Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Abd 2

Add links
Source: 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.

Abd

Abd (talk · contribs)

Final (24/30/13); Closed as unsuccessful by WjBscribe at 08:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abd is a very objective user and one smart fellow. He has a lot of knowledge and experience with Wikipedia. Sarsaparilla (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the gracious and unexpected nomination. --Abd (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The office of administrator is an honor, but I do not seek it, I seek only to serve, in my time here, the community and its project, and administrative tools aren't necessary for what I personally see as my work. However, I also have a deep trust in the community, when conditions allow it to express a consensus, hence, as I accepted the nomination when nominated, I will accept the appointment if the community so decides. --Abd (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I did not request or expect this nomination, and have seriously considered declining it. Most of the work that I do for the project, or plan to do, does not require the privileged tools, and possessing them could even be a distraction. However, I also respect the intentions of the nominator, and have a general belief that I should serve when asked or I become aware of a need that I can meet. Nevertheless, due to the burden of many responsibilities, I do not expect that I could perform much of the ordinary mop work. There are, however, certain tasks that I'm sure I could and would help with, that come to mind because I've needed them myself, such as recovering copies of deleted pages, as appropriate, for review by users who have requested them. Ultimately, I'd like to make this an unnecessary task, but wishes aren't horses. I would be an extra hand when extra hands are needed, and how often that would occur is something I cannot predict. I saw the granting of the rollback tool to non-admins as a step toward creating what I have called a penumbra of chosen support around administrators; while administrators may not have seen it this way, I considered that any administrator who granted the rollback tool to a user would be responsible for that user's actions with it; thus I would not grant that tool to a user merely upon request, and, indeed, I might look at a request from an unknown user with a jaundiced eye. Not so a user who had been steadily working to remove vandalism already, or had otherwise shown responsibility. I might work toward setting up rapid-response systems to deal with vandalism and disruptive editing more efficiently, more intelligently, and more fairly. As an ordinary user, I can suggest such systems, as an administrator I could be the active agent for one (but it would be a drop in the bucket unless other administrators followed suit).
My interest in Wikipedia comes from a long consideration and study of decision-making systems in peer associations quite like Wikipedia; I anticipated the rise of such, and recognized Wikipedia, as soon as I became seriously involved in editing, as quite analogous to what I'd seen, studied, and facilitated elsewhere. Many of the policies and guidelines are quite what I'd expected they would be. My major focus, however, and I am known for this outside Wikipedia, is how to handle the communications problem when the scale becomes very large; I have theoretical solutions, but they have never been tried on anything even approaching the Wikipedia scale. However, on the other hand, they are fail-safe, they are efficient and are designed to require very little effort; indeed, to be scalable, they must be extremely efficient and extremely easy to use. I will be working on this regardless of whether or not this RfA succeeds, and I do not need the admin bit to do it, but there may be a few places where being an administrator might help.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: They are yet to come. I've been learning my way around, as situations come up, reading the guidelines and policies and essays where the community has expressed or has attempted to find consensus, and discussing them. I've followed Arbitrations and contributed to one, and a comment I wrote to place on the Talk page of an administrator who was, sadly, about to lose his bit and was bitter about it, received some positive comment from at least one other editor; for the comment, see [1] It was written December 1, and my understanding of Wikipedia continues to grow rapidly, but it should give an idea of how I think about this place and, also, about administrator conduct.
I have only become extensively involved with a few articles, most notably Instant-runoff voting, which is an article which continues to be in flux; a major participant, the source of a lot of editing conflict, was just exposed as another James Salsman sock. The article did get, at one point, almost to where the POV tag could be removed, but it has slid back a bit. I have recently taken an interest in Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: controversies; there was continued conflict there long before I arrived, and it may be that my participation has helped to start the process to find a consensus; but, as is common, doing what I see needs to be done is a bit destabilizing for some. SPA editors who have been heavily controlling an article for a year often don't take kindly to being confronted about it, no matter how civilly it's done; but these people drive away newcomers, experts, and anyone who disagrees with them; most of these people don't have the patience or time to persist when rudely reverted. Newcomers often edit contrary to guidelines and policy; a POV editor will use this to simply reject their work, instead of assisting them to find the proper way to do what they want to do, at least as far as what they want to do has some value, and it usually does. In this case, even though there had been found reliable, peer-reviewed sources explicitly noting controversy over the diagnosis, nearly all mention of the controversy had been gradually excluded from the article; it's a familiar story, actually, repeated over many different articles, this is just one that I have some connection with. I have ADHD, not marginal, so I understand the topic from the inside. In order to uncover what had happened, which involved, among other things, misrepresentation of sources, I had to actually, I know this seems excessive, go to a ... physical library and find an article that wasn't on the internet! (Misrepresentation of sources is actually a common problem with certain kinds of articles, particularly where a peer-reviewed journal that is cited may not be available to most editors. I have ideas about how to remedy the situation, and I expect to be implementing them in short order. Again, I don't need admin tools for this.)
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: Well, I've sometimes said that if a user has never been blocked, they have not been working hard enough for the project. That's an exaggeration, of course, and most work for the project does not involve the kinds of actions that could result in a block. But then there are what might be called battleground articles, where there are constituencies in the outside world, with great resources, attempting to control the spin of the article. Having administrative tools is often useless for dealing with this, for if one has sufficient knowledge to recognize what is happening, one is quite likely to have sufficient conflict of interest to be unable to use the tools (and, in fact, this has tripped up more than one administrator). (It can take having knowledge in the field to understand the implications, which is commonly associated with the formation of a POV, to be able to recognize the subtle spin involved in balance issues, for spinmasters will use carefully selected and framed fact to create impressions, they get paid for that.) Having found myself in that position, I have confronted a series of James Salsman socks (at least four), three of them before they came to administrative attention, an anonymous IP editor (whom I identified from the IP as having a major conflict of interest,and who was blocked), and single-purpose accounts, and was once, as a result, blocked (perhaps properly as a precaution) and then immediately unblocked (also properly) when the administrator realized what I had actually been doing. My understanding is that generally users have the same rights as administrators; and the same responsibilities (i.e., being an administrator is no protection against 3RR violation when the administrator is involved with the article) and being temporarily blocked as a precaution -- in error -- is no harm for an experienced user. (But it can be very harmful for a newcomer, indeed, fatal for their relationship with Wikipedia.) I'll be happy to answer any questions here, or on my Talk page. No, it has not caused me stress. I was a single parent with five teenagers at one time, I was a moderator for the Usenet group soc.religion.islam, attacked by fanatics on all sides, yet able to maintain my balance; Wikipedia is a piece of cake. Only once did the obsession button get pushed here, and it was when I tried to file my first 3RR report, screwed it up, and the report was rejected and my pleas for assistance went unheeded -- and, as a result, damage continued for quite some time. It's an old button of mine, and I quickly recognized it, and that was that. So one of the things I might to is to patrol WP:ANI/3RR and assist. But not with articles and editors I've been involved with! (and, yes, I did eventually figure out how to put up diffs properly. I'm 63, but I'm not dead yet.)--Abd (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Avruch

4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

Is this an open-book test? It is in real life, of course, we have a manual at hand. In any case, my first answers are from my immediate reaction, and then I'll check the answers -- as I would if I had any doubt about precedent in an actual situation, either from "the book" or from other administrators or knowledgeable users -- and correct my response if I think it necessary. And an administrator who makes a mistake, and discovers it or it is pointed out, likewise should immediately correct it, as did User:Durova. And as User:Physchim62 did not. Most of the precedents, however, are simply common sense, starting with WP:IAR, which means the same on Wikipedia as Public policy (law) means in the legal system: the welfare of the project can supersede any guideline or policy. But usually doesn't.
To my understanding, as an administrator, I'd have a block button. Nobody has a ban button. A ban is a community or other broad or authoritative decision, a block is an administrative action, taken by a single administrator, to restrict the access of a user or IP address or address range, and it is for a specified period, beginning normally with 24 hours, there being some level of disapproval of shorter blocks as being at the same time punitive and useless, though very short blocks have been used to enter information in the block record, and I recall some controversy over that. Block are extended as needed, typically becoming longer with each block, until they may become "indefinite." A ban is essentially a standing community request to permanently block a user, but it has no effect unless an administrator blocks; administrative blocks require justification in the immediate facts regarding user behavior or from ArbComm decisions, and administrators may be held responsible for error in blocking, but blocking a proven sock of a banned user requires no special finding beyond identification. Better be proven, though.
One more comment on blocks: administrators should always extend professional courtesy toward blocked users; blocks are not punitive, but are to protect the community. Particularly when new users are blocked, the block notice should, in my opinion, express regret that the block was deemed necessary, and carefully and helpfully explain how the user may appeal. But an administrator, given this, should not hesitate to block to protect the project and other users, for a disruptive editor, sometimes with only one edit, may permanently drive away other users who are not willing to engage in tenacious dispute, and this kind of damage accumulates over time. However, administrators, regardless of personal opinion, are servants of the community and should not stray far, except in emergencies, from established practice. --Abd (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?

Anything from nothing, discussing it with the other administrator, up through the various forms of dispute resolution; however, no action I'd take here would involve the use of the administrative tools. Technically, that the one removing the material is an administrator, as, say, distinguished from any ordinary or experienced user, is not relevant. I *could* put the material back, just as could any user, depending on the details of the situation, and subject to the same rules and possible sanctions as any other user. However, BLP is serious policy and BLP problems can present a hazard to the project, so I'd be pretty conservative. Further, there is the issue that administrators are expected to behave in exemplary fashion, which can dampen WP:BOLD a bit. My conclusion: if I think it that important, I'd use standard dispute resolution procedures. Which, by the way, I've never followed, beyond the simplest steps, for so far I've been sufficiently bold and at the same time sufficiently willing to agree and cooperate and find consensus that it has not yet been necessary, beyond the simplest level of asking for third opinion. Give me some time, I'm sure I'll walk down those more involved roads. --Abd (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. What is your opinion on administrator recall and do you plan to add yourself to the category?

I haven't paid much attention to it beyond looking at it once. This is actually a tough question. It should, in my opinion, be fairly easy to remove administrative tools (and it should, in fact, be easier to obtain them than it is, and those go together). We might recall that initially, all users had the same tools. As the scale increased, this became impossible, as is quite understandable and predictable, but there are far too few administrators, considering the user population. My general impression is that, with proper guidance and support, many more users could be trusted with the tools than currently are. I rather doubt that, were there to arise a situation where ArbComm would de-sysop me, that it would be necessary to actually go to ArbComm, for the loss of community confidence would, I'd think, be obvious. But what if I thought that the apparent consensus that I should be desysopped was a false consensus? This is where the question gets difficult. The possibility of a false consensus, which appears through participation bias, is actually the problem that interests me the most: how to compensate for participation bias, without losing the benefits of selective participation (for there are some)? However, I rather doubt that I'd be using the tools in a manner that would be likely to create cause to remove me from the position of trust. There are things I want to do that could be controversial, but they don't involve administrative tools (nor do they involve any kind of disruptive activity). I'll answer again after looking at the page. --Abd (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can give a better answer now. I don't find Administrative Recall sufficiently well-defined that I can assent to it without reservation. It creates a new process that doesn't seem to me any different than RfC. I could say Yes and it would mean practically nothing in a practical sense. However, if the sense of the community were that I should not use the tools, I would not use them, which is the proper point, so an easy "suspension" path, pending resolution of a conflict, would suffice. If this process has been tested, can anyone point it out to me? Are we fixing something that is not broken? I've below expressed my opinion that removal of the sysop bit should be easy, but it would be accomplished much more easily if it were a suspension rather than a removal. Indeed, suspension should take only a very few administrators concurring (and it could be mutual). It should not take a lot of cumbersome process. Indeed, that is part of what I hope to bring are methods of making decisions by community consensus that are more reliable, less subject to the hazards of participation bias, while still being efficient (not polling everyone), and maintaining the basic way that things are done here (which is brilliant, as far as it goes). If this happens -- nice trick if we can pull it off, eh? -- it *could* become part of a defined procedure for rapid suspension. If we can suspend, why remove? To punish? If we want to punish, there is ye olde wikitrout and blocking as a last resort beyond that we cannot go. Short answer: Yes, at least in practical effect. Longer answer, that's a useless answer without clearer definitions. --Abd (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7. What are the policies most crucial to your role as an administrator?

