Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moralis

Moralis

Voice your opinion; Scheduled to end 02:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Moralis (talk · contribs) - Excellent editor who has been with Wikipedia for quite a while and deserves to be an admin. I've found him always helpful, professional, and polite, even when dealing with trolls. He's helped out a lot on The Black Parade and other related articles, and really deserves this for all his hard work. mcr616 _Speak! 01:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I feel honored just seeing this page come into existence. I accept.

A comment in that empty space up there says that the candidate may make an optional statement here, so I will.

My edit count might not be as high as some users', but a lot of what I do is RC patrol. I've made a lot of posts to AIAV over time, and adminship would certainly cut down on that. The reversion tools would also be helpful. I've got a masochistic interest in doing the various things that a lot of users probably consider mind-numbing, like addressing copyedit backlogs, and staring at an IRC readout of recent changes, looking for oddities to fix.

Recently, I've developed a strange interest in mediation. This started out as simply butting into discussions, but over the past couple of days, I've found myself getting involved with the Mediation Cabal, which has given me a unique perspective on the various issues we have with each other as Wikipedians.

I've often considered adminship a long-term goal, thanks to the various small ways it would help me with RC patrol. I also decided a while ago that I would never nominate myself, however, so I'm pleasantly surprised to have ended up at RfA anyway. --Moralis (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?

A: Cutting down the backlogs at WP:AIAV and WP:RfP is a biggie. Responding to speedy requests, as well. It's my basic intention to keep an eye on everything that could potentially become backlogged (the Administrative backlog category might be helpful) and then spend too much of my free time keeping that from happening. --Moralis (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I've done a lot of revamping of The Black Parade, but I'm mainly proud of being dubbed a "Vandal Huntar" by User:Ryulong. I spend a fair amount of my free time on RC patrol, mostly via IRC. And I have a LOT of free time- I'm unemployed right now. --Moralis (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2007 (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: For the most part, conflicts with other users have involved mistaking a legitimate edit for vandalism, and this always means a prompt apology and restoring the material I've messed with. Most recently, I was involved in an NPOV dispute, but I think I remained appropriately civil throughout. I had just submitted a Mediation Cabal request when the dispute died down. --Moralis (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

4. You edited as an IP before? Good for you! Do you remember which IP address or addresses you used? We can then look at those edits too. --Kim Bruning 19:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for being long in responding. I didn't notice this question hwere until just now. Unfortunately, I didn't have a static IP, and I also wasn't keeping track of my edits at the time, so I can't provide such information. Thanks for being interested, though! --Moralis (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional Question from User:Bucketsofg.

5. What is your interpretation of WP:POINT? Does the non-standard organization of your present RFA fail it? Does my question?

My interpretation of WP:POINT: "If you disagree with a policy(/guideline), attempt to change it reasonably through our policy-making system. Do not create violations to prove that the policy is flawed. Also, don't create a situation where the policy is used even though it plainly doesn't apply/isn't reasonable. Basically, if you can't make your point through traditional discussion, you probably haven't got a point. Don't use underhanded means to try to make one anyway."

In other words, "Obey the spirit of the rules. Don't ignore them to make your case, and don't abuse them to make your case."

I don't believe that this RfA violates WP:POINT, because the format of an RfA is not policy, to my knowledge. Please correct me if I'm wrong- I haven't paid too much attention to RfAs in the past- something I intend to change now that I've seen how the discussions usually go.

I also don't consider this terribly underhanded on the part of the user responsible. This is, as stated, an experiment. If it works, it might become something we use in the future. It might not. I don't know. Since this isn't a policy violation, I don't see anything wrong with trying something out and seeing how it works.

I don't think WP:POINT applies to your question. While it may have been a leading question, I don't see how WP:POINT addresses that. It was a legitimate question about my interpretation of a policy, and that's a perfectly good question to ask an RfA candidate. --Moralis (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Completely optional and possible frivolous question from Physchim62

answer at your own risk

7. Under what circumstances would you be willing to ignore all rules?

A. I think WP:IAR is very similar in its message to WP:POINT and WP:SENSE, insofar as all of those policies implore the user to enforce rules only with respect to the spirit of those rules. Primarily, if it's appropriate to Ignore All Rules, you're already dealing with a WP:POINT violation. There are also situations in which "consensus" may be ignored if that consensus is a result of meatpuppetry- primarily, I think, where a number of users have ganged up on a smaller group more for the purpose of being right than to actually accomplish anything.

