The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Proto[edit]

Final (66/27/5) ending 18:06 01 February 2006 (UTC)

Proto (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate the redoubtable Proto for adminship. I first encountered this user at Featured Article Candidates and my initial impression has been pleasantly confirmed: he is conscientious, good-humoured, and concerned both with content and with process.

His numbers should be enough to satisfy even stubborn edit-counters: active ten months, he has 4700+ edits. A majority of these are to Main space and he’s also active enough in the Wiki space to know his way around. He contributes here, at AfD (where he could help out as an admin), and sometimes on the ref desks and FAC. His edit summaries have improved and are more or less constant now. I know of no outstanding conflicts or any other issue that should keep the mop and bucket out of his hands. Finally, he has an FA and if you need advice on shining your shoes you might drop him a line. Thanks all for considering this nom, Marskell 17:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Wow ... 'redoubtable'? After checking the dictionary, I've decided I'm honoured - thanks Marskell! Accepted. Proto t c 17:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Indubitable support as nominator. Marskell 18:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. I was thinking about nominating him myself, just a few hours ago, in fact. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:17, Jan. 25, 2006
3. Support I'm on board -lethe ^talk 18:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Wow! Astonished, genuine "cliche" moment! Of course, give him mop! Xoloz 19:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Good choice for Admin. --AStanhope 00:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose as bad faith RfA - you shopuldn't nominate people who are already Admins.3 words: Oh ... My ... God. --Celestianpower ^háblame 19:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable. Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under a table. There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya about the raising of the wrist. Socrates, himself, is particularly missed - a lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed. Sorry, I just like that song. Support. JIP | Talk 19:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 19:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support - Would make an excellent admin. Sango123 (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support; helpful and kind. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. LordViD 21:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. I'm glad to support a good user who joined in the same month. One note though, in AfDs and other voting pages, please state in edit summary your vote (del;keep;merge;support;oppose;etc) so the closing admin and other users can easily verify your vote. Thanks. feydey 21:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support. Good variety of edits, seems well-rounded. -Colin Kimbrell 21:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Astrotrain 23:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support would make a great admin. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support. Very good answers to questions. --TantalumTelluride 00:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support. goatasaur 00:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support: I thoroughly believe this user will use the tools well. -- Francs2000 01:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. King of All the Franks 02:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Cliché per Xoloz. NSLE _(T+C) 03:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support. Has never bitten me. --Aaron 03:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support --Terence Ong 03:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support - Hahnchen 14:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support - I honestly thought you were an admin already!--Ali K 15:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 15:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support per NSLE. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support --Doc ^ask? 17:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support good editor, and I like the chip pan article. --TimPope 18:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support: I think he would handle AfD's properly. TimBentley 00:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support. Even if he suffers from "editcountitis", which is debatable, it shouldn't matter. "Editcountitis" is not a disability that prevents a good editor from being a great admin. I did find his 2 December 2005 RfA vote to be patently tasteless, but the fact that it was an isolated event leads me to believe that Proto realized that himself shortly after he posted it. We need more sharp-minded, keen-eyed admins. Owen× ☎ 01:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support. Good work on aged requests. - SimonP 02:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support good editor, will be good admin --rogerd 03:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support the oppose votes are quite strange, to say the least...  Grue  10:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    QuestionI gave an example of where I felt this user had not been civil. Why is that strange? Dlyons493 Talk 19:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I was referring to "editcountititis" votes. I'm retracting my support though, because of the other concerns.  Grue  20:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

35. Support. Very impressed with how Proto answered my concerns on my talkpage. James James 12:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Seems to have a fairly well tuned bullshit detector at his disposal. I say, "Lets exploit it". Hamster Sandwich 12:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support --Bling-chav 13:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This was the user's first edit. Proto t c 14:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

38. Support Per above. Banez 18:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support. The Land 14:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Browsing through the oppose votes, there are some potentially damaging diffs around. But most of them are basically jokes which just turn out bad in print. You can say a lot of things about him, but he's got humor. And we need more of that around here! Sure, he could have used another word than "batter", and he should definitely learn to think a bit harder before posting something potentially WP:BITE-ing. Given his record, i'm fairly confident he'll piss off quite a few people more when he's an admin! Then again, i'm fairly confident he'll make a good admin nonetheless. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 14:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 14:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 00:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Strong support should have been nominated a long time ago. Looking over the oppose votes, it always amuses me when users vote oppose to get revenge on their perceived "enemies." Not that I'm naming any names, though I'm curious as to how "editcountitis" is going to get in the way of anyone's admin duties or how voting on RFAs has anything to do with being an admin. Oh wait. It doesnt. freestylefrappe 02:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support. Mushroom 10:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support. Per all the above. Street walker 11:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support: --Bhadani 15:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support, just because I don't think the reasons for opposing have any weight. See "comments" below. -R. fiend 22:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support, agreed w/ above, oposition seems too vocal, once an admin he'll become more neutral, it's always the case. —This user has left wikipedia 04:08 2006-01-29
49. Support John Reid 06:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. No doubt about in my mind whatsoever that he would be a great admin. --Lawlore 20:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support: setting high standards for adminship is no vice. Jonathunder 20:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support --Ugur Basak 01:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support What is this editcountitis-itis that is going around? Proto seems like a great candidate to me, regardless of his dreaded editcounting disease.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 07:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support the points evinced below by those who seem to think that Proto is somehow involved in the GNAA are completely off-base. Helping out Wikipedia by removing blog-related detritus from the project should not be grounds for opposing his nomination, nor should having a sense of humour. If this fails, it will be a sad day, since Proto's contributions are stellar and the evidence cited by Jjay and others to oppose his adminship is simply ridiculous. Eusebeus 07:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No one has said he's a GNAA member... for me the issue is the statement he posted here just a few days ago that "I didn't know what the GNAA were until just now", which parts of his contribution history seem to contradict. Any reply by a candidate in an RfAdm should be entirely truthful, and if there's a seed of doubt about that, I'd hope Proto would clarify that here. If he'd said something different like, hypothetically, "yeah I knew Timecop was GNAA but the personal hero thing was just a foolish joke and nothing more", then although we might still question his judgment, the truthfulness issue wouldn't exist. -- Curps 08:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that is frankly disingenuous and that you are using the above issue as a proxy for your distaste that a number of blogs have been brought to AfD and successfully removed, in part due to the efforts of Proto. It seems from your comments on the Administrator's noticeboard, [[1]] that you were (or are) convinced that the so-called War on Blogs was an attempt to vandalise by using genuinely delete-worthy articles as a Trojan Horse for getting rid of substantive articles and the GNAA - admittedly a childish group - was using their War - admittedly a childish name - to wreak havoc. The fact is that almost all of the articles they have brought to AfD have generated admirable consensus to delete since upon scrutiny from editors such as myself, JzG, brenneman and many others, they have been deemed eminently deletable. Taking the time to rid WP of stuff like this is noteworthy, even if the organisers have otherwise infantile and profane impulses. Don't tar Proto with the GNAA brush because he supported a good cause. I think his edit record stands on its own, and it looks very very much to me like this issue and the moral grandstanding it has provoked is being used as a flagrant canard and back-alley putdown by people who find him too exclusionist. I think he would make an excellent admin and I see nothing in the oppose votes that suggest otherwise. Eusebeus 09:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Proto's participation in AfD voting is not the issue. The issue that was raised was the "personal hero" bit and his subsequent possibly disingenuous denial of knowing who the GNAA were. -- Curps 10:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

55. Support An excellent editor with a good sense of humour. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support. I had assumed he already was one. Rhion 22:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. I can sympathize with people who turn bad articles into good articles. Keep up the good work. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support, having read all of the rationales for votes cast here, and taken a cursory look at this editors history, I believe that in balance he will make good use of the tools. bd2412 T 03:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support (jumping on the bandwagon).--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support. Pschemp | Talk 04:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support The examples of incivility offered are, quite frankly, not convincing. I would worry more about supporting someone for Admin who had not spoken plainly at least once. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support From one poor S.O.B. to another;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support All in 17:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support You bet you!--Young XenoNeon (converse) 17:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support if this is still open. Spot-checked his history, didn't see any problems. Herostratus 20:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support - late but this hasn't been closed yet. -- DS1953 ^talk 22:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Person has an extreme case of editcountitis; this will get in the way of admin duties. WikiFanatic 00:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong Oppose I came across this user when he voted delete on a list of Paris streets. No problem - he was probably right. But I consider someone who would write batter creator over the head with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, repeatedly as lacking a basic qualification for adminship - common courtesy. Dlyons493 Talk 01:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I've left a message on your talk page about this. Proto t c 10:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. Strong Oppose editcountitis maximus and terse language on Afd just doesn't sit well with me.--MONGO 02:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Requested I clarify "editcountis maximus" [2], [3], [4], not sure what this was about, [5], [6]--MONGO 02:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   1, this was about the user having less than 3 months on Wikipedia, and nothing to do with his edit count. 2, I went through the guys contributions, and only about 400 weren't either category editing or double redirect fixing - I expressed a concern about whether this evinced enough experience with Wikipedia. 3, I stand by this one and am not ashamed. 1355 edits over 18 months is not a high level of activity. 4, I even say in the comment that "1400 edits would have been enough if the candidate is able to appear level headed and sensible, but the dildo stuff makes me think that this is not the case". How is this editcountitis? 5, I have a standard of 1000 edits, and applied it. The user turned out to be an excellent administrator; I learned a very valuable lesson there, and so have since not applied this standard as rigorously. Proto t c 12:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I switched to strong oppose now as I just don't think you get it. Comments such as "He's obviously a good vandal fighter, but I don't care as such in diff number 1 are just plain rude.--MONGO 12:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose. I'm wary of people who spend this much time on AfD. I am worried about Proto's deletionism, specifically his support for the "war on blogs". I don't think Proto should have the power to delete pages. Rhobite 04:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment: I checked and it appears only 31% of his edits are to the project namespace, and over half of his edits are to real articles. Thus, you might reconsider the implication that Proto is disproportionately drawn to AFDs. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 17:36, Jan. 26, 2006

