Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HisSpaceResearch 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.

Contents

[edit] HisSpaceResearch

Final (46/21/9); Originally scheduled to end 13:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC). No consensus to promote. --Deskana (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

HisSpaceResearch (talk · contribs) - HisSpaceResearch has been at Wikipedia since May 2004, originally using the name "Ezekiel Cheever (talk · contribs)" and later briefly "Sproglet777 (talk · contribs)". He has significantly contributed to 2 good articles and 4 good article candidates. Many of you will have seen him taking part in deletion debates, an area he'll be able to help out even more in with administrator privileges. HisSpaceResearch also has demonstrated good understanding of the speedy deletion criteria with his work on new page patrol. No doubt he'll make a great administrator Phoenix-wiki 13:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination.

Since the first time round I've rid myself of the problematic Wikipedia essays that hindered the last RFA. I believe in civility and following Wikipedia policies and guidelines using common sense. Thanks.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:09, 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 would regularly check the admins' noticeboard and respond to tasks that need to be done, get myself involved at the incidents page, and delete pages in the criteria for speedy deletion category, and close XfD debates, always with regard for the consensus of the participants with reference to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm proud of my two good articles, particularly King Crimson which I raised the standard of massively, and some supported it at FAC although it did not pass. I've raised the standard of quite a few previously poor articles such as The Jeremy Kyle Show (although it did not pass GA), and I've created quite a large number of articles, although many remain stubs. For an example of the sort of improvement I've done to individual articles, the recent expansion from a substub to a well-sourced start-class article of Going Blank Again is a good representation of that.
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've never been involved in a major conflict in editing, and have never come into major personal conflict with other users. In the future, I intend to deal with disputes using the dispute resolution process, or by seeking a third opinion. In such situations assuming good faith and civility are vital.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Why did you remove your essay which you say "hindered" your previous RfA? Has your stance on the essays changed, or is it because you no longer wish to broadcast these views? --lincalinca 13:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
A: Many of the views that I had in those essays I no longer hold. Many of the essays were written in early to mid-2007 when I wasn't expecting adminship at all, and so were somewhat inconsistent with my views even during the first RfA, and even less so now. Whilst some were harmless, others were critical of certain aspects of the project (although they were kind of intended more as mere exploration of ideas rather than me actually implying that I always believed in them), and ultimately Wikipedia is not a soapbox no matter what namespace you use. I've come to realise that consensus will determine what's right for Wikipedia.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Though I understand this, should you have views that may be controversial, you shouldn't simply remove them. In my opinion, you state your case and people have to deal with liking it or not. There are many sysops who've got differing views about how things should be done, some who are of the opinion that if it ain't broke don't fix it, while others like to explore improvements upon an already adequately functioning platform. It's the nature of technological evolution that those who submit don't make as much of a mark as those that do. My suggestion would be to reinstate your essays, because you shouldn't be ashamed of voicing your beliefs, HOWEVER, corrections, adjustments and evolution of each is mandatory for you to be able to keep your essays in line with your belief systems. That said, if you find your belief systems on how Wikipedia is run is constantly changing, I'm not sure you'd be strong enough to weather the storm of the duties. You can't be fickle and reliable at the same time. The two are basically antonymal. Be sure of what you want and are as an editor. I'm unsure what to vote. I don't think I will if I don't receive a convincing response here. I don't believe in Neutral votes (a view that's recently changed of mine). They're a waste of time. --lincalinca 13:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say I find my views on the project constantly changing at all. I agree that it's good to have an opinion, and indeed there might be some salvagable content from the earlier essays that could relate to my current opinions, but I would rather write new essays than restore those, as they are largely obsolete due to their relative age.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Good answer... but... I know Wikipedia changes at a considerable rate, much like all of the internet, but my opinion is that people, even the editors of Wikipedia, are not as fast moving. Pardon my cynicism, but it's only 6-9 months since you wrote those essays. I believe there was much there that was salvageable and much I agree with, even the controversial bits. Anyway, if you intend writing new essays, my new suggestion would be to do so starting with writing what your present views on these matters are. Wikipedia is communism. Personally, I hate the fact that people get antzy about the fact that you're drawing a very real correlation between Wikipedia and a political regime that has never really been successful in practice, but has evidence that would suggest it would work from a theoretical basis. Wikipedia puts the theory to the test and seems to come out on top. I think you were very right with that one (though, I don't know exactly what your content was, but if it was anything like that, then I heartily agree). The strength of conviction you took in writing the essay I would like to see you take into the role of an admin. You have my support, but don't let me down. --lincalinca 14:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I felt that with many of those essays that I wrote, they were kind of like (to use a comparison of my own liking) jazz fusion improvisations in that they were often tangential and rambling, with moments of great clarity at times yet with much that was of poor quality and went nowhere (the YOU SUCK essay being an example of the latter). To use another analogy, though, I have a great many music albums, and just because an album's poor and I don't like it doesn't mean I'll throw it away. If an album is recorded and is utter crap, if it's sitting in an archive unreleased it's doing the musical artist no harm. On the other hand, if an artist releases an album to widespread negative criticism such as Genesis' Calling All Stations, this will tarnish their reputation as it has been made public. I guess I just didn't think about the fact that the essays were being made public and the fact that people might have judged these as representing my serious stance, official opinion, or best work, which they were certainly not intended to be - it's more about exploring ideas to see if something quality does come of them. I'm an inclusionist in most areas of life outside Wikipedia, although on Wikipedia I feel I've got the balance about right.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
5. What is your interpretation of WP:NOT, specifically as it relates to the deletion process? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
