Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Remember the dot 2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


Remember the dot

Final:(74/3/1); Ended 16:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember the dot (talk · contribs) - Wizardman nominated me for adminship back in October, and the nomination was closed as "no consensus". After my last RfA, I asked those who opposed me to elaborate on their concerns. Many declined to respond, several expressed support for me after the fact, and one has been indefinently blocked for sockpuppetry.

I would like to make a fresh start. (In other words, let slip the dogs of war... ;-) Remember the dot (talk) 17:04, 6 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 would like to help out with blocking persistent vandals, carrying out protected edit requests, and image deletion. I have had quite a bit of experience in all of these areas. It would be especially useful to be able to see deleted revisions of images transferred to the Commons without proper licensing information, so that I could add the correct source and licensing and prevent the image from being deleted. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am happy that I helped get Opera (Internet suite) (nom) up to featured article status. I also created the PNG crusade bot to assist in the automatic conversion of images to the PNG format when it is beneficial to do so, removed newbie traps such as {{Copyrighted}} (nom), {{Permission}} (diff), {{fair use}} (nom), {{Fair Use}} (nom), and {{FairUse}} (CSD G6), assisted in the development of a JavaScript script to improve the display of transparent PNG and SVG images in Internet Explorer 6 (IE7, Firefox, etc. do not need the fix), and have uploaded many images to the Commons for use on Wikipedia. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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: There have been several. Typically a discussion ensues and we come to an agreement. For example, at MediaWiki talk:Common.js/Archive Oct 2007#Internet Explorer fix for PNG transparency and again at MediaWiki talk:Common.js/Archive Nov 2007#PNG fix disabled there was long debate and compromise about the PNG workaround script for Internet Explorer 6.
I strongly oppose using administrator privileges with the intent of forcing the result of a discussion one way or another. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Avruch

4. What about you as a candidate has changed or improved from your last RfA? Have you addressed the concerns raised previously that caused your prior nom to be unsuccessful?
  • I have enabled the prompted edit summary preference.
  • I have installed twinkle which automatically adds edit summaries for common tasks.
  • I have gained a greater understanding of WP:IAR and a greater desire to simply do nothing when enforcing policy as written wouldn't do us any good.
  • While I have jumped the gun on making protected edit requests in the past, I have resolved to be more careful about this in the future. Specifically, I will ask for comments before creating new pages in the MediaWiki namespace or making significant changes to templates, especially changes that would break backwards compatibility.
—Remember the dot (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention that I now know the difference between a WP:BAN and a WP:BLOCK as well. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:53, 8 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?
Discuss the issue with the administrator who removed the material. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. You have said you will not add yourself to administrator recall. Is this still true?
I have no objection to administrators who make themselves open to recall. I am not going to add myself to this particular category, however, if a user wished to run me through RfA again and I received less than 25% support, I would give up my adminship. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the comments below, I've given this a bit more thought. I would have to approve any confirmation process, and I doubt I would approve one because a single user wants it. If there were several users calling for it, then sure, I would go along with it. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a comment User:Firsfron/Accountability is a pretty simple approach. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Each admin sets his/her own criteria at Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria and you can peruse what others have done. I agree that you definitely don't want to add yourself to the category without laying down some criteria. --A. B. (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Now that you've explained that, I would be happy to add myself to the category. I've laid out my minimum criteria at User:Remember the dot/Recall for reference. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. In your last request you asserted that as an administrator you would not delete non-free images that lacked a non-free use rationale. Is this still your view, particularly in light of the Foundation initiatives taken in this direction? How do you view the speed-tagging of faulty rationale images by BCBot and the subsequent deletion by script-wielding administrators?
