Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RevRagnarok

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

[edit] RevRagnarok

Final (39/18/9); Ended Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:48:03 UTC

RevRagnarok (talk · contribs) - Gee, what to say, what to say. I pretty much run AWB all the time when I'm home (and I'm sure its developers are sick of my hanging out in their feature request page). I've been part of WP since 2004 for 7800+ edits (as of nom, and I use preview a lot) and part of the Open Source community since around 1999 (first GPL software was 2000 provable by freshmeat.net). I say that because I consider WP an extension of the concept. Due to the nature of my work, I sometimes have windows of 10-15 open minutes that I currently use for watchlist watching (1800+) mostly for vandalism (my personal favorite was this one since I worked with Boeing on the V-22 in my earlier days). — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 01:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 02:32, 16 March 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:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: As I noted above, I get blocks of 10-15 min available on occasion throughout the workday (GMT -4) to chip away at the backlog (using AzaToth's TWINKLE for WP:AIV reports I often see 5-10 IP backlogs there). So most likely I would be "hanging out" there and new page patrolling. I don't think I will ever not be impressed with where people will try to put the word butt or other stuff (as I write this, Ron Jeremy has taken the helm of Soylent Green diff).

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

A: Not sure if there's any that make me really feel warm and fuzzy that I can think of. I am usually doing thankless stuff with regular expressions in AWB. Like this morning, I moved the 35 or so banners that one wiki project had put in article space instead of talk space. I rewrote parchive pretty much from scratch. Not hugely impressive, but janitorial work is where I usually lurk. I've cleaned a few DAB pages (Rocket comes to mind). Even though it is not always understood, I have often followed split out articles around and put GFDL tags on them (e.g. Ear pick, Electoral geography, Dilbert, and TPS Reports).

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

A: I don't think any editor here over two weeks hasn't had a problem. I've dealt with it in escalation levels. First a simple reversion, then moving to the talk page. If that doesn't work, I'll admit I think I've accidentally broken the 3RR. I usually get a few other editor's opinions and try to achieve a consensus. I think the worst was Universal Image Format which had some personal attacks against me and I might have been able to handle better; however I have done enough system administration work in the past to refrain from smiting even when I could. Often, the best route is just to ignore the trolls and when they finally wander off, archive it so useful discussion continue (e.g. "HOMELAND OF MEAD IS POLAND").

4. Just interested, could you describe your username? Cheers. – Chacor 02:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A: Rev+Ragnarok - an online gaming persona that has taken over and creeped into real life. If you google it, anywhere you find it, it's me. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 03:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

