Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alphax 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] Alphax

Final (82/30/9) ending 06:04 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Alphax (talk · contribs) – I've been editing Wikipedia since September 2004, over which time I have made over 6000 edits, including over 1000 in the article namespace. I'm an admin on Commons, and I was a list admin on helpdesk-l before it was closed, at which point I joined OTRS. My previous RFA can be found here – Alphax τεχ 06:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If anyone objects to this just because it's a self-nomination, please assume I nominated him. (If anyone objects to this because I'm nominating, please assume it's a self-nom ;-) - David Gerard 13:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Removed per Deizio. Sorry (particularly to Alphax) if I have offended - David Gerard 20:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
This is a self-nomination.

Support

  1. I see no problems -- Tawker 06:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support - more SA admins!!!Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Holy cliché crap support! NSLE (T+C) at 06:16 UTC (2006-03-08)
  4. Support - solid record. michael talk 07:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. utcursch | talk 07:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Strongly. From what I've read Alphax has a good understanding of the project. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Solid contributions and has been here long enough to gain some experience.--Ali K 09:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. Alphax is a very hard worker and deserves to be an admin for his contribution. Capitalistroadster 10:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Extreme "What more can I say than OH-MY-GOD!" support. Per cliche (if you hadn't guessed). What a fantastic guy. --Celestianpower háblame 11:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support one of the editors I'm happy to accept the edit summary from without looking at the edit. Sorry I didn't realise you needed a nominator. --Scott Davis Talk 11:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support I don't usually vote on RfA's, but all my contacts with Alphax have been positive, and ITHAWO. I can't see him misusing the admin tools. JesseW, the juggling janitor 12:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support Very good editor who's is already a Wiki editor! Staxringold 12:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. Has solid amount of contributions, and has been around long enough to know the admin process. Jude(talk,contribs) 12:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support It is time to give this user the mop. Has a lot of experience. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support, demonstrates familiarity with admin process, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Probably can't write brilliant prose, but shit, neither can I. — Mar. 8, '06 [13:34] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  16. About Effing Time Support - for a hundred million reasons. Rob Church (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support - I've known him for a while, he's an OK guy. The opposers have really silly reasons that do not convince me that i'm wrong. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 13:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support - ridiculously qualified, a hard worker and eminently sane. - David Gerard 13:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Robert 14:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support ZOMG David Gerard nomination! jacoplane 14:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. Self-nom isn't a valid reason to oppose, nor is opinion on userboxes (userboxes is becoming the "abortion" issue of wikipedia civil society isn't it?). This user will do a good job.—thames 14:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support as per criteria. Batmanand | Talk 15:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    Support. So the 'adminship criterion of the month' has moved from editcountitis to editsummaryitis to (you heard this word first here) namespaceitis? Plenty of experience - and non-Article editing makes him MORE qualified as an admin, not less. Cynical 15:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Changed my vote on the basis of the comments below Cynical 15:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support - A look at his contribs shows that Alphax 2 does a heck of a lot of gruntwork. From what I saw before my eyes glazed over, each edit was a small improvement to Wikipedia. He's already got the mop and bucket well in hand. Let's give him the rest of the janitorial tools so he can improve his support of Wikipedia. --Go for it! 15:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support, because every time another turdy userbox is deleted, a fairy gets its wings. Proto||type 16:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support - it's past due time for this user to get a mop. --Cyde Weys 17:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  26. Strong Support after edit conflect, I opposed him in his first RFA because his views with AFD, but that was back in October and he improved much by then, I could have nominated him myself. And with the userboxes, I don't see him get fully involed by them, and I'm positive that he will not abuse his tools. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 17:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support Enough already with the opposing "because this user dislikes userboxes too much". how about you judge them based on their qualifications for adminship and whether they can be trusted with admin tools? I see no reason to oppose Alphax, and in fact, I thought he was already an admin.