Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Mailer diablo

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Agent 86 (talk | contribs) at 17:27, 10 October 2006 (→[[Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Mailer diablo|Mailer diablo]]: support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mailer diablo

Voice your opinion. (70/24/4) Ending 16:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Mailer diablo (talk · contribs) I've been on board with Wikipedia for almost two years now, and I thought it is time for me to volunteer taking up the demanding responsibility of bureaucratship in further serving the community. Since the first time I edited back in November 2004, the encyclopedia has offered a lot of knowledge and inspiration for me, and I thought this is my way to give back to the community.

I was handed the mop and bucket in March 2005, and have worked in several aspects of Wikipedia's processes along with other editors. Perhaps I may be most notorious for closing deletion debates and slogging it out at Articles for Deletion and similiar processes (the other not-so-"notoriety" being 1FA), probably considered to be one of the "dirtiest" aspects where and some editors see it as "broken", "cesspool", an environment not many sysops like to work on. My contributions speak for itself; I have lost count on how many debates I have closed, including some controversial and notorious cases, and I believe I have done a decent job in this area and have shown to be able to guage consensus in making decisions.

The latest expansion of the speedy deletion policy has freed up the workload on Articles for Deletions by a third. I believe that I am able to take up this further janitorial work in addition to what I'm doing now, and have demonstrated the ability to with my current experience. I put forth myself at the mercy of the community to determine if this is indeed the case.

As an additional measure, in any situation where I may have deemed to have failed the community, I will be avaliable for voluntary recall. - Mailer Diablo 15:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a self-nomination; no acceptance is required.

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for !voters:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A. Consensus, consensus, and consensus. Usually promotion will take place where there is a support of 80% or more in a RfA. Between that and 75% is a grey area that may require a second bureaucrat's opinon, which does not usually pass. Anything less will never be promoted. Since the granting of sysop powers is significant, the almost impossibility to revert, and its decisions have far-reaching implications, I would put in summary that "when in doubt, do not promote" (just as in AfD, when in doubt, do not delete).
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. My principle as per the previous question. There is no easy solution for every contraversy, and I understand there is no adminship review here. Two examples I can think of right now is to extend the discussion and give it more time, and in rare cases where the RfA progress is seen as unfair to be restarted. IIRC ex-crat Francs2000 has used both methods before. Any contentious decisions will be explained in full to address any concerns.
3. Wikipedians expect Bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
A. My experience as a janitor. (See 2nd pargaraph of my statement) I've doused many fires that rage across the deletion processes, including but not limited to Brian Peppers, Monicasdude, Userbox Wars, School Wars, CVU just to name a few. I still believe strongly in civil discussion and debate, helping editors and to assume good faith (per my March 2005 RfA). I think my experience is best illustrated by my contributions.
4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on any other forum during the course of nominations and especially when making a decision? And to discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion only with other bureaucrats, in their talk, where such discussion would be transparent?
A. Definitely. Transparency is of the upmost importance. No backdoor decisions, no shady deals. Guranteed for your lifetime, otherwise just ask for a full bureaucratship refund.
5. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA on a regular basis to see to the promotion or delisting of candidates in a timely manner?
A. Definitely. That is the precise reason I am applying for the responsbility of bureaucratship.
6. (Expected FAQ) I do not agree with One Featured Article, it's ridiculous! Why do you advocate that, and with that I don't think you'd be fit to judge RfAs!
A. There was a time where there was a serious shortage of quality on articles (and still is today), and when the edit counter was working there was a chronic concern of Editcountitis. I first saw Jguk, an established editor using this, it impressed upon me and I thought it may be a good idea to try and popularise it. Eventually, it didn't work out among the community, but I am glad with the amount of debate it has generated among editors. You can have my word and be rest assured that I would not use it as a basis for judging RfAs, and support or opposition based on it would have the same merit as any other opinons on RfAs.
7. (Question from User:Batmanand). You state that "when in doubt, do not promote", and that "Anything less [than 75% support in an RFA] will never be promoted". What are your thoughts on the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3 (including, if you wish, the behaviour of various sysops afterwards, which have now culminated in an ongoing ArbCom case)? Would you have promoted? Batmanand | Talk 16:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. The arbitration case is still ongoing and I'm partipating in it, its decision currently voted on by arbitrators I am in no position to make comment on the behaviour of sysops at this time. I can only say that the matter could have been handled much better than it should, and I wouldn't have chosen to promote the candidate under the RfA.
8. (Question from Flcelloguy) What are your views on the current TawkerbotTorA RfA? How would you handle the situation? If the RfA ended today, would you promote or not promote? (Pretend that you haven't !voted or expressed any opinions on this matter before, and were asked to be the deciding bureaucrat for the nomination.)
A. This RfA is interesting in the sense that it is going through uncharted waters as being the first single-purpose bot asking for sysop powers. I can see two kinds of concerns here - one is the philosophical aspect (bots will take over humans), and the other technical (premature, WP:BAG disagreement). My view would be with the latter, which has problems and other avenues of which this bot has not explored yet or been ironed out (e.g. MediaWiki, specifications, etc.) to be causing the first concern. I wouldn't have promoted the RfA, as it had no consensus to, and I would welcome the bot masters to address the technical concerns and perhaps put forth on RfA at a later time. - Mailer Diablo 16:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly true. —freak(talk) 13:42, Oct. 9, 2006 (UTC)
9. (Question from Agent 86) How do you reconcile your statement, "the granting of sysop powers is significant" with adminship not being a big deal? Agent 86 20:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. By saying that adminship is a responsibility, not a right. It's meant as part of the technical service to the community and in assistance, and that's no big deal. If you use sysop powers as if it were a God-given right and you think you are a big-shot, of course it is going to cause a huge uproar.