Rules are enforced for the wrong reasons all the time, although in a lot of cases, those issues don't exactly make it to the public eye, because they're often localized disputes. Sometimes this take the form of content being deleted "per policy," when it very plainly does serve a purpose (users have axes to grind, for the most part). A lot of people use WP:NOT or WP:NOTE to remove articles or content as advertisements or vanity when what they really need is some TLC, rather than death by fire.

A lot of content is also removed that, while the rules do provide for its removal, just isn't hurting anybody. Of course I respect WP:NOT, but exclusionism can be taken at least as far as inclusionism, and it sometimes is. I tend to ask myself whether I can envision a reader finding the article helpful (read: useful- interesting and useful are two separate issues) and if the answer is yes, I will generally support the content's inclusion, regardless of what the policies have to say about it. It's my opinion that, in general, if content is useful to somebody, it's made Wikipedia more useful as a whole.

Needless to say, the result of an AfD is still something that must be respected (that particular rule generally should not be ignored). If approved, I'll obviously act according to the community's wishes, regardless of my opinion. I do think there's some validity to the argument that if content is really appropriate it'll find its way.

Basically, ignore all rules applies to content whenever inclusionism makes sense- and I will not pretend to be able to describe when that is, as it's kind of a case-by-case decision for everybody, based on the merits of the content in question and how they stack up against policy. IAR applies to all guidelines and policies when enforcement just plainly isn't fair- the unfortunate thing is that what I consider a common-sensical toss-out of a rule might to you be a flagrant violation. That is both the beauty and the curse of a collaboration. I feel like I haven't answered your question very well, but as of now, I'm quite tired and can't think of more specific examples. I hope this gives you a decent idea of what I'm getting at. --Moralis (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

