Redfarmer

Voice your opinion (talk page) (8/7/7); Scheduled to end 10:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Redfarmer (talk · contribs) - Redfarmer has been editing regularly for the past seven months, and has made over 7,000 edits since his first in November 2004. His admin related experience has included placing hundreds of speedy deletion and prod tags, contributing to hundreds of AfD and IfD discussions and making over 50 reports to WP:AIV and WP:UAA. His article writing involvement has included taking Last of the Summer Wine to Good Article status and creating several other articles. He is a civil user who handles disputes well and has an excellent knowledge of policies and guidelines. Redfarmer is ready to be trusted with the tools and would make a great admin. Epbr123 (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Redfarmer (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: As I have been most active in new page patrolling, I would continue patrolling for speediable and PRODable articles. I would also watch WP:AIAV and WP:UAA, especially early in the morning when I first wake up and there doesn't seem to be many admins online.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I am extremely proud of the Last of the Summer Wine article. It was in horrible stub shape when I first started working on it and I knew it would be hard to tackle, as there is little information on the show online. I actually purchased an out of print book off Amazon to work on the article and was overjoyed when it reached GA status. Eventually, it will reach FA. :) I'm also proud of Category:Looney Tunes shorts and Category:Merrie Melodies shorts. These were two early projects of mine I started because there was almost no information on Wikipedia at the time differentiating between the two types of Warner Brothers cartoons--everything was grouped together as Looney Tunes at the time. I'd like to think I'm partly to thank for there being a much better quality of article for these cartoons now.

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

A: I can't say I've been in any edit conflicts in the past per se that I haven't been able to resolve through discussion on the appropriate talk page. In fact, I've never had to escalate an edit disagreement to WP:RFC or arbitration. However, in the interest of full disclosure, I will disclose a few conflicts I have had in the past:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Cunningham syndrome: Yes, those of you who have been around for a while will remember this one. I was accused of coining my own term and popularizing it on Wikipedia. I honestly did not. At the time I created the article, in 2004, I did not understand Wikipedia's policy on neoglisms. If the same discussion were held today, I would vote delete myself. I have since tried to remedy some of the pages I've created when I did not understand policy by bringing them to AfD myself, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Profaci.
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Request for Comment: I initiated this request for comment because the injunction the arbitration committee had issued was being applied and misused in cases it was not entirely clear it should be used in. It was also clear that there was a mentality going on that, once one person accused a particular AfD of being covered under the injunction, others followed without investigating the facts. There was also one particular user who was implying there was consensus for applying the injunction as he saw it, when talk page discussion clearly indicated there was no such consensus. I hoped this RfC would help everyone get on the same page as far as the injunction went and I'd like to think it did. The only thing I know now I should have done differently was notify the user who I felt was implying consensus where there was none and let him know he was being discussed.
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 5: I strongly disagreed with the speedy deletion of three foreign language articles on the sole basis they were in a foreign language and subsequent recreation in userspace without being listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. While I was accused of process wonkery, I still disagree that I was as I do not believe the spirit of WP:USER would allow for the listing of articles on PNT from a user's userspace unless it was that user which did it. Moonriddengirl was wonderful during this and I learned from her that, in the future, I should give the user in question the benefit of the doubt and go to them before I post at WP:DRV. I also learned to live with the outcome because, while I may disagree with it, it would only hurt the project in the long run to push the issue further.

With the exception of the first one, I'd like to say that my only conflicts have been when I felt it would be for the good of the project and that I always try to hear all sides of the story. I'm never afraid to admit publicly when I'm wrong, no matter how horrible it may make me look. I do tend to be a person who believes process would be followed, but never to the detriment of the project.

Optional Questions from Cambrasa

4. Can a "Criticisms" section ever be justified in a good Wikipedia article? If yes, under what circumstances?

A: That's a very interesting question for me, especially in light of the fact that my chosen field of study is philosophy, which, other than very early philosophy, is largely criticism of previous philosophy and criticism of such criticism. I believe that it is very possible to justify criticism sections so long as such criticism has been published (not OR) and, ideally (although not necessarily), has also been commented on in other secondary sources. The danger with criticsm sections is that they can degenerate into OR fast. For example, when I was doing the bulk of the work on the Last of the Summer Wine article, I was forced to remove some criticism which seemed valid but I could find absolutely no supporting evidence for in secondary sources and appeared to be OR. On the other hand, an article like George W. Bush, it would paint an incomplete picture of the subject to not include criticism he has received on his handling of the economy and the Iraq War, which, thankfully, such criticism is abundant in secondary sources. I believe it's a fine line and you have to evalutate on a case by case basis.

