Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wickethewok


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

Wickethewok
Final(61/9/3) Endied 14:52, 2006-07-31 (UTC)

– Wickethewok is a thoughtful, involved editor who is fairly active in vandal patrol and AFD, and has been here for nearly six months. His talk page interactions impress me a great deal, as he demonstrates a remarkable level of civility while also showing a strong understanding of policy and process. Wikipedia will benefit if we give him the tools. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Wickethewok 15:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Beat-the-nominator support. I like this user's writing style, discussion style, and attitude toward the project. Glad to support them for the mop. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per me. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. -- No Guru 16:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support This Fire Burns Always   17:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Of course. Roy A.A. 17:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per nom. Yomangani 17:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support good answers, I agree with you on the rollback issue, but I won't harass you over it. ;) H ig hway Return to Oz...  18:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Questions convinced me :) T e  k e  19:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support per nom -- Tu s  pm (C 19:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support This users seems good. Matthew  Fenton  ( contribs ) 19:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Great answers to the questions..I'm sold! TruthCrusader 20:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 20:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support good user. Seivad 20:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support per nom and excellent answers to questions. 1ne 20:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Merovingian - Talk 20:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support per nom. -- Big  top  ( tk | cb | em | ea ) 21:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support, answer and editing statistics suggest that this user will be an ideal administrator. RandyWang ( raves/review me! ) 21:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Good spread of edits; good answers to questions - give this person the mop!  (aeropagitica)   (talk)   21:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. All good plus no big deal = no brainer on this one. Ifnord 21:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support per nom and answers below. Alphachimp  talk  22:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support It seems as if there's been a great run of RfA candidates lately and I'm happy to lend my support to yet another great candidate. I really like his attitude per Q3 and am pleased that he's willing to tackle the copyright backlog   hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 22:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. DarthVad e r 23:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Sure support. Mostly Rainy 02:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Yes. Go Yankees 03:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support His civility in dealing with editors in recent AfD discussions Deadmines, RuneScape armour, Zergling, and even with anon IP users on his own talk page, speaks well to his actions as a future admin. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support --Ter e nce Ong (Chat 03:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support A good editor. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  03:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support, without reservations.  Sango 123  04:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Support per nom, this user should certainly be given the mop. --Draicone (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support, I keep seeing this user buzzing around, working hard to improve Wikipedia, and am satisfied he'll make good and careful use of the tools. Proto ::  type  10:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Support -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Support. I'll jump on the bandwagon here. -- Fan-1967 13:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Kimchi.sg 13:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote by, impersonator account of User:Kimchi.sg. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support: On the way to becoming one of our best moppers. --Slgr @ ndson (page - messages - contribs) 15:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I like his style. Baseball,Baby!   balls  •  strikes  16:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. All my basic pre-requisites are met, and seems to be a solid user. Themindset 18:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Deserves the tools. -- Will Mak  050389  20:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Meets my standards — Mets 501 (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Meets 2/3 standards.  Gang sta EB   ~(penguin logs) 22:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Yank  sox  03:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Hear all hear all - for the information of all crew - let it be known that Tawker Supports this RfA. -- Tawker 06:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-26 10:26Z 
