User:MBisanz/Qs/RfACandidate2

Candidate2

(89/52/14); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 02:22, 23 December 2099 (UTC)

Candidate2 (talk · contribs) - This is a self-nomination for restoration of my sysop rights that I resigned back in December. At the time, I indicated that I was revoking my right to have them automatically reinstated by bureaucrats upon my request. Thus, I am re-running RFA to see if the community still wishes for me to work with them on administrative tasks again. If re-approved, I wish to continue my work largely where I left off, in the realm of non-free content. Thanks to all. Candidate2 ^{[omg plz]} 20:15, 15 December 2099 (UTC)

A minor statement I wish to address the most common reason people are hesitant to support (or even hesitant in their support), and that is the fact that I have been "dramatic." I wish to reassure the community that it was never my intention to be dramatic. A perfect case in point is the Mzoli's incident. This e-mail was sent from myself to Jimbo, following the Mzoli's ordeal. I received a very nice reply from him, which I still have (I will not post it without his permission, of course). In this e-mail, I detailed to Jimbo my intentions, and why I act the way I do. I can reaffirm here that I always act with the encyclopedia's best interest at heart. When I deleted a category "Wikipedians by Alma Mater," I did so because I was trying to make the Wiki more productive, and I didn't see a Facebook-esque categorization as doing so. While I may be one of the more liberal applicators of WP:IAR, I do so because I /truly/ think that there are many situations where the /right/ thing isn't necessarily the popular thing or the community's consensus. Thanks. Candidate2 ^{[omg plz]} 13:06, 22 December 2099 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

I am declining to answer the traditional questions at this time and encourage the community to ask me fresh questions. If anyone wishes to view my answers to my successful RFA's questions, you may view them here. Thanks.

Questions from Avruch

1. Why did you resign your sysop rights, and why did you decline to reacquire them in the standard way?

A.I resigned my sysop rights for multiple reasons. First and foremost, I was entirely too busy and unable to dedicate myself in the fashion I formerly did. Additionally, at the time, I felt myself becoming more and more distant to the community, and saw my participation here coming slowly to an end. I declined to reaquire them in the standard methods to avoid such a decision being "on a whim," if you will. However, I have thought long and hard since that event, and I wish to slowly begin re-participating in the meta-aspects of the English Wikipedia, and I believe my regaining sysop permissions is an extension of that.

2. What is your opinion on CAT:AOR?

A.Personally, I think that it is a great idea for those who wish to involve themselves. I've long stated that adminship needs to be easier-to-lose than it is to help discourage poor behavior. As it stands, the only official way to lose your sysop rights is A) Drag out a long ArbCom case or B) Do something really dramatic that requires an immediate removal. If people are willing to put their actions up to scrutiny via a method that avoids either of these situations, more power to them.

Optional question by User:Keeper76

3. (edit conflict)I have no problem with you foregoing the traditional Q1-Q3, however, would you mind providing a couple of diffs that show exactly why your bit was resigned, under what circumstances, etc? I'm afraid I just don't know, and I'm mildly embarassed to say I'm just to lazy to dig myself. Thanks in advance

A.: I resigned my sysop bit back in December on meta out of my own free will (http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_permissions&diff=prev&oldid=780801). At the time, I was becoming disinterested with the English Wikipedia, and saw my participation waning. However, I now wish to re-involve myself with the community and am taking a pledge to avoid the drama when at all possible. While some may disagree with my re-running now, I can say that I did resign under normal circumstances largely.

Multi-part Questions from Mike R

4. Why did you decide to run for ArbCom in December 2007? Why did you decide to withdraw your candidacy? Why did you delete the pages related to your candidacy?

A. At the time, I was leaving the English Wikipedia and had no intentions of returning. See Q1 for a more extensive explanation. If you'll also notice, I cleaned out a large portion of my userspace at the time as well.

5. Do you still agree with the first two of these observations you made in September, after having resigned your admin bit temporarily as "an experiment"? Is it still your mission to fix those problems? How will you do this?

A. Yes, wholeheartedly. On point 1, I intend to avoid the Wikidrama (humorous photo, made it earlier today , I think it lightens the mood a bit around the petty fights) that occurs so frequently around the English Wikipedia. A great example was the rollback hubbub. I avoided it at the time, and I would avoid it again, if the situation re-arose. As far as #2 goes, I still stand by the fact that many administrators wield their position as though it's some sort of badge. While my choice of words at the time (declaring blanket statements such as all administrators) might have not been the best, the sentiment is nonetheless the same.

6. I wish to get back to editing, and keep it simple.—Sounds like a lot more fun than adminship. Why are you here? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 22:21, 15 December 2099 (UTC)

A. Well, I have been editing. And I've enjoyed it. It's been relaxing to make positive edits such as this. And I don't see that stopping. However, I wish to get involved in the meta-aspect again, and as I said above, I see this as an extension of that wish. Did that answer your question?

Follow up to question 2 from EJF

7. Would you add yourself to CAT:AOR? Why? If not, in which circumstances would you resign your adminship?

A. Originally I was in that category. I then later removed myself. As my RFA has not been supported nearly as strongly as the first time around (nor did I expect it to), I most certainly will put myself in that category. If people are uncomfortable with me receiving adminship, I want to ensure them that there will be a way to remove it from me if I show consistently poor behavior.

