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

Final (36/22/5); Originally scheduled to end 23:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC). No consensus to promote. --Deskana (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Haunted Angel (talk · contribs) - The Haunted Angel has grown immensely since his ill-fated first attempt at adminship, so much so that I don't even recognize him as the same person. I think this quote from his editor review sums it up rather well: "Hey The Haunted Angel. I've known you around Wikipedia for a while now, and you're a very helpful user who does very good edits. You've helped with the Coheed and Cambria articles greatly, that article just one of many. You're a nice, calm editor, who has a good sense of humour, but while maintaining a humourous way, your edits are still up to scratch. As with any good editor, you revert vandalism well and warn/notify the user of it. I can't really think of any advice for you, you seem to do everything so well". I want to emphasize how completely different that is from his first RFA, which frankly sucked. However, I would not have nominated him if I didn't feel that he's not the same person anymore. I see a potential need for the tools, and I see a user who I can trust to handle them well.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination.'

My first RfA was, as the nominator stated, far too premature. I hope that this one shall improve vastly.

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

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

A: My biggest concern on Wikipedia, as is the concern of many others, is the vandalism. Since I managed to get my hands on twinkle, my ability to revert vandalism has improved significantly - although I still realise at times there are those who revert the vandalism without warning the user. Although admin tools are not necessary, I believe that with adminship, I can drastically help the vandalism problem on the site.
I am beginning (a little late, I must admit) to participate in AfD's more, also. With adminship, I can help oversee the process of AfD.
Also along the same lines, one thing I am involved in almost as much as my main edits is newpage patrol. My user page even has the newpage list at the bottom for speed, and I am rather involved in speedy deletion. A huge benefit that I would find is using admin tools to significantly speed up the process of speedy deletion. A lot of nonsense articles are created on Wikipedia, and there's usually a good ten just been created at any one time - sometimes in my long "patrol-binges", I've noticed that some of these pages are still in existence for a good hour at any one time - including articles that are complete nonsense, there just doesn't appear to be any admins online ready to tackle the tagged articles. With adminship, I feel that I can put the tools to good use on my speedy patrols of new pages.

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

A: As I stated on my latest editor review:
I quite like the work I've done on the Cradle of Filth and Coheed and Cambria articles. I started the Coheed Wikiproject, and although it's going a bit slow, I feel it has drastically improved the quality of all articles that fall under its scope; not to mention I've met and befriended new Wikipedians thanks to it!
With the Cradle of Filth articles however, the main concern their is keeping their genre NPOV. Doing so isn't easy, especially as new editors come, wonder why they are not one particular genre, and start the same discussion that has been over many times in the past. However, an editor I work with on the Cradle page has put a great opening statement on the talk page, trying to stop these arguments before they start.
Another area I feel I've worked well on is the South Park episodes. I would regularly read episodes on here, only to find that they have the most ridiculous trivia. I went through each individual episode, and cut out trivia which could be considered irrelevant or unencyclopedic. That's a lot of episodes! I did not cut out all trivia, just the bits which I felt defied WP:TRIVIA and WP:OR. After that, I realised that the "goofs" that the pages had were just as unencyclopedic, and had no place here, so after a slight discussion, I went through the episode list again and removed all the goofs. Now every episode is on my watchlist, and I keep careful eyes on them!

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: Again, from my latest editor review:
Back in my early editing days, I had a few tiffs with a Religious vandal, and I admit, I handled it poorly, as I was simply feeding the trolls. However, that is long in the past, and I feel I have learned greatly from it. Now I have the odd argument with someone (usually an IP) who feels that I am "ruining" articles by doing the things I explained above. Generally, cutting out the trivia and goofs that IP's add in the South Park episodes doesn't go down well. Should they contact me, I would inform them about Wikipedia's WP:OR rules, and that'd usually be the end of it.
I have had a bit of recent trouble with one particular user (I won't mention his/her user name, but it won't be hard to find) regarding the Cradle of Filth genre. I have tried to explain to him/her many times about why it'd be POV to define the band as a genre, including him pointing to the opening statement on the talk page I mentioned earlier, but the user generally wishes to ignore these rules. His/her abusive attitude has resulted in him/her banned once, and although it appears that the arguments have ended, I suspect that the same problems will explode once more in the future. However, I have done my best not to feed the trolls, nor cause trouble where there is none, and generally keep the peace when the discussion get a bit extreme.

