Revision as of 07:08, 9 October 2006 editJournalist (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,932 edits comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:17, 9 October 2006 edit undoWerdna (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,655 edits expanded explanation of my !voteNext edit → | ||
Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
*Also, searching through the past 10 ] of the ], streching back to May of this year, you've participated/commented ]. Do you feel that you're actively involved in discussion about RfA? ] <small>(])</small> 15:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | *Also, searching through the past 10 ] of the ], streching back to May of this year, you've participated/commented ]. Do you feel that you're actively involved in discussion about RfA? ] <small>(])</small> 15:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
:* I prefer reading through ] and thinking over rather than posting directly, but if you accept associated discussions I've also explored various ], followed the recent Carnildo RfA (on RfAr now), 1FA essays, and accustomed through the "adminship is not a vote" debate - which hit home as early as the transition of VfD to AfD (Deletion reform, "AfD is not a vote"). - ]''']'''] 16:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | :* I prefer reading through ] and thinking over rather than posting directly, but if you accept associated discussions I've also explored various ], followed the recent Carnildo RfA (on RfAr now), 1FA essays, and accustomed through the "adminship is not a vote" debate - which hit home as early as the transition of VfD to AfD (Deletion reform, "AfD is not a vote"). - ]''']'''] 16:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
*Consider this an expanded explanation of my vote below. I opposed because I believe that Mailer Diablo has a severe misunderstanding regarding the purpose of RfA, with respects to his 1FA criterion. RfA is (currently) a vote (yes, I know, people say it's not. But really, let's not kid ourselves, it is currently a vote) between Wikipedians in order to determine whether or not the candidate is capable of becoming an effective administrator. Our requests for adminship process should not be designed to "reward" those Wikipedians who have brought an article to featured status. To take myself personally, I have not, and likely will never do so. My skills do not lie in writing articles — they lie in the technical side of Misplaced Pages. As a result, I stick to what I'm good at, and work on bots and MediaWiki patches. Mailer Diablo's One Featured Article criterion implies that I am not as good an editor as another who has invested less time and effort, but whose skills lie in writing articles, and has created a featured article. I find this deeply insulting, and I think it indicates a lack of respect for those whose skills do not lie in article-writing. No editor is 'better' than another because they do a different kind of work. I also question the relevance of this criterion to adminship. Whether or not an editor has brought an article to featured status proves bloody fuck all about their temperament, their trustworthiness, or their ability and willingness to clear backlogs. I also find it insulting to be considered unfit or not trustworthy enough to be able to block, delete and protect, because I don't write articles. None of these three abilities have anything to do with writing articles. Again, this indicates a severe misunderstanding of what RfA is actually about. The attitude is disrespectful and insulting, and shows that he has no idea about why we need admins, and what's good in an admin. For the reasons above, I believe that any candidate who employs 1FA is unsuitable for bureaucratship. — ''']''' '']'' '']'' 07:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
'''Support''' | '''Support''' |
Revision as of 07:17, 9 October 2006
Mailer diablo
Voice your opinion. (27/4/2) Ending 16:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Mailer diablo (talk · contribs) I've been on board with Misplaced Pages for almost two years now, and I thought it is time for me to volunteer taking up the demanding responsibility of bureaucratship in further serving the community. Since the first time I edited back in November 2004, the encyclopedia has offered a lot of knowledge and inspiration for me, and I thought this is my way to give back to the community.
I was handed the mop and bucket in March 2005, and have worked in several aspects of Misplaced Pages's processes along with other editors. Perhaps I may be most notorious for closing deletion debates and slogging it out at Articles for Deletion and similiar processes (the other not-so-"notoriety" being 1FA), probably considered to be one of the "dirtiest" aspects where and some editors see it as "broken", "cesspool", an environment not many sysops like to work on. My contributions speak for itself; I have lost count on how many debates I have closed, including some controversial and notorious cases, and I believe I have done a decent job in this area and have shown to be able to guage consensus in making decisions.