Optional Questions from Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

5. All of the following accounts were blocked as socks or puppet masters: AndalusianNaugahyde, AshbyJnr, Blueanode, Brandon97, Burntsauce, Casperonline, Dannycali, Davenbelle, Diyarbakir, D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5, Eyrian, Gazpacho, Golfcam, IPSOS, Jack Merridew, JohnEMcClure, LAZY 1L, Moby Dick, Mrs random, Note to Cool Cat, 75.5.225.151, SolidPlaid, Varlak, and Yeshivish. As the block logs indicate, these accounts used sockpuppetry and harassment of editors in order to get over two hundred popular culture related articles deleted from Wikipedia, including those indicated in this list that one of the banned accounts wrote. Even if you personally want those articles deleted, do the ends justify the means? What if anything could or should be done to reverse what they did and to send a message that sockpuppetry and harassment will not succeed on Wikipedia?

A: Ninety-nine percent of the time, in cases such as this, the ends do not justify the means, and they certainly did not in this case. I don't consider myself either an inclusionist nor a deletionist as I think there are times when you should include and times when you should delete. On one occasion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of animals displaying homosexual behavior), I initially voted delete but, as further comment progressed, I felt that the nom was probably bad faith, coming from someone who had an axe to grind with gay people. As it was a probable bad faith nom, I took another look at the list and the reasoning for the people who were disagreeing with me, turned off my laptop for the evening, and thought about the matter over some TV. As I told some of the individuals involved, I still was not completely comfortable with the the list, but I felt what they were saying had merit. In the case you pointed out of the sockpuppets, I would have voted speedy keep as bad faith nom. Whether these articles belong on the encyclopeida is irrelevant in this case. What is relevant is that someone is abusing the system in an attempt to circumvent our processes and policies. If they should, indeed, be deleted, I or another editor could go back later and nominate the articles. There is no deadline, and the only time I feel articles should necessarily be removed as quickly as possible is when they are either copyright violations or blatant attack pages or in violation of WP:BLP.

5.b The above indicated accounts were used in hundreds of AfDs and in many cases in wasn't determined that they were socks of each other until after the AfDs had closed. As you can see I am updating the number of sock accounts that voted delete in "popular culture" related AfDs along with the previously included accounts. Consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Konami code references in popular culture. It closed as delete with 7 for delete, 4 for merge, and 3 for keep; however, at least 2 of the deletes were determined to be sock accounts. So, my question is in part what now? Just leave the AfDs as closed deletes, which means that their tactics "won," or should we revisit any AfDs in which a number of the sock puppets participated and likely influenced opinion?

A: No doubt in my mind that the issue should not just be allowed to rest. If even one of these articles was closed as delete because of a user who has abused policy, there needs to be an investigation, possibly using WP:DRV, WP:RFC, the arbitration committee, or a combination of the three, to determine just how far these abusive accounts have influenced the outcome of the AfDs in question. I would put my personal feelings aside, even if I thought these articles should be deleted, because I'm painfully aware I can be very wrong at times. I'd rather see an article I felt should be deleted kept in process than see the article deleted through the use of abuse.

Thank you for the fair and reasonable answer. I have switched from "oppose" to "weak oppose" and am considering switching to neutral (I just lectured and so am collecting my thoughts now). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from King Vegita

