Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:42, 27 January 2007

Werdna

Voice your opinion (88/13/5); Scheduled to end 12:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Werdna (talk · contribs) - Hello, all. I'm Werdna, MediaWiki developer, long-time editor (since July 2005), and creator of Werdnabot. I've amassed over 3500 edits, and Werdnabot over 30, 000. Most of you know me as the author of Werdnabot, cascading protection, blocking without autoblock, retroactive autoblock, Special:Protectedpages, expiring protection, and many other MediaWiki features. I last ran in September of last year, but withdrew due to civility concerns, and because I got a bit caught up in the whole process. After several wikibreaks, partial involvement in Husnock's Arbcom case, becoming a developer, and many other events that have changed who I am on Misplaced Pages, I feel like having another shot. — Werdna talk 12:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I self-nominated this time, as I don't think it's necessary for me to find a nominator. I speak for myself. — Werdna talk 12:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Consider said above nomination statement as if it had my signature on it. I was just drafting a nom statement.... -- Tawker 22:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(BY THE WAY: Please Don't Bite The Opposers by arguing with them. If they're showing faulty reasoning, the crat'll take that into account at the end. Whether they're right or wrong, opposes tend to stick anyway (people who are wrong are often stubborn, and people who are right will obviously stay opposing), and all arguing causes is bad blood and a long page )

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I don't anticipate using my sysop tools as often as most sysops, but they would be helpful to me in the various occasions when I've had to bug a sysop on #wikipedia-en-admins when I've needed something deleted, or a protected page checked out, or a vandal blocked. In my capacity as a developer, it might be useful to have the tools for various reasons (I can't think of many right now, but I'm sure they'll be useful there). As for chores, I'll probably lend a hand with CAT:CSD, seeing as it's permanently backlogged, and whatever backlogs I'm pointed to on IRC. — Werdna talk 12:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: As most of you know, I'm not really an article-writer. I am, at heart, a developer — that's my strength, and that's what I've spent most of my effort on. Most of you know about Werdnabot, which has been running for close to nine months now, and is responsible for the archival needs of some 721 pages. Most of you have also seen some of my features on wikitech-l or in the Signpost, including cascading protection, expiring protection, Special:Protectedpages, blocking without autoblock, retroactive autoblock, undo, automatic edit summaries, and the list goes on (with per-page blocking, amongst other things planned). I provide support and answer technical questions for editors, as well. I've probably contributed other stuff that I haven't thought of right now — take a squizz at the barnstars section on my userpage if you want to know more. — Werdna talk 12:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: You bet! Those of you who've seen my previous three (I think) RfAs, two months apart last year (in May, July and September) will know that I've always been marred by civility issues, some of which I've considered baseless at the time, but which I've sought to improve on. I've always been fairly blunt with people, but recently I've attempted to curtail this — I found that often I'd say things that weren't necessary to get my point across; and despite my viewing of civility as of lesser importance to actually getting things done, I've found that removing some negative stuff from what I say, and making it purely factual, rather than condescending or otherwise negative, has made a pleasant experience for all. The "read before you save" doctrine works wonders. — Werdna talk 12:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional question (or questions) from —— Eagle 101

4. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot, created by me) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Misplaced Pages, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? Some useful stats that have been collected recently are Veinor's stats on which domains are being added daily, and Heligoland's stats on frequency of link insertion. All stats are derived from LinkWatcher (IRC bot) logs. More information about efforts can be found at this handy page.

