Content deleted Content added
Balloonman (talk | contribs) |
Balloonman (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
:'''12.''' I just read your [[Wikipedia:So your article has been nominated for deletion|essay on deletions]]. Over all not bad, but let me ask you a question that I derived from reading it. You've deleted my article. I come to you asking for a copy of it. What would you do? |
:'''12.''' I just read your [[Wikipedia:So your article has been nominated for deletion|essay on deletions]]. Over all not bad, but let me ask you a question that I derived from reading it. You've deleted my article. I come to you asking for a copy of it. What would you do? |
||
::'''A.''' That's a very apropos question. Pretty simply, though, I'd furnish it, by whatever means you find most expedient (e-mail, perhaps tucking it in a subpage of your userpage or talk page, whatever works best for you). This would just require me to go back to the deleted article and retrieve it from its history, assuming it's still on file (since that's temporary). This is '''unless''' the page was deleted for legal reasons, such as being libelous, or because it was directly harmful, such as publicizing sensitive personal information. I'd be a ''bit'' leery of furnishing a page that was just plain vandalism, but if you just want your dirty Wikipedia limericks back, that's probably harmless enough. At worst, if it goes back up, I'll have my eye on the ball and be ready to bat it back down, and if it's not actually harmful, that's no worse than whatever else you might do. (This is assuming "you" isn't actually YOU, Spartacus, because I kinda doubt you, specifically, would be submitting vandalism pages.) |
::'''A.''' That's a very apropos question. Pretty simply, though, I'd furnish it, by whatever means you find most expedient (e-mail, perhaps tucking it in a subpage of your userpage or talk page, whatever works best for you). This would just require me to go back to the deleted article and retrieve it from its history, assuming it's still on file (since that's temporary). This is '''unless''' the page was deleted for legal reasons, such as being libelous, or because it was directly harmful, such as publicizing sensitive personal information. I'd be a ''bit'' leery of furnishing a page that was just plain vandalism, but if you just want your dirty Wikipedia limericks back, that's probably harmless enough. At worst, if it goes back up, I'll have my eye on the ball and be ready to bat it back down, and if it's not actually harmful, that's no worse than whatever else you might do. (This is assuming "you" isn't actually YOU, Spartacus, because I kinda doubt you, specifically, would be submitting vandalism pages.) |
||
:::'''Follow- |
:::'''Follow-up1''' any other examples that come to mind of what you would not provide?---'''[[User:I'm Spartacus!|<font color="purple">I'm Spartacus!</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:I'm Spartacus!|<b><sup><small>NO! I'm Spartacus!</small></sup></b>]]'' 02:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::'''Follow-up2''' you mentioned emailing this, what about userfication? What are your thoughts on Userfication and how would your answer difer if we are talking about userfying as compared to emailing?---'''[[User:I'm Spartacus!|<font color="purple">I'm Spartacus!</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:I'm Spartacus!|<b><sup><small>NO! I'm Spartacus!</small></sup></b>]]'' 02:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
; Optional [[User:Jc37/RfA/General questions|questions]] from [[User:Jc37|jc37]] |
; Optional [[User:Jc37/RfA/General questions|questions]] from [[User:Jc37|jc37]] |
Revision as of 02:57, 16 April 2009
Vianello
(talk page) (21/1/0); Scheduled to end 02:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Nomination
Vianello (talk · contribs) – Self-nomination - second time's a charm? I feel the basic summary on my previous RfA sums up my position fairly well, in addition to the information presented in this one. - Vianello (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I like to think of myself as primarily part of the "janitorial staff". I'm not rabid about mediation. I don't really like to unravel drama or embroil in controversy (aside from commenting on or nominating the occasional AfD). Mainly, I just notice times when vandalism sprees or inappropriate pages are allowed to run longer than they should. I'd like to be a patch for some of those gaps. I do enjoy and participate in article editing and creation, but it's not an area where I'm as interested in employing administrative tools. I'm not looking for a judge's gavel here, just a mop and bucket.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I've recently passed the 10,000 edit mark, which it's hard not to preen just a little over. The bulk of that is simply in recent changes/new page patrols. Of my editing work, I'm proudest of what I've done with parasitology related pages. The article on genus Glyptapanteles is sort of "my baby" (don't worry, I'm familiar with WP:OWN), and currently rated as a B class article. I've also helped spruce up other arthropoda-related pages by providing taxoboxes, extra research data, etc. I did a little recent collaboration with User:Bugboy52.40 on mites that had very pleasing results. I also semi-recently got a nice object lesson in edit dispute resolution, but I don't want to sound like I'm trying to call anyone a troublemaker or elevate myself above them somehow, so I would prefer to leave that situation anonymous unless specifically asked otherwise. Lastly, I've created an essay page aimed at new editors with articles nominated for deletion, WP:DELNOM.
