Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Roux

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

Roux

Nomination

Final (53/67/11); Originally scheduled to end 11:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Despite this not being successful, it was nevertheless an important learning experience. Until it degenerated into accusations, insults, and outright contempt. //roux 19:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roux (talk · contribs) – This is largely per WP:WTHN. Yeah, I've had my issues. But none of them have anything to do with how I would act as an admin. The point of adminship is to step back and take an objective view, something I have zero difficulty doing when I am not personally involved. And if I were personally involved, obviously usage of admin tools would be completely inappropriate, so not much of an issue there.

I have a recent block log, yep. Related to a single user, who I am assiduously avoiding. So none of those issues will ever come up again.

I want the admin tools because I work on NPP (patrol log: [1]), and the ability to delete out of hand would make my life simpler. If you look through my AFD and CSD log, you'll see I'm generally on the money. The occasional mistake, yes. Nobody is perfect, and I intend to list anything I speedy delete on my talkpage and ask for regular feedback to ensure I'm hitting the bullseye.

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A:WP:NPP (speedy dels), WP:CSD, WP:AFD, WP:MFD. Closing discussions at XfD (except for those I have participated in), carrying out relevant delete consensuses. Consensi.

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

A: Canadian heraldry. New article; got it to GA (and FA is planned). I also pushed Royal coat of arms of Canada the final step to get it to GA[2] (note that there are a few intervening edits by both Gary King and Gimmetrow; I just wanted to show the approximate scope of my work there without burdening you with a bazillion diffs); rewrote Canadian Heraldic Authority to get to GA [3], Also my heavy NPP work; looking through new pages to clarify whether or not they should be included is a relatively unpopular task, but necessary.// roux 21:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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: Yes, entirely related to a single user. There was a more recent dispute which had nothing to do with editing. The community thoroughly dropped the ball handling it, in my opinion, and I reacted poorly by disengaging from the community entirely. It may not have been the best decision, but it was the best decision for me at the time; I have the right, as does everyone else here, to edit without inordinate amounts of stress. I also have the need. Removing a venue which people had used to attack me guarantees that stress is gone. In the future, disengagement from the dispute and requests of input by uninvolved people is the best way to handle if things get past cordial discussion.// roux 21:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Deacon of Pndapetzim

4. What impact, if any, does WP:Edit warring (as opposed to WP:3RR) have on wikipedia's content?

A: Two things, really. The first is that lack of stability on an article is bad for readers trying to find something out. Look at a page today and it says one thing, look tomorrow and it says something totally other... this is terrible for readers, and terrible for our perception and attempts to be seen as useful. Steady growth of an article is not instability of course, nor is the normal run-of-the-mill editing. The second is that editwarring generally means someone (or several someones) is pushing a POV, which is even worse for readers. // roux 21:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. If WP:Consensus means that truth on wikipedia is purely social, what do you think are the implications for wikipedia's perception and authority in the wider world of the readership?

A: Hmm, this is a tough one. I think we have a major problem in that 'truth' is defined by consensus. Which generally really means that truth is defined by who can argue longest. Verifiability should trump consensus (when BLP or similar issues are in play it becomes a bit more delicate), but in practice consensus trumps all. Many, many critiques of Wikipedia have pointed out why this is a fundamentally poor way to deal with content, and especially a poor way to deal with content that is controversial. The main issues with defining truth by consensus are that most long discussions are driven by people with a specific POV to push, and eventually those of us who are trying to keep things neutral, verifiable, and sourced just give up; we don't care as much as they do, so they end up winning. Which then leads to POV-ridden articles, which makes us less reliable/useful as a source of information. Which I think we can all agree is not a good thing. // roux 21:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: The statement is somewhat tenuously supported by the link, but Greg park avenue seems to have presented the statement more as fact than as opinion coming from a single writer. It looks to me like it is one of those BLP vios that could be easily argued either way. My general inclination is that if a good argument can be made that it is a BLP vio, we should err on the side of caution and remove, even if a good argument can be made that it's not. Obviously that shifts around a bit depending on the circumstances. There's more leeway on talkpages, of course, but I see no need for a statement like that to stand. The funny thing is that a simple rewording of the statement would have removed any issues, and prevented the editwar that seems to have broken out in ensuing diffs. // roux 21:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from DoubleBlue (talk)

7. Admins are often subject to attacks or, at least, called upon to defend their decisions, especially with regards to deletions. How would you handle those situations?

A: Explain why what happened, happened, and move on. I have no trouble with childish "OMG U BALEETED ME UR A BUTTHEAD" stuff; it's background noise. My userpage and talkpage have been repeatedly vandalised by people (generally very new accounts or IPs) whose articles I had tagged for deletion or whatnot. I revert and move on. Stuff like that just doesn't bother me. It's when long-established editors make personal attacks that I have an issue. They should know better; unfortunately what that means is they know enough to game the system enough to get away with it. So for those sorts of attacks, I will not respond, and take it to someone who can respond on my behalf.

This is a deep and lasting problem for Wikipedia which needs to be addressed. Not quite sure how, though I suspect one way would be to stop the fiction that blocks are preventive, not punitive. Many blocks are preventive, yes, but many are also explicitly punitive; if they were not, we would be unblocking people as soon as there was a goodfaith statement that they won't do X again. Since we don't, the polite lie that blocks are only preventive is shown for what it is. A current example would be Betacommand (the merits of which I do not intend to discuss here). If he were to, for example, simply stop all automated/semiauto/patterned edits would he be unblocked? In theory, yes. In practice, we all know the community isn't lifting his block anytime soon. That's purely punitive. Most blocks related to restrictions of any sort are purely punitive. There's nothing wrong with that, but we all need to stop pretending otherwise. And it's probably worth noting that if I am given the admin bit, I would only block preventively as the community defines the word. Anyway, moving back to the main point, dealing with people complaining about deletions is pretty simple. Explain the relevant policies and guidelines, email them a copy of the article, and wherever possible point them towards resources which will help them to create articles which won't be deleted. // roux 21:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification requested from NuclearWarfare

8. A large majority of the opposes have cited your block log as a primary for their opposition. Can you please explain why these blocks were originally implemented, how you have learned from them, and why they will not reflect a future problem?

