Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:38, 25 September 2008

SoWhy

Voice your opinion (talk page) (68/11/6); Scheduled to end 18:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

SoWhy (talk · contribs) - Long-term user, who has recently become much more prolific. Handy vandal-basher, with some clue on deletion process, though slightly less than experienced at XfD. I've grilled him lightly at his talk page, and his recentish editor review also offers some useful insights. Looks a goody to me. Dweller (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) — I originally added a support to this RfA thinking it was live, but alas it was not. However, now I'm here, I feel like I should probably give a co-nomination to SoWhy because his RfA is on my watchlist, meaning I have a lot of respect for the guy. What SoWhy lacks in WP:AfD is made up for by his countless (go ahead and try) contributions to WP:AIV, and I presume, without him evening filling out the below questions yet, that's where his activity will be most noticible. Definitely a net-positive all round, being a person with no intent for anything but improving the en-wiki. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept and am grateful for Dweller's trust and his "grilling" and for Cyclonenim's co-nom and his kind words. SoWhy 18:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Well, as both my nominators point out, I am interested in helping with WP:AIV. I am also a new page patroller and thus am tagging stuff for speedy deletion (or proposed deletion, so I intend to do that as well. And last but not least I am always keeping a watchful eye at WP:RFPP and would like to help with page protections. And, finally, I am of course watching WP:AN and WP:ANI already and have tried my best to help people there. At the moment this consists mainly of guiding them but I'd like to be able to help them immediately. Currently there are days when I log in and see reports or requests that have not been handled for hours and I'd like to do what I can to help with that. I will not be working in areas I have few experience in, like AfD (as pointed out in the noms), until I have gained some. Unless it's a clear case that is of course.

So, for people who do not want to read all that above: AIV, AN/ANI, CSD/PROD, RFPP and everything else I see that need to be done. :-)

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

A: Well, I am a WikiGnome, so I will not gain any support for GAs/FAs written. I have none, because I am not able to write so much at a time.

So my answer is: Most contributions I did are quite good in my opinion. As for things I did myself, I think I quite like List of NCIS episodes which I expanded vastly and am still maintaining mostly, there not being a NCIS WikiProject. Or my rewrite of the plot summary of Nation (novel). I write when I see something needing expansion and I know of the subject but I usually fix and expand in little ways or create needed stubs where I know of the subject (like with A Hundred Million Suns). But, to repeat myself, I am mainly fixing/helping with stuff, not creating it.

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: Who hasn't? I usually try to avoid having stress with other users, trying to talk to them or trying dispute resolution.

One particular user comes to mind, Fasach Nua (talk · contribs · logs · block log). I was watching Italy national football team since the World Cup 2006, because people tend to vandalize teams they do not like. So this user has a certain viewpoint of WP:N and WP:V and went ahead and deleted everything about notable players, citing the lack of sources. I reverted it, notifying the user that he should discuss such deletions beforehand. He started to edit-war, I did a bit but stopped myself. I warned him for 3RR but wrote a lengthy paragraph to him that he should discuss it. It ended at other venues then, at WP:RFC/U (Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Fasach Nua 2) and WP:ANI but I kept away from it afterwards, because I was biased and did not want to influence the processes. I consider this a good way to go, because input by uninvolved parties will help much more than trying to reason with an user that thinks you are biased against them.

Questions from Pedro

4. What damage, if any, do you believe over-zealous speedy deletions may cause to Misplaced Pages?

A. Well, they cannot do any damage on the technical level. All deletions can be reviewed and reverted after all. But on a personal level, they can lead to be look BITEy to the page creator. It might scare away potential good editors and I personally think that in doubt it should be avoided and PROD or AfD used instead.

5. What are your criteria for granting rollback?

A. The editor should be trusted to not wrack havoc. They should have a good steady edit history without any blocks for edit warring or suchlike (in the last month(s)). If they have not enough edits to judge them, then I'd grant it if a trusted editor, who got it, vouches for them (for example I did so for one of my adoptees). To make it short: The user should be trusted not to use the permission to edit war and if there is no indication that they will, there is no reason to deny it.

Optional Question from User:WereSpielChequers

6. Do you agree with all of the[REDACTED] policies, if not what don't you agree with, and what if anything would you do about it as an admin?

A. All I know of, in their existence at least. There is none that I would want to get rid of but some I think that could be changed. WP:N for example is too strict in some cases and I am more for "wiki is not paper" when it comes to discussing articles on the brink of notability. And WP:IUP is too strict but that is owed to the copyright laws I fear. But I will not change anything if I were made an admin. Because the only thing I could try to change would be WP:N but I do not think that needs a policy change - just a change of mind for some people. But there is no admin-button for that ;-)

Clarification: As some people expressed concerns with this answer, I want to add something (which I wrote below in a cmt to Juliancolton):

I just think "wiki is not paper" when it comes to 50/50 cases of notability, as in "When in doubt, keep it". But that does not mean I think everything should be kept or that everything passes WP:N. Just that sometimes I'd keep what others like to delete, based on the fact that keeping it will not cost us anything ("no paper wasted" so to speak) while deleting it may lose us potentially valuable content. But, I cannot stress this enough, WP:N is very important and there is much that fails it, even from my inclusionist point of view. And that's just how I argue in AfDs; no matter what, it would never influence my decisions as admin because the outcome of an AfD is to be judged by the !votes there, not by what the closing admin thinks. SoWhy 18:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Random, Optional Question from La Pianista

7. This was originally User:Xavexgoem's question, but I like it as well: If you could change one thing on Misplaced Pages that you think would improve it, what would it be?

A. Hard question. Let me ask a question in return: Something that could be changed or something that is impossible to change but should be changed? :-)

Either. You could give me multiple responses, if you like. :) —La Pianista 20:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is not much that should be changed that can be changed - in fact I cannot think of any problem with Misplaced Pages that cannot be put down to some people acting irrationally and/or destructive. Most processes here work fine. What needs to be changed is the way people act (see Q6 above) but there is no way to do it. No matter how many how-to's you post, how many instructions are written, there is always someone ignoring them and most times they will be annoyed when you point that out. And people keep on edit warring, making personal attacks and suchlike, which is the most disrupting thing here (stupid childish vandalism is a piece of cake in comparison). People's minds should be changed to be less inclined on personal attacks and fighting without being willing to talk...but that's impossible I'm afraid.

Optional ;) Questions from User:NuclearWarfare

8. Do you have any specific policy regarding recall towards recall that you are willing to implement?

A. No, I haven't. Simple as that. I think of course that the admin bit should be revoked if the trust of the community does not exist anymore but I do not have a recall procedure thought out specifically for me. I might do so after a successful RfA but even if I don't, I rest assured that there are already some effective mechanisms in place to take it from me if needed.

9. This is a question that would probably pop up more at a RfB, but I think might be a good idea to ask here: Do you believe that people should be allowed to vote against RfAs for any other reason except general account editing? For example, would you say that people can vote against an admin prospect due to their age?

