Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Werdna648 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Werdna648

Final(67/40/9) Ended 05:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Werdna648 (talk • contribs) – Werdna648 is a phenominal contributor to Wikipedia. He has been with us since July of last year, and since that time, has helped to make Wikipedia a better place, such as creating Werdnabot. In addition, he has a wide range of contributions, spanning from project-related namespace, to RC patrolling and user namespaces. Werdna is also very friendly, is able to work well with others, and has proven he will be a valuable asset to the admin tools.Pilotguy (roger that) 05:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to add that Werdna has addressed many concerns in his previous RFA. His work on the article namespace has increased, and he has shown much more civily. He also surprises many users (myself included) when he tells them he is not an admin! --Pilotguy (roger that) 05:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm throwing in a co-nom here (first one I have to do little typing on, hurray), Werdna648 has been amazing. Now, a little on wiki spam, Werdnabot is great for your talk pages, try it, you'll love it :) -- Tawker 17:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Roger that, making left orbit... Aviation jokes aside, I accept, thanks for nominating me. Werdna (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Support
  1. Probably unfair that I happened to catch this on RCPatrol, but ... First Support! Go get 'em Werdna! ~Kylu (u|t) 05:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Cleared for adminship Per my nom above. --Pilotguy (roger that) 05:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Kimchi.sg 05:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support A well rounded user with heavy community involvement. Easily trusted to not abuse the tools. Cowman109Talk 05:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support I swear you already were... I should pay more attention. --james // bornhj (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Definitely worthy of the job, and has already contributed greatly with Werdnabot. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. troppuS rof andreW --Srikeit (Talk | Review me!) 06:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. —Scott5114↗ 06:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support This Fire Burns.....Always 07:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support as I did last time. DarthVader 07:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. I personally vouch for his trustworthiness and his superb credentials. Andy's an awesome candidate, just the kind that makes you wanna say "I wish ´I´ would have been the one to nominate him!" Phædriel ♥ tell me - 08:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support.... Looks good to me! --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 08:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support I voted this way the last go-round and I've seen nothing to change my opinion of the candidate hoopydinkConas tá tú? 08:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support Had a look at your contribs and you seem to be doing a fantastic job. No misgivings at all. Good luck. ViridaeTalk 08:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support Good user. Abcdefghijklm 08:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support will make effective use of the mop. Gwernol 08:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support even though the user doesn't have a huge amount of edits like most admins, the answers to the questions seemed pretty good, and contributions mentioned in answer 2 seemed quite significant.--Andeh 09:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support because you're an incredible user who deserves it. -- preschooler@heart 09:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support. IceKarmaॐ 09:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support. I seriously thought he already was one. SushiGeek 09:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support, RFA cliche #1 Will (message me!) 11:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support, strongly. Proto///type 11:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support Sure. Yanksox 11:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Support another excellent candidate. Just zis Guy you know? 11:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support - --Klemen Kocjancic 11:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support - good user. --Tone 12:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support good quality edits. Anonymous__Anonymous 12:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support, cannot resist the cliche. I always thought he was an admin. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 12:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support; Werdna's done a lot of good work and would be a good admin. Ral315 (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. Rebecca 14:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support, I like his answer to Hort Graz q5. ~Chris (talk/e@) 15:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support - give him the tools. :) --Nearly Headless Nick 15:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support Looks good.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  33. Strong Support - per my statement and Pilotguy (who is cleared to nominate) -- Tawker 17:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support Naconkantari 17:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support --Alphachimp talk 17:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  36. Strong Support I've observe'd Werdna's action in the past few days, and I believe it further proves his preparedness to be an admin. Steve-o 22:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  37. Strong Support this user has helped me with problems ive had on wikipedia, the wide contribs range is a nice bonus, hence making this strong. Benon 22:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  38. Per answers to my questions, support —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support great contributor, especially on the technical side. Also expressing bafflement at the amount of opposition generated by a request for explanation. Opabinia regalis 23:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support Uncivil is only a state of mind man... Bastique▼parler voir 02:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support Fark the opposers! All hail our new overlords! --Avillia (Avillia me!) 03:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support per above. G.He 03:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support, reliable contributor. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support, developers need tools. I do not see his RfA's diff as exeptionally uncivil. abakharev 05:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    Its not a question of incivility: its a question of policy. He made misleading statements about policy, and threatened to block. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    If I may butt in here, I'd like to ask which policy I misrepresented. Hostile edit summaries and other behaviour like that is uncivil, and can be used as a justification for blocking. I saw my "threat" closer to advice than threatening -- if I had the tools to carry out a threat like that, we wouldn't be here, would we? This can be compared to the "threat" in the {{bv}} template. Also, as far as I'm aware, bureaucrats can and will discount RfA oppose voters who do not provide a rationale for their vote. Werdna (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support Joe I 10:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support. Despite the concerns below, I think he fully deserves to be an administrator – Gurch 10:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support hell yeah! Computerjoe's talk 16:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  48. Cliche Forgot Your Last RFA Failed Because You Are That Great Of A User Support. Roy A.A. 17:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support. Looks like a solid user who is determined to help Wikipedia. I can overlook some minor lapses in judgement and mistakes, as I hope others overlook mine. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support. ugen64 00:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  51. Extreme Lesbian Support - Nice person to deal with, and I can't get over how awesome his invention is. —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support: he's a nice bloke. Thumbelina 15:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support per "the No incident". Requests for adminship is not a vote, nor intended to be a vote. Pointing out that this is the case was the correct action, for which werdna is to be commended. Kim Bruning 20:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    That's a misinterpretation of Werdna648's comment, Kim. It is clear that Werdna648 considers RFA a vote because of statements s/he made on this RFA, Simetrical's RFA, Killerchihahua's talk, and various other places. [1] [2] See RFA talk for discussion. --FloNight talk 22:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    I see. In that case, I'll ask directly. (See optional question below). Kim Bruning 16:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support per the previously mentioned bot. That thing ROCKS OUT LOUD! Also makes good constructive edits. p00rleno 20:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support good candidate --rogerd 05:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support Everthing above. Incivil comments can be found in everyone's history; we're only human. The user does not have a history of rudeness and impropriaty. Teke 06:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support per developers need tools, per this user is human and seems to learn from his mistakes, and per ITTUWAA (I Thought This User Was Already [an] Admin). --AbsolutDan (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support I have decided that "incident" isn't an "incident" at all. Wernda got to the point. Don't beat the bush, shoot it. --mboverload@ 08:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    Support per Mboverload. In light of Andrew's outstanding contributions to the project I find it completely unreasonable to oppose on such flimsy grounds. — GT 09:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Switched to neutral. — GT 06:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support: I do not believe that he/she shall be able to misuse the tools beyond the level the same (admin tools) are being misused currently! Are they really misused? There is surely a system to make the administrators accountable for the misuse as and when spotted. Actually, adminship is not a big deal, and all true wikipedians should be provided with these tools. --Bhadani 13:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support -- seems level headed, fair and an asset to the project Dragomiloff 21:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support -- I'm pretty sure that the "'No' Incident" has been blown way out of proportion. --Vengeful Cynic 01:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  62. Strong Support Werdna648 is a good editor and he would make a great admin. I do not understand how his first RfA failed. Freddie Message? 02:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support Per the opposes, which as Werdna pointed out, are worth five times as much. Gotta love Wikipedian logic. Karmafist p 18:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    It's actually more like twice as much. — GT 21:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support per karmafist. - Mailer Diablo 15:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support I would trust this user to be a good admin. Dryman 21:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support -- Agathoclea 23:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I was also annoyed by some of the oppose votes at Simetrical's RFA but the comment "No.", though annoying and unhelpful, is not "exceptionally uncivil" or potentially worthy of a block. [3] The block button is the most sensitive admin tool and maybe Werdna would gain by hanging around here a bit longer to see how it's used in practice. Werdna is clearly a good contributor and I look forward to supporting in the future. I wouldn't even have noticed this issue if it hadn't been for Werdna's link to it so thumbs up for disclosure. Haukur 10:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    I wouldn't normally respond to an oppose voter on my own RfA, but I believe this opposition is based on a mistake of fact. Some background is required here. What I was mostly responding to was a hostile edit summary [4], and his reference to my behaviour as "too stupid to realise [his reason for opposition]" and "Trolling". [5]. I hope this has given more background on the incident. Werdna (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    No, please feel free to respond, I've always felt it was a bit silly to expect people not to engage with criticism. It makes no sense for RFA to be a forum where people can attack someone with impunity without fear of rebuttal. Now, it is true that the person in question was rude in the diffs above but that's not the part you found fault with. Here's your message:
    I'd like to see you returning to this RfA to give reasoning for your "vote". I don't believe it is polite, civil or acceptable to give an expression of opposition to an RfA with the reasoning "No.". This is exceptionally rude, and I'd like to see some reasoning - rudeness aside, your vote is likely to be discounted if it fails to provide reasoning.
