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

Guest9999[edit]

Final (48/31/4); Ended Sat, 24 May 2008 17:33:38 (UTC)

Self-nomination. Account held for around 16 months, active contributor for 10 months, approaching 5600 (undeleted) edits. I think I’ve made (and learnt from) the biggest mistakes I going to make and have recently found myself editing more in areas where the tools could be of use. Guest9999 (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: One area I would I would like to work would be the closing of AfD discussions. Articles for deletion is an area I have been involved during my time on Wikipedia and whilst there have been many occasions where my opinion differed from the final outcome I think I have enough awareness and understanding of the various relevant policies and guidelines and enough experience in AfDs to be able to determine what consensus (if any) has formed. I would also like to help out with CAT:PER as I understand (from experience) how frustrating it can be to spot an uncontroversial mistake in an article and not be able to do anything about it – although I realise that this is an area where much caution is required. Additionally I would also hope to help clear backlogs for speedy and proposed deletions. Eventually I would also like to become involved in other areas where the tools could be of use such as the requested move process, requests for page protection and at the 3RR noticeboard although currently I think I might need more experience before working in those areas. I imagine if I had access to the tools I would make more contributions to WP:DRV, WP:RFA and the various administrator notice boards, as the ability to see deleted material and contributions (without having to ask another user) would make it easier to comment in some discussions, particularly those involving material that has been speedy deleted.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Whilst I am generally pleased with my overall contribution I hope my best work is still to come. So far I have not created many articles and none of those I have started have progressed past the stage of being stubs (examples: Michael Francies, 3,4-Dichlorobicyclo(3.2.1)oct-2-ene). In terms of other article content I’m proud of, there are a couple of articles that I think I helped save from deletion or get undeleted (examples: Love That Dog and Howlin' Rain). I think I'm most proud of the (few) navigational templates I’ve created including Template:Toy Story, Template:Nancy Drew, Template:John Irving and Template:Magic Circle. One particular area where I hope I contributed to a positive outcome was with Harry Potter related articles. After being part of - and causing - conflicts early in my Wikipedia "career" (see question 3 for more details) I created a list of articles on topics which I thought may not have been notable which led to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter/Notability. The outcome of which (as the list now shows) led to a mass clean up operation which has made the subject matter clearer, more cohesive and easier to navigate.
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 wouldn’t say that many areas of editing cause me stress, when I first started contributing Wikipedia on a more frequent basis I had a tendency to get over excited but I now try to keep a cool head at all times when editing. The biggest conflicts I have been in again came when I first started editing Wikipedia more regularly. I decided to propose the deletion of or add notability tags to literally hundreds of articles relating to Lord of the Rings (examples: [1], [2], [3]) as well as making two mass nominations at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bay of Andúnië and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Green Dragon). Not surprisingly (in hindsight) this attitude did not go down well with the users who spent their time creating, maintaining and improving those articles. Heated discussions with User:Carcharoth (here, here and here) and User:IronGargoyle here and here) followed by a discussion at the Administrators’ Noticeboard (here) led to me withdrawing the AfD nominations and realising that the actions I took were not appropriate to the situation – especially since WikiProject:Middle-Earth was in the middle of an ongoing clean up operation. In that situation I basically backed away and let them get on with it. At the same time I got into similar conflicts over Harry Potter related articles with the mass nomination of several articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinner's End and the individual Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spells in Harry Potter as well as a a deletion review. During this period I got far too excited and did not always act in a civil manner (for example [4]). In this instance the situation did eventually improve and after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horcrux in which I made some quite patronising comments (for example [5]), I realised that the way I was acting was not conducive to collaboration or forming a consensus. Instead I then helped start and took part in the collaborative, discussion based effort at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter/Notability mentioned above. More recently around two months ago I was involved in a minor conflict with User:Woody due to my then misunderstanding of the speedy delete criteria as they related to non free content (relevant diffs [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]). I was completely in the wrong, apologised and have since tried to fill the hole in my knowledge that was shown up. Whilst editing Wikipedia I think it is always important to remain calm and be civil and that is how I would hope to act in any conflicts I might be involved in in the future.

Optional question from Zginder

4. What do you consider the most important Wikipedia policy and why?
A: Choosing just one I think I'd have to say Wikipedia:Ignore all rules not really because of the ignoring rules bit but because I think it reinforces the idea that all actions taken whilst editing should be made in order to improve or maintain Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Optional question from Trees Rock

5. How Can we trust you with the Mop.
A: I'm not exactly sure how to answer but I'd hope that through my history of contributions in various areas I have shown that I will not intentionally abuse the tools and am unlikely to accidentally misuse them. Guest9999 (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Optional question from Nsk92

6. As a follow-up to your answer to Q4, have you used the IAR rule yourself and if yes, could you point to a few specific instances? If not, could you provide a few instances of the use of the IAR rule by other editors where you thought that the rule was applied appropriately?