5. Why are you so anti-XXX? (XXX=Europe, ACLU, etc) -- The "neutrals." (added by RevRagnarok)

A: Wow. Didn't think people would discriminate against personal stances unless there was a history of my inflicting them on others. First - the language and 'quaint' part. Of course, I didn't write the original text in the box. But yes, I spell as an American. But I recogni[zs]e and adhere to the established policy and don't just go around 'fixing' things my way willy-nilly. Second - the EU. I don't agree politically with a lot of things that the EU does and stands for, like farm subsidies and suppressing free speech in the name of "political correctness." Which brings me to the third and final one I will address at this time, the ACLU. As a general concept, as a Libertarian I agree with what the ACLU stands for; but in my opinion it has become a crazy extreme group. If they were to equally defend civil liberties of everyone, they would've stepped in on the recent Duke rape case; that's just the latest in examples where their priorities are in the wrong place (in my opinion of course). And yes, I have dealt with this before and summarizes why I feel this way about political correctness: In my country, I'm still (mostly) allowed to say what I want. And people put crosses thru my flag and burn it left and right. In fact, if citizens of MY country burn MY flag, I don't agree with it - but I respect their right to do just that. I would defend their right to do it. With a free society comes the possibility of being offended. Not everybody has to conform with everyone else. And that's the point. If you're offended, just move along. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 11:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See RevRagnarok's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• I am not going to lie and say that I don't believe what I have put on my user page (I will however note that many people are misinterpreting them). If that many people think it is a problem, I will remove them. But I'm not going to remove them unless there's some clear consensus that the removal isn't going to then be held against me: "Hey guys look - two days ago he had a bunch of stuff on his page he's trying to hide!" My response to the oppose/neutral is still what I said to one on my talk page: I don't see where personal POV intersects editor/admin merit; if I have pushed a certain POV on a page, please point it out and I will (try to) defend it. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC) (struck out sections since I have since removed some - RevRagnarok 11:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC))
  • Also note that I only made a very few of my userboxes (like the pro-European met? box) - the most controversial being used here and here and the second most controversial is the "American English" one that has been deleted but the equivalent pro-British one {{user en-gb-5}} has over 100 incoming links. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• RevRagnarok's response to the edits brought up: The first was changing mace which was incorrect. When in school, I was taught that ax[e] had an optional e, unless expanded, such as axes or axed. The spell check in Firefox says axe is wrong, so I changed it: I didn't know until it was brought up here that it is an American spelling and wasn't trying to push some agenda. Similar situation with the second; it was only an accidental automated spell check. As many have noted, the userbox was just a joke, not written by me, and has been removed. I would really appreciate it if I ended up actually being judged on merit. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 11:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Support with extreme confusion to objections regarding userboxes. This quote "I just don't feel comfortable supporting a user with so many POVs to which I am personally averse" is ridiculous. Everyone has points of view, not all of us choose to display them on our user page. This is not a question of whether you agree with his religious views or whatever, this is a question about whether or not he would make a good admin, and he would. I'm a Red Sox fan, does that mean I can expect to not get admin votes from Yankee fans? This whole process is really screwed up. Kntrabssi 05:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

   My concerns have nothing to do with RevRagnarok's religious view; rather, his/her strongly-displayed seemingly-arbitrary opposition to Europe -- as in the Image:No-EU.png and the anti-British English spelling -- based on its geographic location. Why should I support someone who would laugh at my spelling as if it were quaint? Pray tell. --Iamunknown 05:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

   Hmm, that latter part is not what I meant to say. I have never met RevRagnarok on- or off-wiki. On first glance at his/her user page, I am met with a userbox saying that the way I spell -- which is entirely an arbitrary matter based upon my geographical location -- is laughable and quaint. I am left unsure whether or not I should trust RevRagnarok with administrative tools. I hope you understand my reaction and realize that I may have legitimate concerns. --Iamunknown 05:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

   I do not understand your reasoning behind this. There are legitimate concerns regarding the RfA process which really need to be addressed by the community. This is not a question about your feelings towards RevRagnarok. I am a Liberal, and I see that he is a libertarian. He also does not support the ACLU, of which I am a member. I am not about to withold support for him because of it. The only criteria that should be used for assesing someone's adequacy for adminship is their history of dealing with vandals, their participation in the community, and their answers to the questions asked in the RfA process. Any other criteria, including edit count, be it mainspace edits or not, are arbitrary. This includes your feelings towards his views of where you live, how you spell or whatever. He may not like "theatre" over "theater", or "colour" over "color". He will make a good admin regardless. Kntrabssi 10:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

   Weak support. I don't like your userboxes; either their content or the fact that you display overtly, extremely partisan (of any persuasion) userboxes on your user page. However, upon examining your contributions, I think it's clear you're familiar with policy and work to fight vandalism. You have a well-defined POV, and you're open about it, but I have yet to see any evidence that you push that POV in your editing. So I offer my (somewhat begrudging) support, with accompanying unsolicited, irrelevant encouragement to turn in the NRA card, reconsider the ACLU (you're a libertarian, after all!), and take your next holiday to the EU :) · j e r s y k o talk · 13:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC) changed to neutral below · j e r s y k o talk · 14:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

2. Support, 67% mainspace? Great editor! Apple•_•w••o•_•r••m•_• 14:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. Let's get beyond userboxes. Who cares if he displays his viewpoints? I state many things on my userpage, simply in text rather than in boxes. Just because you're against this candidate's opinions should absolutely not prevent them from being an admin. The question we are asking in RfA is "Do we trust this person?" If not, provide evidence. I am simply not convinced that userboxes are appropriate evidence to make this claim. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 17:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Support As a British national, I would like it noted that the American language is a damaged form of the language spoken here for many years both before and after the founding of the North American colonies. But this user's fixation on its supposed purity is not a reason to oppose someone who is otherwise clearly a good editor.--Anthony.bradbury 18:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