Question from Spevw 8. Do you believe it is fair or unfair that once an administrator resigns or loses sysop tools that they often don't get it back again because an administrator must do things that are controversial (even a block supported by consensus is opposed by the person being blocked) and the second RFA is a mean for others to revenge? Fair or unfair? Possible solution if unfair? Spevw (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2099 (UTC)

A. In short, yes. However, it is to be expected. Taking my adminship as an example case, I obviously have made decisions that have upset some people. And thus, I expected opposition. I wouldn't necessarily call it fair or unfair, more a product of your behavior while previously an admin. If you find yourself not re-promoted during your re-RFA, then you probably did something at some point that people disliked enough to oppose your request (which may well be the case here, we shall see).

General comments

See Candidate2 's edit summary usage with &lang=en mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Links for Candidate2 : Candidate2 (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/ Candidate2 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

Was a great admin before, and will be again. Experienced with images. Acalamari 20:19, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Actually, make this a strong support: damn good answers! Very detailed and honest. Acalamari 23:48, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. What Acalamari said ;). Qst (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
east.718 at 20:30, December 15, 2099
Of course. Mr.Z-man 20:32, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Why not give them back? - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
That's exactly what we're asking. See questions above. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:37, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
I wasn't clear. I mean, I see no reasons not to give them back. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - definitely. jj137 (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Support and welcome back. My only reservation that because the user left adminship in good standing and is eligible to reclaim it by simple request to a bureaucrat, this RfA is an unnecessary expediture of community time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Support I am pleased the Candidate2 is applying again, and even more pleased that he is doing it in the democratic way, through the voting process. Sadly, too many admins take their rights for granted. Danny (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Might as well. DS (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. Largely because of the answer to Q5. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Quite experienced, no past significant issues with use of tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Support Sure. Gary King (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Support per Malleus. Newyorkbrad, and all the rest. Dloh cierekim Deleted? 21:42, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Hmm. if you feel anger while editing or reading other people's edits, the simple expedient is to turn of the computer and do anything else a while. Most of the things you complain about in the link in Q5 is due to people becoming overwrought. It is best when editing to adopt a sense of dispassionate interest or disinterested passion. If you can do that, you can avoid unnecessary drama and reduce the likelihood of abusing the tools. Dloh cierekim Deleted? 21:54, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Why wouldn't I say yes when I see that you've collected 12 other votes? Flaminglawyer (talk • contribs) 21:45, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - <sarcasm> despite the fact that I'm just another elitist bastard. </sarcasm> Speaking deliberately, I think that there is a role for an agitator in the community - and while I think that sometimes Candidate2 reacts before he considers all the consequences, I know that he has the best interests of the community at heart and will often say the things that need to be said by someone, however unpopular they are. - Philippe | Talk 22:00, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - Candidate2 certainly wasn't the worst admin we had when he left, he's done some fantastic work with his tools. I do see some legitimate concerns in the oppose section, and I encourage Candidate2 to read these carefully before he takes any administrative action should this RfA succeed. All in all - the positves far outweight the negatives of Candidate2 regaining the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:20, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Ditto Candidate2 's already Candidate2 strated ability to do the job well, which is the primary selection criterion. Wily D 22:43, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Daniel (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Strongly. Spebi 22:48, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Strong Support - Excellent, Welcome back...--Comet styles 22:53, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. I was disappointed in several of Candidate2 's actions before his resignation (specifically the alma mater category situation), but I don't see anything that cannot be corrected or that would prevent him from using the tools responsibly. - auburnpilot talk 01:06, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - Candidate2 was and will be an excellent admin. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:18, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Support and the moral of the story is never use RfA for reconfirmation, since the community can be relied upon only to be predictably petty and vindictive. You never abused the tools, so you should get them back, and we should not waste our time discussing it.--Doc^g 01:35, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
I know what you mean. The worst thing about this encyclopedia is this blasted community. Whose horrible idea was it to trust these seething, miserable vessels of spite with important decisions? Clearly, the fact that this character's first RfA ran nearly unopposed and that this one seems doomed to failure is a testament to the capricious whim of the unruly mob and has little if anything to do with the way the candidate conducted himself as an admin and editor between now and then.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
That's not the point I'm making. The point is that when people come back for reconfirmation, there are always lots of people seeking to settle scores or pick up on small imperfections rather than simply ask if there's evidence of a probability of abuse of tools that would outweigh any probability of good work that would be done. The RfA community (a nasty subset of the real one) is petty at such times. My failure to trust its excuse for judgement is based on plenty of observed evidence. (And then they wonder why sane admins run a mile from recall nonsense. Who needs to "kick me" sign on their back?) --Doc^g 02:24, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
That's not really true. I've seen less controversial candidates breeze through reconfirmation attempts with overwhelming support. Two of the more recent ones were this one and this one. Your threshold for unsuitability for adminship appears to be the potential for wanton "abuse of the tools;" the fact that others hold candidates to higher standards than that does not make them bad people. You seem to have it in for the RfA voters, but they are a diverse bunch, and your harsh generalizations do not do them justice. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
The "net effect" is my problem.--Doc^g 11:01, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - not least because of your answer to Q5. Addhoc (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Support Deserves a second chance. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:52, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Support Seen this user as a good user, deserves the mop. And the incivility concerns in the oppose section dates back to last October and November. NHRHS 2010 NHRHS2010 04:19, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. The number of toes stepped on seems proportionate to the number of administrative actions taken here. Certainly there are some things that could have been handled better, but the standard here is not perfection (or shouldn't be, until RoboAdmin 1.0 is out of beta-testing). He did good work; controversial decisions are not the same as abuse of the tools. MastCell ^Talk 04:35, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Oh yeah To paraphrase MastCell, the number of toes, how big those toes are, and the sensitivity of those toes are all proportionate to the number of admin actions... Gosh I hate this reconfirmation stuff but it's worth it for this guy. I do worry a little that you might not enjoy it very much - you didn't seem to, last time around? ~ Riana ⁂ 05:43, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. I still trust Candidate2 with the mop, which is what really matters. Regarding the opposition over "drama", Candidate2 has specifically stated his intent to avoid such entanglements and I see no reason at all not to take him at his word. Regarding complaints about supporting Veropedia over Wikipedia, such complaints are (in my own view) ~~patent nonsense~~ unconvincing. The Vero' crew improves articles on Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's own rules and common standards, so I fail to see how there's anything resembling a conflict of interest or a deprecation of Wikipedia. On the related free image thing, Wikipedia is supposed to be based on free content and there's even a Foundation-level policy related to that. (Plus, Candidate2 has been consistently clear on his fair use position, long before Veropedia was around.) Thus, the opposition provided seems entirely unconvincing to me. Vassyana (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Support, user did well with the tools in the past. As for the "drama" concerns, Wikipedia is more or less nothing but. Not going to single this user out. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:52, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Ultimately, an asset to the project. El_C 07:24, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - Seems like we should have more admins with his sentiments. PaddyM (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. I remember Candidate2 as a good admin, and I'd like to see him help out again. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:06, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Support Natch Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:50, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Per Acalamari. Rudget . 10:12, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Support Jmlk 1 7 10:36, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Strong Support Trustworthy and honest. Nick (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Support Has been a very good admin; I have had several positive interactions in the past, and no negative ones. If I were in doubt, I would be swayed by the support votes of such serious and sound editors as Newyorkbrad and Riana. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:36, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. Candidate2 is an intelligent user who never abused the admin tools. I typically take a dim view of unnecessary self re-noms like this one, but Candidate2 is too good an editor to oppose on such grounds. A Train^talk 15:27, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Support, the comments made in the oppose section, such as by Pedro, are true - however, this does not mean I don't trust the editor to be civil and trustable with the tools. A good editor who I can trust and believe the project will benefit him having the tools (again). Good luck, Poeloq (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Support the +'s outweigh the -'s. RMHED (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Although the reasons for Candidate2 's wanting the admin back are a little weak, I have to support based on his past record. –Crazytales talk 21:55, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Support Is prepared to take the hurt when knowingly going in harms way - whether it is bravery or foolishness is unimportant, there needs to be an element of the sysop grouping that will do it for the best interests of the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - nothing's more obvious than the fact that the longer you're around, the harder it is to gain adminship. But I suggest getting another hobby, Candidate2 . The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Qualified support. Like others have pointed out, the good far outweighs the no-so-much in the course of several years. One or two misjudgments won't and should not simply cancel out years of great work. However, going against consensus in the aforementioned CFD discussion is not something that an experienced admin should feel free to do IMO. I don't agree that it was appropriate to pull an IAR on that one, particularly in light of the fact that a previous nomination for deletion resulted in a keep. — Zerida 23:15, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Support As much as I oppose pointless reconfirmation RfAs, I can't turn down admins willing to work with images. Spellcast (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
yes -- Y not? 02:16, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support, definitely. krimpet ✽ 02:41, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Strong moral support. User:Dorftrottel 03:08, December 17, 2008
He's incivil, sometimes trollish, often acts against community consensus, certainly against the wishes of those who've bothered to comment. But the fact that he actually told AN the truth is enough. With due respect, it seems the opposition are those who were hurt by his abrupt manner of calling a spade a space, which is something we need now as much as (if not more than) ever. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 06:05, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
I wondered where you'd been. We could really use more admins that are willing to work with images. SQL ^{Query me!} 10:44, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Strong Support: On the basis of his past admin behaviour, especially when combined with his answers to questions 2 and 5. DDStretch (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - unlikely to misuse or abuse the tools. Should be able to remain civil and keep a cool head. Guest9999 (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
While I probably wouldn't say it in the same way, I think he makes some good points. He was previously a fine administrator and will again serve the community well. -JodyB_talk 12:27, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support – respected Candidate2 as administrator before and look forward to working with him again. Shoessss | Chat 14:59, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
See neutral below by Maxim. Though I support, I agree with that. – Steel 21:55, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support fully qualified and clueful. Martinp23 22:00, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - No reason not to that I can see. John Carter (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support --Charitwo ^talk 23:09, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. Very experienced with image work, and gave up the tools voluntarily, so should be able to have them back. Cowardly Lion (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - As far as I'm concerned, he's capable of being regranted admin tools.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 05:53, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Support Experience is always a valuable thing. GDonato (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - per answer to Q7, and despite rouge tendencies; speedy deleting an article by Jimbo Wales! EJF (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Support Great editor that I've seen around for a long time now. Good luck. Dfrg_msc 23:02, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
You resigned? Will ^(talk) 00:44, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Support, Candidate2 never broke the Wiki when he had tools before, and I don't think he'd do it if he gets them back. Glad to see him coming out of retirement! ♠P M C♠ 03:54, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
support For most interactions I've had with Candidate2 I've disagreed with his opinions. And yes, he can sometimes be a bit extreme and sometimes makes hasty or poorly thought out decisions. That's why we have things like DRV. Candidate2 was a very competent admin who is clearly dedicated to the project. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - yup - Alison ^❤ 11:06, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - no history of abuse, admits to errors, has valuable experience. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Support Bearian pretty much said it all, but I also believe "once an admin, always an admin". ;) (In mind, at least!) — $PЯINGεrαgђ 17:38 19 December, 2099 (UTC)
Strong support not least on the grounds of disagreeing with some of those who oppose on the grounds of your views on certain policies. Opinions, on-wiki or off-, are not a ground for refusing adminship. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:28, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Support Candidate2 is one of the good guys. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - I appreciate your work. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. Candidate2 has already Candidate2 strated his ability to handle the admin. tools responsibly, and for the benefit of the project. Whilst it is indeed suprising to see him reversing on his earlier, rather high-profile decision to retire from metapedian activities, I cannot say I feel ill towards it; rather, I look forward to the prospect of Candidate2 regaining the tools he used to such a huge extent. Chad has Candidate2 strated enormous wisdom, including in his previous activities with OTRS and as Chair of the Mediation Committee. Likewise, he has produced some enormous improvements at the Veropedia project, in his role as something of a (as I gather) "head developer"—he's largely responsible for the implementation of the single user login being rolled out there. I have absolutely no qualms about supporting his request, although I would not go so far as to rubbish the opposer's concerns: particularly, I do think Candidate2 can be somewhat dramatic at times, and may benefit from, shall we say, taking his work with a little less seriousness? Similarly, I can sympathise with the view that Candidate2 can be a little "gung-ho" in his approach. However, these are minor concerns, and are definitely ones that he can work on. Best of luck, Chad—I am confident in your ability to contribute as an administrator in a project-benfiting fashion. AGK (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Support per Sam Korn. Candidate2 served well as admin previously. NoSeptember 22:01, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Support Per Rjd0060 mostly. —Animum (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
Support I don't believe the OMGdramaz are as serious as opposers are suggesting. Black Kite 07:55, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
Please just ask for the tools back in future. We have enough processes and non-article pages already. We shouldn't be adding to them unnecessarily. DrKiernan (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
If anyone wants to test that empirically, hit special:random/wikipedia 100 times and see how many of those pages are AfDs, how many are RfAs and how many are policies and guidelines. Carcharoth (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
Perfect example of a unneeded RFA, but still, hard worker against fair use, obviously need the tools. Secret 15:18, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
"Hard worker against fair use"? "obviously need the tools"? You don't need the tools to work for or against fair use. Carcharoth (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
Support - Yes. --Bhadani (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
--Kbdank71 16:59, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
~~Support~~. A number of editors I admire support Candidate2 and speak of him being a good admin. On the other hand, a number of editors I admire are concerned with Candidate2 's wikidrama grandstanding. The grandstanding will take place if Candidate2 is an admin or not, and as he has proved by references from notable wikipedians to have been an admin who did not misuse the tools in the past, we can assume he will not misuse them again. The chest-thumping wiki-drama is therefore largely a side-issue. People may have a concern that Candidate2 may on a grandstanding whim decide to experiment with pressing the BIG RED BUTTON that forces Wikipedia to autofellate; however. _3&diff=192202723&oldid=192181516 this provides some reassurance that after we've got the tissues out and cleaned up the mess, that Candidate2 will back out of the door apologising. Lets suck it and see. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 23:47, 20 December 2099 (UTC)