A: The only time I can remember specifically referencing the "rule" was this request around two months ago to have a prodded article deleted two days early - it was eventually deleted as a G2 candidate. I don't know how many specific instances of using the rule I can point to, I generally think of it as an ethos by which to edit Wikipedia, I may not specifically invoke it but there will usually be a couple of times a week where I have to stop and consider whether what I'm doing is actually in the best interest of the encyclopaedia or re-evaluate a position I've held because I was delving to deep into the minutia of a policy or guideline rather than adhering to the spirit in which it was written and the community consensus behind it. As I indicated in question 4 I believe that it is not the ignoring of rules but rather the improving (and maintaining) of Wikipedia that is the core message of the policy. Guest9999 (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Optional question from DGG (talk)

7. When is it appropriate for nominating a newly added article for speedy deletion as empty, WP:CSD A3? DGG (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: When the article has no substantial content. Personally I do not see a problem with tagging an article as an A3 candidate when it is newly created and have done so in the past (examples: Rosalind Usher', Yasuko Onuki, Breath of Fresh Air). Having said that I don't think that an article should be deleted solely because of this criteria immediately after it has been created. If the user has been warned as to why the article might be deleted and what action they can take is explained to them then it would seem reasonable to wait to see if they will add any content, there is not the urgency to remove the content (or lack there of) that is associated with other speedy candidates such as attack pages or copyright violations. Looking at the articles I have tagged as A3 candidates, two have had content added and been kept as articles after the creator was informed - 1959-60 Ohio State Buckeyes men's basketball team (tagging diff) and Harborside Financial Center (tagging diff) the others have all been deleted although looking at the logs some have been deleted as A7 or A1 candidates - I can't say whether any content was added or not as obviously any article without content will also not have context or a claim to importance. Guest9999 (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks for an honest answer. The above statement is part of the reason I think you cannot be trusted with the delete button,where you will be able not just to tag subject to review, but to delete. If you dont understand the difference between the use of the various speedy categories you are not ready to be an admin yet. Agreed, sometimes an article will fall under more than one, but no context and no content is different. And A7 is for articles that do have content and context, but still say nothing that might possibly be important. Please study WP:CSD before your next application. DGG (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry to badger you but I think that I do understand the difference between the criteria. The only reason I mentioned the potential overlap between the categories is because looking through deletion logs I can see that some of the articles that I tagged as A3 were deleted as A1 or A7 and I cannot know if this was because content was added to the articles or because of a perceived overlap by the deleting admin. Whilst I am not in a position to confirm it I think that my application and removal of the various tags from pages should show I know the difference between the criteria. Guest9999 (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Optional question from InDeBiz1

8. Do you believe that it is possible for a user that has been blocked for reasons other than 3RR - making an allowance for the fact that it is possible for two or more editors to experience moments of extreme stubbornness, believing that their edit(s) is/are correct - to ever be completely trusted again? Or, do you believe in the line of thinking, "Once blocked, always watched?" If you believe that it is possible for complete trust to be regained, what is a "reasonable threshold" of time - whether it be specifically time or a number of successful edits - for that trust to be regained? What about a user that has previously been banned but perhaps was able to convince administrators to reinstate their account? --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 19:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: I definitely don't prescribe to "once blocked always watched" - although as someone who's been blocked I might be biased. Generally I think trust on Wikipedia is built with positive contributions and positive attitude, if a user exhibits these qualities and shows an understanding of what they did wrong then I would have no problem trusting them. This would apply to both editors who had been blocked and banned in the past. I cannot really give a "reasonable threshold" as it would be very dependent on what the user did in the first place and what their actions since the event had been. Guest9999 (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having said that I can understand how editors who may have been caused distress by the banned or blocked user might have a harder time accepting them fully back into the community, I haven't been in such a situation so can't really comment. Guest9999 (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions from The Transhumanist:

Q: Why do you believe you would make a good admin?
A: Primarily because I want to help and I think I have the ability and experience for that help to be constructive and effective. I think I have learned from my mistakes in the past, have a good knowledge of policy and would be able to identify and interpret a consensus when one is present whilst always remaining civil. Guest9999 (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Q: What are your WikiPhilosophies?
A: Looking through that page most of the "philosophies" appear to be extremes which whilst interesting in terms of philosophical discourse are (to my mind at least) not representative of the majority of the community or the consensus formed policies and guidelines. Generally I don’t think labelling people in such a way is particularly helpful, only serving to polarise opinions and cause divisions. Personally, I believe that no one owns a page, that people should be given second chances, that adminship is no big deal and it is better to have a well sourced one line stub on a topic than two pages of unverifiable original research. I’m not really interested in whether than makes me communalist, rehabilist, eventualist or immediatist. Guest9999 (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Q: What's Wikipedia's biggest problem, and what do you intend to do about it?
A: It’s hard to say really, but concentrating on "on-wiki" problems I’d say divisions within the community. In my opinion the variety of different philosophies and attitudes towards creating and maintaining the encyclopaedia have made Wikipedia the success it is. Too often I think users or groups of users are unable to recognise that whilst they fundamentally disagree with what other editors may be doing they are almost always acting in good faith, doing only what they believe to be in the best interest of the encyclopaedia. Take the recent (and ongoing) situation with articles on fiction, after dozens of discussions, hundreds of AfDs, numerous blocks and bans and two arbitration cases the community is only now (in my opinion) finally in the process of deciding how to deal with the subject matter. If during the entire process there had been a bit less animosity and a bit more trust between editors that people were only trying to improve the encyclopaedia then we might not have had to spend what probably added up to many man-years dealing with an unnecessary and at times unpleasant dispute resolution process. As documented above in my answer to question 3 and below in numerous opposes, in the past I have been as much a part of this problem as anyone and recently it’s been a bit of a wake up call. In the future the only real solution I have is to always listen to and respect the opinions of other editors whether I agree with them or not, whilst reminding myself (and if necessary other editors) that Wikipedia is a community that anyone can be a part of. Guest9999 (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Q: A user emails you that another user (with a nym rather than a name) stated in a reverted edit on her user page that she intends to commit suicide. You check the edit, and it's there - she wrote it, then immediately reverted it. Then there are no more edits after that from her, period. What would you do?
