Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Undead warrior 3

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

Undead warrior[edit]

Final: (44/34/8); ended 15:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Jimfbleak

Undead warrior (talk · contribs) – Undead Warrior has attempted RfA unsuccessfully before, and seems to be to have learned a good deal from the bruising experience last time around. I advised a lengthy wait before making this attempt, since I felt that it was necessary to establish a record of sound editing prior to the current submission. Undead Warrior spends much time on admin-type tasks (tagging for deletion, RC patrol, vandalism warning and reporting, and I believe now has demonstrated a good track record in dealing with other editors. Undead Warrior, now has the experience to make a good admin.


This user has indicate to me his willingness to be nominated, and I understand that there may be a co-nominator jimfbleak (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Jehochman

I am impressed by Undead warrior's creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Black Metal and the numerous articles and templates they have started. My review of their editing history shows that they engage in a variety of activities that suggest a capacity for adminship. A small sample of diffs I gathered include:

  • Patrolling with rollback/Twinkle:[1][2][3][4]
  • Twinkle, reporting to AIV, Vandal countermeasures: [5][6]
  • Correct use of warnings: [7][8][9][10]
  • Willing to help in other areas: [11] ... even Synthpop [12]
  • Speedy deletion work: [13]
  • AfD work indicates high signal to noise ratio: [14]
  • Image licensing and commons tagging: [15][16][17]
  • Concern for the newbies: [18][19]
  • Investigating sock puppets: [20]

Undead warrior has shown the ability to be fair, calm and dedicated. He sincerely wants to help and has shown me that he is willing to take advice. For these reasons I am co-nominating Undead warrior for adminship. Jehochman Talk 02:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Undead Warrior (talk) 17:38, 14 December 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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: My main task would be furthering the process of AfD, IfD, and AIV. I have reported many, many users over the duration of my Wikipedia existence and I would like to be able to act at a higher responsible level in that field of Wikipedia. I feel the same about AFD. I am very familiar with WP:N, WP:RS, WP:BLP1E, and many others that make recurring instances in AfD.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions deal with the field of my most fond musical aspect. I created the Black Metal WikiProject to bring together editors who had a fair amount of black metal. It is still growing, but it seems to have slowed in participation. I created it because The Heavy Metal Project didn't seem to be covering certain articles that deserved attention. Apart from the creation of WP:BLM, I have also heavily influenced some editing guidelines. A while back, I noticed a few articles about private airports. These articles had nothing notable about them and I nominated them for that reason. The ensuing debate sparked a discussion between the members of the aviation wikiproject. From the AfDs of the aviation articles came a new notability guideline for airports. This one was more based off of WP:RS.


3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have had a few past instances where I have had a scuffle with another editor and I believe I dealt with it well. I have never delt out a vulgar word to another editor, and if a few were sent my way, I would try and find out what the problem was. (Most of the time it was just a misunderstanding.) In the future, if any instances should occur, I will deal with it as I have before. I will try and reason with the other editor and try to find out why they are disgruntled. If I am in the wrong, I will apologize.


I now have to go to work and will not be back until later tonight. I strongly urge other editors to ask me questions. I will answer any and all.

Additional questions from Davidwr
4. (Optional) I see you are a severe Wikiholic, beyond cure. A Wikiholic with the sysop bit is a dangerous thing. What action will you take to make sure you do not indirectly block others from deleting the main page?
A:I'll try and answer this. Yes, I am a wikiholic, but I don't like to think of myself as dangerous. I just enjoy the wiki. :) Now, I need you to clarify something for me before I answer this question. (Sorry if this is an inconvenience.) Are you asking what I will take to prevent me preemptively blocking someone from deleting the main page? Or are you asking me what I would do to someone if they deleted the main page as a joke. Undead Warrior (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I forgot to put in <!-- this is a joke question --> on the A: line. My bad. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this also could have a serious effect to it. Only an admin can edit the main page, so, if it appears that a vandal has hacked an admin account, you would need to go to arbcom to recommend emergency desysoping. Undead Warrior (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Seriously, I do have a question.
Among the things I look for in a administrator is a general knowledge of policy, a knowledge of where to find current policy, and wisdom in ignoring policy when it's good for the project to do so. With that in mind...
What is your philosophy on taking potentially contested administrative actions in areas where you work in? For example, if there were an AFD for an article you had never edited or commented on about a barely-notable Black Metal band you happened to be fan of of-Wiki, would you participate in the AFD? If you did not participate in the AFD - maybe you chose not to or maybe you were unaware of it until it was ready for closing - and the results were in the "administrator's call" range, would you close it? Why would you take that action? I'm not so much interested in what you would do but why you would take that action. In particular, if that action is contrary to guidelines or policies, is this a case where WP:Ignore all rules applies? Optional followup: If your philosophy contradicts policy, whether or not you decided to follow policy or ignore the rules for the benefit of the project, what if anything would you do to see if there was a consensus to change policy?
A:I will answer this to the absolute best of my understanding. If I saw an AfD for a barely notable black metal band, one that I had never heard of, I would still take part in the discussion. If the band is truly notable, the article would be able to pass WP:RS and WP:N. I know that's a broad term to use, but it's my basis for nominating a lot of articles to AfD. In the metal world, there are many sources for many different bands, but only a few of them are actually notable. For example, articles written by Gary Sharpe-Young tend to have a much higher priority over what is stated in the Metal Archives. Now, taking that in consideration, if the band in question/article in question could pass WP:RS, yet the debate/discussion was tending towards having the admin decide whether or not to keep the article, I would keep it and post a nice review of why I kept it.
So, I'll summarize what I mean. If I am presented with an AfD that I am not familiar with, i.e. a black metal band I have no recognition of, I will take place in the debate. I will read each and every comment/!vote and form my own opinion about the article. I will look for sources for the band for it to pass WP:RS. If it can pass WP:RS or WP:N, I will keep it. If it cannot pass either of those two, or fails WP:MUSIC, I will delete it. I've known AfD discussions to bring up sources from editors who want the article kept, so I would naturally take a deep look at those presented, but, if none are available, and I cannot find anything to indicate any reason of the article being kept, then I would delete it. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5a. Followup to question 5:
Please address the appearant conflict with your answer to number 5 and Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators. Given the apparent conflict, will you pledge not to use your new tools until you have read the documentation related to the use of that tool, and at least perused the documents in Category:Administrator instructions, especially those in Category:Wikipedia New admin school? Like question 6, this is more of a very strong recommendation than a question.
A.Yes. I will pledge to read any and all information given/available for any new tool. I'm reading the deletion guidelines right now and I will move on. (Sorry if I go slow in the reading, I have a fairly nerve wracking check ride tomorrow. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


6. This is in direct response to Oppose #1 below, about incorrect speedy tagging. Would you pledge to adopt an "if in doubt, don't delete without a second opinion" philosophy when it comes to speedy deletions, particularly for items that were not previously tagged? Of course, if an administrator runs across something clear-cut, like an article whose edit history consists of nothing but copyvio, then you should skip the tagging and go straight for deletion. But if it's marginal, like something that might or might not be patent nonsense, would you pledge to not delete it until someone else looked at it, and/or tag it but let another administrator delete it? By the way, given the oppose below, this isn't really a question as much as an extremely strong recommendation.
A.I will pledge to adopt that philosophy. I really like the idea of tagging an article to have someone else give an opinion over it. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from Aitias
7. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?
A.:Yes there is. If that page was a blatant attack page, one that went out to harm someone else, I would delete it without a second thought and warn the user who made the page. (I have to go now, I have a final to take. I'll be back at about 9 ish. Wish me luck.) Undead Warrior (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?
A.: I would want the user to be established as an editor. To be honest, I don't like the idea of someone being on Wikipedia for a month and getting rollback. There is just too much to learn in that time frame. That being said, I don't want to see too many edit wars/disputes with other users. I think that giving a user with a troubled history rollback would only cause problems down the road. I would be looking for someone who knows the ropes. Who knows that rollback is a serious tool and that abusing it will have consequences. Undead Warrior (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?
A.:Personally, I don't think any circumstances exist. There should be no reason to use a non free image if the person is still alive. I have read the policy regarding non free media, and the only exception seems to be ignore all rules. But, I cannot see any reason a picture would be required on any article, at least, not to the extent of going against copyright. Undead Warrior (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. An IP vandalises a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that the IP vandalises your userpage. Summarising, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalised (your userpage) after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Respectively, would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interests?
A.: I would not ban the IP, but I would report it to AIV. It is a conflict of interest. It would be best left for a third party admin to ban the IP for the right period of time. Undead Warrior (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?
A.:There is a fairly large circumstance that sticks out in my mind. If the user is very severe in harassing other users, using physical threats, malicious vandalism, etc..., then an unwarned block would be pertinent. Undead Warrior (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from Foxy Loxy Pounce!