5. Oppose I'm not crazy about a potential admin involved in a "war" on anything and would hope that an admin would help tone this down rather than making sure it was formatted correctly. Also, not comfortable with his emphasis on voting at AFD and a misunderstanding of why the name was changed. Few edit summaries on AFD edits as well. Rx StrangeLove 05:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose, strongly perhaps. I don't know this person, but a comment like this: "I vote delete. Let us not forget that the entire process was originally called Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion. The name changed was to clarify that this process was for articles, not to suggest it was not a voting process" demonstrates at the very least someone who I'd not want to be closing deletion discussions (ahem) and more likely someone with a basic misunderstanding of consensus. AFD is emphatically not a vote. This doesn't mean I don't appreciate his other contributions, but perhaps Proto could address this concern? Dmcdevit·t 07:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment: It's worth noting that Proto's comment was uttered over a month ago. Seeing his statement below, it appears Proto has since adopted a more nuanced view of Wikipedia's deletion process. I see no reason to believe he would close an AFD improperly, and that's an area where more help would be welcome. A process less frequently backlogged would allow closers time to more closely analyze the strengths of the opposing viewpoints, and also detect tampering (such as this underhanded edit which Proto noticed) and signs of possible sockpuppetry (rather than just "counting votes"). I believe he will excel in all of these areas. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 23:13, Jan. 26, 2006

   It's true that comment was a while ago, but the sentiment (the part about it being a vote) hasn't changed. Here's (part of) his comment on my talk page in response to my comment above. "Thank you for taking the time to explain your oppose vote; rather than turn the `vote` into a big discussion, I'll reply here. I used the word `vote` deliberately, because it ties in with your point. You have something (an afd, an rfa, the arbcom elections, etc), people vote (support, oppose, keep, delete, etc), votes are counted. AfD is a vote." I'll reply to that here. I repeat, AFD (and RFA for that matter) are emphatically not votes. They (regrettably in my book) have votes, but but they are attempts at consensus-building, and that's what those comments that should be next to every "vote" are for. I, as well, used the word "comment" deliberately. Because that's what you are responding to. You could not have made this valid, and consensus-building I'll point out, response, without my comment, if it had just been a "#'''Oppose'''. ~~~~". Votes do not produce consensus, at best they gauge it, but not usually. I'm not questioning your ability to determine the good faith of a vote, but rather your ability to distinguish between votes and consensus. Let me be clear, I don't question your value to us as a good editor or anything. Dmcdevit·t 07:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   For whatever it's worth, there are some people who disagree with you and do think that it is a vote, that it has been a vote, and that "consensus" has gone ape. In some situations, "lack of dissent" is good (one def. of consensus). In some, it's absurd, and deletion procedures are one of those. In those cases, getting more than a significant majority is impossible when dealing with a vandal article, and exasperated comments like the one above come about in those circumstances. Having someone try to game "consensus" and swear that things must stay unless there is unanimity (which is what "no dissent" would mean) is aggravating. I don't have enough experience with the user to vote support, but I don't want to see anyone crucified for saying what a lot of us old timers also say. Geogre 00:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose. When I read that he was going to use his adminship to close AFD debates I had to pause a bit. AFD is a discussion and not just a vote, and I have some fears that Proto will be closing debates purely on vote counting without paying heed on the arguments presented. This, coupled with an overreliance on "objective" criteria like edit counting in his RFA voting without considering the quality of edits puts me in the oppose column. Proto is a good contributor and his answers to the questions are thoughtful and good, but this reliance on hard and fast numerical rules needs to be softened up a little before I can support him becoming an admin. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   This appears in part to be a criticism of what data I considered relevant for nom'ing. I don't see any problem with noting "4700+ edits, majority in name space" and in fact I'll add one more "objective" note: avg. edits per page under two. Pull up his contrib's and you'll see him buzzing about the Wiki dabbing, correcting grammar, and occasionally reverting on numerous pages.