We'll start with WP:IAR. But that's pretty esoteric, really (and commonly misunderstood. I mention this Rule Number 1 because the welfare of the project (and those who participate in it) comes first, and specific rules cannot encompass what is appropriate in all situations. I don't know what kind of work I'll be doing, exactly, so I can't predict which specific guidelines and policies will be most important to my use of the tools. Not having had the buttons, I have not studied the actual policies involved in their use, such as blocking policy; I presume that before taking any action that might possibly be controversial, I'd review the involved policies and follow them (and I know a fair number of administrators I could ask, plus there are all the usual sources for assistance). Administrators as such don't make content decisions and my focus with the policies has been on those which guide content. Administrators make process decisions, such as whether or not a user post is a personal attack on another user and thus justifying some warning or sanction, or whether there is disruptive editing (which is not about content; a user can make disruptive edits in pursuit of content "policy," i.e., his or her personal interpretation of such, but contrary to process policy). However, one very important policy is that administrative tools are not to be used for advancing some personal cause or promoting a personal opinion. Administrators, as administrators, are servants of the community. If they don't want to do what the community wants, they may refuse to act, but may never use the tools contrary to the consensus of the community.
I may now be able to give a more complete answer, which is that I can't answer the literal question that was asked, except by referring to specific principles incorporated in the policies. I don't have time at the moment to research which exact policies to cite for what I'm going to say, except for anything specific that an editor asks me about. I'll go back and do that above with the BLP issue. In a real situation where there was any doubt at all, and there is a reasonable risk of harm from improper action, I would read (or reread, since I've already read much of it), all applicable policies (or ask, if I have any doubt). In most cases, administrators who got into trouble have brought it on themselves by acting administratively when they had some conflict of interest, which, as to administrator actions, is a much stronger standard than applies to ordinary editors. An administrator has a conflict of interest if the administrator is personally involved with an article, category, Wikipedia process, or some other dispute with an editor. Even when the administrator has no prior involvement with an editor, an administrative action, understandably, may generate some heat, and some editors will release that heat toward the administrator. Administrators must have flame-retardant suits, and, when blasted by the dragon's breath of editor anger, must be able to turn away and leave any consideration of "personal attack" response to other editors. In possible ensuing process, the administrator must remain as neutral as possible, deferring to the community, which, after all, is the sovereign here. I've seen many positive examples in my review of various editor Talk pages; there are many administrators who clearly understand this well, and a few who do not, and some who have not understood it in the past and are, as a result, no longer administrators.
If the admin bit were set for me, it would be totally useless to me for any debate over content, personalities, or other dispute, over anything. It has nothing to do with my editing habits, an administrator may not, wearing that hat, give extended opinion on anything, and even short opinions are hazardous. Administrators act, giving clear and concise reasons for actions where there could be any doubt. Many of those commenting here seem to think that what I'm doing here is some sign of how I'd be as an administrator. No. This is quite different. I'm not an administrator, I'm someone who is being considered for the position, and my view is that I wouldn't want it if my "success" was based on any unclarity as to who I am, what I think, and how I act, with respect to any issues which come up here. It became clear early on that this RfA was likely to fail to reach consensus for admission to the service. So, what I'm doing is taking the opportunity to clean the decks, so to speak. In the next RfA, if it happens (I'll comment below on how likely I think that), I will instead act much more like I'd suggest an administrator act if being reconsidered. I won't give extended explanations, I'll just answer questions. I won't try to present the context for allegations. I won't object to anything that anyone says, and I won't comment on, say, vote canvassing if it appears. Someone else will do that, or it won't be done.
Something many commentors don't seem to have recognized, though I've certainly said it many times. I did not and am not seeking the position of administrator. However, the community may ask me to serve, and, if asked, I'll serve to the extent that I can. The community asks me by nominating me and considering the issue. And my service starts with standing here and answering questions. Many have advised me that I would be more effective in conveying my point if I were more concise. That's absolutely true, but misses something entirely. I don't have a point. I'm not trying to convince the community that I'm qualified to serve. I have in some cases given my opinion about standards, and some have taken that as referring to me; but one of the first responses I put in here was "please don't make any exception for me," i.e., if edit counts are a controlling standard, and to be applied to all editors, such that edit count can legitimately be the major reason for opposition, then don't make an exception here because of my persuasiveness, rhetorical brillance (hah! fat chance!), coolness of insight, etc. You have those already, for one thing, such as they are, like it or not, they will not increase because of the mop, and, in fact, the mop might be some hindrance. (I'm human, and might start to think of this as something to lose. Attachment is the death of insight.)--Abd (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the opportunity to reflect on these questions. As I mentioned, I'll open the book and check my answers, and come back, presumably tomorrow, with another edit to correct errors that I find, probably giving a better view of what I would actually do, as distinct from predicting it here, off the cuff. --Abd (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

  • The talk page contains information from the previous RfA. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 16:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC) No longer true. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 01:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to prior RfA
  • There has been canvassing, see [2] and Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard ] but please do not disregard any "oppose" comments from canvassed users. --Abd (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has been vote trading, see [3]. Sarsaparilla, the nominator of this RfA, offers that he will cast "support" votes in the RfAs of those users who cast "support" votes for Abd. But please do not disregard any "support" comments from users who are not administrators yet. Yellowbeard (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There has not been vote trading Just a poorly considered comment by Sasparilla. Won't say what I think that this says about the judgment of the nominator. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 01:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this is not vote trading, I don't know what is, even if it masquerades as a joke.
        Iterator12n Talk 01:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have a theory as to what it is. It is vote solicitation. I went to the RfA in question, I pretty much had to. And, since I was there, I reviewed the nominee's contribs, found no problem at all, and lots of hard work, and voted to support. With no strings and no expectations. Sarsaparilla may have had something like that in mind. In at least one sense, it worked. Notice that the nominee came here and responded to Yellowbeard's WP:SNOW request. Don't know if he has voted, but he might. Don't know how he will vote, but, from my point of view, all votes, and especially from knowledgeable users, are beneficial. If he were my campaign manager, I'd have to fire him, though. --Abd (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sarsaparilla wrote [4]: "I will support if the nominee (Kim Dent-Brown) switches over to support column in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Abd. I am willing to negotiate in reference to other nominees you would like my support for." I guess that Sarsaparilla wrote this comment partly with a smile on his face and partly with a serious expression. Yellowbeard (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is vote trading technically illegal on Wikipedia? It probably already goes on here, although typically the terms are not stated so explicitly, as it would be unseemly. Indeed, even in legislative bodies such at the U.S. Congress, where we might prefer that decisions be made solely on the merits, vote trading is not banned, as it is viewed as a normal part of the process. People can make decisions based on whatever criteria they choose – another example being a certain editor who opposes every self-nomination, a practice which, while it may be frowned upon by the vast majority of users, we have already decided should be allowed to proceed since attempting to stop it would do more harm than good. Given the inevitable tendency of all elections to become popularity contests and loyalty tests, it can be hard to draw the line on what constitutes vote trading, and whether the practice is actually harmful. One might argue that engaging in a transaction of this sort implies a certain degree of trust in the other editor to carry through on his promise, and that therefore those editors who find a large number of members to engage in vote trading are likely to have earned widespread trust and/or popularity, which could have a positive correlation to desired characteristics. It's a fascinating question and one whose implications we are are unlikely to fully unravel by the end of this RFA. 71.63.91.68 (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • From the writing style, this would be Sarsaparilla. Quit it, okay? Wrong place, wrong time. I said that I'd start commenting on what I'd do as an uninvolved admin. This would probably have gotten a warning from me, both the original "joke" and this comment here. However, then I looked at the case he cited, and, indeed, I would not have blocked, and, no block, no teeth. The remedy is as is so common: balance it. That this incident was reported here is the balance; whoever closes this can take it into consideration, just like the canvassing from Yellowbeard. As to using this opportunity to discuss vote trading, though, I wax eloquent here because I'm the subject: there are two parts to this, my presentation to the community, including my response to questions and comments, and the communities comments and decisions about me. Not about vote trading, delegable proxy, or the upcoming Presidential election. Unless *I* think it relevant (and that action would be more evidence for the community's decision.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 05:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that this RfA has run out of control and should be closed per SNOW. Yellowbeard (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This misunderstands SNOW. This guide suggests that the snowball test requires virtual unanimity before an issue can be prematurely closed. This RfA has 20 supporters at this stage, a long way from unanimous opposition. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 05:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am finding this RfA enormously useful, for I am getting a good look in the mirror; I want to thank all who have commented. Even Yellowbeard, who is making points for me that I could never make by myself (look at Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard, 'nuf said). As to the vote count, those considering the result might notice that at least three votes were possibly a result of canvassing by Yellowbeard (for which he was 24-hour blocked), if those are disregarded, that leaves it at 20/20/10. That is a pretty even split, and is much more welcoming than I expected. A lot depends on who finds out about this RfA, and I have taken no steps to inform anyone, nor will I, until it is over.--Abd (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • SNOW refers to situations that are not winnable anymore. To win an RfA, a nominee needs an approval of about 70% (although Abd seems to believe that he needs only a plurality). But Abd currently has an approval of only 46%. And this RfA isn't for Abd's amusement (although Abd seems to believe this). Yellowbeard (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the snowball clause is not
An uphill battle is extremely difficult but potentially winnable. In cases of genuine contention in the Wikipedia community, it is best to settle the dispute through discussion and debate. This should not be done merely to assuage complaints that process wasn't followed, but to produce a correct outcome that requires the full process. Allowing a process to continue to its conclusion may allow for a more reasoned discourse, ensures that all arguments are fully examined, and maintains a sense of fairness. However, process for its own sake is not part of Wikipedia policy.