A. ~~I probably should have preemptively answered this in my statement above. I will get to this after dinner. // roux 22:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Dinner's in the oven, so let's discuss these one by one.

16:29, 10 September 2008 WilyD (Talk | contribs) blocked Roux (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (account creation disabled) ‎ (edit warring on user_talk:G2bambino)

G2bambino was repeatedly refactoring comments I had made on his talkpage. This is explicitly not allowed except in extreme cases, which this wasn't. I am disinclined to allow people to change what I have said, so I kept restoring. Had he simply removed the entire comment, that would have been fine. However, he was selectively editing what I had said. So apart from not wanting to allow someone to change what I've said, I was also under the impression that countering a specific policy breach is a stark exception to 3RR. That understanding has since been clarified to me as only being applicable to BLP, minors, etc. The diffs are on Sept 10, here. Across my however-many talkpage edits I have not had a single other user edit my comments in this manner, and I doubt anyone will. If it does happen, however, I'll revert once, and then find someone uninvolved to handle it if the editing continues.

17:49, 11 September 2008 Tiptoety (Talk | contribs) blocked Roux (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 48 hours (account creation disabled) ‎ (Edit warring: on Monarchy of Barbados, right back at it with User:G2bambino)

21:46, 23 September 2008 Tiptoety (Talk | contribs) blocked Roux (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation disabled) ‎ (Disruptive editing: right back at it with User:G2bambino on Monarchy of Canada)

These two would be related. Discussion with G2bambino is a generally fruitless exercise. He wikilawyers his way around everything, and wears you down until you give up. So, I basically said "sod it" to discussion, and tried to improve the relevant articles. Mistake, obviously. I have since held myself to 1RR on every article I touch, and will continue to do so. Exceptions for blatant recurring vandalism, BLPvio, etc.

20:17, 6 October 2008 Tiptoety (Talk | contribs) blocked Roux (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violation of 1RR restrictions on Template:British Royal Family)

This was based on a misunderstanding I had of semantics with regards to what counts as a 'revert', which fell afoul of an editing restriction which had been imposed upon me. More to the point, it was lifted (albeit after two days) when it was made clear that G2bambino, who was under identical restrictions, had violated the same restrictions at least three times before running to AN3 and reporting me for a technical violation that was a mistake. Since I hold myself to 1RR everywhere now anyway, no further instances of this can occur. // roux 23:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Links for Roux: Roux (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