As Misplaced Pages gets larger, it will naturally receive more traffic. More traffic means more links, more links means a higher pagerank. As we get a higher pagerank, the incentives to have an external link to one's site increase correspondingly. It is therefore clear that, as Misplaced Pages grows and grows, people will have a higher incentive to add spam links to Misplaced Pages, and therefore a great deal more links will appear. I believe that, as with most things, there is a feasible technical solution, and I've already thought about the best ways to control spam. Simply setting nofollow on our links may curtail some of the reasons why spammers will add links, but not all. I think the best solution may be a better designed spam blacklist (global and local ones), along with filtering bots and heuristic detectors in the MediaWiki software. At least some of these are on my developer to-do list :-) — Werdna talk 05:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional "question" (request) from Kchase T

5. Will you edit your preferences/editing to remind you when you leave a blank edit summary?

A: To be honest, no. I had it on for a while, but I found it annoying for when I was doing something that was blatantly obvious, and minor. I switched it off a few weeks ago — I add a summary whenever I make edits in *articlespace*, or to *project pages*, but honestly, I don't think it's necessary when leaving talk comments (although I often do so for them). — Werdna talk 12:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from Irpen (talk · contribs)

6. What is your opinion of the off-wiki communication, particularly related to discussing or planning the on-wiki actions, especially the administrative actions? Particularly, what is your opinion of IRC? Please elaborate on your IRC experience, what channels you use, what channels you plan to use, etc.

I find off-wiki communication, specifically IRC, both useful and enjoyable. I use IRC regularly, and find it particularly useful for coordinating (or soliciting administrator involvement in) responses to emerging incidents, such as major vandalism, sock farms, spam or otherwise. I find it enjoyable to socialise with my fellow Wikimedians in a more frivolous environment. Specifically, I find IRC particularly useful in discussing actions with other editors, and resolving disputes with other editors where I am having a dispute with one user that does not need to be sorted out in public. I think that there are many kinds of disputes that should be resolved in private, in order to avoid other users "butting in" when they're not a party; and that resolving disputes in private avoids "lynchmobbing" as well as other needless escalation of the dispute. As for which channels I use, I use the technical channels (#wikimedia-tech, #mediawiki), which I find exceptionally useful for debating whether or not to implement a feature, or how to implement it. I also use several English Misplaced Pages channels (#wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-admins), which I use mostly as a social venue; although I will often ask for second opinions on things to say, or on how to best deal with a dispute or problem. Similarly, I use channels related to other Wikimedia projects that I am involved in (#wikimedia, #wiktionary). — Werdna talk 23:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

6a. If you do and/or plan to use IRC what is your opinion of what constitutes an ethical or unethical usage of IRC or other off-wiki communication. Is there a particular reason why use IRC instead of publicly visible WP:ANI or other onwiki boards? If you think in some cases IRC is preferable to public discussion, could you give and inclusive list of the issues where IRC is a preferable medium of the communication?

I think that, on IRC or not, off-wiki communication exists. I find it morally abhorrent to even think of restricting somebody else's communication off-wiki in any way. The reason I, personally, prefer using IRC for communication is simply because I find that IRC and other forms of off-wiki communication simply lend themselves to communication better than a Wiki does. Simply, they're faster, no risk of edit conflicts, and overall a better "tool for the job" than MediaWiki, which is first and foremost a publically editable content management system (although I'm thinking about playing around with LiquidThreads to try and get it up to scratch). As far as ethical and unethical usage, I think simply that any usage of IRC is ethical, so long as it's not for planning unethical actions elsewhere; or if it's used to disrupt IRC (flooding, trolling, et cetera). — Werdna talk 23:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

7 Administrators are very much involved in hot editors' related issues, be it the conflict resolutions or policies that do not have the clear cut interpretations (unlike 3RR, WP:SOCK, etc) and require case by case approach (such as DR or Fair use policies). Do you agree that the better understanding of editor's concerns require administrator's continuous involvement in content writing? As you admit yourself, your involvement in the content writing is so far insignificant and more often than not acceding to adminship further reduces user's involvement in content writing. How can you make sure you will in your administrative actions be able to understand the editor's concerns if you continue to stay away from significant editing? Thank you.