It regularly does more harm than good. I could see myself deleting images tagged with Template:Non-free fair use in, but not images tagged with the more specific fair use tags. If an image is uploaded in good faith and meets the policy, it's counterproductive to delete it for not explicitly saying that it meets the policy. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A WP:BAN "is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent. The standard invitation Wikipedia extends to 'edit this page' does not apply to banned users." A WP:BLOCK is a technical method to prevent users from editing Wikipedia. "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." Unlike bans, which are enacted by the community, blocks are enacted by individual administrators and may be overturned by other administrators. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Keepscases

9. Which Charles do you like the best? Why?
A: I have a friend named Charles ;-) —Remember the dot (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping you would pick someone from the Charles page, and explain. Keepscases (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I have no opinion. Should I? —Remember the dot (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Mønobi

10. If an article is deleted per CSD#A7 and then recreated, can be deleted again per CSD#G4?
A. No. WP:CSD#G4 applies only to material that was deleted because of a deletion discussion. Also, if circumstances have changed and the reasons given in the deletion discussion are not longer valid, it would be inappropriate to delete the material again. For example, if an article was nominated for deletion and deleted due to lack of notability, and the topic has since become notable, then it would be inappropriate to mindlessly delete that article again under WP:CSD#G4. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional (seriously!) questions from Ral315

11. What is your understanding of the biography of living people policy, and how would you deal with violations of the policy?
A. That when dealing with biographies of living people, we must get the article right. I would like to see all BLP articles have extensive citations to reliable sources, but I understand that this probably won't happen. Nevertheless, should any dispute arise about content in a BLP article, then that part of the article must be scrutinized for strict compliance with WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and any other relevant policies or guidelines. If the disputed part of the article does not meet the policies and guidelines, then it should be fixed immediately or removed immediately. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. What is your view of Ignore All Rules?
A. If a rule, guideline, or policy does not bring us closer to our ultimate goal to bring more knowledge to more people, then it should be ignored. Bad policy needs to be fixed, not enforced in a draconian manner. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from WJBscribe (talk · contribs)
13. When may users use non-free content in userspace? How is this affected if the non free content in question is copyrighted to the Wikimedia Foundation?
A. The short answer is that it is against policy to use non-free content in the userspace. Yet it is counterproductive to remove non-free content from the userspace that is copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. When might it be appropriate to edit the userpage of another editor?
A. To enforce policies such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The purpose of enforcing these policies is to prevent editors from discouraging others from contributing. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support - As per last time. Rudget. 17:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I supported last time. I still think that Remember the dot is a good user. Acalamari 17:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - I know it sounds lame but the issue for me last time was edit summaries and that seems to have been addressed. Ronnotel (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. No problems here. Malinaccier Public (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support again. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support an excellent and intelligent user who clearly supports our free content policies. Most of the opposition last time was, in my opinion, based off an unfortunate and unfair misrepresentation of The Dot's views. --JayHenry (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Another great editor soon to be an admin... κaτaʟavenoTC 18:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support This is one of those editors I'd see around and just assume he/she was an admin, which demonstrates that I, and the community, already trust this user. нмŵוτнτ 18:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, just like last time. :) GlassCobra 18:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Dlohcierekim Deleted? 19:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no relationship between the nom's position on a matter on which there is no official consensus, recall, and his ability to use the mop. Nom has adequate experience and knowledge to use the mop. Nom is civil and willing to receive and act upon feedback. The net gain for the community is in a positive benefit vs a hypothetical negative. Some of us have not made ourselves available to recall. This nom has. This tells me what he thinks of the community-- that he stands ready to serve and ready to be held accountable should the community have concerns with his wielding of the mop. I believe he will wield it well. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 04:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Switch Strong support per Kurt. I see self nomination as prima facie evidence of having the self confidence to wield the mop well and not in a wishy-washy manner. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 16:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - solid candidate who knows policy well. Will be good with the extra tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I've editted with him and trust his judgement. MBisanz talk 19:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I've seen his participation in Wikipedia and I'm impressed. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 19:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Seems very dedicated to Wikipedia and vandal control. Wexcan (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Great user trustworthy. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per Q9 Strong support. Passes level 3 of my criteria. Excellent user. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN round of applause 20:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Trustworthy. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC) struck - bowed to pressure. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Understands policy, seems trustworthy. Majoreditor (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Yes, I remember the dot! Majorly (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - more admins willing to help with images are needed. Addhoc (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Well do well with the tools. SpencerT♦C 23:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Good answers, a little concerned about the recall threshold (1 user?). That'll get cleaned up in time I'm sure. Avruchtalk 23:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Fully qualified candidate. (I agree with the comments that the candidate's recall criteria should be rethought, though.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support' No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support The recall criteria are a little dodgy but I always think it's an unfair question to ask at RfA, since no one, including yourself, really knows how you'll handle the tools, what you'll do with them, who you'll come into contact with in the course of usage... etc. Plenty of time to think that stuff through later :) Solid work, especially on images. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Bearing in mind admin recall is a personal option, that's not an issue for me. But RTD has a good grasp of policy particularly in relation to images, and shows a mature attitude. That's good enough for me. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Qualified. --Sharkface217 04:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - Per |Dlohcierekim. Gromlakh (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. the_undertow talk 05:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Poorly considered answer to recall as stated by Tim; but I cannot honestly say that Remember the dot didn't improve from his last RfA. He has overcame many policy experience problems present in the last RfA, and seem to be much more knowledgable about them. Although I have a different view on fair use, I trust that he will not voice his opinion to the point of disruption. We don't have many admins tackling the image backlogs of Wikipedia and any help will be appreciated. Good work and good luck. — DarkFalls talk 05:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Cry havoc! Dfrg_msc 06:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - Has done what has been requested of his and has improved his candidacy. Based on my limited experience with him, I believe RTD would be a greater asset to Wikipedia as an administrator. By the way, question #12 is brutal. Enigmaman (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Medieval Man 06:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support While the answer to question #6 is not the best wording I have ever seen, the candidate is at least honest about it. Second, I am completely baffled by the rationales of the three opposes below, in which one seems to be based more on prejudice than reality, and the other two having nothing to do with the candidate's competence with the admin tools. —Kurykh 07:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I'm slightly concerned about the degree of replaceability issue brought up in the last nomination, but on the whole Remember the dot's work with images is exemplary. I trust that this user will hold himself accountable for his administrative actions regardless of recall category membership. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 08:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support some evidence of 'pedia building which I hope will continue. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Good candidate. Epbr123 (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Again. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support issues that have been brought up at this RfA will no doubt be addressed by the candidate. Otherwise a great user and a good candidate for the mop. Pumpmeup 10:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, no valid reason to oppose (and the 2 year experience minimum mentioned below is risible). Stifle (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support this user. He meets all my standards. He has vastly improved from the past RfA (for which I did not take part) especially on mainspace edits and edit summaries. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support as per all the previous comments. Razorflame (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support as per above. I have seen a lot of this editor out and about and don't hesitate to support SGGH speak! 17:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support No problems here. Earthbendingmaster 01:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Strong support Never found a reason to oppose. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 01:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - --Bhadani (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)--Bhadani (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support As per track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support per Kurt. EJF (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Strong user - deserves the mop - going to make a superb admin. Keep up the good work. Wisdom89 (talk) 09:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Sumoeagle179 (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support per JayHenry's comments above and below. As for Q6, I think the issue is being overblown: a responsible admin (i.e. one who probably shouldn't be recalled) will generally voluntarily submit to community review/recall with or without a formal process, whereas those admins who probably should be recalled are more likely to resist community review regardless of whether a formal process is in place. I like the honesty and simplicity of RTD's answer (the one dated "23:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)"). – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Timmeh! 00:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. support Good answers to questions and a realistic approach to policy.DGG (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support per the_undertow. But, srsly, per question 6. Lara❤Love 04:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Looks good. faithless (speak) 06:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. +sj + 07:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support R. Baley (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - as per my support last time. Nihiltres{t.l} 19:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Mønobi 01:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support, particularly impressed by how civil and constructive his replies to my earlier oppose comments were. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Pile on support! Greswik (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support --A. B. (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Blah. User:Dorftrottel 17:42, February 11, 2008
  64. Support just like last time. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - I've seen Remember the dot many times editing articles in my watchlist, and it has always been positive, constructive changes. Remember the dot is an excellent editor and would make an excellent admin. – jaksmata 22:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support, as per amended answer to Q6. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Sure, seems like a good editor. King Lopez Contribs 04:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Changing to support per clarifications and good attitude. You'll be a fine admin.--Kubigula (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Excellent editor, shows maturity in difficult situations, willing to admit issue and correct mistakes - exactly what we want --Trödel 16:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Prodego talk 17:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - seems civil, trustworthy, should make a good admin. --BelovedFreak 20:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. The Transhumanist 01:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 09:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose

Oppose, poorly considered recall conditions. Reading these again, you are saying that if any single editor wished to restart an RfA you would allow them to do so? And in that RfA you would consider it a "pass" and retain your tools if you received 30% support? That can't be what you mean, that's both illogical and unworkable. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't just let people run RfA after RfA against me. There would have to be a period of time between each one, and I would manage that by approving each one. I do not want to be desysopped due to temporary concerns or because a bunch of people decide to jump in and say "I hate you." This is the reason for the high level of opposition there would have to be against me before I would give up adminship.
Really though, I don't think it will ever come to that. Are there any specific areas where you think I would not do a good job as an administrator? —Remember the dot (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't support somebody who argues that an administrator can continue in their post if they have lost the support of a large majority of the community. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recall is optional to begin with, I don't see the logic in opposing for an optional "option". Mønobi 21:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is what the conditions reveal about Remember the dot's attitude to the community that trouble me. If 70% of the community think you should resign, I think you should resign. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I say if it takes consensus to sysop, it should take consensus to desysop. All the major decisions we make are per consensus. This should be no different. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 21:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<insert above earlier comment> By which I mean it should not be easier. And the more I read of this debate, the more I believe that the current dispute resolution processes leading to desyssoping are probably adequate. Recall becomes ever more a questionable proposition to me. And a nom's position on the matter should have no bearing on whether or not to give the tools. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 16:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Monobi. The reason why recall is optional is not so that anyone who is opposed to it should be rejected. At least RTD was up front about it. Enigmaman (talk) 06:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to allow recall, you can either say just that you will "add yourself to the category" or go further and provide a logical and workable proposal on how it would occur. RTD's formula is neither logical or workable. Complaints about me criticising him for something optional miss the point, it is the fact that he proposed such unrealistic and poorly considered criteria that reflects badly on him. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It basically comes down to that I must approve any request for desysopping, but I would honor requests for desyopping brought by several users. I would certainly honor a request brought by 6 users who have made 500 edits each, and most likely requests brought by fewer users as well. After I approved a request for desysopping, I would not consent to desysopping if the request showed at least 26% support.