• Did you edit as an IP before you registered? Just curious, your edits seem quite knowledgeable for a newbie :) User:Veesicle 02:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I did indeed. I really wish I'd made an account, so I'd have that history to point to now. I also think I'm pretty good at absorbing info, but that's just me talking myself up ;) --Moralis (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose It is good to see users that want to help Wikipedia, but I don't think you have enough experience just yet. Only 700 edits is too few to apply for adminship. Try when you have more, and you will be likely to succeed. Captain panda 02:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  Comment While I can respect that position, I do think that opposition on the basis of edit count is rather unfair, considering the potential number of edits a user might have made before registering. --Moralis (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Fair edits; seems to know the policies well. Will put admin tools to good use and seems unlikely to abuse them. Adminship is no big deal. ➪HiDrNick! 02:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. As HiDrNick notes above, adminship is indeed no big deal. Moralis has shown greatly impressive work at WP:MEDCAB, and has carried on the mediation tasks in a professional and intelligent manner; and the main-space contributions I have looked through from this user's edit history have been well thought out. In my random sampling of edits, I was unable to detect any civility violations. When faced with this profile - obvious awareness of how to go about doing things, civil attitude, and clear usefulness in solving disputes - I think we should be less carping about matters such as edit-count and time length, and not carry on this ridiculous pursuit of editorial dick-waving. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I am sick of all this editcountitus. He is a good user who I am confidant will not abuse or misuse the tools. -Mschel 03:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not just the number of edits that concerns me - it's the distribution of them. Looking at the contribution history, the candidate did 100+ edits on Dec. 13-14, 2006, mostly with anti-vandalism work. Then he more or less disappeared until March 1, when he assembled another pile of vandalism reversions. Then another month of relative quiet, followed by 100+ edits in the last week. That edit pattern doesn't conform with the long-term record of consistency I expect to see in an admin candidate. It might be better to come here more often and do fewer edits each time. YechielMan 03:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  Comment My disappearances have both been due to the loss of my laptop. When I'm around, I do think it's ridiculous how much time I spend logged in and active (not that you all can see that =P) --Moralis (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - I fail to see the logic here. First of all I find the explanation acceptable. 2nd, shocking as it may seem, people have lives to lead. As long as this editor makes valuable contributions as often as he can he's an asset.Mark83 11:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support. From what I have seen Moralis is a good user, while his edit count may be lower than some, I really couldn't care less about edit counts. --Danlock2 03:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I just wish I could accept you, but you simply don't have enough experience with your account. I agree with the two votes above; you need to be more regular with your editing and need to have more edits. Through your contributions, I can see that you do a good deal of vandal fighting and participate in mediation disputes. A suggestion (not that I'm an admin) is to work more on the backlogs and be active in Xfds. It seems you have quite a bit of experience here, with your excellent knowledge of most aspects of Wikipedia. Hopefully, you'll make adminship, but if you don't, those are some of the things you may want to work on. Sr13 (T|C) 03:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  Huh, this is different: an Oppose comment where the editor goes on to say "Hopefully, you'll make adminship..." (and clearly talking about this RfA, not some future one).Herostratus 15:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Edit count isn't an issue, the user is obviously very experienced with Wikipedia, and could be a more valuable contributor as a sysop. Look at the content of his edits, he is a positive force in the community. - Bennyboyz3000 04:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Did you have a static IP address to edit from? If you could provide that then it would certainly help to demonstrate your depth of knowledge regarding contributing to Wikipedia. (aeropagitica) 04:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, no. At that point, my IP address was changing frequently... and, at any rate, I wasn't keeping track of what it was. --Moralis (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The candidate does not have yet have a long enough record as a consistent contributor to earn my support for adminship. Singopo 06:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support: per Bennyboyz3000 Anynobody 09:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral leaning towards support. Despite the convincing answers and nomination, I really feel uncomfortable supporting you with a low edit count and irregular activity. —Anas ^talk? 09:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Terence 09:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose such a low rate of activity since registering in 2005, just over one edit per day, doesn't really cut it for me, sorry. The Rambling Man 10:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Change to Neutral - a willingness to ditch the previous RFA format and go for the new refactored version (even though I don't necessarily agree with it) shows a great level of dedication to the project. Well done, but still more activity needed for me... The Rambling Man 20:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose sorry, but you're too inexperienced to support, particularly in Wikipedia space. --Dweller 12:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• After reviewing the contrib history, I see no problems. Very civil user, will make a decent admin. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 13:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I kept on asking the Admins if there should be a minimum edit requirement but they decided against it so if the Admins dont have a problem with someone with 700+ edits..Neither do I..Go For it..