Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ligulem 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Ligulem

Final (68/3/2) Ended 09:59:38 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ligulem (talk • contribs) I think I give it another try. Adminship is no big deal, so nominations aren't either. I love self noms, so I'll eat my own dog food. I do have no desire to write an ode about myself here, so please ask what you want to know!
Thank you for taking a close look at my wiki-me and I welcome your thoughts and questions in advance. (See also my previous nom - I promise to run trough the end this time ;-) – --Ligulem 09:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self nom.
Questions for the candidate

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I'm a template expert. I would like to be able to edit fully protected high use template pages like template:cquote. But I won't be an ambassador. A wiki-plumber would be a better description (I'm a software developer in meatspace).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I do have no featured article so I'm somewhat disappointed about myself in this regard (I sometimes thought I'd better not be here). But I read a lot here, so I'm mainly a reader that stumbled upon some things and couldn't resist contributing some other things that fit my capabilities. I did a lot on the citation templates (template:cite web et al) and wrote some stuff like Wikipedia:template doc page pattern. I did a fork of WP:AWB (m:MWiki-Browser).
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes and yes / I talked with them and listened to them and asked others for their opinions / I will continue to do it like this, but I feel I'm wiki-mature enough now not to get stressed that easily anymore.

Optional question from -- Lost(talk)

Your previous nomination seems to have been well above the bar at 73 supporting and 7 opposing. Yet you withdrew? Can you explain why? What has changed since then?
I nominated myself while still being involved in a major dispute about "meta-templates" (see my first RfA). During that RfA I complained loudly about a Wikipedian on WP:ANI and even called him a dick, which was the wrong way to do it and which I regret having done so. During that RfA I noticed that in fact my understanding of adminship and especially blocking was completely wrong. In fact I nominated in despair. What a bad idea! After having engaged in a stupid discourse in my own RfA (!) I was so frustrated that I withdrew my nom and decided to leave (Oh, what a stupid behavior ;-). I hope I'm a bit more wiki-mature now (personally I think I am). But I wouldn't withdraw again in this situation. Nobody is perfect, but I think I learned something from that first RfA as well. --Ligulem 11:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from RyanGerbil10

I have found that once someone becomes an admin, it completely (at least in my case) changes the way they think about Wikipedia. Once you become an admin, you cannot ever go back to not being an admin. Even if one voluntarily requests the buttons are taken away, that person still thinks like an admin. Although it is a valid wiki-career choice, becoming an admin is a fundamental change in the way one thinks about, and contributes to, the project. How might such a change effect your participation on Wikipedia?
No! I do sincerely hope that I do not change the way I think about Wikipedia if this RfA passes! In fact I have thought about that numerous times in the past. If this RfA should pass, I can just hope that I will never forget what it feels like being not an admin. But times will inevitably change and also situations on this wiki, so I will only have my own wiki-history. I've been a Wikipedian first and foremost and I will stay one whatever will happen during my wiki-life. Especially in the last 6 months I noticed that adminship is even more a no-big deal than I thought in March this year (despite that much of noise it creates on this wiki, especially in the last few weeks). The most contentious feature of adminship is certainly the block button. I hope I will never hit that button in error. And I do hope that I don't have to use it much. I think in most cases blocking isn't even that helpful and I really do fear that it has the potential to turn users into anger if it is not used with a lot of care. What I can say, I strongly feel that admins are not more important than any other Wikipedian when it comes to finding consensus about be it whatever. They don't count more than anyone else here. And adminship is not a trophy and not a title. A good example of an admin for me is User:CBDunkerson. But I sure do not have his admin capabilites. But I share a lot of his wiki-philosophy regarding admin-accountability. My prime idea is to treat people like I would expect them to treat me. And looking behind the actions to see what is the intent of a Wikipedian. Sometimes, not quite easy. Especially because on a wiki it is difficult (if not impossible) to assess the feelings of others. Which often leads to nedless stress and a waste of time and energy on all sides. Time that would better have spent in improving the Encyclopedia. Ah and I forgot: I hope I do behave like an admin. We should all behave like admins anyway. --Ligulem 12:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from Espresso Addict

Could you please list a few articles that you've created or edited substantially? Not necessarily features/good articles, just run-of-the-mill ones. Thanks.