• Optional question by User:Carlossuarez46
• 4. Your user page contains the userbox

User:Wwagner/Userboxes/Grammar Nazi (see prior revision)

• keeping in mind that admins must work with a wide range of editors, with various backgrounds, sensitivities, and opinions, have you considered what effect having a swastika and membership in an SS division message on your user page may be on editors interacting with you? Carlossuarez46 00:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Upon consideration of the wording of your question, I can see how such a user box may seem offensive or "pro-Nazi" (trust me, I'm not). However, leaving the "SS" bit out for a sec, I don't think I need to explain how the Swastika was used by the Nazi's, but is not a Nazi symbol - it is in fact a symbol used across many Religions. As such, would you want this user box not to be used by an admin? I'm sure that there are Hindu or Buddhist ones about to go with it, also. The part of the user box that goes along the lines of "4.SS-Division (mot.) Wikingpädie", one can see how there are Nazi references, but with the "Wikingpädie" bit on the end, it's somewhat hard to take it seriously. The term "Grammar Nazi" has been used on the net and in real life a lot (to the point where it has its own article) and isn't meant in an offensive manner - the entire userbox in fact, is more satire then serious. Would you also ask that I remove any pentagrams from my userboxes in the fear they may offend certain theistic religions? We know that Wikipedia is not censored, and as a Wikipedian against censorship, I believe that anyone who sees the userbox will not leap out of their chair at the sight of some German words, nor a symbol once used by the Nazis, but will instead read the bit in blue above it, which, although it doesn't really need much of an explanation, links to a page explaining the term. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 10:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it is not inappropriate for me to respond here - if it is, please do revert this change - but I would just like to applaud The Haunted Angel for his above comment regarding the Grammar Nazi template, especially the reference to the Swastika as a religious symbol. And while the Grammar Nazi page needs work to meet Wikipedia's standings, it's a term some of us have known both online and off- for several years. Harukaze 14:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How this editor found his way here within his first few edits - none prior in this area just deepens the mystery. Carlossuarez46 17:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which editor? — jacĸrм (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Harukaze. Carlossuarez46 18:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the above question, I would also like to make an add on -
I have recently found an alternate Grammar Nazi template (well, two actually) which is less "offensive", which can be found here. Should I receive enough complaints about the template to warrant it inappropriate, then I will be happy to change it - although it seems to me the problem you have here is not my use of the template, but rather the template itself. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 19:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and another, here. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 19:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it incredible that you'd have such a user box, especially when offering yourself for adminship. If your judgement is this poor how can you possibly be a good candidate for adminship? Nick mallory 15:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's too late to do any good here, but I find it incredible that such a userbox would be an issue for adminship. I had this very same userbox in my userspace (THA has even said that that's where he got it from) since well before my RfA was started. I've been an admin for nearly a year, and never once has it been an issue. This whole brouhaha is, in my opinion, pathetically ridiculous. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HG. Follow-up questions. Greetings. While I don't know you, I hope you don't mind my commenting and asking you some questions. Thanks for hearing me out. While I happen to think the "Grammar Nazi" userbox is in poor taste, I don't think it's grounds per se to vote against you for adminship. After all, didn't Seinfeld do the "Soup Nazi" and other Nazi shticks? Plus, there's at least one other admin with this userbox, so you have a precedent in your favor. Furthermore, I think it's great that you're helping Wikipedia against vandals etc., and hope you continue to do so regardless of the outcome here. However, certain aspects of adminship may require you to exercise judgment and sensitivity, in ways that go beyond dealing with vandalism. There's a very diverse flock of editors here, often in touchy POV-related disputes. In light of the responsibility put on the shoulders of admins, then, it is your answer to the question above that I think deserves serious scrutiny. Here's are my questions, ok?

• (HG1) You say "I can see how such a user box may seem offensive" (emphasis added). It seems to me that somebody who uses this box should be better informed about whether some people will actually and not just seemingly take offense. Seinfeld knows this and it is his Jewishness that allows him to get away with it, though he still obviously (not seemingly) offends some people. Are you unwilling to concede that the userbox is straightforwardly offensive to some people? For those folks who are offended, what do you see as the severity of the offense, is it a mild offense, slightly uncivil, what would you compare it to? Equally important, how would you handle causing this kind of offense to some -- but admittedly not all - of the parties in an AfD or other dispute? How will you persuade the offended parties that it's just a harmless joke?
• (HG2) You say in your answer: "...the Swastika was used by the Nazi's, but is not a Nazi symbol." Hmmm. Doesn't your answer dodge the concern at hand? Who is offended by the Jainism symbol you've linked to? Your link to Jainism and your counter-argument, so to speak, isn't that rather a red herring? Anyway, are you saying that your userbox is not a Nazi symbol" but just a swastika shape? (Cf. you say: "symbol once used by the Nazis" as if it's not a Nazi symbol today?) Presumably, you know very well that the specific version you are using, colors shape etc., is indeed the Nazi symbol. So, is your answer a way to make light of the problem you're confronted with here? Or to try to dodge the issue? If so, really, I'm not sure I blame you. An RfA is touchy and maybe more difficult than much admin work. Nevertheless, what does this say about how you will handle conflicts as an admin? Will you be able to deal with concerns, offended parties, without making light or dodging the issue? If so, maybe you could talk about your skills at defusing or straightforwardly and gracefully dealing with conflicts, especially when you are a party to it.
• (HG3) You say: "will not leap out of their chair at the sight of some German words." Again, I'm curious about how much experience you've had or what you've learned about how people, esp but not exclusively Jews, might react to Nazism. Many Jews read "some German words" every day and for many different reasons. I suspect most don't give it a second thought that they are reading some German. However, are you suggesting that "S.S." is merely more German? Would you think any less of somebody -- whether a random reader or an experienced editor -- if they did "leap out of their chair" when coming across your userbox? How will your impression -- that they are over-reacting -- come into play in your responsiveness as an admin?