I have noticed that your edit summary usage is at 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits, I find that to be an perfect number but would like to ask you the following questions regarding the edit summary.

12. Why is an edit summary important when editing?
A.:It helps other editors know where you are coming from on editing. It helps control edit wars to an extent in my mind. Editors, in general, don't like to see their edit undone with no explanation. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Is an edit summary more important in a situation where the edit may be controversial?
A.: Yes. Controversial situations are bad enough as it is, but not providing any reason to your edit during that time only worsens the situation. A nice simple summary of why you did what you did helps control the situation a little bit better. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. As an admin, would you commit to turning on the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" option in your preferences or maintain a 99% or above edit summary usage?
A.: I have had that turned on for a few months now. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

  • My questions are designed to make you think about what it means to be an administrator and the consequences of making a mistake, even if that mistake was made in good faith on bad or incomplete information. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, that's okay. The hard questions need to be asked and this is the time to ask them. If you can think of anything else that you want to get off your mind, please feel free to ask away. Undead Warrior (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are enough legitimate concerns below about some of the candidate's AfD nominations and comments that I hesitate to support at this time. Normally, therefore, I wouldn't comment at all at this stage. However, I feel compelled to express my opinion that the hypertechnical objections to the three CSD's cited in oppose comment 1 are meritless. I make this comment because non-administrators are not in a position to review the deleted content and verify that these three "articles" were absurd and patently required deletion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NYB, The articles in question were cut and pasted on this RfA's talk page so that others can see what was tagged. None of them fit the criteria for G1. Two in my opinion were clear CSD's under other criteria, and the third should be prodded and sent to AfD if the PROD is contested. But I was glad to see somebody as respected as you comment as it helped affirm my belief in the matter.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the speedy deletion criteria is to identify articles that cannot reasonably be deemed an asset to Wikipedia and which should be deleted without extended discussion. There is obviously overlap among the various paragraphs of the criteria. If it is borderline whether an article should be considered "nonsense" or just "non-notable and meaningless," but it is obvious that the article should be deleted in either event, then it is a pointless waste of time to worry about which paragraph of the speedy deletion criteria should have been invoked. In no other aspect of the project that I can think of do we allow paragraph numbers ("G1") to substitute for words and analysis and we should not do here either. In any event, at least two of the three "articles" in question clearly qualifies as "nonsense" and the third very arguably does as well. I am sorry but I remain convinced that opposition to this user's candidacy based on these taggings is without merit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There are reasons CSD'd articles need to be properly categorized. A large part of that is new editors' contributions are (understandably but) disproportionately zapped under the criteria, and accurately telling users why they're getting zapped is essential to encouraging their future constructive participation here. The criteria do matter, and if I'm reading the right stuff on the talk page, those sure don't strike me as G1/nonsense candidates. Townlake (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... there's something to that, actually, although it doesn't change my opinion in this particular instance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to point this out to Undead Warrior because I'm feeling nice; Question 9 is asking you "what does policy say about the use of images of living people" not "what do you think". Ironholds (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's another of Undead's answers to the questions above I also disagree with- Undead said he would close as keep a black metal band- he should recuse closing the whole area the same as I would articles on Satanism if I were an admin- a pet topic of mine. Voting in such an AfD would be fine IMHO but he shouldn't close them as keep when the !votes have added up to a matter of the closing admin's discretion, as he's not impartial about this area of discussion (he tends to write metal stuff.) I suggested to Undead via email several months ago to do something about his shaky articles before any RfA or they would count against him, but he didn't see a problem, saying The Mandrake (band) were going to do a big tour with another more well known (perhaps, to those that are into that) band it was on their myspace (so it must be true:) ) Months later I still don't think this tour has been confirmed anywhere else, blessedly it isn't in the article. It's not the lack of tour that's the problem but UW's reliance on myspace and other internets sources rather than WP:RS. Sticky Parkin 02:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that response to Q9 heightens my concern that the candidate is unable to differentiate between policy and what he thinks policy ought to be--and in more areas than just deletions. DGG (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; see my much-mangled oppose. His answer indicates either 1) he is unable to understand the question even though it has been pointed out to him directly where he was going wrong with answering it (a very, very bad sign) or he is completely unfamiliar with image policies and would likely enforce "what he thinks" rather than "what the policy says". If the candidate (as stated above) does think that "There should be no reason to use a non free image if the person is still alive" I don't trust him near any BLP's with the tools (or anywhere with the tools if that is how he understands Ignore All Rules to work). Ironholds (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Per my co-nomination. Jehochman Talk 02:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my nomination. jimfbleak (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Good vandal-fighter. Wikipedia would benefit from him having the tools. —BradV 02:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A cursory glance of contribs and the links provided above gives me no reason to oppose. Good luck. :) — Manticore 03:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Candidate appears extremely competent. My concerns from the last RfA are now gone as far as I can tell. Thorough and thoughtful discussions at AFD - AIV reports look accurate. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Support per well-researched nomination and honest and constructive attitude of the candidate. He will make a few mistakes early on, possibly more than some new admins, but within a few months he should be a "net positive" for the project. Weak per demonstrated lack of tact. Holding off for answers to question 5 and other optional questions not yet asked, but the nominators did a lot of homework and I'd be surprised if I wind up opposing. If this nom passes it will serve as an example to other NOTNOW candidates. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC) updated to change to support and add comments davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC) updated to Weak davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Nominee is not familiar with all policies and procedures, but then, nobody new to a job is. With a little assurance that he'll read first and use the tools later, I'll still probably support him. I just have to know that he knows that he's got gaping holes in his knowledge and that he'll be very careful until he gets a better understanding of his new job. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no need to strike those comments. I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but I really appreciate constructive criticism. I build from it. I hope being slow in the beginning isn't looked down on either. I do not plan on jumping in head first. (I hope I didn't give anyone that image either.) Undead Warrior (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I struck them because they were part of the reason for the neutral !vote. Although they are still true, and I very much appreciate you taking them to heart, they are not the reason for my support !vote. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support changed to weak support due to candidate's demonstrated lack of tact (def. 4). This is a personality trait and the only thing that the candidate can do in the short term is to avoid situations where it will be a problem. His sysop bit will be a net asset to the project if he confines himself to routine tasks, like db-user/db-author deletions, clear-cut, confirmed, totally-dirty-edit-history copyvios, landslide 10+ to 1 AFDs, and the like. Otherwise, he could embarrass himself or worse, waste other people's time. I trust he will be able to use the sysop tools in a limited capacity now that he knows this is an issue. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Full disclosure: There is an ongoing conversation I started with the candidate split between his talk page and mine. I also sent him a private email the content of which I will release to the closing 'crat on request. As of now, he still has my weak support. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I am concerned somewhat by the CSD tagging, and urge the candidate to familiarize himself with the criteria as thoroughly as they can. However, I have confidence in this user, and believe that, were they promoted, they would do a good job. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support SD criteria are easily learned, and this isn't even a huge problem here given that all the mistags are nonsense. Granted, not the brand defined by the criteria, but this isn't that big of a slip-up. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 08:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Nine thousand edits and no blocks, longterm user, candidate seems to be getting it right as to whether something should or should not be deleted. Not sure if the undead have hearts, but if so Undead Warrior's would appear to be in the right place. I'm happy to wp:AGF. ϢereSpielChequers 10:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support My encounters with him have shown him to be a helpful person. Even thoguh he has made some mistakes, I believe he has learned from it. He'll do fine. 116.49.59.77 (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Leujohn (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC) (My bad, didn't realize I wasn't logged in)[reply]
  11. Support - good editor who has a clue, besides the opposing arguments seem to be a tad too... picky. Jauerbackdude?/dude.
  12. Support - trustworthy editor. Opposers raise some valid concerns, but consider giving him the mop would be a net positive. PhilKnight (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You sunk my battleship