- 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: Heavens yes. The aforementioned edit dispute is probably the chief example. Also, in the course of patrolling, I've said some things I've come to regret in response to perceived impropriety before. I have "fed the trolls" here and there. Assuming good faith has proven to be a real asset in overcoming that tendency though. After all, even if I assume it wrongly, there's no real harm in treating someone like a decent human being, is there? Even if they're acting in bad faith, in a best case scenario they might feel guilty for it. In the worst case, well... it doesn't really change anything.
- Additional questions from Fastily
- 4. Could you elaborate further on what administrative work you plan to partake in?
- A: Certainly. My focus is principally still on "maintaining order". To that end, my major focus would be on WP:AIV, WP:RPP, WP:UAA, WP:AfD, and CAT:CSD. If someone specifically comes to me wanting a third party for a dispute or somesuch, I'm unlikely to say no, but that's not as much the kind of administration I feel best suited for.
- 5. I know it is a bit repetitive but, in your own words, describe the difference between a block and a ban.
- A: Not repetitive at all. As I understand it, a 'block' is a temporary or indefinite barring of an IP or user from editing pages. Blocks are hard-coded in. A ban, on the other hand, is more of a ruling, barring a user from editing an article or topic. Then there's a total ban, the most extreme version, wherein an individual person is barred from editing any pages/articles with any account, by default indefinitely (though ArbCom can be used for appeals). That's generally going to come with indefinite blocks of the user's account(s), naturally.
- 6. What steps would you take to resolve edit wars in which users are violating the three-revert rule?
- A: The first step is naturally to let them know about said rule, to help moisten the brush against the fire, so to speak. Now, assuming hypothetically this is my first time doing so, I'd want to first make sure a short block is the right protocol for a first-time offense on this, as I'm not dead certain at present that it is. I'm also assuming this is a clear-cut violation, not a wiggle area like reversion of vandalism. Beyond that, I'd make the users in question aware of the dispute resolution process or, if they're clearly already aware of it, advise them to adhere to it. Although I'd be willing to mention I'm available as a mediator if they so desire, while I'm about it, just because I happen to be on hand. I realize anyone can mediate, not just administrators, but I figure I'm a little more "honor-bound" to try my hand at it when asked, even if it's not my favorite activity. Continued violation of 3RR or closely related offenses, like flagrant BLP violations and the like, if any, would subsequently be met with longer blocks.
- Answering this has made me aware this is an area where my knowledge of administrator procedure is a bit lacking, so my answer in the next little while as I read up on the topic may shift. This is just my "on the spot" answer.
- 7. (Last question - Really!!!) Looking at your contribs on the discussion page, I notice that you have 3,199 deleted edits out of your 10,099 total edits. Could you please explain that?
- A: Lots and lots of CSD nominations from Special:NewPages patrols. Any given one of those will equal at least one deleted edit, quite possibly more in the many cases I've communicated with the authors on the (later deleted) talk pages for the articles. So far as I can imagine, that and posts on later deleted talk pages (such as warnings) are the entire composition of that figure.
- Additional questions from Hobit
- 8. Say we have an in-arguably notable porn actress from the 1960s who is still alive today. No known public domain pictures of her are known to exist and she is known to not be interested in having pictures taken of her. A user has posted a (clothed) full-body picture of the actress from a 1960's magazine arguing that even if a picture of her could be taken, it wouldn't represent the "characteristics" for which she is notable. It is taken to IfD where 2 admins argue it is replaceable and 3 other users argue that any picture would be hard to get and the characteristics issue is valid. How do you close it and why?
- A: That's a very exact and detailed question. I like that! Anyway, not an easy call. As far as "replaceable" goes, while there's possibly legitimate concern that posting a sub-optimal image might discourage the inclusion of a better one, the rarity of suitable images of this actress makes replacement unlikely. An image that provides a clear look at the article subject is more important than having one that is fully "in context" for their topic of notability, as long as it's reasonably professional. Anyway, if the image is viewed as "replaceable" by two people, and the characteristics issue as valid by the remaining three, it seems most logical to close in favor of keeping it. It's not the final word, of course, but simply a question of having an acceptable, if imperfect, issue, and to my eye it addresses the concerns of those speaking - it can still be replaced when a better one is available, and addresses, for now, the difficulty in obtaining images of this actress. However, five people does strike me as a bit slim, as the 80% trend is a bit weak with that number, so I'd probably extend the ifd a bit first to see if I can hook anything further.
