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

Alphax

Requests_for_adminship/Alphax|action=edit}} Vote here (22/26/5) ending 02:35 2005 October 23 (UTC)

Alphax ( talk · contribs) – A smart, innovative, and hardworking user, with a good sense of humour, who won't get too hot under the collar when performing admin tasks. If successful, Alphax will be a great admin. Ingoolemo  ^talk 02:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I think this is about the third time Ingoolemo has tried to nominate me now... I guess I'd better accept. Alphax  ^{τ ε χ} 11:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC) Withdrawing. I'm obviously not ready for this. Alphax  ^{τ ε χ} 23:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Support

1. This user removes vandalism a lot. As an admin they could help more by banning users that continue to vandalise. -- ☺Adam1213☺ Talk +| WWW 15:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

   Are you aware of quite how many lines your sig takes up? - Splash ^talk 16:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

2. Strong support. Andre ( talk) 16:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Support for a very dedicated Wikipedian, who's active in the community. I hope any who decide not to support this candidate can manage to be polite and fair.-- Cyberjunkie | Talk 16:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Oops, I forgot to support. Pv.-h4p5 1 |>0|\|+ |-|@\/& 13375k!11z 4|=73.- 411 Ingoolemo  ^talk 18:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Still Support. Good guy, won't abuse em. R e dwolf24 ( talk— How's my driving?) 20:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Extreme Wisconsinite Now Living In Illinois Support! I seriously, honestly, truly thought you were one already (no joking). -- WikiFanatic ^{Talk Contribs 15:40, 17 October 2005 (CDT)}
7. Support the oppose votes are ridiculous (no offence intended :))  Grue  21:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
8. Support Molotov (talk)
   21:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
9. Absolutely support. And for the record, the start date is September 2004, over a year ago. -- Essjay · Talk 23:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
10. Extreme Thunderwing support, I've seen this user active on AfD. — JIP | Talk 06:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
11. Alphax enjoys my full support - Mark 08:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
12. Support!-- Exir Kamalabadi ^Esperanza 10:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
13. Support. BTW, it pisses me off that an admin nomination gets a pile of AFD politics shoved onto it. I don't have to agree with Alphax to trust him with the tools - David Gerard 11:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    • I'd hate to say this, David, but comments like the one just made are precisely those that can turn an otherwise reasonable discussion or vote into a factionalizing fooionist shouting match. Nor is this the first time that you make such a comment. Please consider that when someone disagrees with a person from another perceived faction, he usually has a good reason, and is not merely reinforcing a perceived faction struggle. R adiant _>|< 22:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
14. Sadly concur with David Gerard. I strongly advise against inclusion of that extremely divisive question in future RFA's, and if it is included, I strongly caution all candidates against answering it, lest another stupid pile-on should result. This is a very strong admin candidate and those opposing him without good reason should ask themselves what good it does to the wiki to exclude good candidates on the grounds of AfD politics. -- Tony Sidaway ^Talk 12:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

    With respect, Tony, I would never oppose someone for adminship just because of voting tendencies on AfD. Alphax has openly stated an intention below to throw deletion policy to the wind; in effect, to use his adminship powers to push his view instead of talking it over like everyone else. He has legitimate qualms, but this is not the way to go about it. Slandering the oppose voters because you disagree with some of their philosophical views is poor form and reflects badly on both you and David - as is supporting a candidate who has vowed to break policy just because you agree with his. Ambi 12:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

    Rhetoric aside, do you have any evidence to support your rather extreme claim that Alphax has said that he intends to traduce, rather than enforce, deletion policy? -- Tony Sidaway ^Talk 13:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