A: I interpret WP:NOT in its broadest sense as complimenting WP:ENC - that is - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia being constantly written first and foremost, and as a means to that end, a community with a sense of community spirit - Wikipedians. WP:NOT backs up several of the core content guidelines (WP:NOT#OR backs up WP:NOR, WP:NOT#SOAP can back up WP:NPOV - Wikipedia is not Wikitruth) and specifically sets out what is and what is not acceptable behaviour in terms of one's userspace (WP:NOT#MYSPACE). As it applies to the deletion process, WP:NOT helps ensure that Wikipedia is not a dictionary by removing articles that merely define words (that's what Wiktionary is for), helps ensure that articles are encyclopedic in tone and not like personal essays full of original research (Wikinfo), helps ensure that it is not a directory (such as Wikitravel), or an indiscriminate collection of information (Wikia wikis which contain fancruft on a level not appropriate for Wikipedia, such as WikiFur), which are not what an encyclopedia is. It's also not a how-to guide (WikiHow) and nor is it a crystal ball. All of these things should be dealt with by consensus, though.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Optional questions from EJF
6. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A: The difference is that whilst a ban is a social construct imposed by the community on an editor that involves consensus that a particular editor should not edit Wikipedia (for either a period of time, or indefinitely) it does not technically prevent them from doing so, especially if they can use sockpuppets (which should be monitored for displaying signs of similar editing behaviour to the banned user). On the other hand, a block is a technical mechanism which prevents a specific user or IP address from editing. In cases of new users committing vandalism, a block is much more common, with their account (if they are not editing as an IP) written off as a vandalism-only account, and their IP address blocked from editing for a relatively short period of time - they may come back as constructive editors, after all. However in cases of an established user committing serious abuse which can often be more harmful than simple vandalism which can be reverted quickly, a ban may be used instead.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Would you add yourself to the CAT:AOR? Why?
A: Yes, I think I would at first. I'd like to make sure that I was doing the right thing with the admin tools, and if there was sufficient consensus that I was misusing the tools, I would be willing to relinquish the adminship.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
8. What would you do if you encountered an extreme POV-pusher, who according to Wikipedia policy, had not committed any vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EJF (talk • contribs) 15:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
A:. I'd warn the user and revert their edits once and explain to them what the NPOV policy means. If the disruptive behaviour continued, I might warn them one more time before considering reporting the user to another administrator for consensus that the behaviour is really disruptive enought to warrant a block or a ban.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
9. What do you want Wikipedia to be three years from now? Marlith 20:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
A:. I'd like to see it improve its coverage in terms of quantity of articles (I believe we're far from done yet), although more importantly, I'd like to see quality be the main focus. There are still a great number of stubs and unreferenced articles in the encyclopedia which need improvement, and only a few thousand FAs and GAs, although I believe that the number of FAs and GAs will increase as time goes on. Maybe some new policies and guidelines will be developed, but until we know what those are I can't say whether these would be beneficial or not. They would probably be good for the project, as with the WP:BLP policy when it was introduced two years ago, as if they were harmful to Wikipedia they would almost certainly not gain consensus.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/HisSpaceResearch Requests for adminship/HisSpaceResearch 2

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

[edit] Discussion

  • Hi HSR. Why do you want to be a sysop? Mercury 13:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd like to be a sysop so that I can help ensure the integrity of the encyclopedia, in a nutshell. I'd like to be involved with deletion most of all, but also dealing with vandals, protecting/unprotecting pages, and responding to other issues at the admins' noticeboard.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. What have you done, and how do you address the concerns in the last request? Regards, Mercury 13:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
During the last RFA people noticed that I appeared to have views which were at odds with the core policies. As stated above, these views were based on some old Wikipedia essays that were somewhat obsolete as to my views on the project as a whole at that time. I definitely support anonymous IP editing, for example - it was brought up due to an ill-considered userbox that I should have thought more about before including on my userpage. I do understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines well, and do follow them. Generally I tend to agree with other experienced users who know what the right decisions to make are based on the WP:PAG. I think it just went the wrong way because I didn't know much about the RfA process at that time, and to believe that I am ever incivil or ever break the rules (outwith what can be justified by WP:IAR) must have been a misunderstanding.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
When it was pointed out that you opposed anonymous editing, you argued that accounts were trivial to create, and even suggested that you would appeal to Jimbo to prevent anonymous editing. Why isn't your statement above, that you "definitely support anonymous IP editing, for example - it was brought up due to an ill-considered userbox", disingenuous? --- tqbf 23:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • A number of the opposes of the last RfA were based on an accusation of rudeness and incivility that was left unsubstantiated by evidence. Unless diffs are provided proving it, there seems to be no basis of an oppose on that score. Avruchtalk 14:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't people have waited for this to be transcluded before discussing? Simply south (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Eh? They did. RfA transcluded at 13:28, first edits by those other than the candidate or nominator at 13:34. All is okay here. Pedro :  Chat  14:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, we just got to commenting pretty quickly. ;) --lincalinca 14:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I'll blame server lag. Simply south (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
          • You blame the server lag for what? There were no comments on this page when I transcluded it.--Phoenix-wiki 14:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Plus, there isn't much of a server lag today anyway.--Phoenix-wiki 14:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