9(a) Adding to that question, is adminship a big deal in your opinion? - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. Yes and no; please see Q9.
10. Is there any circumstance does an RfA with 80+% support not pass? - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. I do not rule out such a possibility. Any such decisions though, will probably be made jointly with full statements, together with a second/third crat' if such a case were to occur.
11. It seems that you either missed the same problem in question #4 that I did or have a useful solution. Consider an RfA where you have evidence of a massive sneaky sock puppeting campaign. Your evidence on individual cases ranges from very solid to pretty good but circumstantial. If you make public your evidence all of them will complain and deny it loudly and those that really are pulling the puppet strings will use that evidence to be sneakier in the future. If you don't discuss the evidence in public you can't discuss it with anyone privately either. What do you think is the solution? - Taxman Talk 04:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. I think you're trying to point at something, and I'll need to know what "circumstantial" evidence to really answer this. Obvious cases of sockpuppetry though, should be hanged out to dry.
In any future case there would be different circumstances, so the specifics aren't required to answer the question. Consider a range of evidence if that helps. In some cases you won't personally know who the editors are sockpuppets of but it is clear they are sockpuppets of someone by your judgement. But it's possible given the evidence on some that you'll only be right on 8 out of 10 of them. So good enough evidence to know it's going on but not who is who for sure. - Taxman Talk 20:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is when homework needs to be done. Such cases are pretty high-profile RfAs, and it shouldn't take too long to research and figure out who are the possible sockpuppeters from the Checkuser archives. Surely there has to be some kind pattern of a sockpuppeter to be so sneaky to rely on circumstancial evidence. Check through the contribs of the sockpuppets to be very sure, impound the RfA and send them through Checkuser. Like you said, there is 0.8 probability of hitting the jackpot.
Checkuser would be useless in a sneaky sockpuppet campaign, and would not confirm any of them. That's what I meant by sneaky, otherwise I would have talked about relying on that type of evidence. If it was as easy as checkuser there would be no need for discussion of any kind. - Taxman Talk 21:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Others have asked you similar questions above, but they were on the vague side, and were met with vague answers, so let's cut the crap.
Q: You've observed the editing habits of a certain candidate, and you have a haunting and unmistakable suspicion that he is a sockpuppet of a former administrator who was desysopped for abuse and/or, perhaps, that of a hard-banned user. You've read various talk pages to ascertain whether any others share your hunch, but alas, you are alone in it; it becomes evident that if anybody else knows it, they're abetting the cover-up and/or simply looking the other way. A public accusation might be construed as libel and (if false) might rip a hole in your approval rating, privately discussing it with checkusers and with other bureaucrats might be considered "shady back-door cabal shit" and would contradict your stated principles, but ignoring what your own eyes have seen, either by gritting your teeth and promoting or by just letting somebody else to do it, would be a tremendous disservice to the community. The candidate's RFA has nearly unimous support, and it's due to be closed six hours ago. What do you do? —freak(talk) 13:42, Oct. 9, 2006 (UTC)
A: See Q11. This should be easier given that we already know who the sockpuppeter is.
13. Not a major question, more of a concern expressed: real life comes first 99% of the time but I wouldn't like to see your name on the "inactive" roster more than once in a year - life circumstances dictate, but you also have an obligation as a b'crat to be around as much as possible. I wouldn't want to see just a few nominal b'cratic edits while u do other stuff or when your editing frequency goes down. How do you feel about this? What would guide your Wikipedia career? Rama's arrow 03:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Career? I'm giving back to the community whenever I can, not pursuing for a fatter paycheck! And I do not think I am the kind that would consume more than what I think I can handle - a bloated stomach is never a good thing! ;)
Per O23, if you are talking in terms of backlogs, of course I will try to clear them whenever I can (they're always an eyesore), and have done that many times before as a janitor. - Mailer Diablo 14:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments & Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

  • The following question should look quite familiar... "Bureaucratship is a highly respected and regarded servants of the community, and its members are expected to defend this tradition and honour. (Hypothetical) Say, in an unlikely event that you have made an error in your RfA judgement in the course of your bureaucratship. Would you prefer to resign and take personal responsbility, or would you rather to have the bureaucratship and yourself bear the consquences together?" Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer reading through WT:RFA and thinking over rather than posting directly, but if you accept associated discussions I've also explored various de-adminship proposals, followed the recent Carnildo RfA (on RfAr now), 1FA essays, and accustomed through the "adminship is not a vote" debate - which hit home as early as the transition of VfD to AfD (Deletion reform, "AfD is not a vote"). - Mailer Diablo 16:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider this an expanded explanation of my vote below. I opposed because I believe that Mailer Diablo has a severe misunderstanding regarding the purpose of RfA, with respects to his 1FA criterion. RfA is (currently) a vote (yes, I know, people say it's not. But really, let's not kid ourselves, it is currently a vote) between Wikipedians in order to determine whether or not the candidate is capable of becoming an effective administrator. Our requests for adminship process should not be designed to "reward" those Wikipedians who have brought an article to featured status. To take myself personally, I have not, and likely will never do so. My skills do not lie in writing articles — they lie in the technical side of Wikipedia. As a result, I stick to what I'm good at, and work on bots and MediaWiki patches. Mailer Diablo's One Featured Article criterion implies that I am not as good an editor as another who has invested less time and effort, but whose skills lie in writing articles, and has created a featured article. I find this deeply insulting, and I think it indicates a lack of respect for those whose skills do not lie