   Beyond raw data, I did also note that he is conscientious and concerned about content. I first directly dealt with Proto after this edit [7] where he took the time to read through a lengthy page for FA and offer suggestions. Later he followed the page to note if I'd addressed his concerns [8]. This sort of work, plus that at the ref desks and on articles in general, shows someone concerned about info presented. In sum, I don't think this was a "numbers only nom." Marskell 09:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   No, I was not criticising the nomination here, I was talking about the reliance Proto uses when he opposes candidates on RFA based solely on their low number of edits. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   OK. I'd just point back to what I asked of Jaranda: "does he meet his own criteria?" Marskell 09:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi Sjakkalle, I have left a message on your talk page. Proto t c 10:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose per Dmcdevit and Rx StrangeLove. AfD is about consensus.--Alhutch 18:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose as per other comments here. - Taxman ^Talk 20:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Strong Oppose. This editor has certainly made some good contributions. However, I am concerned by some of the AfD comments already indicated and edit summaries that use the word crap [9]. Most importantly, though, I think any user that not only supports the "war on blogs" but has publicly stated that the leader of the GNAA is his hero [10] is probably not fit for the admin role. The repeated show of support for a "war" that exists merely to divide the community is deeply troubling. It makes me wonder which master this user will seek to serve?-- JJay 13:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I was going to avoid replying to any further oppose votes, but this one is slanted and makes me look really, really horrible. Heck, I wouldn't vote for me based on this comment. The crap summary I don't mind being cited for. There was a lot of, well, crap removed from the article (compare this diff, which goes from the start of clearup to the end, just before I made the diff JJay cited. If using the word crap makes me evil, then I guess I am evil.

    I didn't know what the GNAA were until just now, despite going along with this war on blogs thing (although I really don't like the name - if it was kinda transcluded to (or just the aims adopted by) a WikiProject:Blogs more people would get involved. It's a bad name, but a viable cause (clearing up - not necessarily deleting - blog-related articles on wikipedia), and no policies have been broken. When I described Timecop as my hero, I thought it was a bit of fun. I'll be removing my name from that list in a moment. I don't think it exists to divide the community. I also am not sure where my repeated show of support is in the first place (unless it's pointing out they broke no policies on WP:AN (([11], [12]). Proto t c 15:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Your contribution history seems to indicate that back in July and August 2005 you did know what the GNAA was. [13] [14] [15] [16] -- Curps 05:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I have not sought to slant anything and find the insinuation vaguely offensive. Since you have chosen to post here, I will copy an earlier response I posted on your user page:

    I have difficulty accepting your explanation for why you swore allegiance to the GNAA. Furthermore, your claim to naivete is difficult to fathom:

    When I said Timecop was my hero, I thought it was just a bit of fun, and I certainly wasn't aware he was the leader of the GNAA. I actually had to look up what GNAA meant.

    At the time you signed the petition, less than 3 weeks ago, the user's page clearly stated affiliation with the GNAA and sported a user box marked "hate". [17]. At the very least, this user page and talk page messages above your signature should have raised some concerns. Moreover, this is a group that puts up userboxes praising Osama Bin Laden and accusing the jews of having "done the WTC". Are these ideas that you support?