A. I think that's a good question. And it's easy to answer: No, they shouldn't. They can but they shouldn't. RfA is to determine if someone will not misuse the tools - not a popularity contest or anything. If someone is underage and does a good job, how can the age be a reason for opposing? Or the political opinion, religious belief or philosophy for that matter? Noone is a better or worse admin for being a Democrat, a Socialist, a Christian, an atheist, whatever. They are or are not good admins for their work and their contributions. If their views or characteristics do not influence their editing, how can that be a reason to oppose? But, to be clear, they can do so, if they like. There is no censorship after all :-)

10. This is usually Xeno's question, but I like it too: As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A. Ah, yes, Xeno's question. It is a tricky situation, no question about it. If I had blocked an IP, I would always try to ask some other admin to review those requests. Because I could not be unbiased, even if I tried very hard. You have the knowledge in your head and it will influence you, so I think someone uninvolved should handle it.

If I really had to decide myself, I think I'd unblock the IP, if I had some time on my hands in the next hour(s) following the unblock and keep an eye on it. It'd be worth a try imho. But as I said I would rather not want to handle an unblock request from a user I blocked for vandalism.

Clarification: I am sorry if it sounded like I was unable to assume good faith. I just wanted to point out that no matter how much you try to be unbiased, your sub-consciousness knows what happened. It will not influence you directly, but you might be influenced nonetheless. My problem is more that I'd assume more good faith than necessary. As I said, I'd unblock the user in this question, even though he did some pretty bad vandalism. But I'd really really like someone else to give their opinion first because the only person who is truly unbiased per definition is the one who was not involved. SoWhy 07:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Protonk (talk)

11 I'll try and make this distinct from Q3. When have you really screwed up on wikipedia? What did you learn from it? Why did it happen? Alternately, if you feel you can retain anonymity, you can answer this with a real life anecdote. I'm not asking this in the "job interview" sense—I don't want a "well, I didn't look both ways before crossing the street to volunteer at a homeless shelter" kind of answer. I'm also not looking for an example of interpersonal issues (like a feud or argument), those are covered neatly under Q3.

A: Well, apparently with a userbox about my antitheistic point of view in this RfA. But seriously, I make mistakes, not that seldom I am afraid. Most times I realize them before saving a page. As B pointed out in his oppose, I did for example a very stupid CSD#A7 tagging few months ago. I also did some other mistaken CSD taggings back then but mostly I reverted them and changed my attitude to deletion in general (see Q4). Same with Huggle, sometimes I mistake a good faith edit for vandalism, for example if the subject of the article really said "fuck you, you bitches!". I reverted it but then realized that it was actual content and reverted my mistakes. The best I could do is to learn from it. There are surely more minor screw-ups, but I cannot recall any particular "really screwed up"-case. I will try to remember and will amend my answer (or post at your talk) if and when I recall something.

Optional question from SchfiftyThree

12. You mentioned in the first question that you are interested in WP:AIV. Here is an optional question that you may answer: A newly registered user, who has been here for less than two months, makes a request for using rollback. The user has spent about 85% reverting persistent vandalism, and has had approximately 15% participating in mainspace work. Upon searching the user's contributions and finding over 150 vandalism reversions, would you give the rights to them? If not, why not?

A: Well, it's a borderline case. 150 reverts are great but not much, because it means they have only ca. 175 edits in total. I would see what the other 15% look like, if there are any indications that they might abuse it. Also, I will review the user's "community"-side, for example if they were adopted (see Q5 above). But going from the facts you tell me, I'd decline it and would ask the user to re-apply when he did some more edits (say ~350), just to be sure. I do not think I'd expect too much (like 2000 mainspace edits) but I'd like to have something to judge upon. Such questions are hard to answer in theory of course, as I pointed out above, and I would never grant rights just based on such numbers alone.

Question from Keegan

13. Have you ever edited with another account? Bear in mind I have no suspect basis for asking this question.

A: Not really. I registered back in 2004, when my favorite nick name was still available and I never once had a reason to change it. I do have an alternative public account called Yhwos (talk · contribs) but that's just for public PCs and not used at the moment (as I usually edit at home or at work).

Optional questions from  Asenine 

14. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?

A: Short answer: verifiability. After all, we can reach consensus that the moon is made out of cheese easily. But that does not mean that the moon is made out of cheese - just that we agreed that it was.

Long answer: In the end, the newbie is right according to policy. But that will not appease the people defending the consensus. The newbie should be advised to discuss the edit on the talk page because there might be reasons for the consensus or sources that just have been forgotten to be included or were removed by a vandal. It is possible... If the consensus version is without sources and the majority advocating it does not want to see it, then I think a RFC is in order to get input by uninvolved but experienced editors. If they majority advocating the old consensus still refuses to change their mind despite the unverifiability of this version, it should be brought to the attention of administrators who can then take the necessary steps. But I do not think that this will happen after an RFC because the RFC should take care of the problem. In the end, Verifiability has to win (that's why WP:CONEXCEPT correctly states that consensus cannot decide that another policy (like WP:V) should be ignored).

15. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?

A: Well, I got five adoptees (although 2 of them are inactive), so that shows that I am patient with inexperienced users, a bit at least. As for resolving problems with angry users, well, I am sure I did it whenever I felt able to (mostly on WP:AN and WP:ANI). Sometimes users come to me to complain that I reverted them (like here or here). But most times it was a misunderstanding or a trivial mistake and I tried my best to explain. You will notice, if you browse through my contributions, that I always try to be as patient as possible when someone comes to me and is complaining angrily. I will provide further examples once I recall them. :-)

16. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If not so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?

A: Not being the most prolific article writer to begin with, I think I will just do continue as I did before. I am at the moment already mostly supporting users, patrolling pages, fighting vandals and so on.

So with a mop and bucket, I can block them instead of reporting them to WP:AIV, delete pages instead of tagging them with WP:CSD, protecting pages instead of asking at WP:RFPP or help users with admin related problems at WP:AN/WP:ANI directly instead of having to point out where they should take their complaints to (like when someone asks for page protection there, I will still tell them about WP:RFPP for future uses but I could handle the specific request). So I do not think I will shift my attention much, with exceptions of course, for example when I notice need for admin tasks somewhere I usually do not look at much (like backlogs at WP:UCFD, WP:TFD or WP:MFD).

Optional question from Juliancolton (talk · contribs)

17. Yous said in your answer to question #6 that you believe WP:N is too strict, and you believe so because Misplaced Pages is not written on paper. Please explain how you would deal with an AFD on a semi-notable person, with both the editors who believe it should be deleted and those who don't having a strong argument.

A: Before I answer something that does not fit the question, please clarify: Is the question how I would close an AfD with all editors agreeing that it should be deleted? Or how I'd close one with some keep-!votes that have no strong argument but some strong delete-!votes? Or is it about how I would !vote in such an AfD?

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. In an AfD, where keep-votes and delete-votes are the same in quanitity, how would you close it as an administrator?

A: If both keep and delete !votes were the same in quantity and quality (i.e. strength of argument), I'd close it as "no consensus", which defaults to keep. But really only if both sides were making equally strong arguments. If they only are equal in numbers but one side makes the stronger arguments, I'd probably see that as consensus and act accordingly (i.e. close as keep or close as delete/merge/redirect and do the necessary work). But if there is some doubt or if I am unsure, I would consult another admin first, because letting it run for some more time is better than spawning a DRV.