  • Can these essays be temp restored so that I may see them? Mercury 00:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If it isn't possible to restore them, maybe an admin could email them to him--Phoenix-wiki 00:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I do have a .txt file containing the wikicode for all the Wikipedia essays that I wrote which I saved before placing db-author on all of them, that I could restore in my userspace temporarily. The problem is that I'm not totally sure if I want to restore the essays as people in this RfA could take them out of context as if these represent what I actually believe at the moment.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:As standards improve, it's harsher on newcomers, User:HisSpaceResearch/YOU SUCK! and User:HisSpaceResearch/Wikipedia is communism temp restored. →AzaToth 00:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Those three are among the worst. Could you please delete them again?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
What do you think temp means? If people mistake them out of context, which I doubt is the cause of any opposition, you can handle convincing them otherwise. –Pomte 03:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • With regard to Marlith's question above how is that remotely relevant to being an admin. We are talking about a delete button and a block button, not a board election or ArbCom. EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. As nom--Phoenix-wiki 13:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support as per Q&A above - I'm sure the mop with be adequately lubricated by this user before letting it loose on the floor. --lincalinca 14:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    That's what she said. --'n1yaNt 11:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support Excellent user - opposers don't appear to have picked up any problems, other than the fact he's eager to help and he uses a tabbed browser. Guess I fall into that category too. Majorly (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    Alot of folks do. Agree. Mercury 15:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Weak Support - per my support last time around. I do agree though that 6/7 weeks after the closure of the last is a bit much. But as Pedro puts it nicely, it's not a steadfast rule. So can't oppose based on that. Rt. 14:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support. (edit conflict) Have worked with this user on AFD occasionally, and I would definitely trust this user with the tools. Malinaccier (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support - a fine user who I trust with the tools. Sorry, but I don't believe that an argument that this is too soon is sufficient. If he's shown the required change from his last RfA then it should not matter - I believe he has made that change and has a different attitude toward Wikipedia. Whilst I understand Pedro's oppose about drive by AfD comments - I've done the same before, read a load of articles and AfD's then take time to reflect followed by making what appear to be comments without very little thought. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    I have to agree with Ryan on the AFD points. Especially the technical part. Spot on. Best, Mercury 15:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    I am comfortable with this editors ability to delete/undelete block/unblock protect/unprotect and perform any other related admin task within our guidelines and policy. I do not believe the editor will use the tools outside these guides, and I do not believe this editor will run other editors away. We need, yes I said need, more administrators. We have backlogs. This one is not abusive. +sysop him. Regards, Mercury 15:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support - HSR is extremely competent in the area of AFD and will do a great job in that area. Also, I don't have a problem with short times between RfAs if the candidate has shown him or herself to have significantly improved in the areas that were indicated as problems in the last RfA. HSR is one of these users. Keilanatalk(recall) 15:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    Gah your signature is so long in markup. Can you help me by pointing me in the direction of some diffs that the candidate has changed and learned the lessons of the last RFA? I opposed as much for not seeing this demonstrated and it would help me if you could point me in the right direction. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 17:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support Keenness shouldn't be seen as a negative. A good contributor more than ready for the mop. RMHED (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support has seemed remarkably reasonable many places I've seen him comment. I think he deserves proper consideration here. --W.marsh 16:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Supporting solely to counter some specious opposes; if editing too fast was a Bad Thing, I'd be most unwelcome here. east.718 at 16:26, January 3, 2008
  11. Mønobi 00:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support Sounds good to me - I see no issues with the short span between requests. Editing is good, and trust is established. docboat (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. Agree with Majorly and Ryan Postlethwaite. Also, with the quick AfD participation, I believe it could have been tabbed browsing as well, and it's not assuming good faith to say that HisSpaceResearch wasn't using tabbed browsing. I sometimes use tabbed browsing when participating in RfAs, and while it may look like I gave a bunch of votes in a minute or two, in reality, I've read the RfAs. I don't think this user will be abusive at all. Acalamari 03:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  14. Edits articles. Does stuff. We could do worse. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  15. per east718. Tabbed browsers really aren't the cutting edge technology they used to be. To oppose because an editor is too fast is like blocking for editing too much. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support: have frequently come across this editor, whose contributions always strike me as measured and constructive. Have no worries he would misuse the tools. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  17. 'n1yaNt 11:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support A good contributor. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  19. Strong Support. I'm going to take the time to write a damn good rationale, so please read it. Firstly, the speed of his AfD contributions is not in itself a reason to oppose. I agree that poorly-thought-out AfD comments just to increase editcount would be a reason to oppose; however, his AfD comments are generally well-reasoned and intelligent and demonstrate a good knowledge of policy, cf [1] [2] [3]. He has explained that the short time interval between posts is because he uses tabbed browsing, and I see no reason to doubt this. Secondly, the short time interval between RfAs is not a reason to oppose. The last RfA failed without very many good reasons; the only legitimate issue raised by any of the opposers was this diff cited by Qst, in which he wrongly attempted to apply T1 to a userspace template (something I warned against in an MfD just before commenting here, incidentally), but for me, one mistake a couple of months ago isn't a deal-breaker. Thirdly, the essays he wrote (some considerable time ago, incidentally) were not in any way problematic. They were all intelligent and well-reasoned. It is not necessary to agree with Wikipedia's policies, even its core policies, to become an administrator. What is necessary in an administrator is a willingness to follow policy and community consensus in the exercise of sysop powers, even when it conflicts with his/her own views - and I see no reason to doubt that HSR would be capable of doing this. I note, further, that he has recanted some of the views in his earlier essays. I have some sympathy with Malleus Fatuorum's comment that being bullied into changing one's views shows weakness of character or immaturity, as people should stick to their honest beliefs; however, I don't believe that this