A: Sorry slight language issue – "nym"? Apologies, I’ll try to answer anyway. My immediate thoughts can be summed up as "pass the buck". I’d probably bring it to the administrators noticeboard, e-mail the foundation and ask someone with checkuser access to try and identify their location in order to inform the relevant authorities in the area. I know this is not a good answer but I am not a councillor or a doctor or a law enforcement official and haven’t had any experience dealing with that kind of situation. I think the essay Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm has some good advice and I’d be particularly mindful to take any claim seriously, passing on any relevant information to those above who may be able to do more to resolve the situation than I can. Guest9999 (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Guest9999 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support, see no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support, per User:Guest9999/Rollback, seems to take great care with his actions, realizes his mistakes, and takes steps to correct them. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 16:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support: Looks to be an excellent contributor, why the hell not? RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:43, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support. Has lots of experience with deletions, is a mainspace contributor, doesn't rely on scripts, and is civil. He has made a few mistakes, but is always apologetic and rectifies the error. Meets my criteria. Useight (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support I have reviewed a large chunk of Guest999's recent AFD contributions. The candidate had added real value to every discussion they have participated and the only occasion when their recommendation did not mirror the eventual close was when fresh information came to light. This is clearly an insightful editor who does understand our inclusion criteria and who would close AFDs with maximum levels of that illusive clue. What I really like is that all the contributions demonstrated careful attention to detail and thinking through before commenting. Spartaz Humbug! 16:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support. Seen you around, especially at WP:WPHP. Malinaccier (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Aye Been impressed with this editor whenever I've seen them. Black Kite 17:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Strong Support For knowing what WP:IAR means!!! Zginder 2008-05-17T17:19Z (UTC)
  9. Support - Any editor that is willing to be instantaneously honest, upfront and candid with past mistakes, realize when they've made some errors and take responsibility for them has my utmost respect. I think with this attitude you will make a fine administrator. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yup. (moving to neutral) Easy one. No qualms from me. Excellent answers to questions, including question #3 which is a toughy. Nice work, happy to support. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support -- per Wisdom89. Good luck! --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Strong support - Learns from mistakes, very well intentioned, everything this encylopaedia needs in an administrator. Why the hell not? asenine say what? 17:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support - Per Useight, good distribution of edits, i like his rollback page, seems like someone who wants to learn from mistakes, wouldnt abuse tools. Self nom doesnt bother me. See no reason to oppose. Good luck. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 18:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support. Definitely meets my criteria. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Strong Support -- A particularly strong candidate for the mop. Hell, I thought he was already a sysop! --SharkfaceT/C 19:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support good answers, attitude. Honesty and frankness in recounting past errors and conflicts is most commendable. Vishnava (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support - WP:WTHN if i'm honest. Very honest and open about past mistakes, plenty of good experience in admin related areas. There is simply no reason to oppose, although I can guarantee you'll get at least one.. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 19:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support - Mr 9999 clearly has able experience to be a great admin and I have no concerns that he'll abuse the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support - Has good record with edits, the rollback page is a definate plus... but the biggest thing is that he is willing to admit and try to fix his mistakes Jsmith86 (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support - Self-noms usually make me a little uncomfortable, but after reading the existing commentary here and reviewing recent edits, I believe this candidate is "in it for the right reasons." Good luck! --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 20:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Very strong support User has proven exceptional ability to stand on own two feet by self nomming even though he knows he'll take flak for it, and not having to hide behind more well known editors, has demostrated ability in the mainspace, and many other areas, and his answers tot eh questions were absolutly brilliant.--Phoenix-wiki 20:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support – I’m sure that opinion caused a few heads to turn, coming from me :-). I am in full agreement with Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. I believe Guest9999 has a tendency to express his/her opinions from the deletionest side of the fence. However, every time he/she has expressed their opinion, it has been well thought out – well within policy - logical and more importantly civil. I believe that is what we are looking for inAdministrators not necessarily individuals who agree with our point of view, but individuals who will respect our point of view when it differs from their own, and will judge on all points a view. I believe we have a name for that,consensus I trust you with the tools. Good Luck.ShoesssS Talk 20:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support: I've been waiting for this one for quite a while. Good luck. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support Mmm hmm MBisanz talk 21:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support A highly qualified candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support per rationale in answer to Q.4 (and lack of obvious mop wielding deficiencies) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support per good AFD participation. KleenupKrew (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support I do not view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Great AFD work and nice Q4 answer. RedThunder 23:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Mass nominations of articles of substatially varied quality and many instances in which the articles nominated or argued to be deleted were in fact kept is not really "good AfD participation" or "Great AFD work." And on the revserse, even the "keep" that I found was in an AfD that closed as delete. He may have been spot-on in some instances, but as indicated below, there are a considerable amount of problematic cases. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support' No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support— I would trust this user with the mop. Guest9999 seems to know his way around Wikipedia and its policies rather well and I trust he will use his admin tools responsibly and constructively, even if he is a bit of a deletionist. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 01:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  30. Support. An editor with good temperament, good contribution record, and an honest attitude. The initial answer to Q4 worried me a little bit (I would not want a user who actually applies IAR all the time become an admin) but the answer to Q6 clears out that worry. I would have also liked to see a somewhat more extensive record of the main space contributions, but in the grand scheme of things it is not a big deal. A very deserving candidate overall. Nsk92 (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support Good user, trustworthy. SpencerT♦C 02:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support Contributions show good knowledge of policy, and that the candidate is willing to acknowledge & correct mistakes (eg here - since nobody is perfect, that's a good quality). Additionally, candidate remains calm and points towards policy when faced with incivility (eg here). Jakew (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. You supported mine :D... but, as one of the editors on the other side of many of the debates linked to below, I'd say that that indicates more than anything that that era is over; let the past be: we've both grown a few brain cells since then. Happy‑melon 18:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support Answers to Q4-Q6 show good character, something more admins should have.--Koji†Dude (C) 19:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support - Garion96 (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support, need more deletionist admins. Neıl 龱 11:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is comments like this that make me want to change my vote, just to counterbalance. We are not having some sort of a partisan war here. Whether or not someone is or was an inclusionist or deletionist should not matter, unless their views are extreme and lie far outside of the mainstream. What matters is if the person has the right experience, temperament and can be trusted to enforce policies and mediate conflicts fairly and effectively. Nsk92 (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree with Nsk92; we do not "need" more admins of any particular wiki-philosophy. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Response thank you very much for your support but if it's based on the idea that I will be more likely to delete articles because of any particular philosophy I have I think it could be misplaced. I think the role of an admin is to help enact the consensus of the community, if there was an AfD discussion where I felt strongly about the outcome (whether to keep or delete) I would take part in it, not close it. Guest9999 (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Exactly, thank you, that is why I voted for you. Nsk92 (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Support - While a couple of the AFD noms discussed below are troubling, the vast majority appear to stem from agood faith interpretation of policy and procedure; the fact that the community disagreed with that interpretation doesn't bother me, as the candidate accepted that consensus and moved on. I like the candidate's responses to the questions, especially 7 - it isn't really deletionism when articles tagged for CSD are improved and kept instead, which is part of what the tags are intended to accomplish. A good candidate. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support. Hard working candidate, AfD participation looks good. No problems here. Tan | 39 14:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Mass nominations of articles of substatially varied quality and many instances in which the articles nominated or argued to be deleted were in fact kept does not really looke like "good AfD participation". And on the revserse, even the "keep" that I found was in an AfD that closed as delete. He may have been spot-on in some instances, but as indicated below, there are a considerable amount of problematic cases. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support per the very detailed answer to #3. Bonus for having confidence to self-nom. --Gwguffey (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support. no red flags. experienced. learns from mistakes. good intentions. Kingturtle (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Support Candidate will be a net positive to the project as an admin. No reason for concern. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (Weak) Support - Meets all my standards. I wish I knew more about the user, though. Editing seems to be all over the place, which I guess is not so bad. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support I don't visit RFA too often, because the only qualifications I care about are: "Is this editor civil" and "do they respect consensus whether they agree with it or not" not all these other niggling little details that come up when someone goes through the painful rectal exam that is RFA. Anyway, this guy meets both of my standards handily. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Support Good recent track record; I see no issues with AfD activities. Some of us are inclusionists, some are deletionists, some in between. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Support Solid editor. Strong and commendable AfD work. Eusebeus (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Support Although I disagreed with a good number of the AFD opinions demonstrated below, I can't see that Guest9999 was tendentious or problematic in any of the discussions. I don't see any reason to believe he'd close such discussions against consensus and I notice that many of the opinions that I disagree with are rather older. I was very impressed with Guest's response to Neil above. --JayHenry (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Support. Bold answer to question 4. Nomination would likely have succeeded if held in January 2005. I see no reason to inflate my RFA threshold in mere 3½ years. jni (talk) 09:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Support. Recognises his mistakes and builds on them, thats a quality that frankly more admins around here could use I think. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 10:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Very strong Oppose due to overly harsh inclusion criteria and weak arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of the Phoenix (organisation), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dutch supercentenarians, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sycamore Trails Pool, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter newspapers and magazines (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spelljammer crystal spheres, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wade Load, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patronus Charm, i.e. subjective claims of "not-notable" when community consensus believes otherwise. Other arguments based on consensus-lacking Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United Kingdom locations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of volcanic eruption deaths, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bestselling novels in the United States, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spells in Harry Potter (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinner's End, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bay of Andúnië, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bay of Andúnië, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Green Dragon, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LJY-Netzer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schmuck, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Augustus Hilton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compass direction using a watch, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compass direction using a watch, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banishment in the Bible, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hate sex, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Shell (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24 Hour Propane People, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cartoon Wars, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in the Firefly universe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horcrux (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Richler, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Published alternate