Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CapitalR

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

CapitalR

Final (86/6/1); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 00:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

CapitalR (talk · contribs)

Nomination from Balloonman

Prior to yesterday I had never heard of CapitalR. Davidgothberg, however, indicated on the WT:RFA page that he knew an excellent candidate for admin, but didn't feel comfortable nominating the candidate himself. Honestly, I was a little dubious. I mean, if the candidate is qualified why not nominate him yourself? But I decided to check out CapitalR anyways. CapitalR has almost 25,000 edits. Now most of those are the results of bots, which I usually frown upon. But the reason why I frown upon the use of bots is because we generally see their use from people who want to fight vandalism and want the tools to block people and delete pages---areas where one's policy and interaction with others is crucial. In those cases, the bots don't help establish the user's credentials with policies/guidelines. CapitalR's use of bots is completely different. CapitalR works in two unusual areas.

First, he creates bots---particularly, he wrote one of the bot he uses---CapitalBot. According to the description, CapitalBot moves through all cities/towns/villages/etc in the United States and adds or updates {{Infobox Settlement}} using information from government databases. It is a manually-assisted bot, meaning that all edits are checked by its operator before saving. CapitalR wrote the bot and compiled the 50MB database that the bot uses. If you look at CapitalR's edit history, you will notice a break in activity from Wikipedia. According to CapitalR, this break was the result of his working this database and bot.

Second, CapitalR is a specialist in an unusual niche where having the admin tools will help him contribute to Wikipedia in a way that excites him---Templates. He is not seeking the tools to block people or delete pages, but rather to continue doing what he does best. He's a template specialist. He helps update and fix templates. Unfortunately, as templates are often vandalized and appear on hundreds hundreds-of-thousands of articles, he has difficulty working on his creations because they are often protected. Personally, I like specialist admins because we have too many "generalist" who don't know anything about these niches. An admin who specializes with templates, can only be a good thing.

But what most impresses me about CapitalR is his civility. Last year he faced some severe hostility from a user who's initial contact included the warning, it simply doesn't belong. Period. End of debate. Discontinue this or I will report this bot and have it disabled on wikipedia CapitalR maintained his composure and his edits were eventually supported by the wikiproject in question. In other cases, people approached him about various problems with his templates or bots, in each case he assessed the issue and fixed it without getting defensive or upset. Many of these people then thanked him for listening to their concerns and doing such a great job. I don't think CapitalR will be one of our more active admins, in traditional admin functions, but I definitely see him having a need for the tools to continue to do the job he does so well.

CapitalR already acts like an admin. I see no reason to believe that he will abuse or misuse the tools. We need to evaluate CapitalR on his strengths and his clear need for the tools, not based upon some preconceived notion of what we think admin's do. Balloonman (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination from David Göthberg

I first ran into CapitalR last summer. At the time CapitalR was busy cleaning up all the different navboxes that we had back then and standardise them down to a single very versatile {{navbox}}. I noticed that he communicated well with all the people who had a myriad of questions about those boxes. And he worked carefully and tested his templates properly and discussed them with people before he deployed them. And he even handled it very well when I barged in and suggested major changes and totally new ways to code things. (But in the end I realised that his code probably was the best.) But not only did he make the navboxes way better, he single-handedly did many thousands of edits to update pages to use the new better navboxes.

However, I noticed there was one single problem. CapitalR's templates were locked as high-risk and thus he could not edit them himself. (No wonder since for instance his {{navbox/core}} is used on 615,000 pages.) He had to update them per remote control by using {{editprotected}} requests. So I pretty soon realised that he really needs to become an admin so he can continue to manage his templates in an efficient manner. Problem was that I had no familiarity with the RfA process. So this sentence has been on my to-do list on my user page ever since: "Nominate CapitalR for adminship." I have bumped into him every now and then since then, and every time has only increased my belief that CapitalR is of great service to Wikipedia and would be a very responsible user of the admin buttons.

Some days ago people were discussing over at WT:RFA that we need more admins. So I took the chance and mentioned that CapitalR would be a prime candidate. And thankfully Balloonman took it on himself to check up on and nominate CapitalR.

--David Göthberg (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. --CapitalR (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

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: I expect my primary admin work will be editing protected templates, fulfilling editprotected requests on templates, and keeping a close eye on high-risk templates (protecting/un-protecting when necessary). A number of templates that I created or substantially edited were later protected, and as an admin I would be in a better position to maintain them. I also expect/hope to be useful and more active in the MediaWiki space, particularly for edits and questions related to collapsible tables and navboxes (which just got new CSS that I wrote). I do not expect to do much admin work in WP:AIV, WP:XFD, user blocking, or other "traditional" admin related activities, but think I will be a useful specialist admin for the community because of my extensive template work. If I ever find an instance where admin tools are required for processes I am unfamiliar or unexperienced in, I will not hesitate to ask for assistance from another administrator.

