Oppose

1. Oppose Moved from Support per the candidate's overreaction and sarcastic comment toward pushthebutton' criticism. (It's good to get the first nonfavorable feedback. The early returns seemed a little too good to be true. Even in my wildest fantasies I'm not that good.) In my view, good communication skills and somewhat thick skin toward "healthy criticism" are required for good administrators, but the lengthy rebuttal make me rethink about my vote. --Caspian blue 15:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Does it matter that the person I addressed the "lengthy" reply to responded well, and we each admit to have learned something from the other in the exchange? I'm glad we had that exchange. Henceforth I will be more alert to the possibility that questioners on the Help desk might not mean what they plainly write. And how did my attempt to lighten the mood with some self-deprecating humor turn into sarcasm? If it somehow did, wouldn't that make the very self-deprecating admission I made (that I'm not good at this) more credible? (I.e., I'm so bad at this I can't even be taken seriously when I admit it.) To have a meaningful discussion with strangers, it is first necessary to agree on some rules, and with my writing there are no hidden agendas. You can take me literally when I write. If I ever felt like insulting something, believe me therewould be no need to read anything into it. But I don't insult people because that takes time away from ideas, which are what matters. --Teratornis (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Strong oppose I feel the user has bad communication skills, dhere and here. Orange Mike complained that a comment Teratornis made was offensive towards relgious people. Rather than say sorry, Teratornis wrote 854 words justifying his comment and claiming religion is nonsense. Now, making an occasional mistake and insulting somebody is fine, but then attempting to justify that comment and not acknowledge that what you said was insulting when someone complains of feeling offended is awful. Oh, and on your next run basic civility isn't enough. An admin should actually be nice, able to "win friends and influence people", not just be able to avoid fights. I expect drasticically more regard for other people's feelings next time round. Nobody lives more than once and we're all currently dying, so every second someone spends experiencing a negative emotion is a second of their lives wasted. Don't be the one who loses them a second.--Patton^t/c 16:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC) User has addressed concern. I still would like a few months of completely civil behaviour before I support though. Basically, not this RfA.--Patton^t/c 15:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Should people interpret your comment "Nobody lives more than once" as an offense to those who believe in reincarnation? I would expect not, but to simultaneously slam someone for allegedly "claiming religion is nonsense" and offhandedly disregard firmly held religious beliefs of others seems a little like the pot and kettle. IMHO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   There's a big difference between directly engaging a user over a controversial topic and having comments about another topic overanalysed. I think Orange Mike's and Patton123's critique is valid. FlyingToaster 18:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   You and I disagree, our own Reference desk guidelines page notes: "Responses are not deemed to be inappropriate as long as they are relevant to the question." When someone is asking a religious question and one answerer says ask your spiritual advisor, it is not inappropriate to direct them to an opposing viewpoint. If a person wants to know whether the U.S. government tortures prisoners in Guantanamo it is as appropriate to send them to Amnesty International as it is to the U.S. gov't's website. WP is not censored, and NPOV applies. Whether there is a God (or Gods) or not, and whether God is in accord the Judeo-Christian-Muslim conception or not is obviously not universally agreed-upon -- there are probably some faiths that discourage their members from even reading the translation of the Bible that the questioner mentions, that doesn't mean the questioner deserves no answer or merely a one-sided one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Read the actual oppose. The issue isn't that he did it (well, the main issue) but that when confronted with something fairly obviously offensive to certain groups he chose to soapbox rather than 'fess up and apologise. Ironholds (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Agreed, however, the other issue is important too. Wikipedia guidelines aside, I also don't think it's right to give a person who is obviously having a spiritual crisis an opposing viewpoint and say "read up." Even on Wikipedia there's a place for good debate and critique about important topics, but when someone is at the point of questioning their salvation, it's not the time to give them Dawkins. Not something I'd oppose over, and thus I didn't, but editors who can handle the real human issues here alongside the guidelines get my kudos. FlyingToaster 18:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Again, to quote the same page, "We understand that some responses about very controversial subjects, or any discussion of what some may consider "taboo" subjects, are more likely to offend some people than discussion of other subjects. This is unavoidable. Responses are not deemed to be inappropriate as long as they are relevant to the question. However, we take special care to treat potentially offensive subjects with sensitivity, diligence, and rigor. Further, we never set out deliberately to offend, and we endeavor to quickly remove needlessly offensive material in questions or responses." To oppose on this basis would seem to not WP:AGF, in that it is an accusation that pointing to a viewpoint contrary to the one we assume is the questioner's is meant to offend? If someone is having a sprititual crisis, we shouldn't give them Dawkins? Really? Who is approved? L. Ron Hubbard? Mary Baker Eddy? The catechism of the Roman Catholic Church? The Book of Mormon? Who gets to decide what WP's official response to spiritual crises is? What is WP's official religion? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   You see this isn't over what he said, that's completely irrelevant, it's how he said it, and then how he defended his actions despite them being offensive.--Patton^t/c 16:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   That's fine, and now that I have pointed out that what you said could be read as offensive and you haven't apologized but stuck with it, I guess different rules apply. That's fine, too. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Mine isn't intended to be offensive, but naturally any comment that evaluates someone can easily offend thbat person. In fact any comment could be read as offensve, and nobody has ever done anything that doesn't apparently offend some God, so saying it could be offensive is meaningless. If it offends you please say so, don't say it could be offensive. I am however sorry if it offends Teratornis. I do feel that his comment was intended to ridicule the ips religious beliefs, obviously unnacceptable.--Patton^t/c 20:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Then you admit that you don't WP:AGF in the matter. 'Crats can take your vote for what it's worth. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   By this logic any oppose is assuming bad faith. I am a firm believer in AGF,but I believe his comments were downright incivil. I will support on his next run if I see some improvement, but he is not ready to be an administrator yet.--Patton^t/c 12:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   If the original questioner to whom I was replying writes to me and says my answer harmed him or her in some way, I will apologize for any harm I may have caused. My intent was to encourage thinking, not to harm. But so far no one has pointed to any harm that my reply may have caused, not even an argument that harm was likely, so I'm not sure what I would be apologizing for. Is it our job to eliminate everything from Wikipedia that might possibly offend any member of any religion? We periodically get Muslims begging us on the Help desk to remove our Depictions of Muhammad and we always tell them Wikipedia is not censored. Ask Muslims how "civil" they find that. --Teratornis (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   It occurs to me that if I made a fellow Help desk volunteer feel less eager to continue helping at the Help desk, then I apologize for that, and hope he understands that was not my intent. --Teratornis (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose Conciseness is mandatory in an admin. Life is too short for such prolixity. I'm open to changing this if Teratornis makes a commitment to be terse in any admin-related communications. Looie496 (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Either that's meant to be a bit cryptic, I'm stupid or that rationale makes little sense. Help?  GARDEN  20:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Lemme see if I can help clear up the point. Per Q1-5. Xclamation point 20:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   His longest response was 23 lines. I understand the concern ... maybe this guy has forgotten that it's not all about him, that we all have busy days. Except ... this time, it is all about him, because it's his RFA and we need enough to judge him by, so a response of that length seems appropriate to me. He spends all day giving shorter answers at the Help Desk. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   On AN or ANI verbosity like that is deadly. It's okay on the Help Desk where you have one reader, but not for admin communications. Looie496 (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Have you seen his contributions to the help desk? They are not as long as his replies here. This is an RFA, and it's really all right for the purpose. I trust that Teratornis has the tact to answer at appropriate lengths should he have to. I know he will, because he has at the help desk while addressing other people's questions. bibliomaniac15 21:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   @Looie: Please direct us to Teratornis' long responses over at ANI that were "deadly" or any responses that were disruptive due to length. Honestly, you're clutching at straws here. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I am talking about the responses here, I don't recall seeing Teratornis on ANI. The responses here are the best predictor of admin style, as far as I can see, and they are much more verbose than in the average RFA. I work hard to make my own communications concise for the benefit of readers, and I feel I have the right to oppose on this basis. Looie496 (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   In all fairness, I can think of one or two editors who have progressed all the way to 'crat, who often tend to be quite "verbose". Conciseness doesn't always equate to clarity. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 16:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Sure, you have the right to oppose on any basis you want. You don't get to choose whether it's reasonable. Teratornis obviously feels that he needs to be as clear as possible when he posts. This results in chunky posts. How this equates to a predictor of poor usage of admin tools is beyond me. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   He has already said he does't think Teratornis has bad judgement, he said he makes really long posts. Please note that the "clearest" posts are usually the shortest, not the longest. I believe this oppose would be addressed if Teratornis responded saying he will write shorter in future.--Patton^t/c 20:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Most administrator actions are repetitive, and we have existing documents to describe them, so I would explain my actions merely by linking to the appropriate guideline or policy section (as I frequently do in my edit summaries already). If I needed to write some long explanation for some administrator action, that would suggest I am breaking new ground, and I should stop and discuss it first. I don't intend to work outside our guidelines or policies as an administrator. Most of my responses on the Help desk are short, because most questions are routine, and we have canned answers for them. Occasionally a question is not routine. --Teratornis (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   On the subject of "long" Help desk replies, here is my latest. The question was chunky, my first response was chunky, the questioner thanked me and elaborated with another chunk, to which I responded with two more chunks. Can anyone tell me an equally helpful answer that is significantly shorter? Note that I saved many pages of text by linking to several complex guidelines. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the only people who occasionally mention my long Help desk replies are a small subset of other Help desk volunteers - I cannot recall having a questioner claim that I wrote too much. On the contrary, most of them thank me for taking the time to give them thorough help for free. I do sympathize with other Help desk volunteers who have to wade past my explanations, so I am trying to turn my repetitive answers into user subpages I can cite compactly (like this one). --Teratornis (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Provisional oppose. I've never heard of you before and haven't yet looked more thoroughly into you, but on the first thing I do at any RFA, checking the candidates's talkpage, I came across this thread in which your responses appear to embody all the "bad admin" checklist: verbosity, snappiness, "I'm me, I can't possibly be wrong" supreme confidence in your own opinions, and this doozy, which as a piece of institutionalized ABF takes some beating. I don't see you going berserk and deleting the main page; from what I've seen so far, and from your responses on this RFA, I can quite easily see you either "do you know who I am?"-ing and belittling a good faith newcomer who disagreed with you, or burying people with simple questions in a 20kb avalanche of jargon. The sentiments of The ultimate goal of Wikipedia is to have every article attain featured status. If this should ever happen, would we still need to allow every adolescent to edit anonymously? As the quality of an article increases, the article becomes steadily more difficult to improve further. That means the pool of people qualified to edit the article steadily decreases. left me fairly stunned as well – I think most people who've had any dealings with me are aware that my views on the role of minors on Wikipedia and IP editing are somewhat hardline, but "people who are under 18 or aren't regulars have nothing useful to add" – which is the only way I can see to read this – would be considered elitist and arrogant on Citizendium, especially coming from someone with no apparent significant article contributions themselves. – iridescent 22:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   • I note that the argument or "reading" by Iridescent is a significant transformation. The quote, taken from Teratornis's draft exploration, and a paragraph pointing out the historical narrowing of editing permissions of IP editors, describes the decreasing potential population able to improve a high-quality article. The excerpt "would we need to allow every adolescent to edit anonymously?" has been transformed into an adamant claim: "people who are under 18 or aren't regulars have nothing useful to add." There is some distance between these two items. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Whoa… I've quoted it directly above, rather than paraphrasing, precisely so I can't be accused of putting my own spin on it. Note the emphasis on the word "appears" in my comments on my interpretation of it. – iridescent 02:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for pointing out some problems in that draft which I did not realize. I see now that I need to nuance that draft a bit. I do not advocate a sharp age limit (quite the contrary; see User:Teratornis/Tips for teachers). My thinking has evolved since I wrote the draft, and I need to learn more about Flagged revisions which might completely transform the question of user accounts. The point I was trying to make was that as Wikipedia matures (which might require decades), several factors might lead to Wikipedia becoming an increasingly difficult place for brand-new users to make edits that have a good chance of sticking. If that occurs, then Wikipedia might asymptotically approach the state of having a de facto requirement for high editor skill, even if there are no formal requirements. Hints at this possibility might be visible if we had data on how new users fare as they attempt different types of editing, but I can only speculate as I don't have comprehensive data, only my anecdotal experience of helping new users with their struggles at the Help desk. Learning Wikipedia is difficult, and may be getting more difficult, although breakthroughs in our tools might help. Even a high initial hurdle for new users is not insurmountable; many human activities have high barriers to entry, and they continue recruiting as long as sufficient incentive exists. --Teratornis (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm striking this for the moment as that seems reasonable; if it's a draft you're working on and toying with ideas on, rather than a "my ideal world" essay, that seems reasonable, and I while I don't think the verbosity and apparent snappiness are net positives, they're not in-and-of-themselves worth opposing over. Not "moving" anywhere for the moment, as I still haven't had time to review your history and may not before this closes. – iridescent 14:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for considering my explanation. If you have any comments on any of my essays, please add them to their talk pages. You don't have to sugar-coat anything, because I am a critical thinker and thus not prone to making the style over substance fallacy. Just tell me what you think is wrong, and why, or what you think needs to change. Or if you see something that some people might easily misinterpret (a risk this RfA has revealed to be substantial in my writing), let me know and I'll see about tightening it up. --Teratornis (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually I think Sangerpedia would reject this as "not arrogant/elitist enough" on the basis that even if you have the uppermost degree in whatever you're still a useless leech until about thirty. I've found there's some degree of truth to this. — CharlotteWebb 17:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose per Iridescent. I can't support a candidate that has questionable civility when dealing with others, and potentially scaring away newbies. The overreaction to pushthebutton's criticism doesn't really strike me as a good sign of preferred admin qualities Fingers^On_Roids 23:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Iridescent has struck his Oppose, if that matters. I have received a large number of thank-yous from newbies on the Help desk, as is obvious if you scroll back through the archives. If you know other users who have directly assisted a larger number of newbies than I have, let's see the usernames. --Teratornis (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose - First of all, the unregistered users page didn't strike a chord with me. Perhaps our slogan should be "The free encyclopedia that everyone can edit, but nobody should." Your help desk contributions are a mixture of biting sarcasm and contempt. And, back to above, you assert that someone who isn't a regular has nothing useful to add to articles that are already of good quality. That disturbs me extremely. In one case, when you confronted by a user about your civility, you really replied by just asserting that Wikipedia should censor an encyclopedic image that happens to offend many people. Everything just seems... arrogant. Jd027 (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Also, next to no XfD, CSD experience. Jd027 (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm going to put myself in an odd position of defending the candidate somewhat, despite my being the one to raise the issue of that essay; he doesn't say "anons and minors have nothing to add" point blank, he says they have nothing to add to articles that are already good quality. I (obviously) still fundamentally disagree with this position, but it's important to get that clear. – iridescent 00:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Duly noted. Jd027 (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Also note my clarification to iridescent above: you're looking at a rough draft that I marked as such, and if I actually did make the careless absolute generalization being attributed to me, I would accept my fish-slap and fix it. If my actual position on the issue is relevant, it's this: as an article improves in quality, the number of people who can potentially improve it decreases. That doesn't mean the new user, or the very young user, could never possibly improve it. Rather, it means they might have to edit the article, say, 500 times to get something to stick. How long is a new user likely to stick around if nothing he or she adds to the encyclopedia survives longer than five minutes? Wikipedia is decades away from being so good that every article is like this, so this discussion is hypothetical for the rest of my life expectancy. However, we are already seeing this kind of thing in particular articles like Barack Obama that are heavily patrolled. We had a series of naive users who came to Wikipedia after being goaded by some right-wing political organization that told them to correct the "liberal bias" in the article. They couldn't understand why their edits were being instantly reverted, so the Help desk volunteers explained it to them. How much knowledge of Wikipedia would someone need to make a lasting edit to the Barack Obama article? I'm guessing lots. That's the point I'd like to make when I finish that rough draft - if Wikipedia gets where we want it to go, every article is going to be hard for new users to edit. But as I said, that's decades away. --Teratornis (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Changing to strong oppose due to the obnoxious tldr responses to the opposers, which don't even address my concerns. Also, as per below, it's too hard to get rid of an admin. Why take the chance on this nomination? Jd027 (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose. Admins have tenure, and it's