6 - What criteria do you look for in whether an article should be deleted or kept? I am not speaking of obvious ones, but the questionable ones: where it can be improved, but is not up to standards in its current version. KV(Talk) 20:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A: If you don't mind, I'd like to answer this question using an example of an article I personally rescued from deletion, Cathy Barry (AfD). The very first thing I did was notice that I did not recognize the subject, which was not surprising considering I know next to nothing about straight porn. I saw there was a previous AfD discussion which was closed no consensus, so I read through the previous AfD to see why some people voted keep previously. I then scanned through the article and the immediate concern became that the article was simply not well written as it made passing mention of awards without really elaborating on the notability of the awards. This made me ask the question: did the subject appear not notable because they failed WP:PORNBIO or did they appear not notable because the article was badly written? I began immediately to question the awards: if the awards were notable, this indicated to me the subject would pass the criteria of WP:PORNBIO. Any one of these things would have been enough to raise a red flag in my mind but all of them together indicated to me I may be looking at a notable subject. Even if these red flags weren't there, however, I still would have proceeded to the next step, searching for sources. This was difficult at first, as the porn industry often saturates search engines to get more hits. I got around this by searching for the name of the award. Upon finding the award, I read some about it and realized it was the British porn industry's equivalent to an Emmy. I took this information as well as information I found from several other sources and incorporated it into the article. Eventually, even the nom had to admit she was notable. Although this would probably not have worked in the case of a porn star, I also have other methods I use to search for sources on a subject, such as journal databases (JSTOR, EBSCO/INSPIRE Databases, and Academic Search Premiere). Alexa can also come in handy, although I prefer my journal databases to it.

Optional question from Animum

7. Boxers or briefs?

A: Briefs. I'm glad someone asked a non-serious question on April Fools Day.

Optional question from MrPrada

8: An article is listed at AfD. The nominator makes a compelling argument that although the article is the subject of verified sources, it is not notable. After five days, there are ten votes to keep (which amount to WP:ILIKEIT, and none of them disprove the nominator's original comments that the article fails the notability standard. Only the nominator has dissented. Should the article be kept per WP:SNOW, or deleted?

A:

General comments

• See Redfarmer's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Redfarmer: Redfarmer (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support as nom. Epbr123 (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support Plenty of good work so far, willing to listen and learn, good judgement on articles for deletion. docboat (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support - trustworthy editor. Thanks to Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles for providing diffs, however the book mentioned is published by Paramount Pictures, and so I think Redfarmer's 'vote' was correct. PhilKnight (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   The publisher is irrelevant. It shows that it was considered encyclopedic by someone. Besides, I only linked to one of the many Stark Trek encyclopedias out there. If you check here, you'll find ones that are more secondary source in nature. Maybe I could have picked a better example from that extensive list. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Support - I see no reason not to trust this candidate - Their speedy deletion work is pretty accurate, good participation in WP:AFDs (some of those diffs were a little eyebrow raising, but nothing that I find alarming), good article work, nice project space contributions. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Changed to neutral per Pedro. I found the archived talk pages to be vastly troubling - user also doesn't seem to like communication. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   In answer to an unwillingness to communicate, I would ask users to keep in mind as they look through my talk page archive that I am one of the few editors who prefers answering on the other user's talk page unless they specifically request that I do not. What looks like unanswered queries are, in most cases, answered. Most such queries are from users who think I personally deleted their article because I placed the speedy, prod, or afd tag on them. Redfarmer (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Support -- Looking pass the minor mishaps one can see participation in plenty of admin-related areas...Good luck! --Cameron (t/c) 16:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. Pedro's concerns caused me to do quite a bit of investigation on the speedy issue, and I can't say I agree. About 1 out of 50 (2%) of the speedy noms in the first 300 or so are blue linked. Yes, one was requested as an A7 when it wasn't eligible. The Caveman Williams thing is a judgement call, IMHO -- I can see both views. More than half of the rest were speedily deleted after Redfarmer's request, and then recreated. I can hardly hold that against him, unless we expect him to watchlist every article he requests a speedy on. (I do that personally, but I'm weird that way.) I also checked out the communication concern brought up by another opposer. There were a few cases where Redfarmer let another editor answer the question (but the questions were answered) on the questioner's talk page. But when Redfarmer did answer the question, the answer was well thought out, relatively complete, and helpful. All in all, I think Redfarmer will be a net plus having the mop.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - I was on the fence, but Redfarmer answered Q6 in a way that can only be described as exemplary! Definately someone who looks into things rather than act on a whim; I feel I can trust this user with such powers. KV(Talk) 01:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support No major issues here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. I don't see anything jumping out at me, that is really that serious. No reason not to trust. We all make mistakes. SQL^{Query me!} 05:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Weak oppose per unconstructive AfDs: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of Resident Evil 4, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absent Mothers in Disney films, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney Mothers. Per nom "votes", joke nominations, not acknowledging articles were improved during discussions and changing opinion accordingly, etc. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 12:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I'll acknowledge the George W. Bush one is an April Fools joke, and if my nomination must fail on the basis of that, so be it. However, it sounds like you disagree with my reasoning on AfDs more than disagree with my content as a whole. I am confused as to how you see the List of lost ships of Starfleet, Dimension X, and Plaza Isabela AfDs as being unconstructive, especially the last one, where I provided clear reasoning that I believed the shopping mall to be non-notable but the plaza in Spain to be notable. Redfarmer (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I see too exclusionary of participation, i.e. an overly limited understanding of Wikipedia. "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales explaining the goal of Wikipedia. We are a diverse community of editors on a paperless encyclopedia with incredible disk space that per its First pillar is a combination of general and specialized encyclopedias and even almanacs. Per our First pillar, on article on ships of Starfleet is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Star Trek, of which published books exist. What's good enough for a paper encyclopedia is surely good enough for a paperless one. We also rely on donations from people with diverse interests. So much effort to delete articles that are factually accurate and that have a clear interest from our editors and readers as well as an unwillingness to change an opinion once an article is improved and new sources are found is disconcerting. Admins should be able to acknowledge improvement during AfDs. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 13:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Now, in all fairness towards me, I do change my opinion.[6][7][8][9] I also did work on [10], [11], and [12]. Also, most of the "per nom" votes I cast were very early on in my participation in AfD. Also, I would never unilaterally use my admin powers to delete an article I thought should be deleted which there was no such consensus on. I would rather no consensus it than delete it. And regarding the Star Trek, I am a bit of a Trekkie and know more about the show than I like to admit to my friends. In fact, I used to own the book you cited. It's actually a primary source as Okuda was a crew member for both TNG and DS9 (and VYG if I'm not mistaken). Regardless, I would not have deleted the article if there was no consensus in that case. Redfarmer (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   The thing is had you taken the same amount of time spent nominating the articles for deletion or arguing to delete them that others spent finding online sources sufficient enough for the articles to be kept and/or the nominations withdrawn, the AfDs would not have even been necessary in the first place and time and energy would have been freed up by all participants in those discussions to make further improvements to other articles. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose based on "anti-God" box in profile. Being an atheist is fine; being blatantly disrespectful towards religious people is not, not for an administrator. Keepscases (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Being "anti-God" is not the same as being disrespectful towards religious people. You can disagree with someone's view and still respect them. If you want to ban administrators simply because they have strong political and religious beliefs, you may aswell ban "anti-atheist", "pro-life", and "anti-capitalist" admins as well. Also, if you read the label it says "I don't belive in myths and superstitions" not "I dislike people who believe in myths and superstitions" and I assume the crossed out God simply means that this user does not believe in God, not that he hates religious people. Cambrasa (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I took the crossed out God sign to be merely a joke, and one that I know some of my very religious friends find amusing, not disrespectful at all.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Strong Oppose this user is so much of a deletionist that it isn't even funny---it's quite scary. Of about 3/4ths of the edits I reviewed were CSD related and the article building is nominal at best. A quick review of his edit history will show tons of CSD nominations and you haveto look for something else! His involvement with names appears to be limited to his new page patrolling. I fear that if he were promoted to Admin that his policy would be to delete first and ask questions later. There is little, if anything, to indicate that he understands and appreciates the wider wiki-community. Sorry, I cannot support.Balloonman (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I didn't have much chance to review your edits earlier today, so I came back. And I'm even more convinced that you are not ready for the mop. First, the AfD joke page for George Bush doesn't display much maturity/judgment considering that you were going up for RfA at the same time. Second, you misuse G1-blatant nonsense. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases. Blatant nonsense is not for articles such as this or this. But it's your use of A7 that has me concerned. There are multiple articles where you've used it to get things deleted that aren't eligible for speedy deletion under A7. Perhaps the most concerning deletion that I found was for a Christian organization. First, it is not eligible for A7 deletion. Second, it raises serious concerns about your bias. Personally, I can't see any category for speedy deleting that article---its not even blatant advertising. Perhaps your nomination of this article was more influenced by your views on the subject as expressed in your userboxes than the article itself? Then I looked at your user talk edits... of your past 500 edits, I would guess that 450 of them are generated by twinkle and another 30 are pretty generic. Finally, one would be hard pressed to find activity from you that didn't stem from CSD. WAY TOO DELETIONIST. (NOTE: since non-admins can't review deleted edits, I created a page which captures the text of some and that is what is linked here)Balloonman (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Anyone who is as active at CSD will have made this number of minor mistakes. A misunderstanding of the word "nonsense" isn't that serious, and I can't see why the Christian organization wasn't eligible for A7 deletion. It's hard to tell whether you think he needs more experience at CSD or less. It's better that he's made and learnt from these minor mistakes before becoming an admin. He does actually have article writing experience, having written a GA and saved articles fom deletion during AfDs. And he certainly wouldn't be the first admin to participate in an April Fools joke. Epbr123 (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   The links I provided were just a sample, there were a number of other questionable issues. As for the Christian organization, it makes a couple of claims at notability-granted they are weak and unreferenced, but the article should at most be AfD'd. But here were plenty of other cases that I could have cited... of course the fact that he over relies upon Twinkle (virtually all edits are via twinkle) indicates a person who doesn't give enough of his own thought into what he does.Balloonman (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Per this MfD. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   For the record, I now agree that MfD was a mistake that I regret. Redfarmer (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   It was only a couple of weeks ago. Maybe you should wait more to fully understand how Wikipedia works, our policies and uses. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I was honestly having a bad week, took it out on a user who is a probable COI, and have since apologized to the user. I had honestly forgotten about this one or I would have disclosed it myself. Redfarmer (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   The apology might have been a little more meaningful if you had apologized BEFORE it was brought up in your RfA.Balloonman (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't deny that. As I said, I had completely forgotten about the issue. Redfarmer (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose on Keepscases reasoning. This is not just a statement of atheism, but is a highly disrespectful slap to anyone who has a belief system. To me, this reveals a very apparent WP:POV which will color the candidates behavior in performance of duties (and adherence to WP:NPOV, which is not just a guideline, but a policy and a pillar of Wikipedia). Yngvarr (c) 23:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment - As someone who is very religious, and who is working on the reinstatement of religion-based articles currently, I am not offended in the least by the image. People have different perspectives and even someone who thinks what I believe is complete nonsense has their right to an opinion. If you are offended that he states he doesn't believe in God, it seems more that you have a problem tolerating his belief than him tolerating yours. KV(Talk) 01:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment Heaven help us if Wikipedia degenerates into a US-typical "I believe in God and am against abortion, therefore vote for me" type of idiocy. We are assessing the suitability of a candidate for administrative work, not assessing someone to see if their religious beliefs are compatible with whatever someone else thinks. But let us leave the filtering out of such comments to adult burocrats. docboat (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Yngvarr, I am taken aback at the idea that a proud ahteist can't be NPOV. If Redfarmer's "slap" reveals his POV in editing, then please cite particular diffs to back up your claim. Show us where exactly Redfarmer's