Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Werdna 2: Difference between revisions

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

Werdna

Final (181/89/12); Ended Fri, 2 Feb 2007 13:49:36 UTC

Werdna (talk · contribs) - Hello, all. I'm Werdna, MediaWiki developer, long-time editor (since July 2005), and creator of Werdnabot. I've amassed over 3500 edits, and Werdnabot over 30, 000. Most of you know me as the author of Werdnabot, cascading protection, blocking without autoblock, retroactive autoblock, Special:Protectedpages, expiring protection, and many other MediaWiki features. I last ran in September of last year, but withdrew due to civility concerns, and because I got a bit caught up in the whole process. After several wikibreaks, partial involvement in Husnock's Arbcom case, becoming a developer, and many other events that have changed who I am on Wikipedia, I feel like having another shot. — Werdna talk 12:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I self-nominated this time, as I don't think it's necessary for me to find a nominator. I speak for myself. — Werdna talk 12:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Consider said above nomination statement as if it had my signature on it. I was just drafting a nom statement.... -- Tawker 22:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Since some people have gotten ticked off that I didn't link to my previous RfAs, here they are for convenience. I wasn't aware that this was compulsory; and I assure you that I had no intention of "burying" the information.

1. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Werdna648
2. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Werdna648 2
3. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Werdna

(BY THE WAY: Please Don't Bite The Opposers by arguing with them. If they're showing faulty reasoning, the crat'll take that into account at the end. Whether they're right or wrong, opposes tend to stick anyway (people who are wrong are often stubborn, and people who are right will obviously stay opposing), and all arguing causes is bad blood and a long page [I've learned a lot of this the hard way])

Quick comment

For all the people who might wonder why he doesn't "give himself the bit", the answer is that he can't; Werdna has access to commit to our version control repository, but he doesn't have shell access. In addition, we don't actually sysop developers unless there's a very pressing and urgent need to do so. We like communities to handle their own affairs. 164.11.204.56 02:05, 29 January 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? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I don't anticipate using my sysop tools as often as most sysops, but they would be helpful to me in the various occasions when I've had to bug a sysop on #wikipedia-en-admins when I've needed something deleted, or a protected page checked out, or a vandal blocked. In my capacity as a developer, it might be useful to have the tools for various reasons (I can't think of many right now, but I'm sure they'll be useful there). As for chores, I'll probably lend a hand with CAT:CSD, seeing as it's permanently backlogged, and whatever backlogs I'm pointed to on IRC. — Werdna talk 12:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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

A: As most of you know, I'm not really an article-writer. I am, at heart, a developer — that's my strength, and that's what I've spent most of my effort on. Most of you know about Werdnabot, which has been running for close to nine months now, and is responsible for the archival needs of some {{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/PageCount}} pages. Most of you have also seen some of my features on wikitech-l or in the Signpost, including cascading protection, expiring protection, Special:Protectedpages, blocking without autoblock, retroactive autoblock, undo, automatic edit summaries, and the list goes on (with per-page blocking, amongst other things planned). I provide support and answer technical questions for editors, as well. I've probably contributed other stuff that I haven't thought of right now — take a squizz at the barnstars section on my userpage if you want to know more. — Werdna talk 12:36, 26 January 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: You bet! Those of you who've seen my previous three (I think) RfAs, two months apart last year (in May, July and September) will know that I've always been marred by civility issues, some of which I've considered baseless at the time, but which I've sought to improve on. I've always been fairly blunt with people, but recently I've attempted to curtail this — I found that often I'd say things that weren't necessary to get my point across; and despite my viewing of civility as of lesser importance to actually getting things done, I've found that removing some negative stuff from what I say, and making it purely factual, rather than condescending or otherwise negative, has made a pleasant experience for all. The "read before you save" doctrine works wonders. — Werdna talk 12:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional question (or questions) from —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)}

4. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot, created by me) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? Some useful stats that have been collected recently are Veinor's stats on which domains are being added daily, and Heligoland's stats on frequency of link insertion. All stats are derived from LinkWatcher (IRC bot) logs. More information about efforts can be found at this handy page.

As Wikipedia gets larger, it will naturally receive more traffic. More traffic means more links, more links means a higher pagerank. As we get a higher pagerank, the incentives to have an external link to one's site increase correspondingly. It is therefore clear that, as Wikipedia grows and grows, people will have a higher incentive to add spam links to Wikipedia, and therefore a great deal more links will appear. I believe that, as with most things, there is a feasible technical solution, and I've already thought about the best ways to control spam. Simply setting nofollow on our links may curtail some of the reasons why spammers will add links, but not all. I think the best solution may be a better designed spam blacklist (global and local ones), along with filtering bots and heuristic detectors in the MediaWiki software. At least some of these are on my developer to-do list :-) — Werdna talk 05:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional "question" (request) from Kchase T

5. Will you edit your preferences/editing to remind you when you leave a blank edit summary?

A: To be honest, no. I had it on for a while, but I found it annoying for when I was doing something that was blatantly obvious, and minor. I switched it off a few weeks ago — I add a summary whenever I make edits in *articlespace*, or to *project pages*, but honestly, I don't think it's necessary when leaving talk comments (although I often do so for them). — Werdna talk 12:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from Irpen (talk · contribs)

6. What is your opinion of the off-wiki communication, particularly related to discussing or planning the on-wiki actions, especially the administrative actions? Particularly, what is your opinion of IRC? Please elaborate on your IRC experience, what channels you use, what channels you plan to use, etc.

I find off-wiki communication, specifically IRC, both useful and enjoyable. I use IRC regularly, and find it particularly useful for coordinating (or soliciting administrator involvement in) responses to emerging incidents, such as major vandalism, sock farms, spam or otherwise. I find it enjoyable to socialise with my fellow Wikimedians in a more frivolous environment. Specifically, I find IRC particularly useful in discussing actions with other editors, and resolving disputes with other editors where I am having a dispute with one user that does not need to be sorted out in public. I think that there are many kinds of disputes that should be resolved in private, in order to avoid other users "butting in" when they're not a party; and that resolving disputes in private avoids "lynchmobbing" as well as other needless escalation of the dispute. As for which channels I use, I use the technical channels (#wikimedia-tech, #mediawiki), which I find exceptionally useful for debating whether or not to implement a feature, or how to implement it. I also use several English Wikipedia channels (#wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-admins), which I use mostly as a social venue; although I will often ask for second opinions on things to say, or on how to best deal with a dispute or problem. Similarly, I use channels related to other Wikimedia projects that I am involved in (#wikimedia, #wiktionary). — Werdna talk 23:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

6a. If you do and/or plan to use IRC what is your opinion of what constitutes an ethical or unethical usage of IRC or other off-wiki communication. Is there a particular reason why use IRC instead of publicly visible WP:ANI or other onwiki boards? If you think in some cases IRC is preferable to public discussion, could you give and inclusive list of the issues where IRC is a preferable medium of the communication?

I think that, on IRC or not, off-wiki communication exists. I find it morally abhorrent to even think of restricting somebody else's communication off-wiki in any way. The reason I, personally, prefer using IRC for communication is simply because I find that IRC and other forms of off-wiki communication simply lend themselves to communication better than a Wiki does. Simply, they're faster, no risk of edit conflicts, and overall a better "tool for the job" than MediaWiki, which is first and foremost a publically editable content management system (although I'm thinking about playing around with LiquidThreads to try and get it up to scratch). As far as ethical and unethical usage, I think simply that any usage of IRC is ethical, so long as it's not for planning unethical actions elsewhere; or if it's used to disrupt IRC (flooding, trolling, et cetera). — Werdna talk 23:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

6b. Do you think discussing blocking of the established editors over IRC instead of WP:ANI is appropriate? I am not talking about the rare case when the editor is on the vandalizing spree warranting an emergency action. This is not what an established editors would ever do anyway.

I think it's appropriate to use IRC to discuss issues, and to figure out a solution. I think it's appropriate to use IRC to figure out how much support you have for something, and to gain reinforcement and ideas from others on IRC. I don't think it's appropriate to point to an IRC conversation as "consensus" to do something. — Werdna talk 10:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

6c. An oppose voter below indicated that you tried to use IRC to circumvent the process and delete the article against the consensus. I am very worried by this incident. Could you elaborate why you consider your attempt to impose your opinion on the deletion issue brushing aside the consensus appropriate?

Firstly, I'd like to say that somebody's vague memory of something that happened that even I can't remember is insufficient grounds for opposing me. If Konstable has logs of the incident, I would invite him to release them, along with the date that it occurred. For all I know, it was six months ago. Secondly, I think there's a difference between convincing, or pointing out to an admin that something meets the speedy deletion criteria, and a great big plot to have an article deleted, or an attempt to force an admin into doing something. Of course, without logs of the incident, I can't make any comment, except that I have never attempted to "brush aside consensus", as you have put it (which, I may note, is an extremely loaded way to describe what I was doing, particularly seeing as you haven't even seen the logs of what occurred). I would really like to see some evidence in this particular case, rather than a vaguely described recollection without even a time period. — Werdna talk 10:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

7 Administrators are very much involved in hot editors' related issues, be it the conflict resolutions or policies that do not have the clear cut interpretations (unlike 3RR, WP:SOCK, etc) and require case by case approach (such as DR or Fair use policies). Do you agree that the better understanding of editor's concerns require administrator's continuous involvement in content writing? As you admit yourself, your involvement in the content writing is so far insignificant and more often than not acceding to adminship further reduces user's involvement in content writing. How can you make sure you will in your administrative actions be able to understand the editor's concerns if you continue to stay away from significant editing? Thank you.

I intend to stay away from issues that I do not understand. That said, I think that dealing with most editors' disputes involves finding out what each party wants, determining whether it's actually worth arguing over, and if so, working through to a mutually acceptable conclusion. However, I don't think that this is the role of an administrator, rather the role of the mediation committee. I am not obliged to resolve disputes for people ; and I don't currently have any intention of doing so. — Werdna talk 23:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

7a The question was not about resolving disputes. The question was about interacting with editors and understanding their concerns since providing them with the comfortable environment for editing will be your main duty. them. This requires understanding how the editor sees things. How can you gain such understanding without meaningful involvement in editing on your own part?