- Something tells me this was based on true events.
- Update: I just backed up on this and realized I was overlooking a small but rather crucial facet: The magazine as the source. There's a very good chance that wouldn't be a free/fair use image. WP:Non-free content#Unacceptable use, images number 8, also specifies magazine covers as inappropriate images for depicting the subject if it's not the cover/magazine itself. I'm not as dead sure how this would apply to the magazine itself, but obviously whether or not it's public domain is a big issue to look at first. If not, it needs to be tossed, "characteristics" and "replaceability" aside. Sorry about that; IfD is an area I don't have a lot of experience in, aside from a couple non-free images I mistakenly uploaded (which were cleared off without controversy).
- Additional Question from User:Next-Genn-Gamer
- 9.Your whole nomination for yourself is basically read my first nom but that was over a year ago. Give me a reason in your own words why you should be an admin.Kingrock 05:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- A: If I'm to put it in terms of "why should I be an admin", I'd sum it up this way: There are constructive things I'd like to do to benefit the project. I have the knowledge and experience to execute them, the willingness and openness to learn how to execute others, the trustworthiness and good intentions to use the administrative toolset to do so, and the track record to demonstrate it (much moreso now than a year ago!). In even shorter terms: I will make the project my tiny bit cleaner.
- Question from Stifle
- 10. Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a building which is still standing be used on Wikipedia?
- A. Relatively few; generally only when taking a new free image wouldn't be encyclopedic, as specified at WP:Non-free content#Unacceptable use under Images point 12.
- Additional questions from SoWhy
- 11. Could you please elaborate on question 1? Which areas are you interested in working in specifically and have you experience in those areas already?
- A: More of a followup question than an answer, and please don't read this as snarky/confrontational, but did you see question 4? I think that asked the same thing more or less. If you're in fact asking something different or need more information than I provided in response to that one, please say so and I'll very happily follow up.
- I did actually, but I might have phrased it incorrectly. You wrote you want to work in areas like CAT:CSD and WP:RFPP, yet I have never seen you active in those areas (which are my main administrative areas). So I was wondering what experience you have with those areas. Regards SoWhy 13:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, now I get it. Well, my experience with the CSD process in general from the editor side is relatively extensive. Simply put, I've run through a LOT of CSD nominations, my own and others'. By this point I've developed a pretty good idea of the process in that regard. RFPP is a bit less extensive, but again, it's a page I've dropped by a number of times to, well, request page protection, naturally. I've seen what works, what gets shot down (for example, it's not general practice to pre-emptively protect articles, I've heard), and what the general practice and procedure is. Obviously things are a little different from the administrative side of the fence, but my experience from the editorial side is fairly strong. The lack of noted activity on CSD is because my work with that tends to be on the CSD-nominated articles and their talk pages themselves, not the category page. If I'm not showing up on RFPP, you just need to dig a little deeper. But to wit, as far as what I want to do in those areas, I want to do the very things I've been using them to this point to request that others do.
- I did actually, but I might have phrased it incorrectly. You wrote you want to work in areas like CAT:CSD and WP:RFPP, yet I have never seen you active in those areas (which are my main administrative areas). So I was wondering what experience you have with those areas. Regards SoWhy 13:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- A: More of a followup question than an answer, and please don't read this as snarky/confrontational, but did you see question 4? I think that asked the same thing more or less. If you're in fact asking something different or need more information than I provided in response to that one, please say so and I'll very happily follow up.
- Additional questions from I'm Spartacus!
- 12. I just read your essay on deletions. Over all not bad, but let me ask you a question that I derived from reading it. You've deleted my article. I come to you asking for a copy of it. What would you do?
- A. That's a very apropos question. Pretty simply, though, I'd furnish it, by whatever means you find most expedient (e-mail, perhaps tucking it in a subpage of your userpage or talk page, whatever works best for you). This would just require me to go back to the deleted article and retrieve it from its history, assuming it's still on file (since that's temporary). This is unless the page was deleted for legal reasons, such as being libelous, or because it was directly harmful, such as publicizing sensitive personal information. I'd be a bit leery of furnishing a page that was just plain vandalism, but if you just want your dirty Wikipedia limericks back, that's probably harmless enough. At worst, if it goes back up, I'll have my eye on the ball and be ready to bat it back down, and if it's not actually harmful, that's no worse than whatever else you might do. (This is assuming "you" isn't actually YOU, Spartacus, because I kinda doubt you, specifically, would be submitting vandalism pages.)