I completely fail on this check. The one that comes closest to that is Inversion of Control. I wrote a longer essay there which directly comes from my professional knowledge and which I own several books about as stable sources. However, that long writing of mine got deleted by others, because they said it was too long and doesn't fit an encyclopedia (now that article has again the "in need of an expert tag" as before I entered my essay there ;-). The main problem I do have in writing good articles is that I do have no access to a decent English language library. So this is why I already said above I probably shouldn't be here at all. On the other hand, I've demonstrated a considerable technical knowledge in editing templates like template:cite book and am also capable to fulfill more technical requests (for example I created a template per request of User:Hillman). So in the end I can be of some use for Wikipedia. But I'm definitely null and void if it comes to writing articles like a User:raul654 or User:SlimVirgin. But I read articles they have written. And not only what these two have written. Furthermore I would like to point out that it could be good to Wikipedia if we would have some wiki-techno-geeks like me who can edit stuff in the MediaWiki namespace like MediaWiki:Common.css or template:cite book. I can read m:ParserFunctions code like a newspaper. Question is: is this capability useful for you or not? ;-). This is up to the community to decide. I have also shown that I am capable and willing to do hard work not only on the template side itself but also on the calls. I created the regex-settings for the migration of thousands of pages from template:book reference to template:cite book using AWB (was a joint effort). It would just be useful to be able to edit some of the things in that area, because these things affect a lot of pages on wikipedia (template:cite web is included in more than 20,000 pages and that number is increasing day by day). I can therefore help others to write featured articles. But I don't write them myself. At least I haven't written any. Is template:cite web a featured template? Or how "featured" is this setting for WP:MWB which I used to do this job? ;-) It can be damn useful to be able to edit some fully protected pages. Other admins do have their problems in that area [1]. [2]. And if they make a botch I can't fix it. Simply because I'm not allowed to, because I don't have the admin bits. However, if this is really wanted, I can help even without the admin bits. But they could be useful. --Ligulem 15:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Question from Andeh
4. Please expand on question 1, editing fully protected templates can be done by request via the talk page of the template or by asking an admin. But what other chors do you intend to do?--Andeh 15:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
A: Editing fully protected pages to exchange template calls (template migrations, see also Wikipedia:Changing templates, which I wrote myself). Protecting high use templates if needed [3]. [4]. Editing in the MediaWiki namespace. Blocking template vandals (rarely needed). But giving me the admin bits aren't vital for Wikipedia. It might be helpful to ask yourselves if you trust me to do these things or not. And I suspect you just don't notice that they work. Someone behind the scences does. Somone like me ;-) --Ligulem 16:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: I would have done this if I had the license to do it. And here I would have done it in a single edit, saving another pile of entries in the m:Help:Job queue, the length of which can be seen at Special:Statistics. --Ligulem 16:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Question from --Mcginnly | Natter 23:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC) : Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?