  • Abd's conduct here may well persuade some editors to switch from oppose to support - he's certainly impressed me with his coolness under pressure. Granted, this would be extremely difficult - but that's exactly what the above clause is stressing. The snowball test suggests that only decisions which (after the fact) are pretty much carried nem con are appropriate for closing per WP:SNOW. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the sentiment expressed above regarding Abd's demeanor at this RfA. Admin-like. I remain opposed as described below due his inability to use concise arguments. If this can be addressed at his next RfA I would be inclined to support. Ronnotel (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm deliberately avoiding, usually, "concise arguments" here, for reasons I've explained, though I'll briefly repeat them. I have an ability to write concisely; it should be understood that my interaction with Ronnotel, mentioned elsewhere in this RfA, took place at a time when I had about four days of serious editing experience. If I were to file a 3RR report now, it might be only a few words. I now know what is relevant. And if there is another RfA (I have some doubt that there will be, but it's possible -- I did not expect this one) there will be no need for anything other than succinct answers to questions, so, indeed, that will be proven at that time. Given that, very early on, I realized that the experience issue was probably going to be controlling, I felt that it was more important to explore in depth every issue that might arise with respect to my behavior, in the future. Otherwise, in fact, why bother? And there are other benefits, as well. For example, I'd been holding some level of bad feeling about Ronnotel about that 3RR incident. That is gone, due to his apology below and other kind comments from him. It's a bit painful to see all the editors who persist in imagining that I'm dismissing comments or being contentious, when I frankly discuss the issues and possible disagreements, without any feeling of rancor and with AGF, but ... this is Wikipedia. --Abd (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scanning this page, four words apply: DIARRHEA OF THE KEYBOARD. Unbeatablevalue (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. It's a remedy for constipation of the mind. Read only as indicated, begin with small doses until you are sure it is well-tolerated, immediately stop reading if allergic reactions are noticed, and consult your physician. The following side-effects have been reported: anxiety, confusion, or a sense of being under attack. Use caution, do not drive a vehicle or operate heavy machinery while experiencing any of these symptoms. And make sure to have fun. --Abd (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion

  • 1400 edits and 500 mainspace edits is usually too few to pass an RfA. You might want to speak to whether your particular experience or background should make you an exception to this (unwritten) rule. Avruchtalk 04:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There has been editors who have passed with less edits. I have no idea why people oppose and support due to a 'rule" of more edits equals better editor, or even a more experienced editor. Please be aware that a thousand vandalism reverts takes less effort than a dozen thoughtful comments. Edit count is not a judge of a good editor, and I urge people to reconsider if they oppose due to it. — Dark (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should not be an exception to an edit count guideline. I do not consider myself an experienced Wikipedian. However, I do understand the boundaries around the use of privileged power, and thus I think that the wrong issue is being considered, not just with me, but with many RfAs. If I'm inexperienced and therefore useless, well, you have just increased the number of administrators at great cost with no benefit. So to speak. But if I'm inexperienced and barge ahead furiously with foolish actions, then serious harm could be done, or, alternatively, if I have an axe to grind using the tools. The sole question, in my mind, should be, "Is this user unlikely to abuse the tools or use them in a harmful way, and is this user unlikely to poorly represent the community, and is it reasonably possible that some benefit will accrue from approval?" If so, the vote should be Support.
I really am not concerned with convincing anyone that I should be an administrator, I'm not even convinced myself, but I do care that Wikipedia has the administrative support it needs, and it needs much more than it has. Edit count is a very poor measure, it indicates little about how the editor will behave if granted the tools, unless we look at the edits. A few hundred edits might be enough to indicate clearly enough the character and sobriety of one editor, and ten thousand might not be enough for another. What if it was ten thousand mediocre, very easy, or inconsequential edits? (But never vandalism.) By continually raising the bar, it becomes more difficult to recruit administrators. Administrators with good character can be trained to use the tools, it's harder to teach character to someone who is merely technically proficient. As to participating in consensus process, I do have many years of experience with it, most of how Wikipedia works is quite familiar to me. Again, it doesn't matter with me, I'm not going to be a furious wielder of the mop, Wikipedia is not going to rise or fall based on this RfA, nor am I, but someone younger or in a different position might be missed for the same reasons, and multiply this by many RfAs, plus RfAs not filed because it's discouraged, and it could make a big difference. As always, I'm more concerned about the process than the content. I'm the content here, and how important edit count is, is process.--Abd (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that edit counts can be misleading when used as a measure of knowledge or experience or even how much time one has been spending on Wikipedia. My edit count is fairly high for the length of time I've been here because I frequently take five or ten edits to revise an article as I continue reading it over and thinking of more stuff I want to change or add, and a lot of my summaries say "fix" or "oops" (I probably should use the Preview button more, but sometimes I get overconfident). So, while on paper I have more edits that Abd, Abd has probably written more words total than I have. Also, there is a lot of learning that can be done just by passively reading policy pages, discussions, etc. and Abd's edits show that he has clearly done a lot of that.
Some people would say that Abd's focus on a few subjects is "obsessive" and a negative trait. I view it as a potential strength for a sysop. We need more admins who will go into depth on an issue. If you have something complicated that you want someone to take a thorough look at, Abd would probably be the one to ask. While we also need sysops who take a more generalist approach to their admin activities (spending time on a variety of duties), it's also good to have that focus when we need it. Accordingly, I think he would be a good contribution to the admin community.
As for objections to Abd (or anyone else) checking users' contributions – if that's stalking, why do we have that tool? It's to help users scrutinize one another's activities, so that we can exercise oversight over one another and curb abuses. Granted, it is easy to have an emotional reaction when you're the one being scrutinized, but that's where keeping cool is needed.
Lastly, in reference to the comment that "he continues to be embattled" – "embattled" simply means "beset with attackers or controversy or conflict." Could that not describe a lot of admins and regular users who get involved in contentious debates? Somebody has to do it. I think Abd has kept a pretty cool head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarsaparilla (talk • contribs) 19:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I removed the notice on my page about designating Abd as a proxy because he has not accepted and therefore it has not taken effect.
Sarsaparilla (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I need somebody to please explain the proxy thing. How do proxies work in Wikipedia? Never heard of it. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 05:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For a detailed explanation, please see Abd's comments Wikipedia talk:Delegable proxy and Wikipedia talk:Delegable proxy/Abd's message. Abd made a proposal on the mailing list, and I attempted to sum it up in an essay, describing it as a system in which users delegated their voting rights to others. But as Abd points out, we do not have votes on Wikipedia. So it could perhaps be more accurately be described as a non-binding method of estimating consensus with the help of proxies executed by users who are basically saying of their proxy, "I generally trust this user to make a decent decision where I cannot myself participate." Sarsaparilla (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My ideas about how to facilitate the community process that I see as necessary for Wikipedia to be able to meet the challenges of scale are really of little relevance here. My ideas will shift, quite likely, as my experience expands, and experience with administrative tools may help that a little, but I've already followed many administrators and see, quite well, what they struggle with. The structural issues (i.e., the de facto manner in which the community responds to environmental stress) are what truly interest me, and I don't need administrative tools to implement my vision. Nor is it to be imposed on anyone. Quite the opposite. And if I were to go into this in detail, well, how much space is left on the disk? Not here, is the point.--Abd (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am taking this opportunity to interact with a broader community of users than I normally have interchanges with. This, in fact, is quite valuable for me, and if anyone feels oppressed by my level of response, well, please vote as you like, I won't be offended, nobody is obligated, here, to read anything I write, and even the closing administrator may quite properly ignore it all. It is the community consensus that counts, or lack of same (and what I more or less expect here is "no consensus," though other outcomes are possible), and I only have one vote, which I'm not casting! (Though it is certainly tempting to vote "Opposed.") I am also responding to certain editors in Talk; I am not responding on user Talk pages, but I sincerely thank all editors who have taken, or will take, the opportunity to comment. Please do so without any fear that I'll be offended. I won't. I actually want to know where I stand with the community, and "negative" information is valuable, sometimes more valuable than what is supposedly "positive." So far, I've mostly been dealing with editors sitting on articles with strong POVs, and they frequently treat me as some lunatic out to destroy all that is good about their article, with "eccentric" views, standing alone against their consensus, no matter how careful I am to be civil (and no matter how much I know that I effectively represent many nonparticipants, often because these have been driven away), so it is very nice to see such general support. I'd be happy with quite a bit less!
I'm not censoring myself in any way here, though I was advised "if I want to be approved" to be more restrained. I don't want that, I decided to accept if the community chooses to trust me. What you see is what you get, and I want you to see what you will get. I write too much, which has nothing to do with admin tools, rather, it reveals who I am, more thoroughly than terse polemic polished for effect.--Abd (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A number of situations that have taken place in my time as a serious editor here, have come up by reference in this AfD. It has occurred to me that it could be useful to pretend that I am an uninvolved administrator. What would I do if I came across the situation and did enough digging to get a sense of it? So I will add comments qua pretend administrator. There is only one set of users I would have definitely blocked for any length of time. In a real situation, if I did not feel entirely comfortable about my knowledge of precedents and procedures, I'd do the research (including asking for advice from an experienced administrator); but here, I will just write off-the-cuff (because the most important issue that has been raised is my present knowledge). By the way, I might have blocked "myself" more than once, based on a superficial knowledge; I doubt that I would have opposed the unblock once the situation became clear through an unblock request. The set of users I would have blocked have all been blocked by administrators since, without my request, all being socks of James Salsman (banned), plus User:Yellowbeard, master unknown or at least unproven, and the block of him would have been 24 hour (same decision as was made by an admin, we'll see where that one goes.) None of these actions would have been taken as an administrator, in fact, because in each case I have been an involved editor.