I recognise that this is an extremely loaded question obviously designed to try and trip me up. I don't know what you're on about for the remainder of it. Please elaborate. — Werdna talk 10:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs):

8. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?

Sorry for the incredibly late response. Essentially, Ignore All Rules (and its special case, the Snowball clause) means that rules should only be applied where it makes sense to do so. For example, there is no need to step through the full range of vandal warning templates when somebody is (for example), blatantly vandalising the main page through sophisticated template vandalism. There are plenty of other circumstances where ignoring policy and red tape is obviously the correct thing to do — however, we need to be careful in how we apply these principles, to ensure that people aren't trodden-on in the process - IAR is by no means a "get out of community opinion free" card, and should only be used where it is uncontestably in the interests of the project, or where it is obvious that the community would support something; and applying policy for the sake of policy does not make sense. — Werdna talk 11:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from David Fuchs (talk · contribs):

9. I'll try and elaborate on 7a above. The core of the "loaded" question is that admins are supposed to interact with the regular editors and help them out- and I believe my and several other people's concern is that since you are not active in the actual editing of the encyclopedia, you will not be able to perform this function as well. (Irpen, correct and clarify if I'm wrong). How would you respond to such concerns?

I wasn't aware that I was under any obligation to resolve anybody's disputes for them. Seeing as admins are simply regular editors with the additional capability to perform certain operations that are potentially harmful if misused, I don't see why any additional experience over and above what I *have* done (Just because I've only been developing for the past three months or so doesn't mean that I haven't become involved in other areas previously) is necessary. — Werdna talk 11:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

So you're essentially saying that admins have no additional responsibilities to help out other editors? Dåvid Fuchs (talk / contribs) 16:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If he is, he would be right to say so. Proto::► 21:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

How so? While not exactly obligated, admins are supposed to be respected members of the community and I quote the relevant pieces form WP:ADMIN, "and meeting user requests for help that require administrative access. Because administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information. " If Werdna has really no mainspace experience he may or may not be able to sufficiently help out users. And if someone asks for his help, he is not obligated to help them, but I think everyone looks up to admins for extra assistance. Spirits of the law, if not letter. I'm just interested in hearing his response. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / contribs) 22:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a fierce defender of the idea(l) that as this is a volunteer project, I am free to provide whatever level of assistance I wish. I have not seen anything to say that being placed in the sysop group on English Wikipedia gives me any additional responsibilities, beyond, of course, being careful with how I use the buttons. In Other Words, there is never any need for me to block anyone, protect or delete any page — if I don't, someone else will. — Werdna talk 04:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Werdna's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• See previous RfAs: first, second, third.

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

• While Werdna's technical skill is admirable and I do think he is adequately informed about Wikipedia's working, I find his behaviour frequently rude and immature, though perhaps not to the extent that some of the opposers perceived it as. My primary concern is with the frequent behaviour and attitudes that can only be termed sexual harrassment toward the female participants of the Wikipedia IRC channels. I understand that there may be others who disagree with my assessment of the behaviour and/or that it is excused by the venue in which it occurs, or other factors, and they are free to do so, but I remain firm that this is unacceptable conduct for a potential adminstrator. Not to the extent that I feel should oppose this nomination, but I will not support it.--SB | T 01:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support. It's about time. ~Crazytales (IP locations!) 12:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
2. zomg support. --Deskana (request backup) 12:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. Question "Why the <censored> don't we have feature X yet?". Answer "Dev doesn't have admin bit, doesn't see the problem in the first place". Solution: Give admin bit to developer. I for one, support our dev overlords. :-) --Kim Bruning 13:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Ps: A decent developer with an admin bit can also make the most wonderful and useful backlog-killing bots.
4. Support, no problems here.--Doc^g 13:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Full support per having a brain in his head. This user is also who we have to thank for all these new features (edit summary previews, undo feature, etc) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 13:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Support - does anyone really believe Werdna cannot be trusted with the sysop tools? Proto::► 13:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Strong stupport - Long overdue, long history of valued contributions, and every reason to think the English wikipedia would benefit from giving user the mop and bucket. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 13:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Strong Support - developers need admin access, IMHO. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) (Review me!) 13:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Sure, excellent coder, has proven himself trustworthy and experienced. Kusma (討論) 13:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - proven to have the interrests of the project at heart. Agathoclea 13:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Support A good self-nom. Nice contribs, well spread edits, answers arn't too bad. Should make a great, determined, dedicated admin. Good luck. Ganfon 13:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Strong Support - if we can trust him with the source code, we can trust him with a button or two. --BigDT 13:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
13. Development Cabal Support: friendly, enthusiastic…if he can put up with my PHP, he can cope with the mop. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Yes. Picaroon 14:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Steel 14:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Support - Capable and responsible; giving him admin tools is likely to benefit the project, per above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Support Coemgenus 14:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

    Support. Minor quibbles, but nothing in the oppose section convinces me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Switch to abstaining (i.e. too lazy to pen a neutral opinion). Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

18. Strong Support. I trust Werdna. And there's nothing wrong with specialisation. Sarah 15:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
19. Weak support, really weak. But, I believe he is trustworthy. ← ANAS ^Talk? 15:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
20. Support Why not? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
21. "If they're showing faulty reasoning, the crat'll take that into account at the end." haha what planet are you editing from? Anyway, I don't usually do "per X" votes but Sarah pretty much explains why I can easily support Werdna here.--W.marsh 15:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
22. So you don't have that many edits. Doesn't matter, you're needed as an admin, support.--Wizardman 15:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
23. Support because developers should have the tools if they find a use for them. Applying the usual RfA standards, like "too low edit rate" or even my favorite "not enough contributions to the mainspace" would be counterproductive in this case. With all the cool features Werdna's given us lately, surely his time was better spent coding (which will not generate any entries in his contribs list) than slapping test templates on drive-by scribblers or running up his edit count with welcomes? Opabinia regalis 15:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
24. Support - Oh please. Just because you don't see his activity doesn't mean it isn't there. He's a dev. He is insanely active, making your experience of using Wikipedia more enjoyable, that activity just isn't something that shows up in his contributions. pschemp | talk 15:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
25. Support. Article writing has NOTHING to do with adminship. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 15:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

    Um... so applying your reasoning, I should say "screw article writing, which is what Wikipedia is about, I should just create a bot and people will love me?" Dåvid Fuchs (talk / contribs) 22:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

    Article writing isn't the only thing ana encyclopedia needs. Of course it's great, but don't say that the hard work other people do is meaningless because it's not in articlespace. Without people like Werdna, Wikipedia would still look like this. Yes, article writers are important, but that doesn't mean that everyone else is useless. --Rory096 23:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

    Article writing isn't the only thing ana encyclopedia needs. ...yes, but an encyclopedia is about content, first and foremost. So what if the page looks butt-ugly- the information is why people come, not the puzzle globe in the corner. Someone who does next to no mainspace edits cannot have a good relation to the editors and thus is limited in his help to the editors. If you took away the ArbCom, the admins, the CSS, the wiki markup, all of it- you'd end up with a jumble of information, but the point is, the information's still there. To say that style is more important than content is just sad. I'm not saying non-ms contribs are meaningless, but we have plenty of admins who do nothing but sort stubs and block vandals. We certainly need their help, but I'd much rather give them to an active contributor than someone who coded a bot and applied for adminship four times. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / contribs) 23:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

    Admin tools don't help you write articles. If all you want to do is write articles, you don't need to be an admin. What they help you do is maintain the wiki. Thus, those that do the maintenance work need the sysop flag much more than those who simply write articles. Werdna does more admin-esque work than many people. He hasn't just "coded a bot," as you put it so disrespectfully, he's one of the most active devs around. This isn't an importance-of-content issue, it's a give the man who needs a screwdriver a screwdriver and let him put down the pen that he's not using issue. He does something well. Let him do it. Kyle Barbour 06:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

26. Support. I can trust you with the tools, so even if you only use them once a month, I don't care. -Amark moo! 15:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
27. Support, obviously a trusted user, opposition is baseless. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
28. Support, Werdnabot has pretty much made Wernda's RfA. Diez2 16:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
29. Cleared for Adminship Pilot her well, Werdna! (2x edit conflict!) —Pilotguy (ptt) 16:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
30. Support as I believe Werdna can be trusted with them based on my observations. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
31. Yep. Otherwise he'll just have to write himself a backdoor in the software and get admin privileges that way. :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

    A frightening idea. Seems like this rfa is pretty much moot, eh?Just H 03:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

    10, I don't normally troll Project pages, especially not votes w/ which I fail to concur, but that is possibly the worst rationale I can imagine for a "support", and in fact sounds far better as rationale for a vote in opposition to this candidacy. If WP goes completely over to the darkside, I'd hate to think that it would be a result of your own wimpish !vote in this case. Tomer^talk 07:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

    Good grief, it's a joke. If there was any suspicion whatsoever that I would even think of such a thing, I would not retain my developer access. — Werdna talk 08:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

    If this is meant to convince me, it's failing miserably... Primarily because I see nothing in your history to convince me that you are sufficiently trustworthy to not abuse any power given you. Tomer^talk 09:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

    Submitting security-related patches isn't isn't an indication of trustworthiness? Having them reviewed and accepted isn't an indication of astronomical trustworthiness? I am glad to see you used the word "troll" above to describe your actions here. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 10:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

    What the heck just happened here? I left this discussion alone for a few days, and suddenly I see that having a bit of a sense of humour (and failing to explicitly spell out that all the reasons above are adequate to justify my endorsement) has led to an appalling amount of WP:DICK violation. To clarify, then, I believe that this approval is a no-brainer because Werdna has worked extraordinarly hard for this project, because I believe he is eminently trustworthy, and because his both his judgement and his technical abilities will be assets. Sheesh. My apologies to everyone else for feeding the troll. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