histories, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magical portrait (Harry Potter), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken (young gay), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Browncoat, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrial Book, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadgeek, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity (2nd Nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese people, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Marine Ltd. (Peel Engineering), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American philosophers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wooster School, etc. i.e. overly biased against lists and fiction articles as well as questionable mass nominations of articles with widely different quality from one article to another. Please note, it is not merely that I disagreed in some of these discussions, but he argued to delete all of these examples and none of them were in fact deleted. Moreover, I rarely if at all noticed instances in which the editor argued to keep. One that I did find (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Thwaites) in which he argued to keep actually closed as delete. Yes, I know that I argue to keep a lot, but there are actually dozens of times that I have nominated or argued to delete as well. Also, some seem concerned with the username. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd just like to point out that following a discussion my username was unanimously deemed acceptable, that was in February 2007 and I haven't had any comments or complaints since then. Guest9999 (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Okay, fair enough on that point. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hey, basicaly your opposing cos this guy is a deletionist and nommed a few articles you like for deletion? That's a stupid reason, I disagree with half the policies here on wikipedia and it does't affect my judgement. I'm a strong inclusionist, but I think that's a very bad oppoe.--Phoenix-wiki 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, I am basically opposing because he has overwhelmingly nominated and argued to delete articles a tremendous number of which were kept. It is one thing to be a deletionist, but be on the side of the argument that ultimately has consensus more often than not. These are a large number of instances in which his arguments were totally against consensus and thus if he wants to work in closing AfDs, it is a major concern for the community if what we have as evidence of his understanding of inclusion criteria is overly restrictive and counter to actual community consensus. We are not talking about a few articles "I like". MOST of those listed above were in AfDs that I did not participate in. Moreover, many of these nominations were mass nominations for articles with incredibly diverse degrees of quality and importances. Thus much of what I cited as examples were in fact unconstructive time lost that could have been better spent. It shows a lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is, i.e. a combination of genral encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. And again, even when (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Thwaites) he argued to keep, the discussion actually closed as delete. And for the record, I would not merely oppose someone, because they are a deletionist. I have argued and even nominated to delete articles as seen at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions and have even included deletionists on my list of nice Wikipedians. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Opposing someone for expressing a minority opinion or an opinion noone agrees with is absurd, he's allowed his opnions--Phoenix-wiki 21:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, he is indeed allowed his opinion; however, it is important that admins interpret policies and guidelines in a manner that has consensus, otherwise we will be left with questionable AfD closures and likely DRVs as a result. Moreover, why would I or anyone for that matter support someone they disagree with? I would not vote for someone in an election who is on the opposite side of me on issues, nor would I think anyone else would for that matter. But in any event, the concern here is being on the opposite side of consensus BOTH in delete and keep instances and to a considerable degree. That does not mean the candidate has never done good work or that I disagree with all of his stances in AfDs. There are nevertheless enough instances of mass nominations of whole groups of articles in which the various articles mass nominated vary considerably in terms of individual notability and sources. There are also some instances in which even he as nominator withdrew, i.e. cases where instead of nominating, the candidate could have improved the article with sources first as deletion guidelines encourage. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Response I was part of the AfD debate on Charles Augustus Hilton. This Admin candidate opposed my opinion on the subject. However, I saw nothing in his comments that would disqualify him for Admin consideration. If anything, he contributed to a spirited discussion and I welcomed his participation in the debate. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The problem is that these mass nominations and nominations against specific kinds of articles against consensus add up and as we have no other basis to go on regarding how the candidate will close AfDs other than looking at his arguments and nomination patterns, we need to acknowledge that so many instances of being on the opposite side of consensus is a concern as to how the AfDs will be closed based on the candidate's understanding of our policies. Having such restrictive inclusion criteria, on top of one of the few instances I could find a keep being for an AfD that closed as delete, bodes negatively on the candidate's understanding of our inclusion threshold and means that he is reasonably likely to close based on a misunderstanding of the community's actual consensus. I would be much more relieved if I saw more in the way of evidence of article building or even more frequent keep arguments in ones that did in fact close as keep to better indicate the candidate's understanding of what does in fact belong on Wikipedia, if our community really does agree on that as admittedly "encycloepdic/unencyclopedic" and "notable/non-notable" carry with them degrees of subjectivity. What is important is that we have administrators who understand and appreciate what goes into article building and are willing to respect those articles they may not personally like as their colleagues and fellow contributors who work on them typically do see encyclopedic and notable value in such articles. Understanding what it takes to build articles and defend them in AfDs allows for empathy with those contributors whom the admins may disagree with. Avoiding deletion arguments on vague or subjective "unencyclopedic" or "not notable" grounds is helpful as well as doing so demonstrates objective judgment in closing these discussions. Within the discussions themselves, it really does not matter what people argue, but the closure does matter a lot and we need clear evidence that articles will not simply be closed as delete because they happen to concern list of fiction related topics that the closer does not personally like. Unless if I have overlooked somewhere in which the candidate has closed a bunch of AfDs (and if I did, I apologize), I can only really go with what he nominated and how he argued as indicative of how he would likely close and what he hopes to accomplish with the deletion tools. In any event, I think it important that we do not risk potentially contentious closures or deletions and the editing history evidence simply gives me such concerns. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Response: Wow, this is a new one: not even that the nominee is a Deletionist!!! (a term used on Wikipedia with as much forethought as when rightwingers toss "Liberal! Liberal!" around), not even that he's advocated the deletion of a bunch of articles on AfD, but that he's been on the losing side of a bunch. Well, gosh, which AfD regular hasn't been? It's a breathtaking straw man jump (and borderline incivil, as to that) to turn sometimes being on the losing side of consensus into a charge that the nom would ignore consensus and impose his own POV as an admin. Your Oppose boils down a lot closer to "We need to keep the Deletionists!!! out at all costs" than to any other rationale.  RGTraynor  16:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Problematic mass nominations for articles unambiguously kept mean time spent needlessly that could have been better spent improving these articles. We are here first and foremost to write a paperless encyclopedia that is a combination of general and specialized encyclopedias and almanacs. We are a community of diverse editors, readers, and donors with diverse interests and knowledge. Therefore, these types of nominations and arguments really in truth boil down to an "I don't like it" limited vision of the project that has the potential to alienate certain editors, readers, and donors. It is important that admins not have any likelihood of interpreting inclusion criteria in such a manner that may appear as really being they not finding certain kinds of articles relevant for our project, whereas the community at large thinks otherwise. And by real community consensus, I mean as well those who in good faith spent time editing the articles under discussion and the readers who come to Wikipedia for that information both over sometimes weeks or months or years, not just a half dozen odd AfD regulars in a mere five days. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've a few comments. (1) The time to improve articles is before AfD, although nothing ever precludes an article's partisans from improving an article under discussion, and doing so is a great deal more fruitful and effective than back-and-forths in the debates. (2) It is insulting to airily declare illegitimate the views of a number of editors that the various Wikipedia policies and guidelines defining what articles should be, how they are sourced and what they should look like should indeed be taken at face value. (3) It is greatly insulting to infer that AfD regulars are second-class citizens whose opinions should be discounted by "real" editors and readers. I've got over 5000 mainspace edits myself, and I resent the implication that there's a cabal of AfDers out of touch with the "real" Wikipedia. When is this factionalism nonsense going to stop?  RGTraynor  17:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To address your comments: (1) Wikipedia does not have a deadline; there is no set "time to improve articles" and it is rude to force volunteers to have to hurry up to suddenly find sources just because one nominator thinks some arbitrary deadline he or she dreamt up has not been met; moreover, instead of just nominating articles, editors are encouraged to attempt to improve them first as suggested by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an AfD; if supporters of the articles under question did not have to engage in the AfDs, the pile on "per nom" deletion regulars (many of whom do not revisit the discussion to see if improvements have been made) could cause the discussion to appear as if the consensus was to delete; thus, in addition to having to work on the article during the AfD, those who support its inclusion are compelled to have to present arguments in the discussion as well; if article improvement is indeed "more fruitful" then that just further demonstrates why focusing on deleting other people's work is problematic. (2) If there is anything I agree with the candidate on, it is the importance of IAR. Many of the policies and guidelines cited in AfDs are themselves edited constantly, which means that when someone posts a shortcut by the time someone else in the discussion clicks on that shortcome, someone may have already canged the wording in a manner that discounts what the original person took form it. It is not surprising that I see such remarks as this in AfDs. (3) There are some AfD regulars who have outright admitted that they will "never vote to keep" or that it is their "mission" or "goal" to delete articles. And there have indeed been a number of accounts I have correctly identified as sock accounts who did indeed do little more than just go down the list of AfDs in effect voting to delete as much as they could while using alternate accounts to harass those who dared to argue to keep both on and off wiki (consider these idefinitely blocked and banned accounts: Eyrian, Jack Merridew, Knock-Off Nigel, AnteaterZot, Lord Uniscorn, JohnEMcClure, etc., i.e. only the tip of the iceberg); factionalism will stop when certain editors stop focusing on weakening Wikipedia's value as a comprehensive reference tool an halt attempting to delete articles that they simply do not like or see value in when obviously a good deal of their colleagues do. Conisdering that I have argued and nominated to delete a number of articles, my concern is not over merely wanting to delete material, but over wanting to delete material that the community at large strongly believes should not be deleted and nominating in an unproductive mass nomination manner. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Weak Oppose Per Answer to Q4. Trees Rock Plant A Tree 20:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wow, I'd consider that probably one of the better responses. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Dude, his answer to both your question and Q4 were absolutly brilliant, we need more admins with attitudes like that. I can't se any reason for the oppose...--Phoenix-wiki 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Saying there's no reason to oppose when two editors have offered reasons to oppose is somewhat insulting. Imagine if someone opposed claiming "no reason to support" when others had already offered reasons to support; doing so would insult the supporters. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's not a great straw man. I said I can't see any reason for the oppose as the answer to question 4 was great. so please stop trying to discredit me.--Phoenix-wiki 21:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Then I would hope you can refrain from calling others' opinions "stupid" or "absurd" in the future. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Never called anyone's oppose stupid in my life...--Phoenix-wiki 11:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, you did. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Imagine if someone opposed claiming "no reason to support" - How crazy would that be.. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 21:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (edit conflict)The issue is that a person with strong deletionist tendencies may close a debate with a biased viewpoint as delete when no consensus may have been appropriate.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Srry I meant My Question (Q5) Trees Rock Plant A Tree 22:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Trees Rock... I also don't exactly understand your question. What are you asking? --SharkfaceT/C 04:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am asking how can he assure us on him being a good admin. Trees RockMyGoal 04:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Then how does his answer fail? He's saying that the proof of his abilities can be found by reviewing his actions. Last I checked, actions speak louder than words. --SharkfaceT/C 04:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It Just wasn't convincing enough. Trees RockMyGoal 04:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry Trees Man, but this oppose (and, indeed, your question) really troubles me. Guest's response was that he will not abuse and is unlikely to misapply the tools -- that should be everyone's first (but by no means only) criterion for adminship. But it is impossible for a candidate to back up such an assertion concisely enough to fit into an answer to a Q. It is a !voter's responsibility to do the research necessary into a candidate to decide whether or not he finds this answer credible.
