Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mfield

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

Mfield

Nomination

Final (82/1/4); Closed by bibliomaniac15 on 21:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Mfield (talk · contribs) – A Wikipedian since 2006, Mfield has become increasingly active in the last year, participating in various areas. His contribs indicate a solid understanding of COPYVIO, SSP, and OR. I've noticed his interactions with other users in support of policies, such as this and this, and think he has the judgment and knowledge to use the buttons effectively.  JGHowes  ^talk 11:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you for the vote of confidence, I have considered self nomination but feel much happier with it coming from a third party and am pleased to accept this nomination. Mfield (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: As my nominator notes, I have had occasion to run a number of SSP cases through as part of my activities and I feel I have a good understanding of that process both in terms of how it works and in spotting relevant behavior so that is one area I would get more involved in. Partly due to of my photographic career and drawing from experience in the GNU/Linux community, I have a strong understanding of all areas of image copyright and of both the spirit and letter of GFDL licensing. I participate on Media Copyright Questions and would get involved in the deletion of media and articles tagged as {{db-copyvio}} as adherence to copyright is a vital issue to us as a community. I do a good amount of External Link clean up on the many articles I watch, and have run an number of extreme and persistent cases through Wikiproject Spam which ties in often with SSP. My work with Editor Assistance has often found me in situations where it would have been helpful for me to be able to protect pages quickly and efficiently in cases of BLP violations as requests for help on such matters from involved parties are common there.

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

A: My primary and original focus on wikipedia was imagery, I am a professional photographer and also believe strongly in the concept of shared knowledge through community action and the non restrictive licensing of content. I have been an active contributor of imagery to Commons and participator here on FPC. This started me both on contributing imagery specifically for articles and on improving imagery that is already in place either by reshooting or by post processing existing media, something I regularly scan the Main Page for. Through the course of all of this I picked up a lot of knowledge of policies and started to give back, helping out on MCQ and EAR. I get good satisfaction from being able to help out others with some of the more arcane and procedural stumbling blocks that new or inexperienced editors stumble over. While image contributions are my more primary contribution and I have not created a lot of articles from stratch, I have a wide range of topic interest and I do undertake extensive overhauls of pages I come across, making rewrites and extensive MoS improvements as well as cleaning up and adding citations. I believe I have a strong knowledge of article creation, it just happens to be that my primary subject areas are already well filled with existing and battle scarred articles so I tend to be repairing them rather than starting new ones from scratch. I think my contributions bear this assessment out. On a side note, I have been observing how WP compares to bees in a hive, they all move constantly, putting a little bit of work in here and there, dipping in and out of multiple cells and rubbing against each other. In the end you have to step back to se what they are achieving as a whole.

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: I have been involved in a few cases that required extreme patience and diplomacy on my part. Firstly, my work on EL clean up has obviously brought me into conflict with spammers, something that has descended more than once to the level of personal and vitriolic attacks from the other party. I have a thick skin for such attacks (and some relevant experience dealing with determined toddlers) and also know that people don't like being caught out. It's often an obvious giveaway of someone's original intent, along with their other contributions, when they get immediately prickly and don't address the community concerns or the fact that they have been in the wrong. Discussion is our friend as I always aim to point out. Secondly, my work on Editor Assistance has often required me to step in and mediate in an already heated situation and quickly establish what has happened and what has and has not been done correctly. It is highly important to be level headed and neutral until the facts are established, this has been borne out more than once when it has turned out that the editor that asked for assistance was actually unknowingly in the wrong or was even actually trolling onto EAR with the hope of escalating their conflict. I will continue to deal with conflict in the same ways and with the same tools that I think have served me well so far, this being a continual learning process. Mfield (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional questions from Simon^KSK

4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?