I have also noted below that, because I am an editor who has become involved in arguably contentious editing, I would establish an administrator account, to clearly distinguish between administrative actions and my own personal work as an editor, and, absent clear emergency (no time to log out and log in, something that should be extraordinarily rare), I would confine any possibly controversial actions to that account, including any blocks or urgent warnings. Abd has been warning users already, as some of the diffs presented by some Oppose voters show; as readers here know, any user can perform this quasi-administrative task. But it is also easy for a user to think that what he or she thinks is an opposing editor is just trying to initimate him or her; however, since, in all these cases, I'm involved, my behavior would probably not change, I would not warn using the adminstrator account, but, if at all, as Abd. (And I certainly would not block or otherwise take serious action waving an administrator flag.) That could create the appearance of a Wikipedia bias.--Abd (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. The fact that he was tempted to decline is prima facie evidence of a lack of power hunger! Support wholeheartedly! Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per these intelligent posts: 02:40, 25 December 2007, 02:02, 29 December 2007, and 05:12, 30 December 2007. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Contrary to the opposes, I feel his responses to questions and Le Grand's diffs above demonstrates enough knowledge of policy. — Dark (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Definite support. Good and eloquent contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sj (talk • contribs) 06:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, appears to have a good grasp of policy. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 07:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  6. Support, because I like your edits and also think you understand policy. But wait!!! Whoa back. I am inexperienced, just like you. Ergo, thats TWO of us editors who have no place in Wiki.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support sensible. - TwoOars 09:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (change to abstention) Weak support per Jmlk17. Should this not succeed, keep it up and I'll support strongly in a few months. User:Dorftrottel 11:16, February 10, 2008
  9. I would consider that this user has a very good grasp of policy. I see absolutely no benefit making the candidate wait some arbitrary time period before being granted the sysop flag; such process is simply for process's sake, and does not help the encyclopedia. What should be considered before commenting is whether the candidate can help Wikipedia, and will not harm it; looking at some contributions and comments that the candidate has made, the only option is to strong support given the clear policy knowledge and good manner that he has. EJF (talk) 11:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - not afraid to get stuck into some messy topics integral to good 'pedia building, and seems to exhibit some diplomacy. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Thoughtful answers to questions. Opposition based on a lack of experience is misconceived, as this candidate clearly has the experience needed to use the few extra buttons wisely. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Moral support, thoughtful replies to the questions and unafraid of controversial issues. But rather inexperienced and possibly a bit too focussed on contributors, rather than content. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I don't expect problems with this candidate. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support; in spite of a low edit count, he's quite a strong candidate. Do please read the three diffs cited by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles above. This candidate will be a fine admin. Antandrus (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support. A refreshingly eccentric contributor. Adminship should be no big deal, and this candidate's attitude is consistent with that. No danger of abusing the tools here! --Ginkgo100talk 22:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support, very good answers to the questions. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support his answers and Le Grand Roi's diffs show wisdom that belies his number of contributions and make me doubt that he would use admin tools inappropriately. Rigadoun (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. This user can be trusted with the admin tools and has done good editing.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Overall a good user, and holds potential to be a good admin.Vice regent 19:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support This user is thoughtful, reasoned and sensible and I am actually fairly convinced this person would use the tools wisely if promoted. Edit contribs seem solid. Orderinchaos 03:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Weak Support I would have probably been neutral, but your handling of the whole debacle regarding "vote trading" has been exemplary. I suspect this RfA will not pass, and hope that if this is the case it is not too long before you ask for the tools again. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  10:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support "coz" you are a good contributor Abd El-Rahman. Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 15:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Weak support or moral support, I would like to see you with the tools, but PLEASE cut down on the length of your responces. Good luck! A man of honour (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. I'm actually rather impressed by this user's communication skills. Have those who complain about his lengthy responses stopped to read them? He responds to minor issues (like those on this RfA) with good nature, and he uses wit (and, yes, sometimes sarcasm) when it is merited. He has points of view, as everyone does, and he does the right thing with them -- bringing them into discussions about improving articles on their talk page. This is what I observe from following opposers' links to his "diatribes" -- they look to me like rather eloquent defenses of his position with no malice involved. If we would lengthen our collective attention span, we would gain an excellent admin. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'm sorry, but I don't believe you have enough overall experience as of yet. Jmlk17 06:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Per Jmlk17 - This was my major concern while doing my analysis. I'm sure in 4-5 months my username would be in the support list. Wisdom89 (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Somewhat Reluctant Oppose I have no doubt that Abd is a good editor, and I'm fairly certain that he can be trusted to use the tools properly. However, he admits in the 'discussion' section above that he is not an experienced Wikipedian ("I do not consider myself an experienced Wikipedian."). While his answers to the questions show intelligence, they also serve to illustrate his unfamiliarity with some basic aspects of Wikipedia. I'm not concerned with his edit count, but rather with the fact that, by his own admission, he is lacking in the experience department. And while I feel that he can be trusted to wield the tools, I think that at this point he lacks the experience to effectively and appropriately use the buttons. I could definitely see myself supporting some time in the future, but I can't now. Good luck! faithless (speak) 11:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the issue as I see it: can I be trusted to know when I don't know enough to take a strong action? I have not studied the policies and procedures for the use of those buttons because I haven't needed to know; though, from review of many arbitrations, I do have a pretty good idea of what not to do. Quite simply, in a few months I should have enough edits to satisfy most of those opposed here, but I will still not have the experience that would actually make a difference in administrative competence. I won't learn to use the buttons until I have them. If I am recruited to serve, I'll learn to use them, and I'm nearly certain that I won't be doing anything damaging with them. Instead, I'll simply be a bit slow and possibly inept at first, as with many things where I ended up being expert. This is a wiki. Most errors can be fixed in a flash, and I do know how to ask for help. The few edits that can't be easily fixed or that cause serious damage, are usually pretty obvious. I'm not going to be going in and deleting or editing templates and categories, until and unless I know *exactly* what I'm doing. I don't want to break the encyclopedia, and I do know what I don't know. --Abd (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - per Jmlk17. And although this has not much relevance with this RFA, does the candidate know what this means? Rudget. 12:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it took me some time to figure it out, it would have been helpful to specify it. It's a userbox that the user was working on. He is interested in delegable proxy for Wikipedia, and has rushed ahead a bit. I do in fact support the use of delegable proxy here, but not for voting; rather for the purpose of better estimation of consensus by balancing out participation bias. The expansion of polls by considering delegable proxy assignments would be at the discretion of anyone interested in such balance; and I had no role in the preparation and wording of that userbox and have subsequently expressed my opposition to it. Nobody votes for anyone else in what I'd propose. Rather, the formal system would be exactly as it is today. A closing administrator, if this works, might be able to better estimate the response the whole community would give if informed and asked, just as anyone may, now, weight votes in some way when they consider. We don't "vote," in theory, but, in practice, sometimes we do. Such as here. No fixed standard, though. --Abd (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strongly Oppose - He has a tendency to judge other editors and their editing practices far too often in talk, and believes that this practice is productive. He seems to have an unlimited amount of time to do lengthy commentary in talk, and has spent a lot of time researching editors edit history(in my opinion verging on stalking behaviour). He also appears to know a great deal about Wiki policy and these combinations, intentionally or unintentionally, have been used to wear many editors who disagree with him down. By this I mean that disagreements are resolved not through communication but by the other side simply throwing in the towel. He generally appears to be a little obsessive and has difficulty "letting things go". I am on the verge of making a formal complaint and have sought advice on how to proceed. I have placed four warnings on his talk page which were deleted. Granted, the third warning used the wiki "don't be a dick" as a heading with a quotation from that essay, but that was the behaviour I saw at the time. On hindsight that probably wasn't the best approach but you would think that a potential administrator would take the highroad and seek conciliation. The olive branch has been extended to him many times.--scuro (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    scuro, could you provide some diffs or links? It would help me in making my own assessment. Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was asked to comment and I did. "Comment" to me means opinions. To truly support what I said would take a long time so I really have to ask to what end? If the process would be part of a formal complaint that would examine Abd's refusal to stick to content, I'd agree. I'd like him to follow guidelines.
    Really you could argue that our perceptions make the case. There are three possibilities...I can be lying, I can be right, I can assume I am right but am wrong. Miamomimi, another editor who has also dealt with Abd, recently posted this about what I last posted at this RA, "Hi Scuro, I noticed the request to participate in a discussion below and would tell you that I concur with your comments". If I am a biased editor with no purpose other then POV pushing, she could be my counterpart. We are often on opposite sides of issue dealing with ADHD but we don't make it personal. We accept each other for who we are and work in good faith. So now that two editors have the same complaint, the possibility is that we are both lying, we are both right, or we both assume we are right but are wrong. The third possibility speaks to his style. If two contributors from very different backgrounds get a bad vibe from him, you have to ask why he should become an administrator at this point in time? Bottom line, he refuses to follow guidelines and stop commenting on editors or editors writing styles...even though several editors have asked him not to do so for the last month. That is a rigid stance, and he has not accepted several olive branches offered by Miamomimi or myself.--scuro (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, in RfA, one generally provides difs so that it will provide support for one's points and give the other members of the community an opportunity to see what you're talking about. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 05:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's certainly a long answer, scuro, but I just prefer a few diffs so I can see and judge for myself. If you want to dig them up, that's fine, otherwise I'll rely on the others' comments. --A. B. (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked for the same, many times, actually. He did once answer, in material I later removed from my Talk page and he reverted back, here is the diff for that:[5]. In a few other places he complained about something I wrote, where I could identify what he considered improper, which indeed may have been inappropriate comment, and I apologized and added strikeout to it. I do make mistakes.--Abd (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion went on way too long for the middle of an RfA, it was breaking the counting code, so I've moved the remainder of it from this point on, to Talk. A diff for the removal is here:[6], and a link to the continued discussion is here: [7]--Abd (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hah, two switches in one day. to neutral Look there.OpposeOn the right track. Not ready yet. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 15:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Switch to strong oppose per DGG, not every day when we agree, <<Grin>> and I think I he's too confrontational to trust with the buttons right now. A little less IAR; a little more AGF if you please. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 14:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad to be of help, bringing the community together to agree on something. As to those fine principles, it would be useful to give examples of what rules I've ignored, and what good faith I have failed to assume. I'm not aware of any, but I do make mistakes. (As it happens, most of the rules are phrased with sufficient wiggle room that I'm not sure I've actually had to ignore any. IAR is an approach that seeks guidance from the rules, but is not rigidly bound by superficial interpretations of them. At law, a judge who didn't understand IAR would be dangerously unworthy of the bench. There is a reason we have human judges instead of robots.)--Abd (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Tempted to decline" suggests that nominee recognizes a lack of readiness. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 15:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it could be read that way. But that is not what I meant. I was not tempted to decline because I'm possibly not ready. I'm ready, more than ready, I would have been ready at my first RfA, for reasons I think I explained then. No, the question is whether or not it serves what I see needs to be done to have the tools. Quite possibly not. I did eventually figure out some possible use, i.e., some way that I might be able to serve using them beyond the obvious sweeping of the floor and taking out the trash. Ultimately, though, I accepted because I was asked to serve. --Abd (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignore all rules as the guiding policy for use of the admin buttons does not leave me overcome with confidence. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 15:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not surprised. However, that is exactly what it is, both here and at common law. I did explain what WP:IAR means, in my opinion, which is, quite possibly, not what this user thinks it means. An answer is not required, but why is WP:IAR "Wikipedia's first rule to consider"? If I respond to a question of what are the most important policies, for me to state that one first is some kind of worrisome thing? You know what shakes my confidence? This user has over 15,000 contributions with one account and I didn't look at the other, and is an administrator here and wrote this. But, hey, it takes all kinds. --Abd (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but you have not convinced me that you have sufficient knowledge of editor blocking/unblocking, page protection/unprotection, page deletion/undeletion to have those buttons. The most important policy I use, despite your disapproval of my adminship, with 20,000 edits and almost 2 years of experience is WP:AGF]. I start out assuming the intent of the article creator or the editor was to improve the encyclopedia. If an examination the created article leads me to conclude the article created does not meet inclusion criteria, I sadly go about getting it deleted. If I reluctantly come to the conclusion that the edits are vandalism, I first warn and then block the vandal in hopes that he will learn to edit constructively. IAR as one's foundation suggests a maverick who will do as he pleases and who believes whatever he does is justifiable because it is he that is doing it. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 14:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I should counter this "disapproval of [Dloh's] adminship." I don't disapprove, and from what little I've seen, he is a fine administrator. But my comment -- which I think is about the "hottest" thing I've said here -- still stands, not as an accusation against him, which it never was, but as a comment on the fact that he -- and others -- seemed to be perturbed when I gave, as the most important rule, Rule Number One. Sure, it is quite understandable to want that I have more detailed understanding of the specifics, but I think I can read; few situations that I'm likely to encounter would be emergencies such that I'd have to act before checking guidelines about what I think I should be doing. But if I don't understand Rule Number One, well, I'd be in trouble. I've seen adminstrators desysopped because they really didn't get that. Sure, they broke some other guideline, but there are often conflicts between guidelines. Users can be blocked if they make a personal attack. Someone personally attacks me when I'm just doing my duty as I see it. Do I block him? Rule Number One would guide me even if I incorrectly balance NPA and administrator conflict of interest. So my comment here was intended, not to attack or refute Dloh, not to disparage his very impressive 20,000 edits and his obvious experience and cogency. I've seen IAR used exactly as he states a "maverick" would use it. But I was pretty careful to explain what IAR means, and it certainly doesn't mean what that maverick thinks. And to truly explore this would take actual tomes, which I'm not going to write today. Thanks for considering the issues (and thanks for other things as well.) --Abd (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Answer to question 1 does not hint at sufficient understanding to follow the rules, let alone ignore them. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 15:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me put it this way: I've become involved in some quite troublesome situations, with sock puppets and COI editors and wikilawyering POV-pushers, I've reverted and been reverted, standing on my understanding that, except for buttons, any user can do what an administrator can do, I've confronted abusive users and biters of newcomers, and I have yet to be rebuked by anyone knowledgeable for any violations of guidelines or policies, though certainly those editors have tried to make it happen. Could this possibly indicate that I understand those rules?--Abd (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    <EC>I found about ten AFD discussions in which nominee partook. I did not see any AIV referrals. I find it hard to substantiate any claim that nom has had sufficient experience to use the mop. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 15:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lack of link to prior RfA on this RfA and obsolete info on talk page do not suggest a grasp on policy/experience sufficient for adminship. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 16:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lack of link shows that nominee has never created an RfA, including this one, though I did a little more work on this one than the last. And an intermediate edit had an incorrect reference to the old talk page, I think, because it was copied from there and not noticed. Definitely, I'm not perfect, I sometimes take more than one edit to get where I'm going, and forget to Show Preview, or do and miss something. Of course, if I took even more edits, like some editors who seem to run a half-dozen in sequence routinely, I'd have my several thousand edits....--Abd (talk)