  13. Support - very nice contributions, should have been sysopped a lot earlier. (btw, the above was a joke) ~-F.S-~(Talk,Contribs,Online?) 17:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I have re-reviewed the candidate’s contributions and I’ve given a second look at what the opposition has to say. I’ve decided to switch to support (up from neutral) because it has become painfully obvious that the candidate is more than qualified to be an admin and that the concerns being raised do not adequately define reasons for apprehension about his ability to handle the responsibilities of this position. For starters, Undead Warrior has created over 100 new entries. Yes, they are on the shortish side – but I’d rather have a succinct stub or a solid start article than a padded, flabby longer piece. Sometimes you achieve more with less. The fact that he’s filled a void in our coverage by creating these 100+ articles doesn’t seem to be acknowledged – to that, I openly say “Thank you!” to Undead Warrior for taking the time to research, write and upload all of this information. The attempts to question the candidate’s ability have included the citing of 3 CSD tags (not 13, not 30, not 300, but 3) and a single AfD based on an (admittedly) obscure figure in U.S. history. Let’s remember that CSD is highly imprecise and subjective. I’ve seen articles with references to major media deleted by admins (who insisted they were right!) while unreferenced articles with blatantly bogus information are kept because there was a micrometer of possible notability mentioned in a fleeting sentence. Of all the arenas in Wikipedia, this one is the most freewheeling, and I’ve seen no evidence that Undead Warrior is a one-man wrecking machine in this part of the project. As for AfD, c’mon – do you know anyone who’s maintained a 100% perfect score in bringing articles to deletion? Putting up a bum nomination goes with the territory - that's why we have the ability to withdraw nominations and give out barnstars for article rescue. The original concept of adminship is supposed to be “no big deal,” yet too often these RfA discussions devolve into creating big deals where none exist. Last week, we had a candidate who was set upon because of two indelicate sentences out of more than 13,000 edits. Today we have a candidate being challenged because of three CSD tags and an AfD out of more than 9,000 edits. The question should be: can we trust this individual to work with people, to help maintain the content and character of the project, and to ensure that operations are not disrupted by vandals? I believe the answer is an unqualifed “Yes!” and I am bringing my !vote over here. Pardon the lapse into the painfully obvious, but I am in the right queue. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Has shown a good track record, has gotten help from current admins and no obvious reason to say no.--Iamawesome800 20:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually you know what, after reviewing the questions again, I changed my feeling. I am now opposing.--Iamawesome800 20:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I think it's about time! Good luck! America69 (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. support appears to be vaguely sane William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support: Candidate poses no threat to the project. A couple of technically wrong speedy tags on articles that were... well... speedily deleted doesn't give me pause. Were the candidate stubbornly opposed to learning the ropes, then this would be an issue, but I see a desire to get it right. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Candidate has shown immense dedication to Wikipedia, and a few questionable tags on articles that would have been deleted anyhow strikes me as far too bureaucratic a rationale to serve as a disqualifier. As for positions at AfD, a difference of opinion at AfD is natural, and does not speak at all to likely actions as admin, which is a separate technical role. In short, from the descriptions from people who know the candidate's work, I conclude that the candidate would contribute greatly to Wikipedia's administrative underside. Ray (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. This was a tough one. I have a massive respect for Jehochman (probably unbeknownst to him), but the diffs he throws up in the nomination are ho-hum. Most of the opposes are picky and/or irrelevent - but UW's reactions don't display the tact, patience and maturity level that I prefer in an admin. Admins don't have to always act perfect - some of you know that I hold a low regard for WP:CIVIL, in that it is way too often used as a shield - but I'd like to see that when the time counts, when all the cards are out, the nominee can stay calm when under fire. Starting an RfA when your finals are going on isn't exactly good timing. However, all this is nitpicky stuff that we see sink way too many good candidates these days. So what if there were a couple G1 taggings that missed the mark. UW has the experience, he has the knowledge, he has the dedication, and he has my support !vote. As one of my informal mentors Pedro says - a net positive. Isn't that what we want here? Isn't shooting down a net positive essentially causing harm to the project? Say enough to the RfA derailments from one or two mistakes, and let's make this a more reasonable forum again. Tan | 39 02:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC) This was indented by Tanthalas39.[21] Jehochman Talk 20:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Unexpected, but strong support. When I first saw the "Satan's Elite" boxes on your user page, I thought for sure that I'd be opposing you---especially in light of my comments below. While I don't !vote per IDONTLIKEIT, those boxes raised some concerns. To be honest, part of me wanted to find a reason to oppose, and I was expecting to find more in your CSD work, but your CSD work is above average. There is one article listed below that clearly shouldn't have been nominated let alone deleted. And the other two were mistagged, but still deletable. That being said, why I am I willing to support you nonetheless? Because you don't rush to delete articles. You are very willing to prod articles or send them to AfD, which is IMO something people need to do more. CSD should only be done in the most obvious cases---something you seem to understand fully. Thus, I'm willing to overlook your few mistakes. So I looked for POV pushing, I didn't see anything more than the natural occurance of participating in discussions that interest you. But once you were involved in discussions, you didn't try to push an agenda, but rather pushed for what was best for the project. So I decided to check out your edit page, there were a few allegations of incivility... so I investigated them. Again, nothing worth opposing for...sometimes your words were questionable, but I think the people who tagged you with incivility, were a little overly sensitive. Then there is the allegation below of retailiation against an oppose. Tagging an image on an opposer during an RfA was plain stupid, but I don't think it was retailitory. I think it was more your instincts. You are active with images and deletion of images---these are areas where we are in desparate need of admins.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In light of all of the opposes he is getting below, I decided to revisit this candidate. Having revisited him, I stand behind my support. He's being creamed for being a bad CSD'er, but his CSD work really isn't that bad. 3 examples were brought up, all of which are deletable and probably all speedy deletable as well. I checked his other CSD's and didn't find anything glaring, but I did see a lot of prodding and sending to AFD... which is what I'd like to see more of. I think a lot of people are latching onto the low hanging fruit and opposing based on it. I don't see it.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Inherently suspicious of all editors whose primary content contributions relate to popular music or some other brand of popular culture (actors, sports, computer games, etc), but this is just my prejudice and the user is competent and decently qualified for the admin duties he is prepared to perform. Assuming it wasn't vindictive, I would urge Undead warrior to exercise better political judgment in future than tagging an oppose's image during the RfA. Political judgment is one of the qualities needed in a good and active admin. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Sure. I've had a quick look, all seems fine. Also, tagging an opposer's image for deletion shows a shockingly high amount of doing the right thing-ness. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 11:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Do I think this candidate knows all policies and guidelines by heart and can recite and apply them in a perfect manner? No. Do I think this candidate has a clue, will admit mistakes and learn what he does not know yet? Yes I do! SoWhy 13:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. After a careful review I find that while some of the opposers' concerns are legitimate, the first oppose comment which I do not believe has sufficient merit to warrant an oppose, appears to have been followed by too many other !voters without independent analysis. On this, please see my comments in the "discussion" section above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support A nod to the oppose !votes, I believe this candidate would be a benefit to the project as an administrator. Good luck! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Who gives a damn if most of the articles he's created are stubs? Last I checked, not all of us are prose-machines. Sam Blab 20:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Opposers only present a bunch of admin-only links. Need better proof. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See RFA talk page. Dlohcierekim 21:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. I'd skimmed the RfA a few times and the concerns raised in the opposes made it sound like this was just another of the uncivil deletion-happy people that we can do without giving admin tools to. But on further examination I really can't find anything that actually worries me. Undead Warrior, while he can indeed be a little terse sometimes, has never really crossed the line into being a dick to anyone - and while I acknowledge that arguing with opposes is frowned upon, I have to say he seems to have a point in several cases. I'm taking Balloonman's points about CSDs at face value (being a non-admin, I can't take a closer look myself), and beyond the few mistakes from a few months ago which have been already pointed out I can't complain. Great image work, too. This guy can make good use of admin tools and appears to have the necessary clue to do it properly. Best of luck. ~ mazca t|c 21:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Weak Support Pretty much the exact reason I wrote my net positive essay. On balance you will do more good than harm. I particularly like the image work, (an area many admins particularly myself are poor in). I'm optimistic that you will (if granted +sysop) be cautious and I would strongly urge you to seek advice if unsure, as you have intimated you will. Best. Pedro :  Chat  22:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Gone back and forth on this, but am persuaded by rootology, Pedro, mazca and Balloonman. Dlohcierekim 22:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Image and AfD work looks ok. Probably needs more experience of article CSD tagging before getting too involved there though. Epbr123 (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Good answer to questions, clean block log; per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 02:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Good all-rounder. Johnfos (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - Despite my dislike for admins who don't understand CSD criteria, I think the slipups mentioned on the talk page happened far enough in the past to safely ignore. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per Ecoleetage (talk · contribs), Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs) and Balloonman (talk · contribs)—all make good points worthy enough for me to offer my support. – RyanCross (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Per Ecoleetage (talk · contribs), Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs), Balloonman (talk · contribs) and RyanCross (talk · contribs). Rgoodermote  07:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Add-on to support: Comment: I have reviewed this editors contributions. I see that he has had moments that border on uncivil and I see a few bad CSDs and at least one bad AfD. But overall this editor is one of the best to be here on RfA and none of us are perfect, we are all humans. This editor out of over 9,000 good edits should not be judged based off just one or two bad edits. But judged by the quality of his work overall. This editor has shown to be a very productive and willing editor. He has shown he does understand the policies of Wikiepdia. He has shown great restraint when others would not, by nominating an article for AfD instead of going straight to the speedy. Him having the mop will help the project. Rgoodermote  07:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Generally good contributions. Minor problems noted in the opposition. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Why not? Dcollins52Tell me what you think
