Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kafziel 2

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

Kafziel

Final: (74/22/5) Ended 03:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC) (following 37 hour extension)

Kafziel (talk · contribs) – Second nom. First nom withdrawn in June.

It is my pleasure to nominate Kafziel. He has been a dedicated user since January '06 and began editing way back in June '05. Kafziel is experienced in policy, thoughtful, and intelligent. He has 5K mainspace edits, lots of talking, and over 1000 quality projectspace edits. There are some FA's under his belt (see answer #2). Overall, there is no doubt that Kafziel has sufficient experience to be an effective administrator.

At the previous RfA several users raised legitimate concerns about incivility, which caused Kafziel to quickly withdraw his self-nom that same day. I believe that this user learned his lesson. I have reviewed his contributions since RfA #1, and can report that I didn't find this user to be incivil. Hopefully, enough time has passed to allow the community to express confidence in Kafziel. Thanks. - crz crztalk 13:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

In my humble, completely disinterested opinion, the opposers are making a really big deal out of equivocal stray remarks. We have lots of backlogs, and we need dedicated intelligent sysops to combat them. I like his style, and I think he'll make a fine sysop. Besides, he's on board for recall, so if it comes to pass that he abuses the tools - an unlikely prospect - then you can come forward then and put an end to it. Lay off my nominee, please. He's a nice guy. - crz crztalk 23:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I appreciate your confidence and humbly accept. Kafziel ^Talk 14:12, 20 November 2006 (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 voters:

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 currently spend a lot of my time fighting vandalism, so my admin activities would be an extension of that. But in addition to AIV, I would also like to help out with requested moves and articles for deletion. There's always a backlog there and sometimes clearing it means putting a good deal of work into the articles themselves, which I enjoy. My focus on Wikipedia will always be the articles, so the sysop chores directly related to article improvement and article protection will always be my priority.

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

A: My favorite article most recently is Compact Cassette, which I rewrote, reorganized, sourced, took photos for, and brought up to FA status. It was featured on the main page last month. I also created the notability guideline for royalty. The guideline ended up being much more controversial than I expected, but it was a good learning experience and I think it's heading in a positive direction. I keep my own work there to a minimum, to encourage new points of view and to avoid any perceptions of WP:OWN, but I'm still proud of it.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Generally speaking, I find it best to take any project or article in moderation. If I start to feel stressed, I move on to something else. Wikipedia is a big place, and there is plenty of work to be done without conflict; that's the essence of my first rule. One of my most common methods of relaxing is editing articles related to my local area; I live in a small town so there's very rarely any conflict there. On the other hand, though, I don't back down from bullies. If someone is adamant about pushing POV content, spam links, or an unhelpful stylistic change, I will see the situation through. Sometimes that leads to conflict, but I strongly belive that as long as conversation continues, progress is made. If policy and consensus are with me, I'm willing to lead the discussion and, if need be, to be the "bad guy" who posts warnings, fills out 3RR reports, and gets his userpage vandalized.

4. From User:W.marsh: Concerning your 5 rules of Wikipedia, rule 5, No anonymous editor has ever added anything of vital importance to the Featured Article of the Day. How would you act concerning the main page FA as an admin?

On a philosophical level, I never let my own opinions influence my behavior here; I disapprove of Wikiprojects, but I'm still a member of three of them. On a practical level, I've never had much to do with the main page; my bookmarks bring me to my watchlist, not to the main page. While I would support any proposal to allow semi-protection of the article of the day, I would never do so on my own against policy. In general, I agree that page protection should be used sparingly; in fact, a user who thought I was an admin recently asked me to protect a page, and you can see my response here.

5. From James086: Do you think being an admin will help help your point of view in discussions and on talk pages? i.e. will being an admin mean people listen to you more in content disputes, talk pages, XfD's and the like?

I should certainly hope not! I believe in arguing the issue, not the man, and that goes both ways. It's wrong to oppose a proposal just because the nominator is a bad editor, and it's wrong to agree with a proposal just because the nominator is a good editor. I suppose, realistically, I can't speak for everybody; I don't know everyone's motivations. But I do know that a person's status as an editor or admin has never influenced my own opinions, and I wouldn't expect my status to influence anyone else.

6. From HighInBC: Do you feel your personal rule #4 is compatable with the guideline Wikipedia:Consensus?

I didn't realize that rule was unclear before, and I think I've fixed it now. As I explained below (before seeing this question): This rule is talking about admins who say, "Much better reasoning from the opposition but I'm going with the vote count on this one." It's also, tangentially, about the Wikiprojects that help stack the "vote". I believe it's of absolutely vital importance to disregard vote counts and look for consensus instead. I would never make a decision based on a tally. The rule is saying how things are, not how things should be. It's about taking admins and voters to task on the real meaning of consensus. In that way, it's perfectly in line with Wikipedia:Consensus and I hope I've clarified that, both here and on my userpage.

7. From Laleena: Aren't Wikiprojects vital to help Wikipedia? I think so, at least, and I also think that a potenial admin should be part of more projects than that. Laleena 12:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Long answer – My strong suits are military topics and New York history and geography (and, by association, Native American history in the Northeast), so that's what I do. I could join lots of other groups, but I wouldn't have anything to add to them on a regular basis so I don't see the point. I edit a very wide range of topics, but I don't really need a group to suggest them to me. I find them on my own.