    The answer to question 3 suggests that nominee has learned little about conflict resolution beyond trying to ensure his position prevails. He continues to be embattled. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 16:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no ongoing conflict where it would be appropriate for me to start more formal conflict resolution. I'm not going to file RFC for an inactive sock puppet. I've found lesser means adequate, so far. There are people who think of me as some kind of enemy, but that is their problem, not mine, and I've done what I can to respond as appropriate, and, as will be explained -- with proof --, I've even tried to help them find a way to resolve the issue, since the basic problem is that they don't trust me.
    There are two present matters that might lead to WP:DR process. Some RFC on me might be filed, based on my "comments on editors," though I rather doubt it will happen. In my response to Scuro on the Mediation Cabal Talk page, I detailed the DR process, starting with simple discussion, all the way up through appeal to WMF. (Which would not have any relevance at all here, but Scuro's question there was very general, so the response was very general, and I might have written that as an administrator, though probably I'd have been ore succinct wearing that hat. And the other is that, since one of the issues raised in this RfA was a lack of experience with DR process, I'm considering filing an RFC myself regarding the editor, a blatant sock, who vote canvassed here, though the vote canvassing issue is only the tip of the iceberg, see Talk for this RfA where there is more detail, with refs to still more detail.
  6. Oppose Low edit count.Curious why previous RFA link was not put at the offset.Sorry but will support you in the future but not now.Good luck .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It did not occur to me. It was obvious that the prior RfA existed, given the title of this page. But I did not set up this RfA, and I was asked simply to answer some questions, which I did. I then noticed that there was an incorrect reference to history on the Talk page and I eventually figured out how to fix that, but used an older edit count tool taken from my last RfA, as I recall. Now, how much effort should I put in to making what appears here perfect? I agree, the link should be there, but should I stay up all night to polish everything, double-check it all, or should I just present myself to the community, answer honestly, and trust the process? This is a wiki. If there is an error, fix it, and someone did. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Pharaoh. Majoreditor (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - not enough edits yet.   jj137 (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose First, because IAR is the last resort, to be invoked only when nothing else is possible and there will be essentially total consensus on the result. It is not the guiding principle of ordinary work at WP -- If used that way, it is a prescription for chaos. The basic foundational rules that have obtained general consensus are the guiding principles.
    Second, because at the ADHD articles he cites as his best work, I see him taking a very judgmental view of the material, trying single handedly to sort out the contending experts, and citing his own personal knowledge. (That I agree with him on most of the actual issues is irrelevant.) If he acts this way as an admin., he will cause more trouble than he solves.
    Third, because I have the uncomfortable feeling the ed. intends to use WP as an study case for decision-making systems, and I do not feel we can take the risk involved in being an experimental subject. And finally, since he says that "I do not expect that I could perform much of the ordinary mop work." I think perhaps he would have been wiser to follow his first instincts and decline the nomination.DGG (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, I disagree with DGG on the matter of {WP:IAR]], but this is not the place to debate it, and I've written what I've written about it here to reveal my own views. That's what I'm doing here, revealing what I think and how I think, in order that editors may have some better picture of who I am. I have in other responses here detailed my claim that my ordinary editor behavior, as seen in my history, and my behavior as an administrator would be very different; my behavior, historically, as a conference chair was radically different from my behavior as an ordinary member of the conference. My comments in AfDs are more like what would be seen as an administrator. Some are longer than is normal, but none are tomes. At least I don't recall any! Some are quite brief, especially the more recent ones. I may elsewhere discuss DGG's views with him on content issues with the ADHD article. As to the "study case," I've addressed that elsewhere on this page, but, again, this has nothing to do with the admin bit, which would be useless for promoting or implementing that concept.--Abd (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 05:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "If they don't want to do what the community wants, they may refuse to act, but may never use the tools contrary to the consensus of the community." The question was which policies are crucial to your role as an administrator; it is not synonymous with which policy do you invoke first as an administrator. — Dark (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ". I don't know what kind of work I'll be doing, exactly, so I can't predict which specific guidelines and policies will be most important to my use of the tools. Not having had the buttons, I have not studied the actual policies involved in their use, " That makes reason 4, that he does not yet know what being an admin entails, and does not actually know WP policy. I commend him for having the good sense to recognize it. After he does learn about the polices here, he should reapply, for such candidness is in fact a good comment for the future. DGG (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG's comment here was the only one which has actually hurt, because of the respect I have for him. However, even a very good administrator can deposit a "steaming pile of crap." Joke. Subtle reference to Arbcomm case. Attempt to express that this process should be fun! Deflection of pain. And, seriously and to the point, DGG is of course correct, but I think he has overlooked that Rule Number 1 is, indeed, Rule Number 1. If someone does not understand Rule Number 1, they will not understand the rest of the rules, and they may actually be dangerous. Rule Number 1, misunderstood, is indeed the cause of a lot of grief. It doesn't mean "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." It means that the welfare of the project, and therefore the community, comes first. Understanding that rule makes one a teachable child, so to speak, and we don't hand guns to children. It takes understanding how that rule has worked out in practice, the statutory and common law of the community, before one can be a competent enforcer of the law (all the lrules, not just number one). Many people see WP:IAR and think of it as some radical thing. It isn't. It is ancient common law, the very foundation of all law. I look at User:Jimbo Wales' recent administrative actions, and I wonder about some of them, they do not seem particularly sophisticated. But, boy, did he ever get some things right! And on a very deep level. --Abd (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong oppose. I don't believe Abd has the people skills to be trusted in any way to represent the Wikipedia community. I must conclude that whatever intelligence, skills and enthusiasm he offers, this is fully offset by his ability to turn people off from future editing of Wikipedia through his continual judgement of motives and good faith edits by users. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tom, it would be helpful to me if you could cite an example where my assessment of a user's contributions was inappropriate. In nearly every case I assume good faith; however, you have seen me dealing with sock puppets, banned users, where an assumption of good faith can necessarily break down; but even then I continue to assume it where I can. Consider User:MilesAgain. He continually accused me of being uncivil for noting that he was a sock puppet, and likewise User:Tbouricius has complained about me noting that he is a Conflict of Interest editor, you have seen this again and again, and I think you may have swallowed some of it. Those were not uncivil and they were not attacks. In the case of Bouricius, I was careful to explain to him that "COI" was, for him, quite properly a badge of honor, he has been a public servant and he continues to try to serve; but that he has a clear COI means that he should stay away from contentious editing, as should have MilesAgain even if he had been legitimate, as he claimed. (That he was a sock was blatant from his contributions, but who he was, wasn't blatant. If it had been, he'd have been out of here much more quickly.) I'd also appreciate, if it is possible, an example of someone who has been "turned off from future editing of Wikipedia," due to contact with me. Truly. This is not a rhetorical question. Maybe I could apologize, I do make mistakes. That claim, however, was made by one of the editors solicited for comment here, indeed (I don't recall if he asserted it here directly); however, this was the pot calling the kettle black, his behavior was known to have driven off at least one expert, who does sometimes check back in but has become quite cynical about Wikipedia as a result of persistent POV management of an article. The interventions which made me so unpopular with some were designed to encourage several of these editors to be active. It is quite discouraging to spend hours researching and writing material, for a newcomer, to have it be reverted out with "see WP:RS" or worse. It's especially discouraging to an expert in the field and encounter this, such users will often write from their own knowledge; and when that happens, we really should work with them to find sources to verify their edits, not simply reject them. --Abd (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rudeness seems to be the key word here. I don't know ANYWHERE that people want themselves and their motives publicly analyzed, criticized and judged. And it seems online communication makes this mistake blindingly easy, so I have to look back at my own behavior as I judge yours! Meanwhile I'm judging you here on your invitation. I don't believe in Socks and Meatpuppets or whatever shit you like to see. I accept COI exists, but it is the problem of each of us ourselves to face. You come across as an asshole, and ever time I step away from the computer long enough to have some compassion, I return to find your rudeness in my face again. I don't think you should leave Wikipedia. Your work is often helpful, but don't expect happy co-contributors around you. I know lonely people can appreciate negative attention. Maybe it makes you feel better to be judged badly, to imagine how many people you annoy daily. I know as always, must look at my own failures as well to communicate kindly. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but I don't think I invited Tom, it was one of those unbelievable wikidrama sock puppets who invited him. I did write, however that the comment was welcome, having been made, and I'm sticking with that. I have a very negative effect on some people when I am open and frank; and I've often been accused of personal attack; but, somehow, when neutral parties go back and look at the actual text, it wasn't an attack. The attack was projected. (There is an example right in front of us on this page, Miamomimi's misquotation of me using the word "dense." She rememebers what she thought I said, and even when the exact nature of the misquotation was pointed out -- an unexpected meaning of the word, made possible by truncating a sentence -- she persists in her opinion. What happens is that people expect me to be "normal," and a "normal" person writing what I write might indeed be seriously pissed. What I'm generally doing, however, is describing the situation, as I see necessary, without the emotional drama that would be "normal." And people come unglued. Twenty years ago, one moderator on the W.E.L.L. deleted his entire conference when he realized that he couldn't delete all my comments without chopping the whole thing up, making it intelligible. (This was after months of apparently friendly interchange). What did I do? Well, I was open and honest -- and had, absolutely, the best of intentions. And, obviously, not enough skill to pull it off with this person. Now, I could write a lot more about what has happened with the article Tom is talking about. But not here. If I've acted improperly there, I'd invite an RFC. --Abd (talk)
  11. Oppose. You don't have to look further than "Q: What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why? A: They are yet to come." Without substantial editing (and without the associated interactions) in the mainspace, one cannot have sufficient appreciation of the situations that may arise requiring admin intervention. -- Iterator12n Talk 06:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the problem with that answer? With increasing knowledge of policy, you can definitely increase your editing capabilities. You cannot expect to know everything at the start. — Dark (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the trouble: starting with an adminship, and not starting with creative editing minus the mop. -- Iterator12n Talk 22:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per this report at WP:AN/3RR and the associated 2000 word diatribe when your request is denied. I opposed last time on this issue, and I see no progress since then. Please, Abd, target responses that are about 10% the length of your current responses. Brevity is the key. Ronnotel (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The incident involved subsequently consumed far more administrator time than it would have taken this administrator to actually read that "diatribe," taking possibly several minutes, notice the substance, and act. This, by the way, is the incident I referred to above when I said it pushed a button. Long story. Administrators should not reject 3RR reports that they find inconveniently formed; rather, they should leave alone what they don't care to address in substance, or don't have the time for, or they could actually serve the new user, and the community as a whole, by assisting instead of complaining about the user's ignorance. Never should a newbie be insulted with a word like "diatribe." (While I'd been editing for two years since registration, I'd only begun serious editing for a few weeks.) This incident could actually be a good example for WP:BITE. Instead of listening and helping, he rejected input from the unsophisticated community, because it was not in the exact form expected; I provided Contributions links to some IP edits, short lists of edits, most of them totally inappropriate reverts, possibly block-worthy individually, causing him to have to make, if he cared to investigate, one more click per block of contributions. I repeatedly asked how to respond to 3RR violations by an IP editor, with no answer. As I mentioned above, one of the tasks I'd be inclined to assume would be assisting new editors attempting to deal with 3RR and other incidents; this is an example of where having some buttons might be slightly more efficient. It's not necessary, though, I could assist without that. Good idea, thanks. I do know now how to file a report, and, indeed, learned within a few days of that incident about the form for diffs (it is amazing how one can overlook something so simple, but it happens more often as we get older, I've been told). As to "no progress," sure. A snowed-out RfA to one which is still, at this point, showing a majority in favor, with the large majority of opposition being based purely on edit count? Well, we can't find consensus by rejecting *any* opinion out of hand, no matter how ridiculous it may seem, so, Ronnotel, thanks for for expressing yours, it takes all kinds to make a community.
    As to the substance and subject here, which isn't Ronnotel, had I possessed the tools at that time, I would not have been able to use them, I'd have had to file a report like anyone else, because I was an involved editor, and these edits weren't vandalism. In fact, while in a case like this I'd again file a report, I've refrained from filing others even when I've seen 3RR and other blockable violations, because I've found that warnings suffice, usually, even though those warned sometimes think I'm attacking them. I'm sure they'd get more upset if they were blocked, which is one more example of how the tools are a minor convenience and the temptation to use them a risk for those who don't understand conflict of interest. Without the tools, I can't make the mistakes I've seen. But neither can I act as quickly and efficiently, where I'm not personally involved, which isn't currently common because I'm not at this point patrolling Special:Recentchanges or the like. When I see stuff, it is because I've taken an interest in the article, or sometimes in a user (because of activity with articles I'm interested in), same issue.--Abd (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize if you feel my tone was WP:BITEy. I assure you, my intention was to provide honest feedback. I believe you'll have more success as an editor and, eventually, an administrator if you can find a way to make your comments much more concise. Ronnotel (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. However, please do not confuse my expanded discussion in Talk, and detail in reports that may require some investigation, with my ability to be concise in action. I can be quite concise, but it takes me much more time. I do it where I seek to immediately influence someone or some community. Most of my Talk is not polemic, though some think it is, it is simply discussion, the exploration of a topic, often from more than one point of view in a single piece. Should, through some unfortunate congruence of planets, I become an administrator, you can be sure that official actions would be accompanied by cogent and brief comment, and only result in extended discussion when needed in review, not that I expect I would use the buttons in any controversial way. I disagree with the claim that Wikipedia is not a battleground, it obviously is in spite of the intention, but administrators, if they are going to struggle with "the evildoers, the forces of darkness, quackery, fancruft fanatics, and all other Satanic influences," should definitely take their administrator hats off and keep the buttons in the holster. Basic principle: if anyone is forced to read what I write, I must, out of courtesy, spend the time to boil it down to essence. So I also apologize for my clumsiness in that 3RR report. What I wrote about the experience, however, from the point of view of an example of a clumsy and inexperienced user trying to help the project by reporting abuse that he quite correctly identified, must stand. It's not about Ronnotel; as with most of my comment, it is about the principles and how we can better serve readers and editors. --Abd (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strongly oppose. I would echo Scuro's comments - Abd has a tendancy to get personal when challenged (see here) and does not assume good faith. Scuro and I oppose each other in viewpoint on the ADHD and controversy article we are currently researching but can manage to get along without getting personal. Though I'm sure Abd is well versed in Wiki policy, his long, l-o-n-g comments don't so much instruct as put you off or make you lose the will to live [8]. If you look at my talk page you will see it mostly taken up by Abd's comments. Miamomimi (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I read those comments in their entirely and it doesn't seem like anything but a thoughtful discussion which we was attempting to inform with personal experience. The tone of your comments there seemed more rude than his, in my opinion. As for the length of his remarks on this and other pages, he's a verbose guy but darned if he doesn't post a lot of insightful, well-reasoned points Sarsaparilla (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was invited to comment here and gave an honest response which I could have elaborated on such as [9] and [10] I didn't expect an argument. I was asked for my opinion in a discussion, I gave it. Surely part of an admins job is people skills. I find posting unsolicited 'well-reasoned' editing instruction on peoples talk pages wierd and Abd's tone often sarcastic and arrogant but it takes ages to give you examples of a general impression borne of reading so much stuff! I was asked for my opinion, I've given it. Miamomimi (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is probably not aware that her comment here was improperly solicited by User:Yellowbeard, see Talk. She is welcome to express her opinion, as far as I'm concerned, and she should be treated kindly. Please don't BITE the newcomer. And it's entirely possible that I did, certainly I'm socially clumsy at times, but I haven't seen yet what she is talking about enough to specifically apologize; like Sarsaparilla, I just don't get it from what she cites above, including the additional diffs. Looking through them, though, I did find one problem. On he Versageek Talk page,[11], she writes: "Really - and writing things like "Peter Hitchens's comment is dense" isn't contentious?" It appears that there was some misunderstanding. That quote was taken out of context. What I wrote was: "Peter Hitchens's comment is dense with a misunderstanding of Wikipedia, encyclopedias in general, and the problem of ADHD. So dense that I'm tempted to break tradition and intersperse. But I won't. Instead, I will quote snippets to respond; he has a question that is crying to be answered. Unfortunately, it's the wrong question, in a sense. Hitchens quotations are in italics."