unreasonably difficult to get rid of a bad one; and they have wide-ranging powers including the delete button. This means I need to see evidence of the prospective admin's attitude to deletion, and I haven't. I do see the prospect's remark that "I wouldn't use it initially", but I remain concerned about what would happen in three or six months when he did start to use it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   If it helps, I've never been involved in a revert war, and I've consistently promoted Inclusionism. If I can't find a way to agree with someone else on how to do things, I go work on something else. (There is always something else.) I actually sympathize with newbies on the Help desk who can't understand why their articles were deleted. I won't take any administrative actions outside of consensus. The only thing I would delete is the idea of Deletionism itself, but there's no button for that. My preferred tools are ideas and discourse - I think my editing history illustrates this, especially on the controversial topics relating to Energy, where it can take 500 lines of talk to yield one lasting line of article. If I can't convince someone to do something of their own choice, I gain no satisfaction from pulling rank. Rather I consider that a very bad kind of failure. Also, for what it's worth, I don't really even need the tools. I'm only seeking adminship because some other editors I respect have been pushing me to do it for a long time, and I could better assist the questioners on the Help desk. If there was a way to get the tools without the delete button, that would be ideal for me. But there is no such option. --Teratornis (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Switched to strong oppose per self-labelling as a promoter of inclusionism. I don't want to see inclusionist or, for that matter, deletionist admins; I want to see admins unencumbered by these labels because their only proper task is to assess the consensus dispassionately.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose Per the neutral votes, that's enough for me to oppose.--Giants27 ^T/C 01:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose - I agree with Iridescent completely. Civility in an administrator is essential. No matter how good your track record/contributions are, it gives no user the right to be uncivil, in any way, shape, or form. I can't support someone who has civility problems, sorry. Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 04:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Do you still agree with Iridescent completely now that he no longer opposes? --Teratornis (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose per S Marshall. Also, clear communication is absolutely essential for a sysop. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that clarity is absolutely desirable, but it cannot be absolutely essential, because the Help desk regularly assists newbies who are bewildered by some cryptic one-liner they got from some overworked admin. Failure to speak clearly to newbies does not disqualify anyone from adminship. With ten million users and less than 2000 admins, admins cannot explain everything in the detail that newbies need. As Albert Einstein said, everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler. See accidental complexity and essential complexity. We have the Help desk to clarify the incomplete explanations that new users find just about everywhere on Wikipedia they look. How many instances do the Help desk archives show where I confused a newbie so badly that someone else needed to clean up after me? I did that a few times when I was new on the Help desk, but after a while one learns from being corrected by other volunteers. I don't get complaints from the newbies I actually help; instead I might get a few complaints from people who might have forgotten what being a newbie is like. --Teratornis (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Changing to strong oppose due to excessive badgering of opposers. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11. Strong oppose based on diffs above. The one Iridescent called "a doozy" is simply atrocious and if that's his attitude toward newbies creating new articles, this is not someone I would trust with the delete button. This alone is a red flag the size of an elephant. But I also read this discussion referenced above and I find it way too obtuse to make me trust his ability to communicate effectively with editors who (inevitably) get pissed off by this or that admin action. On a personal level, I tend to agree about the place religion should have outside, well, religion and this is really not the problem here. The problem is the grandstanding, including absurd generalizations such as "Muslims generally do not complain much about what the Taliban did to the Buddhas of Bamyan" and "Wikipedia thumbs its nose at Muslims by asking them to tolerate [the Muhammad cartoons]", gratuitous wikilinks galore, self-indulgent and self-aggrandizing lecturing on increasingly unrelated topics. This is pretty much the opposite of what we want from admins. Among other diffs I found questionable [2] [3] [4]. The latter is probably intended to be funny (at least, I sure hope so!) but depending on whether one believes the original question was a serious one it's either a condescending lecture or a classic case of troll enabling. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't argue with an opinion, but I would like to ask what you consider a "gratuitous" wikilink. Whenever I mention a Wikipedia jargon term or concept that a newbie might not understand, I link it. When I do this, I am not condescending to the person I am directly addressing, who for all I know may be more expert than I am. Rather, I am accounting for the fact that everything on Wikipedia is wide open to everybody, and there's a chance someone else will read something I write and not know the jargon. At the risk of annoying with another wikilink, I am following WP:OMGWTFBBQ. I think it is important to stay friendly to newbs even at the risk of annoying someone with a link they don't need. As to my other quotes:

    • "Muslims generally do not complain much about what the Taliban did to the Buddhas of Bamyan" - I mentioned this in connection with the complaints Wikipedia receives from Muslims. Wikipedia gets many complaints about our depictions of Muhammad, but I have yet to see any complaints here from Muslims about what the Taliban did to the Buddha statues. Such complaints may appear somewhere else for all I know. If it's worth noting, nobody told me they found my comment controversial in its original context. In fact I believe someone noted it was an interesting insight. In general, people only complain about insults to their own religion. Insulting other religions is sometimes viewed as a divine calling. For what it's worth, I abhor the destruction of religious architecture.
    • "Wikipedia thumbs its nose at Muslims by asking them to tolerate [the Muhammad cartoons]" - I imagine the people who burned down embassies over those same cartoons would probably say I understate their fury. I was speaking from my understanding of what the Muslim point of view probably is. Granted, I have not spoken to my local Imams to find out what they really think about Wikipedia's cartoons; have you? I'm guessing there is a lot of anger in the Muslim community over this. They don't buy our "Wikipedia is not censored" stock reply. They might describe our response as being worse than thumbing our nose at them. The fact that this is highly discomforting does not mean we will benefit by going into denial about it.