Short answer – If I had a better education, I'd probably be part of more groups. :)

As for whether they're vital to Wikipedia, I say no. In fact, I think a lot of time is wasted on organizing the projects, voting for leadership, tagging article talk pages, etc. that could be better spent improving the articles themselves. But everyone has their niche, and some people like the organizational aspects of Wikipedia more than they like writing articles. That's cool, as long as they use their powers for good instead of evil. I've seen some quality work come out of WikiProjects, but usually due to some measure of WP:OWN. Hence, Rule #3. Kafziel ^Talk 13:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

General comments

• See Kafziel's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• I'd like to make it known that, if successful, I intend to list myself on Category:Administrators open to recall. I know the recall process itself has been the subject of some controversy, but many of the best admins I know are in that category and I'd be happy to join them. I have faith that whatever review process we eventually choose will be created for the good for the project as a whole. Kafziel ^Talk 20:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Bureaucrat's note: This RfA is hereby extended in 24 hours as of now, per the situation exposed here. Redux 03:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record, I think it makes absolutely no sense. What "situation"? Are you punishing me for asking for a closure? - crz crztalk 03:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course not, I thank you for bringing up the fact that this RfA was very much overdue. The extension is granted mainly as a way of fixing the situation created by the Bureaucrats' absence which left the RfA open way past closing time. People are allowed to participate as long as the RfA is not closed, and this resulted in a very close call. We do know that people often hesitate in participating in a RfA that is already overdue, but not officially extended, and that can impact the outcome in a very real way. Considering that there was a visible pick-up in traffic during the later hours of this RfA, with a real impact in the resulting consensus, which coincided with the circumstance that there was no Bureaucrat available at the original closing time, the extension is an attempt to be as fair as possible with the candidate and the community. Redux 04:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I, for one, don't have a problem with the deadline extension. I only want to be an administrator because I think I can help the project; if the community doesn't want me, I'm fine with that. I'd rather fail this nomination than have people think I somehow snuck in under the wire. If an extra 24 hours will do that, I'm all for it. Kafziel ^Talk 13:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Discussion

• It may not be good to have as an administrator a user with this many concerns about civility. Administrators must be civil and not hasty. —Centrx→talk • 23:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, since this is in the Discussion section, I guess I'm supposed to reply.

As far as I can tell, it's only one concern. Some other people agree with the concern, but it's still just the one thing. Others (the majority, evidently) don't even agree that it was uncivil, much less that it was an egregious mistake. It was a direct, no-nonsense response to an unfair accusation. I'm a New Yorker and a former Marine; that's how I was raised and that's how I talk, in real life and online. No, I do not coddle vandals and spammers. No, I will not pretend to do so for the sake of adminship. I'm always fair, I don't bite newcomers (which that guy was not), and I go to great lengths to avoid getting disruptive users blocked. Sometimes that may mean I come off a bit harsh while I discuss the situation with them, but I think most people would prefer a serious conversation rather than a couple of friendly template warnings followed by a week-long block. Wouldn't you? Kafziel ^Talk 01:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Support

Beat-the-russian support, unless someone can provide a reason not to. You appear to have improved significantly since last time, so I see no major reason not to support your nomination. Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 14:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved to neutral. Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 03:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Support. Strong answers to the question and nothing worrying in the user's edit history. A nice spread of edits too. I'll keep looking, but unless I stumble on something worrying I have no problems with this user getting the mop. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 14:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Support Great user, with good answers to the questions. Hello32020 14:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
3. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Strong support - I have no single doubt about this valuable user. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 14:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Support --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 15:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Support per contributors above. --RedZebra 15:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Support his "rules of Wikipedia" are pretty well thought out, and while I don't totally agree with #5, his answer to my question about it is fine. --W.marsh 15:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

   Weak support. I would prefer if your interaction with process diversified a bit beyond AFD. (Radiant) 15:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

8. Strong Support per nom and answers. Rama's arrow 17:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Nominator - crz crztalk 17:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Support! Any current concerns over "civility" are over-reactions—there is a difference between patient but sometimes blunt discussions and real incivility (irrational edit wars/reverts, rude edit-summaries and first warnings, etc.). We need admins like this user. -- Renesis (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Support and concur with Renesis13 re: incivility concerns. I see a conscientious editor that knows how to be flexible in dealing with people - different situations require different approaches. --Aguerriero (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Strong Support - strong because the arguments to oppose are so weak --T-rex 20:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Support Being a little less civil dosn't take away his good work. --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
14. Support — Personal differencs aside theres no reason why he wouldn't make an okay sysop.

    Oppose — opposing per User:Dlohcierekim and: I've ran into him before, sorry but I could never support someone who is trying to create a guideline to automatically make anybody "royal" notable and article worthy (see Wikipedia:Notability (royalty)). MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 14:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

15. Strong Support - I see very little in that archive to make me go queasy. When a user has got NPA tags all over their talk, chances are they fully deserve a ticking off. No point in crawling to the trolls. Moreschi 22:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
16. Strong support maybe you should've posted this last week ;) I supported last time, still supporting now - well-thought-out answers reflect a well-thought-out approach to editing. (I'm guessing we could easily gather some empirical evidence in favor of his #5.) Said this many times before, but this kind of forthright and direct approach to wayward users is both more effective and more respectful of others' time than lockstepping through a series of warning templates that don't apply to every situation. Kafziel will make a great admin who doesn't take any crap. Opabinia regalis 00:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