[12] The word "dense" can mean "stupid," and I think this is what she read this as, based on how she quoted it. It doesn't mean that here. It means that there were many, many issues raised in a Clockback complaint, and so I was tempted to answer them one at a time, as I might on a mailing list, my text and his text interspersed. "Dense," meaning much in a small space. And I'd invite anyone who cares about this to see if what I wrote was correct about the misconceptions. When an editor claims that an encyclopedia should be this or that, and what he claims is plainly contradictory to what Wikipedia is (as well as other encyclopedias), not to mention difficulties with his unsourced assertions about ADHD (not from reliable source, primary source, or his own experience), I think it is in order to point this out. But the word misunderstanding tossed gasoline on what might have been hot in any case. I'm grateful that this came up here, because this particular comment, I think, identified the nature of the dispute over Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and laid out my suggested plan to resolve it. Reviewing the source Miamomimi gave initially, above, with was after the matter of "dense," I can see that our communication had pretty well broken down, and I have the impression that I said some things in an escalating situation, that were unnecessary, for which I apologize, but to go into detail I can't do now, it is late and this is already too long; I am, however, grateful for the opportunity to begin to clear this up. I really was trying to help Clockback to accomplish what was legitimate about his intentions, and it is sad for me that this could not be seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 05:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For an editor who advertises his background as a proofreader and given his general lecturing tone when editing then yes when Abd writes an editors "comment is dense" I expect the meaning to be exactly as written. Thankyou for your apology Abd, though I see it has taken this discussion to prompt it. Clockback himself wrote "I don't think much of Abd's protestations of helpfulness. Those text-marks in Wikipedia are quite complex for amateurs and he could easily have fixed it." and Abd could have done. I have found Abd not generally helpful but appearing to be merely looking for an opportunity to lecture his own point of view or interests. If, as I read here, Abd is so disinterested in becoming an admin, then why the argument? (see neutrals) As my presence here was "improperly solicited" then I'll leave you all to your deliberations. But I wonder how people get to comment here if no-one tells them this is happening? Miamomimi (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Not experienced enough. By user's own assessment, he doesn't particularly need the tools. It's just a shame that a decent editor has to go through this RfA when he didn't even particularly want to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wryspy (talk • contribs) 21:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I know this community: you cannot measure my experience here by the edit count, for I've read lots of contentious deletion debates, plus, talk about being raked over the coals, many Arbitration cases, so I knew what I was getting into. I'm finding this extremely useful, so, please, have no regrets. I expected, actually, quite a bit less support than has been shown, given that I've been quite bold in ways that I could expect would push some buttons (just not Block yet!). As I write this, it is still majority support (which I know is not enough, a principle which I consider totally correct). As to being criticized, I have many children (seven altogether), and the older ones themselves have quite a few children, and I raised my kids to be assertive, to tell me what they think. And they do. Piece of cake, here. Have some tea.--Abd (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Not enough experience yet to meet my standards. Useight (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice set of standards, Useight, glad I looked at them. I've argued here against an edit count standard, but, actually, some minimum standard is probably quite a good idea, not sure what it should be.--Abd (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I've been honing and refining them. I think you do good work, but I just want to see some more of it. And try to limit the length of your comments, a bit. Some people don't like to read a wall of text. Useight (talk) 04:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Marginal oppose per my criteria for RfA. Lengthy answers to almost every oppose suggest a certain "I am right, and I'm going to pound this keyboard until I persuade you" attitude. Prefer a more conciliatory, 'listening' approach and a more economical, concise style - I infer that clarity of expression mirrors clarity of thought. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 02:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your concern has inspired me to address the larger problem of inadequate usage of conciseness in the Wikipedia community by writing a new essay, Wikipedia:Conciseness, which I hope will open a dialog on these issues (the term "dialog" being used here in the sense of "a reciprocal conversation between two or more persons" rather than carrying an implicit numerical restriction on involvement to two people as connoted by the Greek prefix "di-".) Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Thanks, Kim. Don't hold your breath for the "economical, concise style," though, I have ADHD, not marginal, and to be concise takes me far more time than to simply write what I would say to you if we were talking. I explain above about this, and I don't mind at all any editor commenting that I'm too verbose, though it's not terribly useful information to me, since I already know it and really do wish it were practical to do something about it. Note that when it's important that I be concise, I can do it, but that is typically when I have a focused point to make. If I were trying to convince you of something, to "persuade" you, as you seem to infer from my writing, I assure you, I'd be quite concise, with each word carefully chosen. But I'm doing something different here, I am, so to speak, sharing what I think about the issues that come up, so that you can, if you choose to read it and consider it, make a more informed judgment about me. I'm not trying to control that judgment; in fact I trust it (that is, I trust the collective judgment, and the collective judgment necessarily includes free individual judgment, all of it). I do listen and consider all that is written here, all the complaints, as well as all the praise. Now, this raises another issue: How do you know if I'm listening or not? In person, you'd know, if you were awake. But personal presence is high-bandwidth, far higher than this very narrow medium of symbolic communication. I've been communicating on-line for over twenty years, beginning with the WELL (virtual community) as an, ahem, moderator. I was long a moderator -- still am, technically -- of the Usenet newsgroup soc.religion.islam. One thing one learns pretty quickly, if one wants to stay sane in environments like that, particularly the very hot newsgroup, is to be very careful about reading minds from written text. Under the right conditions, I can read minds in person, often, with facility, and some other people can read mine. In person, what might take me a page of text, here, can sometimes be expressed -- and acknowledged -- with the eyes, in one moment, it still does not cease to amaze me. But with the written word, it takes special conditions. Read the Support comments above. Most of those users I never heard of before. Yet, apparently, they think I'm saying something. Do you believe what I'm saying to you? If not, why not? I can guarantee you, I may be mistaken, I may be socially unskilled in certain ways, but I'd never try to deceive you. I'd rather die. As to responding to the oppose comments, most of them raise some interesting point; if they don't, or if the point has been previously addressed, I'm not responding to keep hammering nails (though all will be personally thanked on the Talk page here before we are done, regardless of the outcome of this). One more point: I think dialectically. That means that if you say "A", I immediately think "not-A." And I might express it. Drives some people crazy. But my goal is not to convince them of "not-A," it is to find the synthesis, or, alternatively, to really establish "A" as a solid fact, because "not-A" has been thoroughly considered and rejected. Look, if I don't respond, how would you know at all if I heard you or not?--Abd (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In person, you don't necessarily know whether someone's listening either, unless you conduct spot checks. See Listening_problems#Pseudolistening. Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, not necessarily. Most people, including me, aren't awake enough to do it most of the time. That is, most of us have to go through, "Is this what you mean," etc.; but I was talking about something much more direct, which involves consciousness of the entire presence of the person: body language is far higher bandwidth than the voice, and the voice is far higher bandwidth than the words expressed. And, boy, are we wandering astray... --Abd (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So who do you think's going to win the Potomac primary tomorrow? I'm guessing Obama's going to sweep all three states, but we'll see. And if I'm wrong, it'll be engraved in Wikipedia history forever. (Unless someone deletes this edit. Unfortunately, it looks like I'll have to wait a few more months before I can ask you to remove the evidence of my lack of prognosticatorial acumen). Personally, I'm voting for Ron Paul partly because of his cannabis-friendliness and partly because my theory is that if we don't start supporting the underdogs in these races, it's just going to be the same kind of centrist candidates who end up polling 10% and making it into the debates. But enough politics. What do you think of how coach Bill Belichick walked off the field before the final play last week? Do you think he should be disciplined for doing that? Personally, I thought the whole ending of that Superbowl was slightly stilted, in that everyone was running onto the field all excited at the victory, and then they said, "Wait a minute, put 1 more second back on the clock." Sorry, I'm getting distracted from the most pertinent four questions I wanted to ask in reference to your AfD, which are, Do you believe that some zedens could also be properly classified as shibongs? What about rameks – would you consider some zedens to fall under that category? Which leads me to my next questions, are some rameks not of the bloop persuasion; and in your opinion, do some tarmaks not fit the definition of what we would normally consider to be bloops? I'm interested in your ability to not only exercise critical thinking about current events but also use analytical logic to unravel the type of complex situations encountered by admins on a day to day basis. Your duties will surely involve figuring out not just whether a particular user falls under the category of vandal, but whether he also deserves having the sockpuppet template or analogous notices slapped on his page. Think hard, my friend. This one is for all the marbles. Sarsaparilla (talk) 05:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fascinating. I'll respond in detail in Talk, perhaps tomorrow. (As an admin, I would indeed have to deal with this kind of communication, I think that may be Sarsaparilla's point. It's weird, but ... above he shows that he understands precedent. I'd warn him, though. A friend of mine, an ex-cop and lawyer, gave the finger to a police officer who had given him a traffic ticket. This was kind of an off-wiki version of WP:GIANTDICK. In other words, if the officer had actually done anything except simply get steamed, he'd have lost his job, which would have thrilled my friend. But ... another friend merely talked back to an officer and ended up in a wheelchair. An admin might not know the precedent, and review might consider the trolling. Don't tease the dogs, no matter how well-trained you think they are.--Abd (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per DGG and per my pounding headache (the kind you get right between the eyes and just above the nose - usually caused by staring at a computer screen too long and trying to understand what is on the screen.) My favorite long answer (and trust me, I'm as verbose and longwinded as they come - that's not the issue) is the long answer that follows Ronnotel's request to understand that "brevity is the key." Not that you've asked for advice, but I will echo the advice of Ronnotel as something to really strive at, Abd. When it's written "dialogue" instead of spoken, a long answer every time to every question is a turn off. It's too easily perceived as "talking over" the other editor, aka a Monologue. You obviously have sound ideas and sound objectives, but your answers eventually will only be skimmed, too easily discounted and likely frequently dismissed. Brevity is the key (he said in a long ironic paragraph). Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Keeper. If an editor does not want to read what I've written here, I've already written here that I will not be offended, and if the length or density of my writing makes it difficult for the editor to come to a conclusion, voting Oppose, simply on that basis, might indeed be appropriate at this time. Please don't strain yourself.It's true I did not ask for advice, but the nature of this RfA is that it is effectively invited, and, indeed, expected. After all, if this is going to go down, whether marginally or in flames, the usefulness of it is in the advice, direct as above, or indirect, as in what I observe, that is given. Another editor seems to think that I am running some kind of test on the community. That's not the case. Rather, the nominator and the circumstances are testing the community, I'm just responding honestly and openly, without modifying my behavior in order to influence this RfA one way or another. For me, there are a number of questions here in addition to an obvious one: is the Wikipedia community requesting that I serve as an administrator? I don't know the answer to that question yet, for sure, I only know the state of the votes on the face of it; supposedly, we don't make decisions by vote, eh? Some killer argument may appear that blows this out of the water, or, on the other side, that so impresses all the Oppose votes that they change their votes. It's not over until it is closed and, really, it's not over even then, because so many have suggested that they would change their votes if I simply had more edits, in a few months, that it seems reasonable that someone will nominate me again. It's by no means certain, but it looks like it would then be all over. As to the voluminous writing, my writing style *in discussion* is not going to change. But it has occurred to me that I can demonstrate a different writing style, the administrative writing style. I've been the chair of many meetings, and I might give speeches as a regular member, but what I say as a chair is entirely different. It is succinct, to the point, and rigorously neutral, and that is how I managed to be elected unanimously more than once in organizations that were quite contentious about just about everything. To me, the most important issue regarding as an administrator is how the person will act in issues that are possibly contentious, that can possibly harm a good-faith user or the image of the community. (If I am chosen to serve, I might establish and adminstrative account (as an open sock), for administrative purposes, so that I can clearly put in my admin hat and clearly act as an editor, when it is not as an administrator.) So, above, I'm going to take some specific examples that have appeared here and will state how I would have responded, were I not involved. If an editor does not want to read what I've written here, I've already written here that I will not be offended, and if the length or density of my writing makes it difficult for the editor to come to a conclusion, voting Oppose, simply on that basis, might indeed be appropriate at this time. When there is a future RfA, as seems might happen -- if external conditions don't prevent me from participating here, which could easily happen -- I will predict that, while I'll still answer questions, I won't do anything that could be considered debate, I will be the soul of brevity. The reason is that this RfA will be cited for reference. I'm 63 years old, I'm not going to change my spots in a few months unless some more serious brain disorder appears. And I am going to suggest, and set up a means to implement, that all editors who have participated in this RfA be notified, if they personally consent, of any future RfA for me, so that they may review my record, as being already somewhat familiar with it from my behavior here. I especially invite the Opposed editors to participate in this.--Abd (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Changing to oppose now. In one "word": TL;DR. Seriously, try to be more concise. Your posts regularly span my entire screen height+. Also per DGG, Dloh (I always have to look up your precise username, so I'm now going to call you that from now on if you don't mind, I think it's a rather cute nickname) and Keeper76. User:Dorftrottel 18:11, February 12, 2008
    Cool Maaybe that will help conceal my secret identity. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 19:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kim Dent-Brown says it best: "I infer that clarity of expression mirrors clarity of thought." User:Dorftrottel 21:24, February 12, 2008
  19. Per answers to questions. Andre (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Abd has played important roles and made valuable contributions to Wikipedia. However, Abd has not demonstrated the consistent judgement and self-control required of an admin: use of 'allegedly' (diff) and justification, removal of content without reading supporting sources (diff) and justification, purveying OR (diff)] examined, and able but unwilling to be concise and on topic. For him, dual roles as admin and POV advocate would create mutual interference that separate accounts would not resolve. The mutual goals of Abd and Wikipedia would be better served in other ways. DCary (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Attitude toward naysayers is too defensive for me to approve. TML (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose based on lack of people skills shown here and on Abd's talk page. 90% of the work I do as an admin involves communication with other editors. Editors who are often frustrated because their article was deleted, they've been blocked, or an article they proposed for deletion wasn't deleted. Tact is essential, and I'm not seeing it here. Sorry. --Fabrictramp (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per the above concerns. Try again in a few months and I may support. NHRHS2010 01:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose from a user who has never crossed paths with Abd but has doubts due to other Wikipedians' concerns and the amount of dispute around this RfA. I wouldn't like him to bear the mop. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose per the above concerns. Yellowbeard (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. If it takes more time to make more concise statements then you need to take more time to make more concise statements. Your response to this concern (above, several times) has been very dismissive. Indeed, for some editors it takes more time to be civil, or to use edit summaries, or to actually read a guideline or policy. And so they take this extra time, though they find it inconvenient. I believe that you need to do so as well. --JayHenry (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose per my standards and others' concerns. This editor does not yet know much about WP, even after more than 2 years. I can not trust this user at this time. Come back after a few more thousand edits and clean hands. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. One small point: if you look at Special:Contributions/Abd, you will see that I only started serious editing a few months ago. I don't think I read a policy or guideline or did more than sporadic edits, before the last week of September, 2007. If that means anything. --Abd (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose per User:DGG, User:Kim Dent-Brown, and User:Bearian in addition to User:Abd's responses to RfA questions and the user's Shakespearean "I get paid by the word" mindset in rebutting oppose votes. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 01:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean I don't get paid by the word? (I'm not rebutting oppose votes, I'm responding to them. But I guess this could be seen as a rebuttal. Nevertheless, Jamesontai is, I assume, accurately describing his view of the situation, and that's what I'm paying him to do (so to speak), except I'd hope for more detail about the problems with my "responses to RfA questions, since that is stated as an "addition." But if the problems have already been mentioned by others, he need not bother. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Review WP:HUMOR. Now read this: I accept PayPal. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose - Per Keeper; I also have a large headache after reading this page and the talk page. Aside from that, there have been too many issues bought up for me to comfortably support. PookeyMaster (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose Not enough experience in my books. Gary King (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong Oppose Abd Lomax unfortunately is an idealogue on the issue of instant runoff voting and perhaps others (I know he did anough to irritate people on the approval voting listserv to be banned from it, and is quick to call people "sock puppets", "meat puppets", etc.). Abd certainly is quick to jump to conclusions about other people and their actions, which he certainly has done with me. On the issue of balanced perpsective consider the post below he made to the range voting listserv (he is a big advocate of range voting and approval voting, some advocates of which for some reason think that the best way to advance their reform is to trash other reforms like instant runoff voting).