I'd say that the concerns are not about drama that happens to non-admins. They are a direct result of his use of the buttons, therefore, drama that can be eliminated if he doesn't have them. For further elaboration, see my oppose below. нмŵוτн τ 23:59, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
I'll admit, despite the flippancy of my support, that I have hesitations, and your opposition was one that I carefully considered. There is more than a whiff of arrogance about Candidate2 that is unsettling. However, I am persuaded by a belief that an admin with a degree of self-confidence can push things in a positive direction where a quiet and humble librarian may not. I don't think we can reasonably expect perfection from an admin - more of a willingness to work for the project, an understanding of the arcane ways of Wiki and a proven record of trustworthiness. My understanding is that Candidate2 fulfills to the satisfaction of experienced and respected Wikipedians these qualities, while the concerns of other Wikipedians are more along the lines of unease than anything solid. I would have preferred that Candidate2 had responded to your messages, but he wasn't actively rude or aggressive. Hopefully he will take on board your observations and be more alert to the responsibilities of being an admin in future. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 00:44, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
Having looked more closely at some of the oppose diffs I now have enough uncertainty to step back for the moment. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 08:40, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
Support. One of the good ones. ➪HiDrNick! 00:55, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
Support Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:54, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:04, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
Eusebeus (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
Per exactly what Acalamari said. – Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:17, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
Support Was a good administrator before. No reason not to be an administrator now. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
Support Undoubtedly a good admin; we need more like him.--Bedivere (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2099 (UTC)

Oppose

Everytime I see Candidate2 do or say something, he seems pissed off at something. I dunno why that is, but he says he wants to continue the work he was doing before. I believe that's what caused him to quit in the first place. Also when he requested desysopping, he asked for it to be impossible to be an admin on any WMF project again. But here we are. I think you'd be better off as a normal editor for your own sake, at least for a few more months. Majorly (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Don't take this the wrong way, but somehow your comment reminds of something in-between The Glass Bead Game and my grandma complaining about Anal Cunt. I can't quite put my finger in it. User:Dorftrottel 03:20, December 17, 2008