A: A few in article space: The addition of obviously targetted and libellous content to BLP articles, assuming that the user had no useful contribution history. Also if the editor was an obvious sockpuppet continuing a war after a block on their main identity. In talk space one I have had occasion to come across fairly recently was a disgruntled editor making suicidal threats. An immediate block may well be necessary if the editors interactions with other editors seem to be exacerbating their own situation, as a means of defusal. This would have to be looked at on a case by case basis obviously per Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm as blocking them may offend them further accompanied by an explanation. Mfield (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

5. Under what circumstances, should you speedy delete a page, despite a Hangon tag?

A: Blatant copyright violation, libellous material/BLP violations. Essentially when not taking action to remove the page has much more severe consequences for the community than waiting for an explanation. If material can be removed instead then that should be done first but if the consequences of removing the material are that there is no substantial content left, then there is nothing to be lost by deletion so that recreation can be done properly. Swift cost/benefit analysis with a nod to the standing of the editor that created the page and their intent.

Additional questions from Smallman12q

6. How would you respond to a new user who vandalizes your user talk page? What if that edit was their first edit...would your response change?

A: I would respond in the same manner as I would a new user vandalizing someone else's talk page (with non malicious vandalism) - with a personalized level 1 vandalism template or, in the case of a first edit, a welcome template that includes a discussion on vandalism, a referral to the sandbox and an offer of assistance. A lot of the time vandalism turns out to be newbies not actually realizing what they are doing, or what page they are actually editing, and an instant block will probably only turn them off from trying anything constructive. If the vandalism was in the form of an obvious personal attack directed at myself (i.e. it was clearly not their first edit) I would give them a uw-npa warning on personal attacks. Mfield (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from Deacon of Pndapetzim

7. What is the relationship between a policy page and wikipedia policy?

A. Policy pages represent the outcome of a community consensus on standards that editors should adhere to in the creation of the encyclopedia. The policies they lay out are not a completely rigid set of codes in the sense that they are open to a degree of interpretation and common sense. They are meant to establish a code of conduct rather than a set of absolutes. Such rules may need to be broken if they end up conflicting with each other and preventing a desired outcome and as such they are in a state of flux. On the other hand certain areas require definite policies - copyright, libel etc. and we have strict policies on these to protect ourselves, the encyclopedia as a whole and the subjects of articles with reference to US law by which we are bound. By their nature these are not open to reinterpretation, and originate in declarations from the board and their legal counsel.

8. Should admins ever enforce content policies like WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:VER, if they have to violate social policies such as WP:CONSENSUS, WP:INVOLVED and WP:Edit warring to do so?

A. Yes, administrators may enforce the removal of material against consensus, in contravention of 3RR and even on pages they have been involved with editing where such material breaks key policies such as WP:BLP, is libellous and also where OR or unsourced, unverifiable and misleading information or OR might result in highly undesirable outcomes for example inaccurate or misleading information on medicine related articles. Once again where the potential cost of inaction is greater than the need for inclusion.

9. Explain why this edit is or is not a violation of WP:BLP.

A. It makes a somewhat vague claim about the opinions of 'Jews' from the comments of one specific individual. As far as that individual goes as a reliable source though, although it is a blog, the author is Luke Ford, a noted Jewish blogger/journalist. Although the views may or not be not be mainstream, they are attributed. The editor is not violating BLP by bringing up that person's opinions as they are already published, and as far as WP:V goes, they are sufficiently attributed.

Additional question from Patton123

10. In you opinion, why do the notability guidelines exist?

A. They provide a threshold for inclusion which has a number of effects - not only do they directly limit what can be the subject of an article by restricting subjects to those which sufficient coverage by reliable sources, but further to, and as a result of that, they push the total verifiability of information higher, as they ensure that facts and statements will have to have been covered by readily available sources. The net result of it is to protect both the articles subjects and the reader from the ill effects of unreliably sourced information. Mfield (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from Uncle G:

Posit both that it is the 27th and you were already an administrator. What would you do upon encountering the following discussions, and what would your rationale be?

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrie Petrelli
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devrukhe Brahmins - List of Surnames and Gotras
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midwest Bisexual Lesbian Gay Transgender Ally College Conference

I am really sorry, I have only just noticed these had appeared in this long nom. The answers are kind of moot now as it is the 27th and they have been closed although FWIW I would have gone for Delete/Relist/Delete.

Optional question from Pocopocopocopoco:

As an admin, is it ever appropriate to block or threaten to block an editor who asks for a second set of eyes to review your actions?