Here he writes about "irritating Rob Richie" (that's me, which is how I found out about this). He says he is "out to get me" and that his tactics are working, etc. Since then he's becom a voluminous editor of the instant runoff page, editing out things that are straight from objective sources based on his own, minority perspective of the issue. Some of his contributions in fact are good, but in general, he definitely is not balanced enough to have any special editing privileges.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/message/6021 Re: [RangeVoting] Irritating Rob Richie? At 09:56 PM 9/11/2007, warren_d_smith31 wrote: >A certain individual in a post advocated, or said he was >mulling, trying to intentionally irritate Richie. As a strategy. >Huh? I am saying, I see no benefit. Moi. And, Warren, you don't have to see any benefit. The benefits are already appearing.

Richie has considered you the bad guy. Part of the strategy of being a pair in the rump is that he may come to realize that you are the soul of openness, that you are not out to get him. Compared to Clay and me, and I *more* out to get him than Clay

I.e., even though he has not insulted me *personally*, he has insulted Jan and you, two very nice guys who are working hard for the benefit of society.

You have no control over me. You can influence me, and I listen to what you say. But I'm independent, and I am not bound by any agreements which may appear between you and FairVote. If I think them beneficial, I will respect them. If not, I won't.

There are actually some excellent examples from history, but I won't go there now.

>1. Our goal with Richie, is to get his talents and our talents working >together. That is because Richie has a lot of talent and resources.

Hey, great. However, you and Jan were already pursuing this goal, and I was quite with you on that. Richie turned it down. He's now experiencing the alternative. I think he doesn't like it. So he now has a motive to try to work together.....

...I don't understand this comment. Was it garbled? We share the goal of public education. I'm including, in this, an understanding of what FairVote is trying to do, and I actually mention, so far every time, I think, that the ultimate goal is a good one, but what is the problem is the tactics. Someone who assassinates a political figure may have a good goal -- the guy might be a real problem, the one assassinated -- but the tactics are wrong, usually. And it becomes necessary to act against the violation of fundamental principles and law. The nobility of a goal might or might not be relevant.

