Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikidudeman

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] Wikidudeman

talk page FINAL (56/24/2); Ended, 00:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman (talk · contribs) - I am nominating Wikidudeman to be an administrator. I have interacted with Wikidudeman for about six months on several pages and have been impressed with his dedication and willingness to work with others. His recent work on Parapsychology, Ebonics and Homoeopathy shows that he has sufficient maturity and diplomacy to deal with even very difficult and controversial issues. A good editor with a solid track record. Tim Vickers 18:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination from: User:VanTucky - My first experience with Wikidudeman was when I began editing the extremely controversial Parapsychology article, what was recently at the center of an ArbCom case. During the case,and in the midst of continued edit warring, Wikidudeman took it upon himself to create a neutral space for all the users involved to try and collaboratively write a new draft of the article that would be acceptable to all parties and adhere to policy. He successfully arbitrated this endeavor and Parapsychology is now a Good Article. Simply put, without his neutral administration of an enormous rewrite, the article would be a nasty mess to this day. His actions also pretty much single-handedly convinced me of the merit of adhering to harmonious editing practices such as proposing controversial changes beforehand. He has continued this tradition of collaborative draft writing with the also-controversial Homeopathy article. While this type of work is not vandalfight or other traditional admin work, it has irrevocably demonstrated that Wikidudeman has all the qualities of a superb admin. Maturity, neutrality in decision-making, adherence to both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia policy, and a zeal for improving articles and maintaining the stability and quality of Wikipedia as a whole. VanTucky (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination from: User:Altruism - A fair, mature, diplomatic and dedicated editor who has amply demonstrated all these qualities, especially in his adept manoeuvring of controversial articles like Parapsychology, Homeopathy etc. To sum it up, a truly deserving editor. Thank You. --AltruismT a l k - Contribs. 05:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, Thank you. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've withdrawn my RFA. I've left a closing comment right above the discussion header. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Candidate’s optional statement - Hello. I am Wikidudeman. I joined Wikipedia in the end of July 2006 and since then have contributed time to numerous articles, backlogs and projects. I have done my best to suppress and fight vandalism, improve articles and unofficially mediate disputes. However, it has recently become clear that my ability to help Wikipedia would be greatly improved if I had the extra editing capabilities that come from having the Mop.

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A:My work as an admin would involve helping with numerous backlogs including CAT:CSD, CAT:DFUI, as well as helping over at WP:AN3 and WP:AFD. I would also work at WP:UAA and WP:RFU as well, though they are rarely backlogged. I would of course continue my anti-vandalism efforts, quickly blocking obvious vandals(after warnings) or aiding in blocking vandals reported by other users at WP:AIV. Also, aside from working on the backlog of candidates for speedy deletion, I would monitor recent creations and delete pages that would qualify for speedy deletion per WP:SD after going through the necessary processes.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:I doubt I could name my top contribution. I have over 6,000 edits and have created several articles and uploaded about a dozen images so far. The Anabolic steroid article would be one of the articles that I consider to have benefited drastically from my work. I have over 450 edits to that article and since last year I have (along with the help of other editors) brought it from a start class article to a Good article and hopefully soon to be featured article. The Parapsychology article is also a notable one. I (along with the many other editors) have brought it from a disputed article with frequent edit wars, to a stable Good Article. I called upon all major editors to that article and helped them work out an article that they would not edit war over and that they could live with. The Bodybuilding article is another one which I have dedicated a lot of time to. I also frequently make numerous edits to various articles correcting their formats and citations. I am currently working on Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed Proposal, which would make it more difficult for repeat sock puppets to vandalize semi-protected pages.I am also currently working on a total re-write of the Homeopathy article with cooperation of all of its major contributors. When I came to the article, it was in bad shape with POV tags everywhere and relevant information missing, however since then I have gotten all of the previously conflicting editors to engage in a constructive discussion of the article at a draft in my user space. BTW, If anyone wants to help they can come to User talk:Wikidudeman/Homeopathdraft and join the discussions.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A:I have not been in any actual "conflicts" that resulted in edit wars or violations of policy on my part. I have been in disagreements and debates with other editors about numerous topics, most of which were quickly resolved, however, I can't think of any long term "conflicts". Concerning disagreements and debates that became heated, I have been in a few. One that comes to mind was with Adam Cuerden after he deleted the Anabolic steroid article because he believed the first paragraph was a copyright violation and concluded that it all must be copyrighted. We had a heated discussion on the matter and almost immediately the article was restored by Tim Vickers, later this was confirmed in a Deletion review. At the time I was unaware that articles could be restored once deleted and from this ordeal I learned that deletions can always be undeleted. Considering I was under the impression I would have to write the entire article over again (which took several months) I believe I handled the situation very well, as the most heated thing I said was that "Adam, You don't know what you're talking about." Since this I try to remember that anything that is done can be undone and anything that is undone can be re-done very easily on Wikipedia. I try to remember this when someone does something that I believe is wrong or harmful so as to avoid being stressed by the situation.

Optional question from AGK (talk · contribs);

4. Could you provide examples of Administrator-related work, such as XfD participation/closing, and vandalism reports (e.g., at WP:AIV, WP:AN3 or WP:UAA)? ~ Anthøny 19:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
A: If I understand the question correctly and you're asking for examples of work at XfD etc then I have about 44 contributions to WP:AIV probably several more times as many to XfD. I generally remove them from my watchlist once they have closed however an example would be the Chris Benoit murder-suicide which I nominated for deletion and can be found here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benoit family tragedy. The result was no consensus, possibly due to a high amount of new users from message boards who were told to vote to keep the article. I personally didn't have any opinion of whether or not it should be deleted or merged, I nominated it because there was a consensus against creating such an article on the talk page of Chris Benoit. That would be one example, however I probably have contributed to around 100 various debates for WP:AFD, however once they have closed I generally remove them from my watchlist.