atheism has gone against NPOV. Kingturtle (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   And heaven help us if a !voter who posts an oppose is not demeaned for their opinion, because this is exactly what my !vote is. That is directed toward docboat's statement above. When I read that userbox, the words "does not believe in myths and superstitions" jump out at me. For those who do have a belief system, these are not mere myths and superstitions, and to callously class religion into the same category as Bigfoot or Friday the 13th shows a little disregard. As for the suitability for the candidate to perform admin duties, shall I point out that the candidate needs to comply to NPOV, even if he (?) not only disagrees with whatever he is dealing with, but adamantly opposes it due to his own point of view (as is the impress I get from the userbox in question). Yngvarr (c) 09:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   The candidate must edit articles in a NPOV manner, they must back up NPOV when it becomes an issue, but they need not be NPOV themselves. Your opinion was attacked, as to be expected in a debate of any sort. No personal attack was made by anyone. And I would note that believers in Bigfoot might be offended that you believe their belief is lower than yours. In the end, let's look at the user's actions, not the user's beliefs. KV(Talk) 12:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose per the MfD mainly. Too recent and the lack of AGF is indeed worrying. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose I am just flabbergasted; nominating the Bush article for deletion mere hours before accepting an RfA nomination shows mind-bogglingly poor judgment. You're free to hold any opinion you want, but we're a neutral encyclopedia, so check your opinion at the door. (For the record, I don't care about the userbox; people should be given some leeway on their userpage. But when you take your personal views into the mainspace, then I have a problem.) faithless (^speak) 05:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   There was never a tag placed in the mainspace; it was entirely done in AfD as a April Fools joke. Redfarmer (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   That does makes it less egregious, but that sort of thing is inappropriate for the projectspace as well, April Fools' Day or no. The timing was incredibly bizarre (just before an RfA), and was an astoundingly bad decision. There are probably few who believe more strongly in userspace freedom than do I, but if Wikipedia wants to be taken as a serious encyclopedia, we must take ourselves seriously first. faithless (^speak) 09:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose per Roi for attitude in deletion related debates. Sysophood would not be a net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral I've vacilated on this a lot. Plenty to like, but the candidate has made some dodgy C:CSD calls (amongst many good ones) and the contents of archived user talk are worrying. Proding articles with under construction tags, a dubious WP:UAA and WP:AIV report, and some basic errors in creating AFD's. Nothing glaring, just a combination of little things that lead me to think a little more time would be beneficial before having sysop tools. Pedro :  Chat  13:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I appreciate your comments and, once this is over, either way, I would appreciate hearing from you on what I can do to improve. Redfarmer (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Pedro, I've combed through the candidate's project space contributions, but most of the WP:UAA reports I see filed seem fairly accurate and justified (mostly promotional, and users that were active). Could you provide diffs to the ones you find troubling? I might be missing something here. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Same thing with WP:CSD. Sorry, I know I should do this myself, and I have, but I guess I'm not seeing it...Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry, the UAA thing was an article title, so ignore that. My fault. The csd stuff is pretty clear if you look at the number of blue links remaining where the candidate has notified the article writer. I admit there's a tack of good CSD requests too, but it just seems that the candidate is a little to focused on deletion. I'll try and get some diffs but [13] is one and this [14] was not an A7. I've ammended my neutral to just read neutral now, I'm not convinced I'd oppose but I feel unconfident supporting. Pedro :  Chat  15:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Those are two excellent examples: A7 is sometimes ambiguous, but not that ambiguous. A structure? A shooting is disparaging a subject? Hmmm. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Per Pedro. Excellent user and trust the nominator, but the oppose above is worrisome. Rudget. 13:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral - For now I suppose - Per Pedro. I checked the archived talk pages, and it worried me. See above. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral at the moment. I tend to agree with Pedro's points about a little more and slightly broader experience being helpful.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral. I'm definitely on the fence. On one hand, he has done quite a bit of work in admin-related areas. However, the CSD and AFD problems worry me, as do the talk pages (as Pedro put so well). I can't oppose on that, but I don't feel at all comfortable supporting. I'll keep an eye on this to see if anything changes, though. Some more time would be the best remedy, and I look forward to seeing you back here in a few months if this doesn't succeed. :) Best of luck, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral Oppose per AfD, MfDs is worrisome, but there are other aspects of good. This user indicates to me that they have the ability to learn from their mistakes, and will likely learn from this RfA, pass or fail. I am undecided and am likely to remain so, so I claim neutral. —  scetoaux (T/C) 02:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose. Sorry, but when you are a pass judgment and add critical maintenance templates on articles as much as you do, then you really ought to do some work in actually building articles (or saving articles) before taking on the position of adminship. Without such experience, you will appear to be an authoritarian policeman admin who hunts down people, instead of a peer contributor admin who helps people. The George Bush AFD nomination was of course an April Fool's joke, but that joke is not funny anymore; I have seen it several times earlier, and it gets tiresome. Posting it just hours before accepting an RFA was not very smart. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC). Switched to neutral after a review of the candidate's answers. He has clearly more experience with article writing than I thought. Some concerns over the use of speedy tags, but they are relatively mild. Withdrawing opposition. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]