No, editors have a right to ask for a second opinion. I am perfectly happy with the concept of having my actions looked over by an impartial colleague. It is a necessary safeguard for all concerned. Mfield (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

General comments

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support Will he delete the main page? No. Will he block anyone he disagrees with? No. Will he use the tools the right way? Yes. Support.--Giants27 TC 18:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Beat the nom - Has a clear head, knows what to do. Will not abuse tools. Simon^KSK 18:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Support - Has clue. Ironholds (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Support - Long-term editor with plenty of experience. We need more admins in the field of images, as well. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Per Juliancolton, absolutely. Also, a quick glance at the user's talk page reveals a calm and collected tone in the face of contention. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Support A steady record of excellent edits and a history of cluefullness and experience. Also, it would be great to have more admins who are image experts and creators. Good luck! FlyingToaster 18:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Support - iMatthew // talk // 18:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Support as nom.  JGHowes  ^talk 18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Nice experience including a little bit of everything: editor assistance, spam fighting, copyvio hunting, project involvement, featured content debates, gnome work, vandal fighting, content contribution, speedy tagging and, obviously, image work and involvement at Commons. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Support - Has clue, seems like a good candidate. — neuro^(talk) 18:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Dean B (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
12. Support seems to have the clue that is needed. --Kanonkas :  Talk  19:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Definitely. – iridescent 20:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
14. FPC Support Star Great experiences with this user at FPC. Couldn't help myself with a FP star, but it really does apply (I won't do it in the future :-) ). Seriously though, excellent user, positive history, trustworthy, and not expected to abuse the tools. Exceeds my criteria. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 20:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
15. Support. Didn't find any problems in his contributions. Bsimmons666 (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
16. Support. Good contributions. -- Mentifisto 21:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
17. Support, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
18. No reason to believe Mfield will abuse the tools. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
19. Support good answers to the questions, good contributions, per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 22:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
20. Support Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
21. Support Very balanced and calm editor, who copes well with the junk thrown at him as an editor, so should do fine as a mop user. --Ged UK (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
22. Support -- A good faith user who will use the tools in the same way to improve Wikipedia.--TRUCO 23:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
23. Support Looks good. LittleMountain5 00:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
24. SupportSeems like a v. good user. --Vinni3 (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
25. Support per above. Spinach Monster (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
26. As the person who has closed the majority of FPCs over the past year, I'd say his comments are very much appreciated. MER-C 03:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
27. Support Enough experience with policy to find his way around admin areas, and a reasonable voice in contentious discussions. No negative interactions in my memory. Wronkiew (talk) 05:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
28. Support...see above. :) K50 Dude ROCKS! 05:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
29. Support - I've analyzed his edits, and there is nothing to worry about. AdjustShift (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
30. Support - good contributions to article space and excellent responses to questions. Martin^Msgj 10:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
31. Support Certainly. — Aitias // discussion 11:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
32. Support. A very good contributor and the answers clearly demonstrate his trustworthiness. Rje (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
33. Support. There are no problems here. The oppose does not bother me. With the number of administrators retiring these days we definitely need new and experienced ones to step up and take their place. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Has been around since Feb 2006 and has rollback and see no concerns.After checking track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
35. Support I don't see any red flags in user contributions. The answers to the questions indicates knowledge of policy. --J.Mundo (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
36. Support I see nothing harmful in this candidate's behavior to indicate they would not do bad things with the mop. ArcAngel (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
37. Strong support Wizardman 20:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
38. Support. The answers leave a good impression.  Sandstein  21:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
39. Strong oppose - Too good a contributor. Xclamation point 21:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Well-qualified. -download | sign! 05:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
41. Support. A good editor; nothing to lose and everything to gain! MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 05:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
42. Support No bad faith negative input to Wikipedia, and some brilliant contribs. Oli ^OR Pyfan! 06:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
43. Support . Looks fine.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
44. Support - The main, and usually only, issue with new Administrators is Do We Trust Them. Pretty obvious what the reply to that is for this bloke...Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 13:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
45. Support -- Avi (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
46. Suport Everything is fine here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
47. Support. I fully trust Mfield with the tools. DiverseMentality 21:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

