came by this RfA by accident via some bullying comments Werdna had left on User:Duncharris talkpage, and saw the controversy surrounding this nomination. I do not support admin nominations for people who attract controversy. Becoming an admin is not a reward, nor a natural progression, nor a status. Admins in a number of senses have a restricted freedom on Wiki. It is the admin's role to be balanced. To offer impartial aid and assistance when requested. To be neutral. Any editor who holds strong views is, for me, a little suspect as the sort of person to take on a neutral role. And for an editor to be nominated by an admin who is using his admin power to [a person who tries to bully] and threaten another editor because he didn't like the way he opposed his nomination gives me grave cause for concern. So. A controversial man who holds strong views and attracts controversy, nominated by an abusive admin [person]. It doesn't look good. But I read carefully Simetrical's comments, and his responses to the oppose comments. His explanations are calm and valid. I like the guy. He is intelligent, considered, balanced, humane, and aware of his failings. I like that he is someone who already helps others. Yes. Support  SilkTork 23:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to challenge your reference to my comments on User:Duncharris' talk page as "bullying" and "abusive" Werdna (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC) . I'm not forcing him to do anything - all I originally did was stated that I would appreciate explanation of his opposition. Unfortunately, seeing as he responded to this by calling me "too stupid to realise" something, and referring to my comments as "trolling", I responded with a stern warning to remain civil. Werdna (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) SVPPORT - Simetrical isn't an admin? — THIS IS M ESSED [[Image:R with umlaut.png]] OCKER  (TALK) 02:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) .--SB | T 08:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I stand by that edit. The edit summary was a bit too flippant, okay, but the content of it I wouldn't have changed.  It already passed a CFR with the resolution to keep it where it was, and just moving it anyway was inappropriate. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Per Sean Black - "I've already gotten User:NekoDaemon to ignore this because the top edit isn't an admin, so I may as well actually remove the out-of-process template." Admins do NOT have superiority, and you're not fit to be one. [ælfəks] 10:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you actually saying in this edit summary, Simetrical? I don't get it... - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Some background is needed there, yeah. What happened was this.  The category was put up on CFD to be moved to Category:Disaster films.  It was closed by User:Vegaswikian as no consensus.  A few days later, with no explanation given, Sean Black added categoryredirect, implementing the move anyway. Now, the way categoryredirect works is that if the top edit on the category page is an admin, User:NekoDaemon (a bot) eventually gets around to moving all the child pages to the destination category.  It's a hacky way to implement category moves/redirects, in other words.  So, feeling Sean's actions were out of line, I removed the template, stopping NekoDaemon from moving the edits over.  The edit summary was a bit odd, a consequence of whatever was going on in my head at the time, but I stand by my actions.  Incidentally, the same person tried submitting the same category move to CFR a bit over a week after her previous one failed.  [for deletion/Log/2006 June 8#Category:Disaster movies to Category:Disaster films|The new one] was also closed as no consensus, by a different admin. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Correct, Alphax. Admins do not have superiority.  That's why I reverted Sean's edit. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * These oppose votes on predicated on a misunderstanding of how category redirection worked. -- Cyde↔Weys  20:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think Sean Black's was. I'm pretty sure he just disagrees with my notion that process is important, broadly speaking, and so thinks that I might cause trouble or something if I'm admin.  (Remember that it was his category-move I reverted.)  Alphax's oppose might be due to a misunderstanding, though; certainly I'm not sure how "Admins do NOT have superiority" squares with opposing me for reverting an admin who was using his tools against the outcome of a CFD. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I’m not convinced that Simetrical fully understands Wikipedia policy and respects community consensus.
 * 1. Simetrical embraces an overly broad view of fair use compared to Foundation policy. Simetrical’s work on fair use/copyright issues will move Wikipedia-EN away from its primary mission.