    May I ask, Trees Man, what you are looking for further than what Guest provided? Your question seems to be an attempt to wrap up an entire RfA into one question, but RfA is supposed to be a discussion. So, what is it you're looking for that Guest does not provide? - Revolving Bugbear 13:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just saying he wont abuse the tools isn't enough for me. Its should say they wont abuse them as well as a proof of a dedication to wikipedia. Trees RockMyGoal 18:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Trees Rock, he answered your question perfectly. The proof of his dedication to Wikipedia can be found by looking through his contribs. Right here. --SharkfaceT/C 18:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Resultant discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Guest9999#Moved response to Kurt Webber's oppose. Please discuss this particular !vote there. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose - sorry, I found dealing with all the deletionism shenanigans at AfD highly unpleasant. However I do notice you've been there less lately, which is a good thing. I can't support until I see some more article writing to get some empathy into the situation from the other side. I think that is essential in this case to make for a well-rounded admin. If you had a GA under your belt I'd happily support and will help you write one if you want whether or not this nom succeeds. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose. Poor article building skills. I suggest that you improve articles to at least GA status so you would appreciate articles more. I don't want you to have admin tools (specially because you will focus on Afd's) until you know how it feels like in the other side of the Afd equation.--Lenticel (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose Can't support here. Experiences with this editor in the past have been negative; found him to be somewhat standoffish and hostile in the AfD of Spells in Harry Potter months ago, and the examples from Le Grand Roi demonstrate that his AfD behavior has not changed much. GlassCobra 13:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Per Le Grand Roi, I have reviewed those AFDs and I think your views on deletion are excessive. Taken seperately those AFDs aren't a problem, but when viewed as a whole they represent a concerning pattern.naerii - talk 14:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose Sorry but I think an admin who gets involved in deletion should have more experience of article building so you can view AFD from the other side. Combined with the AFDs cited above I can't support at this time. Davewild (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Weak Oppose per Le Grand Roi and others. I would not feel comfortable with you closing AfDs. Wizardman 16:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose Agree with Davewild here. You need experience at article writing, at interacting more with article writers before you are given the ability to close contentious AFD discussions. I simply wouldn't feel comfortable with you becoming an admin at this time. As such, it is something of a gut feeling. Woody (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Per the above, I am not confident that this user has a well-rounded understanding of the issues being dealt with at AFD. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Oppose Wants to delete way too much stuff that should stay. Keepscases (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Oppose Seems to focus too much on deleting articles and admin powers could be abused to close AFDs early/incorrectly. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 00:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Strong Oppose I have supported many deletionists here. I essentially co-nominated one yesterday. What I want in someone who closes AfDs --regardless of their general tendency-- is two things: one is that they know the standards, and the other is that they are not reckless, a sign that they will not follow their own opinion rather than the community. On the first point, some of those AfD opinions are in clear ignorance or defiance of accepted standards: for example the one on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (2nd nomination)--a type of article which is accepted and not a content fork--and this is a particularly good one of its type. Or the one on Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008--where a whole group of good articles were nominated--a nomination of his that almost nobody supported--and where in fact the articles were specifically supported as an example for a policy page. Or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese people one of a type of pages that is also well established. Or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken (young gay) where he seems not to have even do a gsearch before nominating--as pointed out to him there were hundreds of hits each in GBooks and GScholar. (I'm not going to talk about the popular culture ones, where standards are not well established--I won;t blame anyone for disagreeing with me on these.) On the second point, he admits he came here reckless, and I don;t see how anyone could take the chance that he's had a total change of mind. He expects the community to give him power to do what he knows he does in defiance of standards and established policy. If there's any inclusionist who does similarly, I'll oppose him just as strongly. DGG (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Response I think that my thoughts and actions have changed significantly since some of those discussions. In recent months I have been contributing less frequently to AfD and I think that when I do my views are in many (but by no means all) cases representative of a significant proportion of the contributors if not always in line with the final outcome. I would also dispute that all of the nominations mentioned were made in the face of well established opinion and I certainly always try and do what research I can before a making a nomination; although admittedly that is often limited to online resources. I understand your reasoning and am sorry for the long winded response but I feel that I have matured as an editor since some of my first (and later) missteps and now have enough experience to recognise when a consensus exists whether or not I agree with it. Guest9999 (talk) 05:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Oppose. Not concerned over deletionism as such, but I feel that the candidate's pursuit of his goals has been overly aggressive, and I don't fully trust his ability to evaluate consensus fairly. I am also in general agreement with DGG's evaluation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Oppose per Grand Roi and per Kurt. — CharlotteWebb 17:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Oppose - Far too deletionist for me, and to a point that makes me question if this candidate will use the "delete" button correctly. Per Q7 and DGG. Tiptoety talk 18:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Oppose. A strong contributor in many respects, but not ready for the mop, IMO. Some answers to questions were lacking (esp. Q4). Also some valid questions have been raised about handling AfDs. Seems unreasonably deletionist, at times. Sunray (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Oppose. Candidate appears to have insufficient understanding of our deletion policies. Spacepotato (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Oppose, per DGG, and Les Grand. MrPrada (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Oppose too much deletion concern is not helpful at all. Regarding Q4, I'm afraid whether he could handle deletion button properly or not.