in article-writing. No editor is 'better' than another because they do a different kind of work. I also question the relevance of this criterion to adminship. Whether or not an editor has brought an article to featured status proves bloody fuck all about their temperament, their trustworthiness, or their ability and willingness to clear backlogs. I also find it insulting to be considered unfit or not trustworthy enough to be able to block, delete and protect, because I don't write articles. None of these three abilities have anything to do with writing articles. Again, this indicates a severe misunderstanding of what RfA is actually about. The attitude is disrespectful and insulting, and shows that he has no idea about why we need admins, and what's good in an admin. The following part added 07:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC) I'm also concerned with partisan wrangling on Giano's arbitration case, and Fleccoguy's explained lack of discussion on the RfA talk-page — Werdna talk criticism For the reasons above, I believe that any candidate who employs 1FA is unsuitable for bureaucratship. — Werdna talk criticism 07:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'd be disappointed to hear this, but I'd have to say you'd misunderstood the spirit of the 1FA when I wrote it. It is not a reward for editors (I lost count saying numberous times that "adminship is not a trophy"), and it has never come to my mind, ever. - Mailer Diablo 11:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's not a reward for those who write articles, then what is it? — Werdna talk criticism 14:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Raul654 has summarised it pretty nicely here. - Mailer Diablo 21:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. However, creating a featured article is not the only place to get those skills. 1FA assumes that those skills developed by creating a featured article are not present in any user who has not created a featured article. This is a gross generalisation. I also question whether or not that was what you were thinking when you created the criterion, or whether you were thinking of it as a political maneuvre[somebody correct my spelling there] to further the goal of more featured articles. — Werdna talk criticism 02:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oo, I need to add that I'm more worried about MD's judgement on the purpose of admins in future processes than in the current one. — Werdna talk criticism 02:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the problem here is the same we have with most 'crat nominations: we have a good, trustworthy user, with whom most people would feel safe giving the super-powered mop and bucket to-but the thing, is we already have enough 'crats as is. The little communication I have had with this user has been plesent, and I would be willing to put Wiki-life in his hands, but what would promoting him accomplish? He both deserves and is experienced enough to recieve 'crat status, but why does he need it? The 'crats we have are competent. So yes, he can be trusted with his new status, but no, it's not something we desperately need. I would advise getting the word out you want to be a 'crat, then run again in a little while-maybe a month or two. Wiki will have grown in leaps and bounds by then (as is such with the 'pedia) and we will need your assistance. --172.194.119.124 02:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support, good admin with lots of expriences in AFD and RFA. Will make a good 'crat with his experience. --Terence Ong (T | C) 15:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, has my trust. — FireFox (~) 15:36, 08 October 2006
  3. Support, definitely. Energetic, fair, cool-headed. -- Hoary 15:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support An outstanding admin with lots of experience in RfAs and AfDs. The added tools given to this candidate would benefit this project greatly. A friendly user whom one can relate to as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mail-in Support ~ trialsanderrors 16:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Support - In all the times I have ever encountered the nominee (and there have been a lot of them - I've done a lot of deletion proposals lately) I have been impressed by the amount of input he has as well as with the rationality and fairness of his actions. I cannot help but think that he would be more than qualified for these further duties he seems to be willing to voluntarily take on. Badbilltucker 16:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support why not? This user is very active in RfAs, and the 1FA standard which he follows and which is often named after him is evidence of making change to RfA standards, which bureaucrats are a big part of. Also has been here a suitable amount of time, so gets my support. --Alex (Talk) 16:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just like to comment and clarify that bureaucrats don't have any "special power" to change RfA standards or RfA processes. Bureaucrats are designated to interpret the community's wishes in the promotion of administrators, and while they may be heavily involved in discussing RfA change, they don't have any "authority" as a bureaucrat to implement any changes; only the community - including bureaucrats - can make those changes. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, but still he appears to understand what the RfA process is all about. I gave the Diablo Test as an example of his RfA contributions. --Alex (Talk) 16:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply; I just wished to make that clear. (I'm not in any way questioning your vote or anything like that, just clarifying the comment that "bureaucrats are a big part of"). Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support. This is as good a consensus gauger(?) as you're going to find, folks. AfD closing is the closest thing there is to closing RfAs in my opinion and no-one does it more or handles it better than this guy. Regarding Chacor's neutral: If real life gets in the way, real life gets in the way. We can always turn to someone else. I know I can trust him with bureaucrat tools whether he uses them a little or a lot. Grandmasterka 16:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support. I have encountered this user time and time again, and have only poitive things to say. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 16:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, per above. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per nom. John254 17:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Jaranda wat's sup 18:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support he's always struck me as being level headed. -- Samir धर्म 18:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support as he's a great admin, I liked the answers and this statement: "I believe that I am able to take up this further janitorial work". NCurse work 18:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Meets all criteria. Orane (talk • cont.) 19:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - A familiar face on AFD/MFD as a closerBakaman Bakatalk 20:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Great admin, lots of participation, giving my support. Hello32020 20:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Support Stupendous, dedicated user; excellent judgment; placid temperment; extraordinarily humble and friendly Wikipedian -- there is no one better-suited to the bureaucrat corps in all of Wikipedia. Xoloz 21:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - trustworthy admin, I would feel secure giving MD the bureaucrat tools. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. I have seen nothing but good edits from this quite experienced user. Dar-Ape 23:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Gladly support I've never seen MD give anyone anything but good advice, he's friendly, and has both a good grasp of consensus (see his xfD work especially) and technical know-how. I just wish I knew this was up sooner. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong support - always very fair, never holds personal grudges against anybody- will evaluate the user upon the merits of the case. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong support - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. No reason not to, Mailer diablo has been fair, impartial, and friendly as well as level-headed. An ideal bureaucrat in my opinion. Silensor 02:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. This is in part to counter the opposes based on 1FA. I cannot believe people are opposing on the fact that mailer believes admins should be people who actually write this encyclopedia. This is only a logical and sensible approach to RFA! I am also supporting because Mailer has proven again and again to be a clear, rational, level headed admin.  ALKIVAR™ 02:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect. RfA is there to promote people who would be good admins, not to reward those who work on articlespace. — Werdna talk criticism 07:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Says the non-admin, general non-editor, who badly wants the power ([1] [2] [3]) . First and formost wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This is not myspace, wiki is not social hour for the lonely teenagers at school. We are here to write an encyclopedia. We are here to WRITE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA... perhaps the repetition will get through to you. Yes sure you can do necessary work RC patrolling, or doing mediation... but currently the #1 job most desperately in need of assistance is CLEANUP. That requires editing skill, and writing skills, and the ability to clarify content that doesnt make much sense. Lack of writing skills does not mean however you cant be an admin, but to be a well rounded candidate for adminship, you need to be an editor first, and a social person second. But this debate doesnt really belong here, so i'm going to shut up now.  ALKIVAR™ 17:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we are here to write an encyclopedia. Minor edits and many things that WikiGnomes do can come after the content is written. I think a lot of people have forgotten about actually writing the encyclopedia. T REXspeak 05:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You can be prolific, excellent writer without having a featured article. —Centrx→talk • 17:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If your prolific, then someone will eventually nominate one of your articles.  ALKIVAR™ 17:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support per Blnguyen & Samir, above. Also, I like the language used by Mailer diablo - seems very level headed. Good luck :-) EyeMD 03:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Mailer diablo is one of our most hard-working admins, and has carried out his services admirably. In a bureaucrat candidate I look for someone who respects consensus and policy, and Mailer fits the bill well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. I urge Cyde and Dmcdevit to stop persecuting people involved in Giano's arbitration case. Partisan voting is not likely to clear the air after Carnildo's disgraceful RfA. Mailer diablo does meet our criteria, that's the only thing that matters. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Mailer has been a fair and impartial admin but also very friendly. Leidiot 10:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support share most of his ideas regarding RFA abakharev 11:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Kusma (討論) 12:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Edit Conflict Support I regularly lurk on RFA, and Mailer Diablo seems to have contributed significantly to the development of the RFA process. When lurking on RFA, I keep reading that we need more bureaucrats, and because Mailer Diablo is from Singapore, he can help clear backlogs while the Americans are sleeping. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I have seen many of his edits on RFA, and they always seemed respectful and wise, even when we disagreed. People Powered 13:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Level headed, open to input, works like the proverbial dog, commited to consensus, remembers that we're here for the articles, cautious with the tools... what's not to love? I can forgive him being Malber's sockpuppet, too. - brenneman {L} 14:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support per the recall declaration. Shows that he trusts the community's opinion and that we can trust him with its care. All admins and above should be as open to such modesty towards being judged by the community at will if they wish more privledges. Tango Alpha Foxtrot 14:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. G.He 15:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Approval, a level headed and experienced user. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 16:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong support. Experienced user. Not a single ethics issue. Gave excellent answers to all questions too. --Irpen 17:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Never seen anything that would make me not trust Mailer to be a responsible bureaucrat. These days, it seems you can't have the opinion that we are actually here to build an encyclopedia, without being opposed on requests like this one. If Mailer believes that an admin should have contributed to at least one FA, then let him do so. Do people actually think he would misuse his status because of that? – Elisson • T • C • 18:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Mailer diablo has my full confidence. --Storkk 18:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, has my confidence and the recall thing is an example to follow. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong Support I have read through the arguments of the opposers, and many of them seem to be arguments in his favour.