 * 2. Simetrical posted a link on Wikipedia that revealed KateFan0’s identity. Simetrical's response concerns me because it shows a lack of awareness of a key policy that has been repeatedly discussed for weeks. User talk:Simetrical
 * 3. Against community consensus and at risk of disrupting the project AGAIN, Simetrical argues that Blu Aardvark should be completely unblocked and allowed to edit Wikipedia for the duration of the arbitration case. Not limited to editing the arbitration pages-the entire site. This statement was made after Blu was unblocked and reblocked twice after a large segment of the community objected to unblocking him; and after several arbitrators stated that a ban was appropriate and after Dmcdevit stated his intention to make an injunction blocking Blu during the arb case..
 * 4. Insists that Wikipedia use the higher legal standards of libel, harassment, and stalking when deciding on bans instead of usual Wikipedia standard such as disruptive behavior.
 * Will consider changing my mind if nom can reassure me about these concerns. FloNight   talk  11:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Three of these four cited reasons are personal opinions; only one seems to have merit - and this was a good-faith error. Besides #3; this opposition amounts to "He disagrees with the 'right' viewpoint, therefore he is bad."; Surely I needn't remind you that everybody makes mistakes, and that wikipedians should not be afraid to hold a view that is against the majority viewpoint, so long as they represent it appropriately, as Simetrical evidently has. Werdna (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Werdna, Wikipedia policy and community consensus can not be replaced by a biased point of view. Simetrical comments indicate he has a problem grasping this point. As for Simetrical revealing personal information, to be fair remember that the RFA process regularly rejects editors for far less significant errors! FloNight   talk  13:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think disagreeing with someone is a perfectly valid reason to oppose their adminship, provided the disagreement is actually relevant to adminship. Point one, at least, certainly is, and given that admins routinely make decisions of whether to block users without consulting others, three and four are arguably somewhat relevant as well. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For number one: I don't think my view of fair use is overly broad in any way, shape, or form. I believe we should stay well within the bounds of the law, and that the Foundation should exercise due prudence in avoiding lawsuits even when we're probably in the right.  I remain unconvinced of any loss of freeness in Wikipedia due to this, unless you measure freeness by counting out what percentage of content is reusable rather than how much content is reusable.  Using additional fair-use images will not reduce the amount of stuff a non-US redistributor or repurposer would find useful; it will only add to the amount of stuff a US (or similar) redistributor can redistribute. Two: I made a mistake.  That is my fault.  As soon as it was pointed out, I asked Raul to oversight away the revisions (although I think he may have ended up just deleting them instead).  As for the severity of my error, the cat was already out of the bag, and I find it hard to believe that Katefan0 or anyone else was put to even the slightest iota of additional stress or harm because of my slipup.  Three: Arguing against community consensus is very, very different from acting against it.  I do the former routinely; the latter I don't think I've ever knowingly done.  I advocated that the ArbCom follow a course of action that you, apparently, find distressing.  As far the merits of said course of action, I still think it would probably have been best.  I laid out my reasoning in substantial detail.  Finally, while I have not examined Selina's on-wiki behavior and can't judge her on that, I retain the opinion that only fairly extraordinary off-wiki circumstances should merit an on-wiki ban, and I don't think Selnia qualifies.  Ultimately, as with Sean Black, I respect your reasoning for opposing my adminship but do not accept it.  I realize you feel very strongly about Blu Aardvark/MSK's brief unbanning, but nevertheless I disagree with your feelings on that matter in the main (while not, by the way, necessarily believing that either should actually be unbanned).  I don't think there would be great productivity gained, at this juncture, by our attempting to debate the issue; I very much doubt that either of us will convince the other.  So, let us agree to disagree. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, nevermind the fact that the arbcomm upheld the actions of those opposed to unblocking BA while dismissing the reasoning Simetrical touts here: Requests_for_arbitration/Blu_Aardvark. This, and his tendentious agumentation here of all places is why I oppose Simetrical's RFA. FeloniousMonk 17:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Correct, the ArbCom rejected my reasoning (I'm not aware that they even thought about endorsing it, in fact). As for "tendentious argumentation here", I was responding to criticism, not arguing with anyone.  Should I just ignore those who oppose me because they're outnumbered?  Or is discussion bad at RFAs altogether?  I try to always be willing to discuss my actions. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per evidence from FloNight. Simetrical's aggressive behavior and bad-tempered comments toward others in the BluAardvark debacle, along with his unfortunate habit of rushing to the aid of the attacker, raises concerns that he'll put the personal feelings before those of the community's and unfits him for any position with authority in my opinion. FeloniousMonk 17:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I may not be remembering something, but could you provide diffs of aggressive behavior or bad-tempered comments? I can't recall any; I think I'm usually very careful to remain civil at all times.  As for "rushing to the aid of the attacker" . . . have you ever heard the saying "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?  I don't endorse most of the objectionable stuff Blu Aardvark or MSK said.  I just don't think they deserve to be held accountable for it here.  If you would like to view that as rushing to the aid of the attacker, well, that's your choice. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Per FloNight, FeloniousMonk, and these posts . KillerChihuahua?!? 17:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The first of those two posts is somewhat sarcastic and frustrated, and I should in retrospect have rephrased it slightly, but the underlying point remains valid (in my opinion) whatever you think of the actual issue. Saying "any admin can delete divisive or inflammatory userboxes at any time without discussion", and then "people shouldn't be deleting arguably divisive or inflammatory userboxes without discussing the issue first", doesn't make a lot of sense. The second was just trying to get Zeq to realize that Jimbo wasn't going to review his case just because he spammed his talk page constantly (which as I recall he did).  While I had Jimbo's talk page watchlisted, I tried to point people who were using it for dispute resolution or whatever to the correct places (e.g., ). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It was more the accusation that Jimbo engages in nepotism on the second link. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, that. Well, I wasn't saying Jimbo "engages in nepotism", just that if you're a longstanding respected editor, he may review your case.  Which is true&mdash;see .  The difference between that and nepotism is that in nepotism, you support someone without regard for merit; Jimbo will support those he respects solely because of their merit. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per FloNight, et al. and past incivility. I was neutral leaning towards oppose on the basis of my past interactions, but based on what is presented above I have moved from "not going to vote" to Oppose. Guettarda 18:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I would be interested to know what you consider to be incivility on my part. I try to be as civil as possible, and normally I think I succeed, so I'm concerned that some others think I'm routinely incivil. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * By incivility I mean your use of aggressive and insulting language in prior conflict. As I said, based on that alone I wasn't going to vote.  The evidence provided above tipped the scale.  Guettarda 18:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback, but I still don't know where I used aggressive or insulting language, or what exactly you consider aggressive or insulting language. I can't try to improve if I don't know what exactly I'm doing wrong.  I really don't mean to ever be incivil. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) No. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 18:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to see some reasoning behind this comment. I find opposing an RfA candidate with no reasoning, using a non-standard indication of opposition exceptionally rude. Werdna (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Did not see you asking robchurch to correct his non-standard indication of support. I question your selective enforcement of your standard. FloNight   talk  03:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't think it really matters. The issue here is that the vote was uncivil and antagonistic. "No." is exceptionally confrontational, does not provide the candidate with any information regarding how he could improve, nor does it give any indication of reasoning for the opposition. Werdna (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Trolling aside, my vote stands, for reasons others have stated (just in case anyone was too stupid to realise that). &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 08:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: Given the whiff of a belief that administrators have greater rights, rather than merely greater responsibilities, than others. Geogre 18:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I would appreciate what makes you think that. I've always considered myself diametrically opposed to the idea that admins should have any greater rights than anyone else. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Geogre, you really should post to past edits as evidence of this theory otherwise it's your word against Simetrical's.-- Andeh 03:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a trial, and I'm trying very hard not to accuse or condemn. Demurring from someone's RfA shouldn't be seen as a sign of disrepespect for the person, and when an oppose voter is questioned, I find it just makes things hotter.  I clicked on the evidence provided above and drew the conclusion that the user feels that the job of an administrator is a priviledge and an elevation.  I personally feel that the perfect admin follows Cincinnatus: doesn't seek the job, complains about the work, and seeks to get rid of any hints of power in it.  