32. Support: This candidate doesn't have the profile of a typical RfA candidate, but he has made extraordinary contributions, and adminship would be useful in his ongoing work while creating no risk of tool misuse. Progress has been made toward addressing the areas that were of concern in prior RfA's, although his continuing to bear those concerns in mind would be most welcome. I'd urge the candidate to consult with other admins at first before taking any admin actions outside his primary areas of expertise. Newyorkbrad 16:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
33. Support - This editor is an asset to wikipedia. The mop wont get in the way of that, but will increase their value. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
34. Support. G.He 17:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
35. Strong Support. I can't see any problem here. Werdna amazed me with the cascading protection earlier this month which was developed in just a few days. A true asset to the English wikipedia. -- Rettetast

    Support. Definitely an asset to Wikipedia. SuperMachine 17:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

36. Support per Newyorkbrad. Not a typical candidate, but a trusted user for whom the tools would occasionally be useful; I can't see any reason why not. Trebor 17:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
37. Support as making Werdna an admin would improve WP. Writing articles is not the be-all and end-all, it's important but Werdna has made so many important contributions across the rest of WP, giving him the tools works for me. The Rambling Man 17:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
38. Support, as per Trebor and Rambling Man above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
39. Support. A lot of admins (including me) are limited in certain areas by lack of understanding of technical issues. Having such an excellent programmer as an admin will be a net benefit to the project, even if he is (as he admits himself) less interested in content issues. Chick Bowen 18:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
40. Support. --Ligulem 19:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
41. Support --lightdarkness ^(talk) 19:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
42. Support--Rudjek 19:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
43. Weak support - per Newyorkbrad. Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

    Support. Even though Werdna isn't a prolific article writer something tell me that this candidate won't succumb to Adminitis. Dr Zak 19:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

44. Strong Support per Kim Bruning, fantastic reasoning. It takes more than article writers to keep the project going and keeping good editors hanging on to RfA no 5 is just pointless. I'm slightly concerned at the triviality of a couple of the Opposes too, which makes me all the more sure there's no really important reason to Oppose the candidate. -- Heligoland 19:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
45. Support. Through his developer deeds he has shown he is dedicated to the project. My guess is he is probably more informed about how things work, than many who just edit; he will hardly misuse the admin tools (which is the major reason to oppose, most of the cases. Right?) // habj 20:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
46. $userId = SELECT `user_id` FROM `mw_user` WHERE `user_name` = 'Werdna'; INSERT INTO `mw_user_groups` SET `ug_user` = $userId, `ug_groups` = 'sysop';. Newyorkbrad hits the nail on the head. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
47. Support. Cbrown1023 20:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
48. Support - I think it's time. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
49. Extreme Robot Support. Philwelch 21:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
50. Extreme Support - Good user, very helpful. Tyson Moore 22:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
51. Strong Strong Strong I woulda nommed support - yes, this a support !vote -- Tawker 22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
52. Support: You're not an admin? S.D. ¿п? § 22:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
53. Upset Support I would've nominated you! I trust this user. ~ Arjun 23:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
54. Support I don't like the incivility, but I realise the benefit to Wikipedia that Werdna could would bring. James086Talk 23:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
55. Supporting a technical admin candidate for once. Valuable contributor, should be a worthy admin. MLA 23:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
56. Support, I think NewYorkBrad said it very well. I'm a bit surprised to learn he wasn't already. --InkSplotch 00:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
57. Support. He developed cascading protection, rendering an adminbot unneeded and ending a huge dispute. That alone merits a +sysop. alphachimp 00:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
58. Support that I want pie. Also, Werdna should be a sysop. Really, really. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
59. About time I can't think of any reason why Werdna shouldn't be a sysop. Willing to help, and trustworthy (my new two step criteria). Perspective changes when you become an admin. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
60. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{04:18, Saturday, January 27 2007}- .etadidnac taerg a si Werdna -Troppus
61. Support as a tech admin. And kudos for learning from past mistakes. -- MarcoTolo 04:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
62. Support. "I thought he was already one." ;-) Khoikhoi 04:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
63. Support Your bot has helped me out a ton of times. I thought you were an admin! S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

    Strong support after opposing last time. withdraw support for now Bucketsofg 04:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

    Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

64. Support – Werdna will use the tools, will not abuse the tools, and because he's a developer we'll all benefit from his perspective as an admin. On a smaller or less utopian project than Wikipedia, a Dev would operate in God-mode as a matter of course. Werdna has earnt the mop. — mholland 05:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
65. Support - Lets see, 0% chance of tool abuse. Give him the mop already! He can do more damage as a dev, then he ever could with a mop! Since he has not, that leaves me to trust that he will do the mop proud. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 06:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
66. Support per Eagle, directly above. Have seen Werdna around and he seems to be a very helpful contributor. --Czj 06:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
67. Support Yes, lack of activity is a bit of a concern but then again the question here is: do we believe that Werdna can be trusted with admin tools. Clearly the answer is yes. Let's please stop restricting adminship to people who average a hundred edits a day. Pascal.Tesson 06:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
68. Strong Support. I frequently disagree with this guy's opinions, but I don't see any reason why he shouldn't think he should be an admin at this point. He's a productive developer (cascading protection, anyone?) and admin tools would help in that alone. What's the holdup? But Blnguyen's comments below are to be taken very seriously. Grandmasterka 07:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
69. Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
70. Support would normally expect more activity but can see benefits of having developer/admin status; I know I sometimes come up against things that I have no idea how to do... its good to know that there's someone who will! --Robdurbar 10:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
71. Support {{subst:rfa cliche}} MER-C 11:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
72. Support per Khoikhoi. Yonatanh 12:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
73. Support- Suprised that you aren't an admin already. See user very often on Wikipedia.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 12:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
74. Support --HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 14:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
75. Support Carpet 14:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
76. Support Albeit flawed, he's made an overall positive contribution to the project.-- danntm ^T _C 19:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
77. Support. Great user, great work, would make a great admin. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
78. Support (I'm afraid if I don't, Werdna will hack MediaWiki so I can't edit any more)! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 19:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
79. Support Would make strong admin ShakespeareFan00 20:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
80. Support The added responsibilities given to him would only benefit this project. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
81. Support —Scott5114↗ 20:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
82. Obviously, devs need bits. --Cyde Weys 22:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

    Why's that? Just H 03:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

83. dvdrw 22:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
84. Support --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 23:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC) (As a dev, why doesn't he just give himself the flag? No one would ever notice...)

    1. I have subversion write access, not database access.
    2. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason. — Werdna talk 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

85. Support. I am disappointed by the edit counters; edit counts are useful insofar as they demonstrate obvious things like lack of experience that would make an accurate judgment of the candidate hard. They are not useful either in proving good judgment, or as an argument against a user who does have good judgment. Werdna will be a fine admin; his judgment is sound and he is very experienced. This is all adminship demands. Dmcdevit·t 00:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
86. Support An exceptionally well-qualified candidate.--Runcorn 01:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
87. The cabal supports this candidate! Seriously though, has the project's best interests at heart, and is a valuable contributor. No reason at all to believe he'd abuse the shiny buttons. --Slowking Man 01:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
88. Support Definitely a user who understands the way things work around here, just try to remain civil in ALL cases. P.S. Thanks for all the tools, they really help around here! Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 01:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
89. Support Users can gain trust and respect from being a developer as much as an article editor, and I AGF as regards maintaining improved civility. Tyrenius 02:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
90. Support per Chick Bowen. --Interiot 03:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
91. Support for sure. --Ali K 03:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
92. Support. Michael 05:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

    Support, due to commitment to Wikipedia and intelligent criticism of it. Someone who understands the (very large) happy medium between an "enemy" of WP and a hiveminder. Generally, this user has shown a deep commitment, and a productive, rather than combative and defensive, attitude towards critics. An admin who treats trolls etc. as nuisances to be cleaned up makes a better admin than someone who treats them as enemies to be crusaded against. Milto LOL pia 11:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