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

A: My first major contribution was the standardization of nearly all navboxes into the {{Navbox}} standard. You may remember that not even a year ago there were about a dozen competing navbox templates and styles, many of which didn't have the collapsible feature, which led to huge and/or ugly navbox sections in articles. I combined the best features from them all together and designed {{Navbox}} and {{Navbox/core}}, and then proceeded to convert nearly every template using all the other designs to the new standard (about 10,000 conversions). There are now around 30,000 templates using {{Navbox}}, making for consistent styles and easier code maintenance (it's actually the 6th/7th most used template on Wikipedia now). I have also recently re-written the code for {{Navbox}}, adding many new features and fixing some of the common problems. This work has taken months, but is finally scheduled to go live on May 1 (a date set to give new CSS classes ample time to settle). In addition, I spend lots of my editing time fixing up other templates that use {{Navbox}} to make sure they work properly, and to keep the styles somewhat standard across all of Wikipedia. I believe that when users create new Navbox templates, they first find one with a style they like, and then modify its code. Thus, by promoting clean and consistent Navbox code and styles now, I'm helping ensure that we will have a lot less work to do in the future to clean up templates with problems.

My second major contribution was CapitalBot, which added {{Infobox Settlement}} to about 30,000 articles on US cities and towns. This was no easy task, and it took hundreds of hours (literally) to compile the government databases, map the data to Wikipedia articles, and then code the bot (I compiled the databases offline in the spring and early summer of '07, which explains my editing lull, and then coded the bot in late summer '07, and ran it in early autumn '07).

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: Oh, of course, but nothing too major that didn't eventually work itself out. Because I've done some large scale projects (CapitalBot and navbox standardization), I have attracted plenty of criticism from others who disagreed with certain aspects. However, I find that when I stay calm and clearly explain my reasoning, I can quickly work the problems out in a civilized manner. I regularly get involved in minor style disputes (a common issue with templates); if they cannot be worked out through a quick discussion I find that third parties are always a good idea to help out. As for stress, I occasionally get a little worked up personally, but try hard not to let that reflect in my comments and actions. At worst, I just walk away from a situation and let other editors sort things out; when I check back weeks or months later I'm generally satisfied with resolutions.

Optional questions from jc37

4. While I am impressed by the template work of the candidate, there are more tools in the admin's tool box than just the ability to edit protected pages. Just to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of more of the tools and responsibilities could you describe/summarise:

• 4a. Generally, why and when should someone be blocked?

• A: Blocking is not a matter to be taken lightly, as it remains in that users log forever and can prevent other constructive edits. Repeated vandalism, personal threats and attacks, edit warring (including 3RR violations), and violation of policy and consensus are common reasons for users to get blocked, but generally after a series of warnings that their behavior is not acceptable. If one suspects a user of evading a ban or block, or being a sock puppet, it may be best to have a checkuser look into the situation first before issuing a block. It is not appropriate for admins to block users that they are personally involved in a content dispute with, and admins must understand that they are not exempt from being blocked themselves. In general, blocks should be used as a preventative tool, not a punitive one.

• 4b. When would it be appropriate to protect a page?

• A: In my opinion, protection of pages should be used sparingly and with care, so as not to disallow good faith editors from making constructive edits. Protection might be used for pages undergoing significant amounts of recent vandalism or edit warring; however, blocks might also be considered if appropriate, so as not to prevent non-involved parties from losing access to editing. Semi-protection might be a better option over full protection when IPs are causing large amounts of vandalism or disruption to articles on living people. High-risk templates that are unlikely to change much are good candidates for indefinite full protection; similarly, high-risk templates that might change could be indefinitely semi-protected. It is important to remember that when protecting a page due to disputes, admins should not protect a specific version; rather, the current version, whatever it might be, should be protected, and then changes can be discussed on the talk page until consensus forms about how to resolve the conflict (this applies to content disputes, not vandalism or other policy violations). In addition, protection should generally not be used as pre-emptive measures against vandalism or disruption (except for high-risk templats); rather, it should be a last resort after problems have occurred and are likely to occur again.

• 4c. When would it be appropriate to speedily delete a page?

• A: Basically, if there’s any non-trivial reason for a page to be kept, then it should probably not be speedily deleted, but rather should go through the appropriate form of WP:XFD. Before speedy deleting an article, it is important to give it a chance if one might exist, especially for pages created by new users. Some quick examples of when speedy deleting would be appropriate are pages dedicated to nothing but vandalism, nonsense, advertising, or pages about people with no clear significance. Templates can be speedy deleted (after 7 days with the appropriate tag) if they are copies of other templates, or provide no useful functionality that cannot be found in other templates. Other speedy examples are users requesting their own pages to be deleted, images without proper licensing or in violation of WikiMedia policy, and pages that are recreated after being deleted from a deleting discussion and not undergoing a deletion review. Again, if any doubt exists over whether speedy can be applied, it is best to review WP:SPEEDY or to put the article up for deletion at WP:XFD.

• 4d. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an WP:XFD discussion, a WP:DRV discussion, and an WP:RM discussion.

• A: Consensus should be determined by weighing the strengths and weaknesses of both sides of a debate, acting in the best interests of all users, and coming up with a solution that most users can “agree to agree to”. It is important to remember that consensus does not mean that everyone must agree, and it should be determined by discussion, not just by polls. One should be very careful about judging consensus if he/she has a particular bias in the matter, and should be on the lookout for users who attempt to circumvent consensus via forum shopping or failing to gather a large or diverse enough audience for a proper discussion. The amount of discussion or degree of agreement before a reasonable consensus is reached is undefined, but I feel that it should be somewhat proportional to the size of the proposed change. Simple style changes or the rewording of a paragraph being discussed on a talk page might reach consensus quickly and with little discussion, but deletions or controversial/complex moves should have a good reason and significant agreement before being executed. It is important to remember that consensus can change over time, but I believe that the burden is on those who wish to change it to demonstrate why their new way of doing things is better. For example, if consensus is determined in WP:XFD to delete or keep a page, the standard for reversing the decision should be higher in WP:DRV to avoid users constantly holding re-trials when they don’t get their way.