 * 3) Support Very suitable. gidonb 11:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) --Nearly Headless Nick 13:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes sir, I've seen his name around, and usually attached to good thoughts and contributions. Easy decision here.  Phaedriel   ♥  The Wiki Soundtrack! ♪  - 14:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, meets my edit standards, seems solid and knowledgeable about what needs to be done. Themindset 20:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strike out duplicate vote. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I don't always agree with his AfD votes, but he has what it takes to be an admin: he's civil and committed to making Wikipedia a better place. Bonus points for being named after an Ewok. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom and answers. Viridae Talk 01:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Impressive. Okay, I support as well. DS 03:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Looks like a great guy. Mo0 [ talk ] 04:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support After taking awhile to consider you, and look you over, I think that you'd make a great Admin! Good luck. Th ε Halo Θ 10:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) I support.-- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 12:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Per nom. --Vengeful Cynic 15:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. &mdash; Khoikhoi  19:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. —  FireFox  ( talk ) 11:07, 28 July '06
 * 10) Support per all of the above &mdash; M  in  un  Spiderman 12:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support: --Bhadani 13:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support per nom. Michael 06:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support per nom and inasmuch as Wicke seems properly to understand that, the benefits of WP:IAR notwithstanding, an administrator ought to act only to interpret the consensus of the community and to effect any attendant outcome. Joe 16:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support per above. Newyorkbrad 16:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) I'm very concerned about the answers to Fuddlemarks questions (and followon discussion) but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt, as there are other mitigating factors. Please don't let me down. Give your AfD closes a great deal of thought and care, and engage others (perhaps on IRC) to seek counsel if you have any doubts. With that caveat: Support ++Lar: t/c 19:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - Iola k ana |T  15:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Promising, but not quite "cooked" yet. Despite copious participation on AfD, thinks that IPs can't "vote" on AfD. Doesn't interact much on articles talk pages; most of the edits I chose at random on such pages seemed to be insertions of templates.  Overall seems like a thoughtful editor, but needs more time. --Tony Sidaway 18:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel its important to note that I corrected my statement and also that I used the word "shouldn't", not "can't". I should have been more clear/specific that this was more an opinion than policy.  My intent was merely to encourage a (new?) editor to obtain an account instead of just editing from an IP address.  Rather than explain the situation further, I would refer anyone to my talk page for my response to the admin who originally notified me of my miswordings.  With regards to your second concern, much of my discussion has taken place on user pages.  Dunno why, but editors always seem to message me about things rather than discussing them on the article talk pages (if you examine my talk/archive, I think others may agree with me).  By no means am I asking anyone to dismiss these concerns, I just felt that I should further explain the issues Tony Sidaway brought up.  Wickethewok 19:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't meet my new standards.  Gang sta EB   ~(penguin logs) 20:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Changed to support per meets 2/3 standards
 * Comment, what are those "new standards"? feydey 21:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe they can be found here. Yomangani 22:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Wikethewok is a fairly sound editor but at the moment shows weaknesses of character and action that need to be addressed before they are exposed to more duress in an admin situation. Once they are, he will be an excellent candidate.
 * 1) "IP addresses should not vote in AFDs" - this was said 4 days ago, and indicates lack of familiarity with fundamentals, as does the response given above.
 * 2) This diff from yesterday shows the need to develop a thicker skin.
 * 3) Question 5: "there is proof that he won a Nobel Prize ... (and assuming quality evidence was presented), I think I would have to relist it". Every single laureate has their own article (see List of Nobel laureates), so there is no reason for it to be AfD. This is also another indication of lack of clarity in applying policy and process, and a lack of ability to take the right decisive action.
 * 4) Question 5: "For your theoretical Mt. Everest question, I would sooner participate in this AFD by giving my opinion and saying to "keep" it rather than having to close it." Again this shows timidity about assuming responsibility for the right action and a possible wariness about unpopularity, which could get in the way of an admin role. Tyrenius 00:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So is the guy actually a Nobel laureate or not? I'm pretty sure determining whether or not he is in fact a Nobel prize winner is trivial.  Which absurd situation is the theoretical case in question?  The one where 20 editors vote to delete a Nobel prize winner?  Or where one arbitrary guy for some reason thinks that this guy is a Nobel prize winner but has no proof to back it up?  I must admit I had difficulty answering the question due to these vagueries.  Also, by no means have I shied away from controversial decisions in the past, nor do I plan to in the future.  However, I feel it is also the duty of an admin to perform duties according to general consesus, even if I do not agree with it.  