[edit] General comments

  • Please note that I have already voted support, and have not engaged in any of the discussions on this page. It appears that some persons are confusing the opinions expressed by an editor on a (range of) subject(s) with the ability to apply policy as an administrator. It is not necessary for an administrator to have no opinion, or only an unbiased opinion, when reviewing a matter, it only matters that any opinion or bias is put aside in considering and acting upon a matter. I believe that only when it can be demonstrated that bias has or might of had influenced an editors duty of NPOV should it be argued as a reason for oppose in an RfA. LessHeard vanU 12:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Closing comments

I want to thank everyone who participate in this RFA however regretfully I'm going to have to withdrawal it. I appreciate all of the input from everyone. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Wikidudeman before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Everything I look for in a candidate; good answers, solid stats, and vandal-fighting experience. †Ðanieltiger45† Talk to me 18:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support, as nominator. Tim Vickers 18:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support: exemplary, cool head, polite, scrupulously fair, diplomatic, an excellent nominee Peter morrell 18:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Great user, I have no concerns.--Hirohisat Talk 19:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support, seems to have an all-around experience here. No concerns raised. Sr13 19:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support as co-nom. VanTucky (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support - a look at this User's contributions show that his interests are wide and his capabilities numerous. His behavior is often exemplary. Strongly support for adminship. - LuckyLouie 19:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support per nom. Politics rule 19:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Good answer to question 1. Seems like your going to do a load of stuff.--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Would make a great admin based on contribs, nothing really to dislike except the whole barnstar thing which kind of worries me. But hell yes, support. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support – the arguments below, whilst perhaps a little unnerving, are (in my eyes) not enough to counter the obvious nack for Mop-related activities Wikidudeman has developed during his time here on Wikipedia. Best of luck! Cheers, Anthøny 20:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support- I've seen him around and I trust him with the burden. I also think that the barnstars were just a coincidence. --Boricuaeddie 20:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support - with one reservation (not worthy for neutral); I feel admins need explain every edit, so I would hope Wikidudeman will enable the edit summary reminder feature. Otherwise, everything is great and have had good impressions of this editor. Safe with the tools. LessHeard vanU 20:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support - Garion96 (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. No reason not to. A great user who will make an even better administrator. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  16. YES! Giggy UCP 22:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support I really don't have any issues with this editor. Jmlk17 22:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. Good candidate, though i have few run-ins with him, but those that i have had are good. J-stan Talk 23:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support No issues. -Lemonflashtalk 00:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Based on the user's contribution history, this user is bigger than me. the_undertow talk 00:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support A great contributer, experienced and civil. Good luck! Dfrg.msc 00:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support I've worked with Wikidudeman on both the Anabolic steroid and Parapsychology articles and believe he would make a good admin. Lara♥Love 02:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support A solid Wikipedian who gets the job done. -- Sharkface217 03:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support Whole lot of good - ticks all the boxes (ie. contribs, answers etc.) ck lostsword•T•C 05:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  25. Strong Support as co-nominator. --AltruismT a l k - Contribs. 05:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. A great editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support Another editor with special knowledge in a given area and more prone to bouts of WikiLove than abuse, certainly no complaints from here. Quick review of last 1000 contribs suggests a mature and well-considered editor who would do well with the mop in some of Wikipedia's darkest corners. Orderinchaos 06:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support - friendly and kind editor who deserves the mop. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  29. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support per AFD interactions Corpx 17:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support - Good User ...--Cometstyles 19:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support Track is good Harlowraman 19:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support A very expierenced editor fit for the job and ready to help people. The very job of an admin. Marlith 20:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support I do not believe he will abuse the tools. JodyB yak, yak, yak 20:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support He will make fine use of the tools as a sysop. A Raider Like Indiana
  36. Support I think that this user will make good use of the tools. Captain panda 22:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support After reviewing your contributions, edit counts & talk page I feel confident enough that you are aware of the policies and guidelines that you will not abuse the buttons. --Ozgod 02:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support I have read through this entire thing and it's a pretty serious information overload. All I can really say is that every encounter I've had with this editor's work has been positive. I can't come up with a compelling reason to oppose. Trusilver 04:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support Looks like a great candidate. - Patman2648 06:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support Having read the user's last 2,000 contributions and the oppose votes carefully, I don't see anything here which worries me. A user's controversial opinions on select subjects or particular sociopolitical views, so long as they can make neutral decisions and respect consensus, should have no bearing on their capacity to use the suite of administrative tools. Zivko85 07:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support good article contributions showing maturity and rational approach Shyamal 09:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  42. Weak Support (changed from neutral). I urge the candidate to take heed of some of the points brought up here, but there isn't any solid evidence that he'll be a poor admin, so I support. WaltonOne 11:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support Solid editor. Deserves the mop. Eusebeus 16:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support After considering the evidence from both sides of the argument, especially the oppose, I believe that Wikidudeman will make a fine administrator despite some concerns. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support He seems to be a fine contributor, and after loooking over the discussion, I believe that he will do well as an admin. -- Gravitan(Talk | Contribs) 17:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support, the opposition does not give me any real pause. The "potential canvassing" brought up due to the barnstar thing seems positively silly - Wikidudeman seems to have a history of being generous with barnstars. To cast aspersions of canvassing because of a longstanding friendly activity - and then to oppose essentially on the basis of being "nice" - really rubs me the wrong way. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support, good message on userpage, good philosophy, good efforts. Bearian 18:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support - does good work and will be a fine admin. - eo 19:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support - per Davkal (who opposes) below. RedSpruce 20:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support, could use the tools, no evidence of being mental. Neil ╦ 20:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support seems fine. Acalamari 23:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support For those of you who have not spent time on some of the very contentious articles that WDM has been working on, it may be hard to appreciate the skill of this editor. My primary interactions with him have been on the parapsychology article and its ArbCom proceedings, but I've also been involved with him on other articles, such as electronic voice phenomena. He has an extremely cool head. He weaved his way between the pro-paranormalists and those who think that things have natural causes, and expertly drew up a draft that is now relatively stable. The quality of the article notwithstanding, what is remarkable is how WDM managed to forge consensus where previously there had been none. He is, above all, reasonable, and for that I support his nomination. Antelan talk 03:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    Wow, I wish I'd ever seen evidence of his reasonableness. Of course, contentious articles are a commonplace on Wikipedia, and one should expect that an Administrator will have to deal with them. For those of us who have spent time on contentious articles with Wikidudeman, the prospect is not cheery. Pinkville 03:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    Pinkville, Editors outside of the AAVE discussion seem to agree that I handled the situation very well, going through the dispute resolution processes as they are set out by policy. If you don't think Parapsychology is a contentious article then I think you need to try looking at it's history. It was one of the most disputed articles on wikipedia. Or perhaps Homeopathy which I'm currently working on. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support I spent forty five minutes reading through the cases presented below, and this user has impressed me as mature and level-headed. MrPrada 07:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support A cool-headed and responsible editor who can clearly be trusted with the tools. Xdenizen 08:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support - but only on the pretense that the aforementioned glitches in his editing history continues to diminish in frequency. Seems to be a worthy contributor, and past mistakes should remain in the past. An editor that will but the sysop responsibilities to good use. - Bennyboyz3000 08:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    It seems your support is conditional upon demonstrated improvement over time -- even in the short term; however, this is an immediate process. Once the voting ends in a couple of days, the results will be reviewed and a determination made about WDM's adminship. So, if at this point you are at all uncertain about whether to support WDM, you may wish to change your vote to "Neutral," or do as others who've expressed similar reservations about WDM (below) to "Oppose." deeceevoice 14:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support he sounds nice and sounds like he has common sense without being anal/excessively beurocratic.Merkinsmum 22:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. The nomination says His recent work on Parapsychology, Ebonics and Homoeopathy shows that he has sufficient maturity and diplomacy to deal with even very difficult and controversial issues (emphasis added). What's this about Ebonics? I see no recent edits by Wikidudeman in its history. But his absence from its edit history is not something I regret. Wikidudeman had a long and highly distinctive involvement in the closely related article African American Vernacular English, as will be seen