Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Enterprisey 2

Watchlist notification
I didn't see one. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I see one. Natureium (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It should be there, Xaosflux bumped the cookie (I see it too). Maybe you've dismissed the notification by accident? Try clearing your cookies to see if that resolves the issue. Mz7 (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, now it's there. Odd. Thanks, folks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * there is normally a short delay between when an RfA goes live and we trigger the WL notifications - this mostly so spurious nominations don't bother people while they are getting shutdown. — xaosflux  Talk 14:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thank you kindly. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose #1

 * 1) Oppose Nothing has changed after the last RfA. The editor has a pretty narrow editing area so knowing how he would perform in actual (and more controversial) admin duties is anyone's guess. He makes great scripts and tools. Maybe he should be employed by the WMF tech dev team, but being an admin is a lot more than that. --Pudeo (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He does do good things with scripts. He'll use that by applying for interface administrator rights, which only admins are allowed to have. He has good judgement for other admin duties. Do you really think that he would misuse the tools if given them? SemiHypercube 21:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There's certainly a chance. It's good to be "battle-tested" in more controversial areas like AfD or ANI, because that's where admins hold real power. There are admins who were all Mr. Nice Guy until they passed their RfA and started doing heavy-handed blocks. --Pudeo (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean that they didn't do any "heavy-handed blocks" before they passed RfA? How odd -- but, come to think of it,  I've actually heard of that syndrome.  Do you know that the vast majority of policeman never made a single arrest before they got their badge?  Also, it's notable that extremely few Senators or Representative ever voted on Federal legislation before they were elected to office.  No data on whether the cops or congresscritters were or were not "Mr. (or Ms) Nice Guys" before or after their elevation in status, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously he means they were not abusive before RFA and became so after passing. Surely you don't think non-admins can never be abusive. Whether these alleged admins exist is another matter. ♫ ekips39 (talk) ❀ 01:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Additionally, you sound like you are saying that all admins go bad after their RfA (but all certainly were not able to block users, they weren't admins before) and you don't trust the admins. SemiHypercube 00:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you think you could try to pinpoint, in the nominee's edit history, a pattern of editing that you fear will cause a damage to Wikipedia? If not, then maybe you should move your fear of the unknown to Talk? — kashmīrī  TALK  01:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) * Nothing about this oppose adds up. The candidate does have AfD experience, which makes it really confusing as to why you'd suggest they don't. Not only that, but they're also experienced in NPP/AfC, content creation, RCP/AIV, templates, bots, scripts, VPT and VPP, and they're already a shoe-in for interface admin. That's not exactly a lack of experience. This leaves your lack of confidence hanging on the fact that the candidate is not involved at WP:Dramaboard. Interesting. You cite admins you've observed who are pleasant and friendly pre-RfA and then issue excessive blocks post RfA, but I don't understand how being uninvolved at AN/I correlates with the risk of becoming an aggressive, block-happy admin. Conventional wisdom tends to take the opposite position. Also, I don't understand what those admins have to do with this candidate. What is it that makes this candidate similar to those cases? The previous RfA failed mostly due to concerns over the disclosure of an alt account, not due to lack of experience. The implication that the RfA failed because the candidate was not experienced enough last time around is strange. You don't cite any specific reasons to be concerned about the candidate's conduct, just the fact that "there's a chance" that the candidate might be a bad admin, but you have three flawless nominators, plus an impressive and skyrocketing coalition of established editors, admins, mainspace gods, interface admins, arbitrators, civility wonks, technical masterminds, and even a steward, many of whom are actually making or citing strong arguments in favor of support, all confident that there's no reason to be worried. So, without any specific reasons beyond having projected other admins' personalities onto this user, and an overwhelming degree of confidence coming from the community, why would you oppose? Even if you're not sure, you can't actually present any specific reason that the user shouldn't be an admin, which makes it an empty oppose. All you've done is ruined the unanimous support the candidate had, and you didn't even have a good reason for it. The opposition doesn't follow the concern, it's a rationale to vote neutral at best. So, why? Why do that to a perfectly reasonable RfA candidate? What admins are you referring to, who would have you so concerned, that you would do such a shocking thing here? Swarm  {talk}  02:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , concurring with I assume that with  'heavy-handed' you are referring to your own 2013 block. Over the years, more than 2,000 editors have been accorded the mop. Between them they have made hundreds of thousands of blocks. Please provide a significant list of 'heavy-handed' examples that demonstrate your claim is a serious cause for concern and that there is 'certainly a chance' that newly elected admins (or any others) abuse their tools. Otherwise, please reconsider your vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Swarm & Kudpung: If you want one recent example, that would be Requests for adminship/TonyBallioni which was a sweeping 224/3/2 success. But after passing the RfA he has been a lot more divisive, see the 2018 CUOS appointments comments for refence. So after you are granted lifetime adminship, you can change your behauvior. Also Jbhunley pretty much failed his RfA because he had a poor exchange at Arbcom. So it's not completely unreasonable to expect some experience from stressful situations/dramaboards, because Wikipedia is stressful. --Pudeo (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So, essentially, you are opposed to *anyone* becoming an admin regardless of their individual records, simply on the grounds that anyone *might* do a bad job of it? I possibly shouldn't say this, but that is the single dumbest reason to oppose that I've ever seen - and I've seen plenty. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't think 's RfA has anything to do with it whatsoever. I would be most surprised if Ballioni would ever abuse his tools or admin authority and your comment is little short of PA. You obviously have an axe to grind but here is not the place to whet it or voice your disapproval of admins in general. As I said, strong claims need strong sources - you are going to have to come up with a very long list of cases of clear admin abuse to corroborate your vote - and bear in mind that the entire corps of admins is not on trial here. To use your own words: "not hint the editors interested in this project are a bunch of hooligans that are prone to doing every sort of abuse. It's patronizing, a bit offensive and discouraging". Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a poor oppose but primarily a pointless one since it will sway no one, never mind the 90 required to change direction. Per generally agreed best practice this should be moved off this page. No need to pile on further with personal insights. Leaky  Caldron  12:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a poor oppose, cherry picking opinions. For example, consider Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678 2, which is similar. Who's been abusively blocked by Cyberpower? Now, time to draw a line under this, the RfA is not going to be in trouble unless 50 people turn up and agree with this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree that the reason is not a good one; however, while I realize a single oppose is nothing to get worked up over, it made me think of some prior RfAs wherein there were discussions about 90 day to 6 mos. "internships" following the appointment; i.e., a trial period. Although...if our most aggressive admins become the mentors, it may do more harm than good. It's probably best to chalk this off to what ole Abe once said, ...you can never please all of the people all of the time. Atsme ✍🏻📧 14:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You always get one!. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no relationship between the support percentage in an RfA and the candidate's eventual reputation as an admin. Best examples are Dennis Brown (82% support, in high regard), Kafziel (100% support, desysopped for cause after an arbcom case). <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, but don't you think the trial period would be advantageous in that editors will be more willing to support a candidate and candidates would be more willing to give it a try? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme ✍🏻📧 15:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me; if the community knew it could easily de-bit a new sysop during the initial trial period, it might encourage more people to support and thus encourage more candidates. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 22:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * IMHO this discussion has run its useful course. I don't agree with the oppose, but I am becoming sympathetic to complaints about bludgeoning the dissenters. This is becoming a problem, especially in the more lopsided RfAs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I question why responding to RfA !votes inline is even permitted/tolerated by the community. People should feel free to vote without having to defend their votes to others. There's a place for discussion, the !vote shouldn't be it. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 15:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh, I would disagree with that. People should absolutely feel that they should be able to defend their position to reasonable challenges, oppose or otherwise. The reason why we use the "!vote" notation (pronounced "not-vote") is precisely because it is a discussion, not a vote. With that being said, that does not mean that a dozen community members should respond to a single oppose with a barrage of counterarguments, which is the more relevant and unfortunate behavioral issue at play here. Mz7 (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's fine, I knew that would be the case before entering my vote. But the general situation is not right, if someone is discouraged from opposing because people will be badgering them. You are allowed to do a simple support !vote based on your gut-feeling, so why the barrier for opposing should be significantly higher? Of course when opposing you have to mind WP:ASPERSIONS - but otherwise it shouldn't be any different. Now it's like you have to be the first person to jump off the cliff. --Pudeo (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * [ec] (to clarify, this was a response to Levivich) It has become a tradition. It is acceptable due to precedent. Whether it should be is another question. It seems that a fairly large number of us have found it necessary or desirable at some time to challenge or question a statement made in the support, neutral and specially the oppose sections of a RfA. Doing so directly is the ordinary way we discuss things here, so if you have a better way, or see a need to change, propose the better way, and open an RfC on it. I can see some benefit in keeping things a little more even handed, but I don't have any useful and reasonably practicable alternatives to suggest, and to some extent, you reap what you sow. (Sometimes you get a bumper harvest.) Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 16:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is nothing stopping anyone from questioning or challenging a support argument if they disagree with it or don't understand it. Maybe there doesn't seem to be a point in most cases? &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 16:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To expand on the jumping off a cliff analogy. When someone appears to be jumping off a cliff, others will want to know why. Sometimes it is a good plan, sometimes not so good. Better to know the reasons before following. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 16:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)