I intend to stay away from issues that I do not understand. That said, I think that dealing with most editors' disputes involves finding out what each party wants, determining whether it's actually worth arguing over, and if so, working through to a mutually acceptable conclusion. However, I don't think that this is the role of an administrator, rather the role of the mediation committee. I am not obliged to resolve disputes for people ; and I don't currently have any intention of doing so. — Werdna talk 23:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Werdna's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• See previous RfAs: first, second, third.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Strong support. It's about time. ~Crazytales (IP locations!) 12:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
2. zomg support. --Deskana (request backup) 12:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. Question "Why the <censored> don't we have feature X yet?". Answer "Dev doesn't have admin bit, doesn't see the problem in the first place". Solution: Give admin bit to developer. I for one, support our dev overlords. :-) --Kim Bruning 13:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Ps: A decent developer with an admin bit can also make the most wonderful and useful backlog-killing bots.
4. Support, no problems here.--Doc 13:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Full support per having a brain in his head. This user is also who we have to thank for all these new features (edit summary previews, undo feature, etc) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 13:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Support - does anyone really believe Werdna cannot be trusted with the sysop tools? Proto::► 13:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Strong stupport - Long overdue, long history of valued contributions, and every reason to think the English wikipedia would benefit from giving user the mop and bucket. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 13:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Strong Support - developers need admin access, IMHO. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) (Review me!) 13:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Sure, excellent coder, has proven himself trustworthy and experienced. Kusma (討論) 13:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - proven to have the interrests of the project at heart. Agathoclea 13:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Support A good self-nom. Nice contribs, well spread edits, answers arn't too bad. Should make a great, determined, dedicated admin. Good luck. Ganfon 13:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Strong Support - if we can trust him with the source code, we can trust him with a button or two. --BigDT 13:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
13. Development Cabal Support: friendly, enthusiastic…if he can put up with my PHP, he can cope with the mop. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Yes. Picaroon 14:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Steel 14:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Support - Capable and responsible; giving him admin tools is likely to benefit the project, per above. Tom Harrison 14:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Support Coemgenus 14:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
18. Support. Minor quibbles, but nothing in the oppose section convinces me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
19. Strong Support. I trust Werdna. And there's nothing wrong with specialisation. Sarah 15:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
20. Weak support, really weak. But, I believe he is trustworthy. ← ANAS 15:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Why not? ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 15:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
22. "If they're showing faulty reasoning, the crat'll take that into account at the end." haha what planet are you editing from? Anyway, I don't usually do "per X" votes but Sarah pretty much explains why I can easily support Werdna here.--W.marsh 15:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
23. So you don't have that many edits. Doesn't matter, you're needed as an admin, support.--Wizardman 15:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
24. Support because developers should have the tools if they find a use for them. Applying the usual RfA standards, like "too low edit rate" or even my favorite "not enough contributions to the mainspace" would be counterproductive in this case. With all the cool features Werdna's given us lately, surely his time was better spent coding (which will not generate any entries in his contribs list) than slapping test templates on drive-by scribblers or running up his edit count with welcomes? Opabinia regalis 15:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
25. Support - Oh please. Just because you don't see his activity doesn't mean it isn't there. He's a dev. He is insanely active, making your experience of using Misplaced Pages more enjoyable, that activity just isn't something that shows up in his contributions. pschemp | talk 15:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
26. Support. Article writing has NOTHING to do with adminship. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 15:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
27. Support. I can trust you with the tools, so even if you only use them once a month, I don't care. -Amark moo! 15:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
28. Support, obviously a trusted user, opposition is baseless. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
29. Support, Werdnabot has pretty much made Wernda's RfA. Diez2 16:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
30. Cleared for Adminship Pilot her well, Werdna! (2x edit conflict!) —Pilotguy (ptt) 16:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
31. Support as I believe Werdna can be trusted with them based on my observations. ···日本穣 16:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
32. Yep. Otherwise he'll just have to write himself a backdoor in the software and get admin privileges that way. :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