15. Support. I fear it's mostly symbolic, now, as the votes pile up. Frankly, if I didn't already know Alphax and know that he is a lot smarter than this AfD would suggest, I'd be seriously considering opposing, too. -- fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 13:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
16. Support - I like the fact that he expresses opinions, rather than hides them until after the election. Good answers on the extra questions! Guettarda 14:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
17. Support. I am tired of being asked by this guy to do various admin things. Let him do them himself. And let me add my voice to those objecting to the interrogation of candidates about deletion policy. Kelly Martin 15:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
18. Support Echo thoughts of earlier support votes.-- MONGO 17:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
19. Support, seems sufficiently familiar with policy, the hordes of people opposing notwithstanding. JYolkowski // talk 23:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
20. Delete, nn admincruft...I mean, Support. Bratsche ^{talk | Esperanza} 00:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
21. Support He will be OK. -- Rogerd 04:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
22. Support The arbitrary addition of AFD quesions to this RFA is absurd. -- Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Oppose. The answers to questions 5 and 6 strike me as naive. It's an unfortunate feature of AfD that most debates get, say, a handful of participants unless they are controversial or on high profile articles. A lot of the articles that go to AfD are frankly not worth much more than that. It would be verging on the absurd to close such debates as no consensus because they behave like the average AfD debate. The RfC noted in Q6 is frivolous and the defense given of it here is insulting to a large number of people including many who do not participate on AfD. If that's the most level-headed this editor can be, then they aren't ready for adminship for a while yet. The answer to Q1 is thorough, but finishes with something of a personalised mission statement re AfD/VfU — we have enough people on missions as it is, and I though the RfC is specifically to condemn those who currently pursue one. - Splash ^talk 16:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

   Well, if you think bloc voting without considering the merits of an article is level-headed... and if "people on missions shouldn't be admins", how about we de-sysop all the current members of the ADW and AIW? Alphax  ^{τ ε χ} 23:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

2. Oppose Slash said it better then I could. Well, slightly harsher then I'd say it too. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Very weak oppose I agree with Splash on all he says, so here's my very weak oppose. I do think starting the RfC was bold, but also quite frivoulus. And we have way to many bold admins already. gkhan 17:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

   I thought "RfC" stood for "request for comments". I was looking for comments. Alphax  ^{τ ε χ}23:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

4. Oppose. I thought the RfC was an interesting idea, but the concept of closing Afd's with less than ten votes is ridiculous and completely unworkable.-- Scimitar ^parley 17:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

   Please re-read my answer to Q5. Alphax  ^{τ ε χ} 23:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

   I've re-read it- my understanding is that if there is an article with, say, four votes (two without reasons) from credible contributors, you would close as a no consensus. If I'm mistaken, please let me know, as I'm more than willing to reconsider my oppose vote.-- Scimitar ^parley 17:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

5. Oppose. The RfC was somewhere in the grey area between Be Bold and WP:POINT, but with the jumping on the bandwagon of the totally misunderstood, and quite frankly sad, editcountitis debate as well as his comment on consensus make me think that the RfC was geared more towards WP:POINT and future actions will head towards that way as well. However, he did make me laugh in a good way with his comment on Redwolf24's RfB, so much so that I created a user award for it. Karmafist 17:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
6. I have to oppose based on question 5. If he's not going to call a vote with 9 votes to delete and 0 to keep a "delete" because it lacks 10 votes then we have a problem. Most debates on AfD don't get 10 votes. More than half are unanimous deletes, but they usually have more like 4 or 5. - R. fiend 18:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

   When people see 4-5 "delete, nn." votes in a row they often don't bother actually reading the article (they jump on the bandwagon, or don't bother voting at all), so articles can be sneakily deleted without much thought. The same applies to 4-5 keep votes in a row. Alphax  ^{τ ε χ} 23:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

   How do you know they don't read them? I, for one, read every article that I vote on at AfD (doing less work there now due to my schoolwork), and sometimes "Delete, nn" is all that needs to be said. It seems somewhat of a hasty generalization to say that AfD voters are not reading the articles in question. -- Idont Havaname 01:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply

7. Oppose per reasons given before. Privat e Butcher 19:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
8. Strong Oppose Clearly Don't like the answers for 5 and 6. I dont trust this user with AFDs -- JAranda | watz sup 19:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

   I don't trust the current AfD/VfU system. Alphax  ^{τ ε χ} 23:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

9. Oppose based on current answer to closing AfD. As I understand it closure is left to the judgement of the administrator. Disregarding a vote on the basis proposed does not seem appropriate. The voter would have indicated his/her views with the vote and may feel that reasons are adequately covered above - for example, in the nomination if supporting deletion. The approach proposed seems inconsistent with the community approach generally; in this forum, support votes on RfA are not queried when they give no reason.-- User:AYArktos | Talk 19:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

   If someone says "(keep|delete) per (name)", where (name) has given a detailed reason several lines long, and nothing has changed in the article since the initial vote has changed, I'd see that as a valid vote. And maybe all votes should be questioned. Alphax  ^{τ ε χ} 23:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