--NAHID 12:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Oppose too many troubling AfDs have been presented here. Admins' own opinions can be out of the mainstream, but not out of touch. WilyD 13:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Strong Oppose: Delete buttion is just too risky at your hands. Seeing your AFD contribs, I will feel myself irresponsible if I stay Neutral here. I am sorry , frnd -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 12:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Per DGG. east.718 at 16:35, May 21, 2008
  25. Oppose for questionable judgement and uncertain temperament on the evidence presented in this AfD - no need to look any further. SilkTork *YES! 00:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    By AfD I assume you mean RFA? xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 00:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I sure hope so. It'd be a shame to see a nice editor get deleted :/ --Koji†Dude (C) 00:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Especially with Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide clones of deleted editors being so empty. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 00:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We really should publish that. At any rate, I'd vote Keep. He seems to pass WP:V. ;-) --Koji†Dude (C) 00:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Heh. Could always send him to WP:EFD. (Which is completely not a serious forum...) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Oppose Too risky with the delete button. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Oppose The deletion tools would be at risk of being misused here. As per the differences above, this admin candidate's stance on several Afd's have been the exact opposite of what was consensus. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Oppose Deletion concerns. Catchpole (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Delete I mean OpposeBalloonman (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Weak oppose My concerns are not quite as broad or deep as those of the inestimable DGG, perhaps because I do see there to be a good bit to commend the candidate and to speak well of, in particular and most relevantly, his judgment; I do, though, find a good bit, as outlined by DGG, et al., that disquiets, and I find in the end that, even as I am certain that Guest9999 should not abuse or misuse intentionally the tools, and even as I think him on the whole to be conversant in policy and to know well whereof the policy and practice surrounding and guiding which he does not know, I am not sure that he might not misuse avolitionally (e.g., by substituting, knowingly or not, his views with respect to policy for those of the community, a quality that is not so pernicious in the interpreting of community-wide, consensus-based discussions, where the views of the community are often borne out clearly and where decisions are, in any case, readily seen, but is rather problematic in the undertaking of speedy deletion, where deletions undertaken in an overbroad fashion, one inconsistent with the mandate of the community that the criteria for speedy deletion be construed narrowly, often go unchallenged or unnoticed, to the detriment of the project, the good faith of the deleter notwithstanding), such that I cannot conclude with any grand degree of confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive; my oppose is, though (not that this really matters), "weak", largely because I imagine (but can't at this point reasonably expect) that the deliberative temperament and sense of judgment of which Guest9999 appears, at least on a somewhat cursory investigation, usually to be possessed might work well to mitigate the effects his beliefs about what policy ought to be (which he is, of course, welcome to hold and welcome to advance, and for the holding and advancing of which he surely ought not to be knocked) might have on his performance of the purely ministerial role of sysop. Joe 07:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Oppose - No need to encourage deletionists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bedford (talk • contribs)
    Please, not another partisan argument. Nsk92 (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]

Neutral Waiting for answer for Q4. Trees Rock Plant A Tree! 19:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Er, I'm not entirely sure about your question. What exactly are you asking? --SharkfaceT/C 19:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was all ready to support, even strongly, but after looking at Le Grand Roi's diffs I'm going to hold back on whether I support or oppose, and I'm even leaning toward the latter. Wizardman 20:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. Not sure about the AFDs but his answer to Q4 is excellent. --Rividian (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. I'm very loathe to do this, but I feel that the concerns brought up by DGG, one of the editors I find to have a high level of expertise and fairness in "deletion circles", has given me enough pause that I cannot support. I won't oppose though. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Upon second thought, and reading others' concerns, especially DGG's, I am going to go neutral on this one. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Neutral, leaning toward support. I'll be frank in saying that my hesitation has a lot to do with Guest9999's deletion views. I wouldn't oppose an RfA for deletionism alone, but if I expect the editors' views to substantially influence their interpretation of deletion policies and guidelines and XfD/DRV consensuses, I consider that sufficient grounds for opposition. In this case I'm fairly certain the candidate would apply his slanted (though reasonable) interpretations of policies and guidelines in closing XfDs, but he doesn't strike me as an editor who would blatantly disregard a clear consensus. Also to his credit, I've always found Guest9999 to be civil in XfD discussions. — xDanielx T/C\R 23:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
Category