Actually, Majorly, I know exactly what you're saying. I feel the same way. I can't put my finger on it... but he always seems... annoyed. It's kind of intimidating. нмŵוτн τ 21:05, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose Way to much "OMG drama" and previous wholly negative interaction. Pedro : Chat 20:46, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per Pedro. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:07, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Weak oppose. Sorry Candidate2 - I do like you, I think you're a nice guy, but it's what Majorly said- you always seem so angry. I think you're also a bit unpredictable- silly little things you do occasionally. For instance, blocking yourself. It made me laugh at the time, but I think you're a time-bomb. However, this is only a weak oppose, because, for the most part, you made a great admin. J Milburn (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose - Per Pedro. I've also witnessed similar attitude. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:37, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Strong oppose A drama machine with consistently poor judgment: nominating RFA for deletion (as a tactic to force a reform discussion, when he didn't feel like using the talk page)[1], speedy deleting Mzoli's (which ended up being a massive embarrassment for the project and could have easily been avoided with a little politeness and patience), deleting the Wikipedians by alma mater categories (700 of them!) against a strong consensus (his delete closure was never carried out, because it was swiftly and overwhelming overturned at DRV [2].) Pointless incivility "Oh come off it Anthere. Not a single one of your proposed theories as to why this is bad makes any sense to any thinking person." The rudeness of the post is especially stunning in light of the thoughtfulness and openness to discussion of Anthere's previous post. ~~Supports Veropedia's content policies over Wikipedia's.[3]~~ Edit warring at WP:WBNOE. I didn't even look through his contributions, these are just incidents I remembered off the top of my head, and knew where to find quickly. --JayHenry (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
If I may reply to the Veropedia diff, I would like to say in my defense that I have long been a vocal opponent of our fairuse policy and a good number of my own edits are doing just that, removing fairuse images. Candidate2 ^{[omg plz]} 05:02, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough and struck that part. Although the Foundation allows some fair use (and it was a board member of the Foundation that said the removal was inappropriate in this case), I won't oppose for an opinion. The rest stands, and I'd genuinely like to hear your response to that. I'd also love to know why, in three years, you've virtually never bothered to do any article work. --JayHenry (t) 07:04, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind at all discussing this further. Would you like to discuss it on my talkpage so we don't have to clutter the RFA? Candidate2 ^{[omg plz]} 16:06, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
I would like you to respond here. Your speech at ANI in September was something with which I strongly agree. But your behavior -- don't you see? -- is exactly the behavior you criticize. Your actions contradict your words and it is the actions that speak louder. Anyone can give empty speeches. Ignoring consensus to implement your preference, deleting an article indicated as a work in progress without discussion, edit warring, picking fights, never working on an article. These pertain very directly to this discussion. --JayHenry (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, and I do admit that I have a habit of speaking without thinking, and a poor choice of words. If I may be so bold as to venture back into Mzoli's, I must say that the entire incident was blown out of proportion and wasn't nearly as devastating as people seemed to think it was (personally, I hated the LA Times article). I wasn't looking to make a point, I wasn't looking to stand up to Jimbo. I was reviewing an article that met our criteria for deletion. Now, perhaps the situation could've been handled differently, but I still stand behind my initial action of removing un-sourced and seemingly non-notable information from the encyclopedia. I hate to drag it into here, but I have always been a strong fan of IAR. For the most part, my actions are taken in sight of IAR. While the vast majority of my actions have a place in our current policy, the few that have upset people seem to be my ones that involved me ignoring the rules. I'm not going to quote IAR, as we all know it, but let me say I firmly believe that my actions have /always/ been in the best interest of the encyclopedia, even when they are not popular or do not enjoy the support of the community. While I may at times seem like I am anti-community or anti-Foundation (as people on foundation-l can attest), I can assure each and every member of this project that I always do have the best interests of Wikipedia, the Foundation, and free content at heart. Candidate2 ^{[omg plz]} 19:07, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
I think IAR would have told you to keep the Mzoli's article at least for a couple of days, even if it technically met the A7 requirements, because it was created by a well-established user (god-king or not). Since you know he understands the CSD, deleting the article shows assuming bad faith—assuming that the established user had no intention of improving the article as soon as possible. --Ginkgo100^talk 00:04, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Jimbo is on record as saying he'd probably have deleted it himself in Candidate2 's shoes. I note also that various other complains here have nothing to do with admin tools (closing xfD is something anyone can do, as is nominating RfA for deletion). There's little evidence here of his unsuitability with the tools, so I'm struggling to see the sense.--Doc^g 08:23, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Weak Oppose per Pedro and J Milburn. Normally I'd be all for re-sysopping, but your actions and attitude have shaken my confidence. Sorry. Majoreditor (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Weak, Weak Oppose I'm not really against the user, but rudeness does prevent me from supporting. Spencer^T♦^C 22:28, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose Erratic behavior, doesn't seem to believe in the project.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Edit conflict Oppose. TBH, I have no idea why you're here, per Majorly. Plus, constantly annoyed admins can be hard to work with, sorry. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{it seems the winds have stopped...} 22:33, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per Majorly. Too much drama. Sorry. Mønobi 22:52, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose, per Majorly. --Agüeybaná 22:58, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose - Per Majorly, Pedro, and this. I think this user's userpage sums it up. Tiptoety ^talk 23:04, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose He declines to answer the questions everyone else seems happy to, and I decline to support him. Nick mallory (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
To begin with, the questions are optional: he does not have to answer them. Secondly, as Candidate2 said himself, the answers to the first three questions are on his second RfA, and they are still perfectly valid answers; therefore, he has answered the questions. Thirdly, he invited the community to ask fresh questions, which he has been taking the time to answer. The only reason he's left some questions blank is because, at this time, he has not been online, as evidenced by his contributions. This RfA may be worth looking at too. Acalamari 00:17, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Thanks! That's totally changed my mind!! No, wait, it hasn't. He's free to answer the questions, or not, and I'm free to draw my own conclusions from that. It seems symptomatic of a person who thinks the established norms which apply to everyone else don't, for some reason, apply to him. This contempt for consensus is why I don't think he should be an admin. Admins are supposed to solve problems, not create them. If he can't be bothered to jump through the same hoops as everyone else who reapplies here then there's something wrong. Please feel free to argue the toss about this some more of course, and see where that gets you. Nick mallory (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Why the hell should he answer them again? Are you really such a process wonk that you want to see him copy and paste the text from his last RfA to this one? John Reaves 12:32, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Regretful Oppose It pains me to say so, but the incidents that JayHenry brings up are disconcerting enough to make me honestly feel you are untrustworthy. Sorry, but the fact that even many of your supporters call you an "agitator" and recognize the legitimacy of some of the oppose claims doesn't exactly stem the tide either. What we need are admins that dutifully and courteously act in the best interest of the project and, most importantly, can reliably enact a consensus (even one that defies their own personal feelings). Diffs provided here strongly suggest you have a hard time doing this. VanTucky 01:09, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Protest oppose against the general trend of reconfirmation RFAs and community infighting instead of encyclopaedia writing. Also per Majorly. User:Krator (t c) 01:19, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose. Overly bureaucratic, non fun-loving. Users who go through reconfirmation RfAs unnecessarily are not fit to have admin tools. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:37, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
This RfA obviously was necessary, otherwise you'd have had no chance to oppose. Majorly (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2099 (UTC)

