Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Earle Martin 2

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.

[edit] Earle Martin

Final (39/47/12); Ended Sat, 31 Mar 2007 03:57:45 (UTC)

Earle Martin (talk · contribs) - This is my second self-nomination, following on from my first, five months ago. As before, I am running on the principle that I operate in a common-sense manner, and should be judged by my work for this project. The previous time that I went up on RfA, I was greeted with cries of "Not enough edits!" Well, I am a fairly slow and unadventurous participant, and do not have a gargantuan edit count to my name, mainly because I have other commitments in life. Wikipedia is a hobby for me, not an unpaid career. Even so, I take it seriously, and I believe that I am a good editor. Examining the subsequent five months' worth of edits that I have made will show that.

I was also accused of "No need for tools!" - well, if I become an administrator, I don't expect to be all over the project like a bad rash; there will probably be a long, gentle period during which I learn and apply any necessary tools in a cautious and appropriate manner. There have been times recently when I have needed tool access, in order to fix incorrect page moves. This resulted in the tedious process of having to find an admin and ask them to do for me something which I would have been perfectly capable of doing myself. As I encounter the need for tools, whether in the course of my own editing or through investigating tasks with backlog, I will learn to use what is available as the situation necessitates.

As before, I am declining to answer the boilerplate "questions for the candidate", as I have explained my position on administration. Thank you for your time.

Earle Martin [t/c] 12:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Postscript. To save you having to wade through the last RfA, I can note here that I have been with the project since 2002. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 15:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Second postscript. I would like to reiterate my comment from last time around that I am easily reached if you would like to actually talk to me about this; search the net for "contact Earle Martin". I'd also like to note that I'm maintaining an open invitation to anyone in the London area to meet up for a coffee or whatever in person to ask me any questions; communication should extend beyond the "Wikipedia:" and "Talk:" namespaces. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 12:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes, I accept. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 12:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Questions removed. See above. -- EM

Question for the candidate from The Evil Clown
1 It seems you are protesting the processes of Wikipedia. Why do you want to become an administrator on something you have a lot of issues with?
A I have specific issues with the RfA process. As I explained in my previous RfA, what this process has become is something totally alien to the principle of a wiki, a principle which I have believed in and been deeply involved with for the last seven years.
Additional question for the candidate from Nihonjoe
1a. Why do you have so many concerns with the processes for RfA when, based on your experience (a.k.a. edit count, and where those edits are), you don't have much experience with the processes at all? I ask because I find it odd that you object to these processes, but still want to be more active in them by becoming an admin. Yes, being an admin is no big deal, but process is something you have to constantly deal with as an admin.
A: That's a bit of an odd question. You don't need to be involved with something to know that it is wrong. And, as I've commented below, I don't have similar concerns with other site processes.
Additional question from nae'blis
  • Are you familiar at all with the category for administrators open to recall? Would you be willing to consider joining that category to alleviate some concerns about the ability to trust you with the tools? If you choose not to answer or decline to join, it will not change my support; please don't read this as pressuring. -- nae'blis 19:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
A Hello again. I'd only vaguely heard of that category before, but having now read it, I publically promise that, should I pass this RfA, I will sign up to it - without restrictions. My actions would and should be as accountable to the community as an admin as they are now to the RfA !voters as a candidate. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 23:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Additional question from MacGyverMagic
  • Since we can't gauge your amount of wikipedia experience from your edit count, how do you suggest participants in this RFA judge your experience? - Mgm|(talk) 07:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
A Interesting question. I do believe, actually, that you can gauge my experience from my edit count, and that is in fact exactly what I am asking of participants. This page shows the things that I've done the most of, and the rate of my edits; and this gives you a more in-depth view of the kind of things that I've been doing, especially because I always take care to write useful edit summaries. My position is that in an RfA, the burden should be on the participants to prove that the candidate isn't suitable to be an admin due to their prior actions. If someone has existed on the site for years, making good edits, the assumption should be that they are suitable to be an admin. If, once given "the mop", they demonstrate that they are in fact unable to deal with the responsibility, then they should be stripped of it. The more admins there are, the easier this will become.