    I'm not afraid to consider tough issues using the best available facts and logic. If that's a bad trait in an admin, well there it is. But I thought administrators had to deal with these issues, and how can they do that if they don't understand how every side thinks? We need an accurate expression of just how angry Muslims are over these pictures, so we at least know what they feel we are doing to them. --Teratornis (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12. Strong Oppose I am a loudmouth atheist, and I still think this is the 100% wrong way to respond. I'd brush it off, but your lengthy reply to the question about it totally dodged around the fact that you responded in a personal, snarky way to someone acting in good faith, which is the exact opposite of what is necessary for us to trust you with the admin tools. Steven Walling (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I still don't see any evidence that I harmed the questioner, and thus I still have seen nothing to apologize for (I've already offered my hypothetical apology in the event that the questioner may have been harmed), but now that I know how offensive the mere mention of an atheist polemic can seem, in hindsight I might have just mentioned Dake's religious rival Scofield and left it at that. At the time, the comment did not seem that offensive. Only one person (not the questioner) objected, and he didn't stick around on my talk page to explain his request that I should favor one particular religion on Wikipedia. I've enjoyed a lot of religious debates, and when people are truly offended, they don't walk away from a debate after a couple of sentences. There was no serious controversy until the deconstruction started here. --Teratornis (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You just don't get it. It's not that you harmed someone. The point is that you almost certainly made them feel unwelcome by trying to engage in a religious debate, which is not the point of the Help Desk or any other discussion place on Wikipedia. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not debate about religion or any other topic. If you don't get that, then you're definitely not fit to be an administrator. Steven Walling (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13. Weak oppose. The incivility and communication problems are hard to ignore. You should always keep in mind that as an administrator you will be representing all of Wikipedia and one poor comment will reflect badly upon the whole site. Malinaccier (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    More so than anyone else's, really? Once you convince Brion to make everything you write appear 3.75× larger, glow in the dark, and make every blind person's eardrums and fingertips bleed you might have a point. Until then you ought to take yourself a little bit less seriously. — CharlotteWebb 06:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

14. Oppose (edit conflict) - firstly, poor communication skills. One of the most important requirements of an admin is the ability to communicate clearly and effectively, and Teratornis fails that test spectacularly. Secondly, I have general concerns about his attitude; edits like this [5] display an alarming sense of superiority and hostility to newcomers, and the extensive arguments on Teratornis' talk page over issues like US energy resources and religion suggest he seems more interested in having political debates than building an encyclopaedia. Taking a look at his recent edits, he spends far too much time on the former and far too little on the latter - not a good sign in a would-be administrator. Robofish (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See my comments in item 3 under Support above. I edit controversial articles in the topic of energy, where the only way to avoid endless revert wars is by having political debates on talk pages. Pick a topic: Peak oil, Wind power, Pickens Plan, and see how much time it takes to research the material and work through all the diversity of opinion on the talk pages. Before a productive discussion is even possible, everybody has to educate each other just on the parts of the topics they don't know yet. Nobody in the world understands these subjects completely, which is probably why every country has some serious problems with energy. That's why I'm accumulating copious notes that may eventually inform my article edits when I can figure out how to do it within Wikipedia's guidelines. --Teratornis (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15. Oppose on the basis of the material linked to in Q.4 We do not respond to a good faith inquiry by insulting a person's religion. Essentially per Malinaccier. I would not be too disturbed by this if it were an isolated response, and if Teratornis had realized the wrongness of how he responded. That he continues to defend it shows unsuitability for an administrative role here, in complete agreement with the other commentators in this section. . That he uses the help desk as a soapbox on other topics also confirms this. DGG (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you read the discussion in the second oppose? It is impossible for Wikipedia to avoid insulting any religion which defines the mere mention of alternative ideas as an insult. Plus, by mentioning the questioner's religion, we potentially insult anyone who considers that religion to be blasphemy, as some opposing religions in fact do. The impossibility of pleasing people who attempt widespread censorship to avoid the possibility of feeling insulted is why Wikipedia keeps its Depictions of Muhammad despite the numerous requests from Muslims to remove these deeply offensive images. If you can point to anything I have written which is as deeply offensive to anyone as this image is to Muslims (it provoked these violent reponses), then I will have to rethink my approach. But I haven't - my user page hasn't even been vandalized, unlike the user pages of people who operate with a heavier hand around here. Besides, what if the questioner who was concerned about losing his salvation as a result of reading the highly controversial (even within Christianity) writings of Finis Jennings Dake were to browse Wikipedia on his own, find The God Delusion, and feel insulted? Would that be different, and if so, how? We never heard back from the original questioner, so it is just as likely that he or she found my reply helpful. Nobody has evidence that my reply harmed the questioner - and the only justification for such a belief in the absence of evidence is to promote a religious view, namely the belief that atheism itself is harmful. Is that what you believe? I accept full responsibility for any harm my actions may have caused, but I accept no responsibility for purely imagined harm. First let's find out whether Schrodinger's cat died. Anyone can oppose my RfA for any reason, or for no reason, I have no problem with that, but if you call my actions "wrong" it will help me if you can provide a logical explanation. If your definition of "wrong" owes nothing to logic, and is therefore unexplainable, that is acceptable too. --Teratornis (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

16. Oppose I do not feel comfortable given the communication concerns, pretty much agree with Neuro's neutral. ∗ \ / (⁂) 08:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose per neuro (in neutral section). Rami R 16:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose Does a lot of good work helping out at the help desk but my feeling is that he doesn't contribute enough to the encyclopedia or other parts of the site. He seems to have his eggs all in one basket so the speak. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps my nominating statement wasn't clear, so let me restate: he has helped significantly with the Editor's index to Wikipedia, with creating a similar index at the Commons, and with being a technical reviewer (woefully underpaid for the work he put in) for the book Wikipedia: The Missing Manual (which required him to review material covering large parts of Wikipedia). And his work answering Help desk questions isn't exactly narrow specialization; that again requires wide knowledge. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    -- I call attention to a diversity of edits, in several metaphorical baskets, with substantial direct participation in the articles. Of the candidate's nearly 10,000 edits, more than 25% are in the article space: 20% on articles and 6% on article talk; about 45% of edits on the help desk and its talk page.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Those figures do indeed seem to support Dr. Blofeld's oppose. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See my comments in item 3 under Support above relating to my edit count. --Teratornis (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