Thanks for listening and taking the time to answer these questions. Best regards, HG | Talk 16:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the points raised - Well, I did say that should the user box cause trouble, I would remove it - and as the trouble that began has increased dramatically, I have done just that, and so, in answer to your first question, I have conceded with how this will cause offence to people. The user box, obviously, was meant as a joke (Nazism isn't, one of my hobbies, I'm afraid) - however, with the removal of the template, hopefully any problems that you raised in question one, will not exist.
In question two, you raised a comparison I made to the two symbols - as it is the same symbol, only used in a different manner, the effect can tear people right down the middle, as it has done. As the symbol has now been removed, there shouldn't be any problems on that front, but if there were other conflicts similar to this one, there could be numerous ways to approach it, depending on the situation in question. Let's say, someone else had the symbol, and people were arguing over it. Should people keep arguing over what place the user box has on Wikipedia, the situation may never go away, and so I think the best thing I would recommend is that the user discreetly remove the user box. Of course, the choice is entirely his/hers, but in a case such as this, arguing over and over because of the box may solve nothing (especially considering how forward the box is). I realised that arguing for the said user box against many people who obviously have a problem with it, is a dead end - the arguing will persist. As there is little alternative (I could have replaced it with one without the Nazi Symbolism, but I felt that removing it altogether may have been better), the best option available was to simply drop the user box to end the conflict. This would be, as you said, "defusing or straightforwardly and gracefully dealing with conflicts" - the is little alternative except arguing the matter over and over again, and should end the problem straight off.
The German words, including the letters "SS", I thought were offset by the parody of "Wikingpädie", that would add a sense of humour comparable to every user here, as every user is a part of Wikipedia. It is a fact though, that many people find certain things more offensive than others, and so it is down to what people will find amusing, where others will draw the line. I didn't find the user box really that hysterical, I simply thought it was a bit of satire that got the point across, but as I've said above, I have since discreetly removed the box to avoid further unnecessary conflicts. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 11:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, Haunted Angel. I'm not sure why you removed the box. Was it a mistake? Every admin makes mistakes sometimes, at least in tone of voice, esp if they take on dealing frequently w/suspected vandals and newbies. I'm trying to understand how you recognize and handle mistakes. Do you apologize, internalize the key pt, and change? (Or is it common for you to defend yourself, as you've done here? I can imagine the RfA is an unusual setting.) Also, I'm not asking only about this situation, where many users argue over a box, but (#3) how would you respond if an individual (e.g., newbie) "leaps out" and takes offense at your box or similar actions/edits etc? Thanks again. If these q's aren't helpful here, feel free to reply to my Talk or simply let it go. HG | Talk 14:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the box because it is aparrent that it has caused trouble, trouble on quite a large scale, and so I felt that it wasn't worth being stubborn and keeping it, when it is aparrent that it is doing nothing but asking for more trouble. I would indeed try to defend myself, as I did here, but I can see when one thing gets to far - to be honest, I didn't think one little user box would get such a huge backlash, but as it has, it was the smarter idea, I think, to remove it, and apologize for the attitude I may have portrayed. If someone were to "leap out" at one of my actions, my response would depend entirely upon what action I took. If it was something I did wrong, then by all means, I would readily apologize (no matter how new they were compared to me being an admin - I wouldn't think myself to "high and mighty" to apologize to someone new to the site). If it was an edit or action that may disagree with, but was in fact correct (such as removing some original research they added, for example) I would explain to them why I removed their edit, and show them the correct page to do with it. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 20:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your responding yet again. Thanks. HG | Talk 21:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Carnildo