• 4e. User:JohnQ leaves you a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: First, it is important to remain unbiased in such situations. If User:JohnQ came to me because he knew that I agreed with one of the sides in the edit war, or because we had previous encounters and he’s trying to get me to agree with him again, then I may not be the best person to fairly resolve the situation. In addition, if the article in question is something I know little about, or an article with a history of edit warring, I may not be the best admin to step in. In that case it would be perfectly acceptable to step back and post a notice about the article for other admins to examine, and send JohnQ a message saying that I’m letting others take over for a more unbiased opinion (a long time ago I was that JohnQ and realized after the fact what a bad position I put an admin in when asking for help, so I would not want to repeat such a situation). If, however, the conflict involves blatant vandalism, inappropriate material (i.e. improperly sourced information about living people), or other clear cut matters, then it may be acceptable for me to step in and deal with the situation right away. Again, it is important to apply the same rules here as one would if it were reported to the admin notice board: don’t block anyone unless proper warnings have been given, don’t issue cool down blocks, encourage discussion and consensus with other users before future edits are made, enforce the 3RR fairly on both parties, etc.

Optional Question from Dominik92

5: An IP user vandalizes a page leaving a suicide message on it, what do you do?

A: The first thing to do is treat all threats of violence (against others and against one's self) seriously, and to post a note on the administrator's noticeboard. This is something I have no experience with, but there may be another more knowledgeable admin immediately available willing to help or take charge. The second thing to do would be to reply to the user asking if there is anything to do to help. Next, one should send notification to the central WikiMedia office about the incident for them to take immediate action. Performing an IP lookup to get a general location of where the user may be and posting it on the noticeboard would be a likely next step (or if it were not an IP user, requesting a checkuser to help). Finally, one should see to it that local authorities or a suicide prevention service are contacted and given the relevant information (if the IP were in the USA then I might be capable of making such a report; otherwise, I would probably need help from another user or the office to find the appropriate people to contact). A quick Google search and reading WP:SUICIDE indicates that this has happened before, so it should be taken seriously. In addition, most law enforcement and emergency services take such notifications seriously and encourage reporting, even if it ends up being a hoax. Taking a few minutes out of editing to perform the steps I just listed to help a fellow human being seems like a reasonable expectation for such a (hopefully rare) situation.

Optional Questions From Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)}

6. Say an user has been editwarring for a lengthy period of time - but never in violation of the WP:3RR rule (reverting edits on pages but not in the 24hr time-frame.) His/her edits have been obviously disruptive but cannot be seen as vandalism. What do you do?

A: First, like always, I would only respond if I was unbiased in the situation; otherwise, it is best to leave a message on the notice board and let others deal with it. The initial response should include a message on the user's talk page that his actions are disruptive, and that even though Wikipedia values his contributions, he should establish consensus on the talk page before making such edits. Next steps would be to go the talk page of the article in question to alert other editors to provide opinions and insight on the edits, and to firm up consensus (either for or against). It may also be appropriate to post a message on a relevant project page to get more voices in on the discussion. If the disruptive edits continue then the user should be properly warned after each new disruption, and proper judgment may be used to either issue a temporary block (after enough warnings), or have the page temporarily protected to force discussion. Other alternative/additional steps could include offering to mediate the situation, requesting that the involved parties apply for formal mediation, putting in a request for comment, or, as a last resort (and after having other admins look into the situation), sending it to arbitration. In conclusion, use good judgment, don't overreact, and don't be afraid to ask for help from admins who are good at mediation and conflict resolution.

Optional question from daveh4h

7. Do you currently use Wikipedia related IRC channels? What do you use them for? Do you have any feelings or opinions about the #admins IRC channel? If this RfA is successful, do you plan on accessing the admins IRC channel? If you are going to ask for access, what do you plan on using the admins IRC channel for?

A: Interestingly enough, I actually installed and used IRC for the first time last night just to test it out (mainly due to me coming across this discussion). I just checked it out for a minute or two to see how it worked and didn't send any messages. As for me using it for admin related work, I don't feel comfortable commenting on that since I have no idea what kind of discussions (or how much discussion) takes place on the channel. I suspect I'll check it out initially if my RfA succeeds, but doubt I'll keep using it often or at all after that (instant messaging has never been my thing). As far as my general feelings on admins having discussions on IRC, I am wary of the exclusiveness and lack of public record, but still understand that there are some positive advantages (again, listed in this request for comments). Sorry for being vague with my answer, but it's a topic I'm not particularly familiar with. --CapitalR (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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