in AAVE/Archive 3, in subsequent archives, and in the current talk page. I have seen some very worthwhile contributions by him to other, unrelated articles and their talk pages, but am disturbed by the combination of his utter wrongheadedness over AAVE (the myth that it's "rudimentary" [his term], and other nonsense exploded decades ago), his obvious lack of serious reading about it (even what was written in some of the clearer parts of an admittedly flawed article, parts that he didn't question), his utter unconcern about this lack of reading, and his confidence in the rightness of having the article reflect his ignorance. These archived talk pages are tiresome and longwinded (their creation wasted a hell of a lot of man-hours) and make occasionally unpleasant reading. Still, I urge people to skimread them. (Of course I, as one of his opponents within them, am not lily-white myself: you'll see me losing my cool, calling names, etc.) An administrator should have a strong commitment to having articles reflect the fruit of fairly recent mainstream academic study (which disagrees over details but agrees that AAVE is in no way inferior to standard English), not his own received ideas and not (or only fleetingly) piffle uttered on the subject by this or that celebrity. Wikidudeman may have changed since March or thereabouts, when (to my great relief) he seemed to have lost interest in that article; I certainly hope that he has done so. -- Hoary 11:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Hoary has ably described Wikidudeman's participation in the lengthy conflict at AAVE. I am surprised that Wikidudeman states I can't think of any long term "conflicts" in answer to Question 3, above, since the record of the AAVE article shows otherwise: a months-long (at least), many bytes, multi-participant dispute that included a poorly conducted mediation attempt (that is, poorly conducted by the mediator), a misguided attempt by Wikidudeman to move AAVE to Ebonics, a parallel misguided attempt by Wikidudeman to delete the existing Ebonics article, and much very heated language on all sides. Maybe our definitions of "long-term" and "conflict" differ sharply... In the end, the dispute died only because Wikidudeman seemed to finally lose interest, not because of any resolution engineered or even suggested by him. Throughout, his comments were inflammatory (as were my own, I'm sure, though I'm not running for Admin), unfocussed, obstructionist and unhelpful. Wikidudeman's comments were also, at times, offensive, stereotyping, and ignorant. I can't see how Wikidudeman's conduct in that dispute bodes well for his potential career as an Administrator. And given the record of his involvement in the above-mentioned mediation and AfD, and his record of half-hearted commitment to edit summaries, I remain to be convinced that Wikidudeman knows and understands Wikipedia policy sufficiently to operate successfully as an Admin. Pinkville 15:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Clearly I hadn't paid sufficient attention to Wikidudeman's answers to the questions when I wrote the comment above. Perhaps he takes "long term" to mean "over three months" or similar; in the context of Wikipedia, this seems odd. I find it hard to believe that he could have forgotten this episode. It was voluminous, as can be seen in Talk:AAVE/Archive 3, Talk:AAVE/Archive 4, Talk:AAVE, AfD/Ebonics, and also in user talk pages. I don't want to suggest deliberate evasiveness, so I'll say that he either read this question in a very odd way indeed or has a remarkably selective memory: either way, very iffy for an administrator. -- Hoary 09:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. oppose per Hoary and Pinkville. JoshuaZ 15:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Hoary, Pinkville and Pedro, below. FeloniousMonk 16:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Strong Oppose Hoary and Pinkville gave me pause, but Pedro's comments below put me over the top. However, none of their comments would have mattered if not for my observations with regards to User talk:Wikidudeman/Homeopathdraft. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    I've moved from frankly a weak oppose (almost neutral) to a Strong Oppose. I noticed someone wrote here that they're opposed to WDM because he's too SPOV (scientific POV). Of course, I prefer the SPOV (where it matters, say science articles and the related ones), so I should love WDM. However, what I've noticed is that his understanding of NPOV causes concerns from people. I'm troubled by his application of NPOV--recently, he wanted to rewrite Herbalism where a consensus has formed between opposing POV's to the point where the article is starting to round into solid shape. It's neutral, it's beginning to get some good sourcing, and the writing is starting to get better. It doesn't need a total rewrite. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    Concerning my attempts to improve the AAVE and Ebonics articles, I had the impression at the time I stopped editing those articles that the disputes were resolved, not because I lost interest. All I was doing was trying to make the article less POV by adding the fact that AAVE has encountered a significant amount of controversy. When I came upon the article, the language of it seemed to be apologetic in support of AAVE and dismissive of any sort of criticism of it. I went through the normal dispute resolutions, refrained from personal attacks, and kept a cool head as outside observers (including Tim Vickers) can testify. I felt the article was not POV so I attempted to improve it and went through the accepted avenues to do so. I also throught the Ebonics article should be merged with the AAVE article and also went through the accepted avenues to do that as well. I don't quite understand the oppositions of Hoary, Pinkville or Joshuaz. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    OrangeMarlin, I notice you linked User talk:Wikidudeman/Homeopathdraft however I don't quite understand if you're linking it because you support my attempts to improve that article or oppose them. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Concerning edit summaries, I generally do a lot of my work to improve articles on sub-pages of my userpage often where I am the only person viewing the edits and changes. Up to a month or two ago I rarely added edit summaries to such pages however I've been starting to do so now. Up to a few months ago I also didn't often add edits summaries to minor edits, however I've started to do that always now as well. So I do appreciate that constructive criticism concerning my previous lack of use of edit summaries. Right now I have my options set to automatically remind me whenever I fail to add an edit summary so that I won't forget. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Come on Orangemarlin, there are bound to be differences, but what is important is that he wants to resolve the dispute amicably. The intention is paramount. The rest is up to you. Thanking You, AltruismT a l k - Contribs. 07:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    Ah. So even now, Wikidudeman says that the language of it seemed to be apologetic in support of AAVE. This unfortunately suggests that he has learned nothing from the whole experience. ¶ His comment of 15 January: It is a fact that AAVE is rudimentary compared to basic English. The complexity of AAVE words are limited and you rarely see polysyllabic words used in AAVE. It is also true that the vast majority of AAVE speakers are uneducated and come from urban areas. Criticizing AAVE for it’s lack of complexity and ability to effectively deliver complex ideas has absolutely nothing to do with “race”.User:Makerowner coolly and politely pointed out that (among other things) No modern linguist or even scientifically-oriented person should say that one speech form is 'rudimetary' while another is not. ¶ Wikidudeman responded (25 January) that I don't know any 'modern linguists' so I can't tell you what they would say but I myself am a scientifically-oriented person and I consider AAVE to be rudimentary English. Which I fear is very close to "Scholarship be damned; truthiness is all." ¶ Wikidudeman then said (25 January) that Also this article is in violation of WP:NPOV because it provides no alternative viewpoints concerning AAVE. It does not provide any criticism of it's use or correlation between those who use it and their general educational background. How can you claim this article is NPOV when it doesn't even have opposing viewpoints on it's use and impact? ¶ I countered that What alternative viewpoint concerning AAVE is worth presenting? As for criticism of its use, I see no criticism of the use of Cockney, Chicano English, Buffalo English, etc., and fail to see why the use of this or any lect should be criticized. Makerowner then wrote a longish paragraph in an amicable and polite attempt to educate Wikidudeman, who dismissed this as an unreadably long "rant". (It was at around this point that I lost patience with Wikidudeman, remarkably fast to ascribe illiteracy, poor education and incoherence to others for a person averaging over one punctuation goof per sentence, so reluctant to educate himself or even to read what was written expressly for him.) ¶ On 26 January Wikidudeman wrote that This article gives undue weight to the contention that Ebonics should be accepted in everyday speech and is somehow equal in sophistication to proper English. This article contains no references or criticism of Ebonics in any shape or form. This article needs to contain information concerning criticism of use of Ebonics including facts that speakers of Ebonics are generally less educated than speakers of proper english. ¶ A couple of days later (28 January 2007) Wikidudeman brought himself to say that he wasn't interested in the linguistic aspects of AAVE but instead in the sociological aspects. (He didn't retract his description of AAVE as "rudimentary".) And it was sociologically, he said, that a balanced view of AAVE required the presentation of criticism. But Wikidudeman never had any sociology to present. Instead, he merely banged on about the newsworthiness and significance of some would-be comedy routine by Bill Cosby. This strikes me as utterly unfunny; and if taken seriously, it's junk. Additionally, it was only minor news, and is trivial. ¶ Of course he could present no sociological criticism of AAVE: sociology studies, it doesn't (normally) criticize. (Additionally, there as never any sign of readiness by Wikidudeman to read anything longer than a web page.) I'm no sociolinguist, but I presume that there are sociolinguistic observations that (unremarkably for a lower-class urban lect) AAVE is stigmatized. And there surely are also studies estimating the negative effect of AAVE (or AAVE-influenced) speech on job placement and the like -- or anyway for those speakers unable (or, imaginably, unwilling) to codeswitch into Standard English. But Wikidudeman seemed to confuse an observation that something was (ignorantly) stigmatized with the need for respectful, even starstruck presentation of celebrity wrongheadedness. ¶ And now, months later, it seems that he still thinks the article was flawed not only in ways such as inadequate citation (which he was right to point out), poor organization, and general scrappiness, but also because it didn't adequately reflect popular wrong ideas about AAVE. I understand that he has done good work on pseudoscience, as subject he may have read up on. I dread to think what might happen the next time he comes across an article that doesn't reflect what he and some TV personality happen to believe. -- Hoary 09:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    I never like it when an applicant feels it necessary to respond to every oppose, as if it makes it better. Now we have several posts to my one line oppose. It makes it very difficult to read the opposes. Shouldn't these rants/commentary/discussions/arguments/responses etc. be moved to the discussion? I'm opposed, I have my reasons, I'm not discussing it further, nor am I going to read further comments opposed to my oppose. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Hoary and Pinkville; the candidate's answers to the questions do not seem to match up well with other users' experience of the editor. Jkelly 18:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose I was also part of the team that came up against Wikidudeman on the AAVE page, but it's not the disagreement with him or even his stubbornness and ignorance displayed in the discussions, it's his judgement. In the conflict, his attempts at dispute resolution showed a poor understanding of Wikipedia policies: he did an RfM first, nominated a page for deletion when he wanted it merged, added a disputed item to an article's to-do list, and evenwikilawyered. Now, granted, he wasn't ignorant in all policies (this was a discussion, not an edit war); people can learn from their mistakes and the AAVE dispute was potentially an intense lesson for Wikidudeman in the procedures for conflict resolution, but his discussion style was unbecoming of an editor. Wikidudeman would call long replies to his comments "rants" (saying he didn't have enough time to read them) and had complete disregard for verifiable sources (and sourcing in general). His failure to bring up this conflict here means he is either not honest with himself about it or is completely oblivious to the conflictive nature. From what else I see of Wikidudeman, it seems as though AAVE was an exception to otherwise good editor but while I see Wikidudeman doing a great job on all things sysop, any conflict resolution tools he is granted may, I think, not be used wisely. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you for your input. Firstly, I want to mention that my nominating the Ebonics article to be deleted was a reaction to the fact that at the time of the nomination, the information between the two articles was redundant. Secondly, Concerning the difference posted where you say I was "Wikilawyering", Wikilawyering is one thing that I am definitely opposed to. The argument was concerning the name of an article and I was arguing that the article should be named not by what a technical or obscure academic term for the word was, but what most people referred to it as. I.E. "Ebonics" not "African American Vernacular English". Thirdly, You say that you are opposing me because of one instance where my conflict resolution was subpar, and acknowledge that this seems to be an exception in my editing, Perhaps you should take note of my recent dispute resolutions in relation to the Parapsychology article and currently the Homeopathy article. I believe that you are welcomed to your opposition however I believe it's only fair that you take into account my more recent contributions. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    In the situation of Ebonics and AAVE being redundant, the proper procedure is a merger, not a deletion. As for your more recent dispute resolutions, it seems like you do behave a lot better elsewhere. It's almost like two different editors. I know you may have been afraid to mention the AAVE disputation in question 3, but perhaps you could go into it from your perspective. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Have a look at Wikidudeman's very recent spurious merger-tagging of various articles to make a point, and decide for yourself whether he has mended his ways since the days of AAVE. Note especially Paul B's admonishment to Wikidudeman: now you just seem to be preoccupied with merging for the sake of it. Please address substantive issues. Wikidudeman later removed the tags. Pinkville 20:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you for your reply Pinkville. I didn't see the point in having numerous articles with minimal content on basically the same subject (historical concepts of race) exist separately. I still believe they should be merged, however I changed the proposition so that we could deal with one merger at a time, I also made that clear on the talk page of the article you linked. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    Articles that are set for merger often go through the deletion process since you can support merger or redirect, etc during deletion reviews. Also, The reason I didn't mention the AAVE dispute is because I didn't think it was that big of a deal, I thought it had been successfully resolved. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    The issue may be resolved now, but it was a big deal at the time. Give us your perspective of the dispute; how can one remedy your comments and behavior there with your behavior elsewhere? Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    I don't see how it was a big deal. No policies were broken, The dispute ended with both parties content with a solution, I.E. Bill Cosby's criticism of AAVE being mentioned. It's true that at the time of the dispute (5 months ago) I was still learning about dispute resolutions and was a bit rough around the edges. I could possibly have handled the dispute better somehow, though the same could be said for other editors in the dispute. I'm fairly happy with the way it was resolved and the way it was handled though since I've had constructive experiences with the same editors (well most of them) who were part of the dispute since it ended. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    I appreciate your taking time to address points that I've brought up. Right now, I think that you still have a bit to learn before being granted administrator duties but I do believe that you are more often a helpful and skilled Wikipedia editor and I certainly look forward to working with you in the future. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    I can't say that I agree with your judging me based on a resolved dispute from 8 months ago, however I do thank you for your input. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Strong Oppose. In the recent paranormal arbitration case, Wikidudeman was heavily biased toward the (pseudo)skeptical side of the debate in a way that I feel is inappropriate for someone who wishes to be an admin - a cursory understanding of neutrality being a prerequisite in my opinion. For example, re the point that skeptical editors had engaged in edit warring, Wikidudeman said, "I have never seen this occur or seen evidence of it occur". A comment which, given the constant edit warring of the named "skeptical" parties in that case, displays either monumental ignorance (hence not fit to be an admin) or monumental dishonesty (again not fit to be an admin). That is, one need only take a cursory glance at the edit history of the EVP article (one major basis for the case) to see that the named "skeptical" parties (LuckieLouie, Minderbinder, ScienceApologist) had engaged in repeated edit warring (including the use of sock-puppets), and gang edit warring to try to force their POV into the article. Given that Wikidudeman could not form anything like a correct/neutral opinion in such an easy case, there seems to me no way he could be trusted to form one more difficult cases. He would, I fear, simply be another pseudoskeptical administrator who would be wheeled in when a debate was going against the pseudoskeptics in order to threaten and intimidate users. It is therefore hard for me to resist the conclusion that this is merely an attempt by the pseudoskeptical community in Wiki to get another of their "own men" on the inside so that they can force their POV into articles despite many (most) of their views about content being soundly rejected by the arbitration committee. That Wikidudeman agreed wholeheartedly with so many points that were rejected by that committee is, I think, a further reason why he is unsuitable to be an admin. Davkal 19:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Hello Davkal, I appreciate your input. I don't know what you mean by "pseudoskeptical" or anything like that, I want to point out that during the few weeks all of the major contributors (Including supporters and opponents of the idea of parapsychology) involving themselves in the dispute resolution, you never once added any input as far as I can remember, so I don't understand how you can attack me when all of the participants in my attempt to rewrite the parapsychology article are content with it's outcome. That includes many proponents and opponents of parapsychology. While a lot of edit warring did occur prior to my successful resolution of the disputes, I never once engaged in edit warring. I'm not sure I can gain anything from your criticism since you seem to be pegging me as a "Pseudoskeptic" from the get go, I do appreciate your input. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Frankly Davkal, this sounds like an "I don't like you" oppose. Not to be rude, but it is yourself, and not Wikidudeman, who was reprimanded by ArbCom for tendentious editing on paranormal subjects. Not once in the lengthy re-write of Parapyschology did he get accused of pushing a POV. In fact, several users who are admittedly members of the parapsychological community commended his actions. VanTucky (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    I rarely say this, but this opposition should be discounted. Wikidudeman's participation in the RfArb was within reasonable bounds. There may be a bit of projection going on here; Davkal, not Wikidudeman, was the subject of an ArbCom finding indicating that he's disruptive, prone to abusive sockpuppetry, 3RR violations, etc. This opposition amounts to a personal grudge and says nothing about Wikidudeman's qualifications as a potential admin. As the icing on the cake, Wikidudeman was a participant in improving the parapsychology article to GA status toward the end of the ArbCom case. MastCell Talk 22:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Irrespective of how bad a man I am (a very bad man), or what my reasons were for saying what I said (I don't like him), or whether Wikidudeman really doesn't understand the words I used, or really can't find the arbcoms I clearly refer to (he does understand and he did know the arbcom I was referring to), the real question is whether what I said was true. And since it was true, it needs an answer. And since Wikidudeman has continued here above to pretend to fail, when it suits him, to find what is obvious to anyone, we have that answer. And the answer is: Wikidudeman is unfit to be an admin.Davkal 23:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Davkal, Thanks for your reply. What exactly are you asking me to answer? You accuse me of being bias yet make no mention of the fact I brought all of the disputants in the Parapsychology article together to construct a Good Article that they all agreed on. I was a minor party in the Arbitration and played little to no role in the decisions of the arbitrators. None of the proposals I set were used by the arbitrators and my name wasn't mentioned by the arbitrators either. So I don't know exactly what you mean by that either. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    I am not asking you to answer anything. I am asking those who will decide whether you should be an admin to consider whether someone who cannot find any evidnce of edit-warring in amongst one of the most protracted and constant cases of edit-warring imaginable (EVP re the paranormal arbcom) is either able or honest enough to be an admin. I think the answer is no for the second reason. I think you knew very well that editors you support had been edit-warring yet you chose to pretend that you couldn't see it. If you want to explain how you came to miss such obvious bending/breaking of wiki policy in that case then feel free to do so. You certainly appeared to have eagle-eyes when it camme to spotting misdemeanors by myself and others whose views you oppose.Davkal 23:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    I don't know what you're saying exactly. I never said that specific people who are part of the EVP article or the Parapsychology article never edit warred, I only said that I never edit warred. I've never once edit warred. You say that if I can't find cases of edit-warring on the EVP article I shouldn't be an admin? Maybe that's true, however if I were to look, it would be incredibly easy to find cases of edit warring on the EVP article. So I'm not understanding your criticism. Wikidudeman (talk) 06:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    I wondered when you would start this particular line so I saved the diffs until now. You now claim never to have said that particular people had not edit warred re the EVP article. No, here is what you said: [[1]] in response to the charge that skeptical editors had edit warred against certain other editors here[[2]]. The point (the one I've been making all along), being that the editor mentioned (Simeos) had been edit-warring on the list of pseudosciences article, and many others named in the arbcom dispute had been edit-warring on the EVP article and yet you claimed you could find no evidence of it. Why don't you show some dignity, and respect for others, and pack up this request to be an admin right now.Davkal 00:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per Hoary and Pinkville. I would expect an adminstrator to behave in a more collegial and cooperative fashion than the conduct exhibited by the candidate in the discussions surrounding AAVE. This is only a question of experience -- admins will still become involved in editing disputes of all kinds, but I expect them to comport themselves with a level of calmness and good-humor that I don't see in the candidate's record. Xoloz 21:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Hello, Xoloz. Perhaps you could look at my record in resolving disputes in the Paranormal article and currently the Homeopathy article. If you're going to judge all of my edits based on a single now resolved dispute from 5 months ago then It's only fair that you should comment on my more recent contributions. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    As others have, I also notice some brusqueness and WP:OWN issues in the Homeopathy dispute. I think you are getting somewhat better as you gain experience, but I cannot support at this time. Xoloz 14:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for your reply Xoloz. However I want to point out, as others have pointed out, Concerning the Homeopathy article, I proposed a "rewrite" of the article where all discussions would be made on the drafts talk page. I ask other editors not to edit the draft to prevent edit warring and attempt to organize the re-write into a proposal method, ONLY until it's the actual page is substituted with it, Once it's substituted then clearly anyone is free to make edits as they have done with the Parapsychology article. It's not an issue of WP:OWN simply because it's a rough draft on a subpage of my userpage. It's not a real article. It's only a rough draft used to create a neutral situation where other users can make proposals and then I make the relevant changes. This happens only on the draft and once it's made into an article, obviously anyone can edit it. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. (edit conflict x2) Oppose The attitude in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal#Statement by frequently involved Wikidudeman is that Wikipedia should follow the scientific point of view. He appears to want to go even further than that rejected proposal and actually remove articles on pseudo-science. I don't want this user getting the delete button. He appears to lack understanding of the fact that the basis for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. While he wasn't sanctioned by the ArbComm, his basic assumptions were clearly rejected. I also found his conduct in this case to tend to continue the dispute rather than calm it down. I don't want him becoming an admin. GRBerry 22:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC) (Additionally, his deleted contributions reveal that he is marking speedy deletion taggings as minor edits very consistently. This is incorrect, they are anything but minor. GRBerry 22:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC))
    I don't know about the present relevance of that. It seems to me that just after that, he worked pretty hard to improve and keep the Parapsychology article, which in addition to being a topic that is frequently considered pseudoscience, is now a GA. VanTucky (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    GRBerry, You seem to be misinterpreting my stances on pseudo scientific articles. I never condoned their being erased. Please look at my work on the Parapsychology article or currently the Homeopathy article as proof of this. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per Pedro, Hoary and Pinkville. Also from User talk:Wikidudeman/Homeopathdraft, I see ownership issues and a cavalier attidude to policy. While he's a good editor, I'm not sure I trust him to use admin tools properly.ornis (t) 00:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    Hello ornis and thank you for your input. User talk:Wikidudeman/Homeopathdraft isn't a case of ownership issues. While I do ask users not to edit the draft themselves, This is simply to prevent edit warring. Once the draft is initiated then all editors are obviously free to make edits themselves. This method has a proven track record and is definitely not a case of ownership. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    While this technically makes no difference in application of WP:OWN, I would like to make it clear that the page in question is a draft created in Wikidudeman's own talk space. This isn't an article, but a sandbox-like creation that Wikidudeman has created in an effort to improve a poorly-written and controversial article wihtout any of the customary edit warring. I don't see many other users inviting others to contribute in their personal sandboxes... VanTucky (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per Xoloz and Jkelly.--Sandahl 03:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per the AAVE discussions and some of the subsequent comments by opposers above. It's not any one post by Wikidudeman that makes me oppose, but after reading that archive, and the AfD discussion, I simply don't trust his judgment. Mike Christie (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    An additional note, as I've been following this debate with interest. WDM has support from some editors whose judgement I trust, such as TimVickers and LaraLove, so I opposed with some reluctance. I agree with some commenters that WDM has demonstrated his value to the project, and I think there's a good chance that he would be a good and effective admin. I'd be willing to consider supporting at a subsequent RfA, but for now, reviewing his contributions doesn't make me sufficiently comfortable with the way he handles controversy. Mike Christie (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose I cannot trust this user with the tools after reading Hoary and Pinkville's statements. T Rex | talk 14:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose I like Wikidudeman, and it is with substantial reluctance that I advise letting this valuable contributor ripen a bit more on the vine before putting these powerful tools in his hands. I also was a bit concerned when I read the statements of Pedro, Hoary and Pinkville. I follow the line of thought that anyone who wants to be in a position of power, probably is the wrong person to put in a position of power. While he is trying valiantly to bring some order to the situation at homeopathy, for which we are all grateful, I just wonder about the prudence of this action at this time.--Filll 17:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    This "anyone who wants to be in a position of power, probably is the wrong person..." seems like an assumption of bad faith to me. I don't think a desire to do administrative tasks is a demonstrator of bad character. VanTucky (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    I'd say it's a statement of a personal philosophy: nothing more, nothing less. •Jim62sch• 21:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    Surely this recent diff is some sort of mistake? [3] I do not want to believe that it is indicative of some of the things that people are saying here. But wow. Just wow. --Filll 00:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  16. Strong Oppose. My exposure to the candidate is fairly restricted, but far from limited, stemming from a content dispute at AAVE. Throughout, the candidate sought to edit-war his utterly uninformed perceptions of the subject into the article, all the while displaying an abysmal ignorance about the topic and extreme cultural bias and insensitivity. He refused to listen to reason, to ample documentation presented by other readers, or to acknowledge the validity of scholarly opinions on the matter. I urge voters to refer to the discussion pages of the article for examples of this editor's comments. Here's a link to one archived discussion page.[4] This candidate definitely does not exhibit either the temperament or judgment to be an effective and impartial administrator. In light of my experience with this user, I find his answers to the questions posed highly disingenuous. A definite thumbs down. deeceevoice 19:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for your input deeceevoice, I really appreciate it. However I want to point out a few very important things. Firstly, I spent a couple of weeks on the AAVE talk page trying to hack out a consensus with other editors. I only made 38 edits to the AAVE page but I made 182 to it's talk page. I never engaged in any edit waring. I went through all of the steps in dispute resolution in an attempt to hack out a consensus and did my best to do so. I do appreciate your input. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    Better put, then, your ad nauseam, stubborn antics on the article talk page, tiresomely pushing a thinly veiled POV campaign against AAVE in the face of overwhelming, reasoned arguments, scholarly and otherwise, to the contrary. "Rudimentary" and "monosyllabic"? That you leveled such criticisms at all is bad enough, that you stubbornly and repeatedly defended such appalling ignorance and cultural bias is another thing altogether. Doggedly advancing a nonsensical, insulting, clearly culturally biased, possibly racist, knee-jerk viewpoint with the aim of simply outlasting/wearing down others who contributed from a knowledge-based, value-neutral perspective is not seeking "consensus" as you claim. What is extremely telling is that the difference is something you don't -- or won't -- recognize. Speaking plainly, your comment here -- and elsewhere on this page -- comes off as little more than smarmy, self-serving posturing for the purpose of obtaining adminship. Your record is clear, and when it comes to adminship, you simply don't measure up. deeceevoice 02:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    I"m sorry, But I don't think I'm going to even address your comments. You seem to be intent on insults and name calling so I'll just leave it alone. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    No, The problem is that I can't find anything constructive about calling my opinions "ignorant, nonsensical, insulting, biased, and possibly racist". That's very insulting as a matter of a fact. As is stating that I am "smarmy"(not sure what that word even means) and "Self serving". Wikidudeman (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    My comments aren't personal. I see it as calling a spade a spade. It's simple Standard English, WDM. "Ignorant" as in uninformed. "Nonsensical" as in your criticisms made no sense -- as in being flat-out wrong and completely unsupported by informed, scholarly opinion. "Insulting" as in offensive to an ethnic minority, calling AAVE "rudimentary" and "monosyllabic." "Biased" as in POV pushing. "Possibly racist," because such viewpoints easily could be construed -- because they are based on uninformed opinions blindly adhered to even in the face of clear, countervailing logic -- as antagonistic toward or demeaning to particular "race." "Smarmy" as in -- look it up if you don't know what it means -- displaying a "false earnestness." Your latest response to my comments seems to me clearly indicative of your inability to distinguish between honest criticism/appraisal and personal attack -- an important qualification for adminship if ever there was one. deeceevoice 03:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    Isn't that the crux of it. Evidentiary criticism, you dismiss as "insults and name calling". Pinkville 02:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    Such terms ("ignorant, nonsensical, insulting, biased, and possibly racist", "self serving") are entirely reasonable - they can be disputed, but they are reasonable, not insulting. "Smarmy" comes closer than any other term mentioned to being an insult, but a pretty meak one at that. Pinkville 03:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    True or not, Deeceevoice, your comments are personal and you aren't showing any tact in your manner of voicing your opinions, which seems pretty uncivil in my opinion and I happen to agree with your sentiment. This is an RfA, not a place to vent one's frustrations at past dealings with a potential admin. To Wikidudeman, I would like to say that I think Deeceevoice's concern is a valid one: you have a lot of difficulty recognizing your own bias. We can't all be Gandhi, but if you can't see your bias in controversial disputes or even that you are biased then that has profound implications on your ability to mediate disputes in a neutral manner.