General comments

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

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

Discussion

• Short Notice: While I stay with my viewpoint about the userbox, I agree that it could sound a little like it opposes the people believing something instead of the belief itself. I decided to replace it with User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Lennonist which says the same thing in a way but is hopefully less open to misinterpretation. I do not hope to win over opposers with that but maybe it can avoid more drama here. Regards SoWhy 22:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• I find the argument that SoWhy is not interested in content to be flawed, as 59% of his edits are to the mainspace. Thoughts? Maxim_(talk) 22:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Nom. --Dweller (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Co-nom. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Co-co-nuts? Erm, anyway. I have seen SoWhy getting involved in many difficult situations and certainly looks like admin potential. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
4. So why not? --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 19:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Sure. Everything I've seen has been fine. May as well. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

   Support As with WBOSITG, I've seen SoWhy around quite a bit in difficult situations, and from what I've seen, he'll do just fine with the tools. –Juliancolton 19:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC) changed to neutral

6. Support; I rarely support on RfA's, choosing only to comment on those when I need to oppose, but what the hell. I'd always assumed he was an admin, just shy about it :P. Ironholds 19:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Knows guidelines extremely well, can really help as a sysop. —Sunday | Speak 19:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

   naerii 19:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

8. Support per WP:SoWTHN. The candidate is a good editor who has sufficient clue to be a good admin. No concerns. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 19:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Support I already offered to nominate him, but I'll just support now. -- how do you turn this on 19:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Support - No concerns here. Xclamation point 19:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Support good natured and evidence of pedia building. Can be trusted.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Support See no reason to oppose. LittleMountain5 20:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Support. No worries. --Kbdank71 20:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
14. Support Seen him/her around. No worries. Seems competent, seems committed. --Anthony.bradbury 20:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
15. Strong Support I've gone through a couple of hundred of the candidate's edits without seeing anything to quibble about, and have seen good use of different warning levels. Also I like the answers and on more than one occasion where our paths have crossed the candidate has shown sense. ϢereSpielChequers 20:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
16. Support Looks good, looked at some contributions and everything seemed fine, answers to questions are fine. See nothing that makes me think candidate will misuse the tools. Davewild (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
17. Support Per well-thought-out answer to Q7. Also, seems to have the right temperament for a great admin. —La Pianista 21:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
18. Support Based on the answers above, and seems sane and rational. I don't have any reason not to trust them. rootology (C)(T) 22:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
19. Strong Support As a fellow member of the Evil Atheist Cabal, how can I not support? ;) No really, I liked how you put some time and effort into answering the questions. Your edits also show a solid understand of Wikipedian processes. Good luck :) NuclearWarfare _{My work} 22:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
20. Support, a helpful and rational user, I have no concerns. ~ mazca 22:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
21. Support - user OK. macy 22:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
22. Support Any RfA candidate with such lame oppose !votes must be ok. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
23. Support - Not ideal answers to some questions but good ones to mine :). The opposers need to demonstrate at what times the candidates theological (or rather lack of it) ideology has impaired his ability to edit neutrally. The fact that there appears to be no evidence of this at all through diffs strongly suggests to me that SoWhy would be an excellent admin. We shouldn't need to care what editors believe unless it shows up in their editing - only then is it a problem. Here it is not. Pedro :  Chat  22:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
24. SoWhy not? iMatthew (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
25. Support I've seen him around. Sam 23:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
26. Support Contributions seem solid. I like the answers to questions too, particularly #4. The userbox doesn't bother me, but it suggests you blame religion for your/the world's problems, so I can see why people would take offense to it. If this passes, it'll probably come back to bite you in the ass eventually (taking it down wouldn't be a bad idea).--KojiDude 23:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
27. Strong Support for an editor with a record of sound and constructive contributions. Granting the tools here would to the advantage of the 'pedia. X Marx the Spot (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
28. Hello, my mommy says that Keeper76 is my real daddy, and I need to take a DNA test to determine...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: Support for a very, very worthy candidate! Ecoleetage (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
29. Support from answers given, seems to have the right attitudes and is unlikely to go crazy. Userboxes? Pah! --Rodhullandemu 00:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
30. Weak Support. Okay, but a few comments make me squirm just a bit. He seems to advise newer users about how to play the system, e.g. to hide their ages, because it might be used against them in a discussion. Also, very strong on policy knowledge, but I don't know if he actually understands how policy works (rather than just what it says) – seems to rely on spewing forth acronyms at people. OTOH, he's a reasonably strong candidate, who's not going to blow everything up. — Werdna • talk 00:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
31. Support I have seen him around the Wiki, especially on ANI. Also a trustworthy candidate. SchfiftyThree 00:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
32. Support Userbox makes this user's NPOV and otherwise great editing look that much better. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
33. Support per userbox. User does not believe in a supreme being and thus will be fully accountable for their own actions, rather than pointing to the "will of God" or the like. We need our admins to show good judgement and weigh-up evidence, and the userbox clearly demonstrates this quality George The Dragon (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
34. Per bizarre, conspiracy theory opposes, oh and great editor too! — Realist 01:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

    Does that first part really serve any purpose, or is it just supposed to be a kick in the crotch?--KojiDude 02:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

    A kick in the crotch, I’d say. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

    That would be a lapse of AGF on your part, oh wait...— Realist 03:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

    “Assuming good faith” has its place in the world, but not when someone calls your beliefs a “bizarre conspiracy theory.” You can’t assume that every comment is made in good faith. That would be ridiculous. And, by the way, I notice that you did not assume that my comment was made in good faith. Thank you for revealing your hypocrisy for the world to see. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

    If a legitimate Christian user is blocked (I've seen it happen several times), it would take an admin to unblock them. And, like I said, there are very few, if any, Christian admins. Most admins are atheists and they would not want to risk loosing their admin status to unblock a user they don't agree with / I do not believe that a Christian should willingly vote a non-Christian into a position of power, whether it be the power to rule a country or the power to delete a page on a website. - Your words Andrew, not mine. — Realist 14:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

    Really you two, keep this on the talk page. You're both taking this way out of hand. DiverseMentality 22:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

35. Support - Per Pedro. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 02:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
36. Support. Seems to know what he's doing and most of his speedy deletion tags were done correctly. A pretty liberal userpage, but I did steal one of his userboxes. Useight (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
37. There's no Santa support. Everyme 03:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
38. Support. So why not? Even from my Christian POV, I find opposing because of their userbox pretty preposterous. After all, this isn't exactly Conservapedia. bibliomaniac15 03:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
39. Support No major problems. J.delanoy_adds 06:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
40. Support. Atheism shows good judgment. Oh wait, a review of the candidate's edits shows them to be competent and capable as well... RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 06:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

    Knock it off. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 06:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

    I agree. Ryan, that was pretty offensive. bibliomaniac15 21:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