93. Support. AngryParsley ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
94. Support. Excellent wikipedian and will make a excellent admin. --Fredrick day 11:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
95. Support what fred ^ said. (wow that rhymes! Viridae^Talk 11:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
96. Weakish support, Glen and Majorly made me initially reconsider, but a number of mitigating factors, combined with the dev work, and the fact that Wikipedia will be better if he gains +sysop, make me lean this way slightly. Daniel.Bryant 11:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
97. Support - it will be a net gain for en:wp - David Gerard 11:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
98. Support - dedicated, intelligent, technical user. I'm convinced he will use the tools responsibly --Versageek 13:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
99. Support - If you can trust him designing and changing Wikipedia's look, you can trust him with admin tools (I didn't even know he wasn't an admin until I read it on his userpage a little while ago) --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 14:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
100. While there are some people in the oppose column whose opinion I respect, there are a large number of people there who, in my view, are just flat out wrong about something related to Werdna's candidacy, and who are opposing for that reason. That alone merits my support, but the large number of supports who are giving hugely valid reasons (Sarah, NYBrad, Doc, Phil, Chick, Titoxd, Eagle, David Gerard, et al.) which you should go reread if you forgot what they were, really seal the deal. #Support. ++Lar: t/c 19:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
101. Support - Though the answer to #1 seems to make be believe that Werdna doesn't really need the tools, I fully trust Werdna with the mop. --MECU≈talk 20:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
102. Support trustworthy. —mikedk9109^SIGN 20:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
103. Yes. Werdna is a dedicated Wikipedian who will certainly not abuse the tools. He may not have had many recent edits, but he's behind most of the recent new features, so he's certainly been around WP. If the tools might ever be helpful to him, then he should have them, as he's a trustworthy user and deserves to be given a few buttons, even if he might not use them all the time. Werdna's clearly a great candidate who should be promoted. --Rory096 21:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
104. Support - Great user and he has produced some of the best new features for Wikipeida. BJ^Talk 21:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
105. Support: His "lack of activity" belies the fact that he's been coding MediaWiki. He developed the cascading protection that has assisted the increased vandalism lately and several other MediaWiki improvements. He doesn't write articles, but writes code.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
106. Support - Werdna doesn't have the world's best way of expressing himself, especially when involved in conflict, but ultimately I feel the issue boils down to whether or not Wikipedia will be better or worse if Werdna gets the bit. For my part, I'm convinced it will be better. It is already remarkable that he has spent so much time developing protection and blocking tools when he has no on-wiki experience in using them, and it is about time we rectify that. To say nothing of the need that developers can have to edit Mediawiki space interface messages. I believe that experience as an admin will help make him a more effective developer. Good software is just as important to the project's success as good articles. Consider, how often does Brion write articles really? Dragons flight 21:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
107. Support, easy. This will allow Werdna to do even more Wikignoming. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
108. 〈REDVEЯS〉 21:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
109. Support. Good user, won't abuse the tools. He may not use them for the same things most people do, but he should have 'em when he needs them. -- SCZenz 22:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
110. Support For obvious reasons listed above, Werdna has gone far too long without sysop access. Let us give it to him, this time. Somitho 22:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
111. Support no doubt.Bless sins 23:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
112. Support Yes, of course. No abuse is to be expected. --Thogo (Talk) 23:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
113. Support Yes, please. Dvortygirl 23:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
114. Strong support. He's a dev, what better reason than to give him the tools? Our goal may be to write an encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean it's the only way to contribute. If he doesn't contribute much to articlespace, his having the mop and bucket or not isn't going to change it. Furthermore, in my experience, he isn't hot-headed or pushy. If he blocks someone unfairly or deletes something stupidly (which I am sure he will not), it's not like his actions can't be undone. There are no disadvantages that I can see in Werdna being a sysop.--§hanel 00:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
115. Strong Support: Werdna builds an encyclopedia in his own way. He's the kind of builder who works behind the scenes to make everything a better place; I know, for one, that his contributions to various tools are invaluable. Giving him admin abilities can only benefit Wikipedia as a whole. .V. _[Talk|Email] 00:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
116. Support shows commitment to the project. Flyingtoaster1337 00:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
117. Support. The candidate has clearly developed a lot of time and effort to the project, and understands how his software skills can make it work. I'd like to see him contribute more to the article namespace, but I don't think it's essential. YechielMan 03:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
118. Support for the fourth and hopefully final time. Andrew has contributed an immense amount of time and energy into the project and into MediaWiki. Ral315 (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
119. Support I didn't contribute to the other three RfAs (to my knowledge), as I had no real opinion on the matters for supporting or for opposing. In this case, I support as the tools will aid in contributing to maintaining the encyclopedia. I'm not a writer, I've made that clear from the beginning of my contributions here and I passed RfA. The buttons can aid in the building of the encyclopedia in maintaining the integrity of the articles that other editors have spend so much time writing. We all do this for free, whatever it is we do here. Werdna's developer work has aided the project and to not have the tools would not better his contributions. I believe having them would. It is possible to be a system operator in the sense of the word, without the gravitas (thanks, Phil!) that administrator implies. It's not all deletion and blocking, there is access to MediaWiki to consider. Teke ^(talk) 05:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
120. Strong support. Absolutely excellent developer and editor. Dfrg.msc 06:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

     Support-DESU 06:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

121. Support Terence Ong 10:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
122. Strong support. the wub "?!" 11:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
123. Support committed user who will not abuse the tools. feydey 16:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
124. I must admit to some ambivalence but he deserves the benefit of the doubt. I must also say I find some of the oppose-comments rather unconvincing. >Radiant< 16:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
125. Support Not the most exciting candidate content wise, but Werdna clearly knows what should and should not be done with admin privileges. auburnpilot talk 17:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
126. Extremely Strong Support After all your contribs you aren't a sysop? Geo. 18:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
127. Strongest Support Ever I wasn't planning on getting into RfA voting today, but when I saw Werdna up for discussion, I just had to vote. Will be totally disgusted if he doesn't get the mop (Sheesh, if Werdna fails, who would ever succeed? Jimbo would probably fail!) -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 22:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

     From what i've seen of some of his judgement, Jimbo probably would fail to be honest with you if he didn't have his name to fall back on. Just H 03:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

128. Dude,-this-guy-is-really-great support - excellent candidate, active on IRC, no chance of abuse. ST47Talk 00:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
129. Pile-on support. I hate clichés, but I thought he was an admin until scrolling through this page. -- Chris is me _(u/c/t) 02:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
130. Support Contributions, shmatributions-he's an excellent user and will make a great addition to the Wiki-warriors known as administrators. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 02:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
131. Support. -- DS1953 ^talk 03:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
132. Support. An unconvential candidate, but I'm pursuaded by the answers and arguments above. He's obviously been a great asset to WP, so I don't foresee abuse of the tools.--Kubigula (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
133. Support --Adam1213 Talk + 08:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
134. Support Cerealkiller13 08:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
135. Support for his technical work. Throwawayhack 09:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
136. Support. He has access to some powerful tools already and has not abused them. People I know trust him, and he's always friendly and helping people out, which admin powers would assist with. I also don't think voluminous contributions are a prerequisite - he's edited and edited well and substantially, and that's enough. Deco 10:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
137. Support. Werdna is a good egg. If he isn't able to pass Ye Olde Hallowed RfA System, then nobody should be allowed to. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
138. Support. Very friendly, helpful user. Deserves a bit more power. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
139. Support. It's understandable for a developer to lack much mainspace edits, but admin powers will clearly benefit him when it comes to creating tools like WerdnaBot and helping with backlogs. If someone can be trusted with the code, they can be trusted with admin powers. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
140. Unconditional Support, Werdna should've been an admin a long time before this, and I was honestly surprised that he hadn't been made one already. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
141. Strong Support Thinking that he has made a bot, I already support his RfA. Like ^demon said, "Werdna should've been an admin a long time before this". RyGuy Sign Here! My Journal 15:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
142. --Ideogram 18:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
143. Mild support. DS 22:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
144. Support. I'm with Radiant on this one. The diffs that the opposers are throwing out don't look so much like incivility. The user can obviously be trusted with the mop. Dedication to the project is there. Irongargoyle 22:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
145. Strong Support Well qualified and can be trusted.--Holdenhurst 00:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
146. Support Dragomiloff 00:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
147. Weak Support With some reservations. Some of the reasons give for opposition are more relevant than others. The first one - a lack of many edit summaries in non-mainspace is almost laughable- while edit summaries are useful in mainspace edit summaries elsewhere rarely are. For example if one is replying on a talk page it does not help anyone to have the added edit summary of "reply" or "reply to X." The next question is whether there is a lack of mainspace contributions. With over 800 mainspace contributions I don't see any direct substantial issue there (indeed, before more recent editcountitis on RfA this would have been well within an acceptable range). Furthermore, Werdna has demonstrated his commitment to the project through his substantial work as both a developer and as a bot programmer. The most serious issue raised are concerns about civility and personal attacks. While Werdna does occasionally go over the line of what is acceptable I am not convinced that this occurs to an extent that it would impair his ability to use his admin tools. Thee only other concern is whether he will use the tools- I don't think he will use them that often but that isn't a reason for him not to have them. Since abuse of tools is unlikely there is no major downside to giving him the tools at this time. JoshuaZ 00:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
148. Strong Support After seeing his edit count with wannabe Kate's tool, I see he has made 6 edits to the article Penis. That made me seriously laugh out loud. But anyway I trust him with the tools, thus my support. Peace. --Parker007 05:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
149. Support Invaluable contributor. Canadian-Bacon 06:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
150. Support we've had our differences in the past... but I feel you've attempted to change. Let's let the past stay in the past.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
151. Support per Newyorkbrad and Cyde. Kyle Barbour 06:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
152. Support, for your constant dedication to the project (a new software feature every week, if the Signpost can be trusted), for the archival bot (and everything else you may have done to silently lighten the workload for others), and being the voice of reason in the Husnock RFAR. (although you've only made a couple weeks' worth of edits in the last 6-7 months, and that some of your AFD nominations horribly missed the mark, please try to do better). — CharlotteWebb 07:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
153. Strong support As competent and trustworthy a candidate as you can hope for.--R613vlu 12:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
154. Wholehearted support - I strongly trust Werdna's technical ability to handle the sysop tools. --Deryck C. 12:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
155. Strong Support This user is one of the best bot makers on wikipedia (and i do'nt care about edit counts.) Cocoaguy 従って _contribs^talk 15:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
156. ~ PseudoSudo 16:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
157. Double Support Looks excellent.--Brownlee 23:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
158. Support -- Arwel (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
159. Strong Support Quality editor. --Mardavich 02:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
160. Support - for the person who created our revision undo and expiring protection features to be unable to edit the messages they provide because he is somehow trusted to develop but not to do such more menial things, is just silly. - Mark 04:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
161. Support per opposes. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
162. Strong Support Werdna has done more to fight vandalism than most of the oppose votes below and if we wants to be able to combat abuse on the front lines, rather than behind the scenes on the MediaWiki source code and bots then so be it. It saddens me that most of the oppose votes appears to be knee jerk reactions to issues that Werdna has been grilled over many, many times before in past RFAs. Remember that Werdna is a teenager and his mistakes were made when he was younger. His continued dedication to Wikipedia despite the repeated rejection only shows that he has matured further and has learnt from his lessons. --  Netsnipe  ►  04:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

     I agree, these are issues Werdna "has been grilled over many, many times before in past RFAs" - Problem is, the vast majority of the examples below (90%+) have occured since his last RfA Glen 05:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

163. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 09:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
164. For - He welcomed me in a very nice way. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 09:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
165. F— yeah, it's time already. He is competent to handle the admin tasks. He will not abuse admin tools is what I asked myself. He is not the most civil person around, and I am not one either. Administrators are only human, and this user is bold; and he was so before attaining adminship. I wasn't. Shouldn't he be administrator? F— yeah, he should be. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
166. Qualified support, essentially per Newyorkbrad. I think this whole RFA discussion shows, Werdna, that we trust you (or most of us do) to do good and do no harm with the sysop bit. Since adminship ought to be no big deal, I support giving you the sysop bit. However, the Oppose votes indicate significant concerns about some of your interactions with other members of the community and I hope you have taken those to heart. If you pass this RFA, for your own sake you should stay out of conflict and pass on contentious mopping to others. I think there's a great chance you will become a great sysop. There's also a fine chance you'll continue to be a great developer who occasionally uses the sysop bit when needed. There's also a small chance you could become a flameout like some recent cases - please don't do that. Martinp 17:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
167. Support. SynergeticMaggot 19:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
168. Support Not perfect, but meets the requirements of an admin. I trust his judgement with the admin tools and that he would keep "work" and "home" life separate (if that makes sense). A lack of article space edits? So what, that's only a major concern when the editor becomes detached from the considerations of normal editors. Wikipedians can serve Wikipedia in many ways, don't assume having a high article edit count makes a good admin. Werdna is just making the best use of the time he has (we're volunteers, not politicians), and still has a very strong grasp of main space editing concerns and perspective. Yes, for some people this really is possible. Don't be thrown because he's not what you expect. -- Ned Scott 20:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
169. WTF support shouldn't you automatically have adminship?--Ac1983fan 20:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
170. Support, unconventional, but, well, he's a dev-and from the looks of it, a very good one! Is lack of "article writing" such a big thing when you're making the very frame that allows those articles to be written? Seraphimblade 21:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
171. Support A fine chap; he needs and deserves the tools. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Osidge (talk • contribs).
172. Support. A good admin is not always a good article writer. His tool contributions show that he has the project's best interests in mind. --StuffOfInterest 23:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
173. Support - but perhaps reluctantly. To me it boils down to this: the tools would help in some way with his work here, and I think we can trust him not to misuse them. I would encourage him to remember that civility, empathy, and courtesy are important, of course. Still, I think he'll do good things with the mop, so I support. --TheOtherBob 23:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
174. Support - as per nom, seriously, why has it taken this long?! ;) JoeSmack ^Talk 23:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
175. Support as per nom and in opposition to <inclusion of disputed question>. --Calton | Talk 00:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
176. Support — I trust that he will appropriately use, both technically and according to policies and guidelines, the mop and bucket. Gracenotes^T § 04:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
177. If we can trust Werdna to write the code for wikipedia, we sure as heck can support Werdna as an admin. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
178. Support A fine editor. Will be a fine admin. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
179. Firm support inasmuch as I think it quite clear that Werdna should neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools, such that the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin should be positive. I am absolutely unconvinced that an admin need be a productive contributor to articles—his nvolvement in mainspace need only provide him with an understanding of the applicability of policies and guidelines—and I think the candidate's trustworthiness and judgment to be quite propitious; the answers to questions seven, nine, and ten, I think, evidence reassuringly clear thinking and suggest to me that Werdna well understands that which is adminship.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jahiegel (talk • contribs) 2 February 2007 (UTC).
180. Support essentially per Kim Bruning. If I didn't think this might result in awesome new software features, I wouldn't support.--Kchase T 12:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
181. Very angry neutral I believe that editors should not be penalized for venting. I canot, however, support an editor who vented with a coven of people whose sole intent is to harass the people who supported the ventor - it shows bad judgement and a lack of loyalty under stress. However, given that most of the other opposes are garbage, I merely decline to support.Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)support incident I was concerned about was long ago. I assume user will no longer engage in such behavior. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

     What about all of the incidents from the past few months? —David Levy 13:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose — lack of contributions, lack of activity, still seems slightly incivil at times, lack of edit summaries, fails my criteria, user shows no actual need for the tools realistically tbh :-\ thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   Edit summary usage is 99% for major edits and 100% for minor ones according to the above tool. --BigDT 13:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   The summary checker only does mainspace, I'm talking about all edits in all spaces. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose Sorry Werdna you are not nearly active enough. And your answer to Q1 is vague and shows me that although you might do a good job as a developer, you don't really need to be an admin. Also, this is your 4th request. A self-nom. As you've said, you have access to the admins channel, and I'm sure someone will do the job for you. --Majorly (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   The title of this page indicates this is the second request. Is this in error? --Deskana (request backup) 12:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   Werdna was previously known as Werdna648, or something like that. --Majorly (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   OK, thanks for the clarification. --Deskana (request backup) 13:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Weak Oppose for now. Although I do not agree with 'lack of edit summaries' (it is actually very good), I cannot support due to lack of recent activity (and to a lesser extent, lack of mainspace contributions). Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 12:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Weak oppose, at least for now. I don't think that edit summary use is quite good – in fact it's very sparse – and "I can't think of many [uses for the admin tools as a developer] right now, but I'm sure they'll be useful there", coupled with the earlier comment that he won't realy use them much anyway, makes me wonder why it's so important (four requests) for him to have them. [Those supporting him seem to disagree with him on this, and assert straightforwardly that the tools will be useful to him as a developer; what do they know that he doesn't?] I've nothing at all against him as a developer or editor, and haven't seen or experienced any incivility, but I don't see the advantage for him (or for Wikipedia) to have a mop and bucket. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose : "I'm not really an article-writer" speaks louder than words. Erm ...... yes. Seems to me that Wikipedia (especially article-writers) does not really need this individual as an admin, particularly as he admits to being "blunt". He's a developer. Developer's develop. I think I'm right in saying that. Gardener of ;Geda | Message Me.... 15:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Serious lack of contribs recently – PeaceNT 16:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Not active enough. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 18:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   Change to Strongissimo Oppose per Blnguyen - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 01:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

8. Oppose I find the refactoring of other users comments in an RfC and incivil comments in edit summary troubling. [1] (The RfC is currently closed and the issues resolved.) —Malber (talk • contribs) 22:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   Per the remarks at the top of the page, I don't wish to start an argument with this oppose vote. However, I do ask that those who take this opinion into consideration before voting actually read the diff in question—I do not find it unreasonable or uncivil, and I would like everyone to judge it for themselves. Philwelch 05:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

   Per that reasoning, Mr. Welch; does that make it ok to cross out your comment above? Everyone has a right to speak their mind on Wikipedia. Acting incivil towards those who are incivil just adds to the incivility, and trying to gag someone(which is how I saw that edit) is incivil. An admin should know this. Just H 03:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

9. Oppose per Malber. Just H 22:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose per Malber & Majorly. Werdna is a great developer but development is a different skillset than that required for an admin and I don't believe that Werdna has demonstrated the skills of an admin. --ElKevbo 00:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose based on this diff [2]. Not that he should have supported Daniel but I cannot support giving the bit to someone who advocates consistently taking admin actions against consensus. Sure the community is sometimes (even often) wrong, but I don't trust a single individual to decide when. Consensus isn't perfect, but it is the best that we have come up with. Eluchil404 13:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose per lack of mainspace contributions. Continuous engagement in content writing is the only way to not ensure the candidate may understand the concerns of the article writers, whose being provided with a comfortable environment is the crucial adminning task. No disrespect to developers and programmers, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the candidate is not running for the position in the software project. Additionally, answers demonstrate little, if any, need for the tools anyway. Ready to reconsider based on the answers to the questions. --Irpen 17:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
13. Strong Oppose.Per Blnguyen also we have enough admins who don't add to the content of the encyclopedia already. Giano 18:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose for now, though I'm willing to be persuaded. I'm concerned that Werdna tagged this as his second RfA, when it seems to be his 4th, or do I have that wrong? I'm also concerned about the amount of discussion about individuals on IRC, although that's a vague impression I have, and I stand to be corrected. My biggest concern is that Werdna has hardly edited since October 2006. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

    The previous RfAs were under a different account name, and he did make note of the other three in his statement. -Amark moo! 01:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

    Yes, I see that now, and I apologize if I seemed to imply it was being hidden. I'm also assured by Werdna that the IRC thing was some time ago, and I'm happy to accept that it's in the past. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

15. Oppose I opposed last time effectively for lack of maturity, and still see some issues. First off, for me an admin must have good article writing experience. Admins are here to oversee the article writing, and if they have insufficient personal experience with it their attitude towards actual writers (from my own experience) shows it. Second, I see lack of sufficient justification of need for the tools. Also, the bold statement at the top sounds very political and immature. I do like Werdna, I think he is a good and smart person and an excellent Wikipedian, and appreciate very much his help as a developer here and hope he can continue. Crum375 02:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

    One more point about edit summaries. I think they are extremely important. When scanning the Watch List or Histories, having edit summaries makes the process much easier and more efficient. Even Werdna's own contribution to this page reflects this issue - I was looking for his diff for the 'political statement', and could not see it in the History since he left no edit summary. I used to make the same mistake myself and I now force myself to always put one in, regardless how trivial the edit, realizing that others will thank me for it. Crum375 02:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

    Also, per Deckiller below, these are IMO absolutely unacceptable for a WP editor, let alone admin who should serve as example:"OMGWTF", "idiots", using the word "retarded" in wording disagreements Crum375 23:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

16. Oppose per Crum375. Previous experiences with this editor and the bolded statement in this RfA gives me no confidence yet that he will deal with controversies in a mature and respectful manner. - Mailer Diablo 03:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

    Oppose too brash and pushy, per my interactions over IRC. One particular example I remember well is this user quite asking me over IRC to speedy delete a page per lack of notability, as the page asserted notability I refused to delete it, Werdna was not happy about it and kept pushing me, saying things like "lets not waste time at AfD" - in the end the page went through AfD and the result was Keep by a clear consensus. Admins need to be more careful and should not try to push others to fit their opinion over IRC.--Konstable 04:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

    Comment to Werdna's response to 6c: Werdna asked me for IRC logs - I don't keep IRC logs (except in a single rare circumstance). I don't appreciate Werdna trying to dismiss this by suggesting that this was "6 months ago" - it was not that long ago, but does it even matter? Are you claiming that you have undergone a complete change of character in 6 months? Do you no longer use IRC? I somehow don't think so. As I remember this was in October 2006 and I am citing this as an example, for other examples please see diffs provided by many other users around me. I don't think you telling me something among the lines "just leave Wikipedia, you're not wanted here" more recently was an entirely mature thing to say either. You're an important contributor here, but adminship is not a reward, and you are most definitely not suited for it.--Konst.able^Talk 23:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

    I have no recollection of the first incident, and no idea why it's necessary to bring it up given that it's your word against mine, without even a log. As for the second one, I have located it in my logs. Judge the comments as you will... — Werdna talk 06:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

