Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Archtransit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


Contents

[edit] Archtransit

(talk page) Final: (53/0/0); Ended 16:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit (talk · contribs) - Archtransit has been editing since June - the edits he has made in that period (just over 3000) show a firm track record of excellent content contributions, a familiarity with Wikipedia policies, and a strong ability to get on with other editors. He worked on bringing Manchester and Boeing 747 to featured status and a number of articles he has started or substantially expanded have been featured in the "Did You Know" section of the main page. Archtransit has shown himself to have a temperament well suited to some of challenges admins face, remaining civil and proving a calming influence in heated circumstances. I was particularly amazed by calmness when he was mistakenly blocked - his unblock request shows not the anger one would understand in the circumstances but is instead focused on concern that the block prevents him from finishing to sort out a late update to the DYK page. His ability to keep cool and relate well with other users should serve him well as an administrator.

Although not focused on those areas, I believe Archtransit has shown a competence in the areas admins deal with. He warns vandals appropriately and has made correct reports to WP:AIV. When he comments in AfD debates, his opinions show a reasoned thought process and clear attention to the topic in question (see for example: [1], [2], [3]), often also providing advice to the articles' editors as to how it could better comply with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The area of admin responsibility where Archtransit has most to offer is in helping with DYK updates to the mainpage. He is already involved in getting updates ready, having made nearly 500 edits to Template:Did you know/Next update and Template talk:Did you know, and in chasing up admins to complete the process when updates are overdue. The smoother the turnaround on those pages, the more contributors' work can be showcased on the mainpage. It is sad when hooks exceed the time limits for being featured mainly because no one has been around to make updates promptly when they were due. Administrators able and willing to work in this area are always appreciated.

I believe Archtransit would prove an asset to the admin team. His approach is quiet and intelligent and I think he has sufficient knowledge of Wikipedia policy to apply himself well to adminship. He is sort of person who will think carefully before using the tools and ask when in doubt. WjBscribe 05:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for your kind nomination. I accept. Archtransit (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Optional statement section: A little about my expertise, I am interested in commercial aviation, particularly jet airliners. I am diplomatic and pay attention to detail. I have a considerate heart and don’t mind sharing my knowledge. I can count as least 14 new articles created and article contribution in a number of area, but concentrated in commercial airliner articles.

