Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Redthoreau

Redthoreau

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (15/11/3); Scheduled to end 21:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Redthoreau (talk · contribs) – I first came across Redthoreau whilst I was checking out recent reviewers and looking for potential admin candidates. I believe that Redthoreau has the tenure and contributions to satisfy not just my relatively lax RFA criteria, but also the current expectations at RFA. Redthoreau does not have a wholly unblemished history here as it includes some editwarring blocks in 2008, however they are now almost two years ago, so I would hope we can all agree to treat them as historical and accept them as time expired. I enjoyed reading Che Guevara, was impressed at Redthoreau's cluefull and knowledgeable comments at Talk:Che Guevara, and hope you will all share my appreciation of this candidate's work. ϢereSpielChequers 08:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I accept. Opening Statement: I am currently a Veteran Editor II with 15,500 edits, 3 years of editing experience, and around 900 pages on my watch list. I also already possess both reviewer and rollback rights. Additionally, in the spirit of full disclosure, my personal Wiki philosophy can be seen on my user page --> here, while those Wiki policies that I find most valuable can be viewed throughout my ---> talk page. I feel it is also important to mention that although I can often be critical of varying aspects of Wikipedia, I do deeply believe in everything Wikipedia stands for. I would compare it to the way that one constructively critiques a family member out of love for them, and not malice. As an academic with a Ph.D., it is my goal that one day Wikipedia will be viewed as being as reliable as the peer reviewed JSTOR journal articles that only graduate students usually have access to. Likewise, I fundamentally believe that access to knowledge is a human right, and regardless of this RFA, will remain committed to the success of the overall Wikipedia mission.    Redthoreau -- (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: If given the privilege and responsibility of being an administrator, I envision myself using my newly gained "abilities" in an array of ways. Some of these would include semi-protecting pages that are repeatedly victimized by obvious vandals/trolls, moving pages over redirects, and hiding and deleting offensive page revisions (which I believe reflect poorly on the project). Additional areas that I envision myself working on would be granting rollback rights, protecting deleted pages, helping with administrative backlog, addressing copyright problems, and patrolling speedy deletion requests. Down the line, after I have garnered the requisite amount of experience and knowledge as an Admin, I may feel comfortable deleting and restoring pages, and as a last resort - blocking ips or editors for blatant vandalism. Of note, I have thoroughly read the WP:ADMINGUIDE & WP:ARL and feel that I can be trusted with the wide ranging spectrum of responsibilities.    Redthoreau -- (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

A: I have made minor edits to thousands of articles; however as a historian and researcher with a specialty in Latin American history and politics, I initially began editing articles related to the Cuban Revolution – and even more specifically Che Guevara. As such, some of my "best contributions" would be my extensive work on the following articles within the Che Guevara related sphere of influence - such as: Che Guevara, Guerrillero Heroico, Che Guevara in popular culture, The Motorcycle Diaries (book), The Motorcycle Diaries (film), and Che (film). During my first year, I almost exclusively edited within this realm as I believed the Che related articles were severely lacking attention and depth. It then sort of became a "domino effect" as I would be reading a book on the topic for one article, and come across material that would be great in another one of his other related articles. Moreover, because of my personal nature to engross myself within a topic until I feel that I nearly know everything there is to know about it, it was hard to venture out to other articles - (an unfortunate preoccupation I have since corrected). On the opposite end of the political spectrum, I have also made a considerable amount of edits to both Glenn Beck (along with his Restoring Honor rally) and Ayn Rand – with future plans to work extensively on Ralph Waldo Emerson & Henry David Thoreau (my favorite author, hence my username).

My primary interest is Latin American history and/or history of the political left in general – with a side interest in the contemporary political right. As such, I edit a good number of articles within these areas. However, I often stray into random articles with no tangential connection at all to the aforementioned topics. For instance, I am a firm believer that an article's "External Links" section should contain an array of multimedia links if possible - such as slideshows, images, video reports, interviews, interactive web pages etc (and often work on this area of many articles).