33. Support: This candidate doesn't have the profile of a typical RfA candidate, but he has made extraordinary contributions, and adminship would be useful in his ongoing work while creating no risk of tool misuse. Progress has been made toward addressing the areas that were of concern in prior RfA's, although his continuing to bear those concerns in mind would be most welcome. I'd urge the candidate to consult with other admins at first before taking any admin actions outside his primary areas of expertise. Newyorkbrad 16:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
34. Support - This editor is an asset to wikipedia. The mop wont get in the way of that, but will increase their value. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
35. Support. G.He 17:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
36. Strong Support. I can't see any problem here. Werdna amazed me with the cascading protection earlier this month which was developed in just a few days. A true asset to the English wikipedia. -- Rettetast
37. Support. Definitely an asset to Misplaced Pages. SuperMachine 17:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
38. Support per Newyorkbrad. Not a typical candidate, but a trusted user for whom the tools would occasionally be useful; I can't see any reason why not. Trebor 17:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
39. Support as making Werdna an admin would improve WP. Writing articles is not the be-all and end-all, it's important but Werdna has made so many important contributions across the rest of WP, giving him the tools works for me. The Rambling Man 17:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
40. Support, as per Trebor and Rambling Man above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
41. Support. A lot of admins (including me) are limited in certain areas by lack of understanding of technical issues. Having such an excellent programmer as an admin will be a net benefit to the project, even if he is (as he admits himself) less interested in content issues. Chick Bowen 18:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
42. Support. --Ligulem 19:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
43. Support --lightdarkness 19:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
44. Support--Rudjek 19:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
45. Weak support - per Newyorkbrad. Moreschi 19:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
46. Support. Even though Werdna isn't a prolific article writer something tell me that this candidate won't succumb to Adminitis. Dr Zak 19:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
47. Strong Support per Kim Bruning, fantastic reasoning. It takes more than article writers to keep the project going and keeping good editors hanging on to RfA no 5 is just pointless. I'm slightly concerned at the triviality of a couple of the Opposes too, which makes me all the more sure there's no really important reason to Oppose the candidate. -- Heligoland 19:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
48. Support. Through his developer deeds he has shown he is dedicated to the project. My guess is he is probably more informed about how things work, than many who just edit; he will hardly misuse the admin tools (which is the major reason to oppose, most of the cases. Right?) // habj 20:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
49. $userId = SELECT `user_id` FROM `mw_user` WHERE `user_name` = 'Werdna'; INSERT INTO `mw_user_groups` SET `ug_user` = $userId, `ug_groups` = 'sysop';. Newyorkbrad hits the nail on the head. Titoxd 20:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
50. Support. Cbrown1023 20:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
51. Support - I think it's time. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
52. Extreme Robot Support. Philwelch 21:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
53. Extreme Support - Good user, very helpful. Tyson Moore 22:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
54. Strong Strong Strong I woulda nommed support - yes, this a support !vote -- Tawker 22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
55. Support: You're not an admin? S.D. ¿п? § 22:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
56. Upset Support I would've nominated you! I trust this user. ~ Arjun 23:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
57. Support I don't like the incivility, but I realise the benefit to Misplaced Pages that Werdna could would bring. James086Talk 23:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
58. Supporting a technical admin candidate for once. Valuable contributor, should be a worthy admin. MLA 23:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
59. Support, I think NewYorkBrad said it very well. I'm a bit surprised to learn he wasn't already. --InkSplotch 00:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
60. Support. He developed cascading protection, rendering an adminbot unneeded and ending a huge dispute. That alone merits a +sysop. alphachimp 00:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
61. Support that I want pie. Also, Werdna should be a sysop. Really, really. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
62. About time I can't think of any reason why Werdna shouldn't be a sysop. Willing to help, and trustworthy (my new two step criteria). Perspective changes when you become an admin. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
63. Jorcoga _{04:18, Saturday, January 27 2007}- .etadidnac taerg a si Werdna -Troppus
64. Support as a tech admin. And kudos for learning from past mistakes. -- MarcoTolo 04:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
65. Support. "I thought he was already one." ;-) Khoikhoi 04:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
66. Support Your bot has helped me out a ton of times. I thought you were an admin! S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
67. Strong support after opposing last time. Bucketsofg 04:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
68. Jaranda 05:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
69. Support – Werdna will use the tools, will not abuse the tools, and because he's a developer we'll all benefit from his perspective as an admin. On a smaller or less utopian project than Misplaced Pages, a Dev would operate in God-mode as a matter of course. Werdna has earnt the mop. — mholland 05:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