    This is just a bit too confrontational for my tastes. You call his vote a "vote", tell him that the reasoning "No." is "exceptionally rude" and then tell him that his vote is likely to be discounted (which isn't really true in practice). In your next message you start threatening him with blocks in bolded letters. I think it's a bit of an overreaction. As an admin you're going to come under a lot of pressure and maintaining a cool head is going to be essential. Haukur 11:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks very much for giving me further insight into your opposition. I will keep your concerns in mind. Werdna (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. I don't know Werdna prior to Simetrical's RFA, but I find his behaviour there to be disturbing. Not only did s/he challenge Dunc's vote in a manner that was incivil and aggressive, s/he also threatened to block Dunc for his response. While he later struck through the text, blocks for incivility are not made "because this user pisses me off". This suggests that s/he really isn't ready for adminship yet. Thus, I feel obligated to Oppose. Guettarda 13:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Hmm, yes, I hadn't noticed the lack of edits. Less than 3000 edits and less than 700 Mainspace edits in a year? And this her/his second RFA, two months and 700 edits since his last RFA? Is he really an active editor, does s/he really need admin tools? I'm not convinced from his/her answer to Question 1 that s/he really has that need. Her/his actions alluded to above suggest, more than anything else, that s/he is unfamiliar with policy. My sense is that s/he needs to edit some more, become more accustomed to opposition, and learn to deal with people who disagree with him/her. There's actually some logic to expecting 3000+ edits with 1500+ Mainspace edits. Guettarda 16:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per "lack of experience, judgement and maturity" as evidenced by 685 mainspace edits, behavior at RfA/HRE3 & RfA/Simetrical, and other admittedly minor misdeeds, such as this (I know it's not against any rules, please don't yell at me.) - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. No KillerChihuahua?!? 14:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Clarifying: That was meant to be shorthand for Oppose due to the no incident, which gives me pause as it does not demonstrate the level of calmness and reason, part of which is not reacting emotionally or precipitiously to posts, which I prefer to see in someone seeking the "block" ability. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Per Guettarda. Werdna showed questionable judgement at Simetrical's RFA. FeloniousMonk 14:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I opposed last time and I don't see any reason to change my mind. Perhaps the IRC cartel will muscle him in but I don't see admin material just yet myself. --kingboyk 15:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. I just don't see enough evidence of this person being ready and per Crazy Russian. pschemp | talk 15:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Sorry, not enough edits for me. Highway Batman! 16:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Recent evidence of improper behavior at Simetrical's RfA is too troubling. Xoloz 16:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. I believe the Simetrical situation was handled in a tactless manner, this, along with the limited number of mainspace edits, suggests to me that Werdna is not ready for adminship at this time. I will probably support at a later time if Werdna displays a more even temperament in his interactions with other users. Rje 16:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Strong oppose. Werdna has obviously done many good things around Wikipedia, but I am concerned about being able to keep a cool head in confrontational situations.[6] The incident with the Simetrical RFA above also gave me pause, especially because it was so recent. Though I realize that a civil demeanor is not a general requirement for admins, it is still a requirement for me to support someone's adminship. I recommend working harder at civility, and trying again in a few months. --Elonka 17:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Changing my vote from "Oppose" to "Strong oppose" based on the latter part of this edit [7], and this "RFA Boycott" page: [8]. This individual's age (15-years-old, according to his infobox [9]) is also a concern to me. On the one hand, I am very impressed with all he has accomplished at an intellectual level. But his reactions to the RFA process show (to me) that he definitely does not yet have the emotional maturity to be an admin. --Elonka 14:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, since when was age a requirement to become an admin? --Pilotguy (roger that) 15:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    I believe this comment is primarily about emotional maturity, not age. Guettarda 15:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. "No" incident. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. When I first saw this RfA, I wondered why so many people opposed it. After going through the details myself, I can't help but oppose for civility issues. However, at the same time, I also compliment Andrew for doing good work for the community. If he has understood his mistakes and decides to apply again after some time, I would be leaning towards support. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. Weak Oppose Firstly I wish to give credit to this user for contributing greatly to Wikipedia. He is a good user and his presence here is an asset to the project. However, the lack of civility is an immense concern. Administrators need to show a high standard of civility. However, if this user learns from his mistakes, I would definitely support him in the future. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  15. Weak Oppose Per exacly the same reasons as stated above by Siva1979. Garion96 (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose I cannot overlook the facts presented by the other opposers and I do not believe in uncivil people for adminship. Maybe after these disputes pass and attitude is improved I will think about changing my vote. --WillMak050389 19:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose for now. The incident causing civility concern just happened days ago; if the candidate shows sign of improvement then I would probably support in the future. Another small part of my reason is the low edit count in mainspace. --WinHunter (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. Weak Oppose The incident mentioned is enough to make me tender a very regretful 'no' vote, but with great disappointment, as this guy obviously majorly contributes to Wikipedia and after reading about this guy's contributions (and seeing the Werdnabot all over people's talk pages) I really wanted to vote 'support'. If there's a third nom and he can show improved civility, it'd be fantastic to be able to vote support next time 'round. Good luck, man. — Mike (talk • contribs) 21:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Based upon comments relating to Simetrical's recent RfA [10], glossed above. I wouldn't want an editor who had made an honest mistake confronted with that sort of attitude. Other than this, Werdna648 is a good candidate and I would be willing to offer support to a future RfA when more examples of a balanced attitude are available.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose per civility issues. --Shizane 22:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose per Guettarda. Mackensen (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose per the no incident. The incident is far too recent to ignore. joturner 12:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose per the No thing, which is rather too like the problem with the HRA RFA which came up at the nominee's previous AFD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose per the overwhelmingly convincing reasons above and my reading of the various links to the incidents of concern. Agent 86 02:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose I don't really think he needs admin tools. He's a good Wikipedian, but wouldn't be a good administrator IMHO. --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 02:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose, yes, per the no incident. As an admin, you'll just be exposed to more stress than what you're exposed to now; you need to be able to handle it constructively, and that incident really gives the wrong impression. Titoxd(?!?) 05:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose. I have concerns about civility. moink 20:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose - As per the example[11], I feel that the block button might be better placed in cooler hands. Themindset 22:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose per above. Prodego talk 01:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose. Sorry, but the above civility incident is way too recent. Would probably reconsider in a month or two assuming civility is improved. BryanG(talk) 05:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose. I'm a little worried about that "no" incident, and then it's better to wait and see how it goes.