    Support -- A great user who (and WP)would benefit from the tools.--TRUCO 02:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

48. Support Outstanding and active Wikipedia contributor. you would make a very good administrator Letsdrinktea (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
49. Support Excellent experiences with Mfield at FPC. Spencer^T♦C 03:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
50. Support I see no reason to oppose so my position is always to support! fr33kman -s- 04:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
51. Support Great contributions, and I can't find any real reason to oppose. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie talk)} 07:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
52. Support Good contribs. America69 (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
53.  CheckUser is not for fishing per answer to optional question.--Patton^t/c 20:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
54. Support - Good contributions, could find no problems at all. You pass my criteria well and should make a good admin. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
55. Support - The Oppose and Neutral rationales are not a concern for me. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
56. Support - Meets my standards; concerns below are not my concerns - the Userboxen in particular do not offend me, a confirmed Christian. Bearian (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
57. Support, Seems to be a decent editor...nothing wrong thereSmallman12q (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
58. Support. Very unlikely to break the Wiki or delete the mainpage. Excellent contribution history and yes.... like Bearian stated above: I am a Christian and the userbox does not ruffle my feathers one way or another. Trusilver 02:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
59. Support. Don't see any major issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
60. especially impressed with recent commentary on BLP at WP:EAR. — east718 | talk | 06:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
61. Support. Good contributions. A good understanding of policies and guidelines. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
62. Support Need I say more? α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 ^{discovered elements ∞ what am I?} 15:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
63. Support - Builds the encyclopedia. Works with Commons. Strong on policy. Doesn't have a big head. They're a keeper. --StaniStani  19:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
64. Support. I trust this editor.--ragesoss (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
65. Support Great editor LetsdrinkTea 00:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
66. Support Yellowweasel (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
67. Support Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 03:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
68. An admin involved in images is certainly an admin we are in need of. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
69. Support. Tan | 39 16:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
70. Support because I can't find a reason not to. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
71. Support Mfield will make a fine admin. Timmeh! 21:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
72. Support Let's see, been here over 2 years, dedicated editing since early 08 with quality, knows policy, doesn't show any bias. I admit to strongly dis-agreeing with the religious beliefs, but that has nothing to do with the admin abilities. It's his user page, not mine. My only concern would be that the admin duties may limit his quality edits. :) .. Good Luck — Ched (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
73. Support Great editor. Fully support. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
74. Support Fine candidate for admin. We need more people dealing with WP:SPI and images. Valley2city^‽ 04:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
75. Support The answers to each of the questions shows that he does indeed know the policies here on this site and definitely could do much more good with the mop. Cheers, Razorflame 19:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
76. Strong Support excellent part of the community, can't wait to see what they do with the tools! Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
77. Support. It's not like my vote really matters, more like a reassurance. Tavix (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
78. Support - Reviewed answers and contributions... great editor! kilbad (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
79. Support per pretty much everything above. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns. I find the opposer's view to be wholly without merit and the reservations of the neutral commenters also unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
80. Support No reason not to, good answers to questions, unconvincing opposes oppose, so I support.Res2216firestar 16:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
81. Support. 6k edits, active for a good amount of time, apparent knowledge of policy, what's not to like? Cool3 (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
82. Excellent editor. Acalamari 18:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - I don't see any real need for the tools. It seems more of a status symbol than something important. We have plenty of admin now in the area and probably too many at that. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   The user was nominated. I highly doubt that it was sought as a status of anything. It's also not possible to have too many administrators on a project that is continuously growing in scope and magnitude. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

   Self nomination isn't the only way for status to operate. :) I just feel that there isn't enough justification that this user needs the tools, let alone to trust them with it. I also feel that there are 1,000 too many administrators on the project. Once we lose 1001, then I might be looking to support in such cases. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

   Not needing the tools is a weak reason to oppose, IMO. Martin^Msgj 10:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

   Should I dig through his contribs and find more of a reason? As your own link says, my stance is justified enough under it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