    Upgrading to... uh, super-strong support, or whatever the next superlative is, by virtue of the continued weakness of the oppose reasoning and the odd extension of this nomination. Opabinia regalis 04:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    The extension of the RfA does nto in any way reflect on the candidates suitibility for adminship. Viridae^Talk 04:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    No, but it reflects on the eventual accounting, and thus how that suitability is judged. My purpose is to emphasize the fact that the new opposition after the original deadline did not add new information that requires further discussion. Opabinia regalis 05:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

17. Support. Potential good in fighting vandalism outways any civility concerns. This isn't 2004 and we don't have 200,000 articles and limited page views anymore. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. Will make a good admin, I believe. Liked his answers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
19. Support passes my criteria, like the WP:CIVIL comment that some guy opposed because of †he Bread 05:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
20. Support - passes criteria; opposition below are taking a single comment out of context, the kind of comment that frequently comes from well-established admins. User is qualified, and we need qualified admins on that backlog, as czr pointed out. Most any admin candidates will have a few contributions we can pick on if we look hard enough. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
21. Strong support. Telling someone not to be "that guy" is not being incivil. It's telling someone not to be that guy (who I know we've all had problems with on Wikipedia. A misunderstanding of regional colloquialisms?) Very strong encyclopedic contributions, and furthermore, I don't think I've ever run into you, but I really like your style, after reading your userpage and answers to the questions. Grandmasterka 06:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
22. Support - good editor, reasonable wiki-philosophy, have not seen really bad examples of incivility. Good admin material Alex Bakharev 06:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
23. Support unless something else comes up. The comment below might fall under WP:NOBULLSHIT but doesn't cross into WP:CIVIL when read in context. ~ trialsanderrors 09:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. No reason not to. Proto::type 11:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
25. Weak support re-evaluated my position. It is weak beacuse I still have mild misgivings (see my struck out oppose) however I have decided to assume good faith and give them a go. I hope however, that time does not show my original thoughts to be correct. Thanks and good luck. Viridae^Talk 12:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
26. Support per answers to questions and I think the civility questioning is a bit out of proportions. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. He has made excellent contributions to the encyclopedia, with fine photos, a good FA, and a useful guideline. He is rough around the edges, but not mean, even the combative comments he made are below the level exhibited by some respected current administrators. His rules of Wikipedia are those of a skeptic, but note that he's not forcing them on anyone else, they're just his. He's an ex-marine, being tough is part of the job description, but he's not vindictive - read the exchanges, they turn out all right. He may be one of the rare users who will be both a good article writing editor and a good order maintaining administrator. We need more of that combination. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. Competent and committed. I find his communications clear, helpful, direct and human, but not uncivil. Tyrenius 16:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
29. Support to be honest, a lot of his 'rules' which are causing controversy are a little harshly written but generally quite incitive. "There are some cool people and some cool pages just waiting for you, and it doesn't always have to be a battle" indicates that despite some civility concerns, he's basically a good guy. --Robdurbar 19:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
30. Support, struck neutral. riana_dzasta 19:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
31. Support We need reasonable and rational people here. DragonRouge 21:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
33. Support. I'm swiching from neutral, I appreciate Kafziel's kind response and I've decided to trust him.-- danntm ^T _C 22:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
34. Weak Support; civility problems (see Oppose/Neutral below) abound. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
35. Support Ergh, this was a tough call for me. However, I think Wikipedia's best interests will be kept here and the 'pedia will be allowed to expand without any damage being done. Yanksox 01:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. Looks like we can trust this user. He's a solid contributor who contributes a lot of article content. I'm all for it. ♠PMC♠ 19:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
38. Overdue in my opinion Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
39. El_C 00:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
40. Support Thoroughly decent sort - will be an asset.--Brownlee 17:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
41. Strong Support -- I have read the comments many others have seen as inappropriate and uncivil. When I went through the entire context of these exchanges, I thought they were very temperate, given the provocations. They just did not happen to be written in very formal, dry or stuffy language. I thought "...Aw, don't give me that "civil" stuff. was great and cut to the chase. The person writing on his talk page had just inappropriately accused Kafziel of being uncivil in response to what I thought was a well-reasoned, correct and temperate comment by Kafziel. I think Wikipedia needs more of that sort of genial directness (properly applied as Kafziel did). I'm usually very conservative when looking at RfA candidates and one of the editors most likely to oppose a nomination. --A. B. 18:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
42. Support --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
43. Support. Although civility is important, requesting robotic, constant perfection in this category as a reqiurement for admin status detracts from the project. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. I went over the examples of alleged incivility, and while Kafziel doesn't sugar-coat his replies, I didn't find his responses to be rude or out of line. We often let vandals enjoy the benefit of the doubt far more than they deserve, and Kafziel draws the line earlier than some of us, but in all cases I examined this was well justified. His philosophies, as listed on his user page, are a keen observation on this society, and his ideas for improving things, such as semi-protecting featured articles, are right on the money, although unlikely to be adopted in the current atmosphere. Kafziel will make a strict but fair admin. Owen× ☎ 20:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
45. Support - I, too, examined these incivil incidents. He's a bit rough, but that's something you find in other admins, and despite the fact that lots of people disagree with his ideas, I feel they're in the spirit of improving the community rather than simply accepting the status quo. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 01:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
46. Support - He has much to offer, and if you accept the grounds advanced by his opponents, you'd have to de-sysop at least 100 current admins!--Londoneye 12:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
47. Weak support I'm not really worried about the civility claims that I may note have no been backed up with diffs, but his opinions on WikiProjects concern me. Still, Kafziel is a very productive member and I doubt that he will abuse the admin tools. Mike 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
48. Support I can understand the concerns of those who are opposing, and I do agree with most of them pertaining to civility. We do need more responsible and productive admins. Since the candidate is willing to join the category of admins open to recall, this gives me the confidence to give my support here. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
49. Support - Tells it like it is without bowing down to the civility police. - Hahnchen 01:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
50. Support - this user seems very adept at distinguishing between civility and passive aggressiveness. Kafziel is a very intelligent Wikipedian who has an aptitude to handle extremely complicated situations on Wikipedia. His approach may appear superficially polarizing, but there is a clean underlying logic to it. The way this RfA nomination has evolved to date is simply not representative of the strengths and capabilities of this Wikipedian. If one seeks to find fault, one can always find it. I'd encourage a closer look at his collaborations, as well as his other archives. Full support. --HappyCamper 06:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
51. Support Civility matters a great deal to me, so I gave serious consideration to the opposition's objections here. However, I trust Crz's judgment, and I am encouraged by the candidate's openness to recall. His excellent editorial skills are not in doubt, and I think he will be an asset with the mop. Xoloz 18:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
52. Support why not, seems sufficient.Must^TC 19:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
53. --Dario vet 13:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
54. Support guts and sense. KazakhPol 19:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
55. Support Per above. Yankee Rajput 21:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
56. Support per Xoloz, Yanksox, and Mike and inasmuch as I am quite confident that Kafziel will neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools and will, qua admin, be sufficiently civil as to be able to interact productively and collaborate successfully with other editors, such that it is, I think, plain that the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin will be positive (the latter is my RfA standard). Joe 08:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

    Support, yeah, you tell those finks! um, I mean, please ensure you keep up the recent improvements in civility and you'll be gravy. Proto::type 10:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Stricken, duplicate of #25. Essjay (Talk) 11:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

57. Support. Very strong support from somebody who has interacted with the user in several different (and not always to either of our liking) circumstances. We may not always agree, but I most definitely trust his judgement. ... aa:talk 20:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
58. Support, you are lucky I just about signed Oppose. The civility problem worrys me but I think if you work on it you will be a fine admin.__Seadog ^♪ 21:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
59. Support While there are a few areas needing work, I don't think the concerns raised below will hold this user back from being an effective admin. Good Luck! -- AuburnPilot^talk 23:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
60. Weak support The civility concerns brought up by the oppose votes are worrisome but most of the relevant civility issues pointed to are simple cases of sarcasm which IMO doesn't constitute incivility per se. JoshuaZ 03:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
61. Support. He's of at least average civility and above-average utility. --tjstrf talk 04:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
62. Support - I did not find the comments pointed out by the first oppose voter to be incivil. Furthermore, I found the responses to the oppose voters to be reasonable and clear, and not combative. Based on the previous support votes, and the candidate's pledge to be open to recall, I support this candidate being given the administrator tools. Carcharoth 04:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    I will, however, note here my concerns with crz's 'campaigning' on behalf of "his nominee". I find comments like "Lay off my nominee, please. He's a nice guy.", and crz's suggestions to a bureaucrat that the RfA be closed as successful[1] to be inappropriate. It is posible that crz's actions could do more harm than good. Carcharoth 04:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    I support these sentiments. I understand that crz wishes to see a candidate he nominated successful, but there is a limit. Viridae^Talk 04:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    Not that this should reflect on the user in any way. Furth discussion on the topic should take place elsewhere. Viridae^Talk 04:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    I suggest here. Carcharoth 04:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    No no, I did not suggest it be closed as successful. I understand 7X% is a judgment call, and I suggested the crat close it. Period. The lay off stuff was in jest, obviously. Italics are there for a reason. - crz crztalk 04:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    If you insist on responding here, I'll reply here, but I do suggest we take this to the venue suggested above. I apologise if I misunderstood your comment that I linked to, but I still think that badgering a bureaucrat to close the RfA asking a bureaucrat to close the RfA after they said they would extend it is not appropriate. It gives the impression that you want to see the RfA closed now, in case oppose votes are added. Please, step away for a bit and let the bureaucrats do their job and let the community make their decision. Carcharoth 05:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC) strike out performed and correction (in italics) added Carcharoth 13:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    Well, there goes civility and good faith out the window. How informing the crats they missed a deadline can be seen as badgering is quite ridiculous. If anything, crz should have been thanked for pointed out the oversight...Let's try to remember the focus of an RfA (the candidate). -- AuburnPilot^talk 06:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    I think you've possibly misunderstood what happened here. Please look at the way the discussion developed here. I will explain further on your talk page. Also, crz has been thanked for pointing out the oversight. See Redux's comment on this page here. I fully agree (as I said before) that the focus should be on the candidate, and I hope we can end this subthread here, continuing on talk pages elsewhere if needed. Carcharoth 12:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC) correction added above Carcharoth 13:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