    I don't know this guy WDM. So, no, this isn't personal. And not showing any tact? That's amusing. Read my comments again. I didn't call the guy a racist. That's tact. I didn't say he was smarmy. I said his comments "come off as smarmy" -- which is fact. You may disagree with what I have to say, and that's your right. But don't misconstrue and then proceed to mischaraterize my comments. I'm not here to play diplomat/statesman. IMO, editor comments regarding potential adminship require directness and frankness. I couldn't care less if they're not perceived as playing nicey-nice. This is serious business. It's about the quality and integrity of the project; it's not tea time at the White House. And even if it were -- consider me Eartha Kitt ;). deeceevoice 04:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    I think you and I simply have different definitions of personal in this context, so I'll drop that point but there's nothing difficult about "please keep criticism constructive and polite". Your comment was neither but I thought you had a good point and I reiterated it in more constructive terms so that Wikidudeman can grow and learn as a contributer. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 04:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    "Constructive," to me in this context means constructive to the process. And, certainly, providing my honest assessment of, IMO, a person's unsuitability for an adminship and then supplying information that backs up that opinion is constructive. Again, I'm not here to play nice or to stroke someone's ego. This is about the integrity of the project. And given the choice of being polite and telling someone they're unqualified to be an admin and precisely why, I've chosen to do the latter. Your perspective isn't mine. Your way isn't mine. I'm direct; I don't mince words. So, you do you, and I'll do me. Peace. deeceevoice 04:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    With regard to edit warring, I don't have the time or the patience to hunt up diffs, but another editor apparently has. I will not name them out of courtesy. They say they have not formed an opinion on the matter of WDM's RFA, but have researched the issue of edit warring and forwarded the information to me. He/she has provided the following, which seems pretty clear evidence of WDM's repeated and stubborn insertion of text while the dispute was still under discussion on the article talk page.
    I wasn't involved in that issue at all (have never seen the page before), but those diffs are all ~ the same diff inserted at different times. It contains material appropriately sourced (to Bill Cosby) that is critical of Black Vernacular English. Whether or not that material is appropriate for the page is/was a content decision, although I agree that it doesn't seem like it belongs in the article. However, the material itself seems to have been inserted with reasonably good faith. And, although the framing that you're giving us is "he kept putting this back in", the flip side is that someone else kept taking it out. Without knowing the entire context, those diffs alone don't tell us very much. Antelan talk 04:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not concerned about "the flip side." The possible adminship of that person (or persons) responsible for deleting the text isn't under discussion here. The conduct of WDM, which in this particular instance is edit warring, is. deeceevoice 05:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    You have presented 5 diffs. Of those diffs, 2 are WDM adding back material that he himself removed. Of the 3 remaining diffs, one was a legitimate content question (someone took some of his criticism points, incorporated them into the article, and left some of the material out, which he then added back). Consequently, there are 2 diffs that could be, to my mind, considered undesirable conduct. Remarkably, you were a participants in one of the 2 remaining diffs [5] in what you term an "edit war". I'm putting this here for the sake of those who might otherwise just see the wall of diffs and be convinced by its sheer volume. Antelan talk 05:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    You're probably right Antelan. People see a list of Diffs presented by an opposer and often without reading them decide to oppose based on that, without ever even investigating to see if the differences are what is being said they are. During the AAVE discussion I frequently removed content I added because of the disputes on the talk page. I wanted to wait until the disputes were over until I added it back. Wikidudeman (talk) 06:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    I didn't check the diffs that carefully. I just skimmed what someone else gave me, and they looked legit. Now I open my Wiki e-mail address and find this:
    "I felt so awful that I went back and quadruple checked these edits.... Now this happens over a two day period, but it's still edit warring...against two different editors....
    As I said, I don't have the patience for this sort of thing, but apparently you do, Antelan. Please feel free to check these and respond. deeceevoice 06:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    Among those 6 diffs selected above, you can find the 2 diffs I already said could be considered "undesirable conduct", and the diff where you participated in the edit war. Nothing in that cluster newly shows WDM in a negative light. I suppose my role is now "official fact-checker of 3rd-party-supplied, 2nd-party-posted diffs" :-) ? Antelan talk 12:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    Gee, I guess it does, Antelan. (Is there a barnstar for that? If so, you'll get one from me.) ;) deeceevoice 14:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    I don't consider 3 re-additions of something in two day period edit warring. The additions and removal of that material was due to fluctuations on the talk page. I would get the impression that the editors were ok with the addition and then once added it was removed and the process would repeat itself. After a few edits I stopped all editing and adding of the material. I stopped adding it all together and spent about 3 weeks discussing it on the talk page until a consensus (or what I thought was a consensus) was reached and then I moved onto other articles. Wikidudeman (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    That, Wikidudeman, is a gross mischaracterization that could not be anything but intentional. Here's my own series of diffs (in chronological order):
    In this period, there was virtually no support for the controversy section he kept trying to include and some very strong opposition to it. There were no "fluctuations" in the talk page; in most cases (except when it would have violated WP:3RR) he would put the criticism section back in minutes after making a single reply to those who disagreed with him. Granted, he did eventually stop making edits to the article and concentrated on just discussion. After a month of such repetitive discussion, I moved to temporarily suspend the discussion on Cosby and that is when Wikidudeman stopped pushing the issue. Technically, he didn't get what he wanted (a full paragraph quote of Cosby) but it was apparently a way for him to leave while still saving face. Wikidudeman's mischaracterization of himself is not appreciated. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 10:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    For those interested, here are 500 historical edits from the AAVE article. Notice that once after having added the material a few times in a period of a few days I immediatly stopped adding it. [[6]]. I never once added the material in question again and from that point I spent 2-3 weeks on the talk page attempting to hack out a consensus. Wikidudeman (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  17. Strong oppose- On a recent draft proposal for the Parapsychology article, Wikidudeman did a fairly good job of presenting and managing a discussion of his draft, but he frequently ignored the proposals of editors he disagreed with, but would immediately implement the suggestions of editors he agreed with- sometimes against consensus and over the objections of the other editors. For example, here are some complaints by other editors about being ignored by Wikidudeman: [7] [8] [9] WDM's response to why they were ignored: [10] "Overlooked" is unbelievable, they repeated their requests over and over...he ignored them in favor of adding the non-consensus requests made by those WDM agrees with.