5. What is your view of Ignore All Rules?

A:IAR is something that am rather fond of, although I've never had to use it - as quite simply, most of Wikipedia's rules are perfect as they are, and it's only in odd circumstances you may have to ignore the rules "legally", if you'll excuse the pun. The page really explains it all - but I agree with the idea that it's putting forth that benefiting Wikipedia is what's important. Taking part of the line; "prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia..." - this shows that benefiting Wikipedia is what's important. If a rule prevents that, ignore it. Obviously, there are few chances to do this, as the current rules are already built to work in favour of Wikipedia advancing, and the only rules that you feel you could ignore may result in Wikipeda not growing better. For example, someone may feel that uploading an image that isn't free, that they don't own, may benefit Wikipedia, because at least the said image is being added, but as long as Wikipedia has content that isn't free, it will never have truly grown better.
Of course, some people take this rule too far... they may use it as a trump card to try to wreak havoc on Wikipedia - but if they are so flamboyantly breaking rules, there's only one thing to do, that is, if they are doing it purposefully.
One point I feel I should raise however, is that despite this rule, some people may not truly understand its purpose, and decide to throw IAR about in order to try and make a point. I have recently found this page, which is an important stepping stone for anyone who would try to do such a thing. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 11:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Links for The Haunted Angel: The Haunted Angel (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/The Haunted Angel before commenting.

1. Support, as nom. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Been looking forward to the second RfA. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support, gotta be. Great user who would not abuse admin rights whatsoever, and I wish you the best of luck! — jacĸrм (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support, seems like a noble user. And most likely getting the job done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support per above. NHRHS2010 talk 02:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Appears to be minimally qualified. --Sharkface217 03:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support So far, pile on!! Pat^{Politics rule!} 03:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Politics rule has been indefinitelty blocked for abusive sockpuppetry. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 19:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Although, on other RfAs such as here, his opinions are being allowed to stand where his sockpuppets have not participated, so long as his opinion was expressed before his block. Therefore, I am putting the vote back. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8. Support Glad to give my support. A great asset to this project. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. It's about time. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 04:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Inactive and purely symbolic support because I had run ins with you in the past †he Bread³⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. Given Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia, we need every admin we can get. Neil ☎ 10:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support - Nice amount of experience, doubt will abuse the tools. Tiddly-Tom 10:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Low level of Wikipedia namespace edits would normally indicate a probable lack of policy knowledge which would lead me to oppose, but in this case it is outweighed by excellent contributions, vandalism-fighting, and so on. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Changed to oppose.[reply]

13. Support - good and thoughtful response to answers, meets my standards. Rudget _{Contributions} 12:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Strong support Courteous and helpful editor - much improved from last RFA. Shame American Brit isn't around any more! :) Majorly (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bwuhaha... THA, if you want me to unblock the socks for you to test your new block abilities on, just give me a shout. If anyone gets dibs on them, it's us. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    XD! ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 20:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

15. Support – Per experience and Neil. We need more nuke operators for November. —Animum (etc.) 14:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Qualified candidate that's needed for Endless November. east.718 at 20:00, 10/27/2007