is the case here. Rather, I think that HisSpaceResearch has, like all of us, changed his mind and developed a more sophisticated understanding of Wikipedia over time, and accordingly his views on some issues have changed. That is perfectly legitimate, and is not a reason to oppose. I think that some of the opposers need to seriously reconsider their reasoning here - do we really want to rob Wikipedia of a good administrator, just because he failed to jump through the arbitrary hoop of leaving enough time between RfAs? Yes, I understand the common argument that it takes at least a couple of months to address the concerns from the last RfA, but as I've said already, there were no major concerns that the candidate could address, other than one incorrect speedy tagging from early November. Most of the opposes in the first RfA were based on the premise that a candidate who does not agree with Wikipedia's consensus groupthink on every major issue is not suitable to be an administrator, and that is fundamentally untrue and wrong (not to mention dangerous, as it risks stifling diversity of opinion). WaltonOne 13:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks a lot. You presented an excellent argument here.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support. I have interacted frequently with this user, and found marked improvement. Like all of us, his standards at WP:AFD have evolved, so we find ourselves agreeing more per WP:CCC. This user is often bold and sometimes bends the rules, but never gets angry, so I can trust the user with the mop. I supported this user's first RfA, and do so again. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support This user has show remarkable improvement since his last RfA and excellent contributions to the quality of articles. With four years of experience I hope to see him use the tools well. Marlith 20:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support good work with AfDs, I think you would make a very good admin.   jj137 ♠ 00:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support I had a look at some of the delated essays and I can't see what the fuss is about. I think it is a very natural process to question the structure of an organisation when your new, I'd far rather that than instant acceptance of the status quo. And yes I think its natural to want to remove some of your early (adolescent-stage) writings. The real question is can he use a mop and I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise. --Salix alba (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support - I see not a single concern that this user is going to abuse a few buttons. It's simply Utilitarianism, and we are better off with this user as an admin. the_undertow talk 02:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support - and here's to tabbed browsing. I've seen him at work - will make a fine WikiJanitor ;) --Ouro (blah blah) 12:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support Plenty of experience which is surely an important factor, GDonato (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support I read Walton's missive and I think he makes some damn good points. Eusebeus (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support - I believe I can trust user. EJF (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  29. Strong support - per User:Walton One. Epbr123 (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support - convinced by the weakness of the opposes. I view HisSpaceResearch's eagerness/enthusiasm as a positive. The Transhumanist 19:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support Wanted to do this ages ago, so Phoenix Wiki won't be getting a support from me :) (only kidding) // F9T 19:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  32. Strong Support. He is an amazing user and has some very good edits. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENwe need to talk.☆ 19:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support The mop isn't that big of a deal. He's minimally qualified. --Sharkface217 20:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support We seem to have an excellent 'pedia builder who dared -- the madness! -- to think out loud about some of Wikipedia's dogmas. He's otherwise fully qualified for adminship thus the only real question is this: will he use the admin tools to somehow remake the Wiki in his image? Of course not. And Wikipedia is not a cult. (Maybe I'm wrong, I guess it is a redlink...) The low quality of the opposers leaves me with no concern. --JayHenry (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    Low quality of the opposers, or opposes? You seem to be treading a fine line between making a valid argument, and attacking 13 editors... TheIslander 22:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    Oh dear! What a horrific typo. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that the opposers are low quality people/editors! My sincerest apologies for the accidental ad hominem. I was actually thinking of VanTucky's comment that there aren't any diffs to suggest he'd be bad. All I mean by "quality" is that, and I think even those opposing agree, that there's no damning evidence that he'd be a bad admin, but a general discomfort with the length of time between requests. I think that's a legitimate concern but not the same as "vandalized yesterday." In hindsight "low-quality" wasn't the best choice of words in the first place, and certainly not to describe the editors in question! --JayHenry (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    That's good to hear - thanks for the clarification ;). TheIslander 23:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  35. Support Great user! Editorofthewiki (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support per Walton. It's okay to have opinions, and it's okay not to have them anymore. Rigadoun (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  37. Support. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support another one I see at AfD all the time. Good solid contributor. I trust him to take the mop. Sting_au Talk 12:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  39. Support User:HisSpaceResearch has given satisfactory answers to all questions and accusations against him. I fail to see a significant reason to oppose. Rami R 15:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  40. Support I have no problems with this user getting the tools. Daniel Case (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support. Seems level-headed, open-minded, and unlikely to abuse the tools. Six oppose votes in his previous RfA based (at least partly) on his disagreement with "anyone can edit"? Since when did independent thought become something to be scared of? --DeLarge (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  42. Support I believe that if errors are made apparent then an editor or admin can amend their behaviour in an instant, and it is against assuming good faith to propose that some arbitrary period is needed. An RfA itself is a learning process and I am sure that you will take all the criticism seriously, being well aware that your every admin action is available for review. --Stephen 23:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  43. FWIW, support per Walton. Dorfklatsch 01:28, January 9, 2008
  44. Support. The candidate's answers to the questions from myself and others are quite good, but Walton One sold me - I find his rationale to be persuasive. The candidate does not have to agree with policy, so long as he follows it in any admin actions he performs. I also see much improvement overall, even since the last (too recent, I agree) RfA, and I hope to see further improvement as time passes. An excellent candidate who has addressed all of my concerns. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Changed from Neutral, below.