I have a good knowledge about WP policy. If I don't know something, I know where to consult. So if I'm asked some hard policy questions (please, no trolling), I might not be able to answer 100% of them, but if it were a real life situation, I'd know how to find out the answers. WP can be fast paced but not fast enough to preclude contemplation and consultation. It's not like someone is in the midst of being eaten by a tiger. of their trousers being on fire.Archtransit (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I will significantly help out in an area where I already help out very often, namely WP:DYK, except my help will be more effective as an administrator. The Did You Know section on the main page is chronically late. I have helped out on DYK but the move to the main page can only be done by an admin. Being late significantly reduces the number of hooks that can be presented. This not only discourages editors who have fine hooks that were rejected simply because DYK wasn’t updated and they were passed over to the next day’s DYK submissions. DYK helps Wikipedia by encouraging good contributions and article creation. I am deeply committed to DYK. As an admin, I will work in DYK relentlessly and tirelessly.
Although there are over 1,400 admins, I saw that under 900 are active (per Village Pump). Even some of the active administrators have retired, such as Mailer Diablo (the “I approve this message” admin.) I also saw a figure that the ratio of vandalism to admin is in the thousands (meaning that the tide of vandalism threatens to overload admins making it vital that good editors be promoted to stop the avalanche.) I intend to help in this regard. In the past, I’ve expressed helplessness in warning vandals as the level 3 warning states that the vandal will be blocked but my using that template as a non-admin is an idle threat as I cannot block anyone, not even a flea.
I constantly see a huge need to reduce the backlog. AFD, AIV, 3RR are only a few of the areas that could use another administrative helping hand. Even with the participation of many in AFD, I’ve participated in some AFD that stayed open several days past expiration (if you really need a diff, let me know and I’ll search). When commenting on AFD, I have also tried to be encouraging and to help the discouraged author of the soon-to-be deleted article channel his/her knowledge into an article that won’t be deleted. I’ve also suggested how to possibly make the article notable if I thought it was almost WP material but not quite there. By encouraging good editors, we can make WP grow bigger and better. If I delete in an AFD, I’ll work with the editor who started the article, if necessary, to channel their efforts into improving WP, not chase them away.
Although the duties of admin are seen as a mop, it is also possible to lend a helping hand. While any editor could do this, the title of admin gives some the impression that admin are special ambassadors. Ambassadors are what they can be. In desperation when I first started writing an aviation article, I sought the help of administrator Reedy Boy, who helped and got me interested. His kindness spawned my editing, which led to many articles, a FA, and much article improvement. I would like to help other new editors bud and grow, especially if they seek administrator reassurance or help. Archtransit (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The most highly visible was editing the Boeing 747 article to FA status. It was just rejected as a GA just days before started to edit the article. I relentlessly improved it to the point that reached FA. I also enlisted the help of expert WPedians when I felt they could add value to the article. I recognize several editors who helped with 747.
I have also created many new article, some of them aviation related. I didn't submit all of them for DYK but all hooks submitted were accepted.
I have sought out hard to find references many times. Sometimes, I knew a rarely known fact and added it to WP. I sought to find a citation to document the fact. Usually, the citation wasn’t in other review articles on the internet. In doing so, WP has been vastly improved such that WP is sometimes better than all of the review articles online in that it has documented rarely known facts.
A rarely noticed contribution to WP has been my correction of errors in WP. A few that I can recall now are Shuttle Down: doesn't have the longest runway in South America, Space Shuttle Endeavour: 4, not 3 spacewalks, Boeing 767: corrected photo of BA767-300ER not -300, Kathryn J. Whitmire: husband is not dead, etc.
I pledge to continue mainspace editing in the quest to improve WP. Archtransit (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2008 (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: I have been in edit conflicts. However, I turned conflict into non-conflict. While editing, some of my edits (even when rock solid sources were used) were simply reverted. Rather than become annoyed, I worked out problems, sometimes by letting them sit for a while to allow everyone to contemplate. A 3RR war just wears out computer keyboards.
It gets bloodier. While the Boeing 747 article was being considered for FA, one editor insisted that one section was out of order and opposed FA status. Some (not me) accused that editor of disruption or similar terminology as the same complaint had been lodged against other articles by the same editor reportedly to disrupt other articles for GA or FA. Rather than seek blood, I sought resolution of the issue (not the editor) by suggesting that this was a policy disagreement that would be best handled at the WikiProject level. The editor could save his pride by allowing his complaint to be heard and have the prospect of systemwide application (if his idea was adopted) and the other editors could go on with FA consideration of the article. I seek common ground and problem resolution when it helps to better WP. I have also informally mediated disputes successfully, I might add.
I know stress. Many of you at this RFA page have never been blocked. I know how it is to be blocked. I have been blocked. Once, I was helping out DYK when I noticed an error that I made so I corrected the error by reverting my own addition to the DYK next update. I reverted the hook part but not the credit part yet. Just then, an admin saw the page and thought I was sabotaging the page by removing some material. I was immediately blocked! When I tried to edit, I got the Red WP Stop Sign! Ahhhhhhh!!!! As an admin, I will be kind to those I block and not act like I have nuclear weapons. When I block, I will intellectually engage them which might channel their energies productively instead of into retaliation (which can spawn hoards of sockpuppets). I know what mischanneled energy does as I’ve had my user page vandalised. Rechannelling stress into productive edits/requests was mentioned about me by WJBscribe as he described my block in his nomination statement.
As far as editing conflict, how will I deal with them in the future? Just the same way as in the present. I pledge not to use any sysop powers to win an article dispute. If an editor needs to be blocked, I intend to act like an ordinary editor and seek an admin’s help. My expertise in certain topics will help me understand what the editors are fighting about and if there is some common ground, even a tiny bit, to start a consensus. Archtransit (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from Malinaccier (talk)