    And logs of the other incident have also been found. I've collected both at User:Werdna/Konstable Logs. Neither of the incidents are as Konstable has described them. — Werdna talk 07:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

    Werdna, you're not making yourself look better in my eyes. I got the wording slightly wrong? So? You're not even quoting the whole story with either one. I just mentioned 2 examples of why I don't think you should be an admin, I could point out more reasons, and others have pointed out many more. And you're turning this into what? "Your word against mine"? Huh??? I think it's time for you to respond to someone else besides me.--Konst.able^Talk 11:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

17. Oppose. Three main reasons. First, I don't think we need any more admins who do their business on IRC instead of on-wiki; second, I don't like the bolded thing above; third, per Giano and Irpen -- I recognise we all contribute in our own way but it has to be more here and less in IRC for me to feel it's worthwhile. Grace Note 05:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
18. Strong oppose I can't be bothered searching for dozens of diffs, but frankly I have always found Werdna to be hot-headed[3] and take everything on wiki far too personally[4] - I think this will translate to him biting new editors with comments like "go do something useful"[5] . I also question his judgment and knowledge of policy on some issues[6] as well as his maturity (as he has already threatened to leave the project "indefinitely" on at least one occassion[7]) - and finally, his admittance that he may not have the characteristics of an admin[8] . This is nothing personal, and I can count the amount of RfAs Ive ever opposed on two fingers; but I strongly feel that there are too many serious issues here to ignore. Glen 08:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
19. Oppose. Administrators need to be editors as well to understand the impact and importance of our core policies, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Above all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
20. Oppose (changed from neutral). In addition to the concerns I had below, I am becoming more and more uncomfortable with this candidate. Glen's comment was what finally had me decide that there was just too much doubt about the suitability of this nominee. Agent 86 10:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
21. Oppose due to paucity of article contributions and willingness to block established editors based on IRC discussions. Trials in absentia are not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Beit Or 13:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
22. Oppose First off, thanks for the bot work, good job. Second, I think IRC should be avoided as much as possible. Lastly, I expect admins to have more balance with article writing to compliment their admin work.--MONGO 16:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
23. Oppose -- Karl Meier 19:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
24. Oppose Administrators should contribute to the content, as this is an encyclopaedia... —dima/s-ko/ 19:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
25. Oppose as above- more WP than mainspace edits, a dropoff in recent edits, and the fact that he nominated himself (herself?) Dåvid Fuchs (talk / contribs) 22:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

    Since when has self-nomination been a reason to oppose?--Runcorn 23:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

26. Oppose per Glen and Malber Frise 23:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
27. Oppose per Glen, Malber, and not enough participation. Bots? I'm sorry, but I cannot buy the argument that good bot work = good admin work. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 09:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
28. Strong Oppose - cannot do anything but oppose someone who states in their own RfA their "viewing of civility as of lesser importance to actually getting things done". That smacks of a blanket excuse for incivility and unfortunately massively undermines the user's stated determination not to be uncivil. Blnguyen's diffs persuade me to up to Strong Oppose. --Dweller 13:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
29. Oppose Doesn't really demonstrate why he needs the tools in question one - The answer seems to be 'because I'd like them'. His bots are great though - but adminship is 'no big deal' and certainly isn't an award. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

    Oppose User:Trebor 16:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)<!--sorry, couldn't resist. No, this is not a serious vote-->

30. Oppose re: Crum375 and lack of maturity, as well as some quite inappropriate edit summaries provided by others. I'm afraid the user will be a bit reckless with the tools. -- Renesis (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
31. Oppose per several others above. Jonathunder 19:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
32. Oppose The candidate seems to desperately want the buttons (as per his several other attempts at RfA) without actually needing them. He does not have enough experience at policy pages, vandalism reversion, or even article writing. As such, in my humble opinion, he is not qualified to be an administrator on the English Wikipedia as yet Gaillimh 23:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
33. Oppose I think that making Werdna an administrator will result in a net loss for his productivity and his enjoyment of Wikipedia, which would be a shame as his technical work is excellent and is well publicised. In my experience however, his interactions with other Wikipedians have not been of a satisfactory level, and aside from the confrontations, he has twice taken wikibreaks of a month's duration due to choosing wrong disputes to weigh into, "biting off more than he can chew" and getting himself upset. Aside from what affect it may have had on others, it has also had a bad effect on him. When you become an admin, one will get perhaps a five-fold increase in talk page messages and potential sticky situations to get into, and I feel that this would damage Werdna's productivity even more, especially in the technical depeartment, where there is obviously a lesser supply of human resources, and to which he has made many contributions, such as the cascading protection that earned recognition in the Signpost. I should note that this opposition is not meant to be a slight on an RfA candidate, since there are also some excellent article writers with 400+ articles, etc, etc, that I gave barnstars to, but are extremely emotional and unsuited to the role and I would not support them either. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

    In regard to what I stated above, I think that Werdna has a very high rate of making problematic interventions into disputes with bad results, which shows he is not well suited to the people-management activities of an administrator, especially cooling down disputes, rather than fanning them. In the earlier RfAs, issues about the Balkan racism jibe, the "no" incident, many testy comments on places such as WT:RFA, most notably, in the third RfA, where he taunted User:ALoan (a user who has written 100+ DYK articles, 5+ FAs and polishes many other,10+ FLs) who deleted his userpage without comment, claiming that ALoan of a meat-ball goodbye and theatrics, and daring him to leave. In the period since then, his inflammatory argumentative style at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Mailer diablo, such as "bloody fuck all", again attacking people who feel that writing is important, clashing with Mailer and Alkivar [9], taking criticism personally, and here locking horns with ALoan, taking the false assumption that because some people think that article writing is important to be an attack on him, and then lashing out at people, giving the impression that he feels that they are responsible for his failed RfAs. More testy comments "This is the most retarded article name I've ever seen" and also one abrasive comment during the course of the RfA itself (when a candidate is on their best behaviour), when another user clarifies a situation to him: "I don't care. Source it or it stays deleted.". It should be noted that all this subsequent drama, and that noted below, are since the previous RfA, and show a very high rate of dispute considering he had 47 mainspace edits during that time. I feel that his record in dealing with disagreements is poor, and unsatisfactory, and aside from that, he has become unproductive by hurting himself in these conflicts. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

    Another thing is what I feel to be excessive amounts of RfAs, which show too much of a "need" for adminship, especially as he says that he would not use them too much. Given that he has been completely away from the "ground level" of Wikipedia which he would be administrating for two months on wikibreak, so from May 2 2006 until now, he has effectively had four RfAs in seven months - and the activity on the ground in that time, has not been large either - at the time of his RfAs he had 613, 685, 774 and 821 mainspace edits (they weren't article expansions or anything large, for editcountitis purposes), and 4 RfAs in 208 edits is a bit much for me, especially since there are only 20 since he declared that he was leaving in October. Being hungry for adminship is a large put-off, because I feel that it should come naturally by working steadily, rather than coveting it. From things like User:Werdna/RfSJBTWHNBTDTJPOR "Wikipedia:Requests for Superior Judgement By Those Who Have Nothing Better To Do Than Judge People On RfSJBTWHNBTDTJPOR" which he created and redirected to WP:RFA, comments like "cut out the "incivility" crap" "I personally believe that the only incivility that's an issue is incivility that rises to the level of a block" comparing RfA to Chinese Water torture, "pesky RfA regulars", saying that people oppose RfAs to keep the admin count down "so the current sysops can feel as if they're relied upon". This indignation appears to show that he feels that an idiotic and menacing community caused him to not pass RfA, and not errors of judgment on his behalf. I feel that an administrator should be introspective, and to give the blanket impression that criticism of him is baseless, and a lack of self-inspection is a bad trait for an administrator. Particularly when the community is lampooned in such a wide manner as "Those Who Have Nothing Better To Do Than Judge People" and "pesky RfA regulars" rather than taking responsibility for his conduct. The comment about incivility being OK is also interesting, since a few days later, he posts a note saying that he is leaving due to "nastiness". This gives me the impression of hypocrisy, and leads me to wonder whether he would lecture and block people over their incivility and be incivil himself. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

34. Oppose per Blnguyen, Glen and others. 1ne 03:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
35. Oppose. I had to think about this one for a while. Werdna is clearly dedicated and well meaning, and he has a use for the tools. His tendency to become frustrated, overly agitated, and incivil, however is not a good trait for a sysop; and while this may have changed, he hasn't really edited enough since his last RfA to demonstrate if it has. Adminship is not just about pushing the buttons at the right times; it's equally about dealing with the inevitable upset people who will show up seeking explanations for your actions, and dealing with them politely and patiently. The diffs provided by Blnguyen above, among others, show that Werdna would be likely to have problems in this regard. --Robth^Talk 06:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
36. Oppose mainly per Blnguyen. I normally abstain from commenting in the RfAs of "specialist admins", but in this case it seems to be one who also looks down upon "article writers" Tintin 06:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

    I've kept silent on opposers up to this point, but I'm suprised that you think I "look down upon article writers". Where did you get this impression, as I would find it quite unusual for me to look down upon anyone. — Werdna talk 07:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

37. Absolutely not. Someone who trolls his own AFDRFA page with statements such as (BY THE WAY: Please Don't Bite The Opposers by arguing with them. If they're showing faulty reasoning, the crat'll take that into account at the end. Whether they're right or wrong, opposes tend to stick anyway (people who are wrong are often stubborn, and people who are right will obviously stay opposing), and all arguing causes is bad blood and a long page [I've learned a lot of this the hard way)] deserves no mercy from the community. Such an abject expression of bad faith and obvious disdain for consensus clearly exhibits a completely unacceptable attitude for an administrator. I happily support (or fail to oppose) admin candidacies which are diametrically opposed to my own personal biases, but this user's biases are diametrically opposed to the interests of the Project, not merely to my own personal views. I can express nothing less than astonished and depressèd shock that there are so many "support" votes. I can only assume that those !voters have, w/o wanting to imply too much in the way of negativity regarding the responsibility RfA !voters incur upon themselves, have not conducted a sufficiently thorough study of this RfA before !voting in/on/for this election/candidacy. Tomer^talk 07:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