  45. Support per Walton One as well. Callmederek (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  46. Support - not knowing this RfA existed, I was going just now to check any old RfAs before nominating him. Will (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. This is only 6 weeks since the last request failed abysmally. This hasn't a hope of passing - many editors will usually expect a failed candidate to wait at least 3 months before reapplying. I'm also not seeing in the commentry any real evidence that the candidate has learned from the issues brought up last time. Sorry, but this is too soon even though my own experience of the candidate has been positive. I strongly recommend you withdraw this now so as not to prejudice your next application any more that you have already. Spartaz Humbug! 13:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    I gather you're citing WP:SNOW? I think this stands a bit more of a chance than that. It might be a bit presumptuous and poorly timed, but that doesn't man it won't go better than before. I have my reservations, but I'm holding out for an answer to my question. --lincalinca 13:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    Spartez, I don't understand. Will you reconsider based on discussion above (between HSR and I) and my comment to Doc below. Regards, Mercury 15:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    Only if evidence that the candidate has improved and addressed the issues that were raised in the previous RFA is presented. I firmly consider it the responsibility of the candidate to provide this rather then leaving it to those voting to sift through their contributions. I see several comments that people can change and I agree, but when I expressed my view I noted that the evidence that this was the case wasn't there. Getting rid of the essays isn't enough, we have to see evidence of a change in approach and see that the candidate has learned. I simply can't see that you can do that in such a short period and simply ignoring the concerns that were raised so recently is disrespectful to those editors who took time to consider the request and respond substantively. Admins need to be good judges of community consensus and there is a long-standing history that reapplications within 3 months of a failed RFA invariably fail. Disregarding that does IMO show poor judgement of community norms and expectations. Spartaz Humbug! 16:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    I understand where you are coming from. An this is his RFA, so lets see if he would provide those diffs. Regards, Mercury 21:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Weak Oppose It's no one thing it's a combination of minor things really. Firstly I agree that 6/7 weeks is a bit close between RfA's allthough this isn't a hard and fast rule, and with respect to Spartaz I can't really see it stacking up as the only reason to oppose. Secondly a review of your contributions shows periods where you are commenting on multiple WP:AFD's in a very close period of time like here where you commented on 7 in 11 minutes, between 12:05 and 12:16, and 7 in 18 minutes between 04:13 to 04:31. and 12 in 25 minutes, between 14:49 and 15:14. Now I appreciate you may have reviewed them and then serial commented, but it just all looks like a bit of a rush to bang in as my edits to AfD as possible. And this trend seems to have been an ongoing one. Thirdly here you made 18 edits to one article in an hour and six minutes - that just seems, well, odd. Fourthly, your talk page did not make the happiest reading, with a caution that your Twinkle tool had not created an AfD correctly and a reminder to sign your posts. I'm sorry, as there's also a lot to like here, and that's why my oppose is weak. I'm just worried that, per your answers, you want the delete button badly and I see an editor who would delete first and repent later - causing more headache for other admins and not less. Best. Pedro :  Chat  14:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    2. Those AfD comments all seem sufficiently informed, and I'd say this is typical for a regular. AGF? 3. Why is it odd? There are many reasons for editing in succession, including: the lack of current ability to work in a text editor, the sour memory of having to redo changes due to not saving frequently, personal efficiency, saving not being much different from previewing a fine revision and WP:PERF. –Pomte 14:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    Pomte's point is keen: though it may seem like edit-clammouring (i.e. Editcountitis), different approaches and editing styles lead to different post counts despite generally about the same overall contributions. I'm much the opposite: I preview for up to an hour before hitting save, in some cases (you can usually tell which times), but that's my style (and probably why I only have just over 8,000 edits). We need to respect his. He's not worrying about wikiformance, but possibly his own system's capabilities in lieu of that. --lincalinca 14:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    It is a weak oppose. However here we see 16 edits to AFD in 30 minutes, including rather low value input of redirect, per nom and per nom again. So whilst tabbed browsing and fast reading of articles may well be an answer, I'm afraid there's enough to keep me in the weak oppose section for now. Pedro :  Chat  14:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    I mean no disrespect. I'm just pointing out that I agreed with the good point made. I'm giving my support believing he'll do a good job. You're right in that there should have been more of an explanation as to why he agreed with the deletions/redirections, but to insist he must sounds too much like an unhealthy bureaucracy to me (a status I don't encourage... read my comments above about communism). Anyway, feel free to give your opposition, as to strip you of that right would give me no better right to support him. --lincalinca 15:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    No disrespect meant or taken. I firmly believe that opposers should be challenged at RfA - it is a discussion after all. And you and Pomte have done so in a civil and collegial fashion. For now I'm still worried that the candidate may be just a smidge too heavy in deletion (per his Q1 and my comments above), but that's not to say that I may not change my mind during the course of the RfA. It's often hard to be one of the first to oppose on any RfA, but when your oppose is met be sensible and reasoned argument, as is the case here, it makes things easier. I am sure/trust that the candidate understands my !votes are not cast lightly or with malice. Pedro :  Chat  15:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    I would say not to worry too much about this. Creating multiple edits makes reversion on particular mistakes easier to narrow down and prevents losing minutes, if not hours of valuable data due to unforeseen edit conflicts. I roll like that, too. the_undertow talk 19:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    Agreed. It looked odd, but it's not really a sensible oppose rationale. I've struck that portion. Pedro :  Chat  20:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose. This is premature given how recently the previous RfA failed. Doczilla (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    Doc, if it only takes hima few weeks to improve, then it only takes a few weeks. I've never understood these arbitrary times. People can change overnight. Will you reconsider your stance? Best, Mercury 15:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Making several 'voting' so-to-speak edits to AfD discussions a minute (here), only just over a month since the last RfA. I cannot lay my trust in this user at the current time, especially not with the delete button. Qst 15:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    QST, I don't understand the logical basis for your opposition. I use tabbed browsing, and I have posted almost "at the same time" to a few noticeboards. There is a technical explanation. Could you clarify any other points you have? Regards, Mercury 15:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    Indeed I can, I