Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Good Olfactory

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

Good Olfactory[edit]

Final: (82/3/3); ended 12:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Good Olfactory (talk · contribs) - User:Good Olfactory is someone that, by his numbers, may look like a relatively new, script using user who doesn’t do much else. I can assure you that this is not the case. I first noticed him while clearing WP:CFD backlogs and found him to be very, very well spoken. I almost asked him to be an admin with under 4 months of experience, finding him to be ready then, but I decided to let him continue to edit so I could see what he was made of. He has certainly not disappointed.

His overall wiki-experience dates back to 2005 (as an admin in some wikis), so don’t let the first edit date fool you, he knows what needs to be done on here. His edit count is quite immense for his time being here, a result of his strenuous work with Categories. Man, is he great with categories. We ‘’need’’ plenty of help at CFD now ever since non-admins couldn’t help at WP:CFD/W, and he will be an asset there. He is also very well-spoken. The first time I talked with him about adminship, I was very impressed with his demeanor and responses to my questions. He made me feel that he would be a great candidate for the adminship position before I even checked through his contribs. Those barnstars on his page don’t lie, he’s a user who knows why he’s on Wikipedia, and who knows how to be a great user.

I already know what opposes may come for this user based on how his edits appear on the surface, so let me counterattack them now: You say he mostly uses scripts, I say how else are you to keep the category system intact? It takes time for the bots to get to them, and a human eye going through making sure all categories are logical and necessary is a huge plus. You say he doesn’t participate in other xfds besides cfd, and that’s a load of crap. A quick search shows plenty of AFDs he’s discussed. And I do mean discussed, he clearly states why he feels the way he does in each WP:AFD. Plus, his CFD work is amazing, and that’s where I presume he’ll continue to spend a nice amount of his time. You say he’s inexperienced, I point you to the start of the above paragraph. You say he hasn’t contributed through article writing, I also call that crap. While article writing’s not the strongest thing he does for the encyclopedia, he does do a good job of it when he does write an article. Mormonism and evolution is a quite nice article he’s written, and he fixed up the list of Brigham Young’s wives quite nicely here. (now its own article). He also does a huge amount of work on Master Mahan, both on the article front and discussion front. In other words, most of the typical opposes that may apply to this user on the surface quite simply do not apply at all. Other articles he's helped to improve are: Chris Heimerdinger here and at the talk page, Thomas S. Monson [1], Mary Rogers (murderer), and many others.

This is a great user who will be an asset as an admin. I give you my word that this user will not disappoint you with the tools of an administrator. The more I look through his contributions the more impressed I become. The sooner he’s an admin, the better for Wikipedia. (This is my second-longest nomination out of 45, that should tell you how highly I think of this candidate.) Wizardman 02:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with thanks to Wizardman for his enthusiastic nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: As suggested by Wizardman, I would be very interested in helping out at WP:CFD; quite often there does seem to be a shortage of admin work being done there, and it's not uncommon for there to be a bit of a backlog. At this point, my intent is that this will be the primary area of admin work I will take part in, though I will probably do some WP:AFD work too. Being the kind of person who gets perverse satisfaction from clearing backlogs of any kind, I'd also like to help out at WP:AB CAT:AB. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've been heavily involved in categorization, and I suppose the work I've done that I'm most fond of is getting the subcategories of Category:People by religion sorted out. When I started on it, it was a bit of a mess (e.g., there seemed to be a huge amount of confusion and inconsistency in the scheme as to whether a category like Category:Greek Orthodox Christians applied to someone who was a member of the Greek Orthodox Church or a person of Greek nationality who was also an Orthodox Christian. The solution was to have categories for both.). It took a fair bit of time and effort to get everything squared away (Category:Hindus especially stands out in my mind as having been a bit of a nightmare). Because of the nature of the work, I can't provide a "before and after" diff to demonstrate what changes I made, but I would still have to say that cleaning up these categories has been my "best" contribution. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:09, 21 July 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: Of course; I think it's probably difficult to be involved in WP without encountering some difficulties along these lines. In the case of a dispute over editing, the talk page (either the article's or the user's) is always my first stop. I'd have to say that 99% of the time for me, the problem has been resolved with discussion there. Often, the root of the dispute is a fairly benign misunderstanding by the other party (or by me) that comes out in the discussion; seeing this happen again and again always reminds me of the underlying wisdom of WP:AGF, because I really do believe that most editors do what they do with a good faith intention to make WP better. In the perhaps 1% of cases I've encountered where a simple discussion doesn't resolve the issue, I usually like to suggest to the other party that we seek input from other editors; most users agree to this and it usually has the result of forming a multi-user consensus, which is often the best way to diffuse a dispute between two editors. (I've been involved in a very small number of disputes where I honestly did not know what my next response should have been to an editor's behavior. In one case, I simply walked away from the dispute for a period of time to give myself some time to reflect on what to do; when I returned I found that "passions had cooled" and the editor was quite conciliatory towards me. In another, I sought out some advice at WP:WQA.) In all cases, I've found that a civil and kind word to the other party usually results in a resolution much faster than an edit war or other harsher tactics would. These methods have worked well for me and I would continue to use them in the future. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from xenocidic