--Runcorn 19:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support for many reasons given above. Jonathunder 20:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, having read the opposes and found nothing I consider a sound reason. I disagree with 1FA, certainly, but disagreements are allowed- that's a matter for the appropriate talk page. Do people really only support folks who they think have all the same opinions as them? Same deal with admin recall- those who disapprove are welcome to not participate, but seeing this as a reason for opposition? It makes no sense to me. Haven't we had our share of problems with non-accountability already? I admire anyone who's willing to be a crat and be accountable at the same time. Friday (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support While 1FA was not a graceful was to make his point about focusing on article quality, Mailer diablo his one of the hardest working admins WP has.-- danntm T C 20:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. I do not agree with the 1FA criterion, but crats do not establish criterions for adminship. I don't think crats must be able to walk on water. Gauging consensus and respect for the individual and the community is enough. So, no problem here. --Ligulem 21:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support despite my deep dislike of 1FA. Consensus is the aggregate good faith positions of editors in good standing, not what one or several beurocrats think is best for the encyclopedia. Eluchil404 21:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support one we can trust. --Vsion 21:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, this is a strong candidate who I would trust as a bureaucrat to make good decisions. Yamaguchi先生 00:06, 10 October 2006
  50. Support. I was initially on the fence because I think some people have expressed legitimate concerns. But, on the balance, I think MD does and will do good things. The willingness to submit to voluntary recall tips the balance for me to support. Johntex\talk 02:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support --W.marsh 02:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support --Conti|✉ 02:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Full approval.--Tdxiang 03:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support -- Avi 03:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Passes My Criteria †he Bread 03:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support per Ligulem. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 04:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Of course. -- No Guru 04:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - great user. —Khoikhoi 04:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. He already said he wasnt going to use 1FA as criteria when he promotes. T REXspeak 05:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support per 1FA. Anomo 07:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Strong Support. From the innumerable times I've seen MD around, I've never yet seen anything to make me remotely uncomfortable. The 1FA criterion strikes me as pretty reasonable, as I read it (ie, it is not the only criterion he uses to judge candidates, but serves to emphasise the importance of writing and communication skills), and I'm continually impressed by his behaviour and involvement at Wikipedia. I believe Mailer Diablo really is close to the ideal administrator, and believe he would excel as a 'crat. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 08:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support steady worker bee. :) Danny Lilithborne 09:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. I don't like 1FA and alwaays find it irritating. However, i see no reason to oppose Mailer's RfB on the basis of it. Mailer seems to have always taken a very cautious, purely consensual view of adminship. While I would probably prefer him to be slightly more rouge as an admin, this is a perfect characteristic for a Bcrat. If you can trust anyone not to use priviliges to push changes in policy it's him. IMV it's senseless to stop one of the most prolific and sensible closers of AfD from beign a BCrat jsut because of his entirely good-faith attempts to encourage admin candidates to do more work on the encyclopedia. Heaven knows, the encyclopedia needs it. The Land 09:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Pretty much per The Land. I don't like 1FA either and I'm not a member of the voluntary recall category. However, my image of Mailer diablo is a hard-working, well-intentioned and trustworthy Wikipedian. He knows how to determine consensus too from his AFD activity. --kingboyk 11:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support: Myself, I am unswayed by people saying, one place, that RfA is "broken" because people bring up ancient matters and, in another, that they have to oppose here because of an ancient standard MD used. Normally, I vote against (or abstain) any RfB because "we don't need more." Unfortunately, I have to agree now that we do need more 'crats, and, once that's determined, I support M.D.'s candidacy: I see no outstanding issues with this candidate and nothing to really make me question his judgment. Geogre 11:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the one thing that encouraged me in the answers, above, is that we define an administrator as a person in a position of trust. "Trusted by the community" isn't 60/40. Setting the bar exceptionally high, no matter what your numerical breakpoint is, is or should be standard. You can overrule the community on a lot of things, if policies are involved, but you cannot overrule the community and tell them that you have decided that, indeed, they really do trust user X or Y. Anything having to do with writing vs. bots (and that's where some of the fractures here are) is a red herring when it comes to b'crats. Geogre 12:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Strong Support An outstanding Admin and an excellent judge of consensus per his AfD work. I am troubled by the opposition because of 1FA. At the heart of every Wikipedian is an editor and the overwhelming goal and desire of the project is to produce a quality Encyclopedia. Evaluating admin candidates on their desire and ability to work articles up to FA status is a fair assessment that is in-line with the project goals. Agne 11:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support the nomination, per the above. --Myles Long 14:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support" (despite my not agreeing with 1FA) Knows the ropes. competent, capable, knowledgeable, expereinced admin.