Wickethewok 01:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The situation is the one where, in your words, "there is proof that he won a Nobel Prize" and, knowing that, you decided to relist it for AfD. Your statement "I must admit I had difficulty answering the question due to these vagueries." points to the qualities which I think you need to develop, namely clarity of analysis and judgement, and the ability to take charge of a situation, which an admin will frequently need to do. The question was, however unlikely to occur in reality, quite straightforward: "How would you close if an AfD finished 20-1, but there were twenty "nn d"s and one "Keep, he won the Nobel Prize in chemistry immediately after climbing Mount Everest naked whilst smoking a pipe"?" (We can ignore the Everest bit.) You have just talked about this as if there were two situations - one with the 20 nn's or the one with the "abitrary guy", but there is in fact only one situation, which comprises the 20 nn's and the "abitrary guy". That is the whole point of it. Basic misunderstandings of this kind are likely to end up with a whole heap of trouble for those you encounter and yourself. You state, "it is also the duty of an admin to perform duties according to general consensus, even if I do not agree with it", which is in most circumstances commendable, but in this limited hypothetical circumstance would not be in the interests of the encyclopedia and would require individual intitiative (IAR) to resolve. Tyrenius 03:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick and honest response. I think I better understand the crux of the question better now, though for integrity's sake, I feel I should leave my answer as is.  The reason I chose relist rather than keep was that I would much rather settle the issue on AFD rather than a separate review, which would not be unexpected considering a 20-1 margin.  While I am perfectly willing to go through a DRV or what have you, it seems like it be much more efficient to solve the problem in the same AFD.Wickethewok 03:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If I may say so, I think that was a good, honest and intelligent response, which shows the kind of thinking I am looking for. Although I think you're certainly right in retaining your original answer, you could add a second below it, to comment on it and state your current position. Tyrenius 05:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Damn, damn, damn.  Mate, I know you're a nice, intelligent guy, and the amount of support you've got here certainly shows you've made a good impression on others, too.  However, your answer to my question &mdash; while not completely clueless &mdash; is disappointing.  Your view on proposing merges when nominating AfDs &mdash; particularly in an era with record numbers of articles nominated for deletion &mdash; is just plain Wrong.  As for my hypothetical Nobel Prize-winning Everest climber, assuming the assertions were true, then it should be a no-brainer: close as keep.  AfD is not a vote, and twenty people who don't know their arse from their elbow (a pre-requisite if you're going to say "nn d" for someone who actually managed to successfully climb Everest naked, I mean, geez, that's pretty bloody awesome) cannot outweigh even one Clueful user who is prepared to offer a good argument and evidence to back it up.  fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * With respect, Mark, your question stretches incredulity to the heights of...well, you get the idea. If the information was added late to the RfA, then a relist would be *absolutely* appropriate, as the new facts need to be checked before you can just say "oh, he's notable because this person said so and linked to a spoofed URL". Articles get changed all the time during AFD, and relisting due to changing circumstances is well within process (otherwise, you'll just see it on DRV, more likely than not, even assuming those 20 people didn't come back and see the new information). I was all set to change my vote to oppose based on your commentary, but I think you're being a bit harsh. It's not like some of our current admins don't make "keep, obviously notable" closes that are disputed from time to time... -- nae'blis 15:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The point here is not that "he's notable because this person said so and linked to a spoofed URL". The situation is that there is verifiable proof that the person is a Nobel Prize winner. That was posited by Wickethewok and his action was based on that premise. The purpose of these hypothetical problems is to avoid real ones further down the line. Tyrenius 15:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Mark. I've seem AfDs like that. Administrators need to courage to realize that AfD gets it wrong sometimes (or rather, the courage to make AfD get it right despite the raw numbers). Mackensen (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Mark. AfD is not a vote, and is not for considering articles to be merged. Kimchi.sg 04:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Mark and Tyrenius. Yank  sox  05:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * First off, I realize AFD is not for merges in general (it is articles for deletion after all). What I meant below is that in situations where say 98% of an article is rubbish and probably shouldn't exist, but a few lines might be salvageable as mergeable information, this still seems appropriate for AFD.  Anyways, I've taken the liberty of expanding on some of my opinions below #5 if anyone would care to read it.  Wickethewok 06:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per fuddlemark. - FrancisTyers · 18:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Issues surrounding AfDs concerns me per Mark above. --Wisd e n17 11:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Mark and Tyrenius. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral
 * 1) Neutral: A little higher minor edit summary usage will be better. It is now possible to set user's preferences to prompt when entering a blank edit summary under "Editing".--Jusjih 01:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I'm ranting. Editors who have no idea what they are talking about argue with me over their nonsensical edits to medical articles all the time.  When you write an encyclopedia, you need experts.  Please value their opinions when you are an administrator, especially when the experts are fellow admins.  -- Samir   धर्म 00:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral while I don't doubt that you are a nice guy, some of the answers to the questions just don't gel with me. Not enough for an oppose, but I can't support. Hope you understand. ShaunES 04:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC).