63. Support Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
64. Support A good editor and a well deserved promotion--Looper5920 09:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
65. Support - I think he'll do good — Lost^(talk) 10:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
66. Support, I see no problems here, he should be fine as an admin. NoSeptember 11:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
67. Kusma (討論) 14:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
68. Support. Sandy (Talk) 14:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
69. Support. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
70. Support per the candidate's overall record and with my usual caveat that this does not signify agreement with every word the candidate has ever written on the site. Newyorkbrad 15:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
71. Support. While I am somewhat concerned about the candidate's civility issues, I feel that it's not enough to deny the candidate adminship, and I'm somewhat confident that now that it's been pointed out to the candidate that he needs to be more civil, the candidate is likely to change his ways. --Rory096 20:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
72. Support I really do trust crz's judgment, despite the concerns brought up below I'm sure Kafziel will do a good job. Alphachimp 22:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
73. Support. There are good arguments on both sides but I am swayed to support. -- DS1953 ^talk 01:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
74. Support. Per all above. Wiki Warfare to Infinity 03:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Still seems a little condescending, impatient, and perhaps even imperious. The frequent sarcasm laceing this archive raises a question of incivility. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

   This goes back to my answer to question 3, as well as my second rule. I don't back down from bullies, and I am willing to be the one to take the flak when editors are uncivil or disruptive. I don't need to assume good faith if bad intentions are clear, and I don't feel that being obsequious toward spammers and vandals gets anything done; sometimes a genuine conversation with a stern tone makes far more progress than warning templates. If you look at my contribs you will see far more substituted warning templates than original comments; a stronger tone isn't needed in 99% of cases, but I feel it's important for editors (particularly admins) to be able to muster one up when appropriate. I never use personal insults and I don't think my language is anywhere near as condescending as templates like {{behave}} or as impatient as {{blatant vandal}}. It's suited to the situation, and usually quite effective. I know there are different schools of thought on this, but I believe that a stern talking to is much better than a series of overly polite warnings leading up to a sudden block. Kafziel ^Talk 17:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

   Comment Upping to strong oppose based on supermachine and evidence of lack of maturity/combativeness per user's response above. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and adims should put out fires, not pour on gasoline. One can be firm about one's position without perceiving onesself as "not backing down from bullies." One can guide or correct or coach without incivility. In fact, it works better without it. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Weak Oppose. Per responses to other users such as this (last month): "...Aw, don't give me that "civil" stuff. Have a look at #2 on my Wiki philosophies. Don't be that guy. That's such a noob thing to do, and you've been around long enough to know that...". Admins need to be able to deal with trolls and vandals in a calm manner and I don't have confidence that Kafziel is there yet. SuperMachine 17:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

   I really don't intend to reply to every "oppose" vote—everyone is entitled to their opinion—but I do think this is unfairly taken out of context. What about the paragraph right before that, where I took a lot of time to patiently explain the issue and what was needed to solve it? Did you see anything there that would warrant his comment to me about civility and good faith? I warned him about 3RR (which is required by policy) and I went even further by telling him how he could cite the material to make it acceptable. He has been around long enough to know that his reply was in poor taste, particularly after the time I took to help him, and he obviously realized as much when I called him on it. Kafziel ^Talk 17:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

   When dealing with vandals and trolls (especially), admins frequently face rude and unwarranted comments. A sarcastic response is only going to make the situation worse. It's a matter of opinion, but I believe that "polite, yet firm" is the only appropriate way to respond. SuperMachine 17:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

   He wasn't a vandal or a troll. He was (still is) a generally good and well-established editor who was caught up in a bad edit war. I helped snap him out of it before he got himself into trouble again. It wasn't sarcasm, it was a reality check. It helped him avoid a block, and he didn't complain. Kafziel Talk 18:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

   I think I did a poor job explaining myself. My point was that admins are going to encounter some rather unpleasant and rude users. Since you plan on fighting vandals, these encounters would likely be quite common. Sometimes a "reality check" might be effective, while other times it's going to make the situation a whole lot worse. I just fail to see a scenario where civility wouldn't be the best option. I realize that my opinions aren't held universally, and I may be in the minority. However, while I appreciate your explanation, I'm still maintaining my oppose. SuperMachine 18:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

   That's cool. Thanks for the input. Kafziel ^Talk 18:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Very weak oppose I do not think this user has gotten past his civility problems. Things like don't give me that "civil" stuff. Have a look at #2 on my Wiki philosophies. Don't be that guy. That's such a noob thing to do would really disturb me if I heard it from an administrator. His response is that it's context somehow makes it acceptable, I disagree. You could have said the same thing without name calling. One of the biggest things admins have to do is deal with people who do not understand, or do not want to understand the rules. They must remain civil regardless. I also disagree with his rule #5 as I think it is probably not true, and a little insulting to our anon editors who are helpfull. I would like to ask if you really checked the history of all the main page articles to confirm that? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

   I'll reply since you asked: Rule 5 is just an opinion on my user page, not meant to be a proposed policy or anything, and as I noted in question 4 it doesn't have anything to do with my day-to-day Wikiing. Lots of people have their own "rules" on their userpages that they've written based on personal experience. Some even write entire essays about them. I certainly don't see it as an insult: I don't think it's insulting to say IP editors can't vote at RfA, and I don't think it's insulting that regular editors can't edit the main page, so I don't think it's insulting to say that anons shouldn't be able to edit the article of the day. I have, in past discussions, asked for evidence to disprove the rule—just one truly phenomenal edit that made up for the huge amount of vandalism surrounding it—and I haven't seen one yet. I'm always open to examples, though. If I found one, I'd put it up for display on my userpage. As for the rest, my reply to SuperMachine pretty much sums up my feelings on the issue, and I just have to be okay with that. Kafziel ^Talk 18:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks you for your prompt reply. I read your answer to question #4 where you say your rules are personal rules and you would not apply them to others. I also saw you refer to your rule #2 when chastising another user. This confuses me a bit because it seems you are applying the rule to another here. What I really wanted you to reply to was my question as to whether you have gone through the histories to see if no anon has ever helped a featured article. I agree it is not insulting to say anons cannot edit the featured article. However I do think it is insulting to state No anonymous editor has ever added anything of vital importance to the Featured Article of the Day, unless it is true, which I seriously doubt. If I am wrong about this I will retract that point of contention, but negative proof is difficult to come by. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