 * Maybe someone will "badger" some of the support !votes that only state "support" followed by a signature. North America1000 17:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A problem is that actually a lot of disingenuous voting and even trolling does take place in the 'Oppose' section. The community has a right to expose it and respond to it. Mean-spirited and vengeance votes should be disallowed and the voters need to be helped to understand why. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * More power to Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, If the 'broken RfA' cannot be fixed. At least users can go after the 'broken' RfA crowd -- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with labeling frivolous or bad faith opposes as such. But even there I am not a fan of the "pile on" mentality that seems to exist around here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * At the risk of appearing to pile on, I will second that. However, in an attempt to actually contribute meaningfully in this post, I think that this tendency is a swing of the pendulum. I get the impression that most RfA contributors are currently keen on getting more admins on board, and are prepared to accept the small risk of the occasional bad un getting through the system. My impression is that most of us accept that most of the candidates are decent enough people, and unlikely to intentionally misuse the tools, and that those of us who are not skilled in all aspects of swinging the broom will be sufficiently cautious when moving into unfamiliar territory. More real harm is likely to be done by a person psychologically unsuited to the work than one who does not know the details of specialist niches, and since we are volunteers, we can simply avoid areas where we do not feel comfortable. Taking that as a starting point, these contributors are getting more impatient with others perceived to be trolling or raising trivial, irrelevant, disingenuous or unsupportable objections. There may well be more tolerance of someone who clearly opposes for personal reasons, as that can be more easily recognised and given the attention it deserves. The problem with some opposes, is that it is not clear what the reason is, so for due diligence one must ask clarification, and if the explanation then appears inappropriate, people feel the need to express disapproval. Probably best to be totally up-front with opposes. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 19:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Calling responses "badgering" or "bludgeoning" or attempting to invoke the ability to support without comment (which is understood by crats as an endorsement of the nomination statements) are all strawmen defenses that come out of the woodwork any time someone gets called out for a bad oppose. The people attempting to discourage replies to bad opposes are part of the problem. Quit defending bad behavior. Swarm  {talk}  22:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting back to your original point, you cite TonyBallioni as being an example of one of these alleged "problem admins", as evidenced by WP:CUOS2018. I am now completely convinced that you're just making this up as you go along. You just changed your complaint from "heavy handed blocks" to "being divisive". The "divisiveness" you're citing are themselves unsubstantiated aspersions, in which no one was able to cite any legitimate complaints, all of which Arbcom ignored, proceeding to make Tony the only user who was appointed as both a CU and OS. That's a huge position of trust that is only granted to really good admins. So, you throwing Tony under the bus, citing personal attacks and aspersions, in which he is a victim, is disgusting. That in itself is actually a great example of why you can't just oppose for no reason. You try to pull this act with Arbcom and they'll take your opposition and throw it right in the trash, as is evident by your own reference to CUOS2018. Pull it at AN/I and you'll catch a BOOMERANG. Pull it at RfA, and you'll get torn apart by the community. Some users apparently think that the response is excessive, but there's a reason for that. It's not because you're the only oppose. It's because it's arbitrary, undeserved, wanton negativity, and it contributes to a toxic atmosphere here. It's unacceptable, and the vast majority of the community is not tolerant of this kind of behavior. Oh, and even if Tony was an actual example of a "nice guy" who became a "bad admin", which he isn't, you would still have made no argument whatsoever as to what that has to do with this candidate. Swarm  {talk}  22:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate both 's comments about me here, I don't find whether or not I am a bad admin, divisive admin, heavy handed admin, god's gift to adminkind, or anywhere in between relevant to enterprisy's RfA. I'm not even one of the noms here. If anyone has any issues with my actions, they are more than welcome to discuss them with me on my talk page, but we shouldn't be turning this RfA talk page into a discussion of my RfA and my personality after getting the bit. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose #2

 * 1) Oppose 232 Supports and 1 Oppose. That is a >99% Support rate. There must be something wrong with this guy. I Oppose.Izzy (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The comment above looks like snark rather than a personal attack. It's not worth sparring over; please let this oppose be. (I have not participated in this RFA.) Dekimasu よ! 21:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In light of the account's low activity and this comment, I wonder if it has been compromised by somebody looking for a quick laugh? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume that the 'crats will give it all the consideration it appears to be due -- not that it makes any difference one way or the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with Ritchie. The language of this comment compared to previous contributions of this user hold a significant difference Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Seriously...? This isn't a legitimate !vote. Nonsense like this needs to be be struck and it's numerical entry removed. Regardless if it's only meant in jest, it is still purely disruptive and should be treated as such, starting with a warning to their user talk page, followed by a block if they disrupt this or another RfA again. And for those that will inevitably reply; "but it doesn't matter 'cuz the RfA will pass anyway!", are missing the point. This type immature interference needs to be prevented on all RfAs, regardless of !vote count. - wolf  23:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur, this is frivolous. While I suspect this was an attempt at humor, this is not an appropriate time or place. I would encourage the author to retract their vote. Failing which I think any uninvolved admin would be justified in striking it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not support this Oppose, but let it stand and let it be judged as it is: WP:Not censored. To censor a vote in an RfA is to subvert democracy in Wikipedia and dimish confidence in one of its most important functions. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC).