--Alhutch 20:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  28. Strong support. I don't agree with his "too many userboxes" rationale, but that has very little to do with how he will use his admin tools. --TantalumTelluride 20:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support - had a friendly and constructive interaction over ancient Chadian kingdoms recently with this wikienthusiast. - BanyanTree 22:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support Sure. Mackensen (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. Should be a good admin, though I hope we'll not see the AfD dramas promised in the last RfA. Ambi 23:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support, as per cliché. FreplySpang (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support credentials check out ok. --Rob from NY 01:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  34. Strong Support I supported first RfA, see nothing to change my mind --rogerd 04:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support per Nom :) --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 05:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  36. Maaaate, 'e'll be as competent as a dingo's tonker, strewth, and flat out like a lizard drinkin' whoile 'e raights the wrongs o' this 'ole bloody system, eh, as good an admin as any, bar none. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support, though I usually prefer candidates who do the majority of their work in the mainspace, Alphax has already shown enormous dedication to and proficiency in the internal workings of the project, which is, after all, what makes a good admin. --bainer (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support. Knowledgeable and helpful; one of those adminly people that shouldn't be denied what is essentiall no big deal for reasons that just aren't that important in the long run. Dmcdevit·t 06:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support --Terence Ong 09:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support per answer to my question. David | Talk 10:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support --Ugur Basak 11:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  42. Already acts like an administrator. No reason not to give him the tools. —Cryptic (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support Looks fine to me. --pgk(talk) 16:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  44. Tony Sidaway 18:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Splendid chap.
  45. Support. I'm not an anti-userboxer but I don't think that every admin has to agree with me. The minor-edits thing is not so good, but chalk that up to having the default-to-minor-edit box checked, which the nominee has promised to uncheck. The AfD closing thing, hmmm, well he has indicated that he's not much into closing AfDs anyway, and we do want to avoid deleting salvagage articles when possible; I don't see him as likely to go overboard there. And on the plus side - Excellent answers to the questions, good experienced editor, previous admin experience, looks willing to do the scutwork.Herostratus 19:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support Will make an excellent admin.--MONGO 20:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support as per all the above reasons, he'd make a good administrator. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 20:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  48. Guettarda 20:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support, great contribs, I don't care about userbox views and the minor edit issue is resolved. He looks willing and able to handle the scut. -- Samir ∙ T C 23:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support looks OK, don't see a reason to deny. Prodego talk 23:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support. This is sort of a super-support, but not quite, yet so. Yay! Bratschetalk 04:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support. It'd be impossible not to (and good luck, buddy....you're better than what they say). -Mysekurity 05:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support--Jusjih 08:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support Agnte 11:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support. This dude is on OTRS. Admins need to listen to him very carefully and have to do what he asks anyway. Hmmm, I wonder if maybe he might just have what it takes to be an admin? That and no fair, I was going to nominate him! Kim Bruning 14:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC) - Also support because he opposed people with userboxes, as per Grue. ;-) <ducks and runs> Kim Bruning 14:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support For OTRS work alone... a terrible, terrible job to volunteer to do. Er... that more people should volunteer for! Sign up today! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  57. Yay.--Sean Black (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  58. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 06:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support – Though some of the information mentioned in the "oppose" section gives me pause, this editor does vastly more good than bad. – ClockworkSoul 14:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support - Whilst I have a policy against voting in support of people from Adelaide, I've decided to support Alphax because he has agreed to move to another city should he be given adminship. - Mark 15:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  62. --Doc ask? 16:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support Has plenty of experience. IMHO, the oppose votes have absolutely nothing to do with entrusting Alphax with sysop privilleges. Quite frankly, voting oppose because Alphax "opposes people because they have too many userboxes" is going against everything RfA should stand for. --Jay(Reply) 17:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support. — FireFox • T • 17:47, 11 March 2006