19. Oppose. DGG has it right. An editor who is unapologetic for substituting his own views for Wikipedia policies and guidelines and has a history of soapboxing will likely generate more drama than his useful work. Not admin material yet. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm curious to know how you define substituting. When I edit articles, I operate by the same rules as anyone else who wants their edits to stick. Violating the rules means edits get reverted, and time gets wasted - there is no way to beat our system. If my edits to articles manage to stick, then I must have followed the rules. On talk pages, I try to discuss ideas that might improve Wikipedia, even if only slightly. If I cannot shift the consensus, then nothing changes. The existing rules are hard to improve because they came out of all the past debates. It takes a lot of debate to improve them further even one little bit. As far as drama goes, until this RfA I thought Wikipedia was a dull place and I was just another dull contributor. (Of course even an RfA here is nothing like Usenet, with its constant profanity and death threats and having to sleep with one eye open after daring to question anyone.) I hadn't had any blocks, or vandalism to my user page, or whatever else happens when people get excited. My knowledge of our dispute resolution machinery has all come from answering other people's questions about it on the Help desk - I have no personal involvement with any of that stuff, possibly because I'm always willing to listen to reasoned debate, and if others aren't interested in that, I just leave and work on something else. However, after the scrutiny here, I guess I am not as soporific as I should be, and I will work on that. --Teratornis (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20. Oppose- while I find it a valid use of the tools to help out at the help desk (I had never really thought about it, but being an admin does make things a lot easier), I'm not sure he has enough experience in other areas. I'd like to see more article building, myself. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a legitimate concern. Please see my comments about my article edit count in reply to CharlotteWebb's comment in item 3 under Support above. --Teratornis (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

21. Oppose per Patton, DGG, and the answer to Q4. User seems to be an unrepentant about his anti-religion stance and causes me concern that he could instantiate NPOV regarding such articles and associated disputes. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm unrepentent in my anti-censorship stance. I don't seek to restrain anyone's freedom to express ideas - on the contrary, there are few things I enjoy more than a theological debate. The notion that certain ideas cannot be discussed is as contrary to the open content movement as getting rid of computers. Censoring opposing views is the job of (some) religions (see our raging Muhammad cartoons controversy). You don't see a lot of atheists who burn books or blow up other people's houses of worship. My point of view tends to do much better in an environment with the most free and open exchange of information possible. That is the environment where I got my ideas. If another idea starts to do better in the environment of free exchange, I'll probably switch to that one. I've changed my mind on religion before, so I know it is easy. In any case, I will recuse myself from adjudicating any content dispute in which I favor a side (unless the overwhelming consensus favors the same side). Expressing an opinion on a talk page which seemed innocuous at the time even if it looks bad after quote mining is different than attempting to legislate the same opinion. I have no desire to turn Wikipedia into a godless version of Conservapedia, even if that were remotely possible. --Teratornis (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    'You don't see a lot of atheists who burn books or blow up other people's houses of worship' Really? Maybe you'd like to read this article on the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour [6] or this one on the wider, long standing and bloody persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union, including the wholesale destruction of tens of thousands of churches and the murder of around 50,000 priests [7] to say nothing of the systematic Chinese destruction of Tibet . I'm as much an atheist as you are, but the confidence with which you sound off on these issues seems to far outstrip your knowledge of them. Nick mallory (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, once people figure out they won't actually go to hell, imagination is the only real limit. — CharlotteWebb 18:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I censor myself every day; it's part of my job as an admin. I would speak more freely if my main goal wasn't to make Wikipedia look good and avoid stoking known flashpoints. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That can't possibly be healthy Dan. Try speaking freely at least one day a week. You'll thank yourself later. — CharlotteWebb 18:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See my oppose below. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

22. Oppose It's strange that someone who writes so fluently has virtually no contributions to articles when articles are the whole point of wikipedia. I think an admin should have experienced first hand the difficulties of writing content, it would even benefit someone who likes to be on a help desk. Seeing his writing edited by other writers might even tighten up his prose style for the benefit of all concerned. Nick mallory (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor has more than 2,000 contributions to articles, not counting the hundreds of edits he did in "scratch pad" pages like User:Teratornis/Energy. If you think that a candidate needs even more experience than that to understand how to edit articles, and what Wikipedia is like, how many more edits do you think would be needed to reach your threshold of acceptability? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't find "I have some article edits" the most powerful of arguments on that score Mr Broughton, but feel free to keep arguing with people on his behalf, I'm sure that'll do his chances the world of good. Nick mallory (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That was a serious question, which you've not answered: what is the minimum number of mainspace edits that you require in order to not oppose a candidate for lack of this experience? Since 2000 isn't enough for you, how many would be? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If he'd put 'I have over 2000 article edits' in his nomination I wouldn't have had a problem. If he'd linked to a page he has substantially edited, instead of to the 'Energy' page itself which he hasn't edited at all, then I wouldn't have had a problem. I don't have a 'threshold of acceptability', I'm merely of the opinion that the writing of wikipedia is the most important thing and it formed such a small part of his nomination statement, showing where that lies on his list of priorities, that I opposed. 2000 edits could be putting in 2,000 commas, it's not the number, it's the attitude. Now we have a different opinion on this, I appreciate that you're standing up for your friend and I'm sure he does great work on Wikipedia, but I think admins should be writers of articles first and foremost and he seems to come from a different point of view. For instance, as he says in his nomination, he got involved in a dispute on a writer's talk page, despite not actually contributing to the article itself. That's what I find strange. Anyway, if he becomes an admin then great, I wish him the best of luck. Nick mallory (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your explanation; I now understand your position here. My position - unrelated to friendship - is that a candidate needs to understand the core of Wikipedia (articles), as evidenced by substantial editing (not comma-adding, as you note). I also think that it's okay for an editor with adequate experience with articles to concentrate efforts elsewhere, as long as the candidate is still contributing to Wikipedia in a significant way. (And I apologize if I seem to be badgering here; I'm just trying for clarity.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