    Struck my support. east.718 at 15:14, 11/1/2007

17. Support, not because we need more admins, but because we need more of these types of admins. ~ Sebi 21:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Dfrg.msc 00:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Strong Support As per nom and Great track in particular the statement that you accepted the advice of the oppose votes in the 1st RFA and waited 1 year before the next RFA and took the points raised positively shows your desire to contribute to wikipedia .Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support John254 01:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support As with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The-G-Unit-Boss, I enjoyed the use of quotes to illustrate this user's qualities, in the nom. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
22. Support Contribs are in order on a cursory glance. Phgao 06:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Looked at the contributions. Seems like a hard working Wikipedian. Would make a great admin. King Lopez ^Contribs 07:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Jawohl. Jmlk17 07:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Easy choice. Tristan Uchiha 08:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support —DerHexer (Talk) 13:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support --Pumpmeup 03:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support - good pedia builder m'kay...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Will make a good administrator. Acalamari 20:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support - This editor is much improved in recent months: (a) consistent use of edit summaries, (b) lots of edits across lots of fields, and (c) gone through editor review. It will be extremely helpful at WP:AFD to have an editor who is "fluent" in heavy metal/punk/goth, genres often outside the mainstream and subject to many nominations because "I've never heard of them, they only get 789 Ghits, so they can't be notable". Bearian 21:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support User's religion is of no concern to me. We could clearly debate the origins and adaptations of the swastika to no end, however, coupled with 'grammar' I find it innocuous, while still retaining a derogatory meaning, IE unrelenting and controlling. I'd much rather see it now than an hour after this passes. the_undertow ^talk 06:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support. Unless y'all want to desysop me because I have a Battle Flag of Northern Virginia on my door... RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 19:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Desysop, no... but, this information does put my past disagreements with you in different light. At least you've implicitly morally equated the Swastika with the Confederacy, which is appreciated. Xoloz 21:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Question what is the point of this tasteless comment? - Battle Flag of Northern Virginia on my door... are you saying that nazi insignia like racist symbols don't mean anything? Modernist 21:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My original point was that peeople vary widely in what they consider offensive, and unless they bring any offensive attitudes with them onto Wikipedia, it is pointless to judge them on it on Wikipedia. A secondary point is that it is possible to decouple a symbol and some of the (admittedly very) offensive connotations it might have. If you really must know, my family's not-so-distant ancestors fought on the losing side of World War II and even though I'm ashamed of what they did I'm not going to oppose someone for adminship because they evaluate the offensiveness of a symbol differently than I do. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 21:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My ancestors fought on both sides of the American Civil War: Ancestry is irrelevant. While it is true that anything may be found offensive by someone, it is also true that there are some select symbols found offensive by many, for reasons that should be obvious to all. A person interested in dispassionate discourse would be well-advised to refrain from using them at Wikipedia, whatever his private beliefs. To do otherwise, to make oneself a firebrand, calls one's judgment into question. Xoloz 22:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well just as a reminder to you, some people see the Swastika as a sick, ignorant, hateful racist symbol of intolerance and genocide. Modernist 22:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And that is a very reasonable thing to believe. When I make controversial statements on RfAs, it's generally to encourage dialogue on the efficacy of a particular line of reasoning (usually for opposing). As I generally consider opposing an RfA to be quite serious, I am often deeply interested not just in peoples' rationales, but the reasoning behind those as well, even if it means I have to try and provoke things a bit with outlandish statements. I also feel that a candidate reviewing their RfA after the fact would benefit more from this deeper dialogue, which in this case for the candidate has evolved from "I opposed due to a userbox" to "I opposed because considering the candidate's choices of userboxes in relation to the accepted norms of the community, I concluded there was too large of a discrepancy between these two to place my trust in the candidate's judgment in future matters," which is much more in depth and helpful. I don't really have a Confederate Flag on my dormitory door, I was born in Milwaukee and lived there until I was 14. I don't even have a southern accent. I just feel that playing the Devil's Advocate can sometimes be very enlightening. Thank you for your explanded response. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 22:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmm... I had already expanded on my reasoning quite amply, so your exercise in devil's adocacy has succeeded only in wasting both your time and mine. I, too, enjoy playing devil's advocate, but there is a way to do that without lying, even as a temporary measure. Key phrases to remember: "Let's assume that...", "Hypothetically, suppose..." This allows one to discuss the rights of Nazis without feigning a goose-step. Xoloz 22:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well then as a learning experience for the candidate, this discussion is about leadership and integrity and so far I've seen very little. Modernist 22:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support. I see no reason to oppose. --Carnildo 21:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support, good vandal-fighter, gives excellent reasons why should be admin. Has grown and seems to be growing, I get the impression this is a big-caliber human. He has noted people don't get the humour now, so I am convinced (okay, I know, this is just a feeling) this won't be a problem. And another comment - from this Norwegian user: my personal impression is to cut an Englishman more slack in jokes about Nazism and Nazi symbols than most other, as someone has said here: the Jews may make jokes about Nazism- and I think, some of the same apply to the British. As this box has been removed now, it should be seen as solved. Greswik 21:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support The opposes for the grammar nazi userbox and being a satanist are completely looney. There's no reason to oppose to me Kwsn (Ni!) 00:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I see no problems with the userbox. The victors write the story, and in this case the Nazis weren't the victors. If they were [the victors], I'm sure we'd hail them as heroes. And who cares if he has a Nazi symbol on his userpage. Should we oppose users who have a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, feminist, humanistic, etc user box because of their political views? CO 00:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Changed to oppose, per the pentagram on your userpage. It is simply anti-religious. The Nazi symbol is subjective, the pentagram is not. CO 00:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