Given the number of problems that have occurred with people who believe that they have entitlement with their passed RFA, I'm extra cautious.  Geogre 03:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're concerned about my views of adminship as a right rather than a privilege, User:Simetrical (added on 16 January) may be of interest to you. I'm with you on this point, don't worry.  :) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Per KillerChihuahua. It's just a bit worrying.  Also, he seems a bit combative in responding to every single oppose.  -- Cyde↔Weys  03:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I do tend to respond excessively to what others say. But I think that's a lot better than responding insufficiently.  I prefer to address criticism, even if I'm wordy about it, rather than ignore it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything above that is combatitive, only questions asking how to improve, and mostly pretty politely too. If he was arguing to try to change peoples' minds, that would be one thing, but I don't see that... -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 18:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strongly oppose. At the risk of once again being harangued by Werdna, whose opinions on what makes for a good admin I clearly do not share, I wish only to state that a combination of the reasons for opposing here and Simetrical's unpleasant approach to dealing with these criticisms -- where simply noting them and moving on rather than bickering with the opposers would have been better -- lead me to a firm "no". Grace Note 06:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Sean, FloNight (the bit about fair use is especially troubling, we MUST enforce foundation policy whether we agree or not and I have concerns that would nto be the case), FeloniusMonk (saying MSK shouldn't be held accountable here for the grave damage she has done elsewhere seems just wrong), Geogre, and others, I just have concerns about Simetrical doing the right thing consistently as an admin. I don't have a problem with responding to every comment though. Oppose, with regret, because I hate to oppose people, but it's too important, I think, not to.  + +Lar: t/c 12:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * PS I found Simetrical's responses in this bug discussion to be a bit inappropriate as well, not showing the needed amount of thinking about what is said or who said it and what they presumably know before (in effect) suggesting that I need to bone up on elementary set theory... That suggests that maybe the proper level of analysis and patience may not be present yet.  + +Lar: t/c 13:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would just like to note that my views on fair use are not against policy. There's significant room for interpretation in the current policy, it's not cut-and-dried, and I don't think my suggestions violate any of it.  (If they do, I'll enforce it as it is, not as I wish it were.)  And I would also like to point out that neither WP:FU or WP:FUC is Foundation policy; at any rate, I'm not aware of anyplace where the Foundation has said that we need to do anything other than stay in line with the law&mdash;if you have such a mandate, then certainly that will change my views on copyright. As for the set-theory thing, I didn't understand what you were getting at (actually, I'm still not clear on what the difference is; obviously searches would be cached?).  And many people don't know much about set theory, so I thought that could be a point of confusion.  My apologies if I offended you. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I've had no direct contact with Simetrical that I recall, but I've seen a few things that have troubled me, and I see above that he's claiming the WR people didn't engage in "fairly extraordinary off-wiki circumstances" sufficient to lead to a ban here, which, as one of their victims, I find somewhat depressing. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Problems with tone, and not gracious when accepting apologies. - FrancisTyers · 15:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Flonight. bogdan 15:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per above - arrogant, untrustworthy, combative, and doesn't understand key policies. [ælfəks] 15:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Flonight and SlimVirgin. --FlavrSavr 20:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Per Geogre, Grace Note and diffs provided by FloNight. Aren&#39;t I Obscure? 20:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. lacks a bit of wikimaturity, and per FrancisTyers. --dcabrilo 21:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. There are enough users on here who think fair use is a game we play to make their lives harder. I am extremely hesitant to give anyone the mop who would cater to that viewpoint. Sorry, but it's a deal-killer for me. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per Francis Tyers and Slim Virgin. pschemp | talk 00:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per ESkog. Jude (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm sorry, I incorrectly incremented the account; I meant to type 20, but pressed the 3 key instead. Sorry! Jude (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose. His claim that the introduction of additional unfree works does not reduce the freeness of Wikipedia to those who can not accept, or whos applications are not permitted as fair use, is factually incorrect. Unless coupled with a restriction that unfree material can only be used where no free material is possible the unfree material does reduce the freeness of Wikipedia in a material and easily demonstrable manner, quite simply we end up with easily found found on the web content replacing content which could and would be free had the incentive to produce new work not been removed by unauthorized misuse of the copyrighted works of others. Simetrical would have us abandon our primary mission and so long as he holds those fews he can not be granted adminship. --Gmaxwell 00:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We have discussed this before, and you didn't bring up that point then. If you had, my views would probably be different as of this RFA's proposal.  I am committed to the reusability (freedom) of our content, and always have been, as you can see from my arguments; it was only because, having considered the matter, I could see no reason fair use reduced the reusability of our content that I had the opinion I did. I doubt anyone will believe me, because what I'm saying now looks like an eleventh-hour gambit to stop my RFA from failing, but in light of that simple point, I cannot find my former position on fair use tenable.  As a consequence of my support for reusability, I will have to rethink my ideas regarding fair use.  Provisionally, they are that no fair-use images should ever be acceptable where a free image is available unless they're critical.  Gmaxwell's point is true, and I really regret that I didn't see anyone make it before now. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Per Gmaxwell comments, I have serious, if not grave doubts, about your sensibilities regarding fair use. I am not casting a vote here, but I want you to know that your position, followed to its logical and inevitable conclusions, puts you in the "risk" category of over-inclusionist Wikipedians.  I hope you have an open mind about rethinking fair use.  I really do.--Brad Patrick 04:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I very much appreciate your comments. I never intended to act in contravention of Wikipedia policy regarding fair use, even if I disagreed with it; given Gmaxwell's reasoning here, I'm not sure I do disagree with it.  While it may be academic at this point with regard to directly handling image deletion, I still do involve myself on copyright pages regularly, so: do you think the statement "fair-use images should never be used if a free image would be possible unless their use is absolutely necessary; if a free image is impossible, or a fair-use image is absolutely necessary, fair-use images are acceptable provided we stay well within the bounds of the law" is a reasonable summary of what fair-use policy is or should be? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Too many of the issues raised here make me uneasy. DS 00:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose FloNight and others make valid points -- Pilotguy (roger that) 00:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Tony Sidaway 01:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC) Fair use is one issue on which I have to feel I can trust an administrator (sadly there are already some whom we cannot).
 * 4) Oppose. I was disheartened by his approach to the Blu Aardvark saga and found it hurtful. El_C 03:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose too many legitimate concerns raised above. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Comments by FloNight are a concern. Also, I have the sense Simetrical's style of engaging with others may be less than ideal. Nephron T|C 05:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong oppose. His approach to fair use (we already have too many admins with a poor attitude on fair use; we don't need more); his combative way of speaking (we already have too many admins with a combative way of speaking, and I'm one of them; we don't need more); his potentially damaging (if he were an admin) approach to AfD; and the little voice in my head all tell me "no way".  Put them all together, and we don't get an arrow pointing straight to Planet Clue.  I'm encouraged that he's improved since his last RfA, but he hasn't improved nearly enough to become an admin I can trust.  fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 07:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Per FloNight, plus concerns raised by other regarding civility and temprament TigerShark 07:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per FloNight, Sean Black, and everybody else. Poor candidate. — Jul. 4, '06 [08:09] < [ freak]&#124;[ talk] >
 * 10) Weak and uncertain Oppose. The large amount of arguing that is happening in-line, it makes me uncomfortable.  Maybe it's just a style thing, but so much of it just doesn't feel right.   It suggests to me that the candidate isn't better than average at understanding where people are coming from and at explaining their own POV in a way that people pick up easily.  And that sort of two way communication is something that we really do need our Admins to be better than average at. And AFD is not a vote.  If a closing admin makes a mistake in evaluating the arguments, as opposed to counting the numbers, well, that's why there's an appeal process.  I may not be evaluating the candidates strengths properly.  If so, apologies, but I just don't feel comfortable.  