    Anyone who would make an accusation of trolling, of which the number one qualification is bad faith, on the basis of this RFA seriously needs to both get their AGF receptors adjusted and their civility checked up. This is exactly the kind of capricious hostility, unconstructive remarks with loud language and absolutely no rationale offered to support them, and outright personal attacks that pollute the RFA culture and, frankly, seemed aimed only at driving away good contributors. I can't imagine a more wrongheaded way of making your opposition, whether jusified or not, known. Dmcdevit·t 10:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

    Anyone who doesn't know the difference between an AfD and an RfA should go to WP:AfD.--Osidge 22:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

38. Oppose, of course, per Binguyen and all others who oppose. If this person becomes an admin, he'll create more disputes rather than solve them. Though he helps improve Wiki's interface, he still not deserves this position. We need a capable admin, not a decorator. Causesobad --> (Talk) 08:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
39. Oppose, per Glen and Blnguyen. yandman 10:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
40. Oppose per Robth. The lack of edits in themselves are not a problem for me- Werdna contributes substantially in other areas to make up for this. But that low number of recent edits make it impossible to discern if Werdna has improved on the frustration and civility issues raised in previous RfAs. Whether he will behave more calmly and civilly in future disputes were he to reingage with the community as an admin is therefore an unknown. For that reason alone, I don't think this is the right time to grant the tools. WJBscribe 15:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
41. *sigh* Oppose, still does not meet my criteria based on answers to questions above. This is changed from neutral below, my initial opinion. -- nae'blis 17:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
42. Oppose. Too hot-headed. Dr Zak 17:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
43. Strong Oppose (changed from Neutral). Like I said, his Wikipedian editing has slid considerably (fewer than 200 in the last 3 months); before his RfA, he hardly made any edits this month. I feel that new admins must be close to their first (or second) peak of good activity, so that they can pack a punch early in case they burn out. This user has the tendency to leave for long periods of time due to disputes, which could be a problem as an administrator. Moreover, like I said below, his edit summaries concern me (stuff like "OMGWTF", "idiots", using the word "retarded" in wording disagreements and having to be told by people to reword the heading, consistently happy-go-lucky edit summaries, and controversy against the people immediately before the issue involving them are generally unacceptable for an administrator); admins must be professional. Also, Binguyen's comments (which are similar to mine in many ways) hit home. On the whole, I believe this stems from one thing: lack of enough consistent (or the type of) maturity necessary to be an administrator. Like a user displayed below, [[10]] is a major issue; it shows a bit of hypocrisy (and what I feel is once again behavior too unprofessional for an administrator) and simple over-badgering, which should only be done kindly and in the more extreme circumstances. Some of those were 3-4 months ago, others are more recently, but all of it occured since the last RfA. As far as maturity goes, I can relate; heck, in looking at my edits from 2005, I can see a HUGE difference one or two years in the teenage phase makes. Hopefully Werdna will learn from this experience and come back when he improves on these issues, which he failed to do last time. Take another few months and try to build off of this; act professionally and build up another impressive activity string. By the way, I just noticed: happy 16th birthday Werdna; don't take this personally. — Deckiller 21:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

    Also, there was a comment above by Grace about IRC being used excessively by admins; I do agree to an extent. Wikipedia business should be done on Wikipedia, and that's why I don't use IRC. But I'm not going to use that as weight in my oppose, just as a general comment. — Deckiller 04:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

44. Changing to oppose - Ouch, after reading Deckiller's and Blnguyen's reasons-DESU
45. Oppose due to participation in exchanges that should have been handled differently. Shaundakulbara 23:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
46. Oppose this time, per Blnguyen. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
47. Oppose, also per Blnguyen. Cool Hand Luke 00:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
48. Oppose per concerns expressed above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
49. Oppose per the civility issues listed above. Specifically, he does not follow his own advice about not badgering oppose voters in RFAs. - Merzbow 01:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
50. Strong oppose per Deckiller. -- Olve 01:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
51. Oppose I'm sorry but I can not support a candidate for administrator with the concerns addressed above. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 01:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
52. Oppose per Konstable. Yanksox 02:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
53. Oppose. Lack of contribution to articles, and I'm not convinced of user's understanding of policies cited by various users above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
54. Oppose per Blnguyen's comments. You are an extremely valuable member of the community, but you haven't demonstrated that you are best suited for some of the more central aspects of encyclopaedia writing, Tewfik^Talk 03:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
55. Oppose per Blnguyen. --tickle me 03:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
56. Oppose per Blnguyen. No real explanation has been given for why this user needs to be an admin.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
57. Oppose I do not think the expressed reason for needing the mop was very compelling. I also think that as one who does not edit in the article namespace, and one who has had civility issues, that it would not be perceived as being fair for him to be adjuducating issues in the article namespace. I really cherish this users contributions to wikipedia and mediawiki, and I hope that he will not have his feelings hurt by these opposes. Jerry lavoie 04:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

    Absolutely; I hope that Werdna is not offended by our opposes, and instead learns from them; that will make him into an even better editor who can adminstrate and develop. — Deckiller 04:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

    Do you really think that User:Werdna is the only one offended by your rationale? If your arguments were sound, you wouldn't need to worry about offending anyone. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 21:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

    I disagree; I don't want Werdna to think that our rationale is in bad faith. We are extremely grateful and proud of his contributions, but we are merely listing reasons why we feel he is not quite ready to become an administrator, which can often be very frank. — Deckiller 23:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

58. Respectful oppose I can't support someone who seemed to give up on the community not so very long ago to focus on MediaWiki. The change of heart is appreciated, but as an admin there will always be some people in the community looking to get you down, and I can't be sure that Werdna will react appropriately. In all other areas his work is fantastic, and I hope he intends to carry on with it. riana_dzasta 05:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
59. Oppose per Blnguyen. Paul August ☎ 05:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
60. Oppose. Too many civility problems in the past I'm afraid. I see that this is your 4th attempt and I'm sure that would hurt but in my own good conscience I have to err on the side of caution as I don't really see that much improvement happening. You say above The "read before you save" doctrine works wonders and then you foist upon us your advice about not biting oppose voters. Participants here do not need to be told what not to discuss thanks. You, yourself have badgered RfA opposes. —Moondyne 06:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
61. Weak oppose. Some concerns with the comments here from others, but also concerned about judgement and views of process as User:Werdna/Sysop Accountability Proposal demonstrates. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
62. Oppose per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
63. Strong Oppose for incivility. I am all for the encyclopedia working well technically, but for it to work well in terms of building content conforming to NPOV, civility is essential. This admin is likely to set a bad example. Elizmr 10:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
64. Oppose: The "whose ox is it" views of "incivility" highlighted by Blnguyen are dangerous, but the 'I oppose anything that reduces any speech on IRC' in the candidate's answers to Irpen are exactly the wrong attitude to take, given the amount of trouble we've been having with the use of IRC as a sniper's roost. However, there is a dismissiveness of the questioners and users in all of the candidate's statements here that I could not support. Administrators are servants, not bosses, and people who go into the position with an idea that they're going to be moving "up" end up giving us tremendous problems. Geogre 11:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
65. oppose, regretfully. A lot of flawed arguing is flying around here. Good admins need social and editorial skills. Good developers need technical skills. Making someone an admin on grounds of his being a good developer doesn't make more sense than making someone a developer on grounds of his being a good admin. I would say "what the hell, the man deserves it anyway, no big deal", were it not for the concerns voiced above, and my detecting an attitude of being right by default by virtue of deep familiarity with the wiki. I much prefer new admins to be timorous and treading lightly until they get the hang of things, to counter the "dismissiveness" of old hands that often cannot be bothered with preliminaries before getting to the bossing-around. dab (𒁳) 13:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
66. Oppose per Malber.-Cindery 18:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
67. Oppose, very less active presently. Shyam ^(T/C) 21:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
68. Oppose I supported on basis that all developers need the admins tools, but I can't overcome the incivilty in the links given by Blnguyen which some of the links happened after your last RFA, and also lack of article writing. The inactivity votes should be discounted but still there is no way this RfA will pass now, so please withdraw and take the crtisism by heart and in three months you maybe the first to WP:300 :) as this RFA had the most ever votes now. Also if you need admin help tell me in IRC and I would help you Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

    I don't think the statement this RfA has the most total !votes ever, as of this point at least, is true. (It's getting up there, though.) Newyorkbrad 21:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

69. Oppose. Very positive bot work, but unfortunately outbalanced by what I consider to be a worrying IRC mentality, brusquely defended without addressing the real perceived problem, and lack of article writing, which I find more relevant with respect to the extra buttons, which are not really needed anyway ("might be useful, can’t think of many right now" in Q1)... nah. --Van helsing 21:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
70. Oppose per Blinguen. I am sorry, Werdna contributed a lot to Wiki and his development work may occasionally need tools, but there are just too many examples showing the wrong mentality particularily his behavior towards Aloan. Admins are supposed to bend backwards to keep productive users not to drive them out Alex Bakharev 01:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
71. Oppose and agree w/Jayjg's comment. --Duk 03:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
72. Oppose. I wouldn't have bothered looking at this one were it not for the nasty, intrusive bold warning about discussion on the RFA, which I feel reflects a severe misunderstanding of the process of building consensus on Wikipedia. Looking through the oppose comments I've come across a number of other reasons to oppose that I won't bother to list as they're all previously stated. —Cuiviénen 03:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
73. Oppose per Blnguyen. I don't anyone here feels he hasn't done a lot of great work for the project, but civility issues need to be worked on before adminship. Sorry. <<-armon->> 04:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
74. Oppose. My first interaction with Andrew occurred when he (while logged out) told me to "bugger off" [11] in an edit summary after I reverted an inappropriate edit of his (the addition of malformed documentation pertaining to a function that he'd just added to MediaWiki but had not yet been enabled on this site). I assumed that I'd caught him on a bad day and didn't give it a second thought until I found this RfA. As it turns out, this sort of incivility (and worse) is not unusual for him. I'm also quite troubled by his comments regarding the role an administrator should take (ignoring consensus and doing what he/she deems best) and by some of his comments on this page. He also has no need for the sysop bit (and basically acknowledges this). The bottom line is that Andrew is a fabulous developer and an unqualified admin candidate. I must say that I'm disturbed by the number of support votes accompanied by the rationale that Andrew should be made an admin because he deserves to be rewarded for his contributions as a developer (and because the role of Wikipedia administrator is a "menial" step down from his developer's pedestal). I'm sorry, but we entrust users with sysop tools to serve the community, not to make them happy. —David Levy 04:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
75. Oppose. Civility issues. The lack of article writing skills doesn't bother me. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
76. Unfortunate Oppose. Firstly, and unfortunately, I agree with the yello monkey (Blnguyen), who has eloquently stated his position. Secondly, I personally am against the idea of having admin decisions regularly made on IRC. While it is a useful tool for quick discussion, I strongly believe in having a sense of transparency that talk pages bring, and while I would not oppose anyone for using IRC per se, I am leary of opening my trust to someone who may abuse it. -- Avi 15:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
77. Oppose. I originally supported (under my former username SuperMachine) before switching to neutral after many valid concern were brought up. So why have I now pulled a 180 and opposed? There's a number of reasons, none of which individually would likely have caused me to oppose. The first is civility, which seems to be sorely lacking. Far too many diffs demonstrating incivility have been brought up. Another reason for opposition is becuse of his reliance on IRC. I do not want to see admin decision being made on IRC and I believe that Werdna would use it for this purpose. Finally, by not withdrawing this RfA when it's already clear that consensus hasn't been reached, Werdna is risking starting a firestorm on Wikipedia. I really feel bad about opposing, since I do think that Werdna adds a great deal to Wikipedia as a developer. ChazBeckett 17:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
78. Oppose. Candidate seems uncivil and a bit too young at the moment. --- RockMFR 19:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