    Checking the contribution histories of Timecop and other signatories would have shown you that these users contribute solely through AfD nominations and voting. Their comments in AfD discussions are consistently derogatory. None of that seems to bother you, both when you called Timecop a hero, and to date, since you have neither denounced the approach of this group, nor retracted your signature. -- JJay 15:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    To be very clear, Proto rescinded his comment on Timecop (the apparent head of GNAA) and noted such on your talk page JJay [18]. Assuming good faith (and with this user I see no reason not to) he didn't have a clue who Timecop was. Nine minutes later, despite his comments directly to you, you posted the above which is actually a redaction of an earlier comment on his talk page [19]. You have a comment above which appears here as 15:28, but it isn't: it's 15:44, [20] after Proto had withdrawn his comments. This is fundamentally bad faith and I think it very unfortunate that subsequent oppose votes will be based on this. Marskell 23:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't figure out what you are saying. I indicated above that I was reposting my comment here, after Proto posted to my talk page and then made a comment here accusing me of slanting something. The bottom line is that I think he has shown incredibly bad judgement in this whole "war on blogs" thing. Afd, or the business of deciding on the removal of material submitted in good faith by users, is meant to be serious. It is not meant to be gleeful. It is not meant to be a war. That Proto actively participated in this war, supposedly without knowing who his comrades were, is disturbing. Two days though, after signing the Timecop petiton, he was actively participating in an Admin board thread entitled "GNAA "War on blogs" campaign" [21] . At that point, i.e. two weeks ago, he clearly knew he was associated with the GNAA. That he has now removed his name from the GNAA support petition, after my post, is admirable. It comes too late for me to support this user as admin. -- JJay 00:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Your initial caveat doesn't change my point: the repost gives the impression that he had not retracted his sig despite having done so. The repost begins "I have difficulty accepting your explanation for why you swore allegiance to the GNAA," which is entirely ambiguous and might lead subsequent voters here to believe that he is actively defending the organization. And for the record he did not "swear allegiance to the GNAA"--he signed on to a joke on a talk page. You find this ill-judged, which is fair enough, but I wanted to be clear that this guilt-by-association should not be taken too far. There is nothing about his behaviour or his own user page that indicates support for trolling bigots such as Timecop apparently was. In the posts above re GNAA and blogs he does not refer to the former. Finally, you are of course entitled to your Oppose and I retract the implication that you were posting in bad faith--though I still feel you are assuming bad faith of Proto where you need not. Marskell 07:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not assuming bad faith, I am trying to judge this user based on his actions. I had no intention of posting further here, but felt compelled when my initial comment was immediately branded as "slanted". His action may have been a joke, he was still, as far as I can tell, the only non GNAA member or sockpuppet to sign the list. As Proto's history speaks for itself and anyone can examine the links and make up their own minds, I see no point in commenting further. -- JJay 07:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose. Borderline for me. Concerns with AfD closing and with discouraging editcountitis. Not strong concerns but I respect the views of some of the opponents. I'd have been more willing to support had he said he would steer clear of contentious deletion debates and if he paid more attention to the quality of editors' contributions in RFA votes. I know it's really hard to rectify those things and I hope that if Proto fails this time, he'll let me know when he's renommed so that I can give him fair consideration.James James 11:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)(moved to support}[reply]
11. Oppose, lack of understanding of policy and process. Radiant_>|< 13:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose, for reasons given above, especially #3 (MONGO's detailed analysis). ++Lar: t/c 14:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose per the evidence found by JJay above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose this was hard for me and will be my first ever oppose vote. After thinking about it for some time, I can't bring myself to support here. The edits I've seen caused me doubt that we won't have another abrasive admin causing more harm than good, but then Proto's constant responses and arguing with oppose votes is poor form (admins need to be able to handle criticism and people simply oppsosing them and their ideas better and simply show restraint when they really want to say something) and bugs me to the point where, unfortunately, I must oppose. Sorry. No hard feelings.Gator (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose. Per numerous reasons above. A few more months of experience would likely be very beneficial. Carbonite | Talk 19:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose Abrasive comments can lead to all kinds of problems (edit wars, vandalism, good users leaving). We need to minimise such comments as much as possible and admins need to lead by example. In that sense, I am not sure that this user is ready. TigerShark 15:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose, Tempted to cite a support after viewing proto's request to Mr.Sidaway [22], seeing that he's a person ready to accept critisim and helpful advice regarding behaviour, but the numerous diffs en' masse' provided by MONGO are unacceptable. Civilty should be of upmost importance regarding other users - espescially when you disagree with them. -Zero^Talk 03:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose as per MONGO and JJay. But I'd probably support him in a couple of months if he can show himself a bit more diplomatic in the interval.Staffelde 14:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
19. Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Not ready yet. Impressive response to criticism. I'm going to investigate further and may switch to support. Whatever my conclusions, other candidates can learn from Proto's honest and proactive response. 20:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC): On careful reflection I'll go with MONGO, in the hope that a later application will show sufficient improvement to merit my endorsement. Overall a strong candidate, just needs soem work.[reply]
20. Oppose. JJay has already said most of what I would have said. Perhaps you've been unfairly tarred with guilt by association, but much of this voting is about intangibles and comfort level. Timecop's user page clearly says "In early 2003, I have created the Gay Nigger Association of America" and "this user is a template for hate", and this wording was also there as of January 9 at the time you made your "personal hero" pledge. It's hard to believe you would have declared someone a "personal hero" without ever having visited their user page. The "war on blogs" page also contains all kinds of intemperate language like "hundreds of utterly worthless blog-related pages" and "Let's get rid of this crap" and "Is the rest of the shit inane garbage" (version as of January 9) and even the "war" wording itself, which runs counter to Wikipedia:Civility, which should have raised some alarm bells about the company you were keeping. -- Curps 04:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You posted above, just a few days ago, that you had no idea what the GNAA was. However, I now notice that back on July 19 2005 you voted "keep" at "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kick the ass of anyone who renominates GNAA for deletion before 2007" (which today is a redirect) [23] [24]. You also voted in a GNAA-related AfD: [25] and even edited the Gay Nigger Association of America article itself in August. [26]. Can you please clarify? -- Curps 05:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm trying not to reply to any comments on my RFA any more; I've responded to Curps on his talk page. Proto t c 11:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