In general, blocking is very rarely the right thing for an established user. As a prerequisite, I should not be involved in a dispute about content with that user (but I can be in a dispute about policy). Then I should have a clear understanding of the situation – which in contentious cases requires a damn lot of time (I even wonder if blocking in such cases serves any purpose). Then I would – if needed and applicable in the given situation – talk with him or her and ask what's the reason for what he or she did something (trying to look behind the mere technical actions). Then I would firmly ask to stop the disruptive or destructive part of his or her behavior. If I would get stressed by all that, I probably would not be the right person to issue a block anyway and ask another admin (However this exhibits the problem of the "backing up a fellow admin" and "making noise on WP:ANI" – peers from a group tend to back-up their colleages and not to look at the situation in-depth themselves). A very good page about blocking is User:Mindspillage/admin. I will reread that (and the relevant policies) as needed (just as a checklist like a pilot, I think I do have internalised the ideas behind these). The psychological aspects of a block should never be forgotten. For example mechanically throwing a block at a party that is in violation of 3RR in many cases doesn't help anything and just serves to get things further heated. Blocks are damn inflammatory. But sometimes they are needed. But only as a last resort. Also, the collateral damage of a block should always be evaluated. It's like a pill with side effects. There are no effective pills without side effects (besides placebos, which can be very effective ;-). There are also technical side effects (autoblock of the IP-address) that must be carefully evaluated and understood. Blocking is not a silver bullet. And admins can easily shoot in their foot by careless blocking. And last but not least we should always try to look at what a person says, not who they are. --Ligulem 06:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
General comments

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

  • It seems as if my endorsement of the candidate is unnecessary at this point, but I'd like to chime in with another supporting message, as I think Ligulem will be a great administrator in that the tools will help him become a more productive Wikipedian and will therefore make Wikipedia a better place. I also like his blocking philosophy hoopydinkConas tá tú? 15:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support per the first RfA. I'm seeing your name all over wikitech-l. Definitely won't abuse the tools - so I'm convinced. james(talk) 10:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. – Chacor 10:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. The above question was just out of curiosity. I support anyway -- Lost(talk) 10:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Michael 10:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Very helpful editor; will make a good admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support per SlimVirgin. --Guinnog 11:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support--MONGO 11:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support of course! Great technical knowledge, has use for the tools, and is nice and helpful. Kusma (討論) 11:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support --Terence Ong (T | C) 12:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. Candidate seems excellent. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 13:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support We need more technically-minded admins; CAT:PER in my experience often gets backlogged with technical stuff (although it's not too bad at the moment), and it would help to have another admin willing to help there. --ais523 13:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, I will try to have an eye on that and would be glad if you could remind me if I should forget about it (In case this RfA passes). However, I would reserve the right to produce entries there myself in the future. I probably will use {{editprotect}} on the citation templates for some cases because I'm a bit omnipresent there. A second opinion of an other admin can be a good thing to make sure I'm not bullying my way there more than I already do ;-). All changes there should be proposed on the talk anyway. I have no intention to do significant edits there without asking first. --Ligulem 14:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  13. Strong Support don't withdraw this time - I'm happy that you respect criticism, but you do have to distinguish between 73 supporters and 7 opposers. Rama's arrow 13:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    As I wrote above, I will run this time trough the end whatever shall happen. Apologies to all that have supported my last nom. I understand this was somewhat disrespectful from my side towards the supporters. --Ligulem 14:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  14. Weak support - I trust this user and nothing that bothered me was brought up in the first RFA, but Ligulem has very little experience in the image namespaces [5] [6] --T-rex 14:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  15. Only seen good things, Highway Daytrippers 15:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  16. Me too. (Liberatore, 2006). 16:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support per comments and answers to questions. Good, experienced user with no significant issues. As with all candidates, I urge continued contributions to the article space as well; no admin should be only an administrator. Newyorkbrad 17:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support: I have found this editor thoughtful and sincere. Stephen B Streater 18:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support Doctor BrunoTalk 19:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support A sincere editor who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 21:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. - Mailer Diablo 21:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support Seen good things from this editor, no probs suporting. Thε Halo Θ 22:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  23. --Mike 23:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support I am very satisfied with the answer to Lost's question.