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

Discussion

I'm not sure why Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-15 Monarchy of Canada hasn't been linked here or why his former username PrinceOfCanada hasn't been mentioned (doing both now). — Athaenara ✉ 20:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.. I hadn't noticed. I thought that the userlinks grabbed all those sorts of things. // roux 20:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I have no doubts about Roux's knowledge of policy and procedure, I am wary of someone whose posts at AN/I etc. are both so frequent and so regularly intemperate. CIreland (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's sort of the point, isn't it? Admin tools should only be used objectively. In any situation where I'm not objective, I wouldn't use the tools. To me, that's the standard for all admins. // roux 23:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have problems with someone who posts at AN/I frequently? Why? — neuro^(talk) 08:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this and tell me what you think. --Dylan 620 (Contribs · Sign!) 12:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? aye matthew @ 12:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Roux said that I was opposing based on something that didn't happen. He said that he never came close to a community ban, and that Majorly was sending him unpleasant private messages, and that's why Roux told Majorly to go away. I came here just to see what you guys thought. --Dylan 620 (Contribs · Sign!) 12:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Roux stated he wasn't trying to badger you or change your vote, but you were voting on something that didn't happen. Why do you need opinions on this? He was just letting you know. aye matthew @ 13:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Seems irrelevant to me, why is this in discussion? — neuro^(talk) 16:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That's what I'm trying to figure out. aye matthew @ 16:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Well one thing is he's lying about me, claiming I sent him unpleasant messages. Majorly talk 17:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You admit that you were sending him messages in your rationale below. He says he found them unpleasant. You say he asked you to go away. If he found them unpleasant, he found them unpleasant. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to clarify as to my comment on User:Miesianiacal's oppose. While it was a sarcastic barb, that didn't improve the situation. The point of it was the show the irony of the situation. Oppose's comments are centered around Roux's 'immaturity' when handling G2bambino (Now User:Miesianiacal)...However Roux certainly wouldn't be so audacious to interrupt go and vote on Miesianiacal's RfA or similar process, simply because of their conflict. That's just terrible form. I just wanted to point that out...Though I did it in a distasteful manner, and I apologize for that. No intention of disrupting the RfA. But I seriously hope this will be considered by opposition, when they refer to Roux's 'immaturity'. Neuro√Logic 21:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Shrug* I thought it was funny... l'aquatique |✡| talk 23:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this still open? Tool2Die4 (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Strong Support; Has clue. Yes his wording in discussions can be a bit.. direct, but he gets his point across. To be honest I assumed he already was one. Ironholds (talk) 11:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh mi gawd it's roux Support seriously guys, roux has had his fair share of problems, but haven't we all at one point or another? The conflict is over, and now we have a excellent editor and NPPer running for adminship, a request I think should have been fulfilled a while back. Now I belive that more than a few people will oppose his request, I ask them not to look upon roux' past conflicts, but what good things he has done for the project. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 11:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Candidate has clue, contributes in administrative areas, good mainspace contributions, a few unfortunate (admittedly recent) incidents, but since neutralling I have come to realise that Roux has the potential to be so much more of a positive to the project than many other candidates I have supported (and the community has promoted) in recent times. WP:NBD - one of the things often spoken of but often completely forgotten. Today we have a chance to turn that around. Take the chance. — neuro^(talk) 12:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems a fine editor, I'm not one to criticize because he expresses his views strongly, and anyone who improves the article on an NBIL school gets bonus points in my book, having attended Pascack Valley back in the Stone Age.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support I like Roux, particularly as we have similar article and editing interests. However, I don't think this will pass, in particular, because of the recent blocks, and the forcible removal of comments from his talk page. His work on articles is great, however, and I've seen a lot of good from him. Best wishes, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wha...? I actually thought he was an admin already. Excellent contributor, and one of the most all-round involved people I have met on Wikipedia. Roux having the admin tools will be nothing but a benefit to Wikipedia, I think. Chamal ^talk 12:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~I don't see many reasons to oppose. He should be good. :)~~ Master&Expert (Talk) 13:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too many concerns in the oppose section, plus I saw something telling that led me to oppose. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you'd like to share with the class?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of things that led me to reconsider was this section of User:Friday's talk page (he is opposing). It wasn't convincing enough at that point, but afterwards I decided to check and see the opposition rationale. LeaveSteaves brought forward very convincing diffs, and Either Way's citation also led me to change my mind. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see the recent block log and I know of the recent disputes he had with G2bambino (talk · contribs). But I think he learnt from those mistakes and will do a nice job as an admin and if he should really misuse the tools for purposes of "winning" an argument, we can take them away again. But I do not think there will be such need and the good editing this candidate does outweighs this small risk by far. After all, we all agree that people can change. Regards So Why 13:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Support while he has been involved in a lot of drama in the past, and recently had a sort of "sulk" in which he removed all comments to his talk page, his judgement is ussualy very good, and he knows his way around wikipedia. He would be a greater asset to the project as an admin.--Patton 123 13:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Everybody's made their share of mistakes, and nobody has a perfect track record. Despite the recent issues, I generally trust Roux's judgment. Adminship is no big deal, so I have confidence in Roux to use the mop wisely. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have great respect for Roux and his work here; however, that said, I don't think this will pass and that's a great shame. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Support - Absolutely! aye matthew @ 14:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Roux has had some issues in the past, but he is a kind, caring individual who just wants to help the encyclopedia. I see no problem with him being given the tools. Sam ^Blab 14:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support He deserves this thorugh strong contributions.--Iamawesome800 15:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Great user, though the talk space issue gives me cause for concern. Not enough to oppose though, because I don't see myself opposing anyone anytime soon. Wizardman 15:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not sure if I have ever agreed with Roux before, so this is as good a place to start; obviously has the interests of WP at heart, and is familiar with policy, etc. but most especially listens in the discussions in which he participates and follows consensus. Yup. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support (may change depending on answers to the optionals). Answers to the questions seem good. From what I have seen of roux elsewhere, seems a good editor. PXK ^T /_C 16:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - Like Peter, I also like Roux. And in my mind, his battles with G2 helped him - do you think that a long, drawn out, drama-filled battle like that is going to happen again with Roux? Doubt it. WP:WTHN and total net positive. Anything else I want to say is totally and completely covered by neuro in support #3. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't expect this to pass; I don't even think Roux thinks so. But in my dealings with Roux I've found him to be the most honest and most clueful (I hate that phrase, but there's no other to describe) user I've ever talked with. He has an amazing sense of perspective as to what's wrong, what needs to be improved, and what to do. I think it's a damn shame that he landed in the wrong side of no-man's-land so early into his editing career. It's easy to think that it's preposterous that a guy who skirted the boundaries of a community ban is up to no good, but appearances can be deceiving. bibliomaniac 1 5 17:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - While Roux and I have had a few disagreements over his AIV reports, I was impressed by his ability to constructively accept criticism. Though some of the oppose !votes below give me pause, I ultimately feel he would exercise good judgment as an admin. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Biblio. I had no idea this was coming, but this popped up on my watchlist this morning. I've known Roux for quite some now. In my experiences, while he has been a little short-tempered, he definitely has gotten much better in the past few months. Definitely the embodies the idea of a net positive. I don't expect this to pass, but I sure would like to see it pass. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'd like to literally quote Biblio word for word there. Roux is extremely smart. Now he's had his fair share of Drama, but seriously, the more you encounter it, the more you learn to deal with it. Have you ever seen him on AN/I? He is quite active and intelligent in his contributions there and shows a deep understanding of wiki-policy. If you could simply look past his prior issues, you will find an extremely keen user. Please, let's get past the smokescreens and really look at Roux for who he is: a smart, honest, and clueful user. DARTH PANDA ^duel 18:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've had positive interactions with Roux, and we all make mistakes VX!^~~~ 21:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The diffs and recent blocks do worry me, but I've had some encounters with Roux and candidate has Clue. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 21:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another admin with personality and the usual human traits? Yes, please. Roux is probably better qualified to deal with disputes than some カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)of the pure as the driven snow characters that become admins.[reply]