   All modern language has been "damaged" (I prefer "evolved") - neither of us have ever said with a straight face, "Oh where art thou?" :) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

5. Support per criteria set out on my userpage. Edivorce 19:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Begrudging support per sufficient experience, including article writing plus counter vandalism. Addhoc 21:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Support - Seems experienced. —dgies^t_c 21:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Support - I'm not wild about the userboxes, myself, but the candidates response when questioned about it (#5 above) is a very thoughtful and mature reply. Contributions look good. Counter vandalism is good. Time to issue the mop and bucket. Johntex\^talk 22:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
9. Weak Support Ug. This is a difficult vote. You pass all of my qualifications for adminship, but there are so many concerns. These concerns are concerns of your neutrality. Neutrality is important in disputes that admins solve. I have determined that these concerns are not great enough to make me oppose, but I am uncertain that I have made the right vote. Captain panda In vino veritas 23:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
10. Weak support I'd much prefer more article-writing, but there's nothing here to suggest major concerns, and this userbox thing is just about the weakest and least convincing opposition meme I've ever seen gain traction in an RfA. Opabinia regalis 00:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. Michael 02:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
12. Support. We just promoted a lawful evil admin (see userboxes half way down). I think I'd rather have a chaotic good one (see Libertarianism). Regardless, political ideology is irrelevant to an RfA. My !vote is support because this user has a long history of vandal fighting and other Wikipedia janitorial duties. RevRagnarok has been using AWB as a little mop; it's time we give him/her a big one. --Selket ^Talk 17:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
13. Support Deeds, not words, is what matters and this nominee has acted in a manner that demonstrates the necessary experience to show that the tools will be used properly. A few silly userboxes aren't enough to convince me otherwise. In fact, I'd rather have someone who stands for something than someone who won't stand for anything, and this user has not done anything to show that his personal opinions have or will affect his participation and contributions. Agent 86 17:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
14. Support. I disagree that userboxes on a userpage is enough reason to disqualify an otherwise qualified candidate. We all have personal beliefs that others are going to disagree with. I have strong personal beliefs, but I don't believe that I allow them to influence my editting; my beliefs are my beliefs, and the encyclopedia is the encyclopedia. I've seen no evidence that this editor is a POV-pusher outside of his user page, and therefore see no reason to bar him from adminship on those grounds.--Scimitar ^parley 19:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
15. Support per all above. WP:NPOV applies primarily to mainspace; bias in editors is not in itself a problem, as long as it doesn't affect the editing of articles. Nor is it inherently harmful to have controversial userboxes. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

    Although I'd have to add that I'd prefer you to get rid of the fake "You have new messages" bar on your userpage. Things like that are annoying. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

    I made a mistake with the comment on the fake new-messages bar. Please ignore it. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 13:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