    Besides, its not so many edits. --Ysangkok 08:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  32. Strong Oppose See [12]. - Kookykman|(t)e 16:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    The page cited by Kookykman shows, if anything, that Werdna is well versed in our policies pertaining to the #wikipedia channel, and that Kookykman's understanding of the same is nonexistant - his opposition should be taken with a particularly large grain of salt. Raul654 17:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, I'd like to note that Kookykman was disruptive for a full hour and a half, despite many warnings, before I ejected him from the channel, warning that any further disruptive behaviour would result in a ban, which was executed not by me, but by AppleBoy. We get that kind of issue all the time - all the channel operators, and this guy seemed to honestly think that it was wrong. Far from it, we were not kicking him from the channel to "censor" his ramblings about the "corrupt" administrators on Wikipedia - we just found his constant discussion of it, often without reply from anyone in the channel, repeated attempts to stop, challenging of our use of channel operator privileges to clear out inactive potential loggers/lurkers, and other behaviour of his exceptionally disruptive, and ejected him from the channel, and for no other reason. Channel operators on #wikipedia are entitled and invited to their own personal discretion regarding the use of operator privileges, especially when backed up by another operator, and in this situation myself and AppleBoy believed that the course of action we followed was the correct one. Werdna (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    As an user of the IRC chat room, I see many users come and go. The times that an OP does use their power, its usually well backed. In this case, I'm sure it was another user that came in to rant. There are some users that will come in and play devils advocate, and many of the users become irritated with the constant back and forth discussion, which ususally becomes quite heated. In these cases, the user is kick/banned to provide relief for the rest of the users. From observations of Werdna's use of OP, I believe Werdna took actions he saw appropriate for the situation, that other OPs would have taken.--Steve-o 00:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  33. OpposeTruthCrusader 17:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    per...? --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    Doing a bit of digging, reading the whole NO thing, and the IRC incident today convinces me he isn't mature enough to be an admin TruthCrusader 18:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  34. Oppose per Guettarda. It can be debated whether administrators need to be technically skilled, super-experienced at RC patrol, have 2000 edits or whatever -- but they must always be judicious and mature. I'm not an admin myself, just a "customer" of Wikipedia's admins; like police, they are our servants, not our bosses. As editors, we should project no opinions of our own when editing an article; likewise, I believe administrators should never project negative emotions or agendas of their own when acting as admins. A successful Rfa is often, but incorrectly, interpreted either as conferring a mark of community esteem or as selection to some sort of "village elder" status. Werdna648 should know he already has my esteem and is clearly a valued village elder already; if Wikipedia had knighthoods, I'd vote for his, just not to give him a sword right away. Should he come back again with a further, lengthy history of contributing coolly when emotions are high, then I will certainly suport his RfA.--A. B. 01:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  35. Oppose per most of the above. --HResearcher 02:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  36. Oppose. When I vote for admins, I'd like to think I'm not voting for someone who would get involved in an RFC or an RFAr down the road. He's a valued Wikipedian, this is true, but sometimes I think he's just a bit too quick and a bit too confrontational. Don't get me wrong; I actually value that sort of thing, but there is a line where I have to say "enough is enough." I simply do not feel comfortable voting support. I hope you realize this isn't personal. :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 09:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  37. Oppose Strong oppose now, his response to Kim Bruning's question below seems to show a fundamental lack of understanding of the definition of consensus here on Wikipedia. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC) - the insinuation that developers/bot-coders should be "rewarded" with adminship is offensive to me. The incidents listed above regarding civility and interaction with other users give me reason to be apprehensive. I'm sure Werdna does good work, but I don't believe this is the best role for him at this time. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  38. Neutral, not sure yet. Weak oppose, edit count needs more cowbell. The other stuff doesn't bother me that much. — Jul. 9, '06 [18:32] <freak|talk>
  39. Oppose I'll strike since you object and use my other reasons. FloNight talk 13:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Per Werdna's answer on this RFA to Q. 4 ..."I don't really care about being an admin at the moment, and the stress of the RfA process is really not worth another few buttons." Werdna (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC) FloNight talk 21:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    1. Poor judgment. Werdna648 showed a Lack of Commonsense by accepting a RFA nomination while engaged in a dispute. Given that the dispute involved Participants in a RFA, I think Werdna648 showed remarkably poor judgment. Additionally, Werdna648 showed poor judgment by accepting a RFA nomination immediately after acting as nominator for a RFA that failed because the candidate did not understand key Wikipedia and Foundation policy. While I would not oppose for Werdna648's support of Simetrical alone, it would have stopped me from supporting Werdna648 nomination by either skipping the RFA altogether or leaving a Neutral comment.
    2. Not acclimated to Wikipedia culture. Werdna648 does not seem to be well acclimated to Wikipedia culture, and does not fully understand how to administer key policies and guidelines.
    a. An administrator (or an experienced editor) needs to lower the heat in a dispute not raise it.
    b. Does not understand that blocks are not punitive. If no harm is caused by an editor's actions, even if they technically break the rules, then they are best ignored.
    c. Wikipedia policy is made through consensus building. Werdna's threat to boycott RFA seem misguided at best and could be disruptive. See User:Werdna648/RfA Boycott.