• Links for CapitalR: CapitalR (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/CapitalR before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support - K, I'm suitably impressed. I felt that your answers to my last question in particular were excellent. - jc37 23:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Support - Excellent answers to questions, superb edit history, great work. No reason not to trust user with the buttons. Tan | 39 00:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Clear need for the tools expressed in the nominations and highly articulate answers to questions. No trust issues with this candidate. Darkspots (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Support - A specialist! Needs this for template work. I also like the idea of an administrator participating in an " unconventional/non-traditional" manner. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Dlohcierekim 01:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Support extremely well-qualified, especially in an area where few admins have expertise. Horologium (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Weak Aye Aaright Done enough, no worrying answers. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Co-nom support - I have always been very impressed by CapitalR's work. And today with his answers above, he impressed me again. --David Göthberg (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Support – It is time that Wikipedia looks to specialized user, with specific talents, to take some of the administrator roles that the project thrusts upon individuals who may be lacking in certain skill-sets. This user has been a faithful and trusted contributor since 2006. No major conflict with regards to civility – is a major contributor in their area of expertise – and has stated quite articulately the need for the few extra buttons and has reaffirmed that they will be staying within their area of expertise. If they wander to far from the path, it is only a click away from taking their privileges away. Good Luck to you. ShoesssS ^Talk 02:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
10. Support You did navbox...and you're not an admin? I see no reason to distrust you. Your work in the template namespace has been a great help to the entire project. You will do well with the mop, and, more importantly, the keys to the locks. Paragon12321 (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
11. Nom-Support has a definite need for the tools. May not be a typical candidate, but knows his stuff.Balloonman (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
12. Support Has been around since Feb 2006 with over 6000 mainspace edits and over 25000.No concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
13. Support All I really need is to know that the user won't abuse the tools, in this case, I found no evidence that he would. This, combined with extremely well thought out answers to the questions is more than enough to gain my support. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 03:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
14. Support Somehow I remember implementing {{navbox generic}} the parent to {{navbox}} and converting thousands of navboxes to using the CSS classs. And since then it seems as though CapitalR has been stalking me. ;-) Anyway, Wikipedia needs good active template admins and can understand CSS. And no I haven't had time to review your CSS yet.
    In response to Useight I am curious, "CapitalR how will response to other admins who irresponsibly break important template and shoot the job queue up to 6 million?" — Dispenser 03:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

    I'm not sure I understand the question, can you word it differently? Useight (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

    I had a little fallout with Edokter when he started editing major templates with rather controversial changes before he understood the m:Job queue and server impact of templates. And because of his repeated doing at this time I had reported him to WP:ANI. — Dispenser 16:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

15. This guy's awesome! And I don't say that about very many of you. He can only help the community as a whole even if he only uses the tool when he see fit! No reason not to give him the tools.—MJCdetroit ^(yak) 04:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
16. Strong Support Specialists get a thumbs up from me, as many consider me to be a jack of all trades. It's always nice to see a person who does a small number of things but does them with dedication, vigor, and... does them well. --Sharkface^T/_C 05:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
17. Support What we have here is a talented and dedicated template editor who simply wants to be able to continue what he is already doing. For some, becoming an admin increases one's ability to contribute; for others, not becoming an admin reduces this ability (a similar situation led to my own RfA). I've been following his work for a while and have been impressed with his technical savvy and impartiality—the latter is incredibly important for major template work, considering the huge number of articles affected. I see no potential for abuse here and so by granting CapitalR admin rights we can let him continue his good work here.
    For those who see the nominee's low mainspace participation as a indicator of a lack of understanding for this area: how can you possibly work on something that affects thousands upon thousands of articles without this understanding? 52 Pickup (deal) 06:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
18. Support The protection tools will help with his template work. WOSlinker (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
19. Support based on a very few interactions at Template:Minnesota and Template:US state navigation box. Seems to handle all three things well: the politics of requests, bug reports and template coding. -Susanlesch (talk) 07:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
20. Support per 52 Pickup. Kusma (talk) 08:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
21. Agree with Shoessss and 52 Pickup. Here we have oodles of relevant experience, sensible answers and someone who seems most unlikely to delete the main page just to see what happens. No bother. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
22. Strong support - calm, polite, experienced, editor. Dan Beale-Cocks 12:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
23. Weak support. Not much experience in the projectspace which usually demonstrates a lack of policy knowledge in most users. Your answers are good, however, and this offsets my worries. Good luck, Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
24. Support per his two most excellent nominations. Not only can he be trusted with the tools, he will make excellent use of them. -FrankTobia (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
25. Strong Support I was extremely impressed by your responses. I agree with FrankTobia, you can be trusted with the tools, and make excellent use of them. JayJ47 (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
26. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
27. I believe this user can be trusted to use the tools constructively. --Ali'i 13:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
28. Support. This candidate is an excellent example of why the admin tools ought to be further unbundled. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

    Even as his nominator, I couldn't agree more.Balloonman (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