General comments

  • See Earle Martin's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
    • Argument of edit count here is preposterous, this user has nearly 1000 mainspace edits, and 1700 total edits, regardless of how long he's been here. If nearly 2000 edits isn't enough, then God dammit, someone set a policy for how many edits is required to go for adminship, because this is becaoming absolutely mindnumbing. Kntrabssi 21:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Not answering questions

People, keep in mind that the first 3 questions asked, that is, the ones asked on every RfA, are still completely optional. Candidates have no responsibility to answer the questions, and should not be accused of not filling out the entire form just because he omitted an optional part. Many of you don't know this, but there's an optional part that he did fill out, that many candidates do not- the statement. In the RfA template, there's a comment in the wikitext saying <!--The candidate may make an optional statement here-->. Many, if not most, candidates do not make a statement. Should they all be opposed? I think not. Bureaucrats, please keep this in mind when closing the nom. --Rory096 17:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This comment may belong in the "General comments" section of the RfA.it now is Xiner (talk, email) 21:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to make a slightly tongue-in-cheek request here to keep a count of the number of oppose votes based on "not answering the questions". It's interesting! -- Earle Martin [t/c] 23:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Not-answering-question oppose votes: 13

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion I looked through the first RfA, but I still can't say for sure what the nature of Earle's problem with the RfA process is exactly. I can see he does't like questions. I could assume some from the tone of some of the answers. I hope it's not a distaste for elaborating reasoning and explaining actions. Maybe some other user can answer this if Earle doesn't. I like that he is willing to be subject to popular recall. I had never heard of that before. Edivorce 18:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. I trust that Earle's problems with incivility since the last RFA have abated, and my interactions with him have been positive. – Chacor 15:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. No big deal. – Riana talk 15:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. I believe he has shown significant improvement since his last RFA, and see no reason to keep him out of the broom closet. >Radiant< 15:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. I see no reason (after reviewing many of this users talk, article, and user talk edits) to deny this user the tools that he says he needs to do good work. C'mon people, at least with this user the umpteen-trillion edits aren't so numerous that you can't check them, rather than applying blanket editcountitis. I would like to see answers to the questions anyway, but will support pending further information. -- nae'blis 16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support - If someone has been here this long and no one has any evidence that point to vandalism or incivility, I see no reason to believe that he can not be trusted with the tools. --After Midnight 0001 16:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. I have to support this, not only because I think he will not abuse the admin tools, but he IS right about the RfA process, which has become extremely flawed, and is basically a popularity/edit counting contest. I would really, REALLY like to see him fill out the answers to the questions, because even though the process sucks, we have to go through it in order to become an admin. Kntrabssi 17:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support. Seems to be qualified for the job, and there's no indication that he would abuse the tools. --Rory096 17:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support - more of a symbolic gesture, really. Martin's contributions look fine and the no-bullshit attitude is a refreshing change, but it's obvious that this RfA has no chance to succeed. If this candidate continues to contribute to Wikipedia, with or without admin tools, then we all win. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support' for being radical enough to not answer the questions. John Reaves (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Per John Reaves. Refusing to answer the questions, twice, shows that you are either extrordinarily stupid or actually have quite a lot of Clue™ indeed. The fact that you can program in Perl suggests it's the latter. Picaroon 22:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support-The refusal to answer questions shows you know about RFA and all its flaws. The "too little edits" really doesn't apply to you, because you've been here for 5 years, a lot long than most people. I really liked your answer to Kntrabssi's oppose vote. I also like about how you're going to gradually learn. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 22:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    4 years, and the user crossed the 200 edits threshold in June 2006. Nishkid64 23:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support just to counter the dumb votes below... no one's required to answer the questions. --W.marsh 22:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    Can you provide a reason for actually supporting the user? No one is required to answer the questions, but from how you are wording it, just supporting to spite the opposition doesn't really seem to have any correlation with the admin candidate at hand. Nishkid64 23:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    Many people below didn't provide any reason beyond the questions... not even sure if they looked at the candidate. if they can oppose because he didn't answer the questions, why can't I support because he didn't? Perhaps I should have gone neutral, but their votes didn't really take the user into much account at all either. Anyway I've talked to this user a time or two and he seems somewhat reasonable. I'd give it a harder look if the RfA miraculously got close. --W.marsh 23:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support. The questions are fatuous anyway. — Dan | talk 23:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. Great strides since his prior RfA, and impressive contributions. Plus, I like his chutzpah. A Traintake the 01:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support a platform of common sense, and as a counterweight to the literal-minded bureaucraticness of thinking that filling out a form is a) a requirement, or b) useful enough to function as one. I think you should do this every few months or so, and when you pass, we'll know RfA's not broken. Opabinia regalis 06:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. Why the hell not? A very strong case where this should be followed. Ral315 » 08:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support didnt get this far without being somewhat decent Twenty Years 14:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  19. Strong support Refreshing to see someone stand on their record as a Wikipedian rather than submitting to the anonymous authority of the crowd. Way too much importance is placed on the "decision process" for admins for what is the virtual equivalent of a driver's license. Absent some serious concerns, such as abusive editing practices, experience should be the prime determining factor in granting admin powers. // Internet Esquire 16:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  20. Strong Support Adminship is about acting. After all, if he answers the questions, are his skills going to suddenly improve?