Furthermore, and it may sound cheesy, but I believe some of my "best contributions" have taken place not on articles, but on article talk pages. I believe strongly that the key to a good article, is a well organized and active talk page (ideally, staffed by veteran editors who are knowledgeable with the material) – and so I have made a large amount of edits both to the layout of TP’s and to general discussions about the articles in general. My penchant and propensity for verbosity also leads me to give lengthy and referenced talk page comments, which are sometimes ironically better referenced than even the article in question. For instance, I would invite any one to read through my recent responses on Talk:Che Guevara and through the same talk page’s archive (my distinctive red & yellow signature isn’t hard to miss) --> here. I believe these demonstrate both my patience and commitment to building a well sourced Encyclopedia. Lastly, the following two links feature truncated --> "Praise" and -->"Thank You’s" that I have received from a wide array of Wiki editors.    Redthoreau -- (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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: To be perfectly honest, my first year in Wikipedia (07-08) featured sporadic conflict with a small handful of editors. Before I really understand how Wiki worked, I made the mistake of jumping right into a string of contentious and politically polarizing article topics, which resulted in me receiving several blocks for 3RR violations (including 2 in my first month). I didn’t really understand the expected decorum of Wikipedia, and thus became frustrated when my contributions were removed – especially when writing on a topic that I was very familiar with. When I look back at my editing behavior I realize I was wrong, as I would stubbornly let myself get frustrated and thus entangled in repetitive edit wars. Of note, many of those who I was edit-warring with were later banned for an array of reasons (such as socking, pov pushing etc) - but that still does not excuse my actions. Of importance, my primary "nemesis" during this first year was the one-time prolific User:Mattisse, who I later reconciled with and established a friendly relationship with after she awarded me a barn star of peace – for reaching out to her. I believe this specific situation with her is symptomatic of my developing Wiki maturity, and emblematic of the "new" and restrained Redthoreau who emerged over the last two years. Sticking with the realm of Wiki editors - User:Coppertwig, who I have worked with since the beginning and now consider a friend and Wiki mentor, also assisted me immensely – by showing me how to calmly edit with patience. Another editor who I came in fleeting contact with early on in my Wiki journey, but since have voyeuristically observed and admired from afar, while trying to model myself after, is User:jbmurray - who I believe embodies the type of editor I am striving to become. Lastly, if granted admin rights, I intend to learn the ropes by working closely under the tutelage of User:WereSpielChequers - who has proven to be extremely helpful in preparing for this overall nomination process.

To conclude, since my occasionally turbulent first year of editing, I have not only learned how to temper my Wiki actions, but through a string of successful collaborations and mentorship opportunities with more experienced editors, gained a better understanding of how to successfully work together with editors who possess divergent views on controversial topics. I can also say that many of my former "edit warring rivals" later became allies, who I was able to work well with (as it is in my nature to seek compromise if possible). I would compare the 2 year old block situation analogously to a naive youth’s criminal record, which is usually expunged in adulthood, as not to become a life-long burden to employment. Importantly, I also recognize that as an Admin, I could never use my privileges to gain an advantage in a dispute in which I am involved.    Redthoreau -- (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Sven Manguard

4. In question 1, you made mention of "hiding and deleting offensive page revisions." Please clarify what types of revisions you would or would not delete.

A: Per WP:REVDEL, and more specifically Wikipedia:RD2, I would adjust revision visibility to remove "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" such as smears, slurs etc. An administrator who I have noticed on my watch page that is frequently committed to this is User:NawlinWiki. If granted admin status, I would seek out his/her advice on assisting with this task. For instance, frequently I will see ip users include racially offensive remarks in their drive by vandalism edit summaries, which (if allowed to stand) I believe reflect poorly on our overall mission.    Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from SarekOfVulcan

5. In your Wiki-philosophy section, you state that registration should be required to edit articles. Would you care to expand on this a bit?

A: Sure SarekOfVulcan and nice to meet you. To be honest I didn’t come to Wikipedia with this view, but achieved it through my 3 years of editing. There are a myriad of variables that led me to this personal belief. For example, countless times I have seen controversial articles fall into decay when open to ip edits, and only achieve stability and a higher quality upon receiving semi-protection. The rationale in my view being that if someone values disseminating the information enough, that they will willingly take the relatively minor step of registering a user name or proposing the edit on the article’s talk page for a registered user to include for them. Moreover, I believe that millions of registered wiki users work far to hard on creating a quality Encyclopedia, to allow random drive by ip editors to besmirch the Wiki "brand" with the various sophomoric vandalism that you will occasionally get (almost exclusively) from ip non-registered members. Lastly, on principle, I believe that it shouldn’t be easier to edit a trusted Encyclopedia article with 100,000 views a day – than it is to post to a random message board on the internet. In Wiki’s early genesis, I believe the ability for ip edits had merit, however now I believe that the number of articles and quality has reached the point where the project could add this minor level of selectivity – that in my mind prevents almost 95 % of blatant vandalism – and thus save editors countless amount of hours that could be used more effectively towards constructing better articles. As an important caveat, I would add that this is just my personal "philosophical" stance, and not something that I would push to establish as an administrator.    Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Mkativerata