--Cometstyles 14:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. I am concerned about the candidate's statement that he wishes to become an administrator (found in the userboxes on the candidate's user page). However, I would likely support if the candidate were endorsed by a WikiProject, since such endorsement would tend to indicate the necessary social and collaborative skills for adminship and might overcome my concerns that this editor is seeking adminship for the sake of having it. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  This reason to deny support continues to baffle me. So to be a good admin, never admit that you want to be one? Certainly in my workplace promotions are given to people who openly and strongly state that they want the job!--Xnuala (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support, without question. This guy does mediation work? And with that sort of recommendation from Nick Turnbull? We should all be falling over ourselves to support this guy. --bainer (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. If a low edit count doesn't mean he wouldn't be an OK admin, then why bring it up? Unless it tells us something useful about the person, it can be ignored. He can work on his edit count while an admin, if that matters. No indication that he wouldn't be a good admin. Herostratus 15:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Checking through this user's contribs shows nothing but thoughtfulness and usefulness to the project - edit count means very little. No qualms about making him an admin whatsoever. User:Veesicle 17:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose needs more experience. Crum375 17:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support: Those in opposition can't come up with anything other than ridiculous editcountitis crap to base their opposes on. Sorry, but that's not evaluating a candidate as to whether they can be trusted or not. I *HAVE* done a review of the candidate, and find nothing to suggest this candidate can not be trusted. In fact, I've found quite the reverse. He's patient, thoughtful, articulate and level headed. All qualities I'd like to see in an admin. Those opposing based on editcountitis (all of the opposes, to date) should be ashamed of themselves. --Durin 17:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not nearly enough experience--$UIT 18:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not enough experience. Naconkantari 18:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral - leaning towards support. It's not so much the edit count as the diversity of experience. Getting involved in mediation is a huge plus, though. We always need more mediation folks. You're definitely on the right track and I'll likely have no problems supporting you in the future - Alison^☺ 18:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• --Tony Sidaway 18:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC) This fellow seems to be competent in a number of spheres useful to Wikipedia, and has no history of bad behavior. I don't think we need ask more of an administrator.
• Neutral: While I do believe this user can be trusted and would probably be an asset as an administrator, I am not quite sure if this user has enough experience quite yet. I am not leaning towards support or oppose as I am completely undecided and I think this user still needs to prove themself before being accepted as an administrator. While I would not be dissapointed if Moralis did become an administrator I do not think they have the experience needed quite yet.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 18:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Low edit count and lack of experience, but whatever. Adminship is no big deal, and we should give it to (within reason) anyone who wants it. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. His edit count is high enough to give a decent sample size and I don't see any evidence that he'd misuse the tools. As an aside, I definitely prefer this format and would like to see it used on more (if not all) RfAs. ChazBeckett 19:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Edit counts can be used in analysis of an editor's contributions, but they have their limitations. Opposing purely on grounds of "no experience due to no edits" does not consider two things - the first is that reading policies, engaging in discussions, writing articles, or in this case, mediating disputes do not require pressing "Save page" that much; as a result, they're not properly measured in edit counts. The second is that life happens: laptops break down, people move, classes or work take priority, etc. That does not necessarily mean that a user with 700 edits is any less committed to advancing Wikipedia's mission than a user with 70,000. Besides, as they say, if an admin makes one admin action a year, it is still a net benefit to the project. Ergo, support. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. If This edit summary by Durin states correct in saying "Refactoring per discussion with nominee; do not revert as this was agreed upon.", then Moralis' agreeing to make the bureaucrats RfA closing job harder does not seem to demonstrate a willingness to help others in their tasks. Diffs would help to review the agreed upon discussion. (This discussion did not help clarify things.) In any event, Moralis' does not have enough reviewable experience to determine whether he is a trusted users who understand policy. -- Jreferee 19:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  It does not make the bureaucrats job any harder in any respect. Bureaucrats are expected to evaluate consensus. They are not expected to count votes. The suggestion to change RfAs into this style was brought by User:Sjakkalle at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Reform#Proposal_by_Sjakkalle. The format of this RfA has NOTHING to do with the capabilities and qualities of this candidate, and I would ask that you remove this element from consideration and focus on the candidate, not the form the RfA is taking. --Durin 19:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  Evidently, members of the admin's board were interested in refactoring an RfA in order to remove the support/oppose/neutral ratio from obvious viewing. I, personally, don't think that a direct vote tally should be used by a crat in determining whether to promote or not, so I agreed to be their guinea pig for this experiment. I fail to see how this makes a bureaucrat's RfA closing job any more difficult, if they're not basing their decision 100% on the vote tally. --Moralis (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  The reason given for the refactoring made it appear that this RfA was refactored during the RfA because of an agreed upon discussion between Durin and yourself. The diffs now provided by Durin and your explanation did help in understanding your participation in the refactoring and I revised my reasoning accordingly. Since your statement on future process did not change my position on evaluation of your present process understanding, I maintained my neutral reasoning. -- Jreferee 23:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral leaning towards support, perhaps. I'm curious enough about further edits that we haven't seen yet, that I'm not yet ready to commit to either choice. :-) --Kim Bruning 19:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I see very little participation in policy making, and I don't see much at all in the areas where admin tools are useful. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Nothing in your history would compel me to oppose your adminship, but I feel that you do not yet have the experience I feel is necessary for one to be an admin. I would like to see more interaction in policy-related areas. Your contributions to AIV are valued, keep up the good work. Leebo ^T/C 19:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral I am leaning toward support, though I can follow both sides of the argument on this one. I think he needs a little more experience with Wikipedia before becoming an administrator. Though, I see nothing wrong with this candidates behaviour and been part of Meditation is a big plus. I also think his decision to allow his RfA to have its S/N/O tally removed is not a reason to oppose. Camaron1 | Chris 19:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Not enough experience with the Wikipedia namespace (half of Moralis' contribs there are less than a week old). No it's not editcountitis: I just don't see a way to convince myself that the candidate currently has enough experience with Wikipedia's processes to be an admin. On an unrelated note, I hate the refactoring of the page which makes it harder, imo, to make sense of the debate. Pascal.Tesson 20:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • • What, you mean read people's comments? --Durin 20:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  Doesn't the bureaucrat do that anyway? Mackensen (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Durin, I mean precisely that it's easier to understand a discussion when reading the arguments in favor of the candidate and those in opposition separately rather than reading all comments in chronological order. Sure, it's still the same set of comments but then why not sort them by alphabetical order of their contributors? Sorting comments semantically is a natural thing to do in any debate be it an RfA or a debate about whether Pepsi tastes better than Coke. Pascal.Tesson 20:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Except, this is supposed to be a discussion...not a vote. You can't sort a discussion. --Durin 20:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it really that difficult to sort a discussion where every contributor starts with a boldface support, oppose or neutral? I'm all for thinking up ways of reforming RfA but I do find this particular experiment to be unconvincing. Pascal.Tesson 20:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion is --> that way. --Durin 20:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Besides the lack of experience, I went and looked through your edits today. In the timespan of roughly 19:30 to 20:00 today, you made a lot of vandal warnings on user talk pages, yet almost no actual reverts to the page. I would've excused a vandalproof glitch for a couple things, but certainly you would've kept a browser window open to make sure you were rv'ing the edits? It shows rather questionable judgment to me. The two combined, plus the idea that you're joined all this other stuff such as MedCab very recently suggests progress towards adminship, but not there yet.--Wizardman 20:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  Apologies for the occurrence- I just noticed the problem myself. It is indeed a VandalProof glitch. I've never used VandalProof before- and now I'm thinking I probably never will again, as its "rollback" buttons don't seem to actually revert the page. --Moralis (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  Indeed. In your defense VP hasn't been workign right for a while now.Wizardman 20:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  I also have the feeling that even if not promoted now, Moralis will certainly pass the next RFA, what with all the activity, and the otherwise trustworthy personality. :) --Kim Bruning 20:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for lack of Wikipedia experience. I could perhaps be piling on, for which I feel bad about if I am, but the lack of numbers makes it hard for me to see if there are already 11 opposes and 14 supports and 10 neutrals (the real tallys, mine makes 12 opposes) for which I certainly then wouldn't add my oppose and added them up anyways to make sure I wasn't doing such. MECU≈talk 20:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support This user is willing to do the work, and I see no evidence that this user will misuse the tools or use them in bad faith.--Xnuala (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, sorry. Very, very low edit count in all areas with this account, not enough evidence that this user (whose devotion and enthusiasm are most welcome) is experienced enough to be entrusted with the admin tools. Adminship is indeed no big deal, but it's quite a responsibility and should not be taken with levity.--Húsönd 22:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Every experienced, civil, even-tempered editor should be given the bit. I disagree that this editor's edit count is too low, or that (beyond being too new to be evaluated) edit count even matters. Vadder 23:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Low overall contributions doesn't give sufficient evidence of policy knowledge. You do, however, look like a great editor that would merit a lot of support in the near future based on your current activity and progress. Do keep up the good work. — Scientizzle 01:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Although account has been registered for a while, has only been recently semi-active. Needs more current experience with the process. Adminship is not a goal, it is a job. You listed a desire to work with mediation, and that would be a good place to get active in, and does not require sysop rights. More interaction in the project space would also be helpful. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose I have had one encounter with this user and it was where he edit-warred without joining the talk page. That's not acceptable for admins.--Aminz 01:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  Just to clarify: I don't consider my conduct on that page "edit warring." While running RC patrol, I mistook a legitimate edit on Antisemitism for vandalism. It looked like certain content was being blanked, in violation of WP:-( and WP:3RR. I reverted it, incorrectly, because that's what we do with vandalism.