   When I referred him to my second rule, I wasn't telling him to follow it; I was showing him that it's a very cliche response given by people who are being unfairly defensive. In other words, what he said was so predictable that I already had a rule up about it. It's what vandals and trolls do, not what good users do, and I was just pointing that out. I would never tell anyone to obey my rules; my rules, like every other userpage rule, are meant to illustrate how predictable things are. If I refer to them, it's only for that purpose.

   As for the FA thing, yes, negative proof is difficult to come by, but positive proof isn't. I'm willing to bet that if you look at today's FA, the last anon edit will be vandalism or, at best, a self-reverted test. I can't effectively demonstrate a total lack of good edits, but if you can show me one anon edit that a) was factually correct, b)was properly cited, c)was properly formatted, d)was not redundant, and e)couldn't possibly have waited until the next day, then I'd be happy to recant. Kafziel ^Talk 19:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

   Very well, I drop my contention about rule #5. I have already weakened my oppose. I wish you luck, I find you a very good editor, should you be granted admin privilidges I would not be upset. Oh, I found this[2] but the user is only undoing his own edit. hehe . HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

   Ha ha ha! That was my best-case scenario! But seriously I've always found you to be a good editor when we've run across each other in the past, so your input means a lot. Thanks. Kafziel ^Talk 19:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

   I am going to change to very weak oppose, because this is the only fault I can find with an otherwise very fine candidate. I cannot retract my oppose because Kafziel has not at any point that I have seen admited that the incivility I mention was a mistake(please correct me if I am wrong about this, it will make a difference). Instead he claimed it was acceptable because of the context.

   Of course an admin, or even a potential admin can make a mistake, or even break civility once in a while, but it is essential for that mistake to be recognized as a mistake after the fact by the admin. Others disagree that this was incivility, I see it as a mistake but not a serious one.

   I ask those who opposed based on my opinion to consider that my sole reason for opposition is the lack of expressed regret in the incivility mentioned in my original opposition. The incivility itself is not a concern due to the fact it is the only example I have found.

4. Oppose I don't want to be a trendfollower (I set the trends, man!), but Dlohc does bring up some good points. An admin must maintain his cool at all times, regardless of the situation. If you can't keep your calm in simple conversations with "noobs", then how can you expect to be civil to users who will make personal attacks at you (which should be expected if you become admin)? Also, I wouldn't have made this such a big deal had this occurred months ago, but this was just 3 weeks ago! I don't think you can totally morph into a new personality in just three weeks. If it happens, it's only superficial. Nishkid64 21:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

   In my humble, completely disinterested opinion, the opposers are making a really big deal out of equivocal stray remarks. We have lots of backlogs, and we need dedicated intelligent sysops to combat them. I like his style, and I think he'll make a fine sysop. Besides, he's on board for recall, so if it comes to pass that he abuses the tools - an unlikely prospect - then you can come forward then and put an end to it. Lay off my nominee, please. He's a nice guy. - crz crztalk 21:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

   I deeply respect the Russian, but as bad as the backlogs are, I think it may be better to prevent a problem than remedy it after it occurs. In the nom statement, we were assured that the civility issue had been laid to rest. And yet, in the most recent of Kafziel's talk achives, is plenty of indications that it has not. I believe that the user is a fine, valuable, outstanding contributor. He will a fine admin-- someday. He's is just a little too testy. A little too pugnacious. He needs more time to calm down before he can be trusted to not whack someone with that mop. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

   Per my comments above, I agree with Russian. I'm not sure that the comments aren't being overemphasized; I've seen plenty of admins come across in a more harsh manner, and probably most admin candidates have something we could pick on if we looked hard enough. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose per HighInBC, SuperMachine, and others. Sorry. 1ne 23:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Per Dlohcierekim, SuperMachine and Nishkid64. Zaxem 00:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose This editor is biased. He removes other editor's contributions and is not tolenent of opinions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.174.174 (talk • contribs)

   Anons may not vote support or oppose, though you can ask questions or comment in the comments section. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 02:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose per the reply to Dlohcierekim. I am worried that you are confrontational, and have not learnt that it is a far better option to deal reasonably with those disrupting wikipedia rather than being straight and too the point. Being polite means they are less likely to get offended and cause further damage. The same thing applies in edit wars, defusing the situation works far better than arguing it straight out. Try and reason. For this reason I am not supporting your RfA. However, if you show improvement I would be happy to reconsider ina few months time. Viridae^Talk 07:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

   it is a far better option to deal reasonably with those disrupting wikipedia rather than being straight and too the point - I'm afraid I don't understand this comment; would you mind clarifying? 'Dealing reasonably' and 'being straight and to the point' don't seem like opposites, and the latter is usually described as a good thing. Have I misread something? Opabinia regalis 07:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