    3. Does not tolerate stress well. Currently does not have the attitude needed to be an admin. Reality on the ground is that a large part of being a Wikipedia admin is tolerating people making rude and stupid comments to and about you. This comment by Werdna shows me that the temperament for being an admin is not present [13]
    "...And I think it's ridiculous that I can request explanation for a vote, be called a stupid troll, give a slightly badly worded advice that the offender may be blocked, have hostile edit summaries directed at me, and be accused of "abuse", "harrassment" and many other patently ridiculous things. And after all that, Duncharris hasn't even had a slap on the wrist, and I have to deal with this crap. That's not right, and it shows fundamental flaws in the way RfA works. That is the reason for the subpage you describe, and much of the reason for my cynicism of the RfA process. Werdna (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)"
  40. I had planned on staying out of this whole thing, but per the latest response to the question pointed out by FloNight, I feel obligated to speak up. I don't think Werdna wants to be an admin, so this should help him get what he wants. --Cyde↔Weys 05:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    I think you've misunderstood my response there. I said that being an admin isn't a big deal, and not worth the stress of an RfA. Werdna (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    I think I understood just fine. If you can't handle the stress of an RfA, I don't think you can handle the stress of actual adminship. --Cyde↔Weys 21:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Change dot neutral, the exchanges above have drawn my attention to some things which undermine my confidence in Werdna; I think this may be a case of give it time. Just zis Guy you know? 19:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral for now. Strong contributor, but certain tendency for uncivil behaviour on occasion. —Xyrael / 20:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Until My questions are answered.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 22:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)changed to Support
  3. Neutral sorry, I personally wanted to nominate him, but that no thing is way too soon, maybe in two months Jaranda wat's sup 22:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Cliché neutral if it exists. I even thought he was an admin. I like this user and see him as an exceptional future administrator, but couldn't support given recent events (diffs as above in Oppose). -- Samir धर्म 02:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. The issue about Simetrical's RfA is troubling, but Werdna's reactions make it seem like he will learn from the criticism. Would consider supporting in the future. -lethe talk + 04:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. As an admin, your patience will be tasked far worse than during "The No Incident", as it's been dubbed. Yes, I believe you've learned from it, but I need to see more of that lesson in application before I support—and, if so, I will. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral. Per my neutral vote two months ago, more mainspace experience is still needed. With ~75 mainspace edits in two months' time, I don't feel this has happened yet. In lieu of extensive articling experience, a potential administrator needs to demonstrate impeccable community skills, and sadly Werdna's been a bit inconsistent here. Warrens 05:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral. I'm not going to oppose because of one incident in the heat of the moment. However, I would like to see a few more mainspace edits and generally a little more contribution to the encyclopedia. My criteria calls for 1000 mainspace edits and/or evidence of heavy contribution... I'm not seeing that just yet. Grandmasterka 06:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Switched from support per Kookykman. Ganging up on a good faith user in a hostile way does not reflect well on the IRC op "cabal". — GT 06:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    Please see above for my response to this concern. Very limited, one-sided evidence has been presented by him, and the ban was endorsed by most in the channel at the time. Werdna (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    I was there, and not to cause any trouble, but no one was objecting to his behaviour except you and Appleboy, and no one endorsed what you did EXCEPT you and Appleboy. And Appleboy's ban message of "screw you" was also out of line. TruthCrusader 07:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments

The oppose votes on this RfA are the greatest overreaction I have seen in my three years on Wikipedia.

I'd just like to know on what grounds is the above comment even uncivil in the first place? It was a tersely wording warning to a user who was obviously out of line - precisely the sort of thing an admin should do. It seems to me that someone made a rather bizarre interpretation in the first place, and then a whole bunch of other people have jumped on the bandwagon in a kind of moral panic.