  65. Support I personally like this user. He always left a good impression on me. Althought the thing about the AFD votes and such below worry me. Other than that, I don't see a problem making him admin. Moe ε 18:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support. Let's all be happy. pschemp | talk 01:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  67. Strong Support: Alphax has proven his dedication to the project, and has long been admin material. I trust his judgement. --cj | talk 04:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support--Duk 07:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support. Excellent candidate. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support, though I may disagree with some of his actions/beliefs, he's a solid candidate. Deckiller 21:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support, What's not to like?The Ronin 22:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  72. Support. Great candidate. I think userboxes usage is too trivial a thing to consider while voting on RfAs. deeptrivia (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  73. support: Pitching in at the help desk and earning the endorsement of David Gerard and Clockwork Soul pushes this candidate past the tipping point, plus the fact that moderation in all good things, even userboxes, is not a bad thing. Ombudsman 05:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  74. Extreme Thunderwing support. Long overdue for adminship. JIP | Talk 08:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support, after balancing the good work by the candidate and my personal recollections against the valid point raised by those opposing. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  76. I don't often vote on RfAs, but the ridiculousness of the opposition to someone who is clearly very suited to being an admin has pushed me to vote here. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support I'm surprised he isn't already an administrator. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  78. Support, and note the absurdity of opposing someone because of userboxes. This is an encyclopedia, not a McDonald's play land. Ral315 (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  79. Moderate Support. Although I initially held a neutral position. I have now, due to the reasons of support, placed my vote within the favor of your adminship. I agree with the the reasons of opposing your appointment and I advise you to look into the "criticisms" other users have provided you with. You will succeed. J.Steinbock 01:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  80. Support: Disliking userboxes is not a reason against adminship. TimBentley 05:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support: No clear issues and good, levelheaded discussion on the mini-controversies on this page. Oppose votes seem to fall into 2 camps - a) Driven by his putative opinion on userboxes, and b) based on his answers to questions on his RfA 6 months ago. To a) my response is that there is more to WP than userboxes and I don't care what he thinks about userboxes, to b) 6 months is a long time; all the discussion seems to be about perceived naivite to answers on some questions there which is hardly relevant with 6 mos more experience under his belt. Martinp 19:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support excellent editor and we need more like him.Gator (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose opposes people because they have too many userboxes [1] , and generally hates userboxes too much. Marks all edits as minor even if they aren't. Sorry, cannot support.  Grue  08:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    I can't think of a better support reason - David Gerard 13:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    It's quite funny that I should tell that to an ArbCom member, but please read Wikipedia:Minor edit so you understand why marking all edits as minor is a bad thing.  Grue  14:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    I've disabled the "mark all edits as minor by default" preference. Alphax τεχ 14:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    Arbcom member? Me? I ran screaming, as you may recall - David Gerard 18:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose: self nomination; doesn't explain what's changed between now and the previous RfA. Ewlyahoocom 09:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    Wait. So you're opposing on the basis it's a self-nom? That's ridiculous. Do you oppose all self-noms? NSLE (T+C) at 09:07 UTC (2006-03-08)
    Although I rarely vote on any of these nominations, yes, I generally oppose self-noms. (How hard it is to find another editor to do the nominating?) And a self-nom with a previous RfA requires more explanation than has been offered here. (And what's the deal with your questions below? You say "I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote" but since this editor has already got your "Holy cliché crap support!" what's the incentive to give answers?) Ewlyahoocom 09:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    The incentive comes from that one neutral who's waiting for said answers ;) NSLE (T+C) at 09:57 UTC (2006-03-08)