70. Support - Lets see, 0% chance of tool abuse. Give him the mop already! He can do more damage as a dev, then he ever could with a mop! Since he has not, that leaves me to trust that he will do the mop proud. —— Eagle 101 06:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
71. Support per Eagle, directly above. Have seen Werdna around and he seems to be a very helpful contributor. --Czj 06:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
72. Support Yes, lack of activity is a bit of a concern but then again the question here is: do we believe that Werdna can be trusted with admin tools. Clearly the answer is yes. Let's please stop restricting adminship to people who average a hundred edits a day. Pascal.Tesson 06:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
73. Strong support. I frequently disagree with this guy's opinions, but I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be an admin at this point. He's a productive developer (cascading protection, anyone?) and admin tools would help in that alone. What's the holdup? Grandmasterka 07:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
74. Support --Herby 08:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
75. Support would normally expect more activity but can see benefits of having developer/admin status; I know I sometimes come up against things that I have no idea how to do... its good to know that there's someone who will! --Robdurbar 10:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
76. Support {{subst:rfa cliche}} MER-C 11:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
77. Support per Khoikhoi. Yonatanh 12:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
78. Support- Suprised that you aren't an admin already. See user very often on Misplaced Pages.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 12:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
79. Support --HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 14:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
80. Support Carpet 14:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
81. Support Albeit flawed, he's made an overall positive contribution to the project.-- danntm _C 19:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
82. Support. Great user, great work, would make a great admin. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
83. Support (I'm afraid if I don't, Werdna will hack MediaWiki so I can't edit any more)! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 19:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
84. Support Would make strong admin ShakespeareFan00 20:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
85. Support The added responsibilities given to him would only benefit this project. --Siva1979 20:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
86. Support —Scott5114↗ 20:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
87. Obviously, devs need bits. --Cyde Weys 22:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
88. dvdrw 22:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose — lack of contributions, lack of activity, still seems slightly incivil at times, lack of edit summaries, fails my criteria, user shows no actual need for the tools realistically tbh :-\ thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   Edit summary usage is 99% for major edits and 100% for minor ones according to the above tool. --BigDT 13:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   The summary checker only does mainspace, I'm talking about all edits in all spaces. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose Sorry Werdna you are not nearly active enough. And your answer to Q1 is vague and shows me that although you might do a good job as a developer, you don't really need to be an admin. Also, this is your 4th request. A self-nom. As you've said, you have access to the admins channel, and I'm sure someone will do the job for you. --Majorly (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   The title of this page indicates this is the second request. Is this in error? --Deskana (request backup) 12:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   Werdna was previously known as Werdna648, or something like that. --Majorly (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   OK, thanks for the clarification. --Deskana (request backup) 13:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Weak Oppose for now. Although I do not agree with 'lack of edit summaries' (it is actually very good), I cannot support due to lack of recent activity (and to a lesser extent, lack of mainspace contributions). Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 12:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Weak oppose, at least for now. I don't think that edit summary use is quite good – in fact it's very sparse – and "I can't think of many right now, but I'm sure they'll be useful there", coupled with the earlier comment that he won't realy use them much anyway, makes me wonder why it's so important (four requests) for him to have them. I've nothing at all against him as a developer or editor, and haven't seen or experienced any incivility, but I don't see the advantage for him (or for Misplaced Pages) to have a mop and bucket. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose : "I'm not really an article-writer" speaks louder than words. Erm ...... yes. Seems to me that Misplaced Pages (especially article-writers) does not really need this individual as an admin, particularly as he admits to being "blunt". He's a developer. Developer's develop. I think I'm right in saying that. Gardener of ;Geda | Message Me.... 15:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Serious lack of contribs recently – PeaceNT 16:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Not active enough. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 18:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose I find the refactoring of other users comments in an RfC and incivil comments in edit summary troubling. (The RfC is currently closed and the issues resolved.) —Malber (talk • contribs) 22:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   Per the remarks at the top of the page, I don't wish to start an argument with this oppose vote. However, I do ask that those who take this opinion into consideration before voting actually read the diff in question—I do not find it unreasonable or uncivil, and I would like everyone to judge it for themselves. Philwelch 05:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