    During the time he was POV-pushing on the Parapsychology article (see this) he called what another editor said "Hogwash," Then denied that he had said anything insulting: [11]. The Arbitration Committee later found that parapsychology is in fact a scientific discipline, confirming what we were trying to tell WDM.
    However, the essence of the debate -to me- was not whether Parapsychology is or is not a pseudoscience. Rather, it was what Wikipedia must accept, given its policies. I said so, but WDM seemed intent on proving his point, and having that point reflected in the article. This is especially disturbing for an potential admin.
    Incivility: "You wouldn't even understand my refutation".
    Wikidudeman engaged in spamming arbitrators in an ArbCom case in an attempt to sway their opinion against an opposing editor: Fred Bauder: (4x) [12] [13] [14] [15], Kirill Lokshin: [16], Uninvited Co: [17], Jdforrester: [18] [19] [20], Charles Matthews: (5x) [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]
    Accusing or making comments about other user’s motivations: [27] [28] [29]
    Characterizing another editors posts as ‘triflings’ and inappropriately ‘challenging’ the other editor to a ‘duel’ on an external website forum: [30]
    I have encountered Wikidudeman on multiple occasions, and most of those encounters were highly negative. However, in the past few weeks, an astonishing change came over his editing habits. He started being civil, he started being much more NPOV, he started trying to form consensus, and he stopped POV-pushing (for instance, the way he did on the Parapsychology article). Still, he ignored my and other people's suggestions regarding the new draft of the Parapsychology article, while immediately introducing changes suggested by those he likes. [31]
    I have nothing against WDM personally, and I was able to work with him to an extent in the last few weeks on the draft of the Parapsychology article. However, I think his abrupt change of behavior occurred in interestingly close temporal proximity to his RfA. I think he should prove that he is really an NPOV and civil editor for a while longer before he becomes and admin.
    Were Wikidudeman to become an administrator today, I would expect him to use his power to push his POV on articles relating to the paranormal, and to try and destroy editors such as myself. He certainly has tried hard to get ArbCom to destroy me, even while ArbCom was intent on refuting those POVs he has pushed in paranormal articles. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for your input Martin. Most of your criticism seems to stem from my previous attempts to debate in support of or against specific issues, I.E. science or pseudo science. However, as you know, During the last few months I only attempt to improve the articles and let the facts speak for themselves in a neutral way. As far as if I become an admin I would "Destroy you", I'm not sure how to even respond to that. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    I'm actually really sorry to have had to say all this. I'm especially sorry because you have been more NPOV in the last few weeks. But you tried very, very hard to get the Arbitrators to take action against me- in other words, you tried to destroy me as an editor on Wikipedia, to the greatest extent that you could. You've also done a lot of other things against the spirit of Wikipedia, and seemingly without reference to the rules. I wish you hadn't requested FfA, because I had hoped to be able to work with you in peace, but I just can't keep silent here. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    "Destroy (you) as an editor"? I find that interpretation a bit dramatic. User:Wikidudeman called the Arbitrator's attention to User:Martinphi's pattern of tendentious editing and inappropriate advocacy regarding paranormal articles, which User:Martinphi was formally asked (without effect) to modify during an RfC by 21 of his peers. - LuckyLouie 00:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    I would agree with LuckyLouie. I don't even know how to respond to the contention I would "Destroy him as an editor". Wikidudeman (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    Well, you might not. But you tried as hard as you could to get ArbCom to punish me -spamming the Arbitrator's talk pages-, and what people asked for in the RfC was that I be totally banned from editing paranormal, at least- which is all I care about enough to edit. So basically, you were trying to get ArbCom to destroy me- or to do some measure thereof. This is not exaggeration. Anyone who wants to read a book can go look at the RfC, the ArbCom, and its result. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    I was trying to get the arbitrators to take into consideration your previous editing habits, which were one of the main points of the arbitration to begin with. I wasn't "Spamming" the arbcoms pages, I was leaving notices every once and a while to remind them of some proposals introduced by the users which they never put up for a vote. Do you disagree you were making disruptive edits? You created a sock puppet, You edit warred, You've been blocked for 3rr violations. Do you disagree? I thought the Arbcom should at least try to do something about this. I don't know what you're blaming me for. It appears you're holding a grudge for my attempts to get the Arbcom to do something about your editing habits. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    I was blocked once. Repeted "reminders" of the patently obvious are spam. This lack of preciseness and knowledge, combined with a willingness to make assertions anyway, is disturbing in a candidate. I never said I was a saint, however if anyone had cared a lick about editing habits, they'd have gone after Davkal, not me. I do disagree that I was, generally speaking, being disruptive in a negative manner, because what I was disrupting was POV-pushing. NPOV does not require consensus. ArbCom confirmed my understanding of NPOV.Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs)
    Interesting, for all my issues with Wikidudeman, this oppose seems to be almost completely based off the fact that Wikidudeman did help a fair bit with NPOVing issues (I don't think he was always correct with what was NPOV) and that he stopped some of Martin's repeated attempts to POV push. JoshuaZ 01:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    No, he never stopped any of my attempts to NPOV the articles- and ArbCom has confirmed that's what I was doing. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    What makes you think that? Just because the arbcom didn't think that your behavior raised to sanctionable levels doesn't mean that you were following NPOV. JoshuaZ 02:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    Martin, I never said you were blocked more than once. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. WDM has done a lot of great work on the 'pedia and is obviously dedicated to its cause. However, the above comments give me pause. I can't find any uncivil comments dated beyond February, and I would like to believe that WDM has left the incivility behind. However I also cannot find any apologies or admissions of uncivil behavior. Therefore I must oppose. I will reconsider if he re-applies later. If anyone would like to reply to my comment, please do so on the talk page. Thank you, Fang Aili talk 23:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    I would prefer the discussions occur here. It's true that I have vastly improved my mediation abilities since Febuary, however even then I don't believe I did anything uncivil. If I thought I did then I would have quickly issued an apology however I don't believe my behavior was anywhere near uncivil. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    I thought you would have figured out by now that turning your RfA into a battleground doesn't help your chances. But if you prefer to discuss here-- can you honestly say that calling someone's good-faith comment a "rant" [32]and a "tirade" [33] is not uncivil? Or calling another editor's opinions "triflings"[34]? Or saying you cannot read a paragraph of discussion "due to my having a life outside wikipedia" (see first diff)? I understand that discussions can get heated and sometimes the wrong thing is said, but if you cannot at least admit to being uncivil, you really have no business being an administrator. --Fang Aili talk 14:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  19. Reluctant Oppose. It gives me no pleasure to oppose a good contributor, but RfA is mostly about trusting someone with the tools and there are too many ifs and buts here for me to really trust Wikidudeman. I recommend candidate withdraws, does some serious pondering on the issues raised here and returns as soon as possible for an RfA that'll storm through. Whatever you decide to do, good luck to you. I can see you're one of the good guys, I just have too many questions over your judgement. --Dweller 10:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    Plz. look at his recent edits (choose a reasonable number) and see if he is a person who's likely to abuse his admin powers. The answer will speak for itself. All of us change with time, especially very fast in Wikipedia, where we learn new duties and rights almost every other day. Thanking You, AltruismT a l k - Contribs. 11:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    If there are editors who contribute lightly to RfAs, I'm not one of them, particularly when I oppose. I've already looked through a chunk of this user's editing, as part of my decision-making before !voting oppose. NB "supporters" of RfA candidates should bear in mind that vigorous defence of the candidate to every opposer has a tendancy sometimes to backfire. --Dweller 14:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  20. There is evidence of edit warring, and Wikidudeman's statement to the effect that there was no edit warring is evidence that the problem remains. I cannot trust the candidate to perform administrator duties in a neutral manner at this time, so I must oppose. Dekimasuよ! 13:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  21. Oppose - I basically ignored all of the details on this page about whatever contention there is about specific articles and opinions and edit warring, because, quite frankly, I a) don't care for the drama and b) I don't want to give up the next 2 hours of my life. I will say that the drama itself on this page and the constant back and forth between your opposers and you and your supporters leaves a very bad taste in my mouth and doesn't exactly engender confidence. Putting that aside, I decided to look at your edits to Wikipedia talk space and quickly found one which pretty well allowed me to stop investigating. Your comments here have me concerned that you do not have the judgment necessary to made the decisions required of an admin. --After Midnight 0001 14:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  22. Oppose per Fang Aili and After Midnight.