41. Support - his edits, judgment and clue are good. This is extrinsic from his religion (or lack thereof), and his userboxes are not causing any hesitation here. —Anonymous Dissident 06:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
42. Support: Question 4 did it for me. The user feels the world is better off without religion? Eh, so did Ben Franklin. Perhaps the candidate will invent something. _{talk at me} 07:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
43. To balance out the idiotic oppose reason. John Reaves 07:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
44. Support as long as you promise not to go rogue and block all us crazy theists. But in all seriousness, I've seen this user around doing great stuff for the project, and I find myself quite disappointed by the folks voting oppose because he's atheist. Imagine the uproar if someone voted against a Christian for his religion? Oy vey. L'Aquatique 07:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
45. Totally Support SoWhy adopted me and has been nice to me, he rocks, is awesome and is very dedicated to the project also to mr andrew k that is a very silly reason in my opinion what i find more relevant is that he is an evil socialist.No Hollaback Girl (talk) 07:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
46. Support. Per the noms. Positive contributor to the project in many varied capacities. Cirt (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
47. Support. This user-box trifle is just evidence of the differences in culture between the US and Europe. In northern european culture, saying "This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion." would not commonly be considered provocative or divisive and definitely not as something meant to be offensive, but just a statement of opinion well within the acceptable bounds of the zeitgeist. henrik•talk 11:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
48. One Userbox War is enough. We cannot afford another one. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
49. Support No reason for concern, a net positive to the project. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
50. Support Good user so why not? ;) abf /talk to me/ 12:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
51. Support Seems to have one of the most two of the most important attributes of a good admin (or editor) Thoughtful, and prepared to admit he can be wrong. --Nate1481 13:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
52. Support Upon review of SoWhy's contributions; seems fine. -SpuriousQ (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
53. SoWhyNot? Stifle (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
54. Support - I have no problem with his opinions on religion, in fact, I agree with them. Everyone is entitled to express themselves. Perhaps it's a good idea he has those userboxes, because then he's admitting that he has bias if he edits any article(s) pertaining to religion, which would thus prevent him from making any major changes. Additionally, after looking through some of his recent contributions, I see no troubles whatsoever. Will make a competent admin. Utan Vax (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
55. Per John Reaves. Avruch 14:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
56. Support Nullifying Andrew Kelly's "vote" as illegitimate grounds.--Tznkai (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
57. Support Answers to questions are honest and largely in line with what we would expect from a prospective administrator. I really, really, really don't get the userbox issue. Honestly don't get it. It's 40px by 120px (or whatever). It isn't the end of the world. Would[REDACTED] be a better place if he had never put the userbox there? Maybe. But I can say that about almost any userbox that announces a personal opinion about the world. I might be better off for not having seen the userbox, but the editor who placed it found it and put it there for a reason. Likely, it was just a lark. Or the user is happier for having put it on there. It is, after all a volunteer project. We do things in our userpace that are inside our comfort zones and most of the time that comfort zone is different than from our activities other places. I might use the word "fuck" on my talk page. It is pretty unlikely that I would use it on, say, the Miley Cyrus talk page. If you think the userbox is polemical, MfD is that way. If you feel that it is not bad enough to merit deletion but crosses some invisible threshold of "bad userboxen for admins", please consider the impact that applying hidden and arbitrary conditions on adminship will have. If you think that this userbox peers into the editor's soul and reveals his true prejudice...you should take a deep breath. Because it doesn't. Special:Contributions/SoWhy is that window to the soul. Please oppose or support based on that link Protonk (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
58. Strong Support I first encountered this editor when he was the only one to comment on my Editor Review. SoWhy is civil, active, and obviously supports the best interests of the project. A prolific adopter of new editors, SoWhy provides good guidance to those adoptees as is clearly evident on his talk page. I especially support the full-disclosure of potential COI problems covered by the userboxen on SoWhy's userpage. That is what we are supposed to use them for. An editor who discloses this much about their personal interests is obviously not trying to hide an agenda. I have no concerns about giving SoWhy the buttons, and there is no reason to oppose according to the actual requirements laid out in the Admin policy. Jim Miller 15:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
59. Support Beliefs and ideals aside, SoWhy is a worthy editor. They have my full support. Jordan 16:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
60. Support - looks like a solid enough editor; editing and judgment surrounding it is the important thing. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
61. Support. Good contributions and good answers. Axl ¤ 17:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
62. Support - good contributions, fine question answers, people opposing over a userbox is perhaps going too far... Ale_Jrb 18:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
63. Support - I can't find a reason to oppose, he will make a fine administrator IMO. Landon1980 (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
64. Support - Good answers, good contributions, and his anti-religious stance should not make him a villain, but an individual. bigjake (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
65. Weak support. I would have liked to see a bit more article-writing, but overall a good editor with a solid record. Will be an asset as an admin, particularly at AIV. Nsk92 (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
66. Support - Thoughtful answers (better with some of the clarifications) and good contributions. I also like the My WikiPhilosophy section on his userpage. --Jh12 (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
67. Weak Support. While I don't care about that userbox, I do believe that it is important not to judge users on their real-life stances and views. That said, I will support--though I will caution you not to act biased in any argument involving religion that you are asked to preside over. Malinaccier (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
68. Strong Support Because his Contributions are positive enough for me to make this WP:POINT without neccesitating the rise of a bad admin, but more importantly because his own personal opinion pissed off a load of idiots (that's my opinion, zomg don't argue with me, it's like the law and stuff that I can say whatever I want without rebuttal) and it's fun to see them make asses of themselves with contradictory Freedom of Speech comments, while sitting back and laughing at the fact they believe in an imaginary man in the sky who supports senseless murder of people with differing opinions. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

    Jimmi, that wasn't necessary. Oh yeah, you don't have unrestrained freedom of speech on Wikipeida. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

    Oh well, it wasn't necessary for this user to have any negative comments concerning his User Boxes, given his positive contribution history and the fact he's never shown bias (that i could see) todo with religion on actual topics. Also, Vandalism isn't freedom of speech as long as you're still allowed to express those opinions, that was my point, shame you support ignoring the rules for the masses of drone religious idiots but not for the one supporter who takes it all lightly :) - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose based on "The world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion" userbox. If you could have only stopped at the "this user is an atheist" userbox -- which is just fine as far as I'm concerned -- you might have had my vote. Keepscases (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

   Not to badger, but don't you suppose it would be better to look at the editor and his contrubutions, rather than his userboxes? Cheers, –Juliancolton 20:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

   Before we all get upset, let's remember that Misplaced Pages is not a battleground, users are entitled to oppose for whatever reason they see fit, and this RFA has a talk page. Just my 2p. Pedro :  Chat  20:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

   If you think this a good reason to oppose, so be it. I will not comment further here (but I'm happy to discuss it at the talk page if you wish), as I never thought RfA is about editor's personal opinions but their contributions. Regards SoWhy 20:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

   No one wins here, really. Freedom of speech allows users to place, within reason, any opinions they have on their user page. In the same way, people here can oppose for whatever reason they wish. I disagree with this oppose, especially because of the whole 'Misplaced Pages is not censored' policy which lets users to post these views, but that doesn't make this oppose less valid. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

   I wore my swastika t-shirt to my job interview at the deli the other day. I just can't understand why I didn't get the job! I was so much more experienced than the other candidates...the fact that I believe (and advertise) that the world would be better off without Jews is irrelevant. Keepscases (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

   For the record, I find this incredibly offensive. To compare someone with a "the world would be a better place without religion" userbox to the Nazis is not only illogical, but demeaning to the six million of my people who were killed by the Nazis... L'Aquatique 07:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   Keepscases, have you ever heard of Godwin's law and the its corollaries?--Nate1481 13:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   We are discussing religious intolerance, and the swastika is a relevant, well-known example of that. Remember, saying the world would be better off without ALL religions, means that the world would be better off without EACH religion. Meaning the world would be better off without Judaism, the world would be better off without Christianity, etc. In case I have to spell it out, my example is meant to show that the "only his CONTRIBUTIONS should matter" argument is absurd. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions, but I will never vote for a candidate who thinks it is a good idea to display such a divisive, potentially offensive userbox. Keepscases (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   Actually he is expressing an opinion, that is not intolerance, forcing that opinion on others is intolerance, it is a reference to religion its self not the believers and does not advocate genocide or mass murder as you have implied. Also saying that dose not make the user an atheist. More critically, the holocaust was more to do with ethnicity than religion as plenty of non-practising Jews were caught in it.