16. Weak Support -- I just looked at the user pages and/or userbox subpages of a cross-section of admins plus some commenting here. I'm not into user boxes personally but many Wikipedians are. RevR's user boxes were well within the bounds of what I've been looking at in the last hour if someone ideologically outside the center of Wikipedia's demographics. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
17. Support per Agent 86. The userboxes tell me that RevR and I wouldn't have much in common off-wiki, but what's that got to do with anything? Contribs seem fine, experience good, no rampant incivility, been here long enough to have a grasp of policy, and no persuasive reasons to oppose have come up. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
18. Support - There's no reason to assume that this candidate can't differentiate between his personal beliefs and his role on Wikipedia. We are in perpetual need of new administrators to combat vandalism. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
19. Support - I dont see what your political beliefs on the ACLU/Europe etc have to do with your review. Though I can understand other users worries re neutrality, but your userpage is your userpage not an article. Contributions seem fine to me. LordHarris 00:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
20. Support - does he know or is he willing to learn the rules? Yes. Does he break the rules? Self-admitted 3RR sometimes, maybe, but not a habit. Would he use the mop? Yes, he already does a lot of cleanup work. Does he POV push? No evidence has been presented. Does he have a POV? We all do. Opposing this candidate because he has (as opposed to pushes) a POV is POV pushing. Rklawton 00:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
21. Support I've looked through a fair sample of edits and seen no reason to conclude this editor is non-neutral in their Wikipedian behaviour and follows appropriate policies. I tend to agree most with Angus McLellan in the above. All of us have points of view, and the userpage is the place for that so long as that in itself doesn't contravene Wiki user policies. Orderinchaos78 02:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
22. Support - RFA isn't a referendum on whether you agree with someone, which, in case anyone cares, I don't. RFA is a question of whether or not he can be trusted with three buttons - and that's a question that knows no political, social, or religious bounds. --BigDT 04:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
23. Support I find it worrysome that many of the oppose !votes are userbox centered. Does whether a user displays userboxes on his userpage determine if he would be a good admin? Is it acceptable to show one's bias in plaintext but not in the form of a template, and how does this impact the admin-skills of users? No, what RFA is about is how well a user would do with the Mop and Bucket. Would he use his new powers responsibly, and would he perform his duties without fault? I think that RevRagnarok would make a good admin, and that is all that counts (for me) here. CharonX/talk 05:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
24. Weak Support seems like an experienced Wikipedian, but the userboxes and general attitude towards the issue seem kind of jejune. - Anas ^Talk? 13:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
25. Weak Support per Dorange and CharonX. Nothing wrong with making a joke, and the people above have convinced me that he is trustworthy enough. Just H^{editor review} 20:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
26. Support. I have run across this user through WikiProject work, and I find him to be extremely conscientious and forthright. I have no doubt that he would act responsibily with admin tools. I wasn't aware of his political leanings before now, and frankly, they don't enter into the equation for me. --Mus Musculus 02:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
27. Support looks trustworthy, and I'm not going to hold his forthrightness against him.-- danntm ^T _C 13:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
28. Support. The oppose voted are kinda weird to me. Okay, so he has userboxes. Not a reason to oppose IMO, so long as there's no fair use images in there (i see none). Plus, I would consider responsing to the opposers and explaning to be a good thing. So, support per Xoloz. (though I agree with him that Q5 makes it a lot harder to support him)--Wizardman 15:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
29. support. seems like a responsible grownup to me. don’t we need as many of these as we can get? i see undiffed accusations below of “attacks and belittles those who do not agree with his viewpoint”, but i’ve been thru a random sample of their edits (admittedly not all 7800) and see no such thing.

    i don’t agree with those opposed solely based on the userbox issue, but i’ll respect your opinion. now that revragnarok has removed those that might rub others the wrong way, i’d urge those opposed to re-examine whether they can now change to support. --barneca (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