    The matter has been discussed at length, and there is a strong consensus that while a candidate's level of demonstrated judgment and maturity are fair game for discussion, chronological age is not a relevant criterion. I am sorry to see this coming up again. Newyorkbrad 19:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

    I would give RockMFR the benefit of the doubt and assume that "young" is (a bit sloppy) shorthand for "immature." --ElKevbo 19:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

    Oh. That's very different. Never mind. Emily Litella Newyorkbrad 20:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

    No, I definitely mean "young" in terms of actual age. Not that this is an absolute reason to oppose a candidate, but it's clear that the candidate has the qualities of someone his age. I don't mean this in a bad way (or, in the words of Simon, "I don't mean to be rude"). And I'm surprised to hear that chronological age is not relevant. If someone that was 10 years old showed the qualities of a good admin, they would never make it past RFA. Age is always relevant, no matter what is being discussed. --- RockMFR 22:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

    Then I disagree with you very strongly, but we'll find another forum for the discussion sometime. Newyorkbrad 22:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

79. Oppose The civility and lack of recent activity trouble me.--Toffile 20:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
80. Strong Oppose. Lack of activity in recent months, and overall immaturity and incivility issues, as mentioned by Blnguyen, Glen, Malber, Majorly, etc. Nishkid64 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
81. Oppose: I don't like to do this, but I do find the civility issues too much to ignore. Heimstern Läufer 22:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
82. Oppose Regretfully, and after closer consideration, I have realized that beyond his qualifications, it is important to be civil. Politeness is the difference between neutrality and holding a grudge. The last thing we need is to believe that an administrator is biased because of their manners. Guy Montag 22:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
83. Faint Oppose. Per above. Voice-of-All 00:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
84. Oppose, among other reasons, an edit summary that contains the phrase "stinks of original research". Mallanox 00:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
85. Oppose, poor behavior, and some things downright alarming. Everyking 01:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
86. Oppose. He's undoubtedly an excellent developer, but the concerns above about civility and lack of involvement in the editing side of Wikipedia have convinced me that he would not make a good admin. I'm also concerned about the question Konstable raised.-gadfium 01:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

    My oppose stands after his off-wiki response to Konstable's question. Everyking was desysopped for less than that.-gadfium 07:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

87. Reluctant, but strong oppose. A good developer, but as all of the evidence presented above shows, he currently does not have the temperment necessary for a good administrator. BlankVerse 01:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
88. Oppose. As per reasons listed. Lack of temper management as shown in edit summaries, could not be trusted with administrative power at this moment. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 03:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
89. Oppose. An strong argument has been made that Werdna makes an excellent contributions to the project, and is basically trustworthy. However, a better question is, what's the cost/benefit to making him an admin? The upside seems very limited, from his answers and his activity as an editor; the potential benefit seems significant, given the issues raised about civility and recklessness. Arguments that are tantamount to "adminship as a a reward" or "devs should automatically have the admin bit" reasoning are flawed (and indeed, not really argued at all, so much as just assertions). It further seems to conflate "MediaWiki developers" and "WikiMedia developers" -- which, put that way, isn't in the least surprising. Even if he did have server-side access, that would speak more to "trust concerning deliberate misuse" than the "happy-go-lucky" concerns expressed here. Alai 08:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral — I'm worried about the recent slip in edits (I believe that new admins should be just entering their prime, or at least their first prime). If you can show significant evidence of continuing activity on Wikipedia over the next two months, I'd definitely support. — Deckiller 14:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And I'm giving benefit of the doubt here. - Mailer Diablo 20:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral While I think that the nominee does have a need for the tools, especially as developer (as adminship is just as much about maintenance as anything else). However, a few things still bother me on the trust side. I wasn't too impressed with the semantics that minimized the reality that this is the fourth RfA for this candidate, two of which were under a (slightly) different username. I would have preferred the nominee to be more forthright about that. As originally posted, the only reference was to the "last" RfA, without a link. I had to look up the past RfA myself, only to find the links to the first two RfAs. (The links to all the past RfAs are now present, but were put there by another editor, not the candidate.) I also wasn't too impressed by the dif pointed out by Malber or the tone in the edit summary. These are just a couple of examples, but they're enough to keep me from being able to support. Agent 86 23:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

He mentions them all (although without links) in his answer to question 3. Picaroon 06:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed to oppose. As for Picaroon's comment, it was the way the info was minimized or buried that I did not like - leaving it to Q3 was just not forthright. Agent 86 10:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that in his last RfA there were also opposer(s) noting that he had not linked to his prior requests - it did surprise me to see Werdna didn't learn from this Glen 08:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral, with a side helping of benefit of the doubt. I opposed two of Werdna's previous RFAs and still have some trepidation, but believe that he's taken several things to heart and is trying to moderate his tone (the By The Way section and the honest answer regarding civility concerns tipped me from Oppose). Good luck and breathe deeply if you pass. -- nae'blis 02:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC

1. Neutral, this just strikes me as odd. It reads like pleasing everyone is a Bad Thing that should be avoided, and that pissing off people every now and then is a sign of a good admin. That's certainly not the way to go. --Conti|✉ 13:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

   Not so much contesting, but I would like to explain: As an admin, you sometimes have to cut the Gordian Knot. Anytime you do this, you will inevitably end up with something like half the people happy with you, and half the people unhappy with you. Wikipedia is a real world project. Sometimes a decision must be taken to fix things and clear the air, in which case refusing to cut the knot is not an option (and could in fact be seen as a form of cowardice towards ones admin duties, if you will.) --Kim Bruning 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

   I understand that controversial decisions need to be made from time to time, of course. The neutral !vote of Werdna just sounded like making such decisions is a requirement for adminship, and I disagree with that. --Conti|✉ 17:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

   Hence neutral, as different from oppose. — Werdna talk 23:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

   Not that it matters - you're free to discuss what you please as you please - but after discussing this with Werdna, I'm happy with the justification he gave as to why he made this comment, and why he made it in the Neutral section. Daniel.Bryant 11:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

   #Neutral, (Moved from support). I still believe that Werdna is a net asset to Wikipedia, so I'm not going to oppose at this time, but some very valid concerns have been brought up. SuperMachine 13:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral: What Geda stated ("I'm not really an article-writer")—and it really shows. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 01:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

   I'm also extremely concerned with the edit summaries. An administrator must act professionally, even in edit summaries (an occasional crackup is acceptable, however). Although [12] was 4 months ago, I've still noticed a few questionable edit summaries since. — Deckiller 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Neutral. While I do believe that a developer (and, ultimately, Wikipedia) would benefit from having sysop powers, I intensly dislike the candidate's response to question number six (in part dealing with non-development-related communications via IRC).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral. I think Werdna is a great, great asset to the project, and I personally like the guy, but BLnguyen's statement above gives me a lot of concern. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral. Eh, now I'm not so sure due to BInguyen et al. Milto LOL pia 21:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral. I can pretty much sum this up using the answer to question 3. Werdna shows a willingness to improve on civility and recognizes past mistakes, which I am glad to see. However, the "my viewing of civility as of lesser importance to actually getting things done" line, especially when combined with Blnguyen and Deckiller's comments, gives me pause. I'm not going to oppose as I did last time, because I generally trust Werdna. But I also think civility is important, especially in admins, so I can't support either. BryanG^(talk) 03:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Neutral Apparently I agree with both supporters and opposers, so I'll just sit here on no man's land.--Húsönd 19:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Neutral - while we certainly need people who do development work on the back end, administrators really should be more involved in building the encyclopedia - that is, writing articles. (I must say, in addition, that people faulting Werdna for not using edit summaries when, for example, he posts at AN/I or votes on AfDs have me pretty flummoxed!)-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose changed to neutral until at least Werdna's answer to my question - whether on-wiki, off-wiki, on this RfA, etc, I don't care.--Konstable 23:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Neutral - Should he be an admin? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Neutral Been thinking about this one for days, still cannot make up my mind. Major issues are civility, and there's a question above I would like to see answered. I envy the folks who are sure on this one, pro or con. Wish I were. IronDuke 04:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
12. Reluctant Neutral. Good developer and active with many improvements to the project, as such would normlly be an easy support. After much review of the discussions above, and links cites, and not one I think would maliciously use the tools; however improved user relations and consensus finding skills would be prefered to access the non-tool functions of being a sysop (e.g. dealing with xfds's). — xaosflux ^Talk 04:37, 2 February 2007 (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.