  38. Support I have looked at this editor's record with some care, as I see have a number of highly respected editors. While I see a minor error in classification in WP:CSD, this is an error from which one can easily learn, and I am sure that this editor will do so. I am certain that he can be trusted with the tools, and I urge that he be given them. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support an editor who stives to improve Wiki, whether with articles (stubs included) or by Bold editing. With respects to the opposers, and their repeated harping on early edits (Gee, were any of them perfect when they first began on Wiki?) this editor has shown an increased and growing exerience and a heartfelt willingness to take on tasks that many shudder to even consider. He would be an asset to Wiki as an Admin. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Per the noms, per answers to the first three questions, per positive contributions to this project in multiple varied capacities. Cirt (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per Ecoleetage and balloonman. Eusebeus (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong Support as per Balloonman. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 22:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support This User has a good chance of becoming a admin, although I did look at George Benson's AFD, and he was a notable quaker. Also, I think you could change this place into a better one! Best of Luck.--Pookeo9 (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support An editor who stives to improve Wiki in the best way possible - don't abuse too much if you win ;] Kalajan 19:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose - per faulty CSD taggings here, here, and here. G1 is for patent nonsense. None of those were incoherent nonsense, none fit under G1. User:Balloonman/Why_I_hate_Speedy_Deleters#G1 explains in more detail. Xclamation point 03:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For every faulty CSD tag that's deleted without any change to the reasoning, it means an administrator either 1) agreed with the tag or 2) agreed a different tag applied but did not either replace the tag or indicate a change in reasoning in the edit summary. If said administrators are open to trout-slapping, get your trouts ready. By the way, we all make mistakes, if an article doesn't quailify for one speedy but it clearly qualifies for another, I'm not going to be too WP:POINTY about it. On the other hand, if TWO people say an article is speedy-worthy when it's not, or an administrator speedy-deletes something that wasn't previously tagged and he's wrong, it's time to give the administrator and, if applicable, the editor, a reading assignment for homework. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that this is barely a point to be raised. They were all nonsense pages, and maybe he just didn't know how strict the criteria was. Also, Note: copying deleted pages to talk page so that people can know what we're talking about. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 08:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't looked at UW's edits, but the key behind RFA is to ensure that only the best CSD'ers get the button. The problem isn't that we have people making mistakes, it is that we have people with the delete button who don't know or don't follow the rules. If they don't know or don't follow the rules, I don't want to promote them to where they will continue to not following the guidelines. The fact that an admin deleted articles incorrectly, only serves as proof that we need to be more careful in granting the tools. The criteria are strict for a reason.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Where does the candidate indicate they are going to be a CSDer? Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When I became a sysop, I had no idea how to process a CSD, but then somebody showed me. I will happily give Undead warrior CSD those same lessons when the time comes. Jehochman Talk 17:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think an excess of 2,500 articles many of them via tagging is clear indication of his past interests. If he hasn't been doing them properly in the past, I won't support him. CSD is just too important to get right the first time, that somebody with 2500 edits should have the basic understanding already.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 18:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As a person who despises poor CSD'ers and is being cited above, I should comment here... I've reviewed this editors CSD noms going back to August... and I was actually impressed with most of this candidates CSD work. The cited examples are wrong. One of them should never have been nominated let alone deleted, but the other two while not G1 were still deletable. As for his CSD work, the thing that impressed me was how often he used PROD/AFD. PROD/AFD are under utilized. CSD should only be used for the most egregious cases, and I found his edits to be more on the cautious side than wreckless side.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Three faulty CSDs from August/September 2008? That's pretty trivial. How has he been since September? rootology (C)(T) 15:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    September is recent enough for me to have concerns, if it was part of a larger trend or there wasn't a clear indication of change. The thing that swayed me to the support were the AfD/PROD's. If he were to have continued his CSD trends, I would have probably opposed, but I'd rather see somebody err in caution by sending something to AFD/PROD than err by sending something to CSD.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can i stick my two cents worth in? Granted those three CSD noms are not G1, I can fully understand how an editor could expand the definition of nonsense to include them. (Perhaps we should have a new category, WP:C**P) And IMHO they all qualify as WP:CSD, albeit ideally not as G1. This is absolutely not a reason to withold adminship. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Xclamationpoint. I can't actually see the CSD's myself (admin only) but I'm going to trust his ability to, y'know, see and all. Fault CSDing is a big problem, and having admins that don't fully understand the criteria is a bigger one. Ironholds (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Moving BACK to oppose (never happened before, to me anyway). My earlier concerns and those brought up by other users show worrying tendencies in both CSD and AfD situations, and the responses of the candidate to opposers and to questions indicates to me that this user does not seem to have the temperament required for adminship.Ironholds (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Make that an extra strong oppose per question 9. The candidate misunderstood the question and wrote something completely unrelated to policy; after I informed him it required policy knowledge he contradicted himself. Nobody who actually has read the image policies and guidelines would say "the only time a non-free image of a living person can be used is Ignore All Rules"; since when has a Wikipedia policy topped, say, US copyright law? That also exibits a complete misunderstanding of what Ignore All Rules is intended for; it is meant to be used when following the rules would harm the encyclopedia and not doing so would help it; I hardly consider "risking the foundation getting sued" a way to help the project. Ironholds (talk) 09:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    G1 is the most commonly abused tag - I see three examples, that non-admins cannot read which means they were in fact deleted, representing an area that the candidate doesn't even say they intent to work in. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    G1 is the most commonly abused tag, yes, which is why it is important we have admins with a firm grasp of what is and is not covered by it. Ironholds (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot see any of the diffs being represented, but, if you could maybe copy and paste them onto my talk page, or on this talk page, that would be greatly appreciated. Then I could try and explain my actions. I cannot even see when I made the edits. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironholds, I understand how one reaches that conclusion, but the fact is if we continue to harp or 2 or 3 diffs of misapplied G1 tags, a plethora of great competent editors will be denied the tools and decrease the chances of net positive gains. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Strong Oppose Eh, I just did a quick glance at the AFD work and I'm not impressed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Benson (Quaker) exhibited poor research on your part and the closing admin noted that it was possibly nominated in bad faith. The follow-up at User talk:Bearian#RE:AFD had a very stubborn tone to it, in an "I don't care if it's 20 votes to keep with solid arguments, I think it's not notable and I'll delete it anyway per WP:RS." I suppose I have to empathize a second time that this is not a direct quote, but the vibes that his posting style gives off. kind of way. In another AFD, voting to delete "Per WP:SNOW" and nothing else isn't going to fly. After this and the other examples above, along with your desire to work in AFD, I don't trust in your abilities to competently use the tools. SashaNein (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC) This user is now known as Vodello (talk · contribs).[reply]
    I have talked with that admin and we have cleared up any and all issues. Also, I nominated George Benson because I truly did not find anything about him when I did my search. I didn't just slap a CSD on it. I also never said that quote you listed. If that was not what you meant, sorry in advance. But, WP:SNOW is a good point to post on some AfDs. WP:SNOW is a common sense type of article. It basically states exactly what I was meaning it to say. There was no way that article passed any guidelines nor would it ever. Thus my !vote. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It had already been made obvious that I was not directly quoting you. I apologize, but this is not swaying my opinion that you would be suited for adminship. SashaNein (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Doing this in response to someone's oppose makes you look very petty. I am extremely weary of what possible revenge actions you would take if you actually had the tools. I'm not willing to take that chance. Moved to STRONG oppose. SashaNein (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick question. User:SashaNein is no longer registered on wikipedia. Does this mean anything for this RfA? Undead Warrior (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The user was recently renamed, who I won't mention for privacy concerns. And also, user accounts can't be deleted. Xclamation point 14:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Oppose very unimpressive Afd's, can't even be bothered to explain own nominations. SNOW kept afd shows lack of skill in article research. Most created articles are stubs, I can't trust you with the delete tools if you can't balance it with good article building skills.--Lenticel (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for my asking, but what does my stubs have to do with becoming an admin? Yes, I know I havn't really focused on turning an article into FA class, but that's not to say I don't have some good articles. I make a lot of album pages which is why I have a large stub count. Undead Warrior (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Balance. An editors who knows how hard it is to create and maintain large articles will be a little more careful when dealing with Afd's and this carries on to adminship. If you don't even bother expanding your own stubs, how much more would you care for articles made by other people on the Xfd's? Your actions on various Afd's already answers that question. Chances are that your closed discussions will have a high DRV turn rate which will produce more work than needed. Should you fail this RfA, I suggest that you do less of citing three lettered WP acronyms and work more on researching ref's.--Lenticel (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, not every stub can be stretched into an FA. As we say in the construction trade, you can't build a three story house on a one story foundation. More often than not, a stub is perfectly adequate to get across the who/what/where/when/why/how for the subject at hand. Ecoleetage (talk) 05:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That argument fails, though; quite a few albums have made FA status. Ironholds (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but look at the number of stubs/start articles compared to FA album articles. Some albums just cannot be developed into FA class. Undead Warrior (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I said expand and maintain, not FA. I'm not wishing for the impossible, just the palusible.--Lenticel (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not every stub deserves to be expanded -- a succinct stub is sometimes stronger than a flabby, padded start article. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - Disagree on how AFDs should be approached, particularly with hierarchy of policies/guidelines/essays/WikiProject rules. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose due to the concerns regarding CSD tagging that have been raised. It Is Me Here t / c 16:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. While UW's attitude seems good and he has done a lot of good work here, I feel better judgment with regard to notability is required for adminship. Some of the articles nominated for deletion by various means were not well-judged, and UW seems weak as an editor with regard to citing reliable sources in articles. In the latest 10 articles created by the nominee, all within the last 3 months, I don't see a single reliable source cited as a reference. He's heading in the right direction, but I would recommend that he works on his skills as an editor, demonstrating the application of policy and guidelines, for a time before seeking adminship.--Michig (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, I have made a few good pages. The Mandrake is a fairly well sourced article. Undead Warrior (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I think this illustrates the problem. The allmusic review is fine as a source. The others don't look like good sources to me.--Michig (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In all fairness, he is writing about a niche music genre that is often ignored by mainstream media, both print and online. I can appreciate the challenge that goes into trying to get reliable sources for this subject matter. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a few notable bands out there, and I have been able to find some mainstream sources for some. (i.e. Gorgoroth, Dimmu Borgir, Cradle of Filth etc...), but for the most part, finding sources that everyone is familiar with is really tough to do. Undead Warrior (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I accept that, but WP:N and WP:RS apply to all articles, even those dealing with niche areas. I think it's essential that an admin undertands that. Subjects that are so 'niche' that there is no coverage in reliable sources are not notable and shouldn't have articles here. I don't accept that being 'niche', 'underground', or shunning publicity (all arguments that I have seen in favour of keeping some music-related articles, from various editors) excuses the application of policy.--Michig (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking this even further, how does the most recent addition, Heritage (Astrofaes album), pass WP:NALBUMS? Not only are there no RS in the thing, but the band also looks to fail WP:BAND, so no dackdoor in that way. Shouldn't be merged into the bands article per the suggestion at WP:NALBUMS? Also, with a MOS issue, we generally don't repeat ELs that are used as sources. If your own articles should not pass AFD, how can you propose deleting others? Aboutmovies (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't think it passes standards, nominate it. But, they are signed to a notable label, and have released multiple releases on that label. Upon that, they have direct ties to two notable bands, Drudkh and Hate Forest. That being said, they easily pass WP:MUSIC. Undead Warrior (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Both Drudkh and Hate Forest have articles here, but there isn't a single reliable source in either of them. If you're putting forward Supernal Music as a notable label, this also has no sources and claims to notability look a little creaky to say the least. I'm sorry to have to say this, but I feel there's a basic lack of understanding of notability criteria here.--Michig (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless it's sourced, no it does not pass notability guidelines. See the lead to Wikipedia:Notability (music). Aboutmovies (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you really don't think it's notable, nominate it for deletion. But I will tell you now, after seeing multiple nominations of this sort, they almost never succeed. I've seen band after band, black metal or not, go to AfD with the reason that it fails WP:RS and watch it succeed with an overwhelming number of keep !votes. Undead Warrior (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't an AfD for that article, the issue here is whether you understand the notability guidelines and the need for reliable sources. A year ago, this sort of article may have been kept. These days, I doubt it would be. My concern is that you see these articles that you have created as perfectly good articles, while articles with more going for them than this are nominated for deletion.--Michig (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose After Baloonman's AfD mess, I will never vote for any admin candidate who doesn't exhibit the utmost understanding of Wikipedia policy, which, as pointed out in the first Oppose, this candidate does not. Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Baloonman hasn't made a comment about AfD. It was about CSD. Undead Warrior (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to understand the linking of Balloonman (and AfD, strangely) to this RfA - you couldn't expand could you? Caulde 20:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Balloonman nominated about 10 American football players for AfD yesterday under what consensus thus far has deemed an incorrect interpretation of the notabiilty guidelines. Townlake (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The user also tagged a self-created image on my user page for deletion as payback for this Oppose. While hilarious, it's a bid childish. Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, what an... er, consensus has apparently changed in the regards to collegiate athletes, but I guess you haven't been around long enough to recall other interpretations. So, I nominated some articles that don't fit current consensus big hairy deal. But bringing up those AFD's here, in this manner, leads me to conclude only one thing, that you are doing so in an effort to embarrass me? Nominate one cluster of articles and get a pointy bity response... wow. I certainly hope your edits are clear of all mistakes.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: How long ago did consensus change? Since I've been around (11/2006) the BIO guideline has said "meeting the first criteria" regarding athletes, which is to say the criteria of WP:N, thus N trumps what was not even yet shortcutted as WP:ATHLETE. Just because most people skipped straight to the WP:ATHELETE section without reading the rest of the guideline and missed the beginning of the "Additional criteria" really doesn't mean consensus has changed. Aboutmovies (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I responded on Aboutmovies talk page, but take a look at July-Sept of 2007. During that timeperiod, when I was active at AfD, WP:Baseball and wp:Athlete were being cited all over the place to delete college and minor league athletes. The sense at the time was that if they didn't play professionally, they were deleted. This appears to have changed, but a quick review at that time period would show that the guidelines were given undue weight over the policy.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, this user has made too many mistakes in AfD and CSD to gain my trust. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 21:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Oppose due to retaliatory CSD tagging for another user's oppose vote. --Smashvilletalk 21:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't a retaliation. I saw an image and I was originally going to copy it to commons, but it did not have a license. So I tagged it and told him about it. There's nothing bad about that Undead Warrior (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a toughy - by all appearances what you did was correct, but even assuming good faith, the timing gives rise to a legit question. (I don't think it's oppose-worthy, but that's just me.) Townlake (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll admit his oppose did make it happen, but only because it gave me a link to his page where the image was. I was/still am going to move my nominators image to commons tonight. It's one of the things I do. Whoops. Wasn't logged in .Undead Warrior (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume good faith. This indicates a problem with tact (def. 4) which will impair Undead Warrior's ability to use the tools when controversial decision-making is called for. If he can stay out of such situations and focus the tools on obvious speedies or expired prods, he should be okay with the tools. My support is admittedly eroded but it's still in the support category. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Retaliatory CSD tagging"? He's following established procedure by tagging an image without copyright information; aren't we supposed to be encouraging users who do things the right way? I'm not entirely convinced that Tool2Die4's oppose is in good faith, given that he interpreted this by jumping to the conclusion that Undead Warrior is acting in the name of petty revenge. Sure, bad timing, and while this can be questioned, jumping to oppose based on this assumption seems a bit harsh (of course that's my opinion only, you're free to oppose for what reasons you want to). Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 22:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even bots will ask a user to change the info on an image and give them a week, rather than putting it up for CSD. It also lacks the diplomatic skills an admin might need if Undead didn't realise how doing that might appear after someone had opposed him in his RfA, and while it is on. Sticky Parkin 02:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak oppose - Unhappy with AfD and CSD work. — neuro(talk) 02:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And a notice - three RfAs in a year, no matter how spaced out, is a lot in my opinion. I'm not adding that as a reason to oppose, I just think that coming to RfA too frequently suggests it (not that you necessarily are, it's just I have no evidence to the contrary as I have not interacted with you personally and got a feel for you). — neuro(talk) 02:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggests what? I think you forgot to finish the sentence. :P Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 06:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Power hunger. — neuro(talk) 08:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure you don't mean PowerBar hunger? After all, warriors (both living and undead) need their energy. Besides, we need our future admins to be in peak fitness condition! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Prima facie evidence of powerbar hunger. And don't forget waffles. But seriously, I am questioning my oppose !vote, may change later. — neuro(talk) 16:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Powerbars give this warrior gas. :( Undead Warrior (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose due to excessive arguing with opposers. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Change to strong oppose; if you can't be civil here, there's little hope for the rest of the encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't going to pass in any case. I don't see much point in piling on and antagonizing the user further. RFA is a nasty process, as this page shows. It started with unfair criticism, as Newyorkbrad pointed out in the discussion section above, and regrettably the candidate seems to have become disillusioned. We are all human, and should try to understand that people can get upset when they feel mistreated. Jehochman Talk 16:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose - see related neutral below. On a similar note to Stifle above, I must take concern with the lack of tact, patience and above all the judgement I would expect from this administrator candidate - as demonstrated by the more-than-just-a-few erroneous taggings of articles as described above me. Similar concerns have been suggested at prior RfAs and this leads me to be worried about the overall quality of this editor and whether or not he will ever be a quality administrator; despite the time frames between the two candidacies. Caulde 16:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Strong Oppose - no-one can make informed decisions about written words if they don't comprehend what is written. His reaction to 3 Strong Oppose above is a good example. The opposer wrote "this is not a direct quote" but Undead Warrior responded with (I) "never said that quote you listed". Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Changed to Strong Oppose after seeing his reply to Nsk92 below which yet again demonstrates he doesn't comprehend what he reads on Wiki.Kaiwhakahaere (talk)[reply]