30. Support - devoted editors make good admins. Regarding the strong political views I have not found any examples of his views interfere with the editing. Alex Bakharev 04:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
31. Strong support. I find it very frustrating that so many people will stand against this awesome user and provide no examples of how his opinions have gotten in the way of his editing. We have a wealth of data on our hands and if you can't prove that his supposed "biases" have gotten in the way of his editing, please don't bring it up. Otherwise, the claim is just ridiculous and childish, in my opinion. JHMM13 05:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
32. Protest Support. Since when has RfA become such a popularity contest? Oh wait... Right..... Judge the dude by his contributions. And Rev, the EU should be the least of your concerns - just think of the UN! *shudder* - NYC JD (interrogatories) 14:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
33. Weak support Answer to Q5 takes some of the strength out of my support; however, the sheer volume of oppose votes for something as stupid as userboxes makes me strike out my neutral. – Riana ^ঋ 15:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
34. Strong Moral Support How dare a potential admins have opinions! How dare they display them in userboxes. I'm outraged that this user has the nerve to not be a happy-go-lucky middle of the roader that ass kisses his way into a comfortable and politically correct position in preparation for adminship. Every potential admin should know that the Feelings Patrol has no sense of humor. Shame on you RevRagnarok! NeoFreak 15:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
35. Support a I see no evidence this editor would abuse the tools. He's also indicated that he wants to help out and has already done quite a few things to help out. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
36. Protest support I'm supporting simply to counter some of the ridiculous opposes based on people's personal disagreement with opinions expressed by his userboxes. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
37. Support - has good experience performing maintenance-type work already, would be good for him to be able to kick it up a notch. Have edited with him on Universal Image Format, and thought he held up quite well despite being subject to a storm of reverts, personal attacks and FUD from the anonymous editor. As for the userboxes - honestly, people! Is that the best you can come up with? As if there aren't already admins with opinions, and as if that makes any difference to their competence! We all have biases, and at least RevRagnarok has shown that he's aware of his! —GrimRevenant 22:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
38. Support. C'mon, user boxes!? What, for the NRA? Patently absurd. Good contributer, if a Yankee. Cool Hand Luke 02:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
39. Support Looks like the tools could be used well. What some might see as confrontational in answering or otherwise responding to the various "oppose" votes below, I see as making an attempt to bridge the gap and explain a point a view. While the userboxes do concern me a touch, the vandal fighting speaks for itself louder than my concerns. Now colour me confused about the objects, I'm going to sod off to the pub for a pint. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 02:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. (change to neutral) OK, took a glance at your user page and your contribs. Contribs are OK as far as I can see, but the user boxes display a childish character. Definitely not someone I want see as an ambassador of Wikipedia values. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this response, I would please ask you to read the bottom paragraph of WP:Admin where Mr. Wales states "Adminship is No Big Deal". Administrators are not "ambassadors of Wikipedia values" or part of an exclusive club of the best users on Wikipedia. Admins are normal users with a mop and a bucket. The day aspiring administrators have to explain their political and moral views for the RfA process is the day the general idea of Wikipedia dies. Kntrabssi 16:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo is not Yoda. And this user trusts RevRagnarok "about as far as they can throw him". —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose over userboxes. I think you should have a separate page for your userboxes. 02:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)02:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Seventy ... dot ...

Above vote is from the sockpuppet of a blocked user - struck. Orderinchaos78 05:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose per the reason above (I have little trust in anti-EU persons) and also, going through his archives and contributions, I've noticed long periods of inactivity alternating with sudden bursts of edits.--Kamikaze 19:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

   I never said I was active 24/7 since I first signed up. That data was made available in the original nomination (using Interiot's tool). — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose I generally don't agree with use of userspace to soapbox, especially from an admin candidate. Having read the answer to Q5 I am further discouraged. Sorry.--Jersey Devil 02:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I'm torn here. The candidate is obviously a good vandal fighter, which I admire. But I'm concerned about the userbox and his insensitivity to others' concerns about it (which were first expressed a year ago). (I'm also not really sure what to make of this.) In the end I've decided to oppose: an editor is free to express what he doesn't like on his userpage; an admin, however, will at times have to perform police functions that such expressions may complicate. Bucketsofg 03:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

   I pointed out your first concern myself in Q5. You will also note that the user involved, ROGNNTUDJUU! (talk • contribs • logs) was a sockpuppet troll (see talk). As for the second point, I don't think seven months ago would count as canvassing. Or would you prefer more of an explanation for any of the involved users? — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, you pointed out my concern but did nothing to lessen it. Indeed, the way in which you strongly insist on your rights to express divisive opinions only increases my concern that you're insufficiently aware of how that could undermine your effectiveness as an admin. As for the diff, it looked to me like a list of enemies/friends that you were jotting up in preparation for an admin candidacy. Again, I'm not comfortable with that, sorry. Bucketsofg 15:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose. It's my policy to oppose admin candidates who espouse strong, divisive personal beliefs on their user page, no matter what the nature of these beliefs. It detracts from building an encyclopedia, and users who are subject to administrative action should not have to wonder whether they are being sanctioned for their personal beliefs instead of for their actions. Sandstein 06:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

   Please refer to my new note above, feel free to respond privately if you'd prefer. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