   From what I understand your answer to question 5.2 below and the way you have my addressed my answer here, you would ignore any vote that merely stated keep or delete or whatever and signed their name, even if they were a valid user and given that there is no community suggestion at present that reasons for a vote need to be provided. I would suggest by voting and signing that should be sufficient to indicate their intention especially since there is currently no requirement to justify the position. For an example see support votes numbered 2, 8, 11, 12 above as votes that seem to indicate no reason for support. As I understand it you would ignore them for arriving at a decision about what concensus the community had reached.-- User:AYArktos | Talk 11:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

10. Oppose on AfD grounds, particularly as AfD procedure specifically encourages participants not to "pile on" when the outcome is clear. Expecting 10 votes for a unanimous consensus is tacitly expecting Wikipedians to ignore this policy. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

    Actually, I'd like to see informed decision making taking place. At present all you have to do to get something kept or deleted is get 4-6 keep/delete votes in a row, and no-one else will bother. Alphax  ^{τ ε χ} 23:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

    As noted, that proposal runs counter to policy and the objective realities of AfD will cause said policy to result in no decision. Also, I don't like the lack of WP:AGF in blanketly accusing a 10-vote unanimous of being baseless lemming-votes (see responses to Splash and R. Fiend) while simultaneously deciding that smaller votes are inconclusive. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 23:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

    It's hard to assume good faith when people scream "we are winning! You cannot defeat us!" in the middle of AfD debates. So long as nobody takes a stand against AfD nuts, nothing will change. Alphax  ^{τ ε χ} 03:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

    Oppose. I prefer candidates to have at least four months on Wikipedia. While your edit count well exceeds my minimum, you have only been here less than a month, and two and a half months is about the bare minumum I would consider supporting. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 21:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

    My first edit was on September 21, 2004 [1]. Alphax  ^{τ ε χ} 23:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

    Whoops, my bad. I absolutely mis-read that. Thanks for correcting me. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

11. Very strong oppose. Alphax is a good user, and makes a lot of good contributions. His comments below, however, suggest that he'd make a terrible admin. Ambi 00:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose I'm sorry, but I haven't been crazy about this user since I read the AfD RfC. Alphax's view on deletionists and inclusionists is clouding his judgment about consensus, as seen in Q5. Ac e tic ' ^Acid 01:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

    Actually, I think the actions of inclusionists and deletionists are turning the community's definition of "consensus" into "whoever screams the loudest". Don't you think we need some sanity put back into AfD? This is why I think we should be taking a closer look at what we are doing and not just saying "oh, there are 5 votes to keep/delete and nothing else, let's keep/delete it" - don't forget, anything done by one admin can just as easily be undone by another. Alphax  ^{τ ε χ} 03:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

    Did I miss something? When did AfD descend into entropy? I know the process isn't perfect, but I think your crusade against it is unnecessary. Five people in a row vote to keep an article. You instantly assume that inclusionists are taking over the world? Perhaps it was just a bad faith nomination. Six delete votes in secession? Dear Jimbo, it's a conspiracy! But seriously, I think you're making too much of this. Deletionist and Inclusionist are just two silly labels people categorize each other with. Just like the Punks, Preps, Jocks, etc. from high school. I don't think those two sects are any threat to our deletion process. What did you hope to accomplish with that RfC? Do you want those associations disbanded? Ac e tic ' ^Acid 04:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

    Yes, from the day it was created, probably, to get rid of the bloc voting mentality, and yes. In that order. Alphax  ^{τ ε χ} 07:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

    You're sure making a mountain out of a molehill. The AIW and ADW were active for about a week many months ago, and have done absolutely nothing ever since - something which I've supported all along. Yet somehow they've become the bogeyman in your mind; I'm not really sure why. Ambi 07:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

    Because they appear to be serious, and people act accordingly, resulting in AfD being such a cesspit that people often leave when they find it. People who mindlessly go through voting to keep/delete everything they see need to RTFA. Disregarding the votes of people who haven't even bothered to RTFA is one way to get them to. Alphax  ^{τ ε χ} 11:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

13. Oppose; do not trust on AfD. Ral 315 W_S 01:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

    Because I don't pander to the inclusionist/deletionist tendancies of the community? How utterly lame. Alphax  ^{τ ε χ} 03:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

    No, because I think that closing an AFD with 8 delete votes as no consensus is about the stupidest thing you can do. I could go into other things as well, but I'd rather not type a long-winded diatribe against you and make us both look like asses. Ral 315 W_S 07:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply

14. Oppose, purely because he's being rude to people exercising their right to vote 'oppose' if they wish (see the above vote). Not conduct becoming an admin. Proto  t  c 13:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
15. Oppose per Proto. Admins need to defuse, not enflame. — mendel ☎ 13:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose. If a user wants to start a debate over policy (such as AfD), they should do so in a talk forum, not by trying to become and admin and unilaterally implementing a new policy themselves. The discretion given to admins on things like AfD closings, blockings, and speedy deletions is on a case by case basis, to keep Wikipedia running smoothly; as reactions to previous incidents have shown, it would be an abuse of administrator powers to use them in an effort to spark or influence policy debates. From the answers below, I think that is what this user intends to do. -- Aquillion 20:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose- rude and arrogant. Astrotrain 21:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
18. Oppose. I wholeheartedly agree with Alphax that AFD is in need of reform, and would be happy to hear his suggestions. However, until we have an alternative, it is improper to unilaterally use the process in a way that is such a far cry from what is generally agreed upon. R adiant _>|< 22:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
19. Oppose per Proto. Admins should try and adhere to the Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks policies. If a user cannot do so even on their own Requests for adminship (a time when people are on their best behaviour), then that strikes me as a very bad sign indeed. Don't give a fig about AfD views, though. — Matt Crypto 22:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
20. Oppose - Proto put it well; imho Alphax needs to calm down some before I can trust him as an admin. -- Stormie 00:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
21. Oppose: I'm bothered by the "how lame" comment above. I'd oppose for other reasons too, but others have already commented on those sufficiently, I think. Jonathunder 05:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
22. Oppose If I'm reading his response to Q5.1 (below) correctly, he's saying he'd close an AfD with, say, 8 or 9 unanimous delete votes as a keep?! That's way out of step with policy and community standards. Since there's every reason to believe this user could not be trusted to close AfD, I must vote to oppose. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
23. Oppose, mostly for reasons already listed by Proto and Acetic Acid. Filing an RfC against all inclusionists and all deletionists is, as already pointed out, a mix of being overly WP:BOLD and breaking WP:POINT; and I noticed from reading Wikien-l last month that his views on the RfC are rather extreme. Threatening an RfC against a user is a rather serious matter, whether you yourself have had any interaction with that user or not. Don't file an RfC against a club of users, especially if you've only had minimal interaction with most of them. A lot of the "inclusionists" and "deletionists" do not do blind voting for keeping or deleting articles just because they are in a specific category; the summaries that they give at m:AIW and m:ADW shed more light on that; there's not really a "bloc" mentality among them, aside from the most radical ones at either end of the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum. Also, very few AfD's get 10 votes or more, as already mentioned, and waiting for 10 votes would only make our AfD backlogs that much more serious. -- Idont Havaname 01:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
24. Oppose due to the candidates stance on needing 10 votes to close an AFD. Johntex\ ^talk 18:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
25. Oppose -- we don't need another admin who just does what he likes on AfD regardless of rules or the outcome of the votes. CDThieme 22:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
26. Strong Oppose per Lomn's research in the comments section and for incivility. A large portion of AfD deletion results are unanimous with fewer than ten votes – vanity that wasn't quite speediable vanity, spam, band vanity, etc. Closing admins get wide discretion, but any personal closure guideline that would provide an automatic keep for so many articles that are regularly deleted – and rightly so – through AfD would be disastrous. Calling someone else's good-faith vote "lame" on your own RfA is inexcusable. a ndroid 79 13:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Neutral

1. Your RFC and your views on AFD makes you too controversial for my tastes. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 02:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Neutral. In fact the RFC filed against the entire inclusionist and deletionist associations was OK with me, in good faith, and did bring attention to a problem which has affected deletion debates: factionalism. The reason I cannot support is that an admin closing debates with 8 deletes, 0 keeps, as "no consensus" because of a quorum demand of 10 votes will seriously affect the AFD system. Even articles which clearly and objectively must be deleted (hoaxes are things even hardline inclusionists don't usually want kept) usually get less than ten votes, and keeping them because of quorum demands is bureaucratic and can ultimately hurt the integrity of the encyclopedia. Alphax is indeed a valuable contributor to the project, and my objecton is only that one, therefore I am definitely not putting my name in the oppose column. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Reluctantly Neutral. I thought you already were one, and wish you were, but I just can't support your views on closing AfDs. That doesn't mean I don't respect your right to hold that view (and it has its merits) but actually pushing it in practice would go clearly against all deletion policy and border on WP:POINT. Don't get me wrong you're a great editor and I didn't have a problem with the RfC, but admins should at least have broadly similar standards for closing AfD debates. the wub "?!" 16:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Neutral at this stage. However, I am curious about what you think your stance re AfD might be in six months time if you were nommed again. IOW, might you mellow a little, or cling to your current convictions? Moriori 02:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Comments