6. An edit war has broken out on a biography of a lower-league football player. An editor has inserted information to the effect that the footballer is under police investigation for the alleged sexual assault of a teenage girl. The information is sourced to an article by a reputable national newspaper. The editor is reverted by an administrator. The administrator posts on the article's talk page saying that it is unacceptable for a biography of a living person to contain untested allegations of serious criminal conduct. The administrator argues that the newspaper may have broken the law or committed defamation. The original editor, who added the material, gets immediate support from three uninvolved editors on the talk page. They argue that it is not wikipedia's place to second guess the reliability of sources that have been accepted to be reliable for all purposes. The editors accuse the administrator of acting outside WP:BLP, arguing that there is nothing in that policy precluding the inclusion of the material. The administrator says that the material is unwarranted and harmful to the living person, that BLP overrides consensus, and the material can wait until the police investigation has concluded. The administrator therefore continues to revert the information when it is included by the four other editors. The four other editors make one or two reverts each to re-insert the content, while the administrator reverts the additions six times within a two hour period. The administrator requests the page's protection at WP:RPP. What would you, as an uninvolved administrator, do in respect of RPP request and the dispute generally?

A. Hello Mkativerata, and thanks for the interesting hypothetical. There are many issues of importance with this situation. (a) If the footballer is "under investigation" then that claim should have multiple reliable references (one wouldn't be sufficient, as outstanding accusations, require strong sourcing per WP:Verify & WP:Fringe). (b) Wiki is WP:NOTCENSORED, and WP:BLP does not protect living individuals from having unflattering aspects of their conduct reported, as long as those allegations are worded per WP:NPOV, not in violation of WP:Undue, and sourced to multiple WP:Reliable sources. It should also be made clear which news organization is reporting on the "allegation" and not read as if Wikipedia is endorsing the validity of the charges. (c) I would hope that a fellow administrator would not engage in 6RR in 2 hour period, and instead seek WP:RPP after reaching 2RR, as admins are not above the WP:3RR law. (d) If the admin chose this course of action, then I would probably contact them first to hear their side of the story - then possibly protect the page for 24 hours - while additional references can be sought, and perhaps more neutral wording be established - that the admin might agree to. Hopefully the other non-admins would be active as well on the article's TP towards reaching a WP:Consensus on the matter. (e) If I am unable to get agreement on the issue, and it remains intractable - then I would probably seek advice from other admins on what course of action to take. As I don't pretend to have all the solutions. (f) Lastly, in theory, and out of caution, if a solution can't be found that is amicable to all/most parties, then I would lean towards not including the allegation until it is commonly reported throughout the mainstream media. Wikipedia is not here to "break the news", but to report on it after the fact.    Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Parrot of Doom