    If you don't like self-noms, assume that I nominated him - David Gerard 13:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    What if that only makes it worse? ;) Sorry... sorry. Even though Mr. Gerard loves sarcasm very much, it is often inappropriate. I do apologize. Xoloz 01:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    I assume your good faith - David Gerard 18:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose--Looper5920 10:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    Any particular reason? NSLE (T+C) at 12:12 UTC (2006-03-08)
    Now that you ask...I am extremely uncomfortable with the anti-userbox bias. Call it whatever you will but I call it censorship and I will oppose it where I can--Looper5920 09:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    See my comment further down the page. Alphax τεχ 14:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose after reading previous nomination. Also, marking nearly all edits as minor, even ones that make changes in meaning, is not a good practice, even if WP:ME is not binding. Jonathunder 14:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, he did that because (silly sausage!) he had "minor edit" checked by default. That's no longer the case, and he's committed to not mis-marking major edits in the future. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per link Grue posted. Opposing someone (for arbcom no less) on the basis of "too many userboxes" strikes me as immature, and well, annoying. (If Alphax has a response I will certainly be willing to listen.) Also, the previous nom was rather disheartening, though I realize things can change in 5 months. --Fang Aili 14:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Caring about userboxes too much (on either side of the issue) will make me wary of anyone for a little while. Now is not the time for promotion, since events after the last RfA don't make me feel more comfortable with this user having a mop. Xoloz 15:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Userboxes are the equilivent of stickers on a student's binder, and opposing somoene for that reason is like saying "You get an F for having too many stickers on your binders". Can't support an admin with that attitude. As well please mark minor edits if they are minor, and don't make them if they are major edits. Mike (T C) 18:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Too much involvement in the userbox issue. While I think the whole userbox issue is a big waste of time for both sides, at this point I think there is already enough damage to the Wikipedia community occuring over this issue and would vote to oppose the promotion of any editor overly involved in the issue on either side. Come back and try again after this has died down. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 18:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Strong object. --Off! 22:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per Grue and Xoloz. Having userboxes or not doesn't prevent people from being able to edit well. Also, per Xoloz, it's probably not wise to elect new admins who are involved at one extreme or another of the userbox affair until the userbox controversy has settled. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per Grue, Xoloz, and Idont Havaname. SushiGeek 04:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose -- max rspct leave a message 15:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. I still have the jitters from last time, and this is compounded by the userbox thing. Note that I'm not opposing because of userboxes-or-not, although I think it is a valid reason in the prevailing climate. It's because it's apparent that Alphax is unlikely to be averse to using admin powers to effect change by fiat and we've seen how that's not usually good (it is not always bad, but it generally causes much avoidable bloodshed). Comments on the mailing list of the type that say "oh, those lowlifes who edit AfD, I wish we could bury them in their own slime" (not a quote) but declining to actually do anything editorial about it make me feel queasy — a new set of tools and responsibility provide direct such opportunities. Alphax isn't the only one to use the mailing list in such manner (indeed Jimbo does the same, even targetting individual established editors) but that doesn't ease my worries or make it ok. -Splashtalk 15:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    Do you have any evidence that I'm:
    • unlikely to be averse to using admin powers to effect change by fiat?
    • Making those comments on the mailing list?
    Alphax τεχ 15:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Strong Oppose This is the same editor who, on his previous RFA threatened to close AFD debates as "keep" unless they had more than 10 voters! Also, I agree with Splash. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Seems like a good guy--probably--but far too few mainspace edits. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose - The minor edit thing and afd thing. - Hahnchen 02:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose due to invalid use of minor edits, and the likelihood of him joining into another holy war on userboxes. See what Grue said. For the record, I have no issues with edit count or self-nom-ness. Stifle 09:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    What likelihood? He's pointed out that people with silly userpages look silly? Well, golly gosh. I've pointed that out, rather a lot, and I haven't deleted-out-of-process (ooer) one userbox. Admittedly, I may have forgotten one — one's day is rather full, when one works so very hard to be rouge. What makes Alphax so likely to make the jump from "thinks userboxen make you look ridiculous" to "will forcefully attempt to improve your image with admin tools"? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per Grue, Splash, and Stifle Cynical 15:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose comments and edit reviews convince me more time is needed Trödel•talk 21:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Opposeper above comments.(Plus, too few userboxes). Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    That's effing ridiculous. What are you, trolling? --Cyde Weys 04:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    I think it's called a joke. —Cuiviénen, 15:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose Has had trouble maintaining civility and badly overuses minor edits. Also seems a great risk for "policy by admin decree", which is a bad thing. —Cuiviénen, 15:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose per Cuivienen Abeo Paliurus 02:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. Previous RFA looks like it was too contentious, and I'm not sure we need more contentious admins. --Elkman - (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose per Splash & others. Too contentious. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose because of what Splash and others said. Thumbelina 18:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  26. Strong Oppose per Splash. Focuses on too much not having to do with an Encyclopedia (see first neutral vote). Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 22:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose -- Nominee has many good points and is an important contributor. Let's cherish him at that level. Sorry. John Reid 02:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose per Splash. Angr/talk 09:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose per Splash, sorry. Hiding talk 21:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose Has made recent anti policy statements.Geni 03:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Though 1000 edits in the article namespace is decent, as a proportion of his total edits (roughly 16%) it is far too low. We are building an encyclopedia here and even admins should contibute. DaGizzaChat © 07:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral because he hasn't had the opportunity to answer NSLE's questions yet (only posted earlier today) - will change my vote once these are answered Cynical 08:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC). Changed to support, see above Cynical 15:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    Vote in support was moved to oppose J.Steinbock 01:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC) -- This is a correction not a statement of my position
    Allow me to explain. At first, when Alphax hadn't had the opportunity to answer NSLE's questions, I voted Neutral. Then on the basis of his answers to those I changed to support. However I later found out about the previous RfA, and his conduct in relation to userboxes (posted by Grue) and on the basis of those I changed my vote [again] to Oppose Cynical 09:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I don't like the chatter here from David Gerard, not necessary in an RfA. It was made as a self-nomination, let it run as such. Solid record although article editing is low, WP is an encyclopedia rather than a web-community. Deizio 14:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    My sincere apologies (and particularly to Alphax). I put it there because if I'd known he was ready I'd have nominated him in an instant. Struck - David Gerard 20:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    Appreciated. I'm staying neutral but sure that taking on board the comments here will ensure success next time round. Deizio 04:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral, sorry. Somehow I am not convinced to support yet. Perhaps later. - Mailer Diablo 17:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral, can't support because of very petty voting habits (see Grue's oppose), can't oppose because he's a good editor. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral.I am so tired of watching this userbox crap rend the community. I can't support anyone in the extreme camp on either side. pschemp | talk 19:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Change to Support. Let's all be happy. pschemp | talk 01:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Plenty of edits and relatively experienced but extremely but voting policy and small things, I dont' mind him not liking user boxes, its not like he's going to everybody's userpage and deleting their boxes, he just jokingly put that he doesnt' like too many userboxes, we shouldnt' blow that out of proportion! I'm edging towards support but don't feel strongly enough, sorry, you'll probably get enough votes anyways to be one so don't worry. -- Patman2648 talk
  6. Neutral. A good contributor, but his answer to Dbiv's question didn't really answer the concern: is Alphax going to radically uproot AFD by closing 9d-0k as "no consensus"? I share some of Grue's concerns as well, but they are not really all that serious. I'll sit this one out. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral. Alphax is a good user but the oppose voters have convinced me to be unconvinced. Esteffect 18:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral, would support except for ubx issue. - Wezzo 19:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutral I don't know the candidate well enough considering some of the issues which have been raised. --Signed by: Chazz - (responses). @