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support  Doctor Bruno  16:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Mailer Diablo is rational and objective. I supported his RfA for that same reason. I read every single oppose vote and don't find anything to sway me. SchmuckyTheCat 17:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Cautious Support. While I too disapprove of the 1FA standard, if I have read MD's comments correctly I believe that he will not be using that criterion in the consideration of promotion (I also note that MD has stopped using 1FA as a criterion in RfA as of late). I am not swayed by all but one of the "oppose" comments. The only "oppose" comment that gives me pause is that of AmiDaniel, hence the cautiousness of my support. Despite that, I am optimistic that MD won't be too restrictive on promoting editors to adminship, and that he will be fair in closing the ones he does not. Agent 86 17:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Sorry, can't support anyone in the voluntary recall category, a category that only serves to say, "look at me, I'm willing to be recalled and you aren't so I'm a better admin". Don't bother trying to tell me that's not why you are in it, that may be so, but that's the impression the category gives, and it is devisive. I feel its poor judgement on any admin's part to promote it. (I've also said this many times and many places, so if you think you can change my mind, go ask User:Lar.) pschemp | talk 18:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps mandatory recall procedures are the right way to go for all administrators and higher is that category is too ostentatious. People Powered 23:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen these votes before, whereby a voter judges the abilities and qualities of the candidate solely by the candidate's affiliations. It's a fallacy called Guilt by Association. What's more, the voter's impression of the group is sometimes mistaken. The voter's unwillingness to be moved makes it all the more bizzare. I can bet that if Malber wasn't a part of the category, the editor would find another reason to vehemently oppose. Tsk, tsk. I hope other bureaucrats can see through this. Orane (talk • cont.) 19:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Who the hell is Malber and why are you accusing me of caring about him? I have never in my life interacted with a Malber and don't give a flip who he is. As such, your comment here is way out of line. In fact, I argued this endlessly on the CFD discussion here on August 14th, and if you look at the history of the Category, there was no Malber person in the category at the time. If you are going to try to make my vote look bad, why don't you go find some real evidence? Also, it is not guilt by association, its guilt by the fact he agrees with the category. He's in it and has advertised the fact at the of this RFB. That's a very different thing. My objection to this category and its promotion has been stated since the beginning. Go ask Lar, he'll tell you. The two of us have argued about that category until we were blue in the face mutiple times, and I still have the same opinion of it, so I'm just warning people not to bother. Unless you think RFB is an appropriate place to rehash the issue of admin recall (I don't) I think my warning was appropriate. pschemp | talk 21:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A few points here. First of all... Pschemp and I have agreed to amicably disagree about the value of the category since the very get go, and that has nothing to do with Malber. You'll recall that in some previous RfAs there has been some controversy about whether one can or should hold up membership in various categories, wikiphilosophies, etc as a criterion for deciding. In particular the thing is that when I even hinted at that I thought it was a thing to evaluate people on, I got jumped on. (I was hinting at evaluating the other way). I see it as voluntary. but I do think it gives insight into admin (and by extension, 'crat) thinking, one facet of how one evaluates the total package of what has to be done. So is it valid to use this membership as one facet? I think so. Even if I evaluate in the other direction from pschemp, who I respect a great deal. Note that evaluating is different from requiring or forbidding membership as a condition. Is challenging someone for choosing to evaluate that way appropriate? No, I do not think it is. People evaluate using criteria of their choosing, and rightly so. So I don't see taking pschemp to task for her views, for her criteria, as a good approach. Disagree if you like, but flinging about accusations that it's because of a particular member or whatever may not be useful... this has nothing to do with Malber. ++Lar: t/c 22:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was speaking of Mailer. My mistake. But my critique of your vote still stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalist (talk • contribs)
  2. Someone who doesn't understand what adminship is cannot be trusted to promote users.--SB | T 23:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mailer Diablo stopped using 1FA as a standard back on 11 June. Surely the four months (almost to the day) since his deprecation of 1FA have been enough for him to change his opinion of the RfA process? To me, the simple fact that he no longer uses it is evidence enough that does understand. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 09:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He's also using numerical standards to gauge consensus, so no, he still doesn't understand.--SB | T 09:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you like to provide some examples of judgements he's made purely on the basis of numerical standards? More to the point, what standards should be using, if not users' expressed opinions - which are inherently numerical anyway? Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 09:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I have this general impression of what a bureaucrat is supposed to be, and Mailer Diablo doesn't fit it. He came up with this haughty criteria for adminship that the majority of administrators don't meet anyway, and it ended up resulting in adding to the brokeness of RFA. Administrating is about administrating, not writing articles ... you don't need any special tools to write articles (and indeed if you're only going to write articles, you don't need adminship). He's added to the general confusion of RFA, in addition to the weird recall thing as pointed out by Pschemp. I cannot support at this time. --Cyde Weys 01:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly do you mean by "administrating [is not about] writing articles"? Are you one of those people who believe that an Admin (who is, or is supposed to be a role model, police, janitor and senior editor) doesn't need to be competent in writing? Look, there are mainly two categories of policies on Wikipedia: (1) Behavioural policies and (2) Editorial policies. An Administrator should be role models in both of these areas. In RFA's you examine a candidate's conduct in talk discussions to gauge how he stacks up against the behavioural policies. What do you propose we use to judge his experience in the editorial section (or don’t you think that editing is important. You know, given that we are running an encyclopedia here)? The only possible thing to judge his editing ability is the articles the candidate has worked on. (This is partly why I support a rule that an Admin candidate should have a featured or good article under his or her belt.)