The latest expansion of the speedy deletion policy has freed up the workload on Articles for Deletions by a third. I believe that I am able to take up this further janitorial work in addition to what I'm doing now, and have demonstrated the ability to with my current experience. I put forth myself at the mercy of the community to determine if this is indeed the case.
As an additional measure, in any situation where I may have deemed to have failed the community, I will be avaliable for voluntary recall. - Mailer Diablo 15:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- This is a self-nomination; no acceptance is required.
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for !voters:
- 1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
- A. Consensus, consensus, and consensus. Usually promotion will take place where there is a support of 80% or more in a RfA. Between that and 75% is a grey area that may require a second bureaucrat's opinon, which does not usually pass. Anything less will never be promoted. Since the granting of sysop powers is significant, the almost impossibility to revert, and its decisions have far-reaching implications, I would put in summary that "when in doubt, do not promote" (just as in AfD, when in doubt, do not delete).
- 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
- A. My principle as per the previous question. There is no easy solution for every contraversy, and I understand there is no adminship review here. Two examples I can think of right now is to extend the discussion and give it more time, and in rare cases where the RfA progress is seen as unfair to be restarted. IIRC ex-crat Francs2000 has used both methods before. Any contentious decisions will be explained in full to address any concerns.
- 3. Wikipedians expect Bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
- A. My experience as a janitor. (See 2nd pargaraph of my statement) I've doused many fires that rage across the deletion processes, including but not limited to Brian Peppers, Monicasdude, Userbox Wars, School Wars, CVU just to name a few. I still believe strongly in civil discussion and debate, helping editors and to assume good faith (per my March 2005 RfA). I think my experience is best illustrated by my contributions.
- 4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on any other forum during the course of nominations and especially when making a decision? And to discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion only with other bureaucrats, in their talk, where such discussion would be transparent?
- A. Definitely. Transparency is of the upmost importance. No backdoor decisions, no shady deals. Guranteed for your lifetime, otherwise just ask for a full bureaucratship refund.
- 5. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA on a regular basis to see to the promotion or delisting of candidates in a timely manner?
- A. Definitely. That is the precise reason I am applying for the responsbility of bureaucratship.
- 6. (Expected FAQ) I do not agree with One Featured Article, it's ridiculous! Why do you advocate that, and with that I don't think you'd be fit to judge RfAs!
- A. There was a time where there was a serious shortage of quality on articles (and still is today), and when the edit counter was working there was a chronic concern of Editcountitis. I first saw Jguk, an established editor using this, it impressed upon me and I thought it may be a good idea to try and popularise it. Eventually, it didn't work out among the community, but I am glad with the amount of debate it has generated among editors. You can have my word and be rest assured that I would not use it as a basis for judging RfAs, and support or opposition based on it would have the same merit as any other opinons on RfAs.
- 7. (Question from User:Batmanand). You state that "when in doubt, do not promote", and that "Anything less will never be promoted". What are your thoughts on the Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3 (including, if you wish, the behaviour of various sysops afterwards, which have now culminated in an ongoing ArbCom case)? Would you have promoted? Batmanand | Talk 16:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- A. The arbitration case is still ongoing and I'm partipating in it, its decision currently voted on by arbitrators I am in no position to make comment on the behaviour of sysops at this time. I can only say that the matter could have been handled much better than it should, and I wouldn't have chosen to promote the candidate under the RfA.
- 8. (Question from Flcelloguy) What are your views on the current TawkerbotTorA RfA? How would you handle the situation? If the RfA ended today, would you promote or not promote? (Pretend that you haven't !voted or expressed any opinions on this matter before, and were asked to be the deciding bureaucrat for the nomination.)