think the short time since the previous RfA shows over eagerness to be an admin, which I believe to be bad as it shows a lack of patience to take things slowly, the quick voting on the AfD's shows signs of 'quick voting to make it look good', so I don't honestly believe this user could use the delete button wisely and correctly... Qst 15:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    With continuing respect, I don't relate how over eagerness is a bad thing. I wish more editors were over eager to transclude RFA here. There is much backlog, and not enough qualified editors are willing to transclude RFA. I hope we can motivate more editors to be over eager. Having a desire for the tools is not wrong. If you desire them in bad faith, you will see once you get them, they are no big deal. I also don't know how to relate his technical ability to use tabbed browsing to his perceived desire "look good". I don't think we can read his mind. I also don't see how you can relate this action to not using the delete button within policy. Can you please clarify on those points? Regards, Mercury 15:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    Personally, I do not believe this user had tabs open to make the votes, thus meaning the only alternative would be to go to every AfD one after the other. This oppostion to his adminship is not in bad faith, rather an honest insight on my views. I've elaborated as much as possible on this matter. I strongly agree with Pedro's comments, too; namely the one about the 'reminders' on his talk page. Qst 15:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    Ok, fair enough. I'd have to see some clear evidence that the editor was not using tabbed browsing. I know I've done some rapid deletes and rapid posts before. Best regards, Mercury 16:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    I've never had wikipedia open in fewer than 3 tabs...--Phoenix-wiki 16:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Weak Oppose I'm sorry, but a few things are just resting uneasy with me, and for that reason I can't support. For a start, my personal opinion is that there hasn't been enough time since the last RfA (yes, I know that this is an arbitrary thing, yes, I realise that a tonne of people will disagree with me as they've done to those above, but it's my opinion). Someone stated above that a person can 'change' overnight. True, to an extent, but they certainly cannot proove that they have changed in an equally short space of time, though having said that HSR does show positive signs. However, regardless of comments in the discussion above, I get the feeling that the essays were indeed just deleted to hide those views, rather than the views changing. I opposed his last RfA on the basis of his views, and so my view hasn't changed now. This diff from his talk page worries me, particularly the line "I think I might request deletion of all of my Wikipedia essays and not have views against anonymous editing.", suggesting that his behaviour has been modified to suite a future RfA. As previously mentioned, the rest of his talk page is somewhat worrying, with signature warnings and suchlike moderatley recently. A good user, contributor, and asset to Wikipedia? Hell yes. Suitable for adminship? In my opinion, no, at least not yet. Sorry. TheIslander 16:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    But he just did prove he changed in a short space of time. He no longer agrees with those essays.--Phoenix-wiki 16:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    I think Spartaz puts it perfectly above: "Getting rid of the essays isn't enough, we have to see evidence of a change in approach and see that the candidate has learned." Also, he states that he no longer agrees with the essays, but per my difference above, I'm not convinced that this is the case. TheIslander 16:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    • cough* I was about to agree with Islander ;-) Spartaz Humbug! 16:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose and suggest candidate withdraws. Valid points have made above re the time necessary to show that he's walking the walk rather than just talking the talk. More time, please. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose I don't believe the issue(s) from the previous RFA have been addressed. Jmlk17 23:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. No-where near enough time to satisfy the opposers in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HisSpaceResearch, myself included, that this user has changed "for good", especially when some of the opposes were based on philosophy which could easily be masked for a short period. Daniel 23:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    People should not have to worry how their opinions will affect their RFA. Could you pleaes use "you" instead OF "this user" in future, it's more civil.--Phoenix-wiki 23:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    Can you please explain to me how that is uncivil? I see no problem in using "this user" as it is a discussion on the user requesting adminship. *Cremepuff222* 23:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    (Edit conflict) Hold on, who said anything about it being uncivil? I just said "you" is more civil than "this user" — it sounds like you're talking to the user personally when you say it, rather than talking as if the user isn't present.--Phoenix-wiki 23:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Request denied. And the opinions of the user matter when they go directly against our core policies, and the fact that having administrator tools would allow this user to further their opinion in a way I feel (and core policy says) is detrimental to Wikipedia is a perfectly reasonable justification to oppose this user. Daniel 23:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    What that's basically saying is "don't give adminship to those who don;t agree with us". Consensus can change.--Phoenix-wiki 23:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    Not with core policies, it can't. You've now changed your argument from "you can't oppose based on opinions" to "well, you can, but remember consensus can change", and been wrong both times. Not something I'd expect from a user who envisages running for administrator in three months or so. Daniel 23:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    no, I've simply made the addition "remember, consensus can change", and since when do I intend to run in three months or so? I said about April or May, and I don't even know if I want adminship, but I've been offered.--Phoenix-wiki 00:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Daniel have you bothered to check the candidate's feelings on our policies, or are you simply opposing because they had those feelings last time? You do realise that we don't have to agree to policies? What matters is that we abide by them. I for one think most of our policies are dreadful, but I still follow them. Majorly (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    You've missed out your questions too. Majorly (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Anyone without the strength of character to stand by what they believed to be true only, what was it two months ago, just to become an admin is not mature enough to be an admin. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    He was bullied into thinking otherwise on his last RFA. Can't be helped :( Majorly (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Anyone who can be bullied is not a good candidate for admin. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, he wrote them almost a year ago, and had them deleted only a few months ago after rethinking his position on them, not after peer pressure. He wrote them, re-thought them and very soon after having them deleted accepted a nom for RfA. It's not some crazy conspiracy. --rm 'w avu 10:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment from HisSpaceResearch. This last point is mainly true. To give a full explanation as to the essays - at the time I wrote them, I was not expecting to be promoted to admin status. They were merely reflections of an editor casually observing Wikipedia process deeply for the first time. They were never intended to represent my beliefs - merely an exploration of ideas. I did write a few good essays, although it is my personal belief that the quality of many of them was poor and some were fairly ill-considered - I just had them lying around in my userspace and didn't give them much thought as few people read them anyway. Up until the time I was offered adminship in November, I had never expected that another user would offer to write an RfA for me, and I didn't want to self-nominate. I did cautiously ask User:Epbr123 if he thought that the essays would be problematic during the RfA, but he suggested that they could act as something of a double-edged sword - possibly beneficial, possibly negative. I went ahead anyway and accepted. After I withdrew my acceptance of the RfA was when I first considered removing my Wikipedia essays, although didn't actually do this until some time later. I must stress though that although the RfA prompted me to think about the removal of these essays, the RfA was not the actual reason I removed them. I removed them because I found that much of their content was poor quality, random musings, and I decided that if I was going to have essays, I'd start from scratch. What I may do, in time, is recycle the quality content from the old essays (there certainly was some) and integrate these into new ones - but there's no rush for me to do this. To address another point that's been frequently brought up by the opposition, the length of time between RfAs is indeed short, which did cross my mind, but equally, if User:Phoenix-wiki thought that it was appropriate to re-nominate me at this point, then given that I know Wikipedia policy almost as well as I know the back of my own hand, why should I delay? If this was a self-nom it might have been different, but I believed that if he thought starting a RfA was likely to succeed, then considering that I'd like to volunteer to help Wikipedia as an admin, I saw no good reason to decline it. I'm aware that users come under intense scrutiny during RfA and that this can be harsh and critical, but the interpretation that I was 'bullied' through my last RfA into removing the essays is an incorrect assumption about my thought processes at the time.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose I'm somewhat inclined towards voting neutral, especially as there isn't any diff evidence provided in the opposition arguments here. But honestly I must say that there is something distinctly unsettling about this candidate. I don't think that the issues brought up at the last RFA have been settled, and someone without the patience to wait more than a couple months to reapply for the tools doesn't inspire me. I suggest waiting for the dust to settle over your last RFAs before trying once again. VanTucky talk 02:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - per Malleus Fatuorum. Lara❤Love 18:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose regretfully. I think he needs time to establish a consistent set of standards and demonstrated beliefs. The improvements made right after issues are pointed out are easier than maintaining those improvements over the long haul. Hence the recommendation for 3 months minimum between RFA's. JERRY talk contribs 00:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per above concerns. Not ready for adminship yet. Singopo (talk) 05:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  14. Oppose pattern of deletion votes that seem to be based on a desire to vote as quickly as possible without apparent serious attention to the merits of each particular article raises strong questions in my mind about the individual as an editor. Given this pattern of AfD participation, there is no evidence that admin responsibilities will be taken with the proper focus and consideration. The fact that there has been so little that has changed since the previous RfA only adds to my concerns. Alansohn (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    Can you give some examples of AfDs to which he should have given more thought? Epbr123 (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    With respect, I did throw in a brace of "per nom" diff's above, both placed within a short period of extensive commenting on AFD's. However I also recognise the candidate has made numerous AFD input that is valuable and cites policy. Pedro :  Chat  00:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    But can someone provide examples where he has made poor decisions during AfDs. Making a high number of comments in a short period doesn't prove he has. Many AfDs are clear-cut and don't require much time. Epbr123 (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    The AfDs are part of a rather disturbing pattern that seems to arise among individuals who devote disproportionate percentages of their time to articles for deletion, in which the presence of some genuinely lousy articles leads people to the irrational conclusion that all seemingly similar articles are like cockroaches that need to be crushed and eliminated, ignoring the possibility that these might be good faith efforts to create articles from editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and that many of them can be readily improved to meet any reasonable interpretation of notability. The nominee's comments here -- even if in jest -- betray an attitude that makes me extremely leery as to how administrative privileges would be used and abused. I'd suggest devoting more time to creating and improving content, rather than an extreme focus on deletion. Alansohn (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. The impression I get from the answer to question 8 is that when the candidate encounters someone the candidate strongly disagrees with, the candidate will label the user "disruptive" and an "extreme POV pusher", revert the user's edits, immediately warn the user, and then try to get the user blocked if the user continues to edit. An admin should have a much better ability than that to get along with users and form consensus rather than blocking. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  16. Per above, especially Pedro. Please allow more time between RfAs as the community can not adequately judge your improvements and see that issues have been dealt with in the last RfA. — DarkFalls talk 08:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    What improvements were required since the last RfA? Epbr123 (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Without actually answering, it's surely clear that improvements were required, 'else the last RfA would have passed. TheIslander 14:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Not necessarily. The last RfA was an unusual case. Epbr123 (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  17. Oppose I'm extremely disturbed by the suggestion made here and the comment 2 sections below. I'm afraid he might be a little to trigger happy with the delete button. Mr.Z-man 09:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    I wasn't suggesting that at all. Read the bold text at the start of that talk page comment. I was merely considering a hypothetical idea, far from actually suggesting that it would be good for Wikipedia. Kinda the same problem as with my Wikipedia essays - people are jumping to the conclusion that because I discuss wiki-philosophies, I actually believe in them, which is totally illogical. No, I'm just interested in exploring ideas. Oh well.