Saying this RfA is unnecessary is a purely personal value judgment. User:Dorftrottel 02:03, December 17, 2008
Oppose. Has a tendency to lash out at people and make a bad situation worse... The Mzoli's meats AfD is still burned into my head, although I see now it was longer ago than I thought. Needs more time, I think. Grand master ka 03:09, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Regretful Oppose, Candidate2 gets himself involved in a lot of unpopular work that nevertheless needs to be done, and I thank him(?) enthusiastically for that. However, my observations of him indicate that he used to do it in a rather dour and humourless fashion. I really don't think this was necessary, and I don't see any evidence that you've changed in that regard. Some of User:Majoreditor's diffs above also indicate that occasionally you can be reckless with the tools, not something I really want to see in an admin. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:26, 16 December 2099 (UTC).
Oppose. Assuming Good Faith, the question still is, Is this another "test"? -- Iterator12n ^Talk 05:39, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose. User had shown a total disregard for community consensus and abused the admin tools when they had them. Apparently not strong enough to handle criticism and seems volatile at times. Not suited to regaining the position. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
I don't believe Candidate2 currently has the temperament to be an effective administrator. Ral315 (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose: Sorry, too much drama involved and disregard for consensus. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:25, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose, uncomfortable with behavior, views and attitude. Everyking (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
No. I'm sorry, I don't think I want you back as an admin, bearing in mind the other opposition. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:36, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose Try again after being a "user" for a few months. --Stormbay (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose Was highly active in image deletion, but in the same time span shows far, far less activity in the form of fixing imperfect rationales so that they wouldn't need deletion. I'd rather have image processing admins who want the encyclopedia to have legitimate content than high speed deleters that aren't applying judgment. GRBerry 06:10, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per GRBerry. Your bias against Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy concern me a lot. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 15:34, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Reluctant oppose. I don't like to oppose candidates since adminship is supposedly "no big deal", and even moreso for a previous admin who voluntarily surrendered his rights. But I see what I consider abuse of the "delete" button (deleting against consensus, speedy deleting a brand new article by an (*ahem*) experienced Wikipedian). And my only major criterion is whether the user seems likely to abuse the tools. Sorry. --Ginkgo100^talk 18:29, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose. Confrontational attitude (yes, I know this is a case of WP:KETTLE, but that doesn't make me wrong). I recall an incident several months ago (I don't have time to find the diffs now) when User:hmwith, who was not then an admin, asked him about a fair use image (I believe it was a baseball team logo, or something like that) which he had deleted, despite the fact it was used in an article. He ignored her, and when she asked me to try and deal with the issue, he ignored me. I initially thought it was an error (since he was receiving a lot of talkpage messages at that time) so I notified him a couple more times, but he still ignored me. Even if this was a mistake, no admin should be deleting images at such a rate that they don't have time to respond to people questioning their deletions. Admins need to be able to be accountable for 100% of their administrative actions. (I'll find diffs for this incident later; I'm very busy in real life at present, hence why this is my first edit in two weeks.) If I were feeling particularly vindictive, I'd support him anyway because of the Mzoli Meats incident (I have no idea who was right/wrong on that, but I am not a big fan of the Foundation or the wiki-elite), but in the end, the best interests of Wikipedia are more important than my own personal feelings, and it is not in the best interests of Wikipedia to have Candidate2 as an admin. Walton^One 18:56, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
See my oppose below for the diffs for these incidents. нмŵוτн τ 21:42, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per above, especially the image deletions. An admin should be able/willing to explain his actions, especially to new editors. Too many admins assume "but somewhere in this whole thing I was deleting a fair use image" is a blanket excuse for absolutely any kind of behavior (and too often the community buys that). Do we really want more admins who ignore reasonable questions about their admin actions? -Rividian (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose While certain amounts of skepticism are useful in admins, Candidate2 has this in large enough amounts to damage his ability to work with other Wikipedians. I hope that Candidate2 will stay with the project, but I think that it is best that he contribute as a user and not an admin. Captain panda 22:12, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose, for a number of reasons - 1) in principle (I will continue to oppose all reconfirmation RFAs), 2) because Candidate2 cannot be trusted with the delete button per the various examples above, 3) because he's rude and confrontational (again, see various examples above), 4) because we really don't need the additional drama, 5) because he seems to be unstable, and 6) because he only half-tells the truth in this very RFA self-nomination statement (as he indicates here, he revoked his right to "ever obtain any usergroup on any Wikimedia project beyond that of 'user'"). Neıl ☎ 11:49, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose While I believe Candidate2 has genuine talent and concern for administrative duties, I feel he lacks sufficient civility in dealing with other users, especially when there is sharp division in viewpoints. I would be happy to support if he Candidate2 strates an improvement in this area. --Auger Martel (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose as per JayHenry above. The alma mater incident especially gives me too much pause in trusting this editor with the mop again. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose Per JayHenry. A few too many concerns here. Twenty Years 16:27, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose Per concerns raised above, especially those raised by JayHenry. TigerShark (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose Just too many concerns. If you had the ability to be re-sysopped (as is my impression) without an RfA, why didn't you? This RfA is wikidrama that could have been avoided. Because of that, I have no reason to believe that future wikidrama wouldn't follow from your contribs where wikidrama was not needed. Opposing, sorry. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:18, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose. A productive editor certainly, but has clearly shown through past administrative behavior that he should not have been trusted with the tools. Abuse of the delete button cited above is certainly bad, and general incivility/drama-creation makes that much worse. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose. Sorry, I have to go with an oppose as per JayHenry and Pedro. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 04:51, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per reasons stressed by WaltonOne (_3&diff=192110981&oldid=192106247 diff) and Majorly (_3&diff=191858084&oldid=191854933 diff). I also am supplying diffs (& a timeline of events) for the situation of which Walton One speaks:
- He deleted Image:53logo.JPG on June 22, 2007. (&page=Image%3A53logo.JPG diff).
- I first asked him about the image on his talk page on July 15, 2007 (&diff=prev&oldid=144804669 diff).
- After not hearing from him after two days, left another note on his talk page (&diff=prev&oldid=145232601 diff).
- After still receiving no response 7 hours later, I asked Walton (who had been a great mentor in helping me learn the ropes) for a 2nd opinion on his talk page (diff).
- A full week later, Walton asked Candidate2 about it on his talk page (&diff=146794282&oldid=146783905 diff).
- My comments were then archived by MisZaBot III (7 days after being posted without a response) (&diff=146121059&oldid=146105811 diff).
- Walton's comments were also archive by MisZaBot III (5 days after being posted without a response) (&diff=147445896&oldid=147353148 diff).
Note that I am not saying he made a wrongful deletion, but it was the way he handled it (or didn't, in this case). It was a fine image that simply needed a source, which I promptly added (diff) as soon as it was restored by EVula (diff). This is definitely not to be an isolated case, which I noticed at the time, but, God, please don't ask me to provide any more diffs! нмŵוτн τ 21:42, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
If I may, there are a few diffs missing from this story. The image in question, Image:53logo.JPG, was originally added to Fifth Third Field (Toledo) by User:Hmwith with this edit at 17:06, 10 June 2007. She then fixed the size with this edit, but left the infobox separator parameter (the "|") in front of the parameter instead of after it. The image may have been showing properly at the time (though I doubt it - someone would need to look at the history of the template to be absolutely sure of that, in this case Template:Infobox Baseball Stadium, or rather the history at Infobox Stadium (where Infobox Baseball Stadium redirects), which underwent a rewrite by User:Gracenotes on 11 June 2007), but what we can say for sure is that User:Riana came along and fixed this infobox problem at 15:16, 16 June 2007. As can be seen in this diff, Hmwith had uploaded the image on 10 June, and BetcommandBot tagged it as an orphan at 05:27, 16 June 2007, which is about 10 hours before Riana did the fix. As far as I know, stuck inside an infobox like that and not displaying properly, the image was technically an orphan (can anyone confirm or correct that?) A little later (at 15:44 the same day), we see Hmwith thanking Riana for fixing the image problems. However, no-one had gone and removed the orphaned image tag from the image, and this may explain why Candidate2 deleted it at 19:21, 22 June 2007. Candidate2 should have checked to see if the orphaned images were actually in use, but clearly didn't. This is a fairly common situation, where admins clear large image backlogs without carrying out careful checks. The normal result, when people spot a mistake like this, is to undelete on request, but this didn't happen here. Hence the orphan tag being left on the image may explain the deletion, but it doesn't explain Candidate2 's failure to respond to several separate requests for an explanation as to what had happened. The orphan tag was not removed until 23 July 2007 when User:EVula restored the image and then removed the orphan tag. Hope that makes things slightly clearer. Carcharoth (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Ha, thanks for filling in the holes. I forgot about that whole situation. Damn newbies trying to format infoboxes! But, as you said, it was an innocent mistake in in deleting the image, but there was no reason to avoid inquiries by the uploader, and especially not by another admin. I know that he had to have seen them, since he edited other sections before & after it. Avoidance is a poor trait for an admin. нмŵוτн τ 22:39, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
I agree. Still not completely convinced to oppose, but Candidate2 's statement to "continue my work largely where I left off, in the realm of non-free content" concerns me. If I could see evidence that he helps people add or keep non-free content that helps to improve the encyclopedia (and that baseball logo doesn't really cut it - I'm talking non-free images that sail past NFCC#8, a vote to keep such an image in an IfD, or writing a really good rationale to help keep such a non-free image), then I might support. Non-free image work should be as much about supporting correct use as clamping down on incorrect use. Candidate2 's work in the Image namespace (somewhere around 250 edits) can be seen &namespace=6 here. What I would like to see is IfD contributions - votes and closures - any evidence of that? Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose. per preceding and per Jayhenry. This sort of behaviour is not conducive to 'pedia building. cheers, Casliber (talk • contribs) 23:05, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per JayHenry and GRBerry. 6SJ7 (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per GRBerry. "Calling a spade a spade" is a fine thing to do, and I support that practice. I don't see Candidate2 's conduct as embodying that principle, however; rather, behavoir strikes me as too often erratic and hasty, embodying little principle at all. Since I'm happy to "call things as I see them", I have no reservation in sharing my honest judgment here. Xoloz (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose per the multitude of issues raised above. Rigadoun (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose to quote someone else,"Those who can, create. Those who can't, delete." Too many deletions, too little contructive discussion. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:38, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
Weak oppose for now I am a bit concerned about all the references to assorted pieces of drama, even from supporters. I am a bit concerned about lack of actual article creation as born out by &site=en.wikipedia.org. I am think some more time in the trenches producing content would actually be a good thing, particularly when I see almost no activity in the last 3 months. This does not mean I would not support at a later date of course.--Filll (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose I am concerned about the rudeness level that I have witnessed with this editor. I think h/her editing is not even an issue, but an administrator should show civility at all times. Even in times of great stress! Best of luck! Canyouhearmenow 22:20, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose Have not had good interactions with this user. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:55, 21 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose due to frivolous MFD. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
No discussion that runs to 308kb can really be called frivolous, can it ? Nick (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose Has deleted to many images that were really useful. This users attitude toward me wasn't exactly what I expected.S w i r l e x^{The Barnstar Giver} —Preceding comment was added at 16:44, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose I do not think contraversal people should be admins, but can be productive members of the community. Zginder^{(talk) (Contrib)} 21:14, 22 December 2099 (UTC)