23. Oppose, switched from support, due to reaction to for instance Jclemens. There are so many things I like about this guy, and I will enthusiastically support if the candidate learns something from what the opposition is saying over the next 3 months. The candidate wants the freedom not to have to censor himself when he has something important to say, but that's a freedom you have to give up when your top goal is to make Wikipedia look good and avoid stoking known flashpoints. It was an early decision at Wikipedia, and a bitterly fought one, to make Wikipedia a place that does a good job of reflecting the world as it is, rather than a place that does a good job of making the world a better place. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply to Charlotte above: that may be the first time someone has asked me to be more expressive on Wikipedia, so thanks for that :) I meant that when I'm responding to a question, I do my best to guess what the person really wants to know and to answer just that question. That goes triple when I'm acting in an admin capacity. If I'm starting the conversation, that's different, I'm pretty free with what I'm willing to say. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24. Oppose, switched from Support, mainly because of the concerns DDG brings up and his constant badgering of people who has any criticism whatsoever. Tavix (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose Wow. Somebody preachier and more verbose than I am. Don't get me wrong. Wikipedia needs editors like you: it needs people who are passionate, willing to engage in heated discussion, unafraid of speaking uncomfortable truths, and capable of processing and applying enormous amounts of data. But those character traits, while they make for a superb editor, do not necessarily make for a good admin. A good admin should be able to balance passion for Wikipedia with the dispassion needed to discern consensus, make compromises, avoid abuse of power in a cause, however just, and communicate clearly and concisely. I do not view admin as a merit badge to be handed out on the basis of quality - I view it as a particular role requiring particular traits, and, IMO, too much of our drama on Wikipedia comes as a result of the admins who are incapable of that particular brand of dispassion, self-denial, and moderation. To be frank, your record convinces me you're an amazing editor, one with awesome energy and skill, to be emulated in many respects, but not one possessing the qualities I see in a good admin. Ray^Talk 03:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Weak Oppose, largely per S.Marshall and Stifle. And while I definitely wouldn't call the Dawkins comment incivil, I would certainly charactarize it as unhelpful. -- Vary Talk 01:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Regretful Oppose While I do approve of the work Teratornis has done for the project, points brought up by DGG and Neuro are not the qualities of an admin. Sorry - Fastily (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose per issues raised by DGG and Stifle. --DFS454 (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose I have to join in with the opposition. I like your explanitory writing style and I think we need more Wikipedians who understand verbal logic. On the other hand, your message isn't fitting to the role of an admin. This is a case of how an admin shouldn't respond, but when it comes from a regular editor it has a lot to gain from your "outside the system" perspective. You're far too personal (in the best sense of the word) for a dirty old mop. An ideal admin is 90% robot and 10% consensus judger; you are neither. As this is a collaborative encyclopedia, the admin tools should be used only to enforse what is already consensus, not to try to create a new one or push your own view. You'd be good in policy debates as a regular editor as you could win over support with your arguments, but I can hardly imagine you being fair in utilizing the tools in a nonbiased manner. We need more editors like you, but also less admins. ThemFromSpace 04:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral - I'm sorry, but I don't share the view that all of his help desk answers are actually, well, helpful. Take this one, as an example (not a permanent link). The first answer, from ukexpat (talk · contribs) pretty much answers the OP's question - maybe a little on the brief side, but it's there. Teratornis' answer, however, would just leave a newbie scratching their head saying "WTF? That may be an answer to some question, but not the one I asked". His contributions to the Help Desk are littered with examples like that, and if people want I'll dig out more. They're verbose, frequently obtuse, and as a net result somewhat counter-productive. The Help Desk is not the place for long expositions on what Wikipedia is or isn't, or philosophical tracts on any number of topics - it's for people to get answers to their questions about how to use it. All too often in his longwinded (although well-motivated, I have no doubt) replies, Teratornis forgets that. If that same approach is extrapolated out to administrative actions, and there's nothing to indicate that it wouldn't be, then I cannot see that it is conducive to being a good administrator - clarity and conciseness are two of the attributes that I look for in an administrator and their dealings with others, and I don't believe that Teratornis would display those. pushthebutton | go on... | push it! 08:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
   • (It's good to get the first nonfavorable feedback. The early returns seemed a little too good to be true. Even in my wildest fantasies I'm not that good.) It's interesting that you contrast my reply with ukexpat's, since he has written favorably about my Help desk work, although he would probably agree I kick the occasional own goal like anyone else. In the example you give, the questioner gave no feedback on whether she found either answer helpful. And yet you are telling us, with quotes, what she "would" think. Your speculation is certainly plausible, probably an accurate projection from what you needed when you were a new user, but other speculations are also plausible. I don't know about you, but strangers have always surprised me; no two have been the same. Judging from the number of wars raging around the world, not to mention my attempts at a social life, it seems that predicting the responses of strangers is difficult for lots of people. As far as whether I addressed the questioner's question, she asked: "Why is it so difficult to add something to Wikipedia???" The first response ignored that question, which is inescapably a philosophical question, and came with three question marks for emphasis. I attempted to answer the question, without repeating what the first response did answer. My response was only a guess, because the questioner did not provide enough detail for us to know exactly what was confusing her. She said she "read all the instructions," but that probably isn't quite true as I haven't managed to read all the instructions in three years. Thus the question, like many questions on the Help desk, does not contain enough information to admit a precise answer. I finished by advising the questioner to read the book Wikipedia: The Missing Manual - do you find that advice obtuse or counter-productive? All the feedback I have read about that book, so far, is positive. Is it your position that there are shortcuts to learning how to create new articles on Wikipedia, from scratch, that don't get deleted? Can someone become a productive article-creator on Wikipedia without somehow absorbing a book-length volume of unguessable instructions? I wasn't just answering the question the questioner asked - I was also answering her next 500 questions, if she sticks around long enough to become productive here. I don't dumb down my Help desk replies, because Wikipedia doesn't dumb itself down for anyone - Wikipedia treats everyone like an expert user. The Wikipedia community expects everyone to know all our rules or we delete their work without mercy. If someone can't understand me, I don't think they will understand Wikipedia. Even my windiest answer on the Help desk is brief compared to our typical help page, of which we have dozens that a competent user must master. In any case, what does this have to do with my potential ability to use the administrative tools responsibly? I can use the tools to assist a new user without necessarily requiring the user to understand everything I am doing. But if anyone does want an explanation, I'll put my explanatory capabilities up against anyone's. I occasionally give one-link answers on the Help desk, although one wouldn't guess by reading my reply here. Ultimately we should have one-link answers to every repetitive question, and I've helped to provide some. --Teratornis (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you for the response -though were it a couple of words longer I may have been tempted to pull out tldr. Anyway, I grant you that the "WTF" is what I suspect the newbie would be left thinking, as I agree, we don't know what the OP thinks of the responses that she received. Her question about "Why is it so difficult..", however, I read as more of a rhetorical rant than an actual question, but you seem to take every part of her question, as with all the questions that you answer, as being absolute literals, when most of the time they're not.