4. When blocking a user, when should prevent account creation be used?
A. I've never blocked a user so I'll learn. My initial thought is that if someone is blocked for an inappropriate user name, particularly if it's because of a subtle WP rule (like a corporate name as a user name), then "prevent account creation" should NOT be used. Malicious names (such as attacks on others) or names with "Hitler" (isn't there a theorem that Hitler is always mentioned in internet discussions?), then it is appropriate to "prevent account creation". Archtransit (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Will you list yourself under Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why or why not?
A. I plan to list myself as open to recall because it's one of the ways to encourage responsibility and good behaviour in administrators. It's not completely uncontroversial as some see recalls as overly dramatic. To those editors, discussion of a better solution is welcomed and I will probably comply with any new format. Archtransit (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Question from User:Dlae

6. You've been on Wikipedia for just over six months? ..Anyway, for my real question: If this RfA passes, how would you feel?
A. A psychiatric question, ha ha? I'd be grateful for the trust in giving me the mop and would work to earn that mop trust by mopping. It wouldn't affect my current project, working with Reedy Boy in the Fairchild Dornier 728 article! Watch it attain FA-like quality in the next few weeks. Archtransit (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth

7. Can you name a time you have went out of your way to help a fellow Wikipedian? Provide differences if you'd like :). Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 18:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
A. I should have kept records! I tried to help User:Billy Hathorn, who writes a lot about what some others think are too obscure biographies about people from Louisiana (offering suggestions, finding a reference for him, trying to reach consensus between him and others). If Billy leaves, there's a gap. However, if he stays and writes the same type of articles, some try to AFD them. Another example was to help end a 3RR action as a neutral observer and helping both parties from being eventually blocked. When I spend too much time editing, it's helping all of WP! Archtransit (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Question from User:Fnlayson

8. What will your approach on handling/blocking vandals and disruptive users? Fair but tough or what? Thanks.
A. Always fair. I've learned in life that everyone thinks they are an expert until they receive specialised training and experience then one finds out they are wiser than before. So I'll start with the "low lying fruit" (easier situations). The easy to see vandal is handled firmly but lack of tack is to be avoided. That's how I handle WP in general. I started WP writing an easy new article then progressed to a hard-to-write article.
If there's even the hint of a positive side, try to harness that vandal's energy in that direction. Socks are a problem in WP and being nasty+block just causes a natural reaction of creating a sock for retaliation. So polite+warning or polite+block is the probable thing to do. DYK is my interest but I look elsewhere in WP often. I know where to look for vandals. Archtransit (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Question from Corvus cornixtalk

9. If your nomination is successful, will you add yourself to the "admins open to recall" category?
A. (Previously answered in question 5) The recall process is opposed by some because of the large amount of drama associated with the recall and repeat RFA. These concerns are not crackpot ideas. We live in an imperfect world and WP is evolving. With discussion, an alternative mechanism can be formed. I believe in encouraging accountability and good behaviour among administrators. Recall is one of the current methods to achieve this. Therefore, I'll accept the situation as it is and plan to sign up for this category.
My answers are already long so I'll try to limit them. The short answer is "Yes, but let me know an alternate way to show responsibility if you don't like the current way." Archtransit (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Question from User:Keepscases