36. While I'm not thrilled with the method of response to the userbox issue, which I still don't find to have been suitably addressed, it's not enough to convince me that THA, who otherwise appears to be an excellent editor, is not qualified for the position of admin. I have no doubt that he/she will have learned from this experience and will have gained understanding as to how to how seemingly minor issues can become controversial when extra responsibility is attached. Not a strong support, but a support nonetheless. Daniel^C/_T 01:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Strong Oppose per the Nazi box on your userpage. One has a right to free speech (which on Wikipedia is respected as a loosely regulated privilege, actually; Wikipedia is not a government, etc.) How one chooses to employ that right is a reflection of his/her judgment. This is a poor reflection on the candidate's judgment, as it is needlessly inflammatory. Yes, the Swastika was and is used as a religious symbol. The reverse Swastika (which is the Nazi symbol) in black on a white and red field is exclusively a symbol of Nazism, neo-Nazism, and the like. Reconsider your judgment, candidate, and I'll reconsider mine. Xoloz 13:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   An addition to question 4 has been added above. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 19:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Changed to strong oppose per SheffieldSteel. I echo the concerns below: although you have found an agreeable inoffensive substitute, you have not made the change yourself, but dallied, waiting to see how much opposition you'd receive. This smacks of an editor who is better at creating conflicts than resolving them, and suggests a certain insensitivity above and beyond that displayed by the box itself. Xoloz 21:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Should I question your sysop flag because you support feminism ? Maybe I think your sexist against males. CO 00:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   You're welcome to question it, but I think you'll find that there is a substantial consensus that feminism is -- at a minimum -- a wee bit less radical and disturbing than Nazism. Also, note that I merely state my support for feminism -- I do not employ a controversial political position as a joke. Too huge distinctions that you've somehow missed. Xoloz 17:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Wee bit less radical? Like everything, it's subjective. CO 20:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Wikipedia is governed by consensus. This process is subjective, but it goes beyond individual subjective perspectives to seek communal norms, and I'm fairly sure you find that your view is on this subject is very far outside of consensus. Radical feminism != Nazism, as radical feminists have never committed genocide, etc. You're free to disagree with this proposition, but I do hope you'll have the sense to realize that you'll be virtually alone in so doing. If you cannot recognize that, it is likely that Wikipedia (and, perhaps, life) will be a very confusing experience for you. (By the way, I never said I was a radical feminist in any case.) Xoloz 21:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose Your userbox is the Nazi flag with reference to the word "Nazi" and a reference to the SS to boot. Some people regard that as divisive and offensive. The history of the swastika is a strawman; you are using it in its Nazi sense. No one is attacking your pentagrams; that's another straw man. The box's inclusion on your user page calls into question whether you will be perceived by the community as open and impartial. Your answer to my question leaves me uncomfortable: particularly your reliance on WP is not censored. I suppose you'll never see incivility or a personal attack because those too are free speech. I too am against censorship, keep your symbol. But I cannot support you as an admin. Carlossuarez46 17:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I asked the user who created the userbox, if he would possibly consider changing the userbox, as there was some controversy raised over it. Here is his reply:

   The box itself is meant as a joke. The term grammar nazi is basically a joke; the cultural loading of nazi is such that nobody would go out of their way to declare themselves any kind of nazi, and yet we grammar nazis do. I copied this box from another user's example, because I thought it was funny. In fact, there are several other users who have similar boxes of their own, and those don't include the four other users who use my userbox. One user has taken the nazi userbox, including swastika, in another direction, and it's meant to be funny as well. I'd hazard that the subject of this user's userbox, The Soup Nazi, is probably a strong part of the etymology of grammar nazi.

   It's not my fault if someone doesn't get the joke. It's also not my fault that somebody else, who obviously does get the joke, is using the userbox. I welcome people to use my userboxes, and a few people do use them, which is just fine with me. If the swastika was a problem for any of them, then surely they would not have used it. So, the short answer to your question: thank you for your concern, but no, I will not consider changing the userbox.

   Note I edited some usernames out of this quote, to keep it simpler and them out of it. I posted it on hope that something can be explained about the userbox! I'm sure if it was a bad idea for an admin to have this userbox on his page, it would be removed; since it's not, anyone is free to have it, and in no way should a userbox affect one's contributions towards Wikipedia. If you look through The Haunted Angel's contributions, you will see that nowhere does this userbox affect anything. — jacĸrм (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks Jackrm - also, I've made an addition to question 4, above ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 19:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose per Xoloz. The symbol is not just a swastika, but a black right-angled swastika turned clockwise in a white circle within in a red field. That is identical with the symbol and flag used by Nazi Germany, and since the references to the SS-division are obvious, the contention "[The] Swastika was used by the Nazi's, but is not a Nazi symbol" winds up being a red herring. It is in poor taste, and there is a (admittedly small since its intent is humorous) possibility of bringing Wikipedia into disrepute if administrators flag Nazi symbolism on their userpages. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)(Neutral)[reply]