--Húsönd 00:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support template specialist needs tools, we need template specialists, contributions to the main and wiki space are quite good as well abakharev 00:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support technical expertise is extremely valuable in an admin. Opabinia regalis 01:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support meets my standards, and we can use admins with technical expertise.-- danntm T C 03:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  28. Merovingian - Talk 06:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support, good editor. MaxSem 09:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support (changed from neutral, see below). The response to Mcginnly's question is well thought out and right on the spot, and I do not have any reason to believe Ligulem would misuse the admin tools. Moreover, I think Wikipedia (and especially template space) will benefit from this user having the admin tools. Good luck! — mark ✎ 14:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support Good choice for an admin! -- Avi 16:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support Mr Ligulem, no worries. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  33. Martin 17:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support per ligulem's honest and frank answers --Ageo020 18:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support. His expertise and technical knowledge aside, Ligulem is honest and corageous in voicing his thoughts, and willing to discuss and listen. I'm sorry we have talked so little, dear L... Phaedriel - 21:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support. Why the hell not? --Aaron 23:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support --Stubbleboy 00:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 02:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support I recently had the distinct pleasure of working with Ligulem on a project that involved examining all 2000+ references to template:infobox city and changing parameter usage in over 500 of these articles. He is a tireless worker, which is in my mind an important criteria for administrators. I'm sure there are backlogs he will be able to help with. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support per last time, Template specialist, seen editor around. Jaranda wat's sup 02:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support Thoughtful response to blocking.--Mcginnly | Natter 11:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support, credible reasons for wanting the tools, plenty enough mianspace edits for me, no indication of likely abuse, template work is just as valuable as mainspace. Overall, plenty of reasons to support and no real reason to oppose, invoking the No Big Deal clause. Memo to stores: issue one mop and bucket set. Guy 14:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support Thoughtful answers to questions. --kingboyk 16:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support Ligulem looks like a great candidate who is human like the rest of us. Those impressive answers show honesty and dedication. Very good - JungleCat talk/contrib 19:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support. Good answers to the questions asked above, and seems like he would make a fine admin one day. --Nishkid64 21:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support. Has to use {{editprotected}} way too often. —Ruud 22:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support - Long overdue... and will save me having to make template updates for him. :] --CBD 01:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support - This user would benefit the project by having a mop. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 02:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support will be good admin --rogerd 02:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support. Last time, I also was with you. You gave someone an adjective when you were not even an administrator. I have recently been called a "troll" by one of the administrators. Perhpas, we are degenerating fast into a virtual mess as far as our level of interaction is concerned. I highly appreciate that you understand the point and withdrew last time. I wish you all the best. Let us remember Abraham Lincoln: With Malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wikipedia's wounds, and emerge as Better than the Best. --Bhadani 02:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support per above. —Jared Hunt September 21, 2006, 03:49 (UTC)
  52. Support for many reasons cited above but especially his response to McGinnly's question about blocking established users. It's right on the money. --Richard 08:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support. I have been consistently impressed by Ligulem's technical expertise and willingness to help others, and I feel confident that he will be an outstanding admin. -- Polaris999 15:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support - Consistent positive contributor in many areas, shows good judgement. Mop-ready. Georgewilliamherbert 01:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  55. Supprt Seems like a mature sort of person who will help others. Яabi∂ςa√in 11:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  56. Weak support, a very unique and odd RfA. But apart from that everything seems in order.--Andeh 13:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    Support, looks good. =) --Terence Ong (T | C) 14:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC) duplicate vote (see #10)