29. Support - trustworthy editor. Agree with above comments, nothing wrong with being a specialist. PhilKnight (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
30. Support - in the absence of a system for handing out partial admin abilities, I believe this user would make excellent use of some of them, and would not abuse the others. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
31. Support Civil, good communication, good contributions, I find no evidence of threat or mistrust, and certainly no reason other than to give support. Yngvarr (c) 15:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
32. Support Yea! MBisanz ^talk 16:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
33. Support SexySeaShark 16:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
34. Yup. Great nomination, fantastic answers to questions, obvious need for specialized tools, and based on the answers to the (terrific) questions by Jc37, I have no worries about your use of the other tools if/when you decide to branch out. Support without hesitation. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
35. Support - Sounds like he could use the tools. As long as he just makes "bots", and not "cons", let him Roll Out with the tools.--Bedford 17:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
36. Strong Support per Q5. no point even reviewing anything further (although I did). If you've got that attitude that's all I need to see, personally. To suggest we should be indifferent is not just "cold". It's plainy unacceptable. who are we to interfere with what someone chooses to do with his own life?. I take Kurt's oppose to mean that Wikipedia, and the building of an online encyclopedia generally, is more important than one persons life. How wrong can you be. I'd sooner this project deleted than someone take their own life. Yes, we're not counsellors. But we are not indifferent robots either. Pedro :  Chat  17:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
37. Frankly, I don't give a damn what Ayn Rand has to say on the matter. Great editor, nothing else is important. EJF (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
38. -- Naerii 18:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
39. Strong Support Like your answer to #5 Dusti^{complain/compliment} 18:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
40. Strong Support per the answer to question five. I'm not going to go so far as to attack Kurt, but his oppose is simply ridiculous. —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
41. Support per lack of any negative interactions with candidate. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
42. Support I'm impressed by the answers this user has provided, keep up the good work! Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 21:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
43. Support Good specialist editor, contributions to non-template areas seem to show a reasonable spread. Johnbod (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
44. Support Per Kurt. ;) Actually, beyond Kurt, I am impressed by contributions and responses, and now believe giving CapitalR the tools would be a net positive. Enigma ^message Review 22:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
45. Support Nice answers to questions. Great user. Spencer^T♦C 22:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
46. Support Good answers, no issues and can make good use of the tools in his specifc area of intrest. Hobartimus (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
47. Support. Reasonable answers, good contributions. Pundit|utter 23:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
48. Support - the nomination by Balloonman is particularly persuasive. X Marx The Spot (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
49. Support Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 00:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
50. Support We need more people who know their way around template code. Anyone who can change that many templates without a wikiproject with WP:OWN issues successfuly lynching them must have some worthwhile interpersonal skills as well.Geni 00:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
51. Support Well written nominations, well answered questions, good specific sense of why the tools are desired. All-around good candidate. Mlaffs (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
52. Support Im going to joing the bandwagon for your answer to q.5 and the ridiculousness of Kurt's oppose. Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
53. Support and Kurt Weber Oppose - A great, all around user. Like everyone else, I support your brilliant answer to Question 5. Kurt is just attention seeking and it's best to ignore him. Anyone who is that heartless and who puts an encyclopaedia before a human life just isn't worth paying attention to. I think I speak for everyone when I say you did a great answer and he is just a cold, heartless young man. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 08:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
54. Support - There should be more people who intend on dealing with the back stage, icky, nitty gritty bits of the whole show. As for the Kurt thing, I dont think that belongs in the support section. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 11:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
55. Support, a quality candidate with a demonstrated need for the tools (to edit protected templates). And while I usually support Kurt's right to have an unpopular opinion, damn that is cold (and it's a pretty feeble reason for opposing). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC).
56. Support. Clearly CapitalR would improve Wikipedia even more with the tools. Axl (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
57. Support, if nothing else will reduce the {{editprotected}} requests :) Bright, yes, sensible, yes, that'll do. Neıl ☎ 13:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
58. Support this user would make wikipedia a better place!...need I say anymore? --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
59. Support a bot creating admin who 'admins' the bits and pieces. Can't complain about that!--RegentsPark (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
60. Support. Has done major work for Wikipedia. No reason to oppose. Spinach Dip 20:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
61. Aye excellent work, and civility too. No reason to oppose. Black Kite 23:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
62. Support I trust his judgment about the areas he does not yet have experience with. DGG (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
63. Support Obviously knows what tools he wants and why. Even more importantly, knows what he does not want to do. Good answer to #5; I will apply my moral code and not Ayn Rand's. King Pickle (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
64. Support. Per Balloonman (talk · contribs) and Davidgothberg (talk · contribs), and some great template work on the project, among other areas. Cirt (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
65. Support, per answer to question 5. Yes, I really am Irrational and Evil. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
66. Support, I've had very good interactions with this editor. He will make a great administrator.--Southern Texas (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

    Support Good user. Spencer^T♦C 01:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

    The above is a duplicate vote; the user is also vote #45. Gary King (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

    Dupe vote indentedBalloonman (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

    (2 edit conflicts, this is crazy) Sorry, my bad. Spencer^T♦C 01:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

67. Support. The oppose arguments are so weak, they make me wish I could vote some more. This fine editor deserves the tools for the stated purposes. Doczilla _STOMP! 03:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
68. Support I especially like the idea of his specialization. Frankly, I am envious because templates are an area of weakness for me. I expect to be calling upon you for help from time to time. -JodyB _talk 12:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
69. Support He helped out the University of Florida and the University of Miami with their Templates. He does great work! Jccort (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
70. Support Absolutely; exceptional candidate. GlassCobra 16:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
71. Strong support - holy cow, what a strong candidate! Bearian (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
72. Weak support - generally very good contributions, although I'd have liked to have seen more interaction with others on article talk / wikipedia talk pages. Lradrama 18:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
73. Support - Garion96 (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
74. Support. the wub "?!" 11:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
75. Support - a pleasure to see this sort of nomination. Obvious need for the tools, excellent answers to the questions, he won't abuse the other tools. NSH001 (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
76. Strong Support - answers to questions were exactly the sort I admire! mathwhiz29 18:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
77. Support Users answers to questions are satisfactory, and interactions with other users seems appropriate. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
78. Support Good answers. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
79. Support per the answers to your questions and per "Duh!" :) Razorflame 19:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
80. Support Cannot see anything to suggest CapitalR will abuse the tools. Davewild (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
81. Support While I have only noticed this user once before, I will have to say I'm impressed with his edits to the templatespace. I really don't care about the projectspace; I rarely edit there too. Editorofthewiki^{review my edits here!} 10:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
82. Support It looks to me as though this candidate is capable of being a more effective creative addition as an admin...Modernist (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
83. Support Looks reasonably good candidate for an admin - Tinucherian (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
84. Support - will be a great asset, with his work on templates. Can see no problems, except comparative lack of mainspace edits, but given his chosen area of editing this shouldn't be an issue.--BelovedFreak 16:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
85. Support Why not? Wikipedia can always be better, and that's what admins try to do.I actually thought you were an admin, until I explored the RfA pages.-- Barkjon  21:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
86. Support 4 editprotected requests to templates are outstanding on Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests as I support this RfA. We need admins with the confidence and skills to furfil these sometimes complex requests. GameKeeper (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak Oppose. Sorry to be the first (and possibly only) opposer, but you lack experience in the Wikipedia namespace. Only 125 edits there out of 25,000+ edits is extraordinarily low. Even though I did calculate that that equates to less than 0.05%, I don't care about the ratio, but instead the lack of experience indicated by the number 125. Perhaps I will be accused of editcountitis, but if you take a look at my admin standards, I want to see at least 500 contributions to the Wikipedia namespace (regardless of ratio to total edits). I am aware that you will be focusing in the template area, but you'd have the tools in all areas and I would want you to be more familiar with other areas. Useight (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