Moreover, I'd like to know how one single incident, even if Werdna was being uncivil (which he patently was not), is enough to convince so many people to oppose an otherwise perfectly good candidate. People lose their cool at times, and it is downright petty to hold such a small, one-off thing against someone weeks, months down the track. Can any of the oppose voters actually provide me one good reason why this single comment makes Werdna unfit to be an admin? Rebecca 06:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right. --Pilotguy (roger that) 15:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I think Rebecca's comment sums this up pretty well – Gurch 13:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Username Werdna648
Total edits 2667
Distinct pages edited 1456
Average edits/page 1.832
First edit 01:53, 25 July 2005
 
(main) 685
Talk 58
User 270
User talk 753
Image 7
Template 26
Wikipedia 815
Wikipedia talk 25
Portal 28
Questions for the candidate

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I guess I'll probably work mostly on clearing CAT:CSD - an unending chore as I'm sure most sysops know. I'll also probably get involved in prod, keeping an eye on WP:AIV - it's been on my watchlist for ages, and probably take a look at WP:ANI as well. Shamelessly stealing ideas from my previous nomination, I'll also deal with issues on ANI and AN, although probably not AN/3RR. I'll also keep an eye on PAIN, as not enough admins do these days, and remain as a point of contact for new or confused users.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: The most obvious contribution of mine is Werdnabot, who has, today, surpassed me in edit count terms. Werdnabot archives discussion pages, and does a damn good job of it, currently handing ANI, Jimbo's talk page, and all of the Anti-vandal bot talk pages, to name a few. Behind the scenes, Werdnabot also fixes double redirects and a few other mundane tasks. **END OF ADVERTISEMENT for WERDNABOT**. Apart from that, I haven't really worked on any specific articles, however TA Spring, Knox Grammar School and occasionally the ACOTF (Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight). I also regularly discuss on Requests for Adminship, and occasionally on Articles for Deletion, although not now as much as previously. Additionally, I used to be fairly involved in RC Patrolling, but at the moment am taking a break from that to work on my RC Patrolling application "'Pedia Patrol", a shameless ripoff of VandalProof, however I hope to include some extra features. Additionally, I have provided the .NET Bot Framework, recently merged into BlueMoose's WikiFunctions repository on the AutoWikiBrowser CVS. And finally, I've also provided help to new users on #wikipedia, and kept it sane since I was entrusted with Channel Operator privileges, also being instrumental in removing Daniel Brandt's loggerbot from the channel.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have been in a few conflicts - as I'm sure we all have. Two past issues of note include the issues surrounding HolyRomanEmperor's third nomination for adminship, where I made a silly comment about three months ago, causing my first nomination for adminship to fail. Additionally, I have been involved in the Brandt "saga", although this involvement has been somewhat limited lately. Finally, a conflict of note is more recent, and concerns an opposer on Simetrical's second nomination for adminship. This user, an administrator, voted oppose with the simple summary of "No". I requested that he clarify this vote, and the following discussion can be found on the earlier link. A number of users have accused me of harrassing the user regarding this opposition, however I don't believe my actions qualify as harrassment. In the spirit of transparency, I'd like to make this known from the outset of the RfA, so that my actions can be scrutinised. A more recent, but less serious conflict occurred with a malfunction of my "'Pedia Patrol" software. The discussion can be found here.

Optional AOL questions from Hort Graz

  1. Detail your blocking plan when you are dealing with a persistent vandal who uses AOL. How long do you block? How often must he return before you start to do longer blocks?
    My blocking plan for AOL addresses will invariably be light, if at all. I recognise that blocking a single AOL IP address only blocks a specific user from a specific page - and hence is very rarely useful. Hence, my blocking plan would include blocking a single AOL IP address if and only if it involves persistent vandalism to a specific page. The only other option for AOL is a rangeblock, which I would only undertake in circumstances of extreme gravity, such as a recent example where a vandalbot from AOL was vandalising multiple pages - at which point I sought an administrator's intervention in rangeblocking the address. Werdna (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. If you block a range of AOL addresses, will you commit yourself to stay around during the block to help the innocent victims of the block?