 * Comments

For all edits. Voice -of- All  01:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Viewing contribution data for user Wickethewok (over the 4447 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ) Time range: 170 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 1hr (UTC) -- 25, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 21hr (UTC) -- 6, February, 2006 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 95.76% Minor edits: 84.62% Average edits per day: 45.32 (for last 500 edit(s)) Article edit summary use (last 382 edits): Major article edits: 99.4% Minor article edits: 91.67% Analysis of edits (out of all 4447 edits shown on this page and last 62 image uploads): Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.47% (21) Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.83% (37) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 29.73% (1322) Superficial article edits marked as minor: 23.81% Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 62 (checks last 5000) Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 2429 | Average edits per page: 1.83 | Edits on top: 20.17% Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 40.72% (1811 edit(s)) Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 9.15% (407 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 6.03% (268 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 40.41% (1797 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 39.51% (1757) | Article talk: 4.52% (201) User: 4.99% (222) | User talk: 18.08% (804) Wikipedia: 30.65% (1363) | Wikipedia talk: 0.52% (23) Image: 1.42% (63) Template: 0.27% (12) Category: 0.04% (2) Portal: 0% (0) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0% (0) Username Wickethewok Total edits 4431 Distinct pages edited 2420 Average edits/page 1.831 First edit 17:42, February 6, 2006 (main) 1747 Talk 201 User 221 User talk 804 Image 63 Template 12 Category 2 Wikipedia 1358 Wikipedia talk 23 G . H e  18:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See Wickethewok's (Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs) contributions as of 18:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC) (Source*) using Interiot's tool*:
 * See Wickethewok's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

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: A couple of specific chores I would often help with would be speedy deletions, which seems like it can never have enough admins watching it, and WP:RM, which always seems to have a surprising backlog even for pretty non-controversial moves. Additionally, I would like to help close AFDs, as I feel that often deletion reviews can have been avoided if the closing admin gave more detailed descriptions of why they closed a particular way, which I am certainly willing to do.  This would save time for everyone involved.  With the rollback tool, I plan on upping the amount of work I do currently in the recent changes patrol, which I have done less than as of late due to bot superiority and admins being able to revert far faster than I.  Also, WP:CP seems like it always needs more assistance with backlogs going back often several weeks.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: It would most certainly be Alexander Coe (DJ Sasha), which is currently enqueue at WP:GA.  I am working on it in hopes to get it to featured article status in the near future.  When I first started work on Wikipedia, I was surprised by the lack of information and well-sourced content regarding electronic music and its artists, especially considering how present electronic dance music fans are on the internet.  When I first decided to work on the Sasha (as it was named at the time) article, I saw that it did have content that was consistent with my knowledge, but that it was largely unsourced and with no in-line cites at all.  Searching Google for hours for information regarding specific aspects of Sasha's career helped me realize how important citing reliable sources actually is, especially when compared to how often it is actually done.  This leads me to another aspect of Wikipedia that I have participated in: AFD.


 * While getting articles deleted might not be the most rewarding process, I take pride in the work I have done on AFD. Those of you who regular patrol AFD are certainly no strangers to number of video game-related articles that have been up there recently.  These AFDs can be extraordinarily time consuming, due to the amount of debate that occurs.  When discussing such articles, I attempt to avoid mentions to "cruft" and other possibly offensive terms.  I understand that much of the electronic music bio material may seem like cruft to others, so I understand the reverse.  Thus, I try to concentrate on objective criteria such as verifiability and original research, two WP policies too often ignored in too many articles.  Anyways, I take pride in my work on AFD making Wikipedia more encyclopedic and more of a reliable source of information.


 * 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: With regards to content disputes, I have not been in involved in anything particularly major, most likely due to the (disappointing) lack of other editors working on content I am typically interested in (mainly electronic music and the occasional sports articles).  However, there have been of course rather intense debates on AFD regarding the validity of certain articles.  In AFD at least, I have found that the best strategy when getting frustrated with others is simply to step away from those for awhile.  I have found that aggressively over-pursuing often detracts from one's credibility and civility.  Essentially, I have found that exposing an issue to a wider number of people (either through AFD or any other means of review) generally leads to the best outcome in any situation.  Through experience, I have also learned that quick and clear communication is most important when resolving disputes.  Otherwise, one party is left contemplating the situation for an extended period of and becoming ever more frustrated.  If anyone would like an additional clarification in my answers, I am more than willing to answer any more questions.

Optional question from Lar:
 * 4.(one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 22:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have read some opinions on the matter. I think that while its not a bad idea to have regular "check-ups" for admins, they shouldn't have to feel like they are constantly under threat of having their adminship revoked.  If they do feel that way, then it seems like they are far less likely to come up with creative solutions to problems and do anything they feel may be controversial.  As long as the reviews would be done infrequently enough to not interfere with my other Wikipedia tasks, I would be willing to add myself to such a category.  I am fine with my work being reviewed; however, I would not enjoy answering a million questions regarding every decision I ever made as an admin.  If these reviews became overly rigorous/frequent to the point that it impeded my work on Wikipedia, I possibly withdraw from this category (eg. I don't want to spend more time on review than with other important tasks).