   You are just as entitled to your opinion as he is, my comment was on as comparison that was designed to prejudice other opinions. --Nate1481 16:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   You mean Misplaced Pages:Free speech? Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia first, second, third forth etc. There is no right to free speech, sure the community in general tolerates reasonable speech, but it isn't a right. Similarly WP:NOTCENSORED is based around article content, it isn't an invite for a free for all. See also WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOT#USER, WP:NOTANARCHY, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and probably numerous others. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

   This'll be the last post I do here in fear of clogging up the page, however, felt like I should reply. WP:NOTSOAPBOX is also based around article content. WP:NOT#USER is based around self-promotion, I see none of that here. WP:NOTANARCHY states "Misplaced Pages is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia", where is SoWhy interfering with the creation of an encyclopaedia? WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND is against personal attacks, conflicts of interest and acts against incivilty. Again, I see none of that.

   Basically, I don't think it's fit to class his opinion on the world being a better place without religion as a "free for all". —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

   Guess my point wasn't clear, it wasn't if it directly fits any of those, it's about if we have free speech and are uncensored in relation to our activities here, we don't and are not. As I already noted the community tolerates a reasonable amount of free expression. As to if such statements are within the level of reasonableness is of course a personal opinion, if someone wishes to object to it and feels strongly enough that if influences their opinion on that person, then that is fine. Essentially I read the response as saying that because[REDACTED] is not censored and a free speech makes such things permissible and therefore the objection unfounded, which as above is not the case. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   Mmm.. I smell Godwin's Law. We're talking about very distinct situations here. I personally agree with the candidate – the world would be a much nicer and happier place without religion. That does not mean that I believe in making it a happier and nicer place by killing all of the religious people, or by gassing them and so on. Your analogy is thick on rhetoric and emotional impact, but it's really a faulty one.

   In terms of the substantive matter, I don't agree that believing that religion is a negative influence on the world is damaging to the community. We all have our disagreements and differing philosophies. I think that people are taking things here as a "personal attack" because they feel that it attacks them as people of religion, rather than the concept of religion generally. It should be noted that my reading of the userbox is not that he feels the necessity to murder all religious people, but that he'd rather that religious people became irreligious, surely not a big problem in the scheme of things.

   And of course, none of this has anything to do with whether he's going to be an effective administrator :-) — Werdna • talk 00:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   • Keepscases, please consider that some might find it mildly offensive that you apparently think atheists and people who believe that "the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion" are 100% congruent groups. There are many non-trivial disinctions which you don't even acknowledge (or know of). There are e.g. tolerant Christians, tolerant Buddhists, and even a few tolerant atheists. I for one would call myself a tolerant ignosticist. I personally regard strong atheism (i.e. the belief that there is no God) as no less of a belief than any other religious belief and I regard as utterly ridiculous and unproductive most of the fighting over such an individual and private matter as faith. I don't believe that the world would be better off without religion, but I think we could do without intolerance. To that effect, you are partly right that the userbox displays some intolerance. But consider the hypocrisy in making that point at the expense of not even acknowledging spiritual distinctions that are very important to some. Believing that "the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion" is not the same as being an atheist or anything else really, and to say so is unnecessarily antagonising completely unrelated groupings of people, in several ways at once. Everyme 13:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   While your point is well taken, please note that my comment was prescient; the "incredibly offended" L'aquatique and other users seem to feel that these opposes are simply because the candidate is an atheist. And that's not what this is about. Keepscases (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   ::Before anyone else brings it up, I read the Andrew Kelly discussion and it appears that that user is indeed opposing simply because the candidate is an atheist. I don't agree with that rationale, and he appears to be the only opposer who has expressed it. Keepscases (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   (Although originally the user said that the userbox in question just went way too far, and that I agree with.) Keepscases (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Strong Oppose: This user will just be one more anti-Christian admin. Misplaced Pages has enough of those. The userbox mentioned above goes way too far. It is a personal attack and just plain wrong. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

   Moved discussion to talkpage. Ironholds 01:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   This vote should be considered in conjunction in commentary on the discussion page, in which the user making the vote stated, in certain terms, that he was opposing the candidacy due to his belief that non-Christians are unsuitable as administrators. — Werdna • talk 14:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   The vote should be considered only in conjunction with his reason given above. Andrew Kelly has the right to his beliefs, but he has supplied what I for one believe to be valid reasons for his oppose vote, above. This user is not the person running for administrator. If he were, and he was advertising that non-Christians should never be voted into positions of power, that would most certainly be a valid reason to oppose his candidacy. Keepscases (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose I think admins should be more restrained. There are a lot of things which scream agitated to me. « D. Trebbien (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Per Keepscases and Q2. Giggy (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose per the user box. Having respect for those with whom you disagree is an important thing and with that user box on your page, it calls into question your ability to deal fairly with users who believe differently than you do. Also, you are marking substantially all of your edits as minor, even ones which are clearly major. Only reverts of simple vandalism or insignificant spelling/formatting/etc fixes should be marked as minor. I am also concerned about this speedy request. Presumably, anything you would tag for a speedy as a non-admin you would delete as an admin and unilaterally deleting that article would obviously be a really bad idea. You had two minutes between your previous edit and that one. If this article had been something you found in new pages patrol that said "DAVId PUENTE IS MY BESTEST FRIEND EVER" ok, that takes 2 seconds. But it had been around for two years and had multiple (supposed) sources. Two minutes is not enough time to review the sources, review the history (to see if a better version existed previously) and make a determination to delete it. Getting it right is more important than throughput and edit count. --B (talk) 05:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   Well, respect is not the same as acceptance. I respect all editors here who try to make Misplaced Pages better, no matter what they think or believe. But it does not mean I have to lie about how I think, does it? I have always tried and will always try in future, no matter how this RfA ends, to not let any of my views influence my editing and so far I cannot recall any incident where it did. I supported candidates for adminship in the past whose philosophical views I do not agree with, based on the firm knowledge that they will not let these views influence their editing. I did not really expect that there will be so much outcry over one userbox (seeing that others use it as well, both that one and it's pro-religious counterpart). I apologize if that implied that I'd be biased against religious editors and/or articles.