   Changed to no vote after the divisive userboxes were removed. Sandstein 21:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose. One of the user boxes on this editor's userpage says: "This user believes that American English is the only real English, and will likely respond to any use of British English with 'How quaint!'". Many Wikipedia users use British English, and there are specific Wikipedia policies regarding using British English in articles where it is appopriate. I cannot support anyone for adminship who would place such a userbox on their userpage. Dorange 09:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

   Please refer to my new note above, and my answer to Q5. Feel free to respond privately if you'd prefer. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

   The text of the user box may well not have been written by RevRagnarok and may well have been intended humorously. But it still says say that the user "believes that American English is the only real English". That's offensive to anyone in this international project who uses non-American English, and I think it's completely inappropriate for a prospective admin to have that on their user page. Dorange 14:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

   I am a British national; I really do not believe that a view, whether held seriously or humorously, on American/British spelling should be allowed to intrude on decision making for admin status. I have already given my approval for this editor.--Anthony.bradbury 15:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose, no choice given attitude displayed in UBs. No prejudice to future RfA given removal and acceptance of why such boxes are inappropriate for admins, even if well intended. Deiz talk 10:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

   Please refer to my new note above, feel free to respond privately if you'd prefer. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

6. Oppose I state my beliefs on my userpage, so I certainly can't object to the candidate doing so (though there is a real question whether the American English UB is in good taste.) The answer to Question 5 bothered me a bit, because its forcefulness implies (to me, anyway) the candidate might be more interested in treating Wikipedia as an experiment in advocacy, rather than as an encyclopedia. What finally pushes me over the edge into opposing, though, is the candidate's apparent need to reply to nearly every opposer and neutral commenter here at RfA. This is considered impolite by many commenters, and indicates that the candidate is not fully aware of wiki-norms. Taken together, these three small issues do make me wonder if the candidate is prepared for adminship. More experience can only help in this case. Xoloz 17:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Xoloz. --Guinnog 19:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

   I am obliged to Richardcavell for digging out those diffs showing highly problematic edits (in clear breach of our polices) within the last few weeks. Making a mistake and learning from it is no big deal, but the candidate's answer to Q5 seems to show no learning has occurred. It is unhelpful to characterise my opposition as being about userboxes; in fact my !vote was cast after the candidate removed the offensive ones from their page. It is more about trust - with all respect, I do not trust the candidate to administer our policies fairly and even-handedly because of the combination of having had the UB and the defiant and defensive answer to Q5, and now these recent bad edits (from someone with the experience to know better) only strengthen my opposition. --Guinnog 07:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

8. Oppose Candidate appears to be too divisive. Responding to most of the opposes and neutrals demonstrates that the candidate does not handle criticism well. Not enough article experience. Dionyseus 20:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Xoloz. I take exception to the candidate's so strongly pronounced views on use of English- use of that userbox does not show the best of judgment. But I would not have opposed for that alone- RfA should not be a popularity contest. But the badgering of the oppose and neutral !voters (especially with nothing individual to say to them) shows either hot-headedness or an unfamiliarity with "wiki-norms" (as Xoloz puts it). Either would be worrying in an admin. WjBscribe 06:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
10. per Xoloz. Derex 07:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose per Xoloz. Yuser31415 21:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose per Xoloz. This candidate appears to actively seek and encourage divisiveness. He attacks and belittles those who do not agree with his viewpoint and appears to regard this as normal behaviour. This candidate lacks the tack and the appearance of neutrality required of an editor. In the end I'm opposing because when I ask myself "Will this candidate wheel war?" and for RevRagnarok the answer is not a resounding "no". AKAF 09:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
13. I'd have to agree with the above. >Radiant< 10:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. There are plenty of forums and newsgroups set up for that purpose, if the candidate decides to use them instead of us I'll reconsider my vote. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose - tough call, but the userboxes do bug me. not because they are childish, but the 'pro' or 'anti' statements conjure up images of potential conflicts of interest, when acting as an admin. id rather err on the side of caution. the_undertow ^talk 00:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose I tend to agree with many of the above. It is not the opinions which concern me, but the tone of the candidate which if coming from an admin might tend to escalate problems rather than assist in working towards resolution and consensus. -- Samuel Wantman 05:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
17. Oppose - I have to say that I'm troubled by the 'American English' userbox, and I'm disappointed that I am going to oppose on something so simple. However, as an Australian/British English speaker myself, I can tell you that I am tired of Americans who try to 'correct' my 'spelling mistakes' when I use the Queen's English. - Richard Cavell 01:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