Support. Roux has displayed a devotion to improving Wikipedia in both content and administration areas. I'm certain no one who didn't watch the incidents with G2bambino evolve has any interest in going through all that now but, as one who did see a good deal of it and dealt with both editors previously and since, let me just say the block log does no justice. The long-standing tendentious editor had caused other editors to give up and walk away but Roux refused to do so and ended up scarred but wiser from it. It should be noted that he volunteered to editing restrictions much to his credit and discomfort. I'm certain he'd wish the incident had never occurred but I suspect that it has made him a stronger and better admin candidate and his recent dealings in administration areas clearly demonstrate his learning and commitment to this project. He is devoted to helping newcomers, seeks to broaden our editorial base, contributes to articles, contributes to projects, contributes to administration, and seeks to take on responsibility. I also find his idea to log his speedy deletions and request regular feedback refreshing, positive, and demonstrative of his desire to further improve. In summary, an excellent candidate for adminship responsibility. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The opposers show some valid concerns, but there isn't anything there that makes me think roux would abuse the tools. Besides, I've seen roux comment on several threads at various noticeboards, and I generally like what he has to say. AniMate^talk 22:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A couple minor problems here and there, but contributions are more than solid enough to compensate. I trust this user. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fully trust this user, knows his way around an article too. Sunderland06 (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Though outspoken, I fully trust Roux. He's helped me get into Wikipedia, and I trust him with the tools. He is clearly level headed enough to not involve his tools should a situation arise about/around him, considering that's the oppose's main concern. Neuro√Logic 01:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per all above. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 2, 2009 @ 01:25
Support - per Juliancolton єmarsee ^(Discuss) 01:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per all above. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 03:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Support. So what if he's outspoken? Some of our best admins are. He participates a lot in AN discussions, and frankly, I thought he was one already. Hermione1980 14:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support He's been in trouble. But you know what? We all have our problems, and I think he is mature enough, and experienced enough with the mop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwirlBoy39 (talk • contribs)
If it weren't for the drama surrounding G2 he'd be among the best administrators here. Garden. 19:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Everyone experiences their share of drama after a while. I trust that Roux has learnt from the past and that he'd use the admin buttons wisely. Matt (Talk) 04:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've never had a bad experience with Roux. --Smashville^talk 06:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No issues here that can't be forgiven. Roux is a good guy, he can be trusted with the tools. --Chasingsol ^(talk) 07:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Roux has some controversial episodes in his past but he is also blessed with a big dollop of clue and most importantly I trust him not to use the tools inappropriately. Nancy ^talk 12:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Trustworthy editor, would benefit from the tools. 2 D ^C 18:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support- indeed, why the hell not? Roux has clue aplenty and is clearly motivated by a desire to improve Wikipedia. Reyk _YO! 20:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my God, it's an admin nominee with a checkered past, what a concept! Like most people, Roux is imperfect, has a bit of a flare for the dramatic, and has experienced his share of the nasty side of Wikipedia. On the other hand, he's got common sense coming out of the wazoo, solid contributions, and is generally a really great person. So here's an unorthodoxly formatted Support for an unothordox guy. l'aquatique |✡| talk 23:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Part WTHN, part from my own keeping a close eye on these "controversial episodes." I think mistakes were made by many people, including Roux, and I think Roux grew from it and persevered through it because of his dedication to WP. Controversy in an admin's past doesn't bother me, and it's not a disqualification for admin. Roux has explained his views, and I'm satisfied with his explanation and growth as a result. In my experience, Roux has been helpful to the point of madness/sparta, peculiarly clueful, and a dedicated content creator. Wikipedia would absolutely benefit from Roux moppage. FlyingToaster 01:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely an accomplished editor. ♣Princess Clown♥ 03:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This editor has a WP:CLUE and should be trusted with the WP:MOP. Jonathan321 (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I hold Roux in great regard, and I believe he can be trusted with the mop. It's too sad that the prospects of this RfA are too grim. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 06:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I haven't known this editor for very long, but from what I've seen, he'd make a fine admin.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 11:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Net positive based merits already presented above and on the dispassion and aplomb shown at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#100.25_support_for_current_RFA_candidates Dloh cierekim 14:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It doesn't seem like this RfA is going to result in promoting Roux to admin, but whatever - if Roux does in fact get promoted, I'll hope that he'll stay out of silly drama enough to become a useful admin to have around. Icy // ♫ 19:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Yes, this user has been in trouble before, but I personally don't believe it's entirely his fault. I also feel that roux has learned from all of this, which is a very good step. We all make mistakes, and some mistakes are bigger than others. I would trust this user with the tools, and would make a great admin if he got the bit, and did what I tend to suggest all new admins do - take it slowly at first. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 10:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moral Support Whilst it currently appears that this doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of passing, and whilst I can very much understand why other editors would have concerns about him, I would take the view that whilst he has certainly been guilty of over-reacting when the chips are down in a personal dispute, I have the very highest regard for his integrity, and am convinced beyond doubt that he can be trusted never to misuse the tools. Mayalld (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Candidate keeps his cool even while being badgered by busybody buttinskis upset about his signature. L0b0t (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose - Sorry Roux, but you've had to much of a dramatic past to be considered for adminship. I remember your battles with G2bambino well and I firmly believe you were close to a community ban just 6 months ago. You were edit warring and just generally at each others throat constantly. I asked you yesterday if you were planning on running for adminship, you said you weren't, but I've seen this in your contributions for some time which I wouldn't say is a good thing. Whilst I think you're a good chap, I don't think enough time has past since you were having your battles with G2bambino. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair:six months ago I had not had a single dispute with G2, I wasn't planning on RFA; this was WTHN, nothing more. Again, I want to be perfectly clear: I am not badgering your oppose, just giving a response; I welcome all good-faith opinions, which yours clearly is, whether they are in favour or not. // roux 12:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Blech.. clarifying (though this will probably hurt me): you probably meant two-three months ago, which I meant to say when I said I hadn't had a dispute six months ago. I don't agree with the community ban thing, but again: your opinion and I am not trying to attack or badger you for it, nor to change it. // roux 12:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for now at least. Not been around long enough, answers to current questions very short, and Ryan's comments worry me. Definitely open to changing my mind if more positive things come out of the review to balance what's come so far. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Painfully immature and prone to hostility (does a mature person put this on their talk page: [4]?). A history of drama mongering and not being able to interact positively with his peers is reflected in a block history (four blocks in a month, from September to October 2008 -- hello?). Sorry, this is the wrong candidate for the job. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"painfully immature" is a bit strong. Mind toning the language down a bit? Ironholds (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The fact that you had a complete breakdown and decided to cut yourself out of the community no more than a month ago is really disturbing.([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]) As an administrator you would obviously face a very strong criticism and if you choose to react this way under pressure, then that's not particularly conducive for your nomination. You have done (and continue to do) excellent work. I particularly admire your efforts in NPP and on various noticeboards. I feel that you've gotten over your little episode and are on way to an amazing recovery. But with the recent history, I sadly can't support you. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 14:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roux is a bright guy, a good editor and a friendly and active member of the community. Unfortunately I'm not convinced that he has the even temperament necessary to be an administrator. Not all valuable editors are well suited to be an admin, and I think roux is among those who are not. Avruch^T 14:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I recognize the candidate from this current MfD momination of a user's sandbox page, which is rolling toward obvious keep. I'd rather not see this candidate dealing with CSDs. Townlake (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The MFD has been withdrawn due to consensus. I disagree with the consensus, but that's not really the point. // roux 21:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's exactly the point. It's not like every XfD one nominates has to end in deletion for a candidate to demonstrate clue, but the fact you disagree with that particular consensus indicates you don't understand the policies involved. Townlake (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. I do understand the policies, the MfD was made in good faith. That we interpret the policy differently doesn't mean that I don't understand it. Furthermore, the point is that I work within the consensus. You're welcome to your oppose, of course. // roux 03:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are not permitted to ask the community's opinion on the suitability of content of pages? DoubleBlue (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that. Townlake (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify your rationale then please? That is what it appears to say to me. DoubleBlue (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Majorly notes accurately and succinctly, the logic underlying the nomination raises the concern. Townlake (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong oppose per Ecoleetage mostly. Has been incredibly rude and snarky to me in the very recent past, telling me to "now go away" when I tried to talk to him about something. A net negative for certain. Also per Townlake; Roux tells the sandbox owner "...we have guidelines for what is acceptable in userspace, and what isn't. Unfortunately, your sandboxes come under the heading of 'isn't'" which simply isn't true. Majorly talk 15:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well... that was not onwiki, and my understanding is that offwiki is not relevant. Second, I do in fact believe that the MFD was appropriate. Consensus is strongly in favour of keeping; I've withdrawn the nomination. // roux 21:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to claim that "off-wiki is off-wiki so is irrelevant" has firmly stuck me to oppose. Now he is claiming my mild conversation with him was "unpleasant". Telling people to "go away" because they find their actions "unpleasant" is far from what admins should be doing. Majorly talk 22:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: See User:Dendodge/Admin criteria/Log#Roux for reasoning. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 15:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: A number of civility issues that I've noticed. While these weren't on-site, they still reflect negatively on the candidates general attitude towards his peers. In addition, the comments that I warned Roux for here are those that I wouldn't want coming from a (potential) administrator. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Oppose Diffs presented by LeaveSleaves show that Roux is not ready for adminship. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per LeaveSleaves and Ryan Postlethwaite. Drama issues and recent problems, including editing restrictions that are still ongoing. GlassCobra 16:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose (moved from neutral) - I rarely wish to oppose someone, although it's pretty strong in Roux's case. He was close to a community ban six months ago, was blocked fairly recently, and worst of all, telling someone to go away, especially when someone tries to talk to you about something (as stated in Majorly's opposition), is horrible admin conduct IMO. A bad temper is something that I never want to see from an administrator. Summing it up, per Ryan Postlethwaite, Ecoleetage, LeaveSleaves, and Majorly. --Dylan 620 _Contribs ^Sign! 16:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan, please see my comment to Ryan Postlethwaite, above. // roux 21:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shows signs at times of being an intelligent and thoughtful editor, but spends the rest of the time in dramatic conflict which regales us all at AN/I and occasionally RFAR. I would suggest trying again four or five months after major conflict has ceased. Orderinchaos 16:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not badgering, just pointing out that I have made a total of one comment at RFAR, related to the Guido den Broeder request. I have never otherwise been mentioned as a party nor participated at RFAR. The only time in recent history I have been involved in a conflict at ANI was due to being harassed and attacked by another user.// roux 21:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very much per the points mentioned by Majorly and Ecoleetage above. A polite and civil tone should be mandatory for everyone, but especially for admins of course. I think we should all interact with each other in a respectful and polite manner. — Aitias // discussion 16:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would not trust buttons to someone who isn't polite about it - I can foresee too many mis-worded deletion summaries. Agathoclea (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per Majorly, Dendodge (excellent summary thing, BTW), Ecoleetage, and others citing temper, recent near ban, and immaturity both emotionally and to the editing mindset. ThuranX (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Has a history of very poor judgments.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 17:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't feel that Roux has the right temperament to be an admin at this stage, Ecoleetage's diff was less than a month ago. Rje (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ryan. Prodego ^talk 18:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Would like to support, but the AN/I issues and the recent block don't let me support you. —_macy^{es: bot} 18:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I will oppose for one recent block, unless the candidate meets the burden of proof of showing that the behavior that led to the block doesn't receive a block in most cases. Roux has 4 recent blocks, so it would probably be best not to try to make the case. In general, I overlook a "reasonable" block after about 9 months. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "let's get past the smokescreens" and similar comments from the supporters: just my opinion, but the opposition doesn't seem to be bewildered by smokescreens, or unaware of the fact that Roux is smart and clueful; the opposition seems to be insisting on an additional requirement, a lack of recent "high drama". Even when drama dies down for a little while, handing someone extra "authority" sometimes has the effect of rekindling it. (P.S. Note that this kind of comment can come across as badgering the supporters, but IMO RfA would benefit from a little bit more careful and respectful give-and-take between supporters and opposition, with the goal of evolving towards consensus.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm the only supporter using the term "smokescreen," would it be correct to infer you are talking to me? Following your point about how giving authority will cause more drama, and frankly, I feel such a view is misbegotten. I highly doubt that Roux will go create more drama after having received the mop; rather, I feel that other users will be coming to Roux with drama. That being said, of course, Roux needs to be able to properly deal with this drama as an administrator, and I feel that through his experiences, Roux will be well equipped to deal with anything that is thrown his way. DARTH PANDA ^duel 19:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion that the recent blocks aren't a disqualification is clearly shared by about half the voters here, Darth, so it's a reasonable position. You implied that we're blinded by a smokescreen over on this side; you gave me something to rebut, so I'm giving it a shot. I observe in life and in online communities that most people change slowly, and that the best predictor of future drama is past drama (regardless of whether it seems to stem from "personal issues" or righteous anger). Because AGF is both Wikipedian policy and my own personal policy, I always assume that Roux is acting rationally and not prone to drama when we're conducting wiki-business. But this is RfA. It's up to the candidate (and supporters, if you want to) to convince us if we're not convinced, just as the burden of proof is on the candidate in almost any authority-granting process. I need for the candidate to show that they feel a connection to and respect for some corner of the Wikipedian community, and to demonstrate that they've felt that way for at least six and preferably nine months. 4 blocks probably means Roux didn't trust the people or the process. I could be wrong; but trying to make arguments for why all 4 recent blocks were unreasonable would probably wind up doing more harm than good. I'll be happy to look at the candidate again 9 months after the last block. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make a small point, all four blocks came from the same source, so I'd say it's unfair to consider each block separately. Every single block came from a conflict with User:G2bambino and that situation is largely not Roux's fault. However, Roux has managed to put this behind him and improve from this situation. Furthermore, while I agree that blocks reflect poorly on a candidate, the nature of the block is important to note as well. These were all edit conflicts, and he agreed on restrictions, so I think Roux has successfully gotten over his blocks. DARTH PANDA ^duel 21:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to debating these points, but RfA is slightly hostile to long debates, so maybe your place or mine would be better, and we can come back here if our positions change. I get it that the previous drama seems "justified", and you would think that that makes a difference, but in my experience, it doesn't; past drama is the best predictor of future drama. Drama isn't a bad thing per se; I rather like it when someone cares, but in the aftermath, I'm looking to see that their attitude has evolved from "You're bad, you're causing me to do this stuff" to "I'm in control of my actions", and Eco's link suggests that Roux needs more time. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, there is a talk page that the "long debate" could move to... EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No need for another admin with baggage. Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am just not sure how he will react to hostility with his recent past per Eco, Majorly, Dylan620 and many other editors here. Net negative. Andy (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Edits suggest that he does not have the appropriate temperament to deal with controversial or challenging issues. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dylan620 Spudinator (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. No way. I don't want to see another unfunny Wikipedia:DIVA drama[12][13] if he feels pressure in dealing with disputes.--Caspian blue 21:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dil (Dylan620 - sorry if you don't like having your name shortened like another Dylan!) - Roux, I think you can still pass a RfA one day, but you still need a bit of time and expierence. John Sloan (view / chat) 22:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, I prefer being called "Dylan." --Dylan 620 (Contribs · Sign!) 00:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because I can.--Koji† 23:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although you can oppose "Because you can." I feel I should point out that I highly doubt a 'crat will count you vote against roux until you actually give a reason why. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 00:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're right, otherwise we have some loopy 'crats.--Koji† 01:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's making a point here. Maybe he feels that Roux is particularly blunt/incivil?--Patton 123 00:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I should point out, as a relatively new user, and clueless editor...If rudeness was an oppose reason, several admins should be desysop'd. Clearly if he were so rude, he wouldn't have garnered such an equal (As of this comment) support/oppose grouping. Neuro√Logic 01:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK... we get it... K50 Dude ROCKS! 17:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dylan620. LittleMountain5 ^{Happy New Year 2009!} 00:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Ecoleetage, GlassCobra and Majorly above - this user doesn't seem ready to me. ColourSarge (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the various diffs in the oppose section. I see that the editor is angered quite easily.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - User seems to be too temperamental. Most of the time, I have seem him to be a perfectly fine editor, but when he gets a little temperamental, things appear to go south quickly. Sorry, roux. X clamation point 03:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose In light of Roux's recent response to NuclearWarfare's question, I felt it appropriate that I should offer my "vote" and opinion: As with a number of others here, I see that Roux is capable of excellent contributions to Wikipedia. However, adminship involves a talent with conflict resolution that I haven't yet seen Roux demonstrate, especially when he is, or was, an active participant in a dispute. I think more time should be allowed for him to actively engage in more disagreements, so that the community can see how, or if, he has made progress with his temperament and collegiality. --Miesianiacal (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that Miesianiacal is G2bambino's newest username. // roux 03:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not a biased opinion, amiright? Neuro√Logic 03:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed a biased opinion; as much so as any other expressed here! Best, --Miesianiacal (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now now, Roux expressly told me that he did not want badgering. Whilst this has not evolved into that yet, lets not make sarcastic remarks at the opposers, it doesn't help. — neuro^(talk) 08:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the troubling issues raised above, and will not abide another admin who goes overboard on BLP. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – deeply concerned by the lack of maturity in the diffs provided above and even those comments here that appear to be retaliatory rather than addressing any question. I would not like to work with an editor on admin issues who has a propensity to lose their tempremant easily – it doesn't work and only collateral results. Also, WTHN is not sufficient reason enough to want adminship – that's an essay by a fellow editor, not a policy on which our administrators are judged. Caulde 14:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes! No way. Not well suited to a collaborative project. Friday (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I cannot trust Roux with the tools after the diffs LeaveSleaves showed. Far too dramatic, and I can't really see the candidate as an asset or net positive. DiverseMentality 21:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per this comment to AN two days ago. So far as I can tell (unless there were oversighted edits), this account was merely created and blocked in the same minute. To post that on the noticeboard brought more attention to this user than if he hadn't have posted about it. He complained about it being a taunt towards Betacommand, but how many would have seen it if he didn't post it to the noticeboard? either way (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Either way and LeaveSleaves. Initially I supported, but those diffs are concerning to me. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per LeaveSleaves. — JoJo • Talk • 23:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Hmm, let's see…roux starts an AN/I thread here, in which he comments to another editor whom he wants blocked,
Me.. provoke.. you? Are you on crack? (…) I really seriously ask: are you inebriated in some way? Your statements bear no relation whatsoever to reality.
Every couple of months, he leaves in a big huff, has his user page and talk page permanently deleted, sheds bucketloads of tears, and after sufficient numbers of his devoted fans beg him on their knees to return, he deigns to come back under a new user name?
He blanks not only his Talk page but also his Editor Review because someone wrote something he did not like (see the last one of the diffs posted by Sleaves above)?
And we are seriously discussing this instead of WP:SNOW closing?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Let me start by saying that Roux is a good guy, and on a personal level we get along quite well. Roux is a editor who on a number of occasions has said things that desperately needed to be said, and has contributed tons to this project. Unfortunately, I feel in no way that Roux would make a suitable administrator. Roux has a tendency to let things get to him, and often times lashes out when frustrated, something that administrators get quite often. Also, Roux's block log alone tells it's own story, the multiple blocks that I have done along with the others from various administrators are the result of edit warring and at times uncivil behavior. While I agree that the majority of the edit warring was due to a single incident involving a user whom he did not get along with, that can not beused as a reason to excuse shuch behavior. Tiptoety ^talk 02:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tiptoety and Sleaves. Doesn't seem to be able to keep cool very well. Move to close per WP:SNOW. Quantumobserver (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for slight bad experience where roux appeared to do inappropriate CSD tagging. Also for having user talk page look like this when I wanted to talk about it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Roux has a fiery temperament, unsuited to a Wikipedia admin. Too many conflicts have been unnecessarily escalated. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - he has done things and called for things that make it seem like he does not have a strong grasp of blocking policies. The tools would be dangerous in his hands. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to dramatic past with multiple blocks. kilbad (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose due to multiple blocks. He has changed, but it doesn't matter. I support with one block, but not two. And certainly not three. People with this kind of history just don't become admins. Sorry! K50 Dude ROCKS! 17:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose Nice guy and positive personal interactions, however unsuited to the admin bit at this time, due to the attitude I see in the diffs above. Majorly's "Net Negative" sums it up, and the irony in that is not missed. Pedro : Chat 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't see blocks as a bar to adminship but my view is that six months should pass after a block before a user can become an admin. I am also not happy with the answer to the second part of Question 7 "Admins are often ... called upon to defend their decisions, especially with regards to deletions. How would you handle those situations?". In my view if an admin decision is questioned the first thing that the admin should do is review the action; considering the reasoning to an objection (if any). The candidate says that he would explain the decision but gives no indication that he would review it. TerriersFan (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, my bad on Q7. I read it as referring to the standard daily "O NOES WAI U BALEETED MAH PAGE" kind of background noise. If there were to be a substantive concern regarding a deletion, of course I'd discuss. // roux 00:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Sorry mate, but your track record of hostility and drahmaz is just preclusive to adminship in my opinion. Your very opening statement suggests that when you are involved you get out of control, and your only proposed remedy is to refrain from use of the mop while in that situation. Users will perceive even normal edits and conversation to be abusive of the mop, if made in an incivil, abusive or careless manner. Your reply to TerriersFan above indicates to me that you would take a view of users who do not elaborate well what their concerns are, as not deserving your time or concern. This indicates to me that you would likely be a WP:BITEy admin. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I actually like this editor, and the site needs people who can speak their mind and stir the pot a little. With that said, the user is just a little too prone to silly drama for me to be entirely comfortable with giving them the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose - because of the diffs from Ecoleetage and Sleaves. I don't want you losing your cool when you have admin-buttons. It seems as though this RfA is also something to do with revenge, or winning back whatever it is you think that people have taken away from you. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revenge? Pardon? I put this up, as I said in my statement, because having the delete button would make NPP easier, so why the hell not. I'm really not sure where you get 'revenge' out of that. // roux 21:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that Richard's comment could be construed as a little over the top. This RfA is not going to pass. Let's avoid saying things that might cause hard feelings.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Having worked closely with you and G2B during your incidents, I know that you are a valuable editor. That said, I don't believe you are qualified to be an administrator. I'm going to echo much of what has already been said, however your recent blocks, as well as the deletion issues brought up by many editors above are very concerning and demonstrative that you aren't ready. Your involvement in highly controversial fields is of course prone to such disagreements, however I don't feel as though your handling of them was what we would expect of an administrator. Maybe in some time, but not now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry Roux, you are a great editor, but not quite the temperament for an admin in my opinion. Res 2216 firestar 20:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per the diffs Sleaves posted and the fact that your talk page said "Don't post here" for almost two weeks out of the last month. Kcowolf (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've never talked to Roux. I have no idea if Roux is a good person (but I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt). With that said, if you're going to get blocked multiple times, then run for adminship a few months later, not just do I not want you to become an admin because of recent actions, but you don't have the... I'm not sure what word I want here- foresight? restraint?... I want to see out of an admin. -- Mike (Kicking222) 22:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose due to multiple blocks; however, as most were subsequently unblocked, I am only offering a weak oppose and also because I was a little turned off by some comments in an ANI thread I started a short time ago. All the same, I do like the stars on the userpage, so again, not a strong or even regular oppose maybe bordering on neutral. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A Nobody Rhodes 416 09:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose based on the fact that blocks were too recent. You would need half a year of clean records for me to support, but without the blocks, I would support. Leujohn ^(talk) 11:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - identically wrong temperment. That his answer to question #8 is demonstratably false doesn't help, either. Wily D 12:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon? I don't take accusations of dishonesty particularly lightly. I have been nothing but honest here. // roux 13:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked you for restoring comments to User_talk:G2Bambino when they had blanked the whole comment. As a matter of fact (and record, since diffs exist), I cautioned G2bambino that you had reasonable grounds to complain about partial blankings, to which they agreed to fix their behaviour to be in line with your demands, but you continued to edit war over it anyways. Wily D 14:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and the clearest example of why is the signature. The developers say "don't subst"; people have told Roux; people have asked, politely, and Roux wants his silly "cool" signature more than he wants to work well with others and avoid causing actual technical problems with Wikipedia. This is self-centered and vain; it is putting his desire to be "cool" well above Wikipedia's interest. Completely unsuitable behavior for an Admin. Shows poor judgment and poor priorities. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, the non-standard banner situated at the top of candidate's talk page blocks my Wikipedia talk/prefs/etc. navigation. (IE7, Modern skin.) Not a big deal, but the form-over-function observation does have merit. Townlake (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per this. Grow up. Tan | 39 15:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per LeaveSleaves, for starters. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not for any lone specific comment, or alluded too long-ago drama as some people have mentioned (ancient history is ancient history) but for what feels like a general tone of contrariness in a lot of cases and not being willing to just say "OK" and move on, unfortunately. The current substr signature thing comes to mind, and the invocation of IAR there as well bugs me a bit. IAR in my opinion should only be used in a clear cut obvious case. If someone disagrees with your IAR, odds are IAR shouldn't be used. rootology (C)(T) 16:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all those citing temperment problems. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Roux cannot take friendly advice when it's given to him- the signature problem re-enforced that in my mind. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 19:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