7. Your answer to question 6 above did not mention what action you would consider taking against an administrator who blatantly violated the WP:3RR rule. Could you clarify this, and would you approach the situation differently to an anonymous IP editor, or perhaps a regular editor without administrator privileges? Parrot of Doom 23:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A. Hi Parrot, sure. Obviously there is a great deal of missing context to the hypothetical (such as the admins history, the other users history, the ips history etc) - which is why they recommend politicians stay away from incomplete hypotheticals. But since I always criticize politicians for dancing around questions, I am attempting to honestly answer everything regardless of potential pitfalls. As for your question, of course an admin, regular user, and admin should in theory be judged entirely equally - however, I am too honest of a person than to pretend (bullshit everyone here) that this always happens. For me personally, I would strive to give the ip as fair a hearing as possible vis-a-vi the admin – and for that matter the non-admin registered user (who I think are the crucial backbone of Wikipedia). I personally would probably stay away from blocking a fellow admin in this instance, but I would certainly seek guidance from more experienced admins as to whether a ban is necessary - and if so, let them do it. As someone who respects the work that admins put in, and the grueling process of RFA (that I am experiencing at present) I do think they at least deserve a second look from another admin, before I block them outright. If my "politically incorrect-Wiki" honesty costs me more support, then so be it. But remember this the next time you grow weary of clichéd and robotic answers.    Redthoreau -- (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Redthoreau: Redthoreau (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Redthoreau can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. I think this is the first time I've been the first to support an RfA. In any case, WSC has never given any reason for us to doubt his judgment, and this candidate demonstrates the attitude and experience one should expect from an adminship candidate. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
2. Support I see no red flags. This user would make a very good admin. Inka888^ContribsTalk 21:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
3. Weak Support I'm a bit concerned with the block log for edit warring, but as the blocks were placed at least over a year ago, I shouldn't complain too much about this. Minimac (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
4. Support Looks good. I don't see any major issues. Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
5. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - 3 years' experience, reviewer, and rollbacker, see [1]. Has an interesting user page/talk page. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
6. Support - looks intelligent and skilled as an editor, level-headed and thoughtful. Good responses. Should make an effective admin. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
7. Support Perseus!Talk to me 22:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
8. Support Originally I was going to nominate you, however I think that your current nominator is more qualified. After reviewing your edits in preparation for suggesting a nomination, I was ready to support the moment this went up, however your answer to question 1, which was slightly ambiguous on RevDel, gave me pause. Your answer to question 4 has satisfied my concerns. If you do get the mop, I think you'll do fine. Sven Manguard _Talk 22:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
9. Was going to hold off !voting for a while but in light of the opposes and neutrals I can't. The key to Q5 is its final sentence. Unless there is any reason to suspect that the candidate's personal views would actually affect his use of the tools the opposes on q5 are weak to the point of being 'crat-disregardable. Answer to q6 was solid and covered all the relevant issues. I've seen all I need to see to land here.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
10. Support primarily to balance silly opposes. I see no reason to think Redthoreau would be a poor admin, and opposing on the basis of the answer to Q5 is silly. I do disagree with the answer, but it's irrelevant to the issue of giving Redthoreau the mop. I mean, really, those opposing on the basis of Q5 should stop and remind themselves that admins have no more say in policy discussions than anyone else. So however vociferously Redthoreau might argue for his belief when the occasion arises, that is simply irrelevant at RFA. Rd232 ^talk 23:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
11. Support --John (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
12. Support admire the way he buried the hatchet with Mattisse; other people buried the hatchet with Mattisse too, problem was that they buried Mattisse in the process. Guess they thought the chance of having the hatchet rust undrground was worth it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
13. Support - Some may disagree to the answer to number 5, but I see no reason this would interfere with the way they would act as an admin. Redthoreau has shown to be a civil editor with plenty of experience. Derild4921☼ 23:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
14. Support He has opinions. —Soap— 00:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
15. Support as Nominator. I did notice the Userbox about IP editing when I did my review, but ignored it as irrelevant to RFA. I think Redthoreau would do a good job of administering the site according to policy. If this was an election to a policy making body then I would be concerned as we are on opposite sides of the IP editing debate. But if we were to turn RFA from a discussion about whether an editor can be trusted with the tools to a WikiPolitics election about their view on policy development then I think it would be bad for the site, both in terms of the way we choose admins and the way we develop policy. Also there are many policy discussions that take place on this site, I often find that editors who disagree with me on one issue agree with me on another. So if this did degenerate into an election for policy makers I expect I'd still have to vote for people who disagreed with me on some policy issues. ϢereSpielChequers 00:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

    I hope the closing bureaucrat discounts votes based solely on policy grounds. One RFA failing because of such votes is bad, but the precedent it would set has the potential to be all kinds of appalling. Rd232 ^talk 00:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, although I may switch to Neutral if Jbmurray (talk · contribs) weighs in. I am very uneasy about this RFA for several reasons. First, presenting oneself as a PhD in whatever (without attaching a real, verifiable name) is sliding down the slippery Essjay slope. I'm the Queen of Sheba-- this is the internet, anyone can be anyone; we're judged by our edits, not our alleged credentials. I'm not saying I don't believe Red but it's his edits that we should judge. Second, I'm concerned about the way Redthoreau invokes the names of absent editors; on the Che Guevara FAR, Jbmurray, Mattisse, Ling.Nut and myself were all in agreement that there were problems that Redthoreau argued didn't exist. Third, if Red is an "an academic with a Ph.D", why did he fail to see those problems? I'm sorry, I don't trust this editor's neutrality, and don't appreciate the way in which this RFA was presented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

   Would you be more comfortable if this editor's RfA if he were to avoid taking admin actions in Che related articles? And as to your comments on Ph.Ds, see this. Just because someone is well educated does not mean that they are above making stupid mistakes. Besides, that was two years ago. Sven Manguard _Talk 23:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

   No SandyG, I'm the Queen of Sheba. Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

   Fine then, I see your Queen of Sheba, and raise you that I am the Queen of Blades. Top that. Sven Manguard _Talk 23:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

   First, he would have to recuse from using the tools in all socialist/communist-related artcles for me to feel comfortable, and Jbmurray would have to endorse his "academic PhD", but seeing the answers to questions presented subsequent to my Oppose, I am unlikely to change my mind.

