Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ali'i

Edit count for Ali'i
User:Ali'i

run at Thu Jun 12 17:20:32 2008 GMT

Image talk:           2 Image:                134 Mainspace             1885 Talk:                 463 Template talk:        3 Template:             8 User talk:            438 User:                 38 Wikipedia talk:       137 Wikipedia:            488 avg edits per page    2.38 earliest              20:42, 17 August 2006 number of unique pages 1511 total                 3596

2006/8 28   2006/9  8   2006/10 4   2006/11 0   2006/12 52   2007/1  12   2007/2  24   2007/3  384   2007/4  581   2007/5  356   2007/6  98   2007/7  42   2007/8  201   2007/9  267   2007/10 313   2007/11 207   2007/12 223   2008/1  65   2008/2  0   2008/3  125   2008/4  238   2008/5  223   2008/6  145

(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red  denotes edits without an edit summary)

Mainspace 77 [2]Republican Party (United States) 58 [3]Wildlife of Brazil 57 [4]Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed 50 [5]Sinbad (actor) 42 [6]Fred Thompson 42 [7]United States Congress 37 [8]Preamble to the United States Constitution 30     [9]List of Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report 29 [10]AACS encryption key controversy 23 [11]Neil Cavuto 21 [12]Kamehameha I  21 [13]USS Arizona Memorial 20 [14]List of United States Representatives from Hawaii 19 [15]List of United States Representatives from California 17 [16]John McCain

Talk: 71 [17]Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed 49 [18]Fred Thompson 47 [19]AACS encryption key controversy 20 [20]John McCain 18     [21]List of Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report 18 [22]Virginia Tech massacre 14 [23]Democratic Party (United States) 13 [24]Republican Party (United States) 13 [25]Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows 13 [26]Seung-Hui Cho 8 [27]Mitchell Report (baseball) 8 [28]Phony soldiers controversy 7 [29]Sinbad (actor) 7 [30]SureFire M6 Guardian 7 [31]Cow tipping

Image: 4 [32]Skille scores badedit.jpg 3 [33]Swanson5818a.jpg 3 [34]Oldfashioned.jpg 3 [35]PDRM Bikes.JPG 3 [36]JohnnyMathis7183-1000.JPG 3 [37]Saturnia pyri Hatching.JPG 2 [38]Homopholis fasciata1.JPG 2 [39]Downtown Buffalo05.JPG 2 [40]Agamy1.jpg 2 [41]Usnchaff.jpg 2 [42]FrankRijkaard2.jpg 2 [43]FTWORTHTX3223.JPG 2 [44]Torresian crow.jpg 2 [45]Betty Lamp lighted.jpg 2 [46]IMG 2331 medium.jpg

Template: 3 [47]Hawaii County, Hawaii

Template talk: 2 [48]Party shading

User: 3 [49]HPJoker 3 [50]Barneca/Requests for Jimboship/Barneca 3 [51]Ali'i  2 [52]UBX/New South Wales Blues 2    [53]Barneca/Miscellany for deletion/User:Barneca/Requests for Jimboship /Barneca 2 [54]TheParanoidOne 2 [55]Ali'i/1

User talk: 45 [56]Ali'i  15 [57]Orangemarlin 8 [58]Durin 7 [59]FeloniousMonk 7 [60]Ferrylodge 5 [61]HPJoker 4 [62]Grizzlybear82 4 [63]Messedrocker/Unreferenced BLPs 4 [64]SqueakBox/Archivehistory 4 [65]Odd nature/Archive1 4 [66]WJBscribe 4 [67]Mackensen 4 [68]217.43.58.136   4  [69]Jimbo Wales 3 [70]Bjweeks

Wikipedia: 92 [71]Administrators' noticeboard 66 [72]Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 33 [73]Requests for comment/User names 28 [74]Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Workshop 19 [75]Village pump (proposals) 13 [76]Main Page/Errors 12 [77]Requests for arbitration 11 [78]Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement 8 [79]Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke (second nomination) 7 [80]Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence 7 [81]Community sanction noticeboard 7 [82]Village pump (policy) 6 [83]Requests for rollback 5 [84]In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates 5 [85]Requests for comment/Intelligent Design