~~Neutral~~ - Good content contributions, work at XfD is good, and good work in administrative areas, but there has been too much recent drama for me to feel comfortable supporting the candidate. I do not doubt that said candidate is dedicated and trustworthy, but I think there are some people who are merely inappropriate candidates for adminship. I worry especially that if Roux is made an admin his content contributions will suffer. Sorry. — neuro^(talk) 11:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC) added ~~strikeout~~ for clarity, by davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) at 02:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck it, supporting. — neuro^(talk) 11:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Would like to hear more from candidate about blocks in September and October, and more about what he's learned from them.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC) added ~~strikeout~~ for clarity, by davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) at 02:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to hear? By which I mean, what are your questions that I may answer them? // roux 11:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did it come to pass, who was (in your view) at fault, and what, in your own thoughts, have you learned from them?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All parties involved are at fault, of course. Takes two to tango. Came to pass because I am disinclined to let people who are acting to promote a POV and editing in a tendentious manner to get away with it. I am equally disinclined to let anyone either put words in my mouth or edit my comments to change what I have said. However, I have learned--and should have known beforehand--that it is best to refute such people once, and invite outside eyes to view the issue and evaluate as they see fit. The outside view (known in WP as 'consensus') is the most improtant thing; the objective viewpoint is generally the correct one, and one by which I abide whether or not I agree with it. That isn't to say I won't make my point of view known; it is just saying that I will not act on my singular viewpoint if it is against consensus unless exigent IAR applies. // roux 11:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to support, seems good enough to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Past quarrels are no problem as far as I'm concerned, but I need to get to know you better before I consider supporting. Deb (talk) 13:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Sorry Roux; you are a great user, but being close to a community ban six months ago cancels out any possible support. I will very likely support if you run again in six to nine months, that is, if this RfA fails. Either way, good luck. --Dylan 620 _Contribs ^Sign! 14:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa; switching to oppose. --Dylan 620 _Contribs ^Sign! 16:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I like Roux, but I find his lack of knowledge of image policy a little concerning. J Milburn (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I've decided to !vote oppose only when candidates are extremely unsuited for adminship. I like roux and most of his contributions to various noticeboards lead me to believe he was an administrator. I've found his judgement to be quite good, but the block log and other evidence by the opposers is persuasive. I'd most likely support this in a couple of months, provided roux stays out of trouble and away from drama. AniMate^talk 21:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Switching to weak support. AniMate^talk 22:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Definitely admin material; needs to work on community trust for another several months. I like Roux a lot - sort of reminds me of me. Keep up the good work, the adminly behavior, and the content contributions, and you have my strong support in the spring. Tan | 39 22:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)moved to oppose[reply]