   Again, please see my latest replies on question 4, above. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 10:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose per Insensitivity, there is nothing amusing about the swastika on your user page, and making a joke about something like that is really not cool. And also per Xoloz, & Carlossuarez46 Modernist 12:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose for the actual answers to question 4 which make some irrelevant distinctions (such as the one pointed out by Sjakkalle or that between the use of the template and the template itself) and comparisons (such as to the Jain symbol), but miss the main point, namely that an administrator can be expected to try to avoid misunderstandings where possible and may interact with people who may have a completely different understanding of satire (or none at all). I appreciate the commitment against censorship, but why then increase the risk that editors jump to or feel reinforced in the conclusion that their contributions have been deleted or even "censored" by some "Nazi-admin".--Tikiwont 12:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   To be perfectly fair, one does not need the swastika image on their userpage to be called a nazi just for performing one's administrative duties (I've been called plenty worse things, without providing a userbox to prompt them). The fact that it gets thrown around like that only further reinforces, in my opinion, the fact that "nazi" has become a more generalized term ("Soup Nazi" anyone?). Personally, I think this is much ado about nothing, but it's a valid enough concern. I'm just presenting a counter-argument. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, they are valid arguments, as some users may be offended by the swastika being used on his page, as he has said, he'll remove it if there is concern, which I'm sure he will do now, and in no way will it affect his work as an admin. — jacĸrм (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Something I just realized: I've had the userbox in my userspace at User:EVula/grammar since well before my RfA was submitted and passed, and nobody once mentioned it. Perhaps only because it is front and center? I just suggested to THA that it be moved to his userbox subpage, but other than that, I think it's silly to insist that they remove the userbox, especially since he could easily agree to do so and then just put it back after the fact. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   (edit conflict) Ah well, I'm afraid the worst for me is yet to come ...but I wasn't concerned about anyway abusive editors. Now, I am not familiar with the mentioned sitcom, but I assume it doesn't feature a swastika on the soup kitchens' door. What makes all this more than "nothing" for me is actually the shown resistance and arguing around. Or to refer to another of the featured boxes, this is the wrong topic and place to not give a fuck. --Tikiwont 19:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose The Haunted Angel is perfectly within his rights to have a swastika on his user page and I'm perfectly within mine to think him a total tool because of it. Nick mallory 15:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Inexcusable user page content.--Snakese 17:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose The swastika existed as a symbol before it was co-opted by the Nazi party. "Afterwards", however, is not the same as "before". A black swastika on a white circle with a red background, furthermore, is absolutely unambiguous. Answers to questions on this subject, while civil, don't imply much respect or concern for others' feelings, instead amounting to "Do I really have to get rid of it?" No, you don't have to, and no, my vote wouldn't change if you did. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Note: that's rather ironic coming from an editor who recently made an extremely distasteful holocaust joke on AN/I.[1] ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   The difference is that I removed my attempted joke as soon as anyone said they found it offensive, quietly and with as little fuss as possible. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   If a Sheffielder says it, then I suggest you should move it now, Haunted. :) — jacĸrм (talk) is joking when he says that, but yes, sheffield owns. 18:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose The Nazi box is very poor taste and so is the "Wikingpädi" nonsense. Being a citizen of a Nordic country I've way too often heard the American smear accusing Nordic people (=descendents of the Vikings) to be Nazis. You might be interested to know that the Nazis had very little following in our countries, which was clearly demonstrated during the Nazi occupation of Norway and Denmark. I have nothing against you personally, I don't know you, but "jokes" like these are not befitting for an admin. Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose - lack of ability to diffuse a wikidrama. Addhoc 20:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Even if you recognise your error now, it doesn't reflect well on your judgement that you had a Nazi symbol on your userpage for an extended period of time. The way you tried to defend it citing it being a religious symbol when it would obviously cause offense as something else did nothing to improve my opinion. Endorse the comment "I find it incredible that you'd have such a user box, especially when offering yourself for adminship. If your judgement is this poor how can you possibly be a good candidate for adminship? by Nick mallory. Daniel 22:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose. Eep, the swastika symbol knocks this one out. See Nick Mallory's comment. Stifle (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose to me, the content on your userpage shows a lack judgment (or understanding) on your part. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 04:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Didn't handle the above situation well. Ral315 » 05:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose per Addhoc and Daniel. Citing the religious aspects of the symbol and comparing it to an infobox for Jainism was an error, considering that the association with Nazism clearly went much further than just the incidence of a manji. Here's what might have happened if you had just removed the infobox (see the discussion near the top of the oppose section). Even if you disagree with the reasoning here, it's clear that the box offended somebody, and it's definitely not a necessity. Dekimasuよ! 10:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Moving to oppose per Xoloz and Daniel, and per my comments in the Neutral section below. Walton^One 11:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose for poor understanding and lack of judgment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. I'm going to oppose because of terrible judgement exercised with the Nazi userbox, and becuase of what Addhoc said. east.718 at 15:16, 11/1/2007