Neutral

Protest neutral. This is a pointless exercise. Candidate2 , you should have asked at the 'crat noticeboard and avoid this drama. If you're so confident not to answer the standard questions, why not just ask a 'crat? I don't see the point of this RfA, and frankly, I think this is unnecessarily disruptive. The candidate is obviously trusted, IMO, as he was long-tenured sysop without any major controversy, he's a Veropedia programmer, and he did a bunch of OTRS and media requests before. Maxim_(talk) 20:42, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
"The candidate is obviously trusted ..." -- 10 people opposed within 2 hours of your saying that. This is not so obvious. - Revolving Bugbear 22:42, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
It would be interesting (albeit ugly) to see--as a gauge of community trust, if nothing else--a few of these "pointless exercises" for some of our current admins. WP:AMR, though hardly a panacea, doesn't strike me as an altogether terrible idea.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2099 (UTC)
So every user I've given a block that was less than indef or ever been in a disagreement with me can vote for me to lose the tools? Sounds great! Where can I sign up? Mr.Z-man 01:00, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
Aye, probably, but the above opposes are not from users that Candidate2 has blocked -- many of them are established users, some of them admins themselves. - Revolving Bugbear 20:50, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
That's the problem I have with comments like Mr. Z-man's and Doc's. They project spiteful, vindictive, irrational qualities onto the community at large. In my experience, the majority of editors are capable of fairly and reasonably weighing whether sitting admins have performed to the standards expected of them. That's why I'm not automatically opposed to the idea of reconfirmation or to proposals like WP:AMR.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2099 (UTC)
Neutral - It would have been one thing if the candidate had not burned bridges and just asked for the bit back. As User:Maxim points out, candidate would contribute to the project immediately at a very high level of experience, competence, and expertise. Not to sound snarky in this proceeding, but I believe candidate has discovered a third official way of losing sysop rights: C) resigning the bit, and then misjudging community approval during a re-run for adminship. I'm inclined to suggest the candidate withdraw right away, and come back to this process in three months with a degree more regard for this sort of proceeding, which is a measure of trust and confidence. BusterD (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
I thought Candidate2 was a good admin. However, I find it odd that although he "revok[ed his] right to ever obtain any usergroup on any Wikimedia project beyond that of 'user'.", here he is. I think you were a good administrator, but you seemed so strongly opposed to ever become an admin again, I'm a bit worried. seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:22, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Neutral. Good work, but a little too much drama and rudeness. I'm thinking some time later would be better. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:57, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I just can't support here. GlassCobra 01:46, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Great answers and plenty of experience, but I think in his prior admin work Candidate2 tended to push his own views over others far too aggressively. The Category:Wikipedians by alma mater business (see the CfD) is one of the more extreme examples. I don't want to oppose for a variety of reasons, but foremost because I think editors who go through scrutiny tend to use the tools more responsibly. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:46, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Neutral Great guy, but I just can't support. Sorry. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:22, 16 December 2099 (UTC)
Neutral even though I supported the original request. The project is better with Candidate2 than without him, but the tone of anger in the RFA reform controversy and in the comments when he temporarily left us call into question whether he can handle the stress of adminship. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:31, 17 December 2099 (UTC)
neutral - while adminship is supposed to be no big deal, it clearly is a huge status thing here in this virtual community. I'm concerned that Candidate2 realized that his previous resignation was too much of a status let down. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
neutral - undecided, might still be swayed either way. Carcharoth (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2099 (UTC)
Neutral Sorry, but at this time I just can't support. Midorihana^~iidesune? 07:47, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
Neutral - Even though Candidate2 is someone who I respect greatly, some of the issues raised here are worrying. He was a very good admin in many actions but his temperment is what prevents me supporting. James086^{Talk | Email} 10:03, 20 December 2099 (UTC)
Neutral - I can't get past the feeling that this is just a big joke, or social statement, kind of the same as nominating RfA for deletion. Doing something to get maximum attention, and maximum drama. Handing over the mop in a manner designed to create drama, and then asking for it back in a manner to create drama. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2099 (UTC)
Neutral - I've seen a fair amount of good work from this Wikipedian. My only concerns are about "speedy" actions which possibly should have not been so "speedy", as it were. That said, I'm not thrilled with several of the oppose commenters above who opposed due to (paraphrasing) "He deleted something I wanted kept", which I hope are discounted by the closer regardless of how this is closed. - jc37 21:19, 22 December 2099 (UTC)