21. Oppose per MONGO and others. I find it hard to believe that you forgot about editing a page named "Gay Nigger Association of America". It's certainly the kind of article that gives one pause even if you come across it at random. Turnstep 18:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose per all of the above. --M@thwiz2020 21:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose per Radiant.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 22:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose. Too many rude comments and altercations between other users. Can't support. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 00:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose. Good editor, but I'm not ready to give him the mop yet. Too much potential for trouble, and it's very possible (though not conclusive) that he lied about GNAA involvement. Try again later. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 18:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose. Sorry, but inconsistent statements about GNAA make me nervous. Jonathunder 21:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Proto's response on Curps' talk page fails to address the problem, since it doesn't actually give an explanation for the misrepresentation. People who can't be trusted about things that are so easily checked can't be trusted with adminship either. --Michael Snow 00:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral Good editor but I don't like the way this person votes in RFA sometimes. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant question here might be "does he meet his own standards?" If yes, I think there shouldn't be a concern. Marskell 18:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to support but I need a explanation for this [27] and [28] that which was around the same time, which I think it's WP:POINT --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey, no problem. The first was just a lazy way of saying 'not enough edits'. Someone had a quiet word with me about being more informative in my vote comments, and I hope I've managed to be so since then. The second was making a bit of a point, but (I hope) not in a manner that was disruptive. There'd been a bit of an antieditcountitis backlash, and this was my limp one-man anti-antieditcountis backlash backlash. If you need any more info, ask me on my talk page to save clogging this up too much. Proto t c 22:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. torn. good editor overall. i'm not thrilled with the afd stuff, or the alleged editcountitis (evidence?). leaning towards support, but not there yet. Derex 00:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
   • publicly stated that the leader of the GNAA is his hero later you say you did not know what it is... You should of read the article. However I dont want anyone using this as a reason to oppose or stop supporting because this was pointed out --Adam1213 Talk + 15:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC) --Adam1213 Talk + 05:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Not Sure. The abrasiveness in project space I've seen in the past is preventing my support, but some of the comments of the supporters are preventing my opposition. The two cancel each other out down here. Karmafist 20:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. nuteral: not sure of judgemnt following some of the links cited previoslyBenon 13:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral. I was all set to support, but after considering the objections of those voting oppose and following some of the links I find neutral best reflects my opinion. Thryduulf 14:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral Proto is a fine editor, and I liked the answers he gave to questions (he can use them again his next RfA and I wo'n't mind), but I never vote support when there are so many thorough objections. Call it being cautious, or maybe peer pressure. Ashibaka tock 01:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 98% for major edits and 96% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 18:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• See information about Proto's edits with Interiot's edit count tool or Interiot's edit history tool.