 * There is a difference between censorship and disruption. - wolf 00:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is not a legitimate oppose. Even assuming it was not intended to be disruptive, it is. If I were not involved I would strike it myself. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This RfA will not be closed for about 21 hours. In the meantime, I have asked to strike their vote. If they haven't responded by tomorrow morning Pacific Time (mine), I will strike the vote. I don't see any harm in leaving the vote in place until that time, so I suggest that no one comment further here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Stricken. This is the sort of nonsense that makes RfA a horrible and broken process. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 01:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are not allowed to strike through votes just because you disagree with them. Libby Kane (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. It is not appropriate for an RfA vote to be altered except by a clerk with community consensus. A longstanding problem with RfA is that there are too many people who are not content with a straightforward vote but extend this to meddle and intervene in the process. The harassment of Oppose votes is an example. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC).
 * If the issue is consensus, I support striking the vote as straightforwardly disruptive (regardless of whether it's a hacked account or misplaced joke). Innisfree987 (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I agree with User:Ritchie333 that this "!vote" may come from a compromised account for the reasons he gives and because I looked at the user page and she does not appear to be the type of user who would put this on an RfA page. I would be cautious about blaming this snark on that user, who has only one edit in January after a previous edit back on October 24. Donner60 (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, if people feel this is a compromised account, or the user claims their account has been compromised, they can go to WP:COMPACC. Otherwise, this is still an account that posted a disruptive entry to an RfA. The request from an admin that they remove their entry should be taken as a warning that it was disruptive behaviour. Future entries to RfA of this sort should be treated with escalating responses by admins to protect the RfA process from further disruption. - wolf  07:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's just trolling and should be struck - I agree with Bbb23's suggestion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't have evidence of trolling. We don't have evidence that the account has been compromised (that seems unlikely because the lack of a space before the signature is idiosyncratic for this editor). You are not allowed to alter the comments left by other people. You are not allowed to alter votes left by other people even if you disagree with them. Libby Kane (talk)
 * "You are not allowed to strike through votes ... You are not allowed to alter the comments left by other people. You are not allowed to alter votes left by other people" - can you cite a policy for this? Thanks - wolf  11:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The appropriate action here is to leave the thing as it is. There is no additional kudos to be gained by the successful candidate in achieving 100% support - it will not alter their suitability. Just diving in and deleting !votes seems like the thin end of the wedge. As has been pointed many, MANY times in previous RfA, there are many equally puerile support !votes cast in almost every Rfa without challenge. Let us not open the door to that sort of chaos. Leaky  Caldron  10:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ( reply to Leaky caldron) Ugh. I just knew this argument would come up (and said as such above). The numbers for or against, or the percentage between the two should not matter. A likelyhood of passing an RfA, despite a disruptive entry is not an excuse to ignore or permit said disruptive entry. Any and all disruptive entries should be treated like any other kind of disruption. Trolling, abusive !votes should be struck and their numeric entry removed. This should be done by any admin (perhaps even experienced editors as well) immediately. The disruptive user should be warned and there should be an escalating response to additional disruptive entries, at the current or any future RfAs. It's these ridiculous oppose entries that get lobbed into RfAs like grenades by users simply looking to shit-disturb that need to be addressed. Eliminating, or at least reducing, this type of disruption would go a long way to helping improve the RfA process. Improvements that are clearly needed. - wolf  11:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They weren't going to receive 100% support anyway. The first oppose is entirely valid (despite disagreeing with it), as is the newly added third. Let's just leave perhaps the most nonsensical oppose "vote" ever made alone and get on with other work. <b style="font-family:Papyrus"> Anarchyte ( talk  &#124;  work ) </b> 10:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose #3
@ wolf have you not noticed that it is the responses to the opposes that are disruptive nonsense? The opposes themselves (less than a handful, with over 240 support votes) have not caused any disruption. They don't have any effect on the result whatsoever. The people who respond to those opposes (and the way they chose to do that in) are the problem. You are allowed to think that the opinions of others are nonsense, but that does not give you the right to silence those you disagree with. You seem to think you are part of the solution when it should be obvious you are part of the problem. Libby Kane (talk)