   If I understand the purpose of your standards, the requirement is to ensure familiarity with the areas in which tools will be used. I don't think it's an unreasonable standard, but I would say that as the candidate intends to use the tools in the Template space, I think it might be fair to factor some of his contributions there toward the total. Like you say, an admin will have the tools in all areas, but a candidate who is interested in specializing in vandal fighting might only have 100-200 edits to Wikipedia space outside of AIV. So we're looking at a candidate who has the same level of experience where he plans to use the tools, and a comparable level of experience outside, and the difference is mainly that because of his unusual specialization, much of his tool familiarity comes in a different namespace. I hope I don't seem like I'm badgering as I've not voiced an opinion myself. Just thinking aloud really as I think it's something to at least consider... --JayHenry (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

   Useight: I am curios: Since admins get to edit high-risk protected intricate templates that may be transcluded on up to 2,500,000 pages, why doesn't your admin standards include any demands on experience in template handling? --David Göthberg (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

   No, nobody is doing too much badgering, comments are welcome. It's true the candidate will focus in templates, which is why I'm specifying my comment to be a weak oppose. However, it is still true that he lacks experience in this area I deem vital regardless of speciality. As for my admin standards, I don't mention templates specifically because I hadn't even thought about that when making the page, but I do say, "High activity in areas in which candidate mentions in Q1", in this case, templates. The candidate does have high activity there, so he meets that portion of my standards, along with several other of my points, just not one I deem critical, Wikipedia namespace. Useight (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

   Is Useight the new Wisdom89? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

   There are definitely worse people he could emulate...Balloonman (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Lest anybody try to read something into that comment, it's meant as a compliment to Wisdom, not a slight to anybody

   My God, was this comment really necessary? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

   I consider it a compliment to be called the new Wisdom89. He's a highly-esteemed editor and I appreciate being in that company. Useight (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

2. Weak oppose - Good contributions, just doesn't meet my standards. Soxred93 | talk bot 03:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

   I wonder the same as I asked Useight above. Mind explaining why your standards don't include template experience? --David Göthberg (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

   Useight says my thoughts. Soxred93 | talk bot 01:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose per answer to #5...who are we to interfere with what someone chooses to do with his own life? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

   Note: Discussion of this oppose now has its own section below. --David Göthberg (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

4. Weak Oppose No specific reason, I just think that you would be better off not being an admin. Your edits are great as of now, but if you get the tools it will change the way you look at editting.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 03:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Weak Oppose - Above arguments very convincing. Navboxes also a real concern. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

   Huh? Why are navboxes a real concern? Balloonman (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

   The fallout work that will have to be done for boxes that were set to 80% width. Hence weak rather than a hearty opposition, but just a little more than neutral. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

6. Oppose - Mainspace edits are too small a percentage of total edits. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

   Of course this coming from an editor who's template space contribution is significantly less. — Dispenser 16:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

   Last time I looked, an encyclopedia was not a collection of templates, but a collection of articles. That's our main business here, and all admins should, above all, understand what it means to edit articles -- the other stuff is secondary. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

   6166 mainspace edits. So if the user just... contributed way less to other areas, but kept their mainspace edits at 6166, you would support? I'm seriously not being a dick here, I'm trying to understand this rational - reading Ed's userpage, he seems like a completely reasonable guy. Tan | 39 03:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

   No, there are two aspects I look for, general experience, as indicated by the number of edits -- and at 25,000+ I have no complaint with this editor in that regard, and a signficant percentage of the edits being in mainspace articles. In this case, the user's mainspace edits are less than 1/4 of the total edits, which I think is too low. I have no doubt that this editor can run rings around me regarding templates (not hard to do, considering my lack of experience with them), but I don't think consider templates to be a terribly important part of the project, compared to writing and editing articles. I'd prefer to see mainspace edits at around 50% of total edits, or more. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

   I'm with Tanthalas, though. The candidate clearly has sufficient mainspace experience. I'm not sure why percentage should matter. If CapitalR's template-related edits were one-third of what they actually are, would you not oppose? Enigma ^message 17:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