- Follow-up1 any other examples that come to mind of what you would not provide?---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Follow-up2 you mentioned emailing this, what about userfication? What are your thoughts on Userfication and how would your answer difer if we are talking about userfying as compared to emailing?---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- A. That's a very apropos question. Pretty simply, though, I'd furnish it, by whatever means you find most expedient (e-mail, perhaps tucking it in a subpage of your userpage or talk page, whatever works best for you). This would just require me to go back to the deleted article and retrieve it from its history, assuming it's still on file (since that's temporary). This is unless the page was deleted for legal reasons, such as being libelous, or because it was directly harmful, such as publicizing sensitive personal information. I'd be a bit leery of furnishing a page that was just plain vandalism, but if you just want your dirty Wikipedia limericks back, that's probably harmless enough. At worst, if it goes back up, I'll have my eye on the ball and be ready to bat it back down, and if it's not actually harmful, that's no worse than whatever else you might do. (This is assuming "you" isn't actually YOU, Spartacus, because I kinda doubt you, specifically, would be submitting vandalism pages.)
- Optional questions from jc37
- In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
- 13. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
- 13a. ...an editor to be blocked?
- A: Generally, except in the most flagrant cases, a blatant offense after the issuing of a level 4 or 4im warning is a justified reason. This can be foregone in cases when a user is blatantly on a destructive rampage or is actively attacking or endangering others. In a nutshell though, blocking exists to stymie (and discourage) disruptive activity, as well as to protect the rights of other editors when needed. As it's been explained to me, however, this does NOT include "giving someone time to cool down".
- 13b. ...a page to be protected?
- A: A spate of frequent vandalism (such as an IP hopping vandal or group vandalism) is a good reason to give a page temporary semi-protection, since individual blocks won't address the issue as well. Staunching a sizable edit war is another reason, so long as the current revision doesn't sport any blatant policy violations, though I personally wouldn't use it as a first resort. Longer term semi-protection is justified for pages that are frequently "under siege" from vandalism, particularly articles about people. Some frequently recreated inappropriate pages are also protected against being re-created, just to save people a headache (salting the earth!). Also, blocked users' talk pages are often protected to prevent them from editing them, if there's evidence they're just going to use them to continue behaving disruptively.
- 13c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?
- A: If the page meets any of the numerous criteria for speedy deletion, and ideally has been nominated based upon them, though administrators can utilize their own judgment too. Although preferably, as my fellow editors have pointed out here, not in the first minute of the article's life, unless its survival is a blazingly obvious WP:SNOW situation.
- 13d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?
- A: Forgive me for sounding a little parrot-ish here, but the gist of the IAR summary is too perfectly descriptive for me not to use: Any time a rule prevents making real, legitimate good-faith improvements to the encyclopedia, it should be ignored.
- 14. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.
- A:
- 15. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
- A:
- 16. Why do you wish to be an administrator?
- A:
General comments
RfAs for this user:
- Links for Vianello: Vianello (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Vianello can be found here.
- Promote Vianello (bureaucrats only)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Vianello before commenting.