9. Oppose per Malber. Just H 22:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose per Malber & Majorly. Werdna is a great developer but development is a different skillset than that required for an admin and I don't believe that Werdna has demonstrated the skills of an admin. --ElKevbo 00:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose based on this diff . Not that he should have supported Daniel but I cannot support giving the bit to someone who advocates consistently taking admin actions against consensus. Sure the community is sometimes (even often) wrong, but I don't trust a single individual to decide when. Consensus isn't perfect, but it is the best that we have come up with. Eluchil404 13:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose per lack of mainspace contributions. Continuous engagement in content writing is the only way to not ensure the candidate may understand the concerns of the article writers, whose being provided with a comfortable environment is the crucial adminning task. No disrespect to developers and programmers, but Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and the candidate is not running for the position in the software project. Additionally, answers demonstrate little, if any, need for the tools anyway. Ready to reconsider based on the answers to the questions. --Irpen 17:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Enough admins who don't add to the content of the encyclopedia already. Giano 18:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral — I'm worried about the recent slip in edits (I believe that new admins should be just entering their prime, or at least their first prime ^_^). If you can show significant evidence of continuing activity on Misplaced Pages over the next two months, I'd definitely support. — Deckiller 14:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
2. And I'm giving benefit of the doubt here. - Mailer Diablo 20:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral While I think that the nominee does have a need for the tools, especially as developer (as adminship is just as much about maintenance as anything else). However, a few things still bother me on the trust side. I wasn't too impressed with the semantics that minimized the reality that this is the fourth RfA for this candidate, two of which were under a (slightly) different username. I would have preferred the nominee to be more forthright about that. As originally posted, the only reference was to the "last" RfA, without a link. I had to look up the past RfA myself, only to find the links to the first two RfAs. (The links to all the past RfAs are now present, but were put there by another editor, not the candidate.) I also wasn't too impressed by the dif pointed out by Malber or the tone in the edit summary. These are just a couple of examples, but they're enough to keep me from being able to support. Agent 86 23:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   He mentions them all (although without links) in his answer to question 3. Picaroon 06:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Neutral, with a side helping of benefit of the doubt. I opposed two of Werdna's previous RFAs and still have some trepidation, but believe that he's taken several things to heart and is trying to moderate his tone (the By The Way section and the honest answer regarding civility concerns tipped me from Oppose). Good luck and breathe deeply if you pass. -- nae'blis 02:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral, this just strikes me as odd. It reads like pleasing everyone is a Bad Thing that should be avoided, and that pissing off people every now and then is a sign of a good admin. That's certainly not the way to go. --Conti|✉ 13:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

   Not so much contesting, but I would like to explain: As an admin, you sometimes have to cut the Gordian Knot. Anytime you do this, you will inevitably end up with something like half the people happy with you, and half the people unhappy with you. Misplaced Pages is a real world project. Sometimes a decision must be taken to fix things and clear the air, in which case refusing to cut the knot is not an option (and could in fact be seen as a form of cowardice towards ones admin duties, if you will.) --Kim Bruning 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

   I understand that controversial decisions need to be made from time to time, of course. The neutral !vote of Werdna just sounded like making such decisions is a requirement for adminship, and I disagree with that. --Conti|✉ 17:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)