--cj | talk 16:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  23. Oppose– I’m afraid I must oppose this nomination per Fang Aili and After Midnight. While Wikidudeman has done some very good work, the above comments and the replies concern me. – Dreadstar † 21:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  24. Oppose per Fang Aili and After Midnight, and concerns about an unclear understanding of NPOV. •Jim62sch• 21:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    See my reply below. You misinterpreted my wording. I never said or meant to imply that NPOV trumps undue weight. I said my goal was to present the Homeopathy atricle in both a NPOV manner as well as not giving undue weight to any viewpoint. This means following NPOV AND Undue weight.Wikidudeman (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral So I think I'm going to stuff my personal reputation here with this, as this editor is so good and contribs are fab. But [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] barnstars to RFA regulars (including one to myself) in the few days prior to this RFA reeks of a violation of WP:CANVASS. I'm really sorry, as it looks like I'm throwing WP:AGF out the window, but I can only comment based on my personal beliefs. For what it's worth if it where not for this I would have been a strong support. I'm ready to get shot down in flames for this, but I doubt my oppose will change. Pedro |  Chat  19:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, I give barnstars to most good editors I encounter during deletion debates, RFA's, Vandalism fighting, etc. I frequent RFA's and often vote and thus I view the contributions of users who vote and give them barnstars respectively. I respect your opinion but I'm sorry you view it as some sort of attempt to sway votes. A quick look at my talk page archives will confirm that I've been doing this for a while now. I don't quite understand exactly how a barnstar could sway a vote to begin with.Wikidudeman (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not going to shout you down with flames Pedro, you have in the past certainly demonstrated your civility and assumption of good faith. Your concerns might have some merit if taken out of the context of Wikidudeman's contribution pattern as whole, but I myself can attest to the truth of his response. I don't think his proclivity for spreading some WikiLove is a fault. VanTucky (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Man, this is so gutting to oppose such a good editor. It's just the timing and the ammount in a concentrated burst. Let's hope I'm out of line and the closing 'crat ignore this. But I have to comment based on my conscience and my personal beliefs. I'm sorry. Best wishes. Pedro |  Chat  19:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    While I do respect your opinion, and appreciate constructive criticism, I'm not sure I can correct in my actions concerning this opposition. I give barnstars to most good editors I encounter anywhere. I will continue to do so. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    As an award recipient, I had no knowledge of this RfA until I saw yesterday's listing. These awards are not related to this RfA at all. It is perhaps a coincidence that he gave out these awards prior to this nomination. Sr13 20:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I have moved the entire conversation to Neutral from Oppose so as not to lose a great potential admin who may have made small error of timing / judgement that should not affect the rest of the discussion. Pedro |  Chat  20:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    And yet people are opposing per Pedro. The crat should really consider the fact that Pedro isn't opposing, but others are per these arguments. Giggy UCP 00:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    Except I doubt the closing bureaucrat will read all of this. Most likely it won't get to be above 75% and thus it will end in no consensus regardless. However I do agree. Wikidudeman (talk) 07:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral, leaning to support. Good candidate in general, but my discussion with him at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Booyabazooka, and subsequent follow-up on his talk page here, leaves me concerned about his judgment. Someone who relies excessively on WP:UCS, an essay which is not part of policy, and WP:IAR, a policy which (IMO) should be used sparingly and only in uncontroversial circumstances, may well be too cavalier in using the admin tools, and may not follow policy and procedure. I don't feel that this candidate is sufficiently committed to following the policies and guidelines laid down by community consensus. Nevertheless, I don't have any direct evidence to suggest he would be a bad admin, so I won't oppose. WaltonOne 20:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    My views on this were elaborated clearly in our talk page discussion found here User_talk:Wikidudeman#UCS_and_IAR. You ceased discussing it with me for some reason, however I thought that we were in an agreement. Wikipedia is a very dynamic project who's rules are frequently changing and begin reworded. I'm NOT supporting some wanton disregard for policy, However, WP:IAR is here to prevent "Wikilawyering" and strictly interpreting the rules to a point it harms the project. If you come upon a situation where a super strict interpretation of the rules could result in a negative effect for wikipedia then it's best to use common sense opposed to strictly following a specific rule which could be reworded tomorrow. That's my opinion on that. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    I can't speak to the particular talk page in question, but out of hundreds of talk comments I have seen from Wikidudeman, I have never seen him use those links until now. VanTucky (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    It takes a very subtle knowledge of the policies(or style guidelines) to identify when they are being used or not being used. For instance WP:NPOV discourages structuring and segregating articles into "Criticism" sections, However in my experience this is the best way to promote equality and peace in articles and discourage edit warring. An example is the Parapsychology article which splits areas and has a "Criticism" area. WP:NPOV would discourage this, however based on experience I find it the best (and only) way to avoid disputes and edit wars. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    I think I'll assume good faith here and change to Support. WaltonOne 11:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral I have concerns about edit history, not just that they've been missing until this month, but they are often somewhat less than accurate. The AAVE comments concern me as well, as does the draft re Homeopathy. Let's not have a long drawn out discussion about this: if Wikidudeman chooses to reply (preferably one reply, and then a chance for me to reply) that's fine. BTW, Wikidudeman's habit of posting in a monologue styles bothers me as well. •Jim62sch• 21:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    Hey Jim, I'm sorry I didn't respond to you earlier. You mention my edit summaries being somewhat less than accurate, while this is true, this is mostly because many of the edits I do are done on my user sub-pages where no one else is seeing the edits and thus no one sees the summaries except for recent changes patrollers in which case they see I am editing my own page so that it's not something to worry about. You mention the AAVE discussion but as far as I can tell I handled that dispute very well. You also mention the Homeopathy rewrite draft, what exactly concerns you about that? It's a rewrite project in my sandbox where other edits can make proposed changes. It's worked very well in the past and will work very well this time as well. It's not a case of ownership since it's just a rough draft in my sandbox and once it's implemented into an actual article, obviously anyone can make edits. The sandbox draft is simply to prevent edit warring and create a neutral atmosphere to discuss changes without worrying about having to make any changes or revert changes. All changes are made per consensus of the discussions and when all parties are agreed on the page then we replace the live article with it and everything works out. Wikidudeman (talk) 06:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    The AAVE stuff is discussed above ad nauseum. The homeopathy draft I just don't see as an improvement and I think there are some NPOV and undue weight problems there -- it seems that you might have forgotten that homeopathy is a minority viewpoint and is pseudoscience. The edits I was talking about were in mainspace, not sandboxes. Unfortunately, I didn't save the diffs and don't have the time to look for them at the moment. Obviously, I'm not opposing you, but I do see some things that rouble me. •Jim62sch• 10:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for your reply. The Homeopathy article hasn't been implemented yet. It's still under improvements. It's located here User:Wikidudeman/Homeopathdraft and I've invited all frequent editors of the Homeopathy page to come and make proposed changes. I recognize that homeopathy isn't medically valid, however my goal is to present the article in a NPOV way that removes any undue weight issues. I'm not sure the problem you see with it. Since it's not ownership issues, what is it? You're welcomed to help us improve it as well. There are several editors working very hard there to improve it. Wikidudeman (talk) 10:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    You seem to have mistaken NPOV as somehow trumping undue weight. I'm changing my vote. •Jim62sch• 21:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    I don't know what you mean. "Mistaken NPOV as trumping undue weight"? You clearly misunderstood my wording. I said "present the article in a NPOV way that removes any undue weight issues" meaning presenting it in a NPOV manner AS WELL AS removing undue weight issues." Wikidudeman (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Good: Dedicated contributor, reasonable, more than willing to work with others, has respect for Wikipedia policies, and is an asset to Wikipedia. Bad: Sometimes misses important detail in conversations, (imho) compromises but has a strong point of view, and (imho) has a profound distrust of some other editors. --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:12, 1 August 2007 (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.