    with all due respect, richard (et al; don't mean to single you out), did you read the actual text of the userbox? it's gone now, but all it said is "This user believes that American English is the only real English, and will likely respond to any use of British English with "How quaint!"". there is an equivalent british userbox that reverses it. i've seen it. it's supposed to be funny. i think it is, but if you don't, that's fine. but please tell me you aren't offended by a harmless joke, and that you can see there is no inherent malevolence in it. as far as i know (and i'm sure i'll be corrected if i'm wrong), no one has given ONE instance where the candidate has changed anyone's spelling from british to american english. if someone can find such a diff, please provide it. and i'll say again, as far as i know, no one has given ONE instance where the candidate has pushed a POV. again, if you can find such a diff, please provide it, i'll be interested to see it as well. --barneca (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

    I realise that it's supposed to be a joke, but it's a touchy subject for me. You don't say something like that unless you are America-centric, and too many American internet users are blindly America-centric, on wikipedia and elsewhere. The candidate has converted British English to American English in an article on a character from Monty Python (a famous British comedy troupe) [1], [2] (see [3]). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardcavell (talk • contribs) 02:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

    ok, richard, fair enough. i asked for a diff and you gave me one. changing “axe” to “ax” and “traveling” to “travelling”. i still disagree that it’s an offense worth an “oppose”, but as you obviously feel strongly about it and won’t change your mind, i’ll trouble you no further. thanks for replying. --barneca (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (p.s. even when talking to us lowly americans, you can usually safely omit an explanation of who monty python's flying circus is/are.)

    --Richard, I find the kind of attitude that you have on this issue to be completely unfair. With your use of the phrase "The Queen's English," you seem to imply that your English is the correct one, when every linguist in the world would disagree with that sentiment. "Too many American internet users are blindly America-centric" is one of the most ridiculous generalizations I've ever heard that is backed up by precisely zero proof or a definition of what you mean by "too many." Furthermore, for every America-centric person you find, I could supply you with a Britain-centric person, many of whom feel that their version of English is the better one. Some of these people will change the spelling on "American" articles because they believe their version of English to be correct, and some will do the opposite. Because of several bad experiences you've had on Wikipedia regarding BE vs. AE from inexperienced (and probably uneducated) Americans has zero relevance to RevRagnarok's ability to handle admin duties. The examples you gave of his AE-BE switch could very well have just been due to ignorance about spelling differences in each country, and considering he did not say "British spelling is wrong" in any of the edits, we owe him, a user who has worked tirelessly for the betterment of this encyclopedia, the benefit of the doubt. JHMM13 16:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

18. Oppose per Xoloz and Richard.--cj | talk 13:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - don't like the POV userboxes on your user page, but in itself probably not enough to oppose. – Chacor 02:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

   I'm fairly sure I've kept my personal POVs out of any edit conflicts I've had. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 03:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

2. Agree with Chacor. I've never been fond of the pro-American English+anti-British English or the anti-EU userboxen. It's not, however, a real reason to oppose IMO. --Iamunknown 03:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

   Please see #5. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 11:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Comment This user, whom perhaps I should stipulate I do not personally know, has modified his userpage to remove the boxes which some people have found offensive. He would be a good admin. Any changes, anyone?--Anthony.bradbury 15:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

3. Neutral The userboxes are indeed not enough to justify an oppose, but I just don't feel comfortable supporting a user with so many POVs to which I am personally averse.--Húsönd 04:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

   Please see #5. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 11:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

4. Neutral sorry, don't feel comfortable with someone who is so anti-European. The Rambling Man 07:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

   Please see #5. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 11:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