   In any event, it's not just a question of whether you can use the tools responsibly - I don't doubt that you wouldn't run off and delete the main page ten seconds after getting the bits, and if I didn't think you could use them responsibly I'd be in the oppose column, and not the neutral column. In this, as any, RFA, though, the community is being asked if they think someone is liable to make a good administrator - as I said, clarity and conciseness are two of the attributes that I look for, and your response to my neutral !vote only serves to convince me further that they're not attributes that you sport. pushthebutton | go on... | push it! 20:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for clarifying. I still don't see where I was unclear in the example you gave, although perhaps I could have linked more. And like everyone else on the Help desk, some of my answers are better than others. Replies that we toss out as fast as we can type might not hold up under detailed analysis. I think it's best to reply quickly even at the cost of some stylistic perfection, as the user is stuck until someone clicks "Save". It didn't occur to me to second-guess what the questioner may have meant by what seemed to be plain English. The Help desk gets a lot of such comments about the difficulty of learning Wikipedia, so I'm inclined to take them at face value. However, I should write a user subpage with my explanation for why Wikipedia is so tough, so I can polish it to remove any accidental complexity. By the way, when I interpret written communication from a stranger in a literal way, I am applying Occam's razor. Writing contains no "tone", no inflection, no body language, and I know nothing of a stranger and her style. Since everyone who departs from literal meaning probably does so in a random way, the literal interpretation is the most likely interpretation to be either correct, or at least close. If someone is in the habit of writing something other than what they mean, they will have a hard time getting free support on the Web. --Teratornis (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral leaning oppose - Administrators need to be able to communicate effectively. The response above is a huge overreaction to a small comment, and makes me worry about what may happen if the candidate is promoted and faces more severe criticism (as most admins will at some point). — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral - Neurolysis hit the proverbial nail on the head; I've nothing more to say beyond his rationale. –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 16:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral. Teratornis, I believe you are trustworthy. However, I have issue with your verbose responses and reaction to criticism. I'd change my vote to Support, either at this RfA or a future one, if I were convinced your communication skills had improved. Rosiestep (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I am at a loss to understand how I give the impression of not being open to criticism. I am not open to simply conceding to beliefs that are unsupported by any evidence, but that is a very different thing. There's no way to win at that game because in a diverse community we are all being pulled on all sides by people who demand that we do mutually incompatible things. We cannot make Muslims and Hindus equally happy, for example, because the Muslims define what the Hindus do as blasphemy. The only way for everyone to get along despite our wildly diverse backgrounds is to agree beforehand on some game rules. The best rules I have found so far are under the title of critical thinking. It takes a long time and a lot of work to think that way (one must recognize and avoid all these fallacies), but the result is that any two people from any two cultures who have learned the method can discuss any difference they may have without getting angry, feeling insulted, or personalizing the argument. To the extent that Wikipedia is successful, that can only mean the community has managed, somehow, to think critically. And that is why I'm here. --Teratornis (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Came here to support, but it seems that you're not as open to criticism as I thought you were. A wonderful Help Desk-er and seems capable, but I really don't want another arrogant admin.  GARDEN  20:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   See my reply above. What reasoned debate am I not open to? Even the oppose comments concede that my facts are not in dispute. Has anyone else presented the same facts without triggering people to take offense? If not, maybe the problem is not really "how I say it." --Teratornis (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Neutral User is trustworthy, but I am not sure the usage of the tools would be appropriate. Cheers, Razorflame 00:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   As others have noted, the tools can improve the efficiency, accuracy, and (most importantly for me) the brevity of a user's replies on the Help desk. Some of my answers get long because I have to deal with the conditional branches I cannot resolve because I cannot see a deleted article, for example. Sometimes I can't even find the deleted article because the questioner does not give the exact title it had. --Teratornis (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. Neutral I appreciate the thoughtful answers to my questions above (4 and 5). My previous experience with a respond-at-length editor was difficult, and I don't want that to unfairly prejudice my opinion here. Both sides in this RFA are making good points. Townlake (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for considering the difficult issues. Did the other verbose editor you mention write according to the rules of critical thinking? Did he or she commit logical fallacies? When two people follow the rules of logic, debate is fun. When one or both do not, debate becomes a miserable experience. It's like trying to play a sport when people cheat. Without rules, sports degenerate into war. The rules for debate were understood by the ancient Greeks, and they are more valuable today because modern communication has exposed us to vastly more diversity and thus vastly greater differences to bridge. I didn't learn this stuff in school, I had to pick it up on my own. Fortunately, it's all in Wikipedia articles and easy to find now. --Teratornis (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Verily. The other editor would routinely filibuster talk pages to try to win arguments, but he's made a genuine long-term effort to become a "better" collaborator, and I'd rather not dwell too much on that subject. As you know being a help desk veteran, this being a volunteer project, we all have to try to strike a balance between being succinct and being complete in our communications with other editors. And as you know, it can be a difficult balance to hit. Townlake (talk) 05:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8. Neutral
   • The negative: communication skills are really important, and I feel you run up against WP:TLDR a lot. A long response about how you really are open to criticism is also either intentionally ironic or shows a lack of self-awareness. Further, I certainly lean toward inclusionism, but arguing to delete deletionism in your RfA shows a lack of political awareness that might cause problems as an admin. I'd suggest you work hard in areas other than the helpdesk for a while if being an admin is a major goal.
   • The positive: While some issues with your work at the helpdesk have been brought up here, you seem to do good work there. If there was a way to limit your admin abilities to those things needed at the helpdesk I'd strongly support you there. Overall a good and helpful editor and I suspect I'd support in the future! Hobit (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Neutral verging on the side of oppose. Communications skills are important, and his responses to the criticism of his rather.. verbose attitude has really proved the opposers point. Ironholds (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Neutral, pretty much per Juliancolton and Ironholds. Cirt (talk) 04:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Neutral Has been a good contributor, but there are too many concerns for me to support. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 17:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]