    Your new comment is now starting to breach WP:CIVIL. That last part was not needed/wanted/welcomed by any member of Wikipedia. This is RfA, keep it civil. Undead Warrior (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I could change to even stronger oppose I would. You are wrong in saying my comment is not needed/wanted/welcomed by any member of Wikipedia. As an aspiring admin you should be familiar with this, especially where it says "Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections". Also, you need to brush up on WP:CIVIL. Your perception of it would get you into all sorts of strife as an admin. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In all fairness, that wasn't added until after I commented. This is the diff. Undead Warrior (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When you find yourself in a hole, you should stop digging. The addition was qualified by the user who wrote "I suppose I have to empathize a second time that this is not a direct quote." You didn't comprehend his first comment was not a quote, and even now continue to dismiss that fact. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again. Stop making comments like this in RfA. You need to realize that he never stated that it was not a direct quote. He just made a quote with no explanation before or after to state it was an indirect quote. And now you are claiming I cannot comprehend what is being stated on the Wiki. Either way, you are going against WP:CIVIL in RfA when you claim someone is not competent to the extent that you are. Undead Warrior (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you think the user meant when saying "... I have to empathize a second time that this is not a direct quote..."? How can you possibly have the gall to seek adminship when you read that then say "he never stated that it was not a direct quote"? That is a real worry for wikipedia because sysops are expected to have more rational judgement. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've warned you enough. You are not adhering to WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. Yes, he typed that in to emphasize a second time, but he never typed anything to emphasize an indirect quote the first time. There were no words that directly stated "This is an indirect quote". He never said that. How can you have the gall to attack nominees during their RfA? Consider this your last warning. Stop disrupting this process and stop attacking me. Undead Warrior (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you didn't have the comprehension problem I mentioned in my first oppose paragraph, you would see that he thought an edit you made was in a kind of way. Go back and look. He described the kind of way and put his description in quotes. He was not quoting you. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Consider this your last warning"? That's a bit strong just because another editor expresses concerns about your editing (whether you agree or not), which is an entirely approriate activity here. If you have given him his "last warning", what comes next?--Michig (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He went way beyond the line of just putting in his two cents. He is using personal attacks now and that is not allowed. Undead Warrior (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you perform like this as a non-admin, what would you be like with the tools? Hardly bears thinking about. You are not doing yourself any favoursKaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You really don't know when to quit do you. If you attack users, even admins, they will react like I am. It's simple. You attacked me on my RfA. I told you to stop. You didn't. I gave a warning. You kept going. I really suggest you just let this conversation die here. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I really suggest you take a deep breath, review this thread, and then honestly assess whether you are sysop material. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggsest you stop instigating quarrels. Any sysop, if pushed, would react eventually. Especially when attacked. Undead Warrior (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tell us. If in a future RfA you saw an applicant behave as you have in this thread, would you vote for her/him? Also, sysops don't react to imaginary "attacks" because that would show they lack stability and ability to see things clearly. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, you are completely ignorant towards what you did. Insulting someone's intelligence, for what ever reason it may be, or where it may be, is a direct violation of WP:NPA. Plain and simple. End of discussion. Undead Warrior (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't answer the question, which was "Tell us. If in a future RfA you saw an applicant behave as you have in this thread, would you vote for her/him? " Well? Do you remember writing above "The hard questions need to be asked and this is the time to ask them"? It is also a time to answer them. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully suggest you both drop this. Much heat, no light. Townlake (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "No heat from me Townlake, just an attempt to help him see the light. But I guess you are right re dropping it, so roger wilco, and you have a very merry xmas. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "if they don't comprehend what is written". I-ron-y. Try figuring out the actual conversation before you oppose for it. Tan | 39 21:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You must have missed where SashaNein pointed out that (it) was a "I don't care if it's 20 votes to keep with solid arguments, I think it's not notable and I'll delete it anyway..." kind of way?" He wasn't quoting him! Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose for not fully understanding AfD standards. Said above that " I've seen band after band, black metal or not, go to AfD with the reason that it fails WP:RS and watch it succeed with an overwhelming number of keep !votes". I checked Oct.30 as a random day and found 11 band afds: 1 keep, 2 non-consensus, 7 delete. This is not my subject, but its clear from the stats that the candidate's view of what does or should happen at afd is very different from the consensus. DGG (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    David, a sample size of one day with 11 bands is hardly representative. If you look at the candidate's contributions and comments at AfD, you'll see that he understands policy and supports the goals of the project. My criteria at RFA is whether the person can be trusted with the tools, not where they rank on the inclusionist-deletionist spectrum. (I'm not even sure where I rank in that debate.) Jehochman Talk 21:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, what Undead Warrior said is correct and anyone who is familiar with that subject area in AfD should be able to confirm that. Many band articles are not well written and lack proper references. They go to AfD because people assume the article is about another garage band with a MySpace page and nothing more; you often have to dig to find the references and rally to save the article. I've seen this happen many times. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not discussing his view of what the standard ought to be--I was discussing his knowledge of what the current standard in practice was. If he does not understand what articles the community does and does not actually delete at AfD, how can he close debates in accordance with community standards? DGG (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. strong oppose- is a nice enough person but simply can't grasp what to most mature people count as WP:RS, at least when it comes to bands he personally likes. He just can't assess the level of sources objectively if it's something he thinks should have an article based on his own interests. As a case in point, see his article The Mandrake (band) Dying Sentiment, The Burning Horizon at the End of Dawn probably more. If he can't assess even slightly objectively the sources for something he likes (internets sites, barely any mentions in real newspapers etc, demos and so on) how can he assess situations accurately as an admin- he will pick a side in a dispute based on what he likes and be unable to see it any other way, is my fear. Hasn't grasped much about WP:RS; will put articles up for deletion, but won't subject things he himself likes to his own scrutiny (we're all like this a bit, but it's something an admin/potential admin should try to diminish in themselves before being appointed.) Sticky Parkin 22:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - As has already been mentioned here, the AfD skills seem lacking. I was also perturbed by a comment made by the candidate on this very page: "for the most part, finding sources that everyone is familiar with is really tough to do" as an explanation for poorly sourced music articles. While just a single comment, this might seem petty, but I feel this shows a fairly serious lack of understanding of WP:RS (which is central to WP:N - an issue particularly germane to this RfA). -Seidenstud (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per exclamation point at the top of the page, and [[22]]. Also, if he wants to work to make wikipedia and wikipedians better, [of order] warnings like that and [[23]] make me feel all the worse. I wanted to support! K50 Dude ROCKS. (sorry about the bad wikification =/ )
  19. Strong Oppose, terrible AfD work, exemplified by a recent AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Benson (Quaker) where the candidate was the nominator. As the closing admin said, "Borderline bad-faith nomination". Nsk92 (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to ask. You do realize that that admin apologized for that remark and even has it down at the bottom of this page? No offense, but, what do you personally think made that a bad faith nomination? Undead Warrior (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course, I have seen his remark below and if you think that this was an apology I respectfully suggest that you read his comment in the neutral section again. I should also note that the admin's closing comments I quoted above are still a part of his closing statement and are not retracted. Regarding that AfD itself, what I do know is that the article was a very poorly chosen AfD target and poorly argued AfD nomination. I am far from an inclusionist myself, but anyone who makes these kinds of AfDs is simply unfit to be an admin. I might also add that agressive arguing with the opposers by an RfA candidate displays less than spectacular level of clue. Nsk92 (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, it was a well researched nomination. I searched online for a trace of this man and found nothing. I even tried to track down a book or two on some related works, and again, I found nothing. Now, it appears that other people did find material, but I hardly see why 1 AfD should say that all my AfD work is terrible. No offense, but this isn't really me arguing. I'm just trying to figure out where you are coming from on your oppose. Undead Warrior (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't know how you do your searches, but even a quick filtered googlebooks search for Quaker abolitionist "George Benson" returns 102 hits[24], already the first of which[25] provides in-depth specific coverage of the subject. Nsk92 (talk) 07:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll admit I didn't use google book search, but, I am still wondering why one bad AfD makes all of my AfD nominations terrible. Undead Warrior (talk) 07:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, just because a closing admin said something is "X" doesn't mean it is "X" and all other opinions are void. Since when did admins become infallible? We wouldn't have DRV if there weren't so many AfD admin-induced screw-ups! Remember that we're talking about opinions, not facts, and the opinion expressed in the closure of that particular AfD was provocative to the point of being toxic. Phony accusations of bad faith, presented without any evidence to back that claim, reflect poorly on the people who make the accusations and not the people they are designed to malign. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please. I did not say that the admins are infallible and I did make up my own mind here and not simply read the admin's opinion. This was an AfD where good sources were very easy to find by doing a standard search and where the nominator professes to having looked rather hard but to have found nothing of substance. If he really still does not know about the three basic good google searches for looking for sources (googlnews, googlebooks and googlescholar) and one bad one (plain google search), he is not ready for the delete button. Nsk92 (talk) 11:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but you are still citing a single AfD as reason for disqualification, which is unfair. The candidate has created more than 100 original entries, so it appears he knows how to look for sources via Google. He has also participated in other AfDs without incident, yet this sole effort keeps getting waved about as an example of incompetenence. There is a huge difference between intentional bad faith and a boo-boo. And as they say in Jellystone Park, this one was just a boo-boo. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it is somewhat unfair, but if somebody participated in lots of AfDs but still does not know the basics of how to look for sources, that is a big problem in my book. There are other issues that I did not explicitly raise in my original comment (probably I should have) that were mentioned by others. Excessive arguing with the opposes is one and the nature of most of the articles created by the candidate is another. Now, I certainly do not insist on an RfA candidate having FA/GA/DYK content, but I definitely want to see some serious article-building experience beyond short stubs. It is quite necessary for balance, especially for somebody who is actively involved in AfDs and in deleting content created by others. Looking through the candidate's contribs, I see lots and lots of short album stubs that contain little more than a track listing. Whenever I see such articles, I always get an itch to propose them for a merge or even an AfD. As WP:MUSIC says, "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." For somebody who has such a strong interest in deleting article's of others, I would want to see the candidate bring most of his own articles to at least a start-class level, which is really a rather low bar. And, incidentally, for somebody who is so concerned about WP:RS, most of the candidate's album stubs do not have any independent third-party references at all (usually just a couple of external links). Nsk92 (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I see where you are coming from now. I have had my articles nominated for deletion before, and, that normally sparks people to put many sources on them. (By people I mean me) The only reason I made those album pages was to get a start on them. I saw red links out the wazoo on some band pages so I decided to make them into articles. If you want, tell me one of my articles that you don't think passes guidelines and I'll put at least 3 reliable sources on it. Undead Warrior (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked and no such sources really exist on The Mandrake or their albums.[26][27] [28] . I think when I searched thoroughly a few months I found one sentence about them in what I consider to be WP:RS which just said they were an up and coming (i.e. not yet well known) band or something like that. There's a more well known band called The Mandrake Project, but that isn't them. We disagree of course about what constitute WP:RS, I mean real newspapers or their websites usually, not a music website written by anyone and not recognised as authoritative by most people. As you can see above, several other people feel these cites are not WP:RS either. Sticky Parkin 20:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sticky, you have linked to the wrong article, and your Google searches you ran appear to be UK News searches. If this is not a UK band, I would not expect to find any hits on that search. Jehochman Talk 23:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - a history of bad CSD tagging has to make any candidate a non-starter. WilyD 15:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Oppose - Ouch. The CSD tagging rings of bad judgment, if judgment is even used. Administration relies on quality judgment and oversight, user has not proven this. bigjake (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. As others have pointed out, has demonstrated poor proficiency when dealing with deletion-related matters. Vigorous defence of his shortcomings here doesn't make things any better, either. - Mailer Diablo 21:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per all above. —macyes: bot 00:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. I was going to abstain here, as I'm utterly unfamiliar with the area of the candidate's major contributions, but the editor's arguing with the Oppose votes has tipped me into joining them. I am uncomfortable giving the delete button to someone whose AfD work seems so slipshod. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. I have to oppose this candidate. I don't oppose because of any issues with CSD's, AFD's or article building. I oppose because of the candidate's boarderline attacks on oppose voters. A candidate for sysop-ship should be able to take criticism and learn from it. He should, if the criticism is not valid, try to clarify things but be able to walk away when the other party will not listen to reason. He has not shown that ability in this RFA. In addition, regardless of whether the tagging for speedy deletion is valid or not, he should make every effort to avoid even the appearence of retaliatory action against those who opposed his adminship. If there is a real issue with an image or article after all, it is not like this particular candidate had to tag the image of that other user. I am assuming good faith; I am not saying he retaliated against that user, but the fact that he didn't take a moment to consider how tagging that image would look before tagging it says he lacks the necessary skills to become an admin. Theseeker4 (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. regrettably. --fvw* 03:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. My thoughts went something like this: An admin candidate who has concern for newbies? Sounds good to me... wait, what? The best example of his "concern for newbies" are a hidden comment and a templated welcome message? His contributions appear less than outstanding in his other areas of expertise, too (not that it's possible to make outstanding contributions using Twinkle). rspεεr (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose, initially, I was inclined to support, but there are just too many errors in his AFD work and in his CSD tagging for me to be confident. Wikipedia already has enough admins that can't tell a G1 from an A7, we do not need another. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  29. Oppose. AfD and CSD work is concerning. I can't really trust the candidate to delete articles flimsily; it will cause more harm than good to Wikipedia. DiverseMentality 04:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose Don't like certain answers and must say, I don't like the Satan's Elite stuff.--Iamawesome800 20:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose per opposes 10, 12 and 14 - oddly, this page is 54KB long. I wonder how that happened. Also, the CSD tagging in retaliation was quite a stupid thing to do during an RfA; I'm not sure you have the best judgement. AfD work is quite subpar, as is the attitude. I understand RfA opposes aren't great Christmas presents but you needn't argue the point to death. You will only get the oppose strengthened. Garden. 09:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose. The way that this editor has responded to criticism here has confirmed my previous impression that he lacks the necessary powers of judgement to be an admin. I think that by now it is pretty obvious that his response to any conflict is to fight, rather than to try to build a consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. CSDs just scare me (though candidate shows a willingness to learn, this should be fixed as a non-admin, not as an admin) and the fact that he responded to almost every single oppose... Personally, I'd prefer if the candidate just took the criticism as a place for improving instead of disagreeing with every single critic. Sorry, but best of luck to you in the future! DARTH PANDAduel 01:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose. This candidate strikes me as too much of a conformist. Experience has shown us that conformists make bad Wikipedia administrators. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 16:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Switch to Neutral per Wisdom89's comments. While faulty tagging is serious enough (yes, even in only a few cases) that I'm not going to support, considering that the user 1) seems to be a net positive and 2) is not planning on working in that area an oppose is a bit strong. Ironholds (talk) 03:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. While I believe Undead Warrior is a positive contributor to WP, I do note the CSD and AFD bits. I'd like to see this user work more to improve himself in those areas, and if he can turn that around, I will lend my support in a future RFA. seicer | talk | contribs 05:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. The candidate has done fine work in content creation and deserves commendation for that. But I am bothered by the points raised in the Oppose section and by candidate’s rudeness in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Elizabeth Hospital Heliport (2nd nomination), which involved an extremely harsh case of biting aimed at me (his quote: “Your rationale's keep failing to provide anything decent to these discussions”) and at those who !voted to successfully keep the article in the first AfD roughly six weeks earlier (“the last AfD had comments comparable to jokes,” and “the last AfD had nothing right”). The candidate’s vices and virtues balance out, so I’m going sit here. Ecoleetage (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC) I'm movin' on up...not to the East Side, but to Support. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I came here hoping to support, but the focus of the nominations appears to be on your editing statistics rather than your intelligence that will be used as an admin. Your opinions about AfD also leave a bit to be wanted. I may change my stance in the future. Malinaccier P. (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With all respect, please do not hold the nominators' lack of style against the candidate. Undead warrior has shown the ability to be fair, calm and dedicated. He sincerely wants to help and has shown me that he is willing to take advice. There is a big difference between expressing personal opinions and how one acts in an official capacity. I am not concerned about AfD issues because he is the type of person who does not push the envelope. On the contrary, he seems cautious. Jehochman Talk 14:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - I remember this particular candidate approaching me for an administrator nomination a few months back (can't find the diff, but it'll be in my talk page history somewhere). I wasn't too keen then on nominating and the opposition seem to support that idea even now, something like 6-8 months after. I will oppose if anything more comes up that is concerning. Caulde 18:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral for now - would like to support, but the opposers have given some reasons for concern. I'll have to examine this candidate in more detail before making a decision. Terraxos (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Undecided and watching this unfold, just thought I'd vote somewhere given I've already participated in a few conversations above. Townlake (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Recommend Withdrawal, unless candidate believes more valuable feedback is forthcoming in this RfA. Townlake (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - I feel very badly that my comments when closing an AfD caused this user to over-react. I did not assume bad faith, but I did note that the nomination was poorly worded. The particulars of other AfDs and CSDs may indicate that this editor is merely a deletionist with strong opinions, and not his ability to be fair. He technically meets my standards, but for the reasons noted above, I can't support this time. Bearian (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    At the Afd you wrote "Borderline bad-faith nomination",[29] not that is was bad nomination nor that it was a poorly worded nomination. How is that not failing to assume good faith? Rami R 15:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. The only overreaction here, Bearian, was yours, to this user's AFD nomination. If George Benson is indeed mentioned only in passing in books whose actual subject is broader, then Benson is non-notable per wp:n, which advises, in cases such as this one, "merging the article's content into a broader article providing context." (See Wikipedia:Notability#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines.) It is true that the nominator's rationale justified merging, not deletion, so he shouldn't have come to AfD; it's also true that the nominator should have realized that some relevant material on this subject might not be found online; but it is false that the subject of the article under discussion was "clearly, plainly, reasonably notable"[30] given the sources in the article.