   On the Essjay slippery slope, we all know and can independently verify who Jbmurray is, who TimVickers is, and even though we didn't initially know who NewYorkBrad was, his edits backed that he was who he said he was. I didn't see that in Red's case, and I worry about candidates passing RFA claiming credentials that we can't verify, when they aren't using their real name.

   Next, Q4: I don't want any more admins I don't trust running around striking edit summaries, since I was just on the end of an abusive admin's use of that.

   On Q5, I'm very troubled: yes, IPs vandalize a lot, but that is easily dealt with, and they sometimes make very good edits. I see more damage from POV-pushers and tendentious, disruptive established editors. And POV warriors rarely change-- they just learn to play the game until they get the tools, and then their edit warring, POV-pushing shows its colors again.

   On Q6, once again, Mkativerata poses a very good, provocative question, and the candidate shows us they will give a break to a fellow admin that a regular editor wouldn't get; 3RR is a bright line, and hiding behind BLP doesn't excuse it. We don't need more admins who close ranks.

   So, I'm afraid my oppose is only stronger now. I do wish good luck to the candidate, since RFA is hell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

   The mention of the phd is as part of explaining long-term objectives; it isn't "vote for me, I've got a phd" (nor should anyone). Q4: he's said he'd ask a long-established admin for advice, and the suggestion is a concern with racial slurs. In any case I don't see any indication of ending up in situations remotely like your recent one. Q5: irrelevant, unless you're willing to draw conclusions about how he intends to treat IP editors qua admin. I think that's what Q5 was getting at, but it should have asked that instead of a question the answer to which is irrelevant to RFA. Q6: even a detailed provocative answer allows no definitive conclusions - too much depends on unspecified detail and context (eg the reverting admin's record). The answer covers the relevant points to consider fairly well, and indicates no rush to judgement, which is the main thing we want from people who are not yet experienced administrators. In particular, rushing to punish a good faith admin attempt to uphold BLP is not generally a good idea, even if a specific attempt is misguided. BLP caution is more important than 3RR, which is why there is a BLP exemption for it, and any good faith attempt to draw on that (by non-admins too) ought to be given appropriate slack. [Appropriate slack != carte blanche, BTW.] Rd232 ^talk 00:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose per answer to question 5 and the block log. MtD (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

   The most recent block is 23 months ago. Is there any length of time after which you would regard a block as historical? Please bear in mind that candidates with a clean blocklog and less than 23 months experience have been known to breeze through RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 23:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

   Actually I read the block log wrongly. I thought the blocks were from 2009, not 2008. You're right there, sufficient time has elapsed for those indiscretions to be overlooked. Apologies to the candidate. That said, the IP editing stuff is still a killer. IP editors get a rough time around here, particularly when you consider that some of the best contributions come from anonymous folks and that a lot of the high grade fuckwittery that goes on is generated by named accounts. We don't need another admin who carries an entrenched bias against the IP set. MtD (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for striking that part of your oppose. I guess we'll just have to agree to differ as to whether an admin's views as to how policy should change are relevant to their role in using the tools in accordance with policy. ϢereSpielChequers 00:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose Absolutely not, per question 5. Sorry, wrong attitude. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I'm sorry, but the attitude reflected in the answer to Q5 leaves me feeling quite uneasy. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose, per Q5. I don't know what the current figures are, but in 2004 and 2007, although 80% of vandalism is by IP editors, over 80% of edits by unregistered editors were not vandalism - in Feb 2007, 62.5% of edits were constructive ones by registered editors, 29.4% were constructive IP edits, 6.5% were unconstructive edits by IPs and 1.6% were unconstructive edits by registered editors. If you removed all the good IP edits, we'd have a much much poorer encyclopedia (see the essay Wikipedia:IPs are human too -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