Wikipedia talk: 29 [86]Requests for comment/User names 9 [87]Featured article criteria 8 [88]WikiProject Hawaii/Archive 1 6 [89]Requests for comment/Italiavivi 6 [90]Banning policy 5 [91]Manual of Style (links)/Archive 3 4 [92]Username policy 4 [93]The Core Contest 4 [94]Administrators' noticeboard 4 [95]Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Workshop 4 [96]Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Proposed decision 4 [97]WikiProject U.S. Congress 3 [98]AutoWikiBrowser/Typos 3 [99]Requests for comment/Intelligent Design 3 [100]WikiProject Hawaii/to do

If there were any problems, please [101]email Interiot or post at  [102]User talk:Interiot.


 * The edit count was retrieved from this link at 17:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC).

2 kinds of requests
Somehow people are all buying into this not being a serious request. It is. Two kinds of requests:


 * 1) Serious request: Posting something like this
 * 2) Flippant request: Posting something like this

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Alas. --Ali'i 20:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * /me goes fishing for trout... Rudget   (Help?) 20:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * How rude! I fully plan to use that in my serious RfA, when it comes up, so I think you should apologize to the kitty.-- Koji †  Dude  (C) 20:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue I see is that you didn't actually give any clear situations in which you envisioned you might use the tools until the answer to question #7. It sounded as if you just wanted them 'just because', and this wasn't clarified until the tone of the RFA had already been set.  It's a bit of an own goal, in my opinion, since this ambiguity most probably would have been avoided by answering question #1. - BanyanTree 23:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I think you made a few fundamental errors in your nomination. There is a level of flippancy and facetiousness lingering in the air around your RfA. You've also contradicted yourself a few times. Furthermore, you essentially admitted to wanting to prove that RfA either is or is not a big deal. This coupled to flat out saying you will not use the tools (sorry, you can backpedal all you want, but that's what you said) is causing people to view this RfA as a farce.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 23:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's try to be a little more precise in our use of language. Some people may view this RfA as a farce, indeed they may view life itself as the ultimate farce, but let's not ascribe that opinion to everyone who doesn't agree with us, eh? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say everyone. I said people, which actually implies not everyone. Let's try not to rely on semantics.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 00:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you considered borrowing a dictionary? Semantics is concerned with the meaning of words. Are you suggesting that we should simply ignore what the words mean, and just use whichever ones we feel are fashionable? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * MF, what consequence is it to you wether Wisdom can use the type of grammar skills you deem "appropriate"? Is this at all in response to his statement, or just poking fun at his choice of words?-- Koji †  Dude  (C) 00:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Who mentioned grammar? I thought we were discussing semantics? Would you like to borrow Wisdom's dictionary once he's finished with it? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * MF, dude, how about you stifle the sarcasm. I am well aware of the meaning of the word semantics, and quite a few others for that matter. My point is that we shouldn't harp on semantics. It should have been patently obvious that my earlier comment did not imply that I felt everyone thought the RfA was a farce, but that some people did.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 00:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance and my general confusion
I have been giving a lot of thought about withdrawal, based on some trusted editors opinions, as well as my own wiki-philosphy. I understand withdrawing has many advantages as well as disadvantages. However, at this time, I am conflicted and seek help.

Clearly, this request is going to fail if not withdrawn. I have accepted this fact. There just isn't a bureaucrat out there that I can see closing this as successful. Currently, the straight vote count has me at just over 56%. The furor I can only imagine that would happen if closed as successful would bar any bureaucrat from doing this. I personally feel that there are many opposes that do not bear much weight nor provide evidence of how or why I am not trusted enough to get the mop, and I appreciate the other editors who have told me they agree, and to hold out hope. It's possible that if these were discounted (or given less weight) that the request would show a consensus to promote, but as before... the furor. If this request was closer to 70%, maybe someone would use discretion, promote, state their reasoning, and be okay, but at 56%, this just isn't going to happen. I'm not pessimistic in this regard, I am trying to be a realist.