   I feel that straight to the point does not necessarily need to be oppostite from dealing reasonably, however I much prefer a softly softly apprach rather straight to the point because I feel that being blunt with some users, paticuarly those involved in edit wars or vandalism can only inflame the matter further. (for me straght to the point is: "Stop vandalising or be banned" as against "Please can you stop vandalising the encyclopedia." - if they need further reinforcement, a more direct apprach may be needed but early on in a confrontation/incident I feel that being polite and assuming good faith are the way to go.) If I have misinterpereted Kafziel, please feel free to point it out. Viridae^Talk 11:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

   There is further discussion on this on my talk page if anyone else would like to discuss it, you may like to read that first. Viridae^Talk 12:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

   Unfortunate oppose. Civility is paramount for me, and your "rules" do not show good faith or the ability to necessarily sympathise with newer editors. Be honest, when was the last time anyone, anon or not, added a well-sourced, vital edit to the Featured Article of the Day while it was there? By the time they get to the Front Page, they should be fairly complete to begin with. I think your standards are unattainable; I found plenty of examples of anons reverting vandalism or fixing grammatical errors/faulty bot behavior on the FAotD, which is valuable for the integrity of our encyclopedia as well. In addition, Rule #4 shows a fundamental misunderstanding of consensus as it should function here on Wikipedia; if you believe it is being misapplied, that is one thing, but to capitulate to the "voters" is not the right answer. -- nae'blis 17:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

   Whoah, whoah, whoah - big misunderstanding there: Rule 4 is lamenting the current state of things, not saying it's right. Admins who say, "Much better reasoning from the opposition but I'm going with the vote count on this one," (and the Wikiprojects that stack the "vote") are what that rule is talking about. I believe it's of absolutely vital importance to disregard vote counts and look for consensus instead. I would never make a decision based on a tally. The rule is saying how things are, not how things should be. It's about taking admins and voters to task on the real meaning of consensus.

   I've answered the bit about Rule 5 in the questions section, on my talk page, and in the replies above. Keeping the Featured Article of the Day open to editing is official policy and not remotely subject to my opinion, so I don't see why it's relevant. It doesn't matter what I think about it, it is what it is. But if you still want to oppose, that's okay with me. The most important thing to me is that you understand what I'm saying with Rule 4. Kafziel ^Talk 17:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

   About rule #4: That's odd, then, because now that I look closer, two of your rules (#3 and #4) are descriptive and the other three are proscriptive. Initially I thought they were all proscriptive, if-Kafziel-were-God-Emperor sort of stuff. Have you considered wording them more similarly to #1? I think that's a very good piece of advice, there. My concern though isn't so much with the words on the page as the sentiment of the user, of course, but I am considering my opinion still, no worries. Rewording the title on 5 probably does make it less inflammatory, yes. -- nae'blis 18:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

   The section used to be part of a larger "My Wikipedia philosophies" or something like that; I changed it a while back because calling them rules just made them easier to refer to. Until yesterday, very few people bothered to look at my page besides me, so it was never an issue. I'll take a look and try to clarify some points, and maybe retitle the section again. Kafziel ^Talk 18:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for all your replies. While I cannot support, I no longer stand in opposition to this RFA. -- nae'blis 04:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose Way too combative with the oppostion presented in this RFA. Civilty is big with me. semper fi — Moe 02:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose per all of the above. Dionyseus 10:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose An admin cannot be too combative and must be willing to concede ground if need be. Also per concerns raised by Dlohcierekim and SuperMachine. I would be able to support a future try (if any), provided that behavior becomes less...flaming, shall we say. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose - with regrets. I am not an admin, and, because of my occasional combativeness, there is no way I would vote for me if I ran anyway. Not saying that Kafziel is as bad as I am in this regard, but admins should preferably not be very combative, as it could occasionally interfere with their function. I agree he is excellently qualified in all other ways, and maybe I'd be in favor of him in a few months if this tendency went dormant, but my concerns on this point are such that I can't support him now. Badbilltucker 23:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose as per Physicq above --Lostkiwi 06:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose - Unfortunately I have to oppose. I've seen what everyone has said & they have brought up way too much stuff for me to support or stay neutral. I'm sorry man. Maybe in a couple of months you can come back & try if you've had no arguments (as was the case in my RfA... which failed miserably ;) Have a good day! Spawn Man 06:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose per his very telling archive 8. I seriously want more people who can take the ugly red stuff away from the top of C:CSD once and for all, but someone who argues that bitingly is not the person to do so, IMO. Kimchi.sg 17:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose: discussion of this adminship has made way out into Talk pages, and this whole RfA seems more like a political race where Kafziel is trying to appease everyone with answers that don't always seem to be in agreement with one another. This, in my strongest of opinions, is not what Wikipedia ought to be. Utopianheaven 08:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose per Dlohcierekim, SuperMachine and Nishkid64. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose Per Nishkid64. Wikipediarules2221 02:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
17. Weak Oppose Per Nishkid64. Dinojerm 02:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose. I had some doubts earlier about experience with process other than AFD, but there are simply too many users here concerned about combativeness. (Radiant) 12:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
19. Fully oppose. combativeness. does not hesitate to destroy work of others (= attitude which is incompatible with AGF and collaborativeness). wants to get the last word. find pretexts (=excuses) to repeat when his first reason is rebutted. will not in all likelihood to hesitate being similar with admin tools. bad experience. his candidature hereby rejected. ObRoy 15:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    What are you refering too? Do you have diffs to back this up? Was this about an article being deleted? More information is needed. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    This was an unsourced/POV issue from back in May. Here are my diffs: [3] [4]. Kafziel ^Talk 15:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    ObRoy, if those diffs are the same actions you are concerned about, then you may want to read WP:CITE and reconsider your vote. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    Kafziel was so bold as to erase my work by edit comment "rvv", that is, calling it vandalism. In other words, Kafziel clearly did not understand what vandalism means here. Then, there is no POV in my edits, and yet Kafziel even today tries to imply that they are POV. Despicable. A sign of his comative, and "try to maintain a pretext" attitude. Lastly, the source question: Kafziel has been around to put his weight to various issues about royalty, and therefore it is to be reasonably expected that he would also himself know the standard sources of royal genealogies, such as (the very easily obtainable) Europäische Stammtafeln's internet version (at euweb-royalty or whatever it is), for example, and thus add citations of those facts himself if he really feels such citations are necessary. Next, the procedure to request citations is actually not that one erases, but to use a tag (so, if someone erases because of feeling that sources are lacking, without first using the tag, that's actually close with vandalism and at least a deplorable and non-constructive working style). In my opinion, citations of that well-known genealogy are not necessary; our cite policy says that such details that may be controversial should be backed by citations, and, well, Charles II's and Joseph Ferdinand's immediate pedigrees are NOT in any way controversial. In fact, they are so well known as to almost to belong to general knowledge. An analogy: we do not need to back with citations the fact that Charles, Prince of Wales happens to be a son of Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. So, there actually came some affirmation from Kafziel himself that my opposing vote is very valid. ObRoy 21:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