   As for the minor edits, I always thought minor edits were those that do not need any review but I thought clarifications or minor rephrasings without changing the meaning are minor as well. Thank you for telling me, I will be more careful in the future :-)

   As for the speedy, you are correct of course. That was three months ago and I regretted it afterwards, but it has been removed already. I tried and learned from it hopefully. Regards SoWhy 07:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   There are appropriate fora for advocating your belief about religion - an encyclopedia is not one of them. If your user box said "this user is not religious", that's fine, but this user box goes beyond a simple statement of faith or the like. This message creates a potentially uncomfortable situation for a religious user to interact with you. It would be no different than if a Christian user had the userbox "This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place if everyone were a Christian". The stated goal of a lack of religious freedom and diversity is troubling. --B (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   Well, there is one, User:Tal642/my userboxes/SanerWorldReligion. It is the counterpart and is used by at least one admin as far as I remember, without anyone objecting to it on his RfA. So I never though the negative version could create such controversy. Regards SoWhy 12:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   I count zero admins at http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Tal642/my_userboxes/SanerWorldReligion ... that probably says something. --B (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   I count at least one: User:Sephiroth BCR, and checking the history, had it in place at the time of his RfA, in January of this year. Maedin\ 13:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

6. Lack of interest in content writing is a bad sign for reasons I've touched on at length elsewhere. Administrators are the public face of the project, and having a divisive userbox on one's userpage is bad PR. east718 // talk // email // 06:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Weak oppose - Whilst I strongly agree with the userbox in question, I don't think it is a good thing for a prospective admin to be displaying it. I realise that we are supposed to be commenting on contributions here, but to have an admin with such a divisive userbox in place would be both awful PR, and go against policy. Remember the discussion about those 'this user loves redheads', 'this user thinks blondes are beautiful', etc. userboxes? Well this is a lot, lot worse.  Asenine  09:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   I too have been thinking about that point. But seriously, it requires a leap of bad faith to go from this userbox to "he's a religion hater and would let that bias influence his contributions and his use of the admin tools" as some seem to believe. I won't cater to such an unfounded ABF. Everyme 13:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

8. I don't really care if he doesn't like religion, and I don't have any concerns that he will be biased. I just have problems with anyone that thinks its appropriate or necessary to put statements like that on their userpage. Really, how is it related to anything we do here? What's the point? It's just so stupid. I really wish people would stop posting userboxes related to religion, politics, or any of the other polarising topic areas, because it just causes no end of hand-wringing and hassle for no discernable gain. It just makes people look stupid and childish. Irritating. naerii 13:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   So, presumably you are going to move to oppose on Juliancolton's RfA, too, based on this new criteria? No offense whatever to Juliancolton, and I hope he doesn't mind me pointing it out for this purpose, but he has a userbox proclaiming his belief that every American has the right to bear arms and that happens to be something I disagree with strongly. It's a polarising topic, the debate still drags on in the United States. But you'll notice that I supported Juliancolton nevertheless, because how he feels about firearms, and whether or not he chooses to express that, and whether or not other people choose to let it make them look stupid, really has nothing to do with his suitability as an administrator. And that is, I believe, what we are here to decide...? Maedin\ 14:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   This argument is nonsense. Every American does have the right to bear arms. It's written down somewhere. WilyD 15:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. –Juliancolton 15:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   But his point stands. Just because they do have the right doesn't mean they should. So if I had a userbox that said "The second amendment really does refer to militias and doesn't describe how to handle meaningful gun policy in the 21st century" it would be akin to Julian's. Do we say that certain opinions are ok for admins to display and certain opinions are not? What if I had a userbox that said "I think republican policies are better than democratic policies", can I be an admin? Where does this line exist for userboxes that are too polemical for administrators but not polemical enough for MfD? Protonk (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   How about we allow every voter to decide for himself or herself? It amazes me that proponents of "freedom of speech" become surprised when people are actually (gasp) judged based on what they say. I think users have every right to display that userbox; hell, they can have one that says "I hate black people" for all I care; but they WILL and SHOULD be judged based on their choices of how to express themselves. Keepscases (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   Sure thing. But no one is suppressing you. No one is censoring you. We just happen to be asking questions and making responses. This is nominally a discussion, so if an opinion or claim is presented that is questionable or controversial, it will be discussed. If that is a problem, don't advance the claim. You are free in your 'oppose' to give whatever reason you like. Just as I or anyone else is free to support for whatever reason we like. Both sides should be open to discussing the merits of claims. Protonk (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   Right, and I'm not looking to censor or suppress either. The problem is that opposers' concerns have been misrepresented as "you must be calling for the userbox to be banned" or "you must want to enforce a rule that admins cannot have these userboxes". Speaking only for myself, I want neither of those. If this RfA should pass, so be it, and if so I hope he does a good job. Keepscases (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   No, it falls flat on its face. I think the earth is a planet that orbits the Sun to a reasonable approximation is a cold, hard fact. It's not contraversial. I think the Earth is the best planet in the Local Group is a potentially divisive opinion. Americans have the right to bear arms - cold, hard fact. The world would be better without religion - empirically untested opinion. These are different. WilyD 16:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   Really? Really? Come on. The application of the 2nd amendment (even after Heller) is exceedingly controversial. It is not a statement of empirical fact to say "I think americans have the right to bear arms". Partially because of the ambiguity of the 2nd amendment and partially because the converse is fuzzy. What about "I think a woman has the right to choose"? What about "I think the world was created 6,000 years ago"? We can't just sort these in to neat categories of "fact" and "opinion". Protonk (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   The line exists right here. "The world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion" is a completely inappropriate and uneccesary statement to make on your Misplaced Pages user page. And for the record, I'm an atheist. This is not about my or his beliefs, it's about the fact that he thinks there is somehow value in posting them in such an agressive manner on his user page. naerii 17:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   I apologise, I obviously chose a topic which was easy enough to turn into an argument of content rather than process. You are getting dragged into discussing the second amendment, and my comment to Naerii only used it as a close-to-hand example: the second amendment is irrelevant here. So, pretend it was a different userbox! The crucial point here is one of process, as it often is. The process is that any opinion stated by anyone about anything could be divisive and offensive to just about anybody. Let's imagine that Juliancolton's userbox was one of the "This user is a carnivore" userboxes with a picture of blood-red meat on it, and let's imagine that I'm a die-hard vegetarian. I could claim that Juliancolton is, therefore, cruel to animals and doesn't deserve adminship because he is insensitive to the views of all vegetarians on Misplaced Pages. Reasonable? Of course not, but unfortunately I can see it happening. Let's make it really ridiculous: Juliancoulton loves seafood, as his userbox says. My father died when I was 10 of an allergy to shrimp and I have an irrational hatred of all things seafood and all people who like it, and I choose to oppose because you are offending my view that seafood killed my father and is somehow inherently evil. Silly? Yep. It doesn't matter what the opinion is, and it doesn't even matter if it's fact or not, there are people who will react with emotion and will see it negatively. The only thing I was trying to point out is that if Naerii truly believes that all potentially problematic userboxes and opinions should not be proclaimed on the page of any adminship candidate because they make people stupid and are irritating, then I expect to see a heck of a lot of opposes from her in the future and also on Juliancolton's RfA: otherwise, SoWhy is being unfairly treated because a couple of users (at least one with a very extreme view) decided to point out a possibly controversial userbox. Otherwise, she probably wouldn't have noticed or even cared. If this isn't her true stance, then she was only reacting emotionally to the politics of this page and the talkpage, and that, in my view, is a very disappointing reason for her to retract her support. And for the record, it is not more aggressive than the opposite opinion, which no one objects to, and the value of making such statements already has a strong reasoning: that of proclaiming one's biases, and we all have them. As for "unnecessary" and "inappropriate", I go back to Juliancolton's imaginary carnivore userbox–how much more unnecessary can you get than a food preference on an encyclopedia? How much more unreasonable can you get than an encyclopedia contributor caring what the heck anyone eats and whether or not they care to say so? This is no more silly–some people have chosen to find a certain thing offensive, and somehow think that SoWhy's right to declare a bias is therefore non-existent. If the majority of the world were vegetarians, would we boycott the carnivores, here, too? I am not getting into content here: I am showing how the content is irrelevant. Can I encourage the editors involved with this argument to step back, step away from the subject matter, step away from the emotion that all of this has generated, and connect with some rational thought? Maedin\ 18:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   Please note that your hypotheticals are far closer to the "this user is an atheist" userbox, which is not the one that has led to the opposes. Keepscases (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   Please note the first sentence of my oppose; "I don't have any concerns that he will be biased". As for the second part, with all the "oh but what if he said he doesn't like fishfood" type argument - there is a line, and I draw the line at implying that people who follow religion are somehow lacking in sanity. It is not about the belief, it's about the way he chooses to state his belief. He doesn't have to proclaim on his user page that religion causes (a) unhappiness, (b) danger and (c) insanity. The mistake that you are making here is in assuming that all statements of opinion have an equal level of appropriateness. They don't. Am I reacting emotionally? I don't think so; as I said above, I am an atheist, and apt to agree with the userbox. But it shouldn't be there. There's simply no need to talk about religion so agressively on your user page. And yes, there's no need to talk about a lot of things on your user page, but there's a difference between "I don't like eating meat" and "this user thinks that the world would be happier, safer and saner without religion". I have no idea what to say to you if you can't see the difference. His comments above have just reinforced my view really; it's not about "lying about what you think", it's about knowing where and when to mention what you think. I would never, for example, say "Oh I think the world would be happier and saner without religion" whilst at lunch with my colleagues. And the place that SoWhy has chosen to put that statement is equivalent to going around with it emblazoned on your t-shirt. naerii 20:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

9. Oppose. I am nervous of administrators who believe that WP:N is too lenient strict. Misplaced Pages has standards for a great many reasons, and the standards are actually fairly low as it is. I'm also reluctant to give the tools to someone with little article building experience. WikiGnomes are incredibly valuable, but it is very difficult to have a full understanding of all of the guidelines and policies that govern article content if one is not creating much. Without that full understanding, it is more difficult to appropriately help those that are having content-related problems. Karanacs (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   With all due respect, he said "WP:N for example is too strict in some cases", which is the complete opposite of "WP:N is too lenient". Also, I fail to see your logic in article builders being greater in policy understanding than WikiGnomes since they are not likely to know the WikiGnome side of policies. SoWhy edits articles making minor edits, meaning he knows some of the guidelines for article building, and he knows the WikiGnome policies inside out. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you - that's what I get for deciding to rewrite my statement without proofreading it first! I've amended my comments. Karanacs (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

10. Oppose per Q2--Caspian blue (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

    This is ridiculous. Ask him to remove the stupid userbox, for Pete's sake! And then it'll all be over. For those of you who want to argue, go ahead and say I'm wrong, whatever. —Sunday | Speak 20:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

11. Oppose I have no issue with the userbox, that is his choice, but I do have a problem with Q2. Also, Lord Sunday, was it really nesscary to write what is above my oppose? I mean comeon here, if someone wants to oppose on a userbox, so be it. America69 (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now I have some concerns... but I'll have to look closer before I say anything solid. I've seen things that I like in SoWhy, but I've also seen some that I'm uncertain of... and think he needs to be vetted closer than I can right now.---Balloonman 21:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral. I was originally going to support, but after I read the answer to question number ten, I couldn't support a candidate who is unable to be unbiased and seems to be unable to assume good faith. DiverseMentality 03:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   I am sorry if it sounded like I was unable to assume good faith. I just wanted to point out that no matter how much you try to be unbiased, your sub-consciousness knows what happened. It will not influence you directly, but you might be influenced nonetheless. My problem is more that I'd assume more good faith than necessary. As I said, I'd unblock the user in Q10, even though he did some pretty bad vandalism. But I'd really really like someone else to give their opinion first because the only person who is truly unbiased per definition is the one who was not involved. SoWhy 07:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   I think acknowledging your biases and trying to avoid them is the closest you can get to a NPOV on an issue you care about. Interestingly if you read WP:Neutral Point Of View it make similar comments. Similarly on the good faith point stated in WP:ASG is that it is an assumption after a user has demonstrated repeated bad faith by their actions, 'keeping an eye on them' is simply sensible, to see if they have actually reformed or just looking for a way to cause more trouble. --Nate1481 13:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Neutral - Will change to support after a redux on userboxes as per oppose comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Changed to neutral per answers to the questions. –Juliancolton 12:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   Explaining my reasoning further. Some of your answers aren't bad, but the answer to #6 concerns me slightly, though it may just be my personal opinion. WP:N actually has very loose criteria compared to other encyclopedias, and while I am an inclusionist myself, I'm not sure I feel comfortable giving an editor with a "wikipedia is not paper" mindset the mop. This is not my only concern, however. Your answer to #2 also concerns me slightly, as, after all, we are an encyclopedia, and thus article writing should be a top priority. However, I initially supported for a reason. I'm going to watch how this RfA plays out for a bit, maybe ask a few questions, and I might be inclined to switch back to support. Cheers, –Juliancolton 13:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   Some comments on that, if I may:

   As for Q6, I just think "wiki is not paper" when it comes to 50/50 cases of notability, as in "When in doubt, keep it". But that does not mean I think everything should be kept or that everything passes WP:N. Just that sometimes I'd keep what others like to delete, based on the fact that keeping it will not cost us anything ("no paper wasted" so to speak) while deleting it may lose us potentially valuable content. But, I cannot stress this enough, WP:N is very important and there is much that fails it, even from my inclusionist point of view. And that's just how I argue in AfDs, no matter what, it would never influence my decisions as admin because the outcome of an AfD is to be judged by the !votes there, not by what the closing admin thinks.

   As for Q2, I understand what you mean. I try my best to write things and it can happen (as the example I provided there) that I will go and write 5k text from scratch. But most subjects I have knowledge about are already written quite well. And while this is an encyclopedia, it's open nature calls for people who clean up after the others. So while I try to write articles and contribute in major ways to them, most of the time I do what suits me better. Sometimes I regret that I lack talent for obscure hobbies or major rewrites and so I do what I can to make this a better place. Regards SoWhy 13:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   Juliancolton, I think you underestimate the value of wikignomes in building the encyclopedia. Without their efforts, the pedia will have many good articles of FA quality (such as the many you've worked on) but would neither have the breadth of coverage that it does have now (which is what makes it more interesting than the Britannica) nor would it have the many eyes that catch and fix small errors or inconsistencies that give the articles credibility. While article writing is important, article fixing is just as important. (As for Q6, do note that the candidate did say that this is his/her opinion and added 'there is no admin button for that'.) --Regents Park (smell my socks) 13:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

5. I came to support (because of the good, and sometimes excellent, comments by SoWhy in various places around en.wp) but that userbox may be a divisive issue, which may represent more than what it says at face value. Caulde 15:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   Well, the fuss about it seems to take its toll but what happened, stays happened. As I said before, I'd remove it if there was a policy against that but currently I think JimMiller put it best in his support: By displaying the userbox I do not only disclose my point of view but I make sure that everyone knows about it and my motives would become clear immediately if I were ever to decide to push some anti-religious agenda. As I said on this RfA's talk page, I think this RfA should not be about the userbox but if people think it is a "divisive issue" as you put it, it needs to be discussed with the community.