5. Neutral - You were dead for more then a year and then you sprung to life with a couple of good contributions but just like The Rambling Man, I cant support an anti-whatever..sorry.but i wont oppose you either cause you are a really good editor but when it comes to adminship..only the best would do..--Cometstyles 13:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral. I have no real opinion on this, but would only like to point out that I find it really alarming how far RfA has gotten from judging an editor based on how well he/she would perform as an admin. I think it's good, when people are honest enough to list their POV's on their user page. And the fact that this user's POV's are "really partisan" (whatever that means, that's just a term to disqualify any opinions adverse to one's own) is completely irrelevant. Wikipdia should not have a POV of its own, therefore we need as many editors from with all kinds of different POV's to collaborate to achieve an encyclopedia with a NPOV. BTW, though I'm also opposed to the imperialist project known as the EU and use American English, I completely disagree with the editors opinions, but do not believe they disqualify him from adminship.-- Carabinieri 09:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Neutral, changed from weak support. I was already concerned about the userboxes, but the candidate's decision to respond, albeit civilly, to nearly every oppose and neutral comment so far indicates that the candidate may not possess the keen judgment and decision-making abilities administrators need (I'm not saying that RevR lacks these skills, I'm merely saying that the decision has not provided evidence of such). See this for a much more extreme example of why I'm concerned. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral -- on the fence for now but leaning toward support. His userboxes were OK for an editor, but edgy for an admin. An analogy would be some countries bans on military or police personnel speaking on political issues, especially in uniform. They still have many rights, but they willingly give some up while in their special role. I have seen nothing to lead me to believe that RevR has or will let his political views interfere with his editing however I am concerned that some editors RevR interacts with may not believe this. My comments apply to admins across the entire political spectrum, not just in RevR's piece of it. I understand he removed some of the edgiest UBs. I'm especially relieved to see the American English UB gone; I sensed it was posted humourusly/humorusly but I have learned to never underestimate the pointless wars than can erupt over such a trivial issue. Probably 1% of Wikipedia's editors would go over the edge if they saw it (and a different 1% would react the same way if they saw the British equivalent). --A. B. ^(talk) 18:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Changed to support. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

8. Neutral Answer to Q5 makes me very nervous. I'm not sure that someone who says that the EU "stands for suppression of free speech in the name of political correctness" (when did that happen??) and who seems to confuse common courtesy with free speech has what it takes to be an admin, especially when dealing with non-American Wikipedians. RevRagnarok is of course entitled to his own opinions and I most certainly respect them but as an international effort, Wikipedia needs admins who display a more profound understanding of free speech than "I respect you right to burn my flag because my country is all about free speech". Pascal.Tesson 07:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

   In most European countries, Holocaust denial is illegal. Maybe that's what RevR means. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

   RevRagnarok gave an example for the community about free speech that is a very big issue in his home country. In my opinion, his understanding of free speech on this issue is exactly in line with almost all of the greatest Enlightenment philosophers. Opposing him because, in your opinion, this is a bad argument for the support of free speech, is, in my opinion, demonstrating of a lack of profound understanding of free speech. If you want, I can easily prove to you that any government stands for the suppression of free speech in the name of political correctness if you take the term "free speech" literally, so I don't believe he is wrong. The fact that this user chose the EU to me seems like he's simply more interested in that subject. I'm sure he knows other unions do the same thing, including the one he lives in. JHMM13 16:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

   If you can't see the difference between provisions against hate speech and political correctness then we'll just have to agree to disagree. In any case, I stand by my comment: I think the answer to Q5 shows a rather narrow-minded view of the world and I'd rather have admins which keep an open mind to others' beliefs rather than stick with a "we've got it right, they've got in wrong" attitude. Pascal.Tesson 02:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral Answer to Q5 makes me uncomfortable, rather than setting my mind at rest. Most of us are anti-something-or-the-other, and are entitled to our opinions, but I would prefer to see administrators to have a more well-rounded world view, considering how diverse our community is. I would consider this a shitty reason to oppose, but I can't bring myself to support. – Riana ^{shiny disco balls} 02:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC) What a terrible reason not to support a good user. Switching. – Riana ^ঋ 15:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

9. Neutral. Changed from oppose. For what it's worth, RevR demonstrated his good will by removing the problematic user boxes. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 23 March 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.