  Now, it turned out that the content was considered OR by some users, and correct by some others. While I admit that I might've been too defensive, I ultimately apologized, though I also suggested that the edit war was probably violating policy and that the users seek mediation before continuing. I also expressed a desire to step out of the situation, which I only walked into by accident. If anyone's interested, the dispute is probably still on my talk page. --Moralis (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support I see nothing that would lead me to believe this user would abuse the admin tools. Thank you for trying a new kind of RFA. Frise 04:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• E-gads! What's all this mess?! - Like I said, what is all this jumbled voting??! I can't get my brain around all the different thingys! Geesh, if this is the new style of voting, I'd hate to see what a WP:200 RfA will look like... Gulp! Absolutley horrible... Spawn Man 05:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorsed.--Húsönd 13:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting to see this format up for a trial run. Low edit count can be a concern but reviewing the history I see enough responsibility and maturity to support the candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. This RFA is poorly formatted, and I find the decision to use this type of formatting in his RFA an indication of poor judgement. I don't want an admin who 'fixes' things which aren't broken. Also inexperienced per YechielMan.AKAF 06:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: I did not change the format of this RfA, I simply agreed not to stop the people who did. Also, nobody's trying to fix anything. Just trying something out. --Moralis (talk) 06:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  Reply: I would oppose (mostly) someone who had the poor judgement to accept an RFA nomination only a week after their first nomination, because it reeks of poor judgement. In the same way, your acceptance of a new formatting for your RFA shows (in my opinion) poor judgement. The stated purpose of trying out this RFA format is to fix percieved problems with RFA (see the talk page).AKAF 09:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  I can't speak to the stated purpose of this format. All I can speak to is the way the issue was presented to me: I was asked via IRC if I would mind having my RfA reformatted, and I said no. If that's poor judgement, please elaborate on how (I'm not trying to be sarcastic here- I try to welcome all criticism and learn from my errors). --Moralis (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  If you are genuinely uninterested in the formatting of this page, then I'm sorry. As it stands, the effective outcome of your acceptance of the format change is that you are the flagship and main proponent of the new format. The outcome of your decision is that your RFA is (at least in part) a referendum on the alternative formatting. The fact that Mackensen's RFB (still open) is also a vote of this type should have at least given you warning about the result of your decision. Thus I find your acceptance poorly thought through if you were indeed aware of the consequences. Additionally I dislike the alternative format, and much of the thinking behind it. I strongly disagree with Mackensen's idea that voting should be completely suspended and admins appointed by bureaucratic fiat, which is what your RFA format is an extension of. Your responses indicate that you agree with this new formatting, which I personally find to be poor judgement. I suspect that if other users are correct and you are simply inexperienced, that more experience in wikipedia would have lead to you understanding the ramifications of your acceptance.AKAF 11:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  I was fully aware of the potential ramifications. I just don't think they're very reasonable- how is it fair to associate me with the supporters of the change, or especially with Mackensen's RfB, on the basis of my not refusing to let this page be used as a guinea pig? "Guilty by association" isn't a good argument in the article namespace. Shouldn't be here, either. But after thinking about it, I don't really think it's appropriate for me to be talking this point in my own RfA, so I'm going to step out of this discussion while I'm still pretty neutral on the subject. --Moralis (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  Anyone opposing this RfA because of format should be directing their hate and derision towards me and not Moralis. I didn't come up with the idea for this format, but I was the one <cough> stupid enough to actually attempt formatting of an RfA like this. You want to take issue with this, take it up with me. Further discussion on the merits of the format is --> this way. Stop targeting Moralis. --Durin 13:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose not active enough, not enough edits, too inexperienced.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support per statements made by the nominee, and several other factors: high-quality work in both editing and mediation (I would rather see a lower amount of good edits than a mish-mash of tens of thousands), communicates very well, understands how things work, and displays a willingness to assist with tasks that desperately need attention. I have complete trust that the tools will not be misused or abused. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 07:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have just reverted an edit that partially returned the RfA to its original format. While I am not opposed to using that format, I don't think this should be done without discussion. I haven't checked WT:RfA for discussion of the issue yet, because I wanted to revert it before somebody else had the opportunity to vote on the half-fixed iteration, thus making a potential problem for both an editor who might reformat the page and an editor who might be undoing the reformat. Just wanted to let everybody know why I reverted so suddenly. --Moralis (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. This user shows poor judgement and poor grasp of procedure concerning the format of this page. Both are essential qualities for an administrator. Errabee 08:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think in this case, it seems to me that Moralis was right. Please do not assume that you are all-knowing and always correct. --Aminz 08:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop patronising. I am absolutely wholeheartedly opposed against this kind of RfA. If Moralis supported this change, it shows poor judgement in my book. That's all I said. Errabee 08:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Errabee, your edit summary reads, "This recent action shows poor judgement and poor grasp of procedure. Therefore oppose." Are you opposing me on the basis that I reverted your reformat of this page? If you're opposing me because you don't like this format, while I find that unfair (as I am not responsible for the format, just because it's my RfA doesn't mean I formatted it) I can accept it. If you're opposing me on the basis that you disapprove of my reverting your edit... well. Like I said, I'm not opposed to changing the format of this page back to "standard." I just think it needs to be discussed first, rather than being done out of the blue by one user. Furthermore, I think it needs to be done in one edit to be sure that no comments are erased by accident in the process.