 * 1) Oppose I agree with User:Pudeo, I think administrators should have quite a broard spectrum of competence and have demonstrated that. Narwaro (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * While I don't quite think you have accurately summed up "Pudeo"'s concerns, I'll set that aside and ask that you clarify yours. Do you really believe that this candidate would either be so abusive or so incompetent if given the admin toolset, that you must oppose? Despite the support given by 3 co-noms and almost (at this point) 250 editors, do you really believe that this candidate should absolutely not be made an admin? Thank you in advance for any clarification you can provide. - wolf  10:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * While I did not make my comment to only sum up the comment made by Pudeo, but rather to agree with him and add my own point, I see why this can lead to a misunderstanding. While the nominee seems to have quite a lot of edits in both mainspace and the more technical spaces, I think, judging by the EC result of his main account I think that an administrator should also demonstrate the ability to review changes regardless of topic, I think 54 approves is not enough. While that is my opinion and anyone might disagree, I think it is a valid point. I apoligise that my first comment did not make my point clear enough. Feel free to comment further. Narwaro (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. You have made valid points, but you have not answered my question. Let's try it this way; your comments could just as easily be posted in the "neutral" or "general comments" sections. Your opinion would be posted for others to consider. But instead, you posted in the "oppose" section. You actively believe that this candidate should not be an admin. Do you really believe they would either be so abusive or so incompetent with the admin toolset that they should not become an admi? Or do you think that despite your comments, they will be, at minimum, a capable admin? Thanks again -  wolf  11:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It might be preferable to continue any discussion on the talk page? Leaky  Caldron  10:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we have fundamental disagreement from what direction we start to conclude an opinion. For that matter, I think there should be (positively) points met for a user to be admin, you seem to think that there should be no negative prospects. I do not think this is the right way, because than any new user that has not done anything to let editors be opposed to him would be a proper candidate to be an admin. As such, no, I do not think Enterprisey would be a bad or abusive admin, but my personal positive criteria are not met to convince me to be of the opinion this user should be an administrator. I hope this finally answers your question. Narwaro (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Erm, I don't recall writing that "any new user that has not done anything to let editors be opposed to him would be a proper candidate". But we seem to be on different pages here anyway and I don't see the point in trying to get an answer for the same question, over and over. There is problem with RfA right now, and there has been for some time. Part of the issue is how oppose !votes are posted and followed up on, (or not, in many cases). There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of RfA and the !voting process. Entries like those of Pudeo and yourself are, to some degree, examples of this problem. (I won't even count Izzy's oppose as it is just pure disruptive nonsense). So, no... you didn't finally answer my question, but that's ok. You've helped out in other ways. Thanks -  wolf  14:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are popping up all over the place related to this RfA, a user who has been here fewer than four weeks and has already accumulated over 1,000 edits. What account(s) have you used before?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The harassment of Opposers continues apace. Wikipedia will soon be seen to have the electoral standards of a banana republic. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC).


 * @ "have you not noticed that it is the responses to the opposes that are disruptive nonsense?" -Surely that is an attempt at a joke? A very bad joke. "The opposes themselves (less than a handful, with over 240 support votes) have not caused any disruption. They don't have any effect on the result whatsoever." - As I've already said numerous times; the numbers don't matter. A thousand support !votes does not justify a single disruptive oppose entry. "The people who respond to those opposes (and the way they chose to do that in) are the problem." - You've come no where close to demonstrating that as a fact. "You are allowed to think that the opinions of others are nonsense, but that does not give you the right to silence those you disagree with." - slow down there, Meiklejohn. The only entry I was looking to "silence" was that silly post by "Izzy", which was in no way intended as a sincere contribution and, as it turns out, has been struck from the RfA. "You seem to think you are part of the solution when it should be obvious you are part of the problem." - Oh Puh-leeeze. Take your canned rhetoric elsewhere, this has become boring. The only thing of interest you could possibly contribute at this point is a reply to Bbb23's question to you above. Good luck with that. -  wolf  00:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)