Really, I don't see it ever coming to this. I am open to feedback, and if I'm doing a bad job then tell me and we can work it out. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds much more workable, am I correct in reading your comment to say "if the request (to de-sysop me) showed 26% support", (74% of people thinking you were doing a good job), you would keep the tools. Or are you saying that if 74% of people wanted you to go, you would stay? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I wasn't clear. If 26% showed support for me to stay an administrator, I would stay an administrator. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Problem solved, switching to support. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! —Remember the dot (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, because of the answer to Q6. I agree with Tim Vickers' point, it was very revealing about this candidate's attitude to the community. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I'm not open to feedback. I am. If I'm doing something wrong, then tell me and we can work it out. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RTD, I think most people are genuinely happy to support you this time around. It's just that #6 hits a bit of a sour note in what is otherwise a well put together self-nomination. As others have said, it's a minor point. But if you rethink and revise, I think you might win over some of the holdouts. Ronnotel (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the developers make it possible to remove one tool (say, the ability to block users) without removing the others, then I would be more willing to give up that tool if asked to do so. As it is, it's all-or-nothing, making it difficult to become an administrator, and because it is so difficult to receive adminship I believe that adminship should not be removed lightly. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5-10 candidates pass RFA every week by simply dodging the recall question. Remember the dot gave an honest answer and is getting hit for it. Sigh. RFA only works when the community is rational. But it's absurd to oppose RTD for answering honestly when a slimy answer gets you through. We want honest admins, more than we want politicians, don't we? --JayHenry (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that's not even the worst part. 2500 good image edits, 4500 good mainspace edits. A featured article. 14 months with the project. And all of that, evidently, means absolutely nothing in the face of his answer to Question 6. Goodness that's... depressing. Is that a standard by which we'd all like to be judged? All your edits mean nothing. All that matters is your answer to one question on RFA. --JayHenry (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Iguess it's a reductio ad abusrdum. Abusrdum magnum. Cheers, :) dlohcierekim's other account 15:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikereichold (talk • contribs) [reply]
I'm also striking my oppose, based not on the misguided pressure on me to do so above, but on the candidate's amended answer to Q6. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose - I haven't seen his contributions, so my criticism isn't pointed into that direction. He's active on en.wiki since 22 Nov 2006, that means, 1 year 2 months and few days. According to me, he's not experienced enough. I'm speaking from my experience (I'm on en.wiki since 30 June 2005, 2 years 7 months, total 31 month). A lot of that changed since I've been 14 months on en.wiki. Since en.wiki is the biggest Wikipedia, we cannot allow ourselves such luxury. I don't say that Remember the dot is not good, I just want to say that he doesn't know what traps await him. With 2 years on en.wiki, with a lot of experiences on heated issues, he'll be a wiki-veteran that 'll recognize things. However, than we'll have to look at quality of his contibutions. Kubura (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, are you seriously saying that an editor with over a year's worth of experience is not experienced enough? I attained adminship a month shy of one year, and I'm doing fine. Second, the latter half of your comment can be condensed to "oppose because I did not take my time to research your fitness for adminship." This vote's...um, strange rationales are definitely not what any truly experienced editor would espouse or accept. —Kurykh 07:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Traps"? Oh noes. o.0 ~ Riana ⁂ 07:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kurykh, maybe he's saying your adminship is illegitimate. :D Seriously, this third Oppose was ill-conceived and nonsensical. Enigmaman (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my sweet Lord. Subtract the Admins with < 1year experience and where does that leave us. Actually, I guess I meet that. I was just on about this here. More. We need more, not fewer. As one of his prior opposers, I'm glad he gained the extra time and experience, and I'm glad he's running now. And if he keeps a picture I think should have gone, at least he hasn't gotten rid of one we should keep. 15:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Cheers, :) dlohcierekim's other account 15:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That oppose is one of the strangest I've heard, by that argument I would only be qualified to be an admin in four month's time - but this is a role with which I have been coping with quite well since the middle of last year. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Times change. Three years ago my bar was set at 10-weeks, and that raised people's eyebrows because it was on the long side. Kingturtle (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A little under two years ago I became an admin (easily) in about 6 months of editing (and 4000 edits), which would never pass today. In fact, my RfA was also seen as late, and I probably could have passed two months before that. However, I think editcount is less important now, then it has been before (due to automated tools), which is a Good Thing. Prodego talk 17:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. More a protest oppose: I'm not liking the candidate's own nomination, unfortunately. There was a lot of well thought out and sensible opposition at this chaps last RfA and to blame those Opposing for not elaborating and saying there was sockpuppetry or something just belittles comments others made in good faith. What's fully worse is this chap probably has taken on-board the concerns, but he's not really telling us all that much about that, the changes he has made and why he should be promoted now and not then, just that he should be promoted now. Nick (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What are your specific concerns? I mentioned several areas of improvement in question #4. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    After my last RfA, I asked those who opposed me to elaborate on their concerns. Many declined to respond, several expressed support for me after the fact, and one has been indefinently blocked for sockpuppetry.