Neutral. I cannot support now due to problems in the past but I cannot bring myself to oppose as I know it was not all Roux's fault. If you go for RfA again in the future, I will most probably support. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 23:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaning more towards opposing but will stay neutral for the moment. The more diffs the opposer's show me, the more convinced I am that Roux would not make a good admin. It's only my attitude that everyone makes mistakes that's keeping me in neutral. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 19:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Switching to oppose[reply]

Neutral I have very, very, very little doubt that Roux will use the tools in a way that will benefit him and the community. However, I cannot totally agree with the way he handled the recent drama. Icy // ♫ 00:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Oh, screw this. I'll support.[reply]
oo Are you sure you typed what you meant? Those are the words of someone who would strong oppose!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I think Roux would do very well with the tools, and it would probably benefit him and Wikipedia. But I really can't approve what happened then. Icy // ♫ 00:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I think you may have misphrased it. You are saying that you believe Roux WILL abuse the tools, AND you disagree with the way he handled htings. I imagine any wp editor will oppose someone they believe is gonna abuse the tools. Or perhaps you meant something else?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, shoot. I'm not thinking right, grrrr. -headdesk- Will rephrase. Thanks. Icy // ♫ 00:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My gut feeling is that you are, at this time, far too opinionated to be a fair admin, and furthermore I'm not confident that, despite your assurances, you would be able to withdraw yourself from any situation in which you find yourself involved. It's a no from me on this basis alone - neutral because I don't think it'd be fair for me to oppose without having looked very carefully through all of your service with the project. Thanks, Martinp23 01:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I haven't done an in-depth analysis, but this person seems clueful and well on his way to demonstrating a pattern of handling situations that in the past led to blocks. His voluntary 1RR is an important part of that. However, there simply hasn't been enough time. If this were 6 months past his most recent block I would take the time to look into this candidate further, but he would have to be stellar. After 9-12 months of continuous civil editing I'd consider it history and hold him to just my normal RFA standards. Recommend withdrawing, keep on editing as you have for the past few months, and relisting no sooner than 9 months after most recent block. The question "is giving this candidate the tools a net positive" simply cannot be answered "yes" given the short time since the blocks in question. By the way, I see two separate issues here: The first is how to react in the face of an uncivil editor, the second is understanding restrictions you are under and what a "revert" means. Candidate very likely fully understands how to deal with both now but unfortunately it takes a bit longer than 3-4 months to demonstrate it. By the way, my "gut" says if we give him the bit, we'll probably be fine. I'm neutral because making him wait a few more months to be sure is probably a net good for the project. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about this RfA, including sleeping on it. There are positives (such as the care he takes with NPP and new editors) but there are also negatives (thrashed out above and in other fora). I was trending towards Support, but then saw his response to Miesianiacal's Oppose. There was no need to tell us who this user was, we are intelligent people. However, it does tell me that the situation is still looming large in Roux' mind and has the possibility of clouding his judgement. This, therefore, results in a net-neutral for me. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I believe Roux will be an excellent administrator in time, just not now. It is too soon following Roux's recent block/semi-leave. Roux will be a definite plus on the admin staff in the future, but I believe he needs to prove to the community that he can be a stable and reliable contributor. I have personally worked with Roux in the past and found the editor very accepting and willing to work with others. It's just his recent drama that just doesn't sit well with me just yet. Happy New Year though. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 21:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Neutral --69.1.153.88 (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry dude, IP's can't vote. --Dylan 620 (Contribs · Sign!) 23:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not even weak neutral? Surely they can vote weak neutral? Now strong neutral I can understand indenting; we can't have that kind of thing coming from an IP. But I'm all in favor of IP's being able to register weak neutral opinions. --barneca (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, only emphatic strong neutrals should be allowed from IP editors. If an editor can't put a stake in the ground around his identity, at least he should put a stake in the ground about his lack of opinion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Weak neutral means he desires to remain neutral but could be persuaded to potentially be somewhat less neutral given sufficient reasonable discussion and threats of violence. THis IP should in fact be promoted to admin- utter lack of a personality is apparently the litmus test! l'aquatique |✡| talk 04:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All I know is, my gut says "maybe". Reyk _YO! 22:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my understanding was that no one could vote. Though this IP seems to be simply having a bit of a joke here, in theory I don't see why anon editors should not have the chance to express their thoughts and opinions. The bureaucrat reviewing the discussion should surely have the ability to judge the relative strength of argument of an anonymous editor. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I think you are a great editor in general, but I am unsure that you are ready for adminship right now. You have the potential to be a great admin, but you are still unready. Malinaccier (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't wish to pile on. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not confident your ready for the tools just yet. Seddσn ^talk 03:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I echo the above. Marlith (Talk) 05:40, 5 January 2009 (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.