   As one of the 1000 admins too many, I'd like to say that a) there aren't enough admins and b) anyone who hopes that adminship will give them a prestigious status are sure to be disappointed. Most of the admin work consists of performing administrative actions that non-admins request. Whenever Mfield requests a speedy deletion or a page protection, I (or some other admin) have to waste time re-evaluating the appropriateness of that request and it feels absurd because I know full well that he could be trusted to do it himself. This is why many RfA applications start with talk pages like this. So I think I speak for all admins when I say that the "no need for tools" argument is the most frustrating bullshit we read on RfA. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

   1,600 shows that there are more than enough admins. We don't need admins hanging out at RfA, for example. Yet, we have tons of them here. That only proves that we don't have a strong enough need for them to keep them all busy. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

   No it prooves that we can't force people to work. We're volunteers. Why are you here and not writing FAs? We obviously have too many writers. I propose we ban you so that we will no longer have too many ;-)--Patton^t/c 18:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

   Proposing banning the user and calling his/her arguments "bullshit" is wrong and uncivil.--J.Mundo (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

   The proposed banning is a joke, and Pascal.Tesson isn't calling Ottava Rima's argument bullshit, just the "no need for the tools" argument itself bullshit. DiverseMentality 21:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I get on with Ottava rather well lol, he knows it's a joke.--Patton^t/c 22:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-( nobody got that one. He is a she ;-)--Patton^t/c 20:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - Honestly, I'm really not crazy about the picture with "GOD" crossed out in the candidate's atheist userbox...that seems unnecessary...but it's not one of the more offensive userboxes I've seen, and it's not bad enough for me to oppose. As always, the candidate's apparent atheism is certainly not the issue in and of itself. Keepscases (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   A quick note on that. The reason for having that box from my standpoint is that I see identifying as atheist not as a means of disrespecting anyone else's system of beliefs (indeed I used to be a practicing Christian), rather to clarify that I do not subscribe to any of them - as such it would better say "gods" than "GOD". As i see the box can be read the wrong way, I will remove the userbox in favor of an explanation to that effect (I will do it once this nomination is through, I will leave it as is for transparency for now). As a declared atheist my comments and actions can be taken from a position of neutrality. I think this has actually been of service when getting involved in discussions on pages with heavily polarized religious viewpoints like Srebrenica_genocide. It means I am certainly not going to be taking sides beyond taking the side of the facts and the encyclopedia as a whole. Mfield (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   I was offended by a user with "Jesus loves you and died for you" in their signature yesterday - would you be worried by such a thing, too (esp. in a userbox)? — neuro^(talk) 19:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   It would worry me more in a signature that a userbox as in a sig it is continually putting a viewpoint and belief in front of everyone, but people go to userpages to find out information on users and I think a statement of belief there is appropriate, and can help to put a users contributions in context. People express their belief in different ways, so one person might simply say "I believe in God" where someone else would feel it their responsibility to go further with "Jesus loves you and died for you". If however pushing it repeatedly in people's faces as a signature may do causes friction with other editors then that is a different matter. Mfield (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) I don't think it has any place in a signature. In a userbox, I don't think it would bother me, because I am well aware that is a fundamental belief of Christianity. However, I wouldn't really like a userbox that said "You Jews and Muslims who don't accept Christ as your Savior will spend eternity in Hell", even though that is also a fundamental belief for some Christians. Basically, I think it's fine for people to state their beliefs, but I think doing so in a way that declares others' beliefs are less valid reflects poorly on a user. Does that make sense? Keepscases (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   Is it not a fundamental belief of atheism (not that atheism has 'beliefs', but that's a topic for another time) that gods do not exist? As well, doesn't one automatically declare all other beliefs less valid when one chooses one belief? Bsimmons666 (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   I simply feel that the "anti-God" graphic is not a very nice way to present atheism, and no, I don't agree that believing something automatically declares different beliefs less valid. Keepscases (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   Unless you're a follower of doublethink, I simply do not understand how that is possible. By definition of selecting one opinion, it means you think that belief is best - otherwise you wouldn't have chosen it.Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   I believe blue is the best color, but say for example you believe pink is--while I don't agree with your belief, I don't think it's any less valid than mine. It really can be that simple for issues such as religion, as well. Keepscases (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   I believe turquoise is the best color, because it stimulates the 'pleasure' chemicals in the brain the most. All other colors, therefore, are less valid as "favorite colors".Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