Long and short of it is that Abd Lomax can participate here, of course, but deserves no special powers over content! Hope I do the right sign-off there....RRichie (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral
  1. Trustworthy editor, however lack of experience in areas that relate to using the extra buttons. Addhoc (talk) 11:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral at present. I am inclined to support, but would first like to see a comment from you relating to the diff highlighted by Rudget, naming you as another user's proxy voter. In which votes is not specified. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 13:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I explained above. That wasn't my action, it was a test userbox, I did not approve it, and even if we had a proxy voting system in place, and we don't, I would not be soliciting proxies. --Abd (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    comment went under wrong comment Have a look at Scuro's talk page. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 16:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral -I'm concerned about the lack of experience, and am unsure about supporting, but the concerns aren't enough to oppose. I do think that Abd has shown a good knowledge of policy, and will keep an eye on this RfA for anything that may cause me to change my mind. In any case, best of luck to Abd, and please don't get disheartened if this fails; you will still be an excellent editor. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath on this RfA. I would not have initiated it, (and don't plan to initiate one in the future). This has nothing to do with editing articles or working on policy. Legislators don't carry guns, Wikpedians working on guidelines and structural traditions don't need admin tools.--Abd (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I see a very good editor in your future...you have a good knowledge of wikipedia's policy, but the lack of experience doesn't quite want to make me support yet. I'll vote for you in another RFA, just maybe later. SpencerT♦C 18:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - You're a good candidate, but need just a bit more experience. Up the mainspace counts, and it would be a support from me. Mastrchf91 (t/c) 02:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I need some advice. Should I make more mistakes in mainspace edits so I can get two or three for one? --Abd (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    From Dloh's comment below, I suspect that this may be read as purely sarcastic. There was no element of sarcasm in the "Thanks." The real point of the question was to raise the issue of edit counts once again, as I see this as a basic issue here (if not for it, I'd be down at the leather shop getting fitted for my button holster). Edit count is radically manipulable, deliberately or through editing habits, some of which are harmful. I don't see any substitute for a careful examination of the edit history of a nominee. I did that with the only RfA that I recall voting in, and came up with some problems in spite of edit count. Making a snap judgment in an AfD with a "per nom" comment is really quick. So I asked about it, with my Oppose vote. The nominee responded with appropriate recognition that it had been an error, and, even though I still had some concerns, switched my vote to Support. I'm impressed whenever someone admits an error, it is a trait that can make up for many shortcomings. Now, should I make some mistakes so that I can then get some points for admitting them? Joke! <---- humor. Not serious. --Abd (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Switch to neutral per this part of his response to Ronnotel below (my emphasis): "As to the substance and subject here, which isn't Ronnotel, had I possessed the tools at that time, I would not have been able to use them, I'd have had to file a report like anyone else, because I was an involved editor,". I still think the nominee is a bit of a hot head. (If you want to know why, just read some of his responses. RfA is stressful, so I'll cut him some slack, but having the buttons isn't always a walk in the park either.) So I can't support. But he does seem to trying to help and do more than POV push. His response to conflict seems to be overly zealous, and that turns a lot of people off. The most important traits an admin can have may be the ability to entertain the idea that one might be wrong coupled with patience with the wrongness of others. I just don't see that. And really, the wordiness is not helping. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 16:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And the sarcasm. Kindly lose that as well. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 16:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Humor is frequently problematic in written communication; however, AGF. Assume it is humor rather than any kind of biting sarcasm. I am not writing here for newbies, but for a community that I will be working with whether or not I get the admin bit. What sarcasm? Can I get Dloh to change his vote back? Behind every apparent sarcasm, for me, is an attempt to explore some point; think of it as excessively terse! I can only guess what he had in mind. Was it the comment above about making mistakes in mainspace edits? There is a real issue there, one of the basic ones that this RfA explores: what does edit count reveal? Some editors apparently don't use Show Preview, and will make a half-dozen edits fixing punctuation. I dislike this practice, because it fills up History, making it harder to find stuff, but I do also make mistakes. However, it would be easier for me to just Save page. The sarcasm involved there, I'd guess, is that I know the answer, I should not avoid Preview, and independently I know how offensive it would be for me to deliberately manipulate my edit history to up my edit count, even if it would probably never attract notice, but that nevertheless I raise the question to make a point about edit count. Was it effective?--Abd (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it comes across as biting and antagonistic. It almost set my oppose in concrete. Sometime less is more. Usually, the more words one uses, the easier it is to dig oneself into a whole hole. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 18:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Were I trying to convince readers of anything, I'd be quite contained and quite likely more persuasive. However, there may be a method to my madness. Watch out for that concrete, it's wet!--Abd (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not the sharpest tack in the box, but I think Dgg was right when he said, "Third, because I have the uncomfortable feeling the ed. intends to use WP as an study case for decision-making systems, and I do not feel we can take the risk involved in being an experimental subject. I guess is to late to avoid. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 19:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It takes a pretty sharp tack to see that, at this point. It has almost nothing to do with this RfA, though. (It's a suggested application, of a concept that is popping up all over the world, not a study case, and the application is such that nobody participates except totally voluntarily, it binds or obligates nobody, and the existing system does not change. It's essentially fail-safe; if it fails, nothing is broken, and very, very little has been invested. (nd, yes, if it fails, it is still valuable as a trial, perhaps it will save others the pain of false hope, because that is about the only cost if it fails. So -- I'm not holding my breath, and I don't suggest anyone else do so either.) --Abd (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral to avoid pileon, something I don't normally do, but I see no harm in this fellow, other than he (a) doesn't want to be, and (b) doesn't have the knowledge to be, an admin. I wish he had simply declined.  RGTraynor  00:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please change your vote to Oppose if you believe I should not be an administrator at this time. If you are merely undecided, please don't change it, and, of course, if what appears here causes you to change your mind for support, you could decide to do that as well. I will request that this AfD not be closed per WP:SNOW, even if it snows, which could happen -- though I don't expect it. There has been sufficient opposition expressed here that I would not be comfortable accepting the mop at this time, on the face of it. But that could change. There will be some vote analysis by the closing admin, and possibly even more by me, for my own understanding. For example, if I weight votes by the number of edits, what is shown? What happens if I remove the "lack of edit count" votes? If I weight votes by who is and who is not an administrator, what is shown? If we had a delegable proxy system (or any proxy system or other representational system), I might look at that the effect of that as well. But I would make my own decision as to my own actions, just as the closing administrator will decide as to his or her own action, both of us being personally responsible for what we do. I thank RGTranor for expressing his view, and if, indeed, his conclusion is that I don't have enough knowledge to be useful as an administrator, he definitely should Oppose, and I might personally count his vote as such. I will also note, that in a few months, when I will probably have enough edits that the objection on that basis will disappear, I will probably not know much more than now, about what really counts. The only way I am going to learn the details is through experience that demands the knowledge. I learn hands-on, and I'm almost entirely incapable of learning in any other way. That's ADHD for you. (I have learned what I have learned chaotically by following interests with respect to what has come up, I have made no general attempt to learn about details that are moot so far.)--Abd (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you should be an admin, but I'm not changing anything. Would there be a point to doing so? You'd need about sixty, sixty-five straight Support votes to promote, at this point. That's not the relevant bit. What is relevant are the many comments in this RfA, and it would be a crying shame if those messages were obscured by you trying to parse the precise percentages of those "against" you as opposed to those "for" you. Either you will take those comments to heart or not. If the former, great. If the latter, my tally on one side of the fence or the other isn't going to matter a tinker's damn.  RGTraynor  10:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks; I will personally class this vote with one of the Oppose votes based on lack of experience. What's important to me is the sense of a vote, not the exact form, and my concern isn't about "winning," partly because I don't know which outcome is a "victory." I will, indeed, "parse" the votes here, for my own understanding -- and the results of that will be available -- but I consider none of the votes as being "for" or "against" me. If you will read carefully, you will see that, while I've given contrary evidence for some of the oppose votes, I take none of them as being "opposed" to me; rather, they are in opposition to setting my admin bit. My apparently contrary argument is an example of the dialectic that pervades my thought process, and I'm taking the opportunity at the moment of expressing the other side: edit count is a simple measure, easy to use, and most voters don't have time to do the deeper research that would be necessary to truly understand and apply more sophisticated measures. Perfectly legitimate. N edits with no trouble? Pretty likely to be safe.--Abd (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the RfA process is deeply flawed at best. People (a) do knee-jerk, superficial examinations of such evidence as exists, (b) shoot down candidates based on irrelevant trivialities such as whether they have "enough" edit summaries or talk space edits, or whether or not it's a self-nom, (c) ride hobby horses such as the bizarre notion that a failure to demonstrate interest in XfD (or vandal fighting, or noticeboard debates, or fair use policy ...) automatically disqualifies a candidate, no matter how much he or she protests that no intention to muck around in those areas exists, (d) promote the unhealthy notion that alleged conduct outside of Wikipedia, even in private e-mail, should have a bearing on the issue, (e) seize upon incivilities, no matter how far back, but Oppose only if a crucial percentage of others do the same, (f) feel it's perfectly okay to canvass in opposition, or (g) go ballistic at the suggestion that RfA is a vote, which almost unique to Wikipedia it most blatantly is. If a number of these editors received a performance evaluation at work based on similar criteria, I'm sure they'd be calling attorneys fifteen minutes later. That being said, I'd love it if the process was taken out of community hands; discuss a candidacy all you like, but forget even the semblance of a vote.  RGTraynor  08:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral TLDR per Dorftrottel. There are pros and cons here, so I'm not giving a definite answer as of right now. However, I'm just wondering why you make page long, run on paragraph responses to an oppose that says "brevity the key", then another page long response to an oppose saying that he didn't like your page long response to the "brevity is key" post. нмŵוτнτ 21:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    hmwith, I have reasons which I have already explained elsewhere, but, since you ask, do you want a short answer or a long answer? Nobody is obligated to read what I write, here or elsewhere in discussion spaces. What is effective here is the votes and reasoning given by the voters, not anything I say. Given that, I'm allowing the community to see who I am and what I am by being fully expressive; whenever a question is asked or some new issue arises, I'm writing about it, sometimes briefly, sometimes not, and none of this is polemic. --Abd (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just, as many people said, you can get your point across better with a summary of what you're thinking. People will actually read it then. If you're asked to elaborate, that's the time to go on. Communication skills are important, and, if you can't quickly & simply get your point across, that's an issue. нмŵוτнτ 05:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral per RGTraynor. Why does this RfA lack an acceptance statement from the candidate? Does he want to be an admin? Darkspots (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) I don't know. I answered the questions on the page as I found it, I did not create this page. (2) No, it's a nuisance, low pay, colossal temptation to pour time into the project in boring ways. (3, implied) I accept this nomination and will serve if community consensus supports it. I'm not a candidate, I'm a nominee, willing to serve if handed the mop. It's up to the community whether or not it sees that as appropriate and I fully trust that the community will make the right decision, with no preconception at all of what that is. Thanks for asking. --Abd (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I really appreciate your honest reply, but I will never support an RfA without an acceptance statement from the nominee. I feel that it is first up to you to decide if you want to be an admin. Your implied acceptance, as well as the ambivalence you express in your answer to me, is insufficient. Darkspots (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The "implied" was about the question implied by your comment, not my acceptance, which was explicit, with "I accept this nomination and will serve if ..." However, since apparently the form was not followed by somebody in setting this up, I have explicitly accepted at the top. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 00:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Time will tell - The Transhumanist 05:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ... "just who has fell and who's been left behind." Thanks.
  11. Neutral I don't know what to vote in this. I am torn between both of the arguments listed under both of the support and oppose headings. Razorflame (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me suggest this: don't be "torn," please, it's uncomfortable. There is no emergency here, and making the "wrong" decision is actually impossible. Impossible! So, if you have questions, or would like to explore any of the arguments with me (or others), there is the Talk page attached to this. (And others, of course, may do this as well. Probably would have been better for much that was already done here.) --Abd (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral. I don't think that you would "misuse" admin tools. However I am concerned by some of the more judgemental comments. I expect that you could convince me to support you in a few months. Axl (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral in lieu of piling on. As an adherent to the KISS principle, I find the excessive verbiage in your responses, Abd, quite impenetrable. I have attempted to read everything here a couple of times, but my eyes have glazed over before getting very far so I really don’t know what kind of an admin you would make. If you wish to attempt another RfA in the future, I’d suggest a bit more brevity in your responses. —Travistalk 16:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for commenting, Travis. There are a few neutrals that I may be personally analyzing as oppose. What is written with each response here is for two purposes: one is for the person I'm personally responding to, as this one is for you. The other is to show how I think. This isn't me as an administrator, it's me, for better or for worse. When I write without a "point," i.e., some predetermined purpose, i.e., polemic, mild or otherwise, something I'm trying to convince others is true, I will bring in, as it were, many points of view. Some people find this style quite irritating, others enjoy it and find benefit in it. I think there is enough here to see how I'd be as an administrator, but I'd suggest looking at the comments of others: they are filtering it for you. You could, of course, also look at my contribs, but, of course, you will find a lot of open Talk there as well. Look at my mainspace edits and the summaries for something closer to admin behavior, except, as an admin, I'd be even more constrained. I did not "attempt" this RfA, and only decided to accept the nomination because I thought it would be valuable to find out what the community thinks and how it works, and for the community to meet me more deeply. If I were to accept another nomination, that motive would no longer be there: this RfA will stand, and so I'd be quite restrained in that one. Plus, of course, I'm likely to have many more edits. I only started editing seriously at the end of September, 2007. Again, thanks. --Abd (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Abd_2&oldid=1085560625"