--Orthologist 21:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  21. (edit- changed to) Very strong Support- I think I was neutral on Earle's last RfA, and maybe the fact that he has no chance of passing at this point is a factor (or maybe not), but I can't help but support. He's perhaps my favorite kind of Wikipedian: courteous, intelligent, and willing to help build a strong encyclopedia, including altering it if necessary- and at the same time, he's not at all afraid to speak his mind and let his opinions be known. Some people might be put off by his attitude (and that's certainly their right- I won't argue with any of the oppose !voters), I admire it. From what little I know about Earle, the one word I would use to describe him is "brave", and we need brave admins. -- Kicking222 21:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support I know Earle and therefore know about some of the other projects he's involved in online. They all show a strong commitment to the concept of user-built consensus-edited content for the public good. I believe he would ease into use of any increased powers here appropriately gently. Further, I would support this RFA even if I didn't know the candidate and had just wandered across it blindly, because it's right - the process is unnecessary, it does not add value to Wikipedia. Wouldn't it be nice to have another person on the admin team who was willing to challenge pointless processes? Yes it would. -- Dennymeta 22:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  23. Solid candidate. Pleased to support a second time, and/or as many times as it takes. El_C 09:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support I'm in a similar position to Dennymeta above - I know Earle, and know his contributions to other projects. I don't think he'd abuse tools; he has a long track record, with no evidence of abuse of any kind of power. Heck, while employed at the same company as I, he had access to servers full of confidential information that provided a service to a lot of powerful clients, and either he didn't abuse the power, or he's so damned good he detected and bypassed the passive security measures ;-) --Alaric 13:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  25. Weak Support, but please chill out with the chip on the shoulder. Just H 19:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  26. Strongest Moral and Practical Support Possible I think this RFA of a very well established and dedicated user is becoming a joke. Some of the opposes here, to me are very questionable. Earle Martin has been here more than some bureaucrats, stewards and developers. Having 50000 edits in five months is not as important as being here for years and being very familliar with the site. Oh no, Earle Martin didn't answer the three generic questions! Oppose, oppose and more oppose. I wish sometimes that Ignore All Rules policy was noticed. EM feels that the project needs to be modified, and he strongly dislikes RFA process. He has great ideas for the site, and as a sysop. He stated exactly why he wants the mop without answering the questions. He also said this in his comments: "Wikipedia is a hobby for me, not an unpaid career. Even so, I take it seriously, and I believe that I am a good editor." I agree. Some people are instant minimum time experience sysops because they sit in front of a screen 17 hours of day, with a twelve-pack of beer and truckload of junkfood. A good editor isn't always like that. I support EM with practical reasons, because he has been here for so long and has a differnt perspective on the project. My moral support is that I feel, through reading the opposes and neutrals, that those reasons are partly because you're not an admin clone. It is very good for having someone with the same goal, but different perspective. I don't feel if he was given the mop, he'd blow up the site. The Evil Clown my contributions 21:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    Please note that being a good editor does not necessarily equate to being a good admin. Also, it's inaccurate to characterise the issue solely as: "Oh no, he didn't answer the questions!". I think a more appropriate characterisation would be this: "Let's see ... does not start off with the best opening statement ("greeted with cries of", "accused of") ... seems a bit bitter. He didn't answer the questions. Huh, that's interesting. Wait a minute, people are requesting that he answer the questions (and opposing him on that basis) ... and he's still not answering them! ... The RFA is almost sure to fail and even now he's not answering the questions! What the hell?" I think that about covers it. -- Black Falcon 21:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    To me, being a good editor can equate to being a good sysop. Are there any sysops who are poor editors? I feel that he can be trusted with a mop considered the time he spent, here, and I see no evidence he will misuse the tools. Also, I'd be bitter too if I was greeted like that after four years. I think he has fairly stated his situation. The questions are intended to demonstrate the need for tools, and he has. Why do I comment (why the hell)? I want people to know this, and this RFA might be a help in future considerations or nominations. The Evil Clown my contributions 22:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    Also, even if his record shows sporadic editing, familiarity with the site is not only learned through writing and reverting. Reading plays a huge, and I, personally do TONS of it. The Evil Clown my contributions 22:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    If all X are Y, it does not necessarily follow that all Y are X. Even if all/most good admins are good editors, it does not necessarily follow that all good editors will be good admins. Admins are simply a subset of "good editors". -- Black Falcon 03:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, it's more like wry amusement than bitterness. Cordially, -- Earle Martin [t/c] 23:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    Note to Evilclown: There probably aren't many sysops who are poor editors. Of course the relevant question is "are there good editors which are poor sysops?" and (not that I want to name any names!) but we all know that the answer to this is "yes". Regardless of how good and valuable an editor Earle Martin might be, he's demonstrating the kind of attitude we don't like to see in admins. Pascal.Tesson 02:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    I like to see a different attitude in admins. A project as enormously huge as this one needs fresh ideas all the time. I like admins that bring a personal touch and opinion with them. For example, Carnildo's OrphanBot and CSCWEM. They are all sysops, and have different views. The Evil Clown my contributions 18:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support. Done good work, don't see a good reason not to. -- Jake 10:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support Despite being a bit cute with process above he is a pretty sensible guy. --BozMo talk 10:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support. Appears to be a good editor who has been around a long time without causing trouble. I take that as an indication that admin powers are going to be used responsibly and to the benefit of the project. Most of the folks opposing the RfA demonstrate that the candidate's complaints about the RfA process are not without merit. I wouldn't necessarily want this kind of application to become the new standard, but measuring a candidate's ability or willingness to play to the audience is overrated. Rl 10:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support — no reason not to. He has sufficient experience and adminship is no big deal. ➥the Epopt 11:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support; the reasons people are giving for opposing are rather silly. *Dan T.* 12:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  32. Strong Support: I have to admire someone who will have had a fair idea running his RfA in this manner, knowing full well it's going to affect his chances of promotion this time and in the future. It's so easy to copy and paste answers to the standard questions from any wildly successful RfA, there's nothing in the rules to prevent this. I really hope that if Earle isn't promoted, then it helps shove RfA reform forward once again. Now, I also know that Earle is trustworthy and knows a fair bit about policy from various discussions I've seen, so I'm supporting someone I like and know is suitable for the position. -- Nick t 13:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support. From interactions on wikiEN-l, has demonstrated to me a firm grasp on policy. Has been around forever and knows his way around; most users with similar experience and longevity passed RfA in 2003 with supports you could count on one hand. Is being penalized for not making Wikipedia an obsession, and for not fitting into RfA pigeonholes. Shame. —CComMack (t–c) 13:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support - unconventional candidacy, but no real problems with this user. Editcount doesn't matter - please remember that adminship is no big deal. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    Support - He's been a very strong advocate for common sense and civility on Wikipedia. 24.113.6.164 17:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, IP editors cannot add to either the support or oppose sections. Please log in to register your opinion. Thanks, Gwernol 17:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support. Experienced editor, sane, thoughtful, intelligent. All such should be offered the admin tools if they wish them. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support. A lot of oppose votes look to me like statements that the forms must be obeyed rather than objections to the user as a potential admin candidate. After reviewing the candidate's edit history, I am duly impressed. --Silas Snider (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  37. Warm warm support. The finest admin candidate I have seen here in a long long time. Dares to modify his nomination statement, a test I have seen very few people pass. Speaks in a human voice. Is quite willing to stand up for themselves and even speak with people in public in the real world. Finally is able to stand up to great (and possibly unreasonable) opposition with great calmness and a sense of humor. Wow. --Kim Bruning 23:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC) I'd say more, but now I'm struck speechless