• Editcountitis sucks. Long live Wikipedia! For great encyclopedia! ¡Viva La Revolucion! Alphax  ^{τ ε χ} 11:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• If I interpret your answers to the questions correctly, what you're really saying is that you wouldn't feel comfortable closing an AfD debate with less than 10 votes on it. For those of you that have concerns about this, I'd like to point out that any admin closing AfD debates is a good thing. Even if he only closes debates with over ten votes that have clear consensus, thats that many less debates for other admins to close. Just something to consider. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 21:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • In response to Evilphoenix's oppose vote on the grounds of how long Alphax has been actively contributing to Wikipedia - I think it is from September 2004 - ie over one year.-- User:AYArktos | Talk 22:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• With regards to Alphax's stated AfD closing policy. As of 18 October, the AfD pages for 13-15 October have 354 non-speedied entries. Of those, only 79 (22%) meet Alphax's 10-vote minimum requirement for a result other than an automatic non-consensus keep. I did not attempt to interpret the additional "baseless vote" criterion, which would likely lower that number. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Moved from "oppose" category due to RfA policy (anons cannot vote):Oppose A month ago he was threatening to leave [2] Not ready to be an administrator. 71.28.243.246 16:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. Being a more effective RC patroller (I use Sam Hocevar's script, which doesn't always work, and I'm always having to ask someone else to block the persistant ones who won't respond to being asked nicely), getting rid of dodgy images (as I've been doing a bit of on commons:), responding to page protection and speedy deletion requests, fixing cut and paste moves (yes, they still happen), trying to clean up the mess that still is AfD, making informed decisions at VfU (beyond "valid AfD"), fixing interface bugs... whatever the community demands of me.

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

A. My work on the Welcoming committee has been fun, as it (hopefully) gives new users a few pointers as to how to help out around the place (and hopefully not do strange things like suing us in a COURT OF LAW). Article-wise, I rewrote Age of Wonders fairly soon after I got here, started the articles on AustNet and Division of Mayo, did a few messy page merges ( XM29 OICW, Fairchild Republic), and have done a fair bit of double-redirect and disambiguation link repair (I helped get the latter out of a murky little subpage). Oh, I also helped get Wikipedia:Wikiproject User scripts started, which hopefully will provide some nifty features sometime in the future...

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

A. I've recieved a few angry comments over time, but nothing that I couln't just laugh off. I haven't really had any article disputes, but I don't envisage having to do anything stupid if they do arise. A few weeks ago I took a four-day wikibreak, but I think I'm over that now.

4. Do you have an email address set?

A. Yes.

5. What is your opinion re: consensus on AfD?

A. 70-75% with at least 10 clear non-sock/meatpuppet votes that have reasons given. If a vote doesn't have a clear reason, I'll disregard it.

Q5.1 If an AfD doesn't have that many votes would you close it as a no consensus keep or leave it for another admin? the wub "?!" 19:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

A. Close as a no consensus keep. Alphax  ^{τ ε χ} 23:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Q5.2 Am I correct in understanding that your answer implies that when closing an AfD, you would not include in your count AFD votes that were unaccompanied by a comment even though signed by a "non-sock/meatpuppet". If say we have 14 votes to delete (with reasons) and 10 votes to keep but 4 of the keep votes are with out reasons, you disregard those and you have a 70% (14 out of 20 rather than out of 24) vote in favour of deletion?-- User:AYArktos | Talk 22:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

70% is probably too close to call. It would depend on the strength of the arguments and the quality of the article - if in doubt, I'd leave it to someone else.

I find it ironic that you're so critical of inclusionism/deletionism when you take such an inclusionist stand on closing AFD debates. Some might call that hypocrisy. Ambi 07:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly willing to delete things as well, but the deletion policy says "if in doubt, don't delete". If you feel the need to classify me as anything, I'm a mergist. Alphax  ^{τ ε χ} 13:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

6. What's with the request for comments against all the deletionists and inclusionists?

A. I feel that they are disruptive to AfD and VfU and should be reprimanded for making Wikipedia such a hostile place to potential contributors.

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.