    I will attempt to do so, since at any rate, a rangeblock of AOL addresses would be limited to an absolute maximum of one hour - but most likely 15 minutes. If this is impossible, I will contact other admins to keep an eye on my talk page, or simply ask another admin to make the block - there are 954 other admins on the project, and my inaction in relation to a block of an AOL IP address will not be fatal to the project.
  3. After you have blocked an inappropriate user name, will you check the Special:Ipblocklist to see if this block is creating massive collateral damage?
    I'm not sure what you mean by "massive collateral damage", as the only information that appears on Special:Ipblocklist is if an autoblock has resulted from my blocking. The simplest way to resolve this would simply be to remove the autoblock; which I would do automatically in case of a block of an inappropriate username - unless, of course, that username was disruptive, i.e. an impersonation or attack username. Werdna (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Have you ever experienced being autoblocked because another user was blocked? Are you empathetic to those who may suffer this way, or do you not care?
    Yes, I have once experienced being autoblocked, and regularly (until I got up my own closed proxy) blocked due to vandalism from my school's IP address. I am empathetic to the situation and understand how frustrating it can be to be unable to edit Wikipedia due to no fault of your own. As for not caring - well I'm sure no sane admin candidate would say that :). Werdna (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Optional questions by Ac1983fan(yell at me)(Optional for a support vote, that is. :) -- dirty blackmailer Werdna (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC))
  1. Now, let's say you are an admin, and you check WP:AIV to find out that User:Bob has been listed as a recurrent vandal at the Example page, and also violated 3RR on the page Cheese. What do you do?
    A: I'd check out both accusations, and block for about 24 hours if both were true. Werdna (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Same situation as above. Now, you go to check Bob's contributations, and you see no such evidence of vandalism or 3RR violation. The User who added bob to WP:AIV (User:Rick) is blanking Bob's userpage repeatedly, and calling him a sex-obbsessed vandal-whore on Bob's talk page. What do you do?
    A: This sounds like a pretty straightforward 24-48 hour block for incivility/userpage vandalism. Werdna (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Is the glass half-full or half-empty?
    A: What the hell kind of question is that? :) Half-full.
  4. Lastly, if you are not promoted to admin, do you still plan to become one? Werdna (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    A: I don't mind the idea of being an admin, I hate with a passion the way of becoming one. I'm personally sick and tired of the way RfA is run, and at how little someone will oppose over (I had this opinion before both of my own RfAs). People will decide to oppose based on very little evidence, and then when the candidate responds, go off at them for "responding too much to oppose voters". Oppose voters do not realise that their opinion is worth five times as much as a support voter, and it bugs me to see oppose voters make opposition votes on silly things (like "not enough edits" - since when could you judge someone's likeliness to abuse the tools by whether they had 2600 or 3000 edits?; "Disagrees with me on x topic" - furthering the notion of a Wikipedia cabal; and other ridiculous reasons to oppose people. In my opinion, RfA has become too stressful to bother with in the future. In line with this pending any massive changes in how RfA works, if this request does not pass, I have no intention of rerunning, as I don't really care about being an admin at the moment, and the stress of the RfA process is really not worth another few buttons. Werdna (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Optional question by Kim Bruning

  1. In summary, define consensus. Use this page as an example. Is there a difference between theory and practice? Kim Bruning 16:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I really should watchlist my RfA in the future. I only just noticed it. Anyway, to answer your question, I believe that "consensus" implies that the community has said most of what can be said on a matter, and one side has both numerical and analytical superiority in the argument. That is to say that (1) A majority (>50%) of respondents are in favour of what needs consensus to be gained; and (2), that the reasoning provided by the affirmative side seems to outweight the reasoning given by the negative side. While numerical superiority is above given as >50%, on many pages - such as this one, Articles for Deletion, and other important pages, a supermajority is needed, that is to say, a number greater than 50% is required to achieve numerical superiority. Werdna (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. That's your original research. ;-) What does the encyclopedia say? And are you able to use consensus to make changes to wikipedia? Kim Bruning 14:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
What, so this is some kind of open book test ;) Werdna (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Something like that. <nudge, nudge> ;-) Kim Bruning 18:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Werdna648_2_340e.html"