    That is my specfic concern. I don't honestly care about what happened on your last RfA, who asked what, who declined to respond and who has now been blocked for sockpuppetry, I'm concerned about the way you're mentioning all this at your present RfA. To me, you look like you're dismissing comments made in good faith by respected editors as nothing more than comments which temporarily prevented you from being promoted. Nick (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There were constructive comments, to be sure. Let me show you a couple of them that I have addressed:
    • Four Wikipedians cited "doesn't know the difference between a ban and a block" as a reason to oppose.
    • Two Wikipedians opposed me for not using edit summaries frequently enough.
    If people had not opposed me for these reasons, I would have had 79% support, which would have put me fairly clearly on the "promote" side of the line. (Note that I only subtracted 5 of these 6 "opposes") —Remember the dot (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 05:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice rationale...EJF (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So...I cannot both want to be an administrator and possess the qualities required to be a good administrator? —Remember the dot (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently you have to be a genius and a warrior for justice, but with the humility of a saint. Like a cross between Henry V and Ghandi. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just Kurt. The 'crats know about this regularly stated opinion. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Tim. --Veritas (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I struck my vote due to the adequate response given to the concerns Tim raised. --Veritas (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe this user has improved significantly since the last RFA, and doesn't have sufficient knowledge of core policies, particularly WP:IAR. Ral315 (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    any particiulars you'd care to share? Ronnotel (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Stricken after his response to my Question 12. In response to Ronnotel's question below, I opposed mainly based on a poor response to the IAR question in the first RFA -- he mentioned in Question 4 that he had gained a greater understanding of what IAR means, but didn't elaborate upon what he thought it did mean. His lack of response to my IAR question wasn't a deal-breaker, but upon looking at RTD's contributions, I wasn't sure that he had actually gained a greater understanding. The answer to 12 shows otherwise, although I'm still a bit uneasy. Ral315 (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What issue is causing you to still be uneasy? —Remember the dot (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral pending answers to questions, particularly #4 and #7. Majoreditor (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just wait till he's answered the question? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to have done so now. :) Rudget. 19:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pleased with his answers and am going to support. Majoreditor (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Major, if you switched your vote, you need to cross out your previous one. Mastrchf91 (t/c) 04:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh>But it's much more fun to keep the 'crats wondering :) Majoreditor (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending clarification from the candidate re: adding his/her name to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. --A. B. (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must approve any request for desysopping, but I would honor requests for desyopping brought by several users. I would certainly honor a request brought by 6 users who have made 500 edits each, and most likely requests brought by fewer users as well. After I approved a request for desysopping, I would not consent to desysopping if the request showed at least 26% support for me to stay an administrator. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's pretty extreme. Where did you come up with that number from? Needing 75% is a pretty hefty requirement. Enigmaman (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
75% is the approximate percentage required to become an administrator in the first place. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well. Having a set percentage isn't a good idea anyway. I've laid out my recall conditions at User:Remember the dot/Recall, and I'm not including this requirement. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support
  1. Neutral, Per Nick. I cannot fathom to understand why a candidate would take a shot at people who opposed last time for "not knowing the difference between a block and a ban" — I opposed for that reason, and it's a perfectly legitimate one. Doing this during your second RfA showed poor judgement from where I sit. Daniel (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. You are an asset to WP. I respected your initial answer to question 6, though I somewhat disagree with your premise. However, I find your subsequent clarifications to be a bit troubling and not very well thought out.--Kubigula (talk) 03:22, 11 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/Remember_the_dot_2&oldid=1149967854"