Comment. I question your decision to agree with this experiment. So while technically you didn't reformat, you accepted to having it done, which amounts to the same thing. Besides that, I think it should be made clear on this page that this is not just some mistake in format, but an experiment. Errabee 09:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Also, while I appreciate your support, Aminz, please do be nice =P --Moralis (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Errabee, the format of this RfA is an experiment in a new format. Having been mooted by a group of people who think it would work better, we looked around for someone who would be willing to try out the format, and we found Moralis. There's discussion ongoing at WT:RFA about the formatting issue, you're welcome to participate there if you don't like the format, but I think it's verging on childish to express opposition for a reason that has nothing to do with the question at hand, namely whether the candidate should be given the mop. --bainer (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It tells about the way Moralis makes decisions. Anyone with just some common sense could see that this change of format would turn this process into a mess. If Moralis hasn't seen this happening, he lacks the ability to foresee consequences of his decisions, which is an important quality in an administrator. As such, it has everything to do with the question at hand. Errabee 11:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I certainly hope the bureaucrats are capable of seeing this for what it is. Opposing someone for the format of an RfA is frankly absurd. We move Wikipedia forward in part by experimenting. The value of an experiment is not reduced by whether that experiment fails or succeeds. Moralis should be applauded for being willing to be a guinea pig, not burned at the stake. Further discussion on the merits of the format is --> this way. Stop targeting Moralis. --Durin 13:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I'll try to show some mercy by changing to Neutral, although I still think it was terribly ill-advised to consent to conducting an experiment that was doomed to fail from the start. It has never been my intention to target Moralis. Errabee 14:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Moralis seems like a rational editor, after looking at his edit history and talking to him in #wikipedia. Adminship is no big deal. --Philosophus ^T 09:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Bucketsofg 13:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support - you know what? This format actually forced me to look at the candidate, his comments, the answers, his contribs, and everyone else's opinion first for a a change. Wonderful. I heartily urge the closing crat to ignore each and every opinion based on editcountitis: this user seems thoughtful, well-intentioned and fairly knowledgeable about how things work. That's good enough, and if he doesn't know something I trust him not to mess up guessing and to leave it for someone else. Ignore the edit count: this one deserves the tools. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 13:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note to closing crat - please also ignore any opposes relating to the formatting of this: whether the candidate chooses to very mildly refactor the usual RFA format as part of an agreed-upon experiment is his business, not anyone else's. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 13:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • More notes for closing 'crat Please ignore any notes from anyone telling you to ignore something, since you can make the choice yourself. Alternatively, perhaps ignore "support" commenters who attempt to make such notes. Xoloz 14:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG OPPOSE I suspect this editor was selected as the RfA "test subject" because he is so far below the mean. Very few edits altogether, virtually no experience in project-space. Needs way more experience. I'm sorry if I failed to engage in any ongoing discussion, but I find this format distressing (but b'crats -- who apparently now look vigilantly for any minor reason to disqualify a vote, as at Danny's RfA -- note that I am not holding the format against the candidate, so please don't disqualify me.) Xoloz 14:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The only reason this candidate was selected was because it was expected there would be a number of opposes. If there were a controversial candidate with 10,000 edits that would have done fine as well. To test the format, it had to have opposes as well as supports. I strongly urge you to separate your feelings about the format of this RfA and send it this way. As to your vote, do you have any reason to oppose other than the format of this RfA and perception of lack of experience? --Durin 14:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I was told that I'd been selected as the "test subject" because at the time of the reformat I was the user with the fewest comments on my page, or the most even distribution (it was around 11/6/6...ish). --Moralis (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Witnessed this user in conversation with someone critical of him showing a lot of both sense and courtesy. I assume anyone who can respond to frustrating situations like that will also be able to do whatever is required of an admin with the same sense and courtesy. And beyond a minimal consideration of time and experience, that is really all I ask. I don't care how many Portal Talk edits you have or whether you want to get your hands dirty making the sausages (how's that for a mixed metaphor?) or whether you edit consistently or in bursts. Any level-headed person should be able to be an admin. And the format of this page is only to be counted in favor—it's about time people had to read all the comments. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 14:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)