   In otherwords, right now he has 6000 mainspace edits, and 25000 total edits, making his ratio 1/4. But if he had fewer template edits, say 12000 fewer, then his ratio would fit your guideline, and you would accept him?Balloonman (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Nice nomination, good answers, and comprehensive editing history in relation to the maintenance of articles. However, you don't need the administrator bit to continue with that job. I just don't see a need for the tools. No heckling please. Rudget 12:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

   (looks around for Lar [1]) Heckle, Heckle : ) - jc37 21:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

   Does "No heckling" mean "I am unwilling to discuss"? (I'm not trying to be obtuse; I'm unclear what is intended by the comment.) I'm not sure it would be a reasonable request--least of all from an admin!--to drop an AAAD, that has a clear rebuttal anyways (needs +EditProtectedPages), and disallow discussion. Is "no heckling" a joke that I'm missing? --JayHenry (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

   I am willing to discuss the neutral, just I don't want to be 'hounded out' of my decision. This has happened in the past, and with such strong support I had predicted some opposition to this. 90.201.215.80 (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

   No heckling would mean that he doesn't want to end up like Kurt.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 05:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Extended discussion on KMWeber's oppose

Kurt Weber wrote: Oppose per answer to #5...who are we to interfere with what someone chooses to do with his own life?

We're not interfering; we're respecting their wishes. If they just wanted to kill themselves, we would never know about it. What we do know is that they wanted to tell someone about their suicidal feelings. This "cry for help" may or may not be a sign that they really would like to be persuaded not to kill themselves, as is often the case with suicidal people. But whatever their feelings, this candidate made a good faith attempt to answer a difficult question, and I think their answer is in pretty good keeping with current feeling on the matter, whether you agree with that or not. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How to respond to this? This is arguably the worst reason to oppose somebody I've ever seen! His answer was excellent. First, there is the moral expectation to do something when somebody cries out for help. As a person who studied for the ministry, suicide notes are a cry for help. They want somebody to care enough to stop them. Second, in many places knowing about a suicide threat and failing to act upon it can be criminal. Yes, you can be jailed for not trying to stop somebody from committing suicide. Third, there is the reputation of Wikipedia. If a person did commit suicide and nobody did anything, then Wikipedia would be all over the news in a negative manner. This might happen even if there was an attempt to reach authorities, but at least then Wikipedia would be able to say, "we tried."Balloonman (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that Kurt just looks for any reason to oppose RfAs he can find. All the more reason WP:NBD is a sham - Kurt is saying that this user ranks lower than "no big deal" because of the answer to Q5. Sad. Tan | 39 15:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

While I think this oppose reasoning is silly, it would appear that Kurt has positively participated in RFAs in the past [2] [3][4]. Yngvarr (c) 15:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. I didn't say that he had never supported a user, or opposed for what the community would consider a valid reason. I don't even mind the prima facie facade - but this was a whole new level of "What?" Tan | 39 15:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell you what, I shall strike my comment, since it is meaningless at this point, and I'll de-watchlist this one so I am not tempted... Yngvarr (c) 15:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't accept the ridiculous notion that there is any sort of a legitimate moral expectation to stop someone from doing with his own life as he pleases. It's his life. As for the law, well, same thing--such laws are illegitimate, so there is no legitimate moral obligation to obey them. As for Wikipedia's reputation...well, that doesn't trump an individual's right to dispose of his own life as he wishes. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Really, I do; I was just thinking what I would say if I were asked the same question in an RfA. But to oppose him for it? I mean, he might have a different favorite color, or religion, or what not - I'm not sure how he will be a poor administrator based on this. Tan | 39 15:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, clearly someone thought it was relevant or the person wouldn't have asked the question in the first place. As for me, it's a position on Wikipedia, so as far as I'm concerned anything that happens on Wikipedia that he has been or hypothetically might be involved in is fair game. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Duty of care. And per my comment in support I find your attitude disgusting Kurt. You honestly present the case that someones life, or their attitude to their life, is less important than some website? A disgrace. Pedro :  Chat  17:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please pay attention to what I actually said. I think you got it ass-backwards. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the worst forms of morality induced biased I've seen in a long time here at Wikipedia, and the fact that it's being used as a reason to oppose an RfA makes it that much more egregious. Essentially Kurt is basing his oppose on a different moral stance on a polarizing issue. This oppose should either be stricken by Kurt himself or ignored altogether. Disqualify without hesitation as it has absolutely no bearing on this user's ability to be an administrator. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should go after the person who asked the question in the first place, too. The fact is that what someone does, or would do, in response to what happens on Wikipedia is in fact very relevant to whether or not he should be an administrator. As for your assertions about the moral code I subscribe to, you would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand. She proved clearly and conclusively, from the first principles of the Universe, that the moral code I subscribe to is in fact the only objectively correct and valid moral code. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Guys, seriousley, come on. Is it up to you to decide wether or not Kurt's Oppose has any relevance? No. It's up to these guys. Let him be a dumbass if he wants to, don't venture onto the edge of violating WP:NPA over a stupid Oppose. Just say "I disagree", write up your support, and get on with your day. You'll feel alot better if you just sit down, watch some TV and have a beer (or some kool-aid depending on your age/preference :D) than you will if you make an ass out of yourself trying to change his opinion (not saying that anyone has made an ass out of themselves, but the possibility is present). If you really want to debate with him on this, e-mail him or something. Just discuss it somewhere other than CapitalR's RfA.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 17:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think this is a perfect place to discuss this issue. Tan | 39 17:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'd go as far as to make a formal request that this whole thread be moved to the talk page. TheProf - T / C 17:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