  I just want to make one 'little' comment, and I hope this won't shoot me in the foot. In one edit cited by both Dmcdevit and Rx StrangeLove, I described AfD as a vote; a few people have used this to extrapolate the fact that I don't understand that AfD is a consensus. Someone was good enough at the time to explain to me my misunderstanding, and I took it on board. I'm sure there used to be a question on consensus on a lot of RfAs, and it would have been a useful means to an end, as I would not have felt compelled to make this comment. I described AfD as a vote, because people do vote (keep, delete, merge, etc). Just like people vote on RfAs or in the Arbitration Committe elections. That does not mean they are decided by majority votes. Nor does it mean Wikipedia is a democracy - we all know that this is not the case. They are discussions that have votes in them as a means to an end. The votes are used as a clear way to indicate to the closing adminstrator (or bureaucrat, or whatever) the opinions of the Wikipedians participating in the discussion. The role of the closer is to then use those votes as an aid to assess if a consensus can be garnered. For example, if there were 18 editors voting 'delete' in good faith, and two people voting 'keep', then I would call that a 'delete' vote. However, it is not just number crunching, and one of the roles of an administrator can be making that call. The faith (good, bad or otherwise) of an edit makes a difference. People like to assume good faith, but sometimes the vote (or, indeed, the AfD nomination) is made in bad faith. Whether the vote is to make a point must be considered. And if there is no obvious consensus to delete, then the default choice, of keep, is taken.

  I think I would be able to manage this judgement, and I'm a little bewildered about how a few editors/admins who I think rock have made this judgement about me. If anyone has any specific questions about my ability to judge consensus, please let me have them, rather than jumping to a conclusion. See, this is my trouble ... to explain myself fully, I have to waffle for a good few hundred words; otherwise, I'm either terse or I leave things ambiguous.

  Oh, and I've also been described as 'suffering from editcountitis' - I don't think I do, as I've supported editors with 1500 edits and opposed RfAs for editors with 8 or 9 thousand. The only time I've applied 'editcountitis' is when there's less than 1000 or so edits, which I don't think represents 'editcountitis maximus' or a 'sever case of editcountitis'. But I guess those are people's own individual opinions. Proto t c 21:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  And just to reply to myself and elborate on what I mean - yes, Imy personal views do tend a little towards deletionism on AfD (but I wouldn't say they were extreme - I've voted keep on articles that have been deleted more than once), but if I were to be granted administrative rights, then I'd be very very careful and conservative about what I'd speedy, if anything. I have no intention of being trigger happy or reckless. I'd ask for advice, particularly at first, and I know there's plenty of that available. My mother always said 'If in doubt, don't delete, and take it to AfD, where it can be discussed fully', which has got me through a lot of rough times. Proto t c 23:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see what all the fuss is about here. Lots of people have minimum edit requirements for supporting RFAs, many of them admins. And since no one would ever support a candidate with only 5 edits, no matter how good they were, we all have requirements in a way. Furthermore, everyone loves to say "AFD is a discussion, not a vote", but are often quick to raise a fuss when "votes" are discounted for giving lame reasons behind them, or will holler "62% is not a consensus!", when they obviously calculated that statistic by the meticulous counting of votes. His example of casting a support vote at an RFA to make a point about editcountitis is a bit troublesome, but all-in-all pretty minor. "Too much time in AFD", "deletionism" and "terse comments" were all issues at my RFA, so I can empathize with him (and I'm an admin; though I guess there are some people who are less than thrilled about that as well). My biggest concern is his calling the head of the GNAA a "hero", but he seems to have explained and rescinded that comment (this is why I never call anyone a hero, I don't want to implicitly endorse every stupid thing they do), and it seems it was made largely in support for the war on blogs. And while the "war on blogs" may not have the best name or best leadership, blogcruft is an issue that needs to be addressed if wikipedia wants to be an encyclopedia. We delete self-published authors all the time, why are we so tolerant of online self-published authors? Surely it's not the killing of trees for vanity purposes that we object to? Well, that's another issue. -R. fiend 22:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, everyone loves to say "AFD is a discussion, not a vote", but are often quick to raise a fuss when "votes" are discounted for giving lame reasons behind them, or will holler "62% is not a consensus!", when they obviously calculated that statistic by the meticulous counting of votes. That's quite a leap of logic. AFD is a discussion, not a vote. The fact that some people misuse the concept, or don't get it, doesn't make it any less so. Or any more acceptable to think of it as a vote. In fact it makes me want that kind of admin less. Dmcdevit·t 08:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I don't revert that much vandalism at the moment, because there are so many people on the ball. If I see it, I clear it, but the rollback button would be really handy - if clearing it was less hassle (my connection at home isn't especially quick, so the simpler the better), I'd certainly get more involved. In main though, I would like to help clear out AfD backlog, as clogging up AfD is a bit of a bugbear of mine (see below for more on that). Blocking? Yes, I can see where it would be useful (of course), but I'd certainly prefer to get into the swing of things first, and I wouldn't like to be giving out long-term blocks until I'd garnered some experience as an administrator. There isn't really one tool that stands out above the others as being especially useful - they'd all be useful, and I'll help out as much as I can. Proto t c 17:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. My greatest accomplishment has been the shoe polish article, which I nursed all the way from creating a stub through to it getting to FA status. I was so proud ... *sniff* Other contributions I'm quite proud of are helping create a lot of long-requested articles (WP:AR1) on topics ranging from African authors to 1930s Italian bicycle manufacturers - it's nice to see Wikipedia expansion in areas where it's currently lacking a little. Neil Ross, Llyn Brenig and Chip pan are other articles I'm quite proud of starting. I've dipped in and out of lots of various areas of Wikipedia, both with articles and in the project namespace, and I'm proud of every little contribution I've made, no matter how small. Proto t c 17:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. When I started out, I saw some hellish conflicts on the Terri Schiavo page, which was a fairly new article at the time, and was a great lesson for a newbie in how not to edit and communicate with others. I have had the odd time when I've wanted to type something I probably shouldn't, and I deal with this by doing something else (in or out of Wikipedia ... even, on occasion, some work, blurgh). Within the confines of Wikipedia, if there's a conflict looming I do tend to leave a note on either the article talk page, or on the person's talk page to try and come to some kind of consensus. I've never had to go to any of those nasty requests for comment or, Allah forbid, arbitration. I think I've done okay with dealing with conflicts so far, I haven't had any major ones. If I ever do, I'd remember that there's a huge and capable safety net on Wikipedia, and there are many many capable and wise people (yes, and this even includes the administrators) who will happily give advice if you ask for it politely, or lend a hand. Proto t c 17:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 18:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. When would you use {{test3}}/{{test4}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?