10. Do you believe God plays a role in the selection of admins?
A. A very interesting and thought provoking question! Since we have a worldwide audience a discussion could include not only my own beliefs but those of others. Does Durga and Dussehra fit in the discussion? Why not e-mailing me to start the discussion. Others may take interest in knowing that I've enabled e-mail a long time ago. Archtransit (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Update: Nothing received by e-mail. If something is received and the editor desires discussion back on-wiki, you'll see something here. Archtransit (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Optional question from O (talk)
11. When would you delete an article on the basis of A7? When would you not?
A: Hello, O! Good to see you! Although others accuse you of bad faith[4], [5], I’m a busy beaver who works without even thinking much about bad faith or good faith. I just try to use suggestions when they are reasonable. Sorry you were the lone oppose holdout in the Boeing 747 FA candidate discussion when the regular (according to SandyGeorgia) reviewers by withdrawing their opposes and that 1-2 of your suggestions/objections were not used.
Regarding your question about A7 (speedy deletion because of lack of importance), I tend to favor discussion. Maybe that’s why my Q1-3 are so long. I tend to favor regular AFD over speedy deletion. Speedy deletion, by definition, prevents gauging consensus and substitutes it with my opinion only. I don’t claim to be the smartest person in WP so there’s someone who may make a good comment about notability if only given the chance. If the article’s subject is clearly unimportant and not signficant then there’s a possibility that speedy deletion is appropriate. If the article also has BLP violations, it’s even easier to speedily delete such biography.
Hypothetical situations can be tricky to discuss because everyone may have a different scenario in mind. How about specifics?
Consider a stub (which isn’t in Wikipedia yet) about “Richard Norton, an airline pilot and former captain at TWA. He was rated to fly the Lockheed L-1011.” Not significant? Ripe for speedy deletion? What if the editor stopped there but was planning to come back to expand it but didn’t leave a message of intent? Immediate deletion? No! The stub, if expanded within 5 days, is a potential DYK hook! He set a world’s record flying over the North Pole and South Pole! There are reliable sources written about him. I have to keep some secrets as it’s an article that I might just create in a few days or weeks…and I just thought of it now when trying to come up with an example! An article just waiting to be written, not deleted! Which reminds me that I pledge to continue writing even if I become an administrator. I have yet to scratch the surface in editing! Getting the mop will only encourage me more as I’ll try to prove that I’m an administrator who continues to edit!
What about the not yet written stub about “Mr. -- --, b. 1978, Manager of the Burger King in High Street who foiled a purse snatching in December 2007.” Aside from the person doesn’t exist, it seems extremely insignificant to me and probably safe for deletion. Still, I’d probably leave a one line sentence of encouragement on the user talk page of the newbie editor who started the article.
In summary, I would delete an article by criteria A7 if I were very certain that it met the criteria and that there does not need to be discussion about it like AFD's receive.

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Archtransit before commenting.