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Albert Einstein is famed for advances in sciences that contributed towards the atom bomb, but that doesn't mean he contributed to its creation. HSR theorised ideas. Sometimes to get to a good idea, you have to pass through the process of discussing a bad one (I don't think it was a bad idea, btw, but not necessarily a kind or practical one, since we like for newbs to know that they're welcome, hence your reference to WP:BITE). All I'm saying is that if a guy says "hey, what about this" on a talk page, maybe give it some time to completely unfold. Hopefully you don't end up with an atom bomb. Hopefully you end up with E=MC² instead. --rm 'w avu 12:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    And what's so wrong with the atom bomb? If you think about it, it's contributed more to world peace than any invention in history; a nuclear stalemate between two nations precludes the possibility of them engaging in a fully-fledged war (as opposed to border skirmishes et al.) See the history of India-Pakistan relations during the last fifty years as a good example of this. (I know this seems irrelevant; I'm mentioning it to cast doubt on the suggestion that discussing ideas leads to bad outcomes.) WaltonOne 18:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    If you want to come up with a good change, why start with an admittedly horrible suggestion? It seems to me that a better proposal would result from refining a decent idea than trying to make a bad idea less horrible. Mr.Z-man 03:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  18. Oppose --- stated that mistakes from prior RfA were about mishandling RfA, not about the validity of other editors concerns. Appears to have rewritten history about his take on anonymous editing. Mr. Z-Man's edit, just weeks old, is damning. This user is probably an awesome WP contributor, but currently seems to be ill-suited for adminship. --- tqbf 23:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  19. Oppose sorry, just not comfortable at this time. Too many people are uneasy.--Docg 01:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    Can you say "pile-on"? Dorfklatsch 01:44, January 9, 2008
    Can you refrain from smarmy remarks?--Docg 09:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    You are citing "Too many people are uneasy" as your oppose rationale. What do you expect? Dorfklatsch 12:47, January 9, 2008
    Civility?--Docg 14:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    You'll get over it in time. Now, back to the "pile-on" issue, if you will... (btw: Civility like you display towards an RfA candidate when you pile-on oppose? That's about the amount of civility I displayed towards you. Now, if we both agree that the civility horse is dead, we can instead focus on the merits of your rationale, which imho amounts to a simple pile-on.) Dorfklatsch 14:42, January 9, 2008
    So "oppose per above" or "oppose per user" is fine, but a different wording of the former is not? Mr.Z-man 20:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    Doc's comment is not a rewording of "oppose per above": "oppose per above" means "I oppose because of the reasons specified above", whilst Doc's comment means (at least thats the way I interpret it) "I oppose because others oppose". Rami R 21:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    I interpret it as meaning "too many people have opposed for me to be comfortable. If this user really was suitable for adminship, then I feel that fewer, if any, would have opposed". Meh, perhaps I'm wrong. It's certainly not the most detailed or thought out oppose ever, but equally it certainly doesn't warrent the incivility Dorfklatsch is displaying. TheIslander 21:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    Well, I think it's uncivil to pile-on oppose an RfA. And saying "Too many people are uneasy" is not the same as stating agreement with other rationales. It's a pile-on, and I feel the issue of my alleged/perceived incivility is far less important than an admin pile-on opposing. Dorfklatsch 21:40, January 9, 2008
    Let's please drop the allegations and counter-allegations of incivility, and focus on the main issue. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    My point exactly. If someone is not willing to evaluate even arguments that have already been made, s/he should imo politely abstain from participation. Nobody is required to comment in RfA discussions. Ironically enough, people have received opposition in their RfAs for pile-on opposing other RfAs. (But I'm the uncivil dork because I think an admin should strive to be a role-model and know better than to do such a thing. Oh well.) Dorfklatsch 21:47, January 9, 2008
    This conversation is adding very little value. A smart admin told me, last time I was making lots of noise about something around here, "trust the process". If the argument is invalid, the closing crat will take that into account. --- tqbf 22:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  20. Strong oppose. I do not, and cannot trust HisSpaceResearch with such administrative tools. Spebi 01:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    Would you be willing to explain why? Epbr123 (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  21. I don't feel as if I can trust this user. Ral315 (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    How will you guys decide upon the winner? Dorfklatsch 02:05, January 10, 2008
[edit] Neutral
Neutral, leaning to support. The candidate is certainly an outstanding editor, and I have no real reservations about granting the tools, but some of the concerns noted above are, well, concerning. I want to think about this one first. Oh yeah, I also asked a question, so I am interested in the candidate's response. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Changed to Support, above. -ZZ 13:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. Each case must be evaluated individually. I think this one needs more time. Regards, Mercury 00:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral, unfortunately. You have recently taken down certain, controversial statements of opinion from your userpage, directly in accordance with concerns raised in your previous RfA request. The connotations of that are that you are simply twisting your contributions in order to appear "the perfect candidate" pre-your second attempt, and that's something that causes my confidence in you to slump to such levels that I cannot support your request. Under normal circumstances, I do not oppose RfAs unless granting the tools will actively cause damage to the encyclopedia; nor, however, can I express my confidence in your request. What am I saying here? Be yourself. Who you are may not be to everybody's liking, but trust me: the people that oppose because your opinions are not entirely conforming to the "correct" viewpoint are not the people to please. Anthøny 01:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Because it's too hard to decide between support and oppose. Maser (Talk!) 06:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. I considered this for awhile and eventually ended up here. I do feel that this user would do significant work at AfD but I can not get past both the notions about the user brought up at the last RfA and the points brought up by Pedro. Best wishes, SorryGuy  Talk  08:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Hmm.... —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Neutral, while the editor is definitely on the right track, I think that they need to work on maintaining the high quality of their edits over a long period of time. I think if they can do that, then they will be an excellent admin and they'll have my enthusiastic support. Lankiveil (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC).
  7. Neutral Good user, but some concerns. Can't decide whether to support or oppose. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 23:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Neutral; I do feel it is too early since your last failed RfA, and I see what seems to be a little too much eagerness in your actions that seem contrived to make you look better for an RfA... as opposed to simply contributing as best as you can. I cannot support with those concerns. — Coren (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Neutral. I find the answer to question 4 satisfactory, and the answer to question 5 superficial, not thoughtful. -- Iterator12n Talk 05:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    It's important that violating WP:NOT is not a criteria for speedy deletion - community consensus must determine these on an individual basis, even in cases such as PROD which should have at least two (with proposed-deletion endorsed existing) editors agree to the deletion - the prodder, and the admin who deletes.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 06:25, 7 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.