A. When they are needed. It's trite, but they're just part of a useful series of templates that progressively go from thanking new users for their contribution and ask them to be more careful, (test1 and test2) through to 'Don't do it again, or thou shalt be blocked with the quickness' (test4 or bv). It's fairly obvious which one should be used at which time. To be perfectly honest, I haven't been that involved in welcoming new editors (I've done it a little if I come across one, but I haven't yet actively sought them out) or in RC patrol (ditto) so it's not an area I have much expertise in. But I wouldn't say that much experience is needed, it's all there in the templates. It's a common sense issue. Proto t c 22:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)

A. Politely point this out to them on their talk page, noting that whilst they are obeying the letter of the 'law', they're not obeying the spirit of it, and ask them to refrain from doing so in the future. I've found most Wikipedia editors are sensible and honest enough to take heed of polite requests. Proto t c 22:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?

A. As mentioned in Q1, AfD clog is a bit of a bee in my bonnet, and anything that reduces this clog by speedying the obviously speedyable is a good thing. (I find myself being bold quite often on AfD votes when the decision is obvious, and boldly redirecting or requesting an admin to close the vote (speedy keep) when it's an obvious decision, such as 20 keep votes, or 20 delete votes, with no opposition.) A7 speedy can be used to get rid of vanity articles that contain no assertions of notability. If the article claims the subject is 'world record holder at the frisbee' or 'released an platinum record' then it does assert notability, and so would go through the standard AfD process. It's all in the criteria for speedy deletion. If the article was obviously still under construction, I'd leave it for a little while, and see ifanything encyclopaedic comes out of it. If it's obviously a school project, then deleting it is counter-productive - there's specially special channels for those to be reported and then monitored. Proto t c 22:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?

A. The easiest way is to imagine what people from both sides of the controversy (and there are always sides, regrettably) would think of the article as it currently standed. Strip out any weasel words such as 'It has been said' and 'Some believe', and see what you have left. Keep everything verifiable, and if things are kept civil a consensus is usually achievable. There's virtually always someone more knowledgable on a topic than you are, and so help is, again, always there if you're willing to ask for it. Particularly contentious amendments, removals or additions can always be discussed on the article talk page first. Proto t c 22:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?

A. Other than server problems (and Wikipedia's been really good recently, so let's not dwell on them), I guess I'm a pretty happy little elf. There's not that much that frustrates me with Wikipedia. I do have a distaste for people who pick on newbies and visitors to Wikipedia on the Reference Desks, going so far as to leave a note on a few talk pages about it, and I'm very keen on assuming good faith. Proto t c 22:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.