 * I am indeed aware of "Rouge admins". I see what its driving at, but I don't really think being added to this category means anything.  Honestly, I don't quite see why its controversial.  If someone wants to add me to it, thats fine - I'd be in good company.  While I find it funny and understand the underlying message, I don't think any extended amount of time should be spent contemplating "Rouge admins".  If some editors choose to associated other editors in a certain category, thats fine, but I don't think it holds any deep meaning.  Anyways, my basic points are these: I am fine with being held accountable for any actions I may take as long as they are less rigorous than RFAs and I don't have any particular feelings associated with WP:ROUGE, though if anyone finds me permanently blocked after this RFA, you can bet it was probably that darn cabal in association with the rouge admins.

Optional question from fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 09:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5. You mention (above) that you would like to be able to close AfDs. What is your general philosophy on AfD?  What is your view on the importance of a majority on AfD?  How would you close if an AfD finished 20-1, but there were twenty "nn d"s and one "Keep, he won the Nobel Prize in chemistry immediately after climbing Mount Everest naked whilst smoking a pipe"?  How important to you consider the views of experts when it comes to an AfD discussion?  How much of a role do you feel evidence plays when making an argument for keeping or deleting?  Do you feel it's appropriate for someone to nominate an article for AfD if they want its content merged elsewhere?  fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 09:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My general philosophy on AFD is that it is a place where the encyclopedic nature and compliance with WP policies and guidelines regarding conclusion are enforced for topics, as opposed to content. If talk sections for pages such as WP:BIO and WP:NOR are legislature, then AFD is the judicial system.  I believe as more and more Wikipedians participate in an AFD, the more likely it is to reach the best conclusion.  Majority is of a decent amount of importance (after you subtract "votes" from likely socks that is).  While certainly having more users express their opinions in a certain direction is convincing, their rationale needs to be taken into account as well.  For example, if some users said keep/delete based on how they feel towards the nominator, whether they like the subject or not, or some other arbitrary reason, then their opinion holds less weight because they did not back it up with valid reasoning.  For your theoretical Mt. Everest question, I would sooner participate in this AFD by giving my opinion and saying to "keep" it rather than having to close it.  This situation is excessively unlikely in that 20 editors would wish to delete an article about someone of obvious notability.  Of course, this is assuming that there is proof that he won a Nobel Prize and such.  Reliable sources providing evidence in AFD debates is of the utmost importance.  Being able to verify information is a core element of Wikipedia and it certainly extends to AFD as well.  Anyways, to answer the Everest question (and assuming quality evidence was presented), I think I would have to relist it and encourage editors to address Nobel Prize and Everest issue of notability.  Of course, if no evidence was presented backing up this claim, its a pretty obvious delete.


 * I would like to be able to offer proper weight to the opinions of experts; however, it is nearly impossible to verify that anyone in particular is, in fact, a bonified expert. Because of this, you can't really consider the view of an "expert" any differently than any other editor.  This is a problem in any system where users are semi-anonymous.  As for your last question, I feel it is more appropriate to discuss merges on the talk pages of the respective article, though any merges with significant content deletion could be appropriate for AFD.  AFD is certainly not to be used for minor merges or relatively uncontroversial ones.  If there are any points you would like me to further expound upon, feel free to ask!


 * Further thoughts: The reason I chose to relist is not because I believe in mob rule and am afraid of unpopularity, its just difficult to believe that 20 out of 21 legitimate (assuming they appear to be legitimate for the sake of this anyway) Wikipedia editors suddenly became idiots momentarily. Anyways, the point I was trying to make wasn't so much addressed specifically to the Nobel Prize winner situation (which is an absurd and excessively extreme situation), but more towards general situations where there are important issues that have recently been introduced into a discussion and have yet to be addressed.  If they continue to not be addressed, then clearly keep is the appropriate course of action.  In cases of absurdity such as this (bad nom or what have you), I would not hesitate to speedy keep the article.  Have a good weekend all!  I'm around to answer more questions if you wish, even if they may lead to more controversial discussions/answers on my part.  ;)
 * 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.