4. As an administrator, you will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. You'll come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. And you will sometimes be tasked with considering unblock requests from the users you block. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond.
A: Since it was me who imposed the block, it should not be me who is assessing the appeal of the block, so the short answer is I do nothing, apart from waiting for another admin to assess the appeal/contact me about it. In WP:GAB, it says that "[b]y custom, the blocking administrator does not make a decision on your unblock request"; as with any decision involving a judgment call, it would be inherently unfair for me to be the judge of an appeal of one of my own decisions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4b. Follow up: Another admin declines the unblock request, stating While you have indeed made a couple of good edits, you have not stopped vandalising. Do you agree with their assessment?
A: Yes, I would have no problem agreeing with and supporting that decision. Although the one-week block would probably be longer than I would impose on an IP in this situation, a one-week block is not the end of the world for any user. After the block expires, they will have a chance to prove that they have truly changed their ways. Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from NuclearWarfare

5. May we please have the account names of your former accounts?
A. I've had no former accounts on WP; the previous wiki experience referred to was on non-WP wikis. Good Ol’factory (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anti fence-sitting question from Kmweber
6. Are cool-down blocks ever acceptable?
A: No, per WP policy. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from User:Stifle

7. Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a living person be used on Wikipedia?
A. As a very general statement, non-free images of living people may not be used on WP. The reason for this is that it is usually still possible to take a photograph of a living person, and this photo could serve as a free replacement. However, in select instances there are exceptions to this general rule. For instance, if a living person is notable for something they did as a child (a child actor, for example), a contemporary photo may not be terribly useful, because their notability may rest largely upon their visual appearance as a child. In such a situation, a non-free image of the person as a child may be used, even though they are living. Similar exceptions may occur for other reasons, such as a person being a recluse, retired in an isolated location, or very seldom in public, etc. As an example, I'm thinking specifically of J. D. Salinger, who is alive, but WP uses a non-free image of him, which in my opinion is justifiable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Per the beautifully written nomination. Naerii 12:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I trust Wizardman, and that is one of the best nomination statements I've seen. Good luck, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Excellent candidate, nicely written nomination. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. The work with categories is outstanding. Rudget (logs) 13:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Wants to work at CFD. Fresh. Wisdom89 (T / C) 13:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - somewhat weakly because I'd like to see the candidate willing to offer {{2nd chance}}'s, but the existence of this template is something I learned on the job myself, so I can't fault him for not giving me exactly the answer I was looking for. On the assumption that he'll take this into account, I trust he'll be a net positive especially in his intended areas of focus. –xeno (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Actually, changing to just regular 'ole support because he got the bonus points for knowing not to decline an unblock request from his own block. –xeno (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Cannot see anything at all to worry me here. nancy (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Always calm, thoughtful, thorough & ready to be pursuaded to change his mind at CFD. Will be an excellent admin. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support without reservation** - I've been favorably impressed by Good Olfactory ever since he first started taking part in the proceedings at CFD back in early March of this year. What first caught my attention was the fact that he immediately adopted use of a CFD-notification template that User:Black Falcon and I had developed for notifying the creators of Categories that a CFD has been opened. Considering that the CFD guidelines don't currently require such notification, and that many editors don't do so voluntarily, his use of the template -- especially as a fairly new Wikipedian -- said to me, "Here's a guy who respects his fellow editors, and really values fairness and transparency."
    Wizardman has already noted GO's prodigious industriousness -- and no, that isn't hyperbole. :) What's more important, as far as I'm concerned, is that he has consistently demonstrated through his participation in numerous CFD discussions that he has the temperament and good judgement that are the bedrock qualities of a first-rate admin. Oh, and one other thing: he has a good sense of humor, and doesn't take himself tooooo seriously. (I still crack up from time to time when I think of one particular self-deprecating comment he made at the very end of a rather boisterous CFD.) In closing, my only regret is that (as a non-admin) I wasn't able to write the nomination myself. Cgingold (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    **Actually, I do have one very slight reservation: We may (to some extent) lose his participation in CFD discussions. That would be a real shame. Cgingold (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Two tickets for "The Dark Knight," please. Oh, wrong queue. Seriously...Support for a fine candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support. Well-reasoned additions to CFD discussions, and as Cgingold said, very helpful to other users with the use of the cfd notification template. Will make an excellent admin. --Kbdank71 15:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Wizardman has found another good one. Excellent candidate, no hesitation on my part. Keeper ǀ 76 15:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - yes! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Anyone who can contribute so regularly and so productively to what can sometimes be a contentious topic (all things LDS) can handle the tools. Protonk (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. After taking a look through his contribs and stats, I'd have to agree, excellent candidate. Good communication skills, experienced, knowledgeable, works at the oft-overlooked CFD. Useight (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Who wouldn't be impressed by his category work? :) I would have liked to see a tad more article writing experience (everything else only serves to support article writing, so yes, experience there is important!) but the candidate seems to have a good grasp on guidelines and policies and has worked on some controversial material. I think he'll do some good things with the mop. The nominating statement helped win me over, too. Okiefromokla questions? 16:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per Okiefromokla, loving the category work. Good luck, --Cameron* 16:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak Support I am a bit late, so I have to say "as per nom/above" even though it should not count as a valid support criteria, so let me say: I looked through the contributions and I agree we need someone to care for Cats and CFDs. So he will be a great asset to the project and I could not find a single negative contribution to cast doubt on this assessment. Also, I liked the answers to the questions, he sounds like a sensible guy. So#Why 16:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to weak support because of answer to question six. As pointed out by Ncmvocalist in his oppose, WP:VAGUEWAVE really does not make a very convincing answer and I'd have expected him to elaborate on his answer instead of just pointing to WP:CDB. I keep supporting though because the other criteria I like to use are all fullfilled. So#Why 11:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I wouldn't normally bother with this pile-on support at this stage, but I just want to comment on an excellent answer to Q3. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong support per excellent nomination, equally excellent response to Q3, and the fact that the unique nature of this user's focus (i.e., religious categorization) makes this user a clear asset to the project. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Synergy 16:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support — Lots of clue. Good luck, —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 17:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  23. I strongly support this candidacy. Unfortunately, I don't have anything new and clever to add to what the Wizardman, Kbdank71, Cgingold and Johnbod have already said. Could definitely use the extra buttons to help the project. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Although I'm unsure what assistance Olfactory is planning to provide at WP:AB (Wikipedia:Autobiography). Axl (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Oops; I meant CAT:AB (administrative backlog), of course. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, yes. That smells better. Axl (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, seems pretty sane, good work on categories. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Good luck at WP:CFD. Malinaccier (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 19:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Sane people always welcome at CFD; sane people with the mop even more so. 'Bout time! BencherliteTalk 20:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. I think everone has witnessed Good Olfactory's excellent contributions to categories etc. Oh, and what an interesting username! --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong support as nom. (Very impressive that I leave for only a little while and it's at 30 already.) Wizardman 20:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Looks like a good user, great nom statement by a trustworthy user. Good luck helping over at CSD. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 21:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support anyone this dedicated and well-behaved deserves the bit. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I have no concerns here at all. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. — CharlotteWebb 21:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Why not? Responsible and diligent editor. Mr. IP (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - How could I oppose an editor like this? Soxred 93 22:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - A helpful editor; gracious with helpful council when I did not quite understand what I was doing. I cannot name another individual more qualified by skill or personal effectiveness. John Park (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - I don't think I can say much more than what Wizardman has already said. Despite the limited editing and time here, I believe Mr Factory will make a good admin and be very beneficial with his work clearing out backlogs. ChaoticReality 00:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. —Giggy 01:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Transfer to Category:Wikipedia administrators.--Lenticel (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Indeed. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support without hesitation. krimpet✽ 03:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support will get great value from the tools with his work at CFD. Moondyne 04:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - He might be a fresh face, but he's clearly demonstrated a firm grasp of policies and dedication through content contribution. Gaining the tools will be a net benefit to the project.Gazimoff WriteRead 08:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. +S Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 09:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. I can't remember quite where I've seen you, but it was a positive experience. Combined with that, the great nomination statement and the answers to the questions, I think you'd handle the tools just fine. Seraphim♥Whipp 10:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - this editor has crossed my path many times. Always good work. ✤ JonHarder talk 12:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Strong Support He will use the tools to block vandals. --Eric (mailbox) 16:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I've seen this user around, and I have no doubt he will make a great admin. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support per finding absolutely no reason not to do so. Also, per Gazimoff. S. Dean Jameson 20:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - Garion96 (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - I've seen him around and he does good stuff. --Patrick (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - looks qualified. WJBscribe (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Strong support - excellent contributor at CFD, giving him admin tools would be of great benefit to the encyclopedia. the wub "?!" 10:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Per nom and scribe. MBisanz talk 11:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - in general, thoughtful answers to the questions, and seems a good candidate. I always trust Wizardman to come up with a great nom aswell. Lradrama 11:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support No reason for concern from this candidate. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support good user. —αἰτίας •discussion• 14:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Another great candidate from Wizardman. Acalamari 18:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Good Olfactory is an excellent contributor and he has answered the questions well, I have no concerns about his good character. Rje (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Fine user, would do good use of the tools, and per #6. doña macy [talk] 22:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - I would like to see some more experience, but that isn't bothering me enough to oppose and everything else looks good. VegaDark (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - No problems here. --Dweller (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - The biggest controversy I'm seeing here is with A6 (discussed below and on talk), and I'd rather have an admin who errs on the side of caution when it comes to blocks anyways. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Opposes unsurprisingly trifle, glowing nom and solid-looking contribs. Good luck. GlassCobra 02:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Good answers to the questions; the responses seems adminy enough, though a little verbose (except for cooldown blocks, which was given exactly the wordcount it deserved) --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 02:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support No reason not to. Nick mallory (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. The candidate is helpful, constructive and understands policy. Majoreditor (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - I love people who hate cool down blocks just like the 99.999'% of Wikipedia users! But, seriously, he's a great guy and he'll make a great admin. No worries here. ScarianCall me Pat! 21:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support I see nothing wrong ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 06:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    +S Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 13:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indent as double vote. user:Everyme 14:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Piss, did I vote twice? I am getting senile. I suppose I deserve a good Whacking with a Wet Trout Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 14:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What, for inadvertently double !voting? That deserves something considerably smaller, if anything. user:Everyme 15:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support should be fine. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Per nom. America69 (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support per awesome nom. LittleMountain5 23:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - no worrisome issues for me, and I see evidence of being able to work well with others and good communication skills. His enthusiasm for categorisation is something needed in the administrative ranks. Risker (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. Sceptre (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Still trust me, I see? Heh, that helps. Wizardman 04:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - trustworthy editor. The answer to Q6 is cool. PhilKnight (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support per answers - especially Q6. A number of opposes recently (here and other RfAs) have been pretty pointy on this question, and I have to say that whether one agrees with the policy or not, asking an RfA candidate to IAR (or at least ignore this one - ITR?) out of the box is silly. An administrator is here to exert the will of the community, not make new policy. Also, for contriving to have exactly 45000 total edits on your summary page, exactly the same number as a concurrently-run (and now successful) RfA...  Frank  |  talk  20:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to spoil anything, but that particular edit counter ends at 45,000 edits. In reality, both Good Olfactory and J.delanoy have more than 45,000. :) Acalamari 01:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspected as much, but it's still a healthy number of edits and it was sort of tongue-in-cheek anyway...  Frank  |  talk  01:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. I thought I already had supported, in fact. Definitely a trustworthy user who knows what's what. No problem giving admin tools. ~ mazca t | c 22:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support: For no other, and no better, reason than to help offset the Oppose votes, which I feel, quite frankly, are WP:POINT votes and nothing more.  RGTraynor  08:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support per RGTraynor and Kurt. Enigma message 08:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose per answer to Q6. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Some discussion regarding this oppose moved to the talk page of this RFA. xeno (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Invoking IAR there, Kurt? Of course an admin candidate is expected to provide answers that follow policy when standing for RfA. To ask them a question which is clear-cut in the policy and then oppose them for giving the policy answer seems even more petty than normal. ChaoticReality 00:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These so-called "policies" are not prescriptive at all. Just because a so-called "policy" says cool-down blocks are not acceptable doesn't mean they're actually not acceptable, and a potential community servant should understand Wikipedia well enough to realize that. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all users should follow." Whilst that statement does slightly support your view, I still think that following policy is important in a lot of cases, especially CDB. One might consider that, should that policy not exist, your account may have been blocked a lot more than it has been. ChaoticReality 01:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly though, it's a double-edged sword. Kurt is absolutely correct, policies are descriptive, however, what would happen if the candidate had answered "yes". How many editors would have opposed? Just putting it out there. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why I refer to it as an "anti-fence sitting question"...it's to force him to publicly take a stand on a matter that, either way, he's not going to be able to please everyone. What's wrong with that? That's an important character trait for a community servant to have, is it not? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the sneaking suspicion that had the candidate failed to answer as he did, people would be just as quick to jump all over him: "Aha! So you're planning to ditch Wikipedia policy in favor of your own private POV, are you? Oppose!!!!" In point of fact, an eagerness to take public stands on contentious issues is generally a poor trait for an admin to display on the job. As L'Aquatique sensibly said in her own RfA, Wikipedia. Is. Not. Congress. We don't elect admins to be debaters, spokesmen or legislators, and you don't want them to be any more than anyone else does. We elect them as technicians to administer nuts-and-bolts policy violations and cleanups. A pity that RfA is set up so that your vote that any admin candidate who seeks to uphold Wikipedia policy is unfit is worth three times as much as those who disagree, but that's another debate.  RGTraynor  08:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTE: I ask anyone to carefully consider whether the comment they intend to place pertains in any way to this RfA or not. Please put any pure meta-commentary on the talk page instead. user:Everyme 16:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your oppose basically, has no weight in my mind. It seems that you want the user to break away from widely accepted practice, that you consider it ok to go against the grain. While I agree IAR is needed in some cases, it surely is not a reason to oppose an RFA because the editor is not rebel enough for you. Could you have no asked a clarifying question instead of opposing? No, from your historical opposition of RFA's you appear to be looking for a reason to oppose. Very best! NonvocalScream (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per A6. Admins need to be able to explain their actions (and a lot of other things for that matter), and merely pointing to a policy in lieu of explaining it in your own words (and demonstrating your understanding, which is the entire purpose of asking the question), in my view, is insufficient and shows that something is lacking. I cannot support admins (or future-admins) taking this approach in answering questions (however obvious or tedious or repetitive they might be). Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "No, per WP policy." How much more direct can you get? The user says that CDBs are not acceptable because it says they aren't in the policy. The user explained their action quite clearly. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 12:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess what Kurt Weber and Ncmvocalist are saying is that the questions are not there so that the candidate can just point to a policy but for him to explain, what HE thinks and if he thinks the same as the policy then explain why he does so. WP:VAGUEWAVE is considered a bad criteria for a reason I think. But in the end you have to accept that some like such answers and some think them weak at best. There is no point arguing imho. So#Why 12:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak oppose - Q6 is a bit... hm.  Asenine  22:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    "Q6" is a trap question with no right answer. The onl;y answer that the "questioner" accepts is "yes, they are acceptable", which will obviosly lead to more opposes. Anything else bothering you? Keeper ǀ 76 22:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More or less a trap question. However, what I fail to understand is that it's been asked countless times before without giving anybody pause, now all of a sudden it's a cause for concern? Enough even to garner a flat oppose? Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In the past it was just a standard trick question - you answered it "They are never acceptable" and nobody had a problem, you said anything else and loads of people would jump on you. Since Kurt started using it as a new quick'n'easy criterion for opposing RfAs, it's almost impossible to avoid some kind of drama in answering the question. I have no idea what the solution is, I can't personally fault Good Olfactory for just answering it briefly. ~ mazca t | c 12:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, is there a better reason to oppose other than "Hm.."? Could you qualify your comment better? NonvocalScream (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The username is unacceptable. bye bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bringing Back Genius (talk • contribs) 15:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to elaborate? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented. Bringing Back Genius is an indefinitely blocked sock. - auburnpilot talk 16:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with city names in the title, i.e. use of WP:UNENCYC, but good argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Lance de Masi. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If he had "voted" to keep because the article was encyclopedic, I wonder would you have made this same comment... Stifle (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral While I would support in a future rfa, I feel the user needs a little more experience.--LAAFan 04:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - not quite there with experience. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 22 July 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/Good_Olfactory&oldid=1142504259"