20. Oppose per above. Naconkantari 15:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose per above. Candidate probably would make a good admin but it's clear that there are a number of people that I respect who think Kafziel needs to adjust his combative and biting tone. Recall and ARBCOM are "sledgehammers" to deal with egregious behavior. The RFA is our last chance to make a point about undesirable behavior which is something less than "a federal case". Kafziel doesn't seem to have gotten the point that the opposers are making so let's have him think about it awhile between now and his next RFA. --Richard 17:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose per civility issues. I held off on this one as I haven't had any interactions with this editor, but felt I needed to look into it based on the number of concerns raised. Looking at the past interactions, I'm afraid this editor doesn't meet my standards as an admin. —Doug Bell ^talk 18:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral — I've ran into him before, sorry but I could never support someone who is trying to create a guideline to automatically make anybody "royal" notable and article worthy (see Wikipedia:Notability (royalty)). MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 14:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Switched to oppose per oppose #1. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 16:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Neutral from previous support. As much as I'd like to support you, civility is a fundamental aspect of adminship, and based on the concerns above I don't believe you meet the standard I expect from candidates. I won't oppose, since it's clear enough you're competent and experience enough for the job; however, administrators of all users must take extreme care to always be civil to users even under fire, and so I cannot bring myself to support. Sorry. Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 03:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral Firstly, I wish to point out that you are a great editor. Moreover, your answers to the above questions were excellent. However, civility is a very important part of adminship and I feel that you have not met the high standards of civil behavior based on the concerns from the other users. You do not deserve an oppose opinion due to your excellent contributions to this project, but I can't support your nomination for the time being. But please do not get discouraged over this. If this RfA passes, I would be happy for you. If it fails, I would like you to try again for adminship after these concerns regarding civility are met. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral - This is a difficult choice to make. I don't feel I can support right now, despite my respect for the nominator and your excellent work. Incivility is not something I can overlook easily. That said, I can't exactly oppose you either. Trust me when I say that this is a very respectful neutral opinion, and I don't give it lightly. All the best, riana_dzasta 05:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Apparently, it was given more lightly than I thought... eh, you're not that bad, we put up with worse from some people. Sorry about the flip-flopping. I promise it won't become a habit. riana_dzasta 19:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral This should have been a simple, one line support for a great and dedicated editor, but it's turned out to be one of the fhardest RfAs for me as an RfA !voter. However there's still something about the five laws that don't sit right with me. I've been mulling this for over a day, and right now I'm still somewhat on the fence.-- danntm ^T _C 18:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

   Well, if it helps at all, I made some changes to them at the same time you were writing this. I changed the "rules" title back to the original "philosophies" and (I think) clarified my stance. I appreciate all the thought you've put into it. Kafziel ^Talk 18:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

   Switched to support, please see above.-- danntm ^T _C 22:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Neutral Kafziel is extremely combative. Although I do not doubt his experience, he does not exhitbit the self control needed to be an Admin. Sorry man.Sharkface217 04:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral, switched from Oppose above. I cannot support because of concerns outlined above, but I no longer view the granting of the administrator bit to Kafziel as something worth my full opposition. Whatever happens as the outcome of this, I hope he gains a little faith in his fellow anonymous users, as they make up a large segment of our work here. -- nae'blis 04:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral. While I do not think the civility issues are as grave as other editors make them out to be, this candidate is still extremely blunt, which seems to (inadvertently?) escalate situations that could otherwise be resolved with a minimum of stress. I would encourage this candidate to choose his words very carefully from now on, making that extra effort to try to understand other people's points of view and not just callously stating the relevant policies. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:49, 28 November 2006 (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.