    Your comments completely ring true, Kim. He is an amazing candidate- moreso than I thought a few days ago when I'd already given him my support. Earle's got all of the qualities I would want to see from a person- not a Wikipedian, or somebody typing on a computer, but a person- looking for a few extra tools. -- Kicking222 01:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support. Experienced editor, and absolutely correct about AFD. -- Arwel (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  39. Full Support Wow! very good editor, folks lets remember that adminship is no big deal. I can see nothing wrong with any of the contributions. Besides the lack of replies to the questions, I can see nothing wrong. This is a good user, and a worthy sysop.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagle 101 (talk • contribs)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Arfan 15:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC) No answer to the standard questions, no support, pure and simple. 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    Remember this is not a ballot. What are your reasons? Majorly (o rly?) 15:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    Updated above. 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    Standard doesn't mean it's not optional. Candidates don't have to answer the questions. --Rory096 17:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    Users don't have to support either image:smile.gif. -- Avi 14:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    I agree wholeheartedly! -- Earle Martin [t/c] 23:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I would like to see your answers to questions, standard and optional. May reconsider if you answer 'em. MaxSem 15:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Not enough experience. Refusing to answer the questions may be refreshing, but, with relatively few edits here, if you refuse to answer the questions, how can we see any evidence that you want, need, or can be trusted with the tools? --Guinnog 15:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    Well, since he only has hundreds of edits in recent months, perhaps you could look over them yourself? He's an adminon WikiWikiWeb, and has been here for five years without any blocks or serious warnings as far as I can tell. Why doesn't that count for anything? -- nae'blis 17:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    I thought long and hard about your suggestion above. While my review of the candidate's edits was positive, I struggle to see how he has demonstrated "...respect and be familiar with Wikipedia policy because they are known and trusted members of the community." (Wikipedia:Administrators). I have sympathy with attempts to streamline and improve on the RfA process, but during an RfA doesn't seem like an appropriate venue for this. I hope this explains my opposition better. --Guinnog 07:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    Fair enough; thanks for considering the candidate as an individual, in any case. I'm just frustrated with the level of bureaucracy of late... -- nae'blis 13:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I have no clear idea how you would use the tools, you don't appear to have much interaction with other editors and have few wiki-space edits so sorry, but not this time. The Rambling Man 15:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose— you need to answer the questions to show that you have read and understood the Administrator's reading list. Refusing to answer them may imply that you are too lazy to tackle them. And despite your claim that you have explained your position on Administration, I still don't have an idea what you are about. I suggest that you follow the formal process; you won't get the promotion by being short handed. Also, you need more experience. Orane (talk • cont.) 16:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose Earl, you are right, the whole RfA process is flawed and should be looked after. But if you aren't willing to follow procedures, even if you disagree with them, then why should we trust that you will follow all the procedures that accompany administrative privileges? Kntrabssi 16:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    I'll answer this one: because the RfA process is probably the single worst thing about our entire administrative structure. The vast majority has at least some merit, RfA has decayed into a gabbling clique of process junkies who actually serve to damage the project by impeding the progress of numerous perfectly reasonable editors, by turning what should have been a no-brainer decision into a hoop-jumping competition. This has been acknowledged by a spectacular range of different people on a multitude of different occasions. All the non-insane policy and process is perfectly acceptable to me. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 17:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    Changing to Support
  6. Oppose If the user cannot be bothered to fulfill the process of requesting adminship or learning about his desired responsibilities as an admin then I can't be bothered to support him. NeoFreak 16:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Same as last time. You're refreshing, but if you're not going to answer the questions we need to know about you from your editing. That means Wikipedia: edits and lots of them. --kingboyk 16:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Strong Oppose Could be an sysop in the distant future but no answers to standard questions, let alone if their were optional ones asked, not ready for the tools.Tellyaddict 16:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. While I agree that RFA has its problems, answering the three standard questions is not a hoop-jumping competition. It's a perfectly reasonable way for you to communicate why you should be an admin. Is this a serious RFA, or just a protest against the way RFAs work? TomTheHand 17:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose -- Although a long-term editor, Earle shows too little experience with Wikipedia policy and norms. Further, he does not demonstrate requisite openness by refusing to answer questions which may give insight into whether the community should trust an individual not to abuse admin tools. Finally, I have concerns about snap-judgment editing which becomes more problematic when given admin authority-- as shown recently in his merge of content into Human rights in the United Arab Emirate, which included a summary of "Remove untrue nonsense about Jews not being allowed to enter the country..." A quick search readily shows that although it may be that Jews aren't directly barred from entry-- since there is no "religion" section on most passports-- UAE denies entry of anyone bearing an Israeli passport or having a stamp from visiting there: [1][2] [3] [4] Even the UK Guardian noted last year, "Israelis left out of West Ham's training trip to the Gulf". --LeflymanTalk 17:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    This is offtopic for this discussion, but I will indulge you. The material that I removed was a confused paragraph (visible in this diff, where it came to my attention) discussing various non-notable internet sources disagreeing with each other about whether Jewish people are allowed to enter the country. Apart from the fact that it contributed absolutely nothing to the article, I removed it because I know it to be false (from personal experience of the United Arab Emirates, but that's beside the point.) I can assure you, Leflyman, that there was nothing "snap" about my judgement. If someone were to add a sourced statement about visa policy for Israelis or those with Israeli visa stamps, I would be very pleased to see it. Unlike the worthless material which my change comment referred to. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 18:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm confused, then, as to how the removed note about Der Spiegel article, which claims (rightly or wrongly),"all Jews are strictly banned from entering the country" would not constitute a sourced statement. Do any of the links I provided fulfill your understanding of verifiability?--LeflymanTalk 18:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • My apologies. I think it would have been clearer if I said "a correct sourced statement". As we all know, not everything with a source is necessarily accurate. Der Spiegel is certainly, generally speaking, a reputable source. Thanks, -- Earle Martin [t/c] 19:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose due to the failure to assume good faith and the choice to descend into incivility even in your answers in this RfA. Since you choose to label us a "gabbling clique of process junkies" why should we take your request seriously? Its an offensive personalization of your position that gives me no confidence that you can bring a measured and reasonable tone to the use of the admin tools. Gwernol 18:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    From my experience of this process, "assume good faith" is a concept entirely foreign to most of the participants. If it were not, we would have many more admins than we do now. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 18:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    This is an interesting point; is "more admins" a better thing? In other words, is Wikipedia suffering from a dearth of administrator oversight?--LeflymanTalk 18:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. It's really a shame, because you probably do have enough experience to be an admin. However, presentation counts for a lot here (as in a real-world interview). Harking back to previous antagonism from those who said you don't need the tools, and choosing not to answer the standard questions, is a real turnoff for me. If you submit a more standard RFA request, I might consider supporting it. YechielMan 19:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Not until questions are answered. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 19:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose RfA is deeply flawed, with trivial reasons enough for an Oppose vote. Perhaps you'll see mine in the same way, but how are we to know that you won't be silent when questioned on your sysop actions? Together with the very low edit count despite the length of service, I'll have to oppose. Brave act though. Xiner (talk, email) 20:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Your reasons for not answering the community's questions of you are noted and respected. However, it does smack of an assumption that everyone here as met you or heard of you. I have not and would like to. The question-and-answer session is a good springboard to this - knowing what you think is important, what you are proud of, what you wish you'd done differently. If you can't do that little thing for the community, or me, then I dread coming to you to question an action of yours. In fact, I'd be scared of questioning you. That being the case, I'd like to keep you away from the tools at this time. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 21:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    "it does smack of an assumption that everyone here as met you or heard of you" - that is about as far from my intentions as it is humanly possible to be. I've never seen 90% of the names here before; why on Earth would I expect them all to know me? I have made it quite clear that I expect to be judged on my editing history. Five years (on and off) of editing says more, and says it more reliably, than any answers to questions that I or another candidate could contrive. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 17:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Strong oppose. Redvers' raises a good point that the standard questions force the candidate to engage in a bit of self-examination. I would like like to know those points as well before supporting you, as well as what situations have caused you stress and how well you believed you handled them. Your self-nomination seems to come down to the point that you would find the admin tools convenient for your own use. I would find the admin tools handy, but I don't feel the actual need to have them. Like it or not, admin tools aren't given out solely for editors' convenience. Kudos for your boldness, though. --Kyoko 21:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    I'm further troubled by the edit summaries seen in diffs like this and this, which to me sound like borderline personal attacks, or at least a bit incivil. Probably most relevant to this RfA is how recent these actions took place. Kyoko 00:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    But the comments he removed are a bit boring, aren't they? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    Whether or not the comments are boring, Earle Martin shouldn't have described their author as an "obsessive person" in the edit summaries to those diffs. --Kyoko 12:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    The person in question was edit-warring and committing 3RR violations in an obsessive fashion. I call a spade a spade. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 17:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    To quote Wikipedia's policy on no personal attacks, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." -- Kyoko 18:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    Having looked at this, I'd say "obsessive" is a fair comment on that user's overall behaviour. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I debated whether or not to answer this. The edit summaries here and here clearly said "obsessive user" "obsessive person", not "obsessive behaviour".
    • I decided to change my opinion to "strong oppose" because of the incivility displayed even in this RfA. Characterising people you disagree with as a "gabbling clique of process junkies" whose edit counting amounts to so much "willy-waving" is not what I consider to be civil behaviour. This type of language can inflame tempers and make disputes worse. Admins may be called upon to mediate in disputes, so name-calling is best avoided. As I said earlier, I was keen to hear your answers regarding what situations have stressed you in the past, and how you anticipate handling such situations in the future. Admins have to deal with criticism and abuse on a daily basis, so I feel that the question is quite pertinent to adminship. If the behaviour displayed thus far in this RfA is indicative of how you react when stressed, it only reinforces my decision to oppose.
    • I've gone through your contributions, and you do seem to have at least some involvement in various process areas (xfD, RFAR, etc.). I would personally not have minded you not answering the standard questions if you had given equivalent information in your self-nomination, such as areas of anticipated admin activity (surely not just page moves?), situations that have stressed you or you wish you had handled differently, etc. You do have a point regarding the increasing editcountis in RfAs. It may be a lack of faith on my part, but I'm just concerned that your attitude and choice of language could escalate disputes rather than calm them. All this being said, I admire your dedication to Wikipedia and I hope you continue to contribute. Perhaps when this RfA is over, there can be a real discussion about RfA reform, without having to consider the personal qualities of a given candidate as well. No matter how this RfA ends, thank you for some fascinating, thought-provoking reading. Kyoko 19:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. I don't trust this user. Doesn't answer questions, doesn't really seem committed to the project (based on their quality and quantity of edits), and I have a gut feeling they would not use the tools well at all. --- RockMFR 22:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    I am quite confused how you could think that I am not committed to the project. Unlike some people (and I do not mean this in any insulting way), I have a job, family and social life to attend to. How much time do you expect people to spend here? -- Earle Martin [t/c] 17:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. Can't even answer the questions? Get real. stop wasting our time.Rlevse 22:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    Mind the personal attacks please. Majorly (o rly?) 22:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    How's that a personal attack? It's not a personal comment about the