   That being said, I am happy to see that you have returned to the project and I have to thank you again. Your words at my editor review is part of why I accepted this nomination for adminship. Regards SoWhy 15:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   I too, am glad. I do agree it helps to an extent that the disclosure of views such as this, is to be benificial overall; since then, if any situation were to arise (which I likely doubt), the potential conflict of interest is discernible. Nevertheless, until that time, the PR management of such a userbox is in poor taste; I am sure you understand my rationale (its similar to East718's in the oppose section) and understand it forms only part of a neutral. I will not find myself in oppose, unless something more significant is to be brought up in discussion, which, as before, I doubt. Caulde 16:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

6. Neutral

   My opinion of this candidate is not something that can be sorted comfortably into simple "support" or "oppose" categories. Although I believe this user has a tremendous amount to offer this project, I have a number of issues with this him; firstly, he is a tremendously active new page patroller. I believe he may be slightly over zealous, bitey even, and his answer to question 4, Well, they cannot do any damage on the technical level. All deletions can be reviewed and reverted after all. But on a personal level, they can lead to be look BITEy to the page creator. It might scare away potential good editors and I personally think that in doubt it should be avoided and PROD or AfD used instead. does not give me confidence. Speedy deletions are exceptionally bitey, and while they can be reverted, they rarely are, and most new users who have pages speedily deleted will not understand the immense bureaucracy required to have the deletion reverted.

   Secondly, his choices in userboxes are not what I would call pacifist. I think the problem with the "thinks world would be better without religion" userbox is that most religious will interpret "the world would be a better place without religions" as "the world would be a better place without you". His userboxes with political opinions, advocacy of certain philosophical and political systems etc will also cause conflict. Personally I believe in the separation of real life and wiki, and so have no non-wikipedia related userboxes, and I advise the candidate to do likewise if he wishes to change the opinions of these opposers. It looks like this is going to pass anyway, but I still strongly recommend the candidate, and anyone who has userboxes that are to do with real life, to remove them. They state your opinion, which causes debate, which eventually leads to argument, incivility, ad homonym, and finally much drama on a noticeboard. Userboxes are just a pain IMO.

   Thirdly, his views on copyright, fair use and[REDACTED] are "unsatisfactory" in an admin to be polite. Misplaced Pages is free in all meanings of the word, meaning we are free for anyone to use without copyright restrictions. Having fair use images restricts the freedom of this site, as readers cannot use these images the way they would use our articles. Copyright violations should also be speedily deleted, not only because of the repercussions of allowing them, but because they cannot be freely used by our readers to "spread the knowledge"

   I absolutely agree with his views on notability, and his answer to question 6: wiki is not paper, and we can allow much more content in than other encyclopedias, though I do think we have to draw the line somewhere. I also strongly agree with his answer to Q7, there is not much wrong with process here on wikipedia, there are problems with users. He is right when he says that established users acting destructively are many times more damaging than the thousands of vandals we get every day.

   His answer to question 9 is particularly relevant to this RFA, people are opposing based on real life things, though as I said above, I strongly advocate the separation of real life and wiki, I don't think anybody is entitled to userboxes that have statements to do with real life.

   His answers to Asenine's questions were rather interesting. I agree with his answer to Q14, I have seen a scenario identical to this occur on a rather controversial page, and consensus won in the end after many references to WP:IAR, which was really irrelevant as what they were doing wasn't improving wikipedia. His huge amount of work with new users, in adoption and the like, gives me confidence in him, he will help new users and answer all inquirers. I would like to see some evidence of him taking insults well however. I am quite uncomfortable with non-writer admins, so I suggest he does some work in that area, even if it is only 1 GA.

   His answer to question 9 is particularly relevant to this RFA, people are opposing based on real life things, though as I said above, I strongly advocate the separation of real life and wiki, I don't think anybody is entitled to userboxes that have statements to do with real life.

   Finally, his answer to JulianColton's question wasn't exactly what I was looking for. Rather than closing as no consensus, which defaults to keep, I would relist to help generate more comments. As an aside, I am confused as to how he can hold such views on notability and yet be a rather prolific speedy deleter.--Serviam (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   Let me just answer to some of those concerns because I fear there might be some misunderstandings:

   • I know speedies can be BITEy, that's why I said they should be avoided if there is some doubt about them. I just wanted to discern technical and personal effects of speedy deletions.
   • I chose my userboxes to show everyone what I think and as JimMiller pointed out above, I also think that those serve to disclose what I think and show it to everyone, i.e. putting my cards on the table. I think there was a war about that in 2006, as MailerDiablo points out on the talk page. I am sure he can fill you in on the details what happened back then.
   • My views on copyright are my own. That's what I always thought. But as I pointed out in Q6, it's the law and (being a law student after all!) I will of course adhere the law to the letter. Like my political or philosophical standpoints, that is nothing I'd ever let influence my work here, as an editor or, if it passes, as an admin.
   • As for the answer to JulianColton's question, you are correct of course. I understood it that there was much discussion on that AfD so that relisting would not have brought any more users to it by all reasonable expectations. After all, you cannot relist forever if there is no consensus, in the end you have to face that outcome one day. Of course, if there were only few comments which are not enough to show real consensus, I'd relist it.

   Thanks for the long and in-deep statement, I appreciate it. :-) Regards SoWhy 20:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   The problem with your user box, isn't that it shows everyone what you think, but rather that you are taking making a political commentary in a manner that puts people who disagree with you down. I have user boxes on my page showing my political and religious affiliation for that exact reason, I have no problem with that. It would be a different thing if I had a user box that said, "People who believe X are Y" or "If you support X then you are part of the problem." Saying that you are an athiest or even proud to be an athiest is one thing, it's when you put down those who don't share your belief system that it creates an issue. Your user box blames people who hold a different view than you on the worlds problems. Do you understand the nuiance there?---Balloonman 21:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   No I don't. I am sorry. I think the userbox says "X is the reason for the problems" not "People who believe in X are the problems". I have seen many userboxes like "this user is against communism" or "this user is against fascism" or suchlike. They do not imply that the user in question automatically is against all communists or all fascists. I at least never ever thought this could be seen the way it is seen here. As I wrote multiple times now, I cannot quite understand why none of the users who see it that way, have told me on my talk page or filed a MFD for the userbox. But I also think that this shows that there should be some discussion about it. Because every user box that is against a certain point of view can be seen as an attack on those who hold that particular point of view.

   But while I stay with my viewpoint, I agree that it could sound a little like the way you described. I decided to replace it with User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Lennonist which says the same thing in a way but is hopefully less open to misinterpretation. I do not hope to win over opposers with that but maybe it can avoid more drama here. Regards SoWhy 22:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)