- A. This RfA is interesting in the sense that it is going through uncharted waters as being the first single-purpose bot asking for sysop powers. I can see two kinds of concerns here - one is the philosophical aspect (bots will take over humans), and the other technical (premature, WP:BAG disagreement). My view would be with the latter, which has problems and other avenues of which this bot has not explored yet or been ironed out (e.g. MediaWiki, specifications, etc.) to be causing the first concern. I wouldn't have promoted the RfA, as it had no consensus to, and I would welcome the bot masters to address the technical concerns and perhaps put forth on RfA at a later time. - Mailer Diablo 16:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- 9. (Question from Agent 86) How do you reconcile your statement, "the granting of sysop powers is significant" with adminship not being a big deal? Agent 86 20:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- 9(a) Adding to that question, is adminship a big deal in your opinion? - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- 10. Is there any circumstance does an RfA with 80+% support not pass? - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- 11. It seems that you either missed the same problem in question #4 that I did or have a useful solution. Consider an RfA where you have evidence of a massive sneaky sock puppeting campaign. Your evidence on individual cases ranges from very solid to pretty good but circumstantial. If you make public your evidence all of them will complain and deny it loudly and those that really are pulling the puppet strings will use that evidence to be sneakier in the future. If you don't discuss the evidence in public you can't discuss it with anyone privately either. What do you think is the solution? - Taxman 04:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments & Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)
- I'm just curious about this; I don't seem to recall that incident, and it seems like you were wrongly blocked (by a now de-sysopped admin), but I would like to hear what happened. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- That was an accident, you can read about it here. - Mailer Diablo 15:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- The following question should look quite familiar... "Bureaucratship is a highly respected and regarded servants of the community, and its members are expected to defend this tradition and honour. (Hypothetical) Say, in an unlikely event that you have made an error in your RfA judgement in the course of your bureaucratship. Would you prefer to resign and take personal responsbility, or would you rather to have the bureaucratship and yourself bear the consquences together?" Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I can't mince my own words, yeah? ;) I take responsibility for what I do and will resign if I have failed the community through any error in the judgement of my bureaucratship. - Mailer Diablo 16:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Also, searching through the past 10 archives of the discussion page, streching back to May of this year, you've participated/commented once. Do you feel that you're actively involved in discussion about RfA? Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I prefer reading through WT:RFA and thinking over rather than posting directly, but if you accept associated discussions I've also explored various de-adminship proposals, followed the recent Carnildo RfA (on RfAr now), 1FA essays, and accustomed through the "adminship is not a vote" debate - which hit home as early as the transition of VfD to AfD (Deletion reform, "AfD is not a vote"). - Mailer Diablo 16:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Consider this an expanded explanation of my vote below. I opposed because I believe that Mailer Diablo has a severe misunderstanding regarding the purpose of RfA, with respects to his 1FA criterion. RfA is (currently) a vote (yes, I know, people say it's not. But really, let's not kid ourselves, it is currently a vote) between Wikipedians in order to determine whether or not the candidate is capable of becoming an effective administrator. Our requests for adminship process should not be designed to "reward" those Wikipedians who have brought an article to featured status. To take myself personally, I have not, and likely will never do so. My skills do not lie in writing articles — they lie in the technical side of Misplaced Pages. As a result, I stick to what I'm good at, and work on bots and MediaWiki patches. Mailer Diablo's One Featured Article criterion implies that I am not as good an editor as another who has invested less time and effort, but whose skills lie in writing articles, and has created a featured article. I find this deeply insulting, and I think it indicates a lack of respect for those whose skills do not lie in article-writing. No editor is 'better' than another because they do a different kind of work. I also question the relevance of this criterion to adminship. Whether or not an editor has brought an article to featured status proves bloody fuck all about their temperament, their trustworthiness, or their ability and willingness to clear backlogs. I also find it insulting to be considered unfit or not trustworthy enough to be able to block, delete and protect, because I don't write articles. None of these three abilities have anything to do with writing articles. Again, this indicates a severe misunderstanding of what RfA is actually about. The attitude is disrespectful and insulting, and shows that he has no idea about why we need admins, and what's good in an admin. For the reasons above, I believe that any candidate who employs 1FA is unsuitable for bureaucratship. — Werdna talk criticism 07:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Support