Regards, Ben Aveling 08:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. Many legitimate concerns above. -- SCZenz 10:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose, very much per SlimVirgin's thoughts. While I have never directly interacted with you, Simetrical, and you appear to be a good editor judging from your contributions, your thoughts regarding Wikipedia Review and the role of those who founded it and maintained it at the time of the Katefan0 incident sadden me a lot. My own privacy and RL was compromised because of that website when MSK administrated it, and the consequences still haunt me to an extent - and my case was nowhere near a serious as Kate's. Although I don't have any personal issues with you, and I hope never to, because you strike me as a good person, I can't in good faith and conscience support your request now that I've learned this. Peace be with you,  Phædriel   ♥   tell me  - 14:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose Fad (ix) 17:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. Fails Diablo Test. Anwar 18:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose A productive editor but the concerns raised by FloNight, FeloniousMonk, Slim and KillerChihauha are severe. JoshuaZ 20:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose Not enough evidence of Vandal fighting for me. As I have said on other RfA's, I will nominate you myself if I see some considerable commitmet to the vandal fight. You might like to take a look at the group I have set up for those who commit to the Vandal Fight, at Vandal Cleanup. Abcdefghijklm 21:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) weak oppose Good guy, but some issues to be resolved per above. Sasquatch t|c 01:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral couldn't find any RC patrolling in the last 1500 edits, no signs of user having any knowledge with tackling vandalism. Obviously a great editor but I believe all admins need to know how to tackle vandalism.-- Andeh 01:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral
 * I have done some vandalism reversion in the past, although I typically haven't spent a lot of time actively RC patrolling. I mostly revert vandalism when I see it, e.g. .  I have also done some light RC patrolling once or twice in the past, see here.  It isn't, however, a major occupation of mine here; I expect to use rollback occasionally, but not too frequently.  If adminship were solely about RC patrolling, I'd certainly deserve a pass, but then, I wouldn't have accepted the nomination if adminship were solely about RC patrolling. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Moved to Support per users response.-- Andeh 12:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral. I am bothered by FloNight's evidenced, and retracting my support.  Dragons flight 06:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Sorry, but in light of the evidence presented by Flo and recalling said incident, I must change my vote.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral per the fair use comment. Jaranda wat's sup 00:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral I originally supported this editor but since so much legitimate concerns are raised, I need to retract my support. --WinHunter (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral I have changed my vote to neutral based on the number and severity of issues raised. Not that the user would not necessarily make a good admin, but I seem to have missed a significant portion of the user's contributions that tend to worry me a bit. The fault is my own. -- Avi 05:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral (changed from support). Previously I had only seen quite reasonable behavior editing articles and pages. But having looked at opinions regarding WR on pages I don't frequent, I can no longer support to become an admin. Views expressed on fair use are also troubling. older ≠ wiser 22:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments


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

Username	Simetrical Total edits	5054 Distinct pages edited	2705 Average edits/page	1.868 First edit	19:21, 27 December 2004 -- (main)		2079 Talk		423 User		273 User talk	441 Image		53 Image talk	22 MediaWiki talk	22 Template	214 Template talk	61 Category	136 Category talk	21 Wikipedia	974 Wikipedia talk	334 Portal		1
 * Edit count:

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: For the forseeable future, I would hope to be able to help eliminate the backlog at WP:PUI. While I'm a layman, unfortunately, we have to make do with what we have in matters of copyright, and I think I have a fairly good working knowledge of both U.S. copyright law and Wikipedia copyright policy.  Many of my project(-talk) contributions are to Wikipedia talk:Copyrights, Wikipedia talk:Fair use, Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags, Media copyright questions, and so on.  I wouldn't call myself paranoid with regard to copyright, but I certainly respect the rights of authors, and hope to enforce Wikipedia policy to that effect.  I'll also likely help out with some other admin backlogs now and then. One thing I will not do is participate on the admin side of AFD or MFD (except perhaps to close as a delete).  I'm well aware that my views on article inclusion (particularly notability) are very extreme, and I don't think it's appropriate for someone with that kind of dispute with consensus to have to gauge that same consensus.  I also will not undelete articles or miscellanea just because I feel they were deleted out of process.  If, at some point in the future, I feel the need to change the terms of my adminship, I'll renominate myself for adminship under those different terms.  (Note that I may still participate in things such as TFD or CFD, which I don't think I have such strong views on at all.)