  57. Support Do I really need to say why? —Argentino (talk/cont.) 00:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support. I have seen Ligulem's template work and believe that he would benefit from the admin tools. — TKD::Talk 02:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support I do not see anything wrong with this candidate so I say yes. TruthCrusader 08:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support Wiki also needs admin plumbers. Tyrenius 14:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support sannse (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  62. SupportEverything has been said, although not everyone has yet said it. Williamborg (Bill) 03:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  63. Oh yeah. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 13:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support per all of the above, good contributor. Anger22 23:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support you get my vote Jeffklib 02:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support, passes my RfA criteria.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  67. Formerly Neutral Support, due to the candidate's honest, thoughful and articulate answers.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    Shouldn't that be formerly? Stephen B Streater 08:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    There...happy now?:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  68. Sorry I'm late Support  Jorcoga  09:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, based on lack of encyclopedia building experience, per the very honest answer to my question. I believe that the current broad set of admin tools should be handed only to those with broad experience with content building, and that other mechanisms to allow users such as Ligulem to assist technically should be sought. Also, I believe that admins are currently perceived, rightly or wrongly, as ambassadors for the project. Espresso Addict 16:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose just as I did before, as I see no improvement. That, and he called me a dick. -- Netoholic @ 00:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    He comments about this incident above (optional question from Lost) and, although not quite an apology, expresses regret. Would an actual apology help? (just curious) -- Rick Block (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    I'm reluctant to comment about opposes. But Netoholic is fully correct that calling him what I wrote is wrong. Sorry, Netoholic, I apologize for having been incivil to you. However, it would be good if we could draw a line under this meta-template debate which hoisted a lot of name calling and heat. After all we do have m:ParserFunctions now that solves the problem — Thanks to developer Tim Starling, who implemented that and which is very useful, long awaited by a lot of Wikipedians and in broad use now - and which Netoholic still is a strong opposer of (Simply put, Netoholic gained no consensus for the killing of conditional functions and his policy proposal was rejected by the community and also received no backup as a policy by MediaWiki CTO Brion VIBBER). Per my incivility failure, I would like to comment that I was very stressed about this meta-template issue then, because the citation templates (template:cite book for example) were at stake. Template:if, the predecessor of template:qif was deleted by User:Phil Sandifer while we were right in the middle of migrating thousands of calls to qif, which then thousands of pages in Wikipedia depended on (It seems like "if" has been undeleted in the mean time). The debacle also lead to an ArbCom decision that is now in effect [7]. Of course this is not an excuse for my incivility but that might serve to put it in some context (sorry for pointing to this, but since Netoholic brought up the meta-template debate again here, I feel readers should look at this as well). Apologies again, Netoholic. I made an error in March. This was also one of the reasons why I withdrew my first RfA --Ligulem 07:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    Wow, had all you written was the third sentence above, I'd have struck my oppose vote. A truly honest apology need only be a simple one. I did not bring up meta-templates anywhere on this page, you did - to poison the well. All I said was that you called me a dick and that I saw no improvement since last RFA. And you've confirmed that by again giving another slanted, Cliffs Notes version of the reasons why you think I'm a dick, rather than just apologize. -- Netoholic @ 04:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    The diff Netoholic provided is right out of the middle of that meta-template debate as can be seen in the part with grey background on the right column of the diff display page, right above my incivility error I made in March. I think looking at a single diff without also judging its context gives a wrong overall impression. It is common practice by RfA discussion contributors to bring their most striking diff's into RfA's. Since such diffs should serve to help find consensus about whether a candidate can be trusted for adminship, the context of such diffs should also be evaluated. It is like quoting someone without providing context. As I wrote, the context I provided does not excuse my incivility, but it provides context for the allegation of Netoholic that he "see[s] no improvement". I do respect your decision, Netoholic, but I think you did made your point now. You do reject my apology because I provided context for my incivility error in March. I cannot say more than that I do apologize for my incivility error, which I truly believe. I suggest we move on now. --Ligulem 09:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    No offence made: I was just thinking which is a better adjective: being called a dick or a troll. Perhpas I may be both in the opinion of many! Wikipedians including me have very sharp memory. --Bhadani 02:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. —freak(talk) 18:59, Sep. 22, 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  • Neutral (changed