- Support, good admin with lots of expriences in AFD and RFA. Will make a good 'crat with his experience. --Terence Ong (T | C) 15:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support, has my trust. — FireFox 15:36, 08 October 2006
- Support, definitely. Energetic, fair, cool-headed. -- Hoary 15:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support An outstanding admin with lots of experience in RfAs and AfDs. The added tools given to this candidate would benefit this project greatly. A friendly user whom one can relate to as well. --Siva1979 16:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Mail-in Support ~ trialsanderrors 16:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support - In all the times I have ever encountered the nominee (and there have been a lot of them - I've done a lot of deletion proposals lately) I have been impressed by the amount of input he has as well as with the rationality and fairness of his actions. I cannot help but think that he would be more than qualified for these further duties he seems to be willing to voluntarily take on. Badbilltucker 16:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support why not? This user is very active in RfAs, and the 1FA standard which he follows and which is often named after him is evidence of making change to RfA standards, which bureaucrats are a big part of. Also has been here a suitable amount of time, so gets my support. --Alex (Talk) 16:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I would just like to comment and clarify that bureaucrats don't have any "special power" to change RfA standards or RfA processes. Bureaucrats are designated to interpret the community's wishes in the promotion of administrators, and while they may be heavily involved in discussing RfA change, they don't have any "authority" as a bureaucrat to implement any changes; only the community - including bureaucrats - can make those changes. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I know, but still he appears to understand what the RfA process is all about. I gave the Diablo Test as an example of his RfA contributions. --Alex (Talk) 16:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply; I just wished to make that clear. (I'm not in any way questioning your vote or anything like that, just clarifying the comment that "bureaucrats are a big part of"). Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I know, but still he appears to understand what the RfA process is all about. I gave the Diablo Test as an example of his RfA contributions. --Alex (Talk) 16:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I would just like to comment and clarify that bureaucrats don't have any "special power" to change RfA standards or RfA processes. Bureaucrats are designated to interpret the community's wishes in the promotion of administrators, and while they may be heavily involved in discussing RfA change, they don't have any "authority" as a bureaucrat to implement any changes; only the community - including bureaucrats - can make those changes. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support. This is as good a consensus gauger(?) as you're going to find, folks. AfD closing is the closest thing there is to closing RfAs in my opinion and no-one does it more or handles it better than this guy. Regarding Chacor's neutral: If real life gets in the way, real life gets in the way. We can always turn to someone else. I know I can trust him with bureaucrat tools whether he uses them a little or a lot. Grandmasterka 16:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support. I have encountered this user time and time again, and have only poitive things to say. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 16:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support, per above. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support per nom. John254 17:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Jaranda 18:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support he's always struck me as being level headed. -- Samir धर्म 18:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support as he's a great admin, I liked the answers and this statement: "I believe that I am able to take up this further janitorial work". NCurse work 18:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Meets all criteria. Orane (talk • cont.) 19:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support - A familiar face on AFD/MFD as a closerBakaman Bakatalk 20:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support Great admin, lots of participation, giving my support. Hello32020 20:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support Stupendous, dedicated user; excellent judgment; placid temperment; extraordinarily humble and friendly Wikipedian -- there is no one better-suited to the bureaucrat corps in all of Misplaced Pages. Xoloz 21:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support - trustworthy admin, I would feel secure giving MD the bureaucrat tools. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support. I have seen nothing but good edits from this quite experienced user. Dar-Ape 23:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Gladly support I've never seen MD give anyone anything but good advice, he's friendly, and has both a good grasp of consensus (see his xfD work especially) and technical know-how. I just wish I knew this was up sooner. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support - always very fair, never holds personal grudges against anybody- will evaluate the user upon the merits of the case. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support. No reason not to, Mailer diablo has been fair, impartial, and friendly as well as level-headed. An ideal bureaucrat in my opinion. Silensor 02:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support. This is in part to counter the opposes based on 1FA. I cannot believe people are opposing on the fact that mailer believes admins should be people who actually write this encyclopedia. This is only a logical and sensible approach to RFA! I am also supporting because Mailer has proven again and again to be a clear, rational, level headed admin. ALKIVAR™ 02:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Incorrect. RfA is there to promote people who would be good admins, not to reward those who work on articlespace. — Werdna talk criticism 07:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support per Blnguyen & Samir, above. Also, I like the language used by Mailer diablo - seems very level headed. Good luck :-) EyeMD 03:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Mailer diablo is one of our most hard-working admins, and has carried out his services admirably. In a bureaucrat candidate I look for someone who respects consensus and policy, and Mailer fits the bill well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose. Sorry, can't support anyone in the voluntary recall category, a category that only serves to say, "look at me, I'm willing to be recalled and you aren't so I'm a better admin". Don't bother trying to tell me that's not why you are in it, that may be so, but that's the impression the category gives, and it is devisive. I feel its poor judgement on any admin's part to promote it. (I've also said this many times and many places, so if you think you can change my mind, go ask User:Lar.)pschemp | talk 18:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've seen these votes before, whereby a voter judges the abilities and qualities of the candidate solely by the candidate's affiliations. It's a fallacy called Guilt by Association. What's more, the voter's impression of the group is sometimes mistaken. The voter's unwillingness to be moved makes it all the more bizzare. I can bet that if Malber wasn't a part of the category, the editor would find another reason to vehemently oppose. Tsk, tsk. I hope other bureaucrats can see through this. Orane (talk • cont.) 19:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Who the hell is Malber and why are you accusing me of caring about him? I have never in my life interacted with a Malber and don't give a flip who he is. As such, your comment here is way out of line. In fact, I argued this endlessly on the CFD discussion here on August 14th, and if you look at the history of the Category, there was no Malber person in the category at the time. If you are going to try to make my vote look bad, why don't you go find some real evidence? Also, it is not guilt by association, its guilt by the fact he agrees with the category. He's in it and has advertised the fact at the of this RFB. That's a very different thing. My objection to this category and its promotion has been stated since the beginning. Go ask Lar, he'll tell you. The two of us have argued about that category until we were blue in the face mutiple times, and I still have the same opinion of it, so I'm just warning people not to bother. Unless you think RFB is an appropriate place to rehash the issue of admin recall (I don't) I think my warning was appropriate. pschemp | talk 21:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I was speaking of Mailer. My mistake. But my critique of your vote still stands.
- A few points here. First of all... Pschemp and I have agreed to amicably disagree about the value of the category since the very get go, and that has nothing to do with Malber. You'll recall that in some previous RfAs there has been some controversy about whether one can or should hold up membership in various categories, wikiphilosophies, etc as a criterion for deciding. In particular the thing is that when I even hinted at that I thought it was a thing to evaluate people on, I got jumped on. (I was hinting at evaluating the other way). I see it as voluntary. but I do think it gives insight into admin (and by extension, 'crat) thinking, one facet of how one evaluates the total package of what has to be done. So is it valid to use this membership as one facet? I think so. Even if I evaluate in the other direction from pschemp, who I respect a great deal. Note that evaluating is different from requiring or forbidding membership as a condition. Is challenging someone for choosing to evaluate that way appropriate? No, I do not think it is. People evaluate using criteria of their choosing, and rightly so. So I don't see taking pschemp to task for her views, for her criteria, as a good approach. Disagree if you like, but flinging about accusations that it's because of a particular member or whatever may not be useful... this has nothing to do with Malber. ++Lar: t/c 22:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I was speaking of Mailer. My mistake. But my critique of your vote still stands.