Discussion
- Editing stats posted on the talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- For those that prefer them:
- ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 04:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I promised myself I wouldn't thrash around trying to address every oppose, and I still don't plan to, but I'd like to respond to User:DougsTech's with my sentiments on the issue. Everyone's free to take or leave them. That said, point 1: The way some incidents I've witnessed have dragged out without inverention, to my eye, provides a live demonstration of an insufficient administrative presence. Point 2: Too many administrators... to/for what? Is there a finite resource that they're depleting? This isn't just meant as a rhetorical point; I'd be pleased to be enlightened as to the issue there. - Vianello (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Your best move would be to leave this one alone. But feel free to read the past discussion (if you have a couple days' time). ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 07:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds like the chief concerns so far have been invalid CSD nominations. No argument there, I've made some unambiguous mistakes. Generally happens when something starts off meeting the CSD criteria, I jump the gun, and then the criteria evaporate with subsequent edits. I can easily understand how this would concern people a little, so I'd like to take the time to specify that I consider the actual deletion act much more consequential than the nomination, and you can expect that particular ability, if I acquire it, to be used more cautiously. On a mooshier note, wow. You people are extremely nice! Regardless of the outcome of this RfA, this positive feedback has really put me in good spirits. - Vianello (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- About the CSD articles being improved, I know that when I and SoWhy review CSD noms, we review the version where the user tagged the article... you can't be held responsible for changes after they were tagged. But if you REALLY want us to, we could do a full in depth review... and be nasty about it ;-)---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Support
- Good work, well-qualified. -download | sign! 03:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - I've seen Vianello around before, and I'm pretty sure that I remember him as someone who has a Clue. Having a clue is generally my main criteria for adminship, so I am happy with this user. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support. I'm glad to see you've written some good content since the last RfA. Looks good, good editing and countervandal work (and I'm impressed that you're upfront about having IP vandalized once upon a time). Cool3 (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- You seem interesting, and I like your take on admining as janitors. It would make sense, as Wikiversity calls them custodians. :) I might change things later, but you seem promising. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support-See no reason not to. Strong anti-vandal which is something I love. Has a passion for it too. Knows exactly what he's talking about and from what I've looked at certainly improved since his last RFA and shows that he is also a god article writer. Exactly the type of admin the wiki needs.Kingrock 05:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support For excellent answers to questions. User has a willingness to learn and will definitly be very helpful in clearing backlogs at WP:AIV and CAT:CSD. Best of Luck - Fastily (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Certainly. I see no alarms. --GedUK 06:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Support I feel this user will use the tools to better wikipedia, and see no reason to oppose.76.233.163.72 (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)- IPs may not vote in RfAs. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 07:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Good admin candidate. Pmlinediter Talk 07:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support, why not? Ironholds (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Why not, indeed? No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support, looking through contribs, top edited articles, talk page, etc... I find no cause for complaint. Good user and would/will make a good admin :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Does good work, no reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Giants27 T/C 13:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support did some digging around on your CSD noms and nothing major jumped out at me some I didn't quite agree with your rationale but not enough to warrant an oppose.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support per I'm Spartacus. Giving the benefit of the doubt. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 review! 14:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support because Vianello is a trustworthy editor. Also, not enough administrators currently. Tan | 39 14:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I haven't had much experience with him (as well as other Wikipedia contributors, I usually am too busy trying to revert vandalism and still don't fully get how to work IRC), but I feel that he can be a good admin.--Iner22 (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support good, solid contributor, will be a good addition to our administrator team. No reason to object. tempodivalse [☎] 18:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Looks good..America69 (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Not seeing any cause for concern.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support per I'm Spartacus! Some speedy mistakes (A1 with context, A3 on what is clearly an attempt to create a redirect, A7 the same minute as the article was created, A7 with clear indication of notability (meets WP:MUSIC even)) but not frequent or bad enough to oppose or go neutral. Just be a bit more careful if this succeeds and read some essays on speedy deletion (like WP:FIELD, WP:WIHSD or WP:10CSD) to develop a feeling for it. Looks good otherwise. Regards SoWhy 20:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I've had Vianello's talk page on my watchlist for the past year and can vouch to his cool-headed responses to queries from new users whose articles have been speedy deleted. I also enjoyed reading his CSD essay. Cunard (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Could use the tools, and I see no reason to deny him them. Timmeh! 22:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Да, разбира се! Highly motivated, truly dedicated. No signs of civility issues. Knowledgable. Viel Glück!--It's me...Sallicio! 01:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- >_< - Fastily (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have a question for you DougsTech, do you actually believe there are too many administrators, or are you doing this to cause a controversy and try to play off the reaction of other people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.163.72 (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter, these opposes are completely pointless and never taken into account. It is quite tempting to simply strike them in the future to stymie the irrelevant and inevitable "omg DougsTech, you are wrong" comments from people who haven't seen him take this to every RfA on the block. I got to use "stymie" in conversation, sweet Ironholds (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- RfA is a discussion, anybody is entitled to ask Doug to explain his comment, just as anybody is entitled to ask any other Supporter or Opposer to explain their comments, that's not to say that any person commenting needs to explain their comment, but many users feel that they shouldn't be commenting if they are unwilling to discuss further. Nick (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter, these opposes are completely pointless and never taken into account. It is quite tempting to simply strike them in the future to stymie the irrelevant and inevitable "omg DougsTech, you are wrong" comments from people who haven't seen him take this to every RfA on the block. I got to use "stymie" in conversation, sweet Ironholds (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have a question for you DougsTech, do you actually believe there are too many administrators, or are you doing this to cause a controversy and try to play off the reaction of other people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.163.72 (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- >_< - Fastily (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Neutral
- Move to support
Neutral - Waiting for answers to questions. - Fastily (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)