   PhantomSteve, those are certainly compelling numbers if accurate. I haven't personally seen any data on the issue before, and I am certainly open to adjusting my opinion as I become privy to more of the facts. Unfortunately, all I have to go on right now is my own experience, and thus my own personal view is possibly an imperfect reflection of that. Lastly, as a potential counterpoint – I would add that the "unknown variable" in your statistical sample is how many of those ip’s would still have added material if registration was mandatory – versus how many would have bothered to register with the sole intention of vandalizing. For instance, if mandatory registration still got you 23 of the 29.4 % of valuable ip additions, but only .5 % of the 6.5 % of vandalism, I would argue the tradeoff could theoretically be worth it.    Redthoreau -- (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

   More info is at User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysis (possibly some of that page could be copied into the "IP's are human" page); there's also an essay called Who Writes Wikipedia that may be interesting. I suspect the proportions have changed somewhat, though. —Soap— 00:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

   FWIW, Redthoreau, I used to hold your position a while ago, and at some point (can't remember when - some years) changed my mind based on evidence like that from Phantomsteve. Rd232 ^talk 00:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

6. Oppose. The Guevara articles (especially Che Guevara in popular culture) are political hagiographies. I can't support a candidate who cites these as their best content contributions. I am also troubled by the "name-drop" of a PhD in order to advance an RFA, per SG. Skinwalker (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
7. As per the answer to Q6. Administrators should not be shown any special consideration in 3RR disputes, or in any other disputes come to that. Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

   No, but users making good faith attempts to draw on BLP exemptions to 3RR should. Rd232 ^talk 00:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

   Quite, whether they are administrators or not. The candidate's answer to Q7 has just confirmed me in my view. Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

8. Per question 5. Just this morning, I logged on and found that five seperate IP users had made nothing but constructive contributions to one of the articles on my watchlist, far quicker and just as effectively as any registered user. Denying IP users the right to edit denies us contributions that are just as valuable as those from us with accounts; I think it's completely the wrong mentality. C628 (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
9. Oppose - I was ready to support until I saw Che Guevara in popular culture. Yikes. That article is an alarming demonstration of everything that Wikipedia is not. (In particular, from WP:POPCULTURE:'Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged'.) Sorry to oppose over it, but I just don't feel you have a strong understanding of what Wikipedia is for. Robofish (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

   ? He mentioned 6 articles, of which 2 are Good Articles, 1 B-class, 2 on the way there. The one you highlight is indeed rather listy - but let's not lose perspective. Rd232 ^talk 00:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

10. Oppose based on a number of factors. First off, you have a very...colourful user talk. I don't wish to debate its aesthetic merits, but it does make it rather difficult to communicate with you, especially for a newer user (75% of the page is non-discussion material!). Second, Che Guevara in popular culture, which you list as one of your "best contributions", really should be shortened significantly if not deleted - echoing concerns above, it falls under WP:NOT. Third, concerns about IPs, while understandable given your experience base, are generally not helpful given our claimed dedication to open editing. Fourth, looking through your user contributions I come across pages like this one, in which a number of problems with your discussion style present themselves - potential biteyness, lack of awareness of what the NPOV tag requires, lack of AGF while demanding it of another editor, "pulling rank" on a newer editor, etc. I could go on, but this is already TL;DR. Short version: multiple factors in combination make me unable to support. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
11. Oppose This guy is a communist POV pusher YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral per Q5. Not sure I approve of your opinions on IP editors. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

   I can respect that Sarek, although I hope you understand that I gave you my "personal belief", that bears no real relation to how I would act as an administrator. You asked a philosophical question, and I hope you would at least value that I gave you my honest answer.    Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

   I do value that. It would have been easy for you to say "Oh, that's an old userbox I never got around to removing", but you gave me a straight answer. I don't know if that opinion will affect your admining or not -- it's entirely possible we'd agree on every action you took. However, I'm not sure of that at this point, so I'll sit down here in Neutral for the moment and see what else comes up. Could change my mind. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

2. Neutral. At this point. Q5. Could change my mind; it's a long time before the RFA closes. "You can edit this page right now is a core giding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred." Even for IPs. Saebvn (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

   I value that view Saebvn, but would posit that "sacred" reverence for any man-made policy, has the potential for creating stifling groupthink and not the sort of intellectual atmosphere that produces quality results. All situations in my view should be seen as fluid, and ip editing ability (which has already been curtailed through semi-protection, pending revisions etc) is hardly sacrosanct. As a nuanced aside, I don’t support the current concept of pending revisions, but do support philosophically the idea of mandatory registration. It is merely my own view, that I don’t expect anyone else to endorse or share.    Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

3. Per Sandy, will change to support if confirmed, as question 5 is a personal opinion. Secret ^account 00:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)