    You know, that’s the problem with Adminiship today. There is no balance. A candidate is proficient in the behavioural section, and automatically we think that he or she is ripe for promotion. If we continue on this path, I’ll predict that Wikipedia will be a joke. We’ll have Admins who clear backlogs, but are incapable of writing a stable, unbiased and well-sourced article (or recognizing and correcting one that doesnt fit these criteria). Orane (talk • cont.) 03:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Calm down. —Centrx→talk • 06:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I'm not angry. I've been told, though, that I often use very emotive language. I'm just frustrated with what Adminship has become. Maybe the page (Wikipedia:Administrators) needs a rewrite to clearly and precisely describe what an Admin is. Or is it that I'm the only one who feels this way about the parameters of an Admin's resposibilities? Orane (talk • cont.) 07:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I disagree with Journalist (who signs as Orane) on this; in my view, most of an administrator's job is janitorial work (closing AfDs, CSDs, etc.) and sorting out behaviorial problems (AIV, AN/I, etc.); editorial policies can be and are enforced by non-admin editors, and if it gets to the stage that one user in a dispute is ignoring the others it's become a behavorial problem. If a user violates WP:MOS, I can just edit the article to fit the style guidelines (or place a cleanup tag on it if I'm busy); if they violate WP:NLT, I'll need to find a sysop to sort the situation out. However, this is getting reasonably irrelevant to this RfB, so I suggest moving this thread to WT:RFA if it inspires any further comments. --ais523 08:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Strong oppose per Cyde. That bothers me even for a non-bureaucrat.Voice-of-All 06:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. While I agree that some parts of the Carnildo affair were handled poorly, I don't support the notion that consensus is based solely on percentages. Cyde's opinion also holds some merit, though I wouldn't oppose solely on that. Dmcdevit's diffs on snowball RFAs below is also worth noting. Ral315 (talk) 06:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the word "percentage", I thought I want to clear up this whole matter - RfA is not determined by sheer voting, it is by consensus of the community. I have adopted a similiar stand on AfD since deletion reform. - Mailer Diablo 09:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In my humble opinion, it is the consensus of the community as perceived by the promoting bureaucrat or group of bureaucrats. I am not sure, and would like to be enlightened. Thanks in advance and regards. --Bhadani 15:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Had planned to give a more detailed explanation, but had three edit conflicts in a row, so, um... yeah. —freak(talk) 06:29, Oct. 9, 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per 1FA. — Werdna talk criticism 07:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Switching to Very Strong Oppose per his creation of WP:BULL. My explanation of my objection to this page can be seen here. — Werdna talk criticism 16:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I do agree with you. The work of writing contents may get fully "automated" in the long run (may be by the end of this century, though I am not sure) with the development of artificial intelligence. However, I am sure that until that happens, we shall require good editors and writers otherwise there shall be neither any requirement of administrators nor any other requirement like having bureaucrats to "decide" the "consensus" on the "analysis" of the comments by users in RfAs. I think many editors are following the WP:BULL campaign, and if the campaign does not conform to the spirit of wikipedia, suitable measures should be initiated to stop the campaign and save the resources of the Wikimedia Foundation. --Bhadani 17:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I don't have a strong opinion about 1FA, but I question your judgment elsewhere. Why would anyone, much less a bureaucrat, feel the need to add the 21st oppose to a 0/20/5 RfA, the 17th oppose to a 6/16/1 RfA, or the 14th oppose to a 2/13/3? (Those were just recent examples.) This kind of unconstructive behavior is one of the major reasons RFA is such an unnecessary ordeal for nominees, and why people think it is broken. Also, per Ral315, I'm afraid I can't support a candidate who looks at RfA with such a vote-like mentality. I must admit a poor (first) impression of you was made by what seemed to me like your partisan wrangling on the Giano arbitration case. Dmcdevit·t 07:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's put it in another way, for example in the deletion process. Say an editor puts his 15th opinon on deletion review that the decision undertaken by a sysop is incorrect and should be overturned, and I oppose this editor on his RfA because I feel that his behaviour is unconstructive on this basis. All because the editor wants to have his opinon heard, regardless how brutal the process is. How would the editor think? Your guess is as good as mine. - Mailer Diablo 09:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying you want to have your opinion heard, regardless how brutal the process is for the nominee? Even when the opinion is just a useless piling onto the objections of a dozen or more before you? Dmcdevit·t 16:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How did you react to the other twenty, fifteen and thirteen oppose voters in each of the above RfAs? At what point is one supposed to hold off making your opinion known on an RfA, exactly? Only one of the above three users had less than 1,000 edits - hence, the other two hardly fall under the "newbie" part of "don't bite the newbies" - while Mailer Diablo made his main reason for opposing very clear in the third. Now, what exactly is the problem with adding your opinion in that circumstance? Is there something wrong with adding further emphasis, by providing useful feedback? Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 08:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Should I conclude (based on above) that most of the users who opposed the above three RfAs are not qualified to become bureaucrat at any point of time till the wikipedia continues in this form? I am eagerly awaiting for clearing my doubts. --Bhadani 15:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. (This will all sound very terse; Mailer, you have many, many great qualities, so do not let the next few lines put you off). Candidate seems RFA in a totally different way to myself, and I would imagine much of the community. Answer to my question underlies this; yes, there was a lot of bad blood over the Carnildo affair, but the 'Crats were pretty unanimous in saying he should have been promoted. You say you will never promote below 75%; for me, that is process gone mad and consensus ignored (consensus is not a vote). Whilst his work on AFD is outstanding, I do not feel he has is yet ready to be making tough judgement calls on a hugey contentious issue in Wikipedia (adminship) in which he has, in my opinion, not yet shown sufficient interest or wisdom. Batmanand | Talk 09:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per Cyde, pschemp and others. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per Cyde, Sean, and especially Werdna. While I wouldn't ever oppose an RFA for that or any other lame philosophical opinion (we all have lame philosophical opinions), a 'crat bit is pretty much meaningless except for promoting admins and I can't see someone who has done a great deal to make RFA suck more in that position. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Not sure we need any more crats at this time. I also don't agree with the 1FA criteria for becoming an admin...I have 4 FA's I either started or was the primary editor on, none of which happened prior to my becoming an admin.--MONGO 19:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose As 1FA is a ridiculous bit of requirement creep, it is evidence of weak judgement on the part of Mailer diablo. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Per MONGO. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 22:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per Cyde. *drew 00:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose responsible administrator, good editor, and all-round asset to the community, but I share the concerns of several above with 1FA and the role of admins. Tom Harrison Talk 01:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Makes an excellent admin, but I fear that, given his rather disruptive RfA voting patterns and other bothersome personality traits I've observed, he would be likely as bureaucrat to go against consensus and policy and to instead follow his own personal opinions. Bureacrats should, in my opinion, be fair and neutral with regard to all candidates, which I certainly don't believe Mailer diablo would do. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Daniel. Could you please point out some evidence/clarify as to Mailer's shortcomings for those who have not noticed them? Thanks. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a problem. Well, truthfully, the only thing that has ever really bothered me about Mailer diablo has been his activities on RfA, which seem quite contrary to his work on, say AfD, which has always impressed me. Everyone's familiar with the 1FA (for the lack of a better word) thing he created and to some extent made popular, which seemed to me a rather absurd criterion, but I'm not opposing on the basis of his opinions toward admin candidacy. What bothered me was that he continued opposing per this criterion ad nauseum and never (or rarely) qualifying his reasons for opposing with more than "per 1FA." This behavior seemeed to me to be quite arrogant, judgmental, and condescending, and I it shows a certain undeniable bias that I feel will prevent Mailer diablo from serving fairly in this capacity. We're also aware that the primary job of a bureaucrat is to explain the decisions he makes, which does not seem important to Mailer diabloe. Furthermore, I found it quite stange that despite his adament belief in 1FA, he went on to not only support, but nominate users such as SynergeticMaggot (and a couple others whose names I can't recall) who didn't meet his dogmatic standard, which further illustrates to me his general arrogance with regard to the RfA forum. Mailer diablo has what I believe to be a severe misunderstanding of adminship, of which his 1FA has become the epitome - believing it to be an editorial rather than janitorial position - and that his standards are ridiculously high. While I do prefer an overly cautious crat to a reckless one, I'd rather avoid both extremes, and ideally I'd like bureaucrats to not have strong opinions and biases with regard to adminship (thus, I would make a bad bureaucrat). To sum up, Mailer diablo does not seem to be a person who reaches decisions through discussion, but rather who has made up his mind long before he knows the issue. Frankly, we don't need many bureaucrats, and I think any available slot could be filled by a much more capable individual. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose based on his answers, and per most of the above (Cyde, Dmcdevit, Wile E, and pschemp). Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose based on issues noted above and no apparent need for more b'crats currently.--Peta 02:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose looking through this user's RfA edits, almost all of them consist of nothing other than either "Support ~~~~" or "Oppose - come back in 6 months ~~~~". I believe bureaucrats should be able to participate in discussion more than that.--Konst.able 05:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I'm opposing for bureaucratic reasons to the answers to the questions; I don't think we need another bureaucrat of the type he'd like to be. Promotions and namechanges are being handled just fine at the present rate. I supported Ram-man because I saw a need for bots issues, but I really don't think another RfA 'crat is needed all diffs aside. Absolutely nothing personal, a fantastic AfD closer. Teke (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. Heck no. Rebecca 09:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose 1FA is not a problem (although 1GA would be a more practical request). However, nothing in his answers or opening statement makes me think he needs the tools or could use them to solve specific issues. The concerns of Dmcdevit and AmiDaniel, his answer to my question coupled with Chacor's points do not assure me that MD will work steadily to reduce backlogs, etc. Rama's arrow 13:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose I think that the nominee has been a strong contribution towards standards for adminship that have nothing to do with the actual duties of an administrator, including editcounting, and the notorious 1FA this still hasn't completely died. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 14:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. I am, at this time, unsure. A while ago you cited your upcoming (how soon? Less than a year?) National Service, as well as A-Levels, as basis for at first leaving, then later shortened into a Wikibreak. How will these commitments off-wiki affect your potential work as a crat, if any? – Chacor 15:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I managed to figure out a balance for my studies and editing at this time. For National Service, I may or may not have an access to a computer, but whenever I can log on though at home I'll get to work.
    Just as any editor would love to work round the clock on Wikipedia, real life unfortauntely may impose restrictions on one's ability to get online and edit, and sometimes this is not by one's free will (you should know, that National Service is by law and complusory). However, this should not restrict one's love for dedication to the encyclopedia and its community. - Mailer Diablo 16:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm a bit weary about supporting bureaucratship for someone who pioneered featured-article-countitis, but I have a problem opposing someone who promoted well-rounded admins. -- tariqabjotu 04:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Excellent admin with lots of expriences in AFD and RFA, but I am not 100% confident with the issues raised by those who oppose. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 1FA is not enough to put me in oppose but it does strike me from the support as does the comments of dmcdevit and Cyde. MD, I think you're an excellent sysop but I don't think you're quite ready for 'cratship. Given time we shall see, but not at this second... -- Tawker 08:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Mailer_diablo&oldid=80647974"