I feel one reason I should continue is for the continued criticism, as every bit helps me become a better editor. If nothing else, I hope to grow from this. There are some things already written that I have certainly taken to heart. I started this, and (while I don't think it cowardly to withdraw) think it right to finish what I started. There is only about one day left, so the beat down with cease soon.

I understand now that I got off on the wrong foot with my nomination. If I had to do it over again, I would certainly try and reword things from the beginning. I wouldn't change the underlying belief, nor the general gist of it, but I understand that some of the words I used were certainly off-putting, and confusing. From the start, I didn't see things the same way as some other people saw things.

I am not sure how things got to the point they did, nor how people think that I believe things that I most certainly do not. I am not sure I ever will. But if people are going to believe things about me, even in spite of me disagreeing with them and trying to show them why they are wrong, there is nothing I can do, and have to respect their opinion. People have the right to their opinion (wrong as it may be).

In this request, people have projected a lot of beliefs upon me. I did not make this request to be disruptive, and frankly do not have a problem with requests for adminship in general. I do think our standards as a community have gotten high, and a lot of good candidates fail for ridiculous reasons. I don't think that I am arrogant, and a little discussion with me would surely lead you to believe that too, I believe.

Whatever happens, I am heartened to receive the support of users such as Guettarda and FeloniousMonk with whom I have had some pretty heated disputes, and made some serious insinuations about. I place more weight in these individual supports than in a thousand "won't use the tools"/"answered flippantly"/"pointy nom"/"didn't answer questions" opposes.

So... What is best for the encyclopedia? That is the question I ask myself while writing this. Would me withdrawing help the encyclopedia? Would me sticking it out help the encyclopedia? Withdrawing wouldn't mean that much to me personally (I still strongly believe that being an admin really isn't that important), and it might calm some small disputes below. However, I think a lot of valuable information can be learned (both by myself and many others) if left to run its course. And I also sincerely believe that getting the admin tools would be a benefit to the encyclopedia, and the only (however highly-unlikely) way that is going to happen is if my request runs its course. So I am conflicted. I know it's my decision, but I'm confused. Is it worth withdrawing with only about a day to go? I realize now that this whole rant probably makes little sense, but I felt it should be said. So if I may, I humbly seek other people's opinions on the matter (probably privately through email would be best, but you can do whatever... my talk page, here below, by telegraph, invisible ink... ). Thank you for everything. I hope people will even see this. :) Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As one of the editors who opposed you for what you consider a meritless reason, I wonder if you can believe that I feel your pain. Like a lot of other editors on here, I went through a "beat-down" (albeit not as harsh as yours) in both my RfAs. I feel adminship is a big deal, so you and I have at least one fundamental disagreement, but I still advise you to let this run its course. You stated in your first paragraph that if this doesn't pass, "I'm not really bothered one way or another." I would stick to that. I admire (most of) your responses, or lack thereof, to the opposition and would really like to see you try again in the future.  Tan   |   39  18:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you were to pass, it wouldn't be your fault over any uproar. It's not your responsibility to withdraw to prevent such a thing. Although, to be honest -- if harsh -- I really wouldn't worry about such an outcome considering the current numbers. Also, I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here, but I think it would be a large mistake to not give any real weight to the opposition hre. You've made more statements than I can care to count regarding how so many people have gotten this wrong, now this sizeable statement. This very drama, and some would call it disruption, is the exact reason you have gotten so much opposition based on your nomination statement. The final answer to your question though is, no, you shouldn't withdraw unless you absolutely feel you want to. It won't harm the community if you let it run to its end. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not harsh... it's the truth. ;-) And I do give some weight to some of the opposition, but none to some of the others. I assume we'll continue to disagree on that, although if pressed, I'm sure you would agree that there could be opposes that carry little or no weight. And I am trying to avoid disruption, not cause it... that's why I posted this here instead of the main request page. But I am sincerely confused and do want help. Thank you for your responses. --Ali'i 18:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)