- Who the hell is Malber and why are you accusing me of caring about him? I have never in my life interacted with a Malber and don't give a flip who he is. As such, your comment here is way out of line. In fact, I argued this endlessly on the CFD discussion here on August 14th, and if you look at the history of the Category, there was no Malber person in the category at the time. If you are going to try to make my vote look bad, why don't you go find some real evidence? Also, it is not guilt by association, its guilt by the fact he agrees with the category. He's in it and has advertised the fact at the of this RFB. That's a very different thing. My objection to this category and its promotion has been stated since the beginning. Go ask Lar, he'll tell you. The two of us have argued about that category until we were blue in the face mutiple times, and I still have the same opinion of it, so I'm just warning people not to bother. Unless you think RFB is an appropriate place to rehash the issue of admin recall (I don't) I think my warning was appropriate. pschemp | talk 21:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've seen these votes before, whereby a voter judges the abilities and qualities of the candidate solely by the candidate's affiliations. It's a fallacy called Guilt by Association. What's more, the voter's impression of the group is sometimes mistaken. The voter's unwillingness to be moved makes it all the more bizzare. I can bet that if Malber wasn't a part of the category, the editor would find another reason to vehemently oppose. Tsk, tsk. I hope other bureaucrats can see through this. Orane (talk • cont.) 19:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Someone who doesn't understand what adminship is cannot be trusted to promote users.--SB | T 23:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have this general impression of what a bureaucrat is supposed to be, and Mailer Diablo doesn't fit it. He came up with this haughty criteria for adminship that the majority of administrators don't meet anyway, and it ended up resulting in adding to the brokeness of RFA. Administrating is about administrating, not writing articles ... you don't need any special tools to write articles (and indeed if you're only going to write articles, you don't need adminship). He's added to the general confusion of RFA, in addition to the weird recall thing as pointed out by Pschemp. I cannot support at this time. --Cyde Weys 01:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- What exactly do you mean by "administrating writing articles"? Are you one of those people who believe that an Admin (who is, or is supposed to be a role model, police, janitor and senior editor) doesn't need to be competent in writing? Look, there are mainly two categories of policies on Misplaced Pages: (1) Behavioural policies and (2) Editorial policies. An Administrator should be role models in both of these areas. In RFA's you examine a candidate's conduct in talk discussions to gauge how he stacks up against the behavioural policies. What do you propose we use to judge his experience in the editorial section (or don’t you think that editing is important. You know, given that we are running an encyclopedia here)? The only possible thing to judge his editing ability is the articles the candidate has worked on. (This is partly why I support a rule that an Admin candidate should have a featured or good article under his or her belt.)
- You know, that’s the problem with Adminiship today. There is no balance. A candidate is proficient in the behavioural section, and automatically we think that he or she is ripe for promotion. If we continue on this path, I’ll predict that Misplaced Pages will be a joke. We’ll have Admins who clear backlogs, but are incapable of writing a stable, unbiased and well-sourced article (or recognizing and correcting one that doesnt fit these criteria). Orane (talk • cont.) 03:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Calm down. —Centrx→talk • 06:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm not angry. I've been told, though, that I often use very emotive language. I'm just frustrated with what Adminship has become. Maybe the page (Misplaced Pages:Administrators) needs a rewrite to clearly and precisely describe what an Admin is. Or is it that I'm the only one who feels this way about the parameters of an Admin's resposibilities? Orane (talk • cont.) 07:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Calm down. —Centrx→talk • 06:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong oppose per Cyde. That bothers me even for a non-bureaucrat.Voice-of-All 06:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. While I agree that some parts of the Carnildo affair were handled poorly, I don't support the notion that consensus is based solely on percentages. Cyde's opinion also holds some merit, though I wouldn't oppose solely on that. Ral315 (talk) 06:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Had planned to give a more detailed explanation, but had three edit conflicts in a row, so, um... yeah. —freak(talk) 06:29, Oct. 9, 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per 1FA. — Werdna talk criticism 07:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
- I am, at this time, unsure. A while ago you cited your upcoming (how soon? Less than a year?) National Service, as well as A-Levels, as basis for at first leaving, then later shortened into a Wikibreak. How will these commitments off-wiki affect your potential work as a crat, if any? – Chacor 15:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I managed to figure out a balance for my studies and editing at this time. For National Service, I may or may not have an access to a computer, but whenever I can log on though at home I'll get to work.
- Just as any editor would love to work round the clock on Misplaced Pages, real life unfortauntely may impose restrictions on one's ability to get online and edit, and sometimes this is not by one's free will (you should know, that National Service is by law and complusory). However, this should not restrict one's love for dedication to the encyclopedia and its community. - Mailer Diablo 16:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm a bit weary about supporting bureaucratship for someone who pioneered featured-article-countitis, but I have a problem opposing someone who promoted well-rounded admins. -- tariqabjotu 04:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)