Some points that others may benefit from: I am a believer in transparency and accuracy. So when one editor with a comment in the neutral column points out the Manchester FA, please note that 1. I don't claim it was my best work (one of the standard RFA questions) and 2. It has been clearly noted on my user page the extend of my involvement in the 2 FA's, 410 edits in the Boeing 747 and limited to the short transport section in Manchester. Point by point responses is not the intention here. Archtransit (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support. Good editor. Malinaccier (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    ...And thanks for answering my questions. Malinaccier (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Only 3000 edits. Answers too shortSupport apart from the fact it WJBscribe nominating, this looks like a fantasic candidate. One I've been waiting for, in fact. Excellent contributions, and looks well rounded. Good luck! Majorly (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. No issues here. In relation to your answer to question 4, I reported a user with the name "Mr. Hilter". It looked like Hitler at first! The block was turned down, but he was kind of a disruptive editor, so I don't know what became of him. J-ſtanContribsUser page 17:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support as nominator. Obviously I recuse myself from acting in any bureaucrat capacity in relation to this RfA. WjBscribe 17:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support, a good editor from what i've looked at. Answers occasionally too short as Majorly suggested, but requests for adminship apparently demand no prerequisites, so I see no reason to oppose on the grounds of 'not enough edits' or 'not long enough'. Cyclonenim (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support - I've been incontact with Archtrain Archtransit since the beginning. Always willing to ask when unsure, or just to get advice. Very good user, strong contributor. The only way is up! Good Luck! —Reedy Boy 18:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support Because WJBscribe Says So - Well actually, he seems to be really on top of things. I don't really view edit counts as important. As long as the person is constantly contributing, he is okay in my eyes. The fact that we wants to do DYK, and that he reminds admins that it is late, shows that he is really comitted. I say do it my sir! (And only way I can/will change my support is if he completely butchers my question)Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 18:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support - He should make a good admin. Thanks for the answers. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support Great editor, would make a great admin Whitstable (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Answers show candidate possesses lots of that elusive clue. Everything else is generally secondary. Spartaz Humbug! 19:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Snowolf How can I help? supports this candidate for adminship, as he is confident that this user won't do anything stupid with the tools (added on 19:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC))
  12. Support Great editor; I look forward to seeing this editor update DYK. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. Strong Support Kind, calm, careful, competent and intelligent; devoted to building an encyclopedia. Counts for about 5,000 Wikipedia space edits in my book. --JayHenry (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support. I was watching the Boeing article, and I am impressed with the candidate's answer to Q3. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support WJB scribe nom.--Phoenix-wiki 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support Seems just the sort of person we need. Nick mallory (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support - Good answers to the questions and a solid edit history particularly with DYK. His/her civility and calmness in dispute resolution is an asset too. Euryalus (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support - I'm confident this user won't do anything stupid, and DYK always could use another admin. -MBK004 01:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support. - Per the nom, and answers to questions 1, 2, and 3. Agree with above that we could use more help at WP:DYK, and Archtransit (talk · contribs) has already been a help over there. Also good to have more Admins who know what it takes to bring an article or better yet, articles to WP:FA status. Cirt (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC).
  20. Strong support. Spebi 03:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  21. Per FA contributions (although I see more of me at the Manchester FAC than you :P). — Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support John254 07:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support Because the DYK template is often behind and we need another active admin to help the rest of those guys and girls over there. Plus my usual review uncovered nothing worrying. Pedro :  Chat  10:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  25. Zero Sum Support to cancel out the impact of the anti-admin recall vote. All admins should in principle be open to recall, and I respect this candidate for having the strength of character to commit himself to CAT:AOR despite having been opposed for it. WaltonOne 13:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support. Great editor, our experiences at DYK have been positive. We can always use more help updating DYK to ensure a rapid turnaround between rounds. Royalbroil 13:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support - looks like a great candidate. Jauerback (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support. This is the first RfA I've supported, to my knowledge, where the candidate has fewer edits than I do - but the quality of those edits is outstanding. No reservations whatsoever. The fact that the candidate seeks to help out with DYK is a huge plus, as well. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support. Clearly shows he is a quality editor and shows a desire to help out where needed most. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support - works for me, and I love the answer to Q10. - Philippe | Talk 20:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support Yes, fine. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support per aboves. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 22:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support Seems good with content creation and management. MBisanz talk 00:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support per aboves. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  35. Support Ready for the mop. --Sharkface217 04:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support All administrator-like qualities. Good luck. Timmehcontribs 04:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  37. 1FA. Of course I approve this message! Oh, and I'm Mailer Diablo btw. ;) - 17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support seems well able to handle the tools. MSGJ (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  39. Support - knock 'em dead. The Transhumanist 19:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  40. Support I was looking for a peanut but this will do. // F9T 19:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  41. No reason to oppose. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 20:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  42. Support - though I do kind of dislike that eaten by tigers comment above, so soon after the most recent San Francisco Zoo tiger attacks -Dureo (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Didn't even think of it. If the parents of the victim reads the RFA, it would certainly bring back bad memories. Analogy above changed. Archtransit (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  43. Support. If someone wants to help out at DYK then that's an auto-support from me. Wizardman 17:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  44. Support - per aboves GRB1972 (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  45. Support - see my neutral comment. Rudget. 19:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  46. Worked with this editor at DYK and am impressed with the drive and the approach taken. While I'm here, I will mention that I wish people would stop asking candidates about voluntary recall category membership. It's not really a fair question unless the thing being tested is whether the admin can give an answer that will satisfy everyone. ++Lar: t/c 22:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  47. Weak support I was leaning a bit on neutral at first before giving the weak support. Granted, he is a good editor and answer very well the top 3 questions. My only concern though is the low-contributions on Wikipedia related pages.--JForget 02:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  48. Support, meets standards, no concerns. Due to lack of WP space experience, may need to go to school. Bearian (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    I've read the school pages. However, only admin can access the test blocking and other pages. I did see the part about seeing deleted material. As one American judge said (paraphrased) "I can't define it but I know it when I see it". Silly or racy stuff deleted? I promise not to peek unless related to duty! Archtransit (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  49. Should be one of the best administrators around. Willing to help other users, also articles that would have been speedied by other administrators. I may want to suggest participating more in essential Wikipedia processes, but for now I have no worries. This is a strong support. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 22:55, 07 January 2008 (GMT)
  50. Support. Very helpful with DYK; tools would make him even more so. Daniel Case (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  51. Strong DYK Support' Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  52. Suuuuuure --rm 'w avu 12:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  53. Support - Strong editor. Lara❤Love 16:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
OpposeNeutral, the "admins open to recall" process is too open to drama and abuse, and needs to be nipped in the bud, not encouraged. And I apologize for listing the question twice. Corvus cornixtalk 21:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but not on his part. Please provide an example of said drama and abuse.--Phoenix-wiki 21:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Mercury. Corvus cornixtalk 21:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. That's not a reason to oppose the candidate, that's a reason to oppose the process. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
By acceding to the "optional" demand, the candidate perpetuates the abuse. Corvus cornixtalk 21:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
By opposing him over that, you are also saying that he will be a highly contraversial admin, so why not oppose for that?--Phoenix-wiki 21:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying that at all. He may become an excellent admin. But if he does his job right, the vandals and those who think that vandals have more rights than admins and should get more good faith than people who are here to build an encyclopedia, will target him for doing his job. Corvus cornixtalk 21:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, so it was a demand, not a question. Do forgive me, English is only my first language. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Sarcasm doesn't become you. I'm not saying that my question was a demand, I'm saying that it's suddenly becoming practically mandatory for all RfA candidates to add themselves to the category, and I hope to get that stopped. Oh, and by the way, I have suffrage here and have a perfect right to express my opinion, as do you. Corvus cornixtalk 22:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
People who think vandals have more rights than admins? I know exactly who mean, ah well...can't make everyone support...--Phoenix-wiki 22:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
As it happens I agree with you. The recall process has proven to be utterly useless, but I expect that Archtransit's admin coach has recommended a particular way of replying to questions such as yours so as to gain the maximum possible support. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I've recommended to three people going up for adminship not to mention that category.--Phoenix-wiki 22:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the recall category in principle. The drama has been caused by admins who refuse to honour their recall obligations, not by those requesting recall. It is, with all due respect, totally unfair to oppose people solely because they have the strength of character to commit themselves to being accountable to the community. WaltonOne 13:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Its an oppose based on something that is essentially unrelated to the character or trustworthiness of the candidate, not unlike Kurt's. We allow Kurt's (even though he has built up considerable ill-will about it) and we should allow Corvus' oppose as well (and he must accept the inevitable ill-will). Avruchtalk 02:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and I never said his vote should be discounted. All votes made in good faith should be counted equally, and I know that Corvus cornix is acting in good faith. However, I also think it's useful to debate and question votes; it helps other users, reading the discussion, to weigh up the arguments and decide how to vote. WaltonOne 15:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The way I look at it, is although I don't agree with Corvus's view on it, I respect it. I look at it like I am voting in the Primaries. Say I want all of our troops out of Iraq now and that is my main priority. Then I will see what the candidates view on it is. And then after that, I will see if the candidate meets my other minor expectations such as Education and Economy. These aren't my views wholly, I just couldn't think of anything. So yeah :) Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 19:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose block log is not empty. To the lake (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Note, striking comment from blocked disruptive editor. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
Neutral - With all due respect, Archtransit didn't contribute much to Manchester gaining FA back in November, as far as I remember it was only a couple of typo's he fixed. This combined with relatively few edits at admin areas & usertalk pages makes me neutral. However, seen as WJBscribe thought this candidate was worth briging to RFA, I am open to changing my (!)vote. Rt. 18:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC) - Changed to abstain. Although I disagree with this candidate standing as it is my opinion that this RFA may be to premature (and as noted on the candidates talk page), I will abstain due my belief that the candidate does not have the general experience required, but does have some good edits. Rt. 20:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Change to support. After a long rethink, I agree this candidate is good admin hopeful. Rudget. 19:33, 6 January 2008 (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.