IMO, if someone leaves a suicide note on a website they are crying out for help, and it becomes your responsibility and issue to act on the issue. By doing so, you could be found in negligence for ignoring the situation. Imagine if the IP is a kid that's 10 and is just upset over an argument he/she just had with their parent. How would you feel then? How would the parent's feel? Dusti^{complain/compliment} 19:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record - I actually mostly agree with Kurt here on the action. If I find a vague suicide edit, I'm not going to do much about it for many reasons, some personal, some legal, and some straight-up realism. However, this is not the issue. The salient issue here is that Kurt opposed this user's nomination for adminship simply because the candidate stated that he would take action if he found a suicide note. Frankly, I found the question itself sort of absurd and totally inappropriate for an RfA - it had the texture of a question simply for the sake of asking a question. But, since it was asked, and now we have opposition based on its answer, we have a whole new issue. The morality of the situation is not what should be being discussed here - how the parents of said vandal feel is beyond my caring. That said, opposition of an RfA based on the candidate's answer is well within my caring sphere. RfAs are becoming a farce. Tan | 39 19:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What an absolute joke, although, quite ironically, this isn't a laughing matter. I'm stunned to believe someone has opposed an RfA based upon a users personal opinion on a matter completely irrelevant to the RfA process. Wikipedia by no means trumps a human life. Ever. No one will ever change my opinion on that. In addition, the users answer to the answer was exemplary. Nevertheless, it is Kurt's vote and he can use it how he pleases. It's evident no one else agrees, and this RfA is likely to pass despite his oppose. I'd even take a fair guess at the bureaucrats striking this vote completely. Move on. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 21:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind also that in some countries/cultures not taking an action to save life may be considered controversial (if not even illegal) ;) Pundit|utter 23:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As noted above by Balloonman: "Second, in many places knowing about a suicide threat and failing to act upon it can be criminal. Yes, you can be jailed for not trying to stop somebody from committing suicide." Personally, I'm more bothered by the fact that Kurt opposed based on the answer. He's free to have his own opinion on whether suicide notes should be reported to the authorities or not (I can sort of see arguments both ways), but opposing based on the thoughtful response because he has a different moral opinion? That really bothers me. Enigma ^message Review 01:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What, one wonders, is the point of asking a question if one cannot oppose a nomination based on the answer?--RegentsPark (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If the answer was a weak one or in lines with what Kurt says above, then I can easily see an oppose. But giving a thought out researched response, which is in line with current thought and legal situation in many places, shouldn't be grounds for an oppose. Capital showed us knowledge and understanding in his response.Balloonman (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that anyone should be allowed to oppose a candidate based on a response to a question. I think that the CapitalR's response to the question far exceeds what the role of an admin should be (admins are not employed officers of the wikipedia site) but don't think that sufficient reason to oppose the candidate. Kurt apparently feels that it is. I don't see why his view should be labeled an 'absolute joke'. Or why his different moral reason is considered unworthy - when, for example, not promoting a candidate because of declared atheistic views is considered perfectly normal. Are there some set of moral guidelines that underlie wikipedia?--RegentsPark (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that of which you speak, and the issue there was that certain userboxes almost seemed like an attack on those who have a religion or believe in a god. Simply saying "I am an atheist" wouldn't get serious opposition, I don't think, but displaying a combative attitude towards those that disagree with you, or simply trying to demean their views... I didn't oppose that RfA (or express any opinion at all, for that matter) and I'm not saying those were the greatest Oppose rationales, but I think there's a big difference between those Opposes and Kurt's Oppose here. Enigma ^message 06:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the difference. In one case a user declares his atheism and states that he does not believe in myths and superstition. The rationale that the latter statement is combative is as much a value judgement as is Kurt's opposition to activism in suicide prevention (albeit different types of value judgments). If you think one set of values is sufficient reason to oppose an admin nomination then it is only right to respect the opposes based on value of others, whether you agree with them or not. Personally, I think it is much better to look at the edit history, how an editor deals with conflict, stuff that is (reasonably) independent of values. I think, for example, that Kurt's opposes on principle to self-nominations is totally egregious and disagree with his reason for opposing this nomination as well. But, there does seem to be a double standard in operation when people dump on him for doing exactly what they have been doing. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's always better to look at edit history. I totally agree. Like I said, I'm not saying those were the greatest (or even good) Oppose rationales, but I do think there's a difference. Enigma ^message 05:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) If it's possible to make a point about this on a different tack altogether, I think that while suicide might be a rational choice for some individual or another, people who are making rational, dignified choices about suicide are not people randomly vandalizing articles and placing suicide notes in them. This is not a rational, dignified thing to do. We're not talking about all people contemplating suicide, we're talking about the subset that vandalize WP to tell us about it. The kind of actions that CapitalR described in his answer to the question are right on the money to deal with that group of people. Darkspots (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above users that opposing because he would try to save a life is absolutely (in my view) morally unjustifiable. I for one would be perfectly willing to delete wikipedia if it might help save a life. And whatever Kurt's views may be he shouldn't try and impose them on others. The christian view at any rate is that your body is a temple to God and suicide is a violation of that temple. (That's my view but I don't expect anyone else to agree). Harland1 (^t/_c) 18:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.