    It's one thing for an admin to get a guideline wrong. It's quite another for an admin to imply bad faith in an AFD nominator's apparently good-faith attempt to apply Wikipedia's guidelines to a Wikipedia article. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In any case, I am sorry I caused this grief, and have stated so above in so many words. Bearian (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, I do not think this has not been an Non-apology apology, but, I'm not sure I can be a neutral judge of that. I am sorry that I set off the problem with my reckless choice of words, but I did not intend to accuse someone of bad faith. I take full responsibility for my poor language, and for that, I failed as a role model. I also want to clarify that I back up my decision to close the discussion, as I think the nominator made a mistake, and the discussion was overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the article. The arguments over petty slights can be more harmful than the original issue. Bearian (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't an argument about some petty slights. That AfD and Undead's comments at your talk page are significant issues among the opposing voters. You yourself state that Undead's actions are an overreaction. However, given that you had implied bad faith at that AfD (whether you intended to or not), one needs to consider if Undead's comments really are inappropriate. Rami R 15:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral I can't support after seeing some of these opposes involving AfDs. Furthermore on a more minor note, the spinning barnstar on your userpage is a little annoying. Yanksox (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral as I do see some lingering concerns with the candidate’s nominations of articles for deletion in the opposes above, but while I opposed in a previous RfA, I am going for neutral this time around, as the candidate has become more neutral as well and after his previous nomination asked for suggestions and help as to how he can improve should he run again. So, enough to convince me for neutral this time, which means not unreasonable that in the future I might support. Ecoleetage’s elaborate support above is certainly enough to make me not want to oppose this time. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral I am keen to support, as most of the opposes thus far have not assumed good faith and have made things out to be what they are really not, eg the non-existent retaliatory deletion. However I do not like poorly thought out nominations or responses, and some of the AFDs exhibit this. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 20 December 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/Undead_warrior_3&oldid=1145853846"