18. Oppose per the Nazi and Satanist userboxes. Userpages aren't personal websites, they are to facilitate your contribution to Wikipedia. Patently offensive userboxes, whether intended as such or not, do not facilitate the work you are here to do. Removing the Nazi userbox because of opposition during an RfA does not change the judgement that went into placing them on your userpage in the first place; in fact, it raises new questions about your motives for removing it despite your contention that its a joke. Avruch^Talk 17:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange, most people would see making an edit that several people have requested as being a good thing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    When nothing else is at stake, sure. The fact that it is made to ameliorate the argument of opposers during his RfA suggests that motives other than reponsiveness and concern for the effect of his actions are at work. Not proof positive, but suggestive. Avruch^Talk 17:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well what would be the alternative? Leave it in place and further incense people? A concern has been raised, and THA has addressed that concern as best he can. Let's assume some good faith here, please... EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Avruch, I would have no problem with your evaluating the nominee's response(s). But I don't see what you driving at by questioning motives and I'm not sure we need to know -- ought we not assume good faith here? HG | Talk 19:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    HG and EVula, I'm happy to see the userbox removed. You may be right that I am not assuming good faith to the fullest extent. Instead, I am inferring poor judgement, based both on the presence of the userbox and the removal of them under criticism during an RfA. If it were me, I'd leave it until the RfA is finished in order to avoid the appearance of trying to appease !voters. I'm not at all convinced that his actual reasoning contradicts his statements, in fact I'd say its unlikely. As I said, its just suggestive timing. Avruch^Talk 21:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19. Oppose per rationale above. CO 00:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. One thing that an admin has to be able to do is to make concessions on minor points, so as to be able to stand their ground on major issues. To be standing his ground on this particular issue shows poor judgment. I regretfully oppose. DS 00:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose - in regards to the Nazi symbol, if you had just said, "It was meant to be a joke, I didn't mean to offend anyone, I'll remove it.", this would be a lot different for me. However, you defended it and continued to do so. You finally removed it after much back and forth. Too late in my opinion. Jauerback 13:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose The box was a joke, and it is not a big deal. I'm concerned that the candidate chose to argue once it was clear that people were bothered by the box, and that they employed such an obvious red herring in the process. Even though they finally removed it, their defense leaves me with doubts about their judgement and respect for other users. I also share DS's concern. ×Meegs 14:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I support free speech, and if you were using a Swastika to make some political point that'd be one thing, but having it as some pointless userbox joke? It's an obviously offensive symbol to some people, so I'm questioning the judgment and sensitivity here. I'm neutral because the Angel hasn't had a chance to respond yet. -JayHenry 07:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   An reply to your comment can be found above, question number 4. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 11:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't entirely know what to make of your answer. I'm aware of the history of the Swastika, but you're using it as the Nazi symbol. I believe you when you say you're not a nazi and I won't oppose for this userbox, I myself am not offended by it, but if you find that some editors are, I'd advise being very sensitive to that. --JayHenry 14:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral, leaning oppose for a variety of reasons. Firstly, slightly BITEy edit summaries like these towards anonymous users: [2] [3]. He wasn't wrong in either of those cases, but it's better to be civil towards inexperienced users. Secondly, I share JayHenry's concerns about his userboxes. Using a swastika as a joke is in very poor taste, and I also think his open endorsement of Satanism is likely to cause serious offence to many users - he's entitled to his views, but Wikipedia is not a free speech forum, and one should avoid provoking others unnecessarily. May change depending on his answer to JayHenry's question. Walton^One 11:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Under the comment about Satanism - it is indeed a controversial Religion, yet I can hardly see how it would change how valid an admin I'd be - I won't get into a discussion on Satanism, but if you oppose me because of that, I would either assume the Satanism you're thinking about isn't the Satanism I apply myself to, or it is some form of prejudice arising. The edit summaries, I admit, may seem a little "snappy" (the Ten Speed one certainly wasn't meant to - if you look on the user's talk page I apologized for reverting his edit which I misunderstood). However, edit summaries towards newcomers could, and will in the future, be worded slightly more "softer", if you like. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 11:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not being prejudiced - you are entitled to your own views. I just think that, coupled with everything else I raised above, it has the potential to make you a controversial admin - and we don't need more controversial admins. I won't oppose, however, because nothing I've brought up is particularly terrible in itself. Walton^One 08:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Very poor answers to question 4, all strawmen and red herrings. Yes, the swastika was an innocuous religious symbol for thousands of years; in the context of the userbox, however, it is clearly intended as the symbol of the Nazi party and hence can be expected to have problematic sensitivity issues. For example, it's very likely that an admin with a Nazi symbol on their userpage, regardless of intention, would not be welcomed in admin capacity within the very large and active Judaism project or the numerous similar projects. New users could easily be put off by a high-profile editor projecting that image. On closer examination THA appears to be a very good editor, but I'm withholding support for now until a better response is offered to the valid concerns raised here. This doesn't mean that I necessarily expect the box to be removed, rather that I would prefer a better example of how this user would react in similar pressured situations as an admin. Daniel^C/_T 18:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)(changed to support)[reply]
3. Neutral. I can't support you with the satanic references, but it would be wrong of me to actually oppose you. I believe that it is wrong to make judgments on RFA's about editor's beliefs, but I have doubts (because of this) that you would have a neutral point of view toward users editing against your own personal beliefs. Very sorry I can't support. Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 23:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. I can understand opposition relating to the swastika thing; personally I don't find "Grammar Nazi" offensive, but have trouble with the swastika. But I have a big problem with people objecting because of his work on the Religion wikiproject. Anyone who is opposing on that basis, please consider how you would feel if people opposed your RFA because of your presumed religious beliefs or Wikiproject affiliation. Please, let's keep that out of it and look only at comments and actions. Matchups 01:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.140.254.57 (talk) [reply]
5. Thanks for removing the swastika. I think that you were too hesitant and stubborn about it for me to be comfortable supporting, but I withdraw the "oppose". Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.