candidate, just his behavior here. Please read the page you linked to. --W.marsh 22:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    I felt it was quite rude. Does that count for anything, considering that it was directed at me? -- Earle Martin [t/c] 17:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    To say "stop wasting our time" is implying his RfA is a waste of time, and perhaps implying Earle is as well. And the "get real" could be insulting. Majorly (o rly?) 22:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    That's pretty ridiculous... you could spin any criticism as a personal attack if you stretch it that far. The point of NPA was never to outlaw criticism. Maybe it wasn't a very civil comment, but it wasn't a personal attack either. --W.marsh 22:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    It wasn't criticism though. What can the candidate learn from that? That not answering the questions means he'll be a bad candidate? Or that his RfA is simply a waste a time? Majorly (o rly?) 22:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    No... his point was pretty clearly that he feels not answering the questions is a waste of his time. That's a criticism of an action the candidate took (or didn't take, in this case). He didn't say "oppose because you are a waste of time", which would have been a personal attack. Again, you should read NPA, this is covered there. Rlevse's comment probably wasn't very civil, but calling it a personal attack is incorrect and just coming off as stubborn at this point. --W.marsh 23:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    I read the page, it still comes off that way to me. Please don't resort to ad hominem arguments, we're having a polite discussion here :) I understand your view, but it specifically states on this page Please keep criticism constructive and polite.. That oppose was neither really. Majorly (o rly?) 23:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    Then why didn't you say cite the RfA suggestion, instead of citing NPA, which clearly isn't the thing to cite here? You cited the wrong thing, just admit it or stop replying. That's why I said your actions were stubborn, you apparently can't admit you made a small mistake... I never said rlevse's comments were civil, i just said they weren't personal attacks. --W.marsh 23:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps I did cite the wrong thing; however, you didn't need to respond the way you did. I'm trying to be as polite as I can here, and I find "just admit it or stop replying" to be a little aggressive. We're just having a discussion, and I don't want anyone's feelings to be hurt over one oppose :) Majorly (o rly?) 23:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  19. Oppose - a refreshing approach, but spoiled completly by a lack of commitment to the defined or accepted process. If a proposed Admin can't be respectful of the rules, and fails to understand the human factors - how can he be an Admin? Rgds, - Trident13 23:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  20. Oppose per above stated reasons.--Jersey Devil 23:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  21. Oppose Nihonjoe's Additional Question 4a sums up the grounds for my oppose. Everyone knows the process for becoming an admin. I cannot reconcile the stated desire to become an admin going hand-in-hand with not fully accepting the process. KatalavenoTC 00:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  22. Strong Oppose pending answers to questions.--Wizardman 00:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. I could care less about the answers to the question, but the diffs of incivility, and the general demeanor in this RfA is a bit troubling. I think you have the experience, but you just need more work on the civility issues. Nishkid64 00:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  24. Oppose Just about everyone knows that there are deep problems with the RfA process. However, until we come up with a better solution, you should just try to work with it. Your attitude shows a lack of respect for the community's processes (however problematic they might be) and that's exactly the kind of attitude we desperately need to avoid in admins. Pascal.Tesson 01:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  25. Oppose Whew, this is a tough vote. I don't think I have had such trouble making my decision since Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 2. Here we have a candidate that blantantly ignores policy (per questions and civility) and not a particularly high edit count for an admin candidate. (Yes, I know its editcountitis.) On the other hand, he has years of experience and is definately bold and appears to have little fear of response to his boldness. After viewing the basis of each argument, I have decided that I have got to oppose. The lack of regard for policy is not good at all in an admin candidate. Sorry, but I am going to oppose. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  26. Oppose. Flagrant disregard for established standards. --Deskana (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    What does this have to do with adminship? I like my RfA candidates to be bold and individual, not wimpery slaves to process. Picaroon 17:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    I can't trust someone with adminship if they refuse to answer the questions everyone else has answered for a considerable while. This is just the way I feel about it. --Deskana (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  27. Oppose per comments to Gwernol. This user is obviously uncivil, and has even admitted it. Seems proud of this deficiency. {Slash-|-Talk} 02:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    Excuse me, but I have never admitted any such thing. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 17:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  28. Oppose Far, far too combative both in his handling of this RfA. WjBscribe 02:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  29. Almost strongest oppose. If you actually had a good reason why you won't answer the questions, it would be fine, but your rationale boils down to "RfA is broken therefore I don't have to if I don't feel like it". Apart from the complete absurdity of that logic, complaining, IN YOUR RFA, about how RfA is broken is quite enough to get me to oppose for general stupidness. And please explain how I'm supposed to trust that you will follow other processes? For reference, strongest oppose is someone I think will vandalize with the admin tools whenever they don't have a good day. -Amarkov moo! 04:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  30. Oppose Not enough experience, no need for the tools. The declining of the questions leaves me with very little information. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 05:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  31. Oppose Declining to complete the standard questions not only demonstrates a contempt for the process of wikipedia but removes the opportunity to judge what you have learned since the previous RFA. How can I trust you with the tools if you can't even be bothered to tell me how you now intend to use them? I suppose you could say that you haven't changed anything from last time but that implies that you haven't learned anything from failing last time, or even worse, that you don't believe you have anything to learn. No thanks. --Spartaz Humbug! 06:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  32. Oppose. This oppose vote is a no-brainer for me. This candidate seems to believe that it's perfectly fine for him only to follow Wikipedia policies and practices which he believes (based purely on his personal opinion) are "non-insane"; and that he should be perfectly entitled to completely ignore established policies and practices which (again based purely on his personal opinion) he thinks are "insane". I for one do not feel I can trust someone with that kind of attitide with admin tools. Zaxem 07:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  33. Oppose, yes, the boilerplate questions are stupid, don't answer them. However, not answering questions asked by actual people (in the 'questions to candidate' section) doesn't work. If you did become an admin, would you just ignore people when you didn't feel like answering their questions? That attitude's just completely wrong. - Bobet 11:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    Please don't misrepresent what I said. I was referring to the boilerplate questions, as most people have understood. I am probably going to answer some of the personal questions soon. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 17:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  34. Oppose I would like to see an editor answer the questions before nominating themselves for administrative responsibility. This is because you need to show that you have taken into account policy and consensus - something you may have to do a lot of when an administrator. Sorry for being too negative; this is something that is easily sorted and I look forward to a third request for adminship in the future. If you have any problems with the RfA system, discuss them on Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    That last sentence of your comment reminds me of a Dilbert cartoon along the lines of "if you're having trouble accessing your email account, please email us." Picaroon 17:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry; never seen it! -- Casmith_789 (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  35. Oppose; sorry to insist on the questions, but that really bothers me. Those questions essentially ask "please tell us why we should trust you"; not answering is sort of saying "trust me, I will not screw up", without giving any further evidence in support. This is exactly the worse answer one does not want to have here. Tizio 18:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  36. Oppose per Tizio and Casmith_789. Michael 19:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  37. Oppose. As above. RfA is not a soap box. Sandstein 21:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  38. Oppose. Doesn't need tools. - Denny 23:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  39. Strong Oppose. I have no comment on Earle Martin as an editor. I readily admit that I have not looked at his user page or his contributions history. I have only looked at this RFA and the simple fact of refusing to answer the questions is enough for me to strongly oppose. I'm not expressing any opinion on the questions themselves; just on the candidate's actions. An admin should follow policies and guidelines even when he disagrees with them. Trusting in the judgment of those editors who support his candidacy, I do not believe he would be a rogue admin who would override consensus and policy at every turn. However, I am also presented with no evidence (no precedent) that he would not. Choosing not to answer the standard but optional questions at the start may be acceptable. Ignoring the questions after people repeatedly requested that you answer them is not. If the candidate disagree with the way RFA is conducted, he should propose a change on the talk page. My opposition does not extend to a future possible RFA if the candidate acts differently. -- Black Falcon 00:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    "I readily admit that I have not looked at his user page or his contributions history." Just so you know, if you had said this in a support vote, I would have declined to accept it. You are readily admitting that you stand against the guiding principle that made this site possible in the first place. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 19:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    Such as WP:POINT? NeoFreak 19:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    No, I don't stand against the "guiding principle ...". Your refusal to answer the optional questions doesn't bother me. However, your refusal to answer the questions after users requested that you do so is more than sufficient reason for me to oppose your candidacy irrespective of your other qualifications. Administrators should have a certain level of diplomacy and courtesy; you have not demonstrated to my satisfaction that you possess these qualities (and your bitter opening statement doesn't help). I already strongly oppose your candidacy based on they way you've gone about it; looking at your contributions history would not have affected my decision in any way. Please note that I have nothing against you as an editor; I just don't trust you to be an admin. Also, my opposition to your candidacy at this time stands even if you join Category:Administrators open to recall as suggested by nae'blis above. -- Black Falcon 19:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  40. Oppose per the glaring inability to evaluate the candidate and the candidate's refusal to be evaluated for fitness for adminship. Yes, you don't have to answer questions, but you also should not have the "trust me, now support me" mentality. Frankly, process may be boring, but how am I supposed to know if you're not going to upend any Wikipedia process just because you feel that it is arcane and bureaucratic? For example, how am I supposed to know if you will speedy delete a clearly notable article citing reliable sources on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? (yes, I know I'm exaggerating) WP:IAR is a necessary fire escape, but should not be used as a wall-breaking entrance to the adminship theater. —210physicq (c) 03:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    but you also should not have the "trust me, now support me" mentality - wow, so Assume Good Faith is well and truly dead? When did we shift from "no reason not to trust" to "you must prove you are trustworthy by jumping through these hoops I have provided you"? -- nae'blis 14:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    Is WP:AGF truly dead? Would you support a newbie running here on the basis of AGF? This is not a matter of WP:AGF, but of reality. —210physicq (c) 01:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    And to characterize RfA as a "you must prove you are trustworthy by jumping through these hoops I have provided you" is a serious mischaracterization indeed. Look through my RfA criteria page and you will find that I have none. I don't know why you are pulling tangential rabbits out of your hat to impress me. —210physicq (c) 01:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    I should respond to a couple of points here. Firstly, glaring inability to evaluate the candidate" - as I've commented a few times here now, actions speak louder than words. My edit history is right there for you to evaluate. (I wouldn't comment on any RfA without looking at a candidate's history.) I've been happy to respond to some points that have been raised so far about edits that I've made. Also, "the candidate's refusal to be evaluated for fitness for adminship" - well, that's a complete mischaracterisation of what I've been saying. I'm offering my entire involvement with this site up on a plate for everyone to see; how is that a refusal to be evaluated? -- Earle Martin [t/c] 23:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    I should not have to comb for fitness; you should present it. When you look for a new job, you present your resume to somebody, not ask the interviewer to look for it online. I'm not being lazy, but this is a matter of principle. —210physicq (c) 01:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Earle Martin, I'm not opposing you for disregarding the standard format. I'm more worried about your attitude and behavior. You can present this new format in a way that would be acceptable to me and to others. Perhaps next time you can make a longer candidate statement detailing (or succintly stating, whichever is better) your aspirations for adminship. This RfA comes to me as blunt, impersonal, and a tad rude, which don't reflect well on an admin. —210physicq (c) 05:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  41. Strong Oppose. Wow. The self-nom comes off as a little hostile in tone and the brusqueness by which this user has opposed the RfA process is worrisome, but the real deal-breaker is turning one's own RfA into a soapbox. I'm sorry, but just because you're a good editor doesn't mean you'll make a good administrator. --Hemlock Martinis 04:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  42. Oppose RfA's are where the community opines on the trustworthiness and judgement of the user. At this point, I do not feel comfortable with this user's judgement and how it would be applied with the mop-and-flamethrower. Sorry. -- Avi 14:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  43. Oppose I like how you want to change policy, but you shouldn't like this, with such a noncivil self-nom. Not answering the questions is one thing if you have thousands of edits and been known by the community. It is another when you have a low edit count. mrholybrain's talk 00:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    I dispute your claim that I have a low edit count. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 07:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    915 mainspace edits in almost four years isn't low? I have made that many edits in a week before now. Obviously quality counts more than quantity, but the low quantity isn't helping me to support this candidate. Neither are the continual challenges to oppose !voters. --Guinnog 07:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    I see we're in the willy-waving department now. I'm sorry if you consider that rude, but it's certainly how your comment comes across. Well, I'm very happy for you that you're able to maintain such a rate. I'm not. Is it your honest contention that the "almost four years" (four and a half years, actually; I registered in 2002) I have spent reading this site make me less suitable to become an admin than someone who signs up and racks up thousands of edits in six weeks? Incidentally, this is an open process; I'm entitled to respond to criticisms made of me. You seem to be of the opinion that RfA candidates have to shut up and accept everything that's said about them, true or otherwise. That isn't the case. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 09:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    Well, I don't consider it rude as in taking offence. But it doesn't help me to support your request for adminship. Of course you're entitled to do whatever you want, including arguing with those who oppose your request. You should however be aware of how this will make you look, especially alongside your not-high edit count. As somebody said earlier, you don't have to follow the rules as established (I actually quite like this aspect of your bid), but of course this cuts both ways; others don't have to support you either. RfA should never be a popularity contest, but it absolutely should be about demonstrating that you have the people skills and knowledge of the project to be a successful admin. This, in my view, you have failed to do. I really hope you come back in a while with a less confrontational approach and a bit more experience. I look forward to supporting you then. --Guinnog 13:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  44. Oppose - Improve more, regarding your behavior in some ways. Lakers 03:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  45. Oppose, sorry. Two things are being conflated: a request for adminship, and a straw poll on fixing the RfA process. Please bring tem separately. Guy (Help!) 15:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  46. Oppose Normally, this is the type of nomination I'd support. But: "gabbling clique of process junkies" and "willy-waving"? I would think this is the one place you could be civil. RFA may or may not be broken/perfect but a !vote on your nomintation can be done without implying a more general comment on RFA as a whole. The slightly condescending "light entertainment" post to the mailing list doesn't help, Guy said it best just above, RFA and this RFA in general are different things. You're making it sound like anyone who opposes you is part of the problem that may exist with RFA. None of this hangs together at all...I'd rather you outline your problems with RFA on the talk page instead of claiming RFA is broke because your nomination failed/is failing. RxS 17:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  47. Oppose I see no need for the tools. Quadzilla99 02:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral, leaning toward oppose. He's been inactive for a long period, and has a low edit count (for an admin candidate) and low participation in the project space. Also, I don't see why you wouldn't answer the questions. Have you been in any conflicts? What are your article contributions? We have no clue. - Anas talk? 15:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Leaning towards opposing him. The only reason I have not voted against him is because I do not believe in voting against someone unless I think they will be abusive. Sorry:( James, La gloria è a dio 16:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. I will probably change this to a support if you can answer the standard questions. -Mschel 17:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral - I don't really know you at all and we've not bumped into each other yet. Answering the standard questions would give me a good idea as to what you are like and what your opinions are on issues. Without those, I have little to go on. Per User:Mschel, I'd prolly revise this if you could at least have a go at the questions - Alison☺ 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral per above. Real96 23:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral until you put in good faith answers to the questions.-- danntm T C 00:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral I do not want to oppose this user. I suggest that you do a lot more edits; especially in the mainspace and Wikipedia-space. 1700 edits in not enough at all; and even 3000-4000 edits can be considered barely enough. Acalamari 01:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    Please consider carefully your opposition based on edit count. Not so long ago, 3-4000 edits was a lot, and for a user who doesn't use automated scripts, it still can be. This user has been here for five years, with an increasing edit/month tally if that's important to you, but it took me nearly a year to gain 4000 edits, and my RFA passed unanimously. Voting based on what you believe the community consensus is, rather than your own opinion, merely reinforces bad conventional wisdom. -- nae'blis 13:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral I respect your stance on the RfA procedure, but it requires people to be familiar with you in order to vote intelligently in the RfA. Since your rate of edits is not that high, it's inevitable that there are not that many people who both know you well and participate in RfAs. When you're asking strangers to trust you, you have to give us something to go on. —dgiestc 03:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Neutral I think even semi-flippant answers to the standard questions would be better than none. I try to get an understanding of candidate's personalities by reading those answers and then examining contributions prior to RfA (thereby hopefully removing any influence made because of the RfA itself). -- Richard D. LeCour (talk/contribs) 06:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    This seems disingenuous. He has not edited this RFA at all since several of those optional questions were added, and I believe flippant answers in the past have gotten people opposes as well. -- nae'blis 13:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    Not saying that a flippant answer would warrant a Support. Just saying that any answer is better than none, as it is easier to judge based on something rather than nothing. Also, not claiming that he edited the RfA. My point here is that I personally do not consider/weigh any regular edits made after the date of the RfA in my decision, only those edits/contributions made prior to the RfA. -- Richard D. LeCour (talk/contribs) 19:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Neutral due to removal of my questions. I don't think grandstanding in your RfA is the proper forum for seeking change in a particular process. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    In fairness, John Reaves removed your questions (diff), and I'd have probably removed them myself, since they were the same boilerplate questions that he had already declined to answer. They're still not mandatory. -- nae'blis 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, that confused me a little too, and I would have preferred John Reaves not to do that. I have on the other hand now answered Nihonjoe's newer question. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 21:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    I apologize for implying that you removed the questions. However, The second part of my comment still applies as i do not think this is proper forum for changing a process. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Neutral (there's no need for further opposition). There is certainly the possibility of improving RFA, and I have admitted to being a process hound (I dispute "process junkie", because I can quit any time I want to). But I think that there's plenty of room for moving toward these changes by consensus, rather than just deciding that the process won't apply to you. If you are determined instead to be an iconoclast, that might be possible, but it would probably involve being more civil to the regulars here. — coelacan — 20:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Neutral we do need more admins, but we have plenty of inactive ones too. I'm honestly not opposed to the idea, but since I have questions about possible inactivity I can't outright give support either. Anynobody 06:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
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.