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: Well, I'm more prone to tweaks than to large-scale rewrites. Helping people out at the Village Pumps and copyright pages are probably the most significant things I do now.  I did, as noted in my previous nomination, also contribute significantly to Rome: Total War (my largest contribution here, also some other edits since then) and Forum moderator (rewrote the page), and some more minor things as well.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: I'll just quote my answer from last time:The only real conflict I've had was at Talk:2004, a few months ago. The primary dispute (over page protection, incidentally) ended up being at Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu, after a long, low-key dispute over the actual content of the 2004 page. &mdash;Simetrical (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC) I can't think of any conflicts I've been in since then, to be honest, and I wasn't exactly part of that dispute either before the RFC (I mainly lurked in the sidelines).  I certainly don't ever edit-war, and as Mathbot's stats will show, my edits tend to be spread out rather than being ongoing contributions to a limited number of articles.  It's hard to get into disputes with people over a page you only ever edit once.

Optional question for the candidate:
 * 4. How would you characterize your opinion on the use of Fair Use images, given the current controversy surrounding them? ~Kylu ( u | t ) </i> 04:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of using fair-use images whenever a) they enhance encyclopedic value in some way, however modest, and b) we have a good case for their use. I remain unconvinced by the arguments that having more fair-use images diminishes the freeness of the encyclopedia; once we include fair use images altogether, we're automatically not copiable by anyone in a country that doesn't have similar fair-use laws, and still copiable by anyone in a country that does.  Since it doesn't reduce our redistributability or modifiability, I can't see how it would affect our freeness, unless you believe in free content as some sort of Platonic ideal that's tarnished by exposure to anything the least bit unfree rather than as something adopted essentially because it helps people out. My opinion is, of course, subject to change.  I'm currently discussing the matter with Gmaxwell at Wikipedia talk:Fair use, as a matter of fact. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My opinion has changed. See above. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the prompt reply! :) <i style="color:#FF00FF;">~Kylu ( u | t ) </i> 04:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 5 Are AFD's votes? Why or why not?
 * AFDs should not be votes. They should not be votes because, unlike in a real-world election, selection bias is at ridiculous levels, with the very small minority of people who look over most/all AFDs plus the very small minority of people who view the article in question within five days being the only ones generally present.  This is further complicated because this tiny minority can so easily become ridiculously skewed if someone systematically asks selected others to vote. What AFDs should be is discussion followed by (or, less optimally, concurrent with) polls.  The difference between a vote and a poll is that in a vote, any one of the many people eligible to vote gets to vote by just showing up, no questions asked; in a poll, a representative cross-section of the target audience is selected to give their opinions.  In either case, the result is determined by just counting up the respondents' opinions.  However, the discussion aspect should be present here as well, because a poll of people who just say what they think and then leave is better than a vote, but really not what we want.  What I'm thinking of here as optimal, in other words, is less voting for your representatives on polling day, more a jury trial.  Of course, this would only be practical (given XFD volume) with significant software hacks, which would select people for each poll needed out of the most recent X logged-in edits or whatever, and post a message at the top of the page asking them to discuss it, etc.  So for now we may be stuck with what we have.  . . . which brings me to actually answer your question.  Are AFDs votes?  At the present time, yes, more or less, as I have said elsewhere.  How rigidly the closer adheres to the exact numbers depends on the exact admin; some may discard certain votes on various bases, or note that one side has failed to answer the other side's arguments, but I don't think very many just read through the arguments and make a decision themselves without regard to number.  If they did, they would catch hell, and rightfully so, because a) admins are not supposed to have more power than non-admins, and b) it would turn AFD into a roll of the dice, with the outcome basically depending on who the closing admin happens to be.  For now, I think the best we can probably do is agree on more aggressive anti-vote-stacking policies, since those are currently nonexistent, and beyond that resign ourselves to the self-selection that occurs in any vote. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.