   If you pursue adminship, I will oppose you. I don't think there is anything else to discuss here. Keepscases (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

   Well good sir, thank you for refuting my argument! (that was sarcasm) And you believe that threatening to oppose me at an RfA is insult? I take that as a badge of respect. Furthermore, I have no need to run for adminship anyway! I would feel more threatened if you said you were going to use proxies to vandalize some of the articles I have created. Anyway, this is pathetic. If you have no response to my facts, than this discussion has no further purpose. Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

   Do you approach RfAs solely from a "is this religious userbox offensive?" perspective? You've mentioned something similar recently on another one as well... I mean, really? -- Mentifisto 21:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   FWIW - I am a pastor and I don't find this particular userbox to be offensive. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   Do you think that it possibly makes it harder to AGF if he edits certain pages? Perhaps its a violation of Soap? Could it lead to problems if he happens to use a tool on a page against someone who happens to be pro religion? Any CoI issues? I can see a lot of possibilities here. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   There is a difference between atheism and intolerance. I am unaware that this individual has a history of antagonism to articles relating to religion or to those of us who do not share his convictions. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

   There may be a difference between the reality, but there is no difference between the perception. If I were to say "I don't believe in the holocaust" on my user page and started editing pages about Judaism, wouldn't that give the perception that perhaps I am up to no good? AGF only goes so far, and having such a proclamation would harm his ability to be an effective admin, no? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

   I am sorry, but I don't share your apprehension on this issue. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

   Although Mfield's personal view is certainly the opposite of mine, he understands and follows NPOV and RS, and takes pains to explain our policies and guidelines to other editors (as in the instances cited in my nom), the qualities which will make him a good, impartial admin.  JGHowes  ^talk 16:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards, i.e. scores points for not being blocked, but I like to see barnstars and such on userpages (shows pride in work, appreciation from colleagues) and I was a little turned off by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nordine Zouareg; however, that is only one discussion, so, won't oppose based on just that. Good luck in any event. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
   • Did you miss the four barnstar's on the user's talk page? Talk pages are just as accessible (if not more visited) than userpages.~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 20:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
     • Yes, I did not notice those, as I usually look at the userpages for convenience; thank you for pointing that out; I may reconsider my stance. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
       • Please consider revisiting your position; this should really be about whether we trust the guy with the mop or not.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral - I've seen him on image areas, and he knows image policy pretty well. So if he ran for adminship on Commons, I would have definitely support him. However, I'm not sure he needs the tool here because unless fair images, editors are encouraged to upload files to Commons. As looking through his SSp fies which he claims as his specialty and intents to dedicate to (so far only 6 and 7 files?), his rationales for his accusations are just "obvious sockpuppeter" with one or two lines. The reports on vandals are like simple AIV files. Besides, I'm not happy about his poor article creation and edits on building up articles. I don't find him done wrong, so I can't either support or oppose him to become an admin at this time.--Caspian blue 21:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   WP:NONEED –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

   This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion.--Caspian blue 04:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

   With respect, Caspian blue, please reconsider. Although encouraged to upload to Commons, many users do not. Judging from the en-wiki backlog at SCV, IFD, DFU, etc., there's plenty of work to go around regarding images on en-wiki and giving Mfield the mop will help, not hurt, the project.  JGHowes  ^talk 16:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

4. Neutral. Candidate is making some wonderful contributions to the 'pedia and the community, but I'd like to see more well-roundedness since admin tools are being requested for all areas of the encyclopedia. My main concern is that it appears the candidate has not made any significant content contributions. The top three articles to which the candidate has contributed (Alligator (100), Los Angeles (89), and Berlin Wall (80)) are only B-class, and I don't see any article reviewer activity for the user (e.g., in GAN, FAC, FAR, etc.). —Eustress ^talk 06:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

   No offence, but b-class articles are fairly respectable as content contribution. Somebody with only stubs or minor editing to established articles might reasonably be questioned about content creation, but B - GA - FA isn't really about content creation, but about content organisation. WilyD 19:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

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