to support, but leaving this short thread here). This is one of the cases where I think we really are in need of a more fine-grained distribution of what is now an indiscriminate collection of admin tools. I can see why Ligulem (a 'wiki-plumber', as he describes himself above) could use the ability to delete pages, edit protected ones, and so on. However, as this project is first and foremost about content, I tend to oppose admin candidates who do not have solid experience in article writing. That makes me neutral. (I could change my opinion depending on the answer to Espresso Addict's question.) — mark ✎ 14:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    Why do you think article-writing is necessary to become an administrator? Good article writers rarely have a need for the sysop bit, in my opinion, because they can write articles without it. Administration is about deletions and undeletions, protections and unprotections, blockings and unblockings, interface editing, and viewing unwatched pages, not about writing articles. --ais523 15:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for asking. I think I couldn't put it better than Blnguyen, so let me just quote him: (...) administrators and writers are drifting into separate disjoint camps with excessive administration not related to the improvement of content or removal of bad content, so I feel that being an avid and highly enthusiastic writer is important. Not necessarily high quality, but the intent must be there. I've been impressed most by the administrative behaviours of administrators who are article writers at heart; they never seem to suffer post-RfA letdown or change negatively IMHO. This quote puts into words how I think about the issue. — mark ✎ 15:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    I would welcome the splitting of the admin bits. But that is a rejected perennial proposal --Ligulem 15:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  1. Neutral per Espresso Addict (in Oppose camp). Would support with greater evidence of article contribution. Won't oppose solely based on this though. On the other hand, my opinion in this should probably be drowned out per WP:SNOW. :-) --Storkk 13:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    Wavering Neutral. (Changed to support) Regretfully I cannot support per WP:BULL. However, since it is a bit unfair to ask the candidate to produce a featured article in the next 5 days, I will gladly support if you vow to add your name to CAT:AOR.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    To be honest: No. I won't add my name to CAT:AOR. But I agree with the general idea. However: it is much simpler: if this RfA should pass and Wikipedians should request the recall of my (hypothetical) adminship, I will consider releasing it. Simply put a request on my talk. Note that since there is no consensus about a formal procedure for admin recall, I don't have a clear process for that in mind (what should be the "treshold"?). I fear some !voting won't solve that. Of course if I should go admin-insane, I probably won't be in shape to agree on my recall anyway. This is a yet to be solved problem with adminship. --Ligulem 08:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you for a thoughtful and candid response. I'm on the razor's edge of support now, but one last point, if you don't mind-What harm is there in signing on to CAT:AOR? Sure it is of mostly symbolic value at the moment (mostly:), but symbolism still matters. Especially in the current climate where trust between users and admins as well as between writers and janitors is at an all time low. Such gestures, no matter how small, do add up and help us (re)build a sense of community and accoutability. I'm fully aware you certainly don't need my one, lousy, stinking vote...but what the hell eh? Why not?;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    Your !vote is certainly neither lousy nor stinking :). I must say I'm also on the edge. Being somewhat fundamentalistict when it comes to accountability and honesty, I really do have some doubts about the CAT:AOR thing. I won't promise things that I don't hold later. While CAT:AOR is in the right direction, I honestly do have a problem with the 6 wikipedians threshold. If you look at my first RfA, there are 7 opposers. And what did I? I withdrew. Yet I think I shouldn't have done that. "Participating admins may outline their understanding of this commitment and the procedure they intend to follow in more detail on their user pages" I honestly don't have an idea how that procedure should look for me. And how can I judge myself? I would rather want to let that decide somone else. But I do not agree with the "random" 6 Wikipedians. On the other hand, if some people I know and which I trust would say to me I should give back the admin bits, I would do it without that threshold. For example if Rick Block, CBDunkerson and Bluemoose all should say to me: "hey man, step back you are doing evil! You are doing wrong as a sysop" then I will step back immediately. But what does that serve the community? These three were not choosen by the community and outsiders would say "ah yes, of course these are a cabal" so where are we with that? Sorry, not yet. This whole thing should be better thought out first. Currently there are some proposals around, so I might subscribe to one of these later. With due respect for the cummunity: I think the decision should come from a committee, not 6 random Wikipedians. But I do respect the admins that add themselves to CAT:AOR. I also think that an admin that is recalled per CAT:AOR won't have much chances to ever get the mop back. Not with the current RfA process. --Ligulem 22:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per poor grammar in nom statement. Attention to detail is important, especially for an admin. If english is not the nom's first language, then submitting his self-nom statement to a friend for review before posting should be a basic course of action. Otherwise a great user, therefore not an oppose. Themindset 18:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.