    Neutral. Per Splash and Grue. Leanings towards weak support. J.Steinbock 01:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    Moved to Moderate Support. J.Steinbock 01:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Previous RfA can be found here. --Gurubrahma 07:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 96 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 06:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See Alphax's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • How do you have so many User talk namespace edits? DaGizzaChat © 07:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Welcome and test messages while checking my watchlist and on RC patrol. Alphax τεχ 09:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • With respect to my low article edit count, editcountitis is evil. I've been trying to do more work on articles recently, but it's not easy... also, I don't mark all edits as minor; WP:ME is far from a policy or even a guideline, but I primarily do it for licensing purposes, cf. User:Alphax/Licensing. As for "what's changed since the last RFA": lots. I admit that I acted stupidly and was incivil; as pennance I joined helpdesk-l, which I thought would be a pretty crappy job, complementary to the Help Desk. As it turned out, we got a lot of OTRS-type requests (including legal and other sensitive stuff); this is one of the main reasons it was shut down. Like OTRS (which I'm now on), we were one of the public contact points for Wikipedia; we were forced to be on our best behaviour. I'd like to think that I'm a better person because of it. Alphax τεχ 09:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • With respect to userboxes, I actually haven't really been involved at all; in the instances where I've said "oppose, too many userboxes", it was because they looked silly, and being silly is not compatible with positions of trust; after all, would you take a person in a position of authority seriously if they were wearing a clown suit? Alphax τεχ 07:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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. The copyvio backlog, RC patrol, fixing cut-and-paste moves and complex page moves, and looking into things which turn up on WP:AN. More importantly, dealing with matters which turn up on OTRS that require deletion and the like.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I started Division of Mayo, Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Image stitching, Scroll saw, Directivity, and several disambiguation pages. I've also done some messy merges (Fairchild comes to mind) and quite a bit of disambiguation repair work. Out of the article namespace, I'm on the Welcoming committee, and I'm a founding member of WikiProject User scripts, for which I have contributed several useful functions.
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 took a wikibreak of several days due to the lack of a clear image trademark policy on Commons; fortunately this has since been cleared up. I believe that any future problems will be able to be dealt with through discussion with other editors, application of common sense, and if all else fails, backing off and doing something else; after all, if {{sofixit}} is too hard, {{sogetsomeoneelsetofixit}}.

Questions from NSLE:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).

  1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
    A: "Find out" is a relative term... I'd probably request a checkuser if I saw an editing pattern that suggested this was the case; per WP:SOCK, tag the accounts involved, and wait for further evidence. At any rate, I'm not really the sort of person who gets entangled in "controversial" articles, so unless I saw it on RC patrol, I probably wouldn't come across this situation; at any rate, I'd discuss it on AN and ask the user(s) involved to clarify before proceeding.
  2. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
    A: This would entirely depend upon how I knew that the deletion was contested... suppose it had {{db-nonsense}} and {{hangon}} on it, and these users had posted messages on the talk page. Firstly, I'd ask the admin who speedied it to look over the discussion and see if they were willing to change their mind; if they didn't, I'd suggest to those who opposed the original deletion to research the subject more fully and then recreate the article. I would not undelete the article myself; if I felt their was anything salvagable, I might temp undelete relevant bits of it to the talk page.
  3. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
    A: Ideally, ask someone else to block them... but at the risk of invoking WP:BEANS, if a vandal managed to target all admins in this way, nobody would be able to block them... realistically, revert their vandalism and leave more notes on their talk page, by which time I'd probably have either managed to contact someone else, or someone else would have noticed and stepped in.
  4. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
    A: Since the block would be to prevent edit warring, I don't think that continuing discussion is in opposition to this; the result of how the discussions went would influence whether or not I submitted anything to the RFAr. If the case was rejected, I'd try and continue dialog, but ultimately I'd probably end up referring it to someone else, eg. MedCab.

Question for the candidate from David

  1. You haven't listed closing AfDs as something you would do as an admin. Given the issues raised on your first RFA, can you say whether you would do this, and if so, what procedure you would follow?
    A: Probably only in clear-cut cases where the article is utter nonsense or clearly fails the inclusion criteria. I feel that the general rule for consensus is "if you need to count, there's no consensus"; besides, there are plenty of other people who are willing to work on AFD.
    To clarify: I have no desire to overhaul AFD; {{prod}} seems to be working. Alphax τεχ 15:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


The above 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.