Oppose{{Neutral}}. Haven't seen him around that often. The request above could be better. But I see no issues. Per issues raised below. And also, for a future admin, it would be nice if they could at least get the RFA procedure right. Rehman07:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeper the French.--DarwinAhoy! 20:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC) I hadn't read the last comment when I voted, and thought that DeGallium answers below were quite polite and appropriate, indeed. I'm a bit shocked by the content of that last message. Though I share DeGallium irritation with the French no-FOP laws, the issue raised was in topic and appropriated. Emmerder is undoubtedly not a very polite word, though it's not particularly insulting in that context. Claiming that 99of9 did the questions in bad faith, however, certainly is.--DarwinAhoy!10:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't close this until the comment below is resolved/translated Google translate seems to show an accusation of bad faith against me on this very page! --99of9 (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Due to the incivility and accusations of bad faith below. If this user cannot behave calmly when on display in an RFA, then at this stage I don't think Admin responsibility should be conferred. I suggest extending this RFA so that others get the chance to respond to the comments he put up right at the end of the allocated time period. --99of9 (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Demander lacks experience in adequately categorising (his own) images, and, decisively, he lost his temper already at this job interview. --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No shame in coming back at a later time. Copyright is important, it should be possible to question someone else's uploads in the name of improving the project without being automatically perceived as acting in bad faith. Hekerui (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would have voted "pro" (based on past experience with him (afaik: none) and looking to some contribs) but reacting like below to the questions and to the follow-up is a bit confusing. --Saibo (Δ) 15:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I admire your willingness to learn, and that you are not too defensive about your uploads. I would be interested to see you compile a list of which of your uploads are problematic. The ability to discriminate is an important admin skill. --99of9 (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
J'admire aussi ta capacité à trouver des problèmes là où il n'y en a pas (ou en tous cas à les trouver alors que les problèmes sont gérables avec des moyens policés, ce que je privilégie toujours
WHAT??? Please can someone help me with a translation of this? Google tells me it includes "I will therefore awarded a barnstar for your bad faith has certainly intended to create shit when no one except you has that will." If that is an accurate translation, this is a very problematic attitude for an administrator, accusing me of bad faith for questioning him in his Admin Request! --99of9 (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't translate it precisely, but it's all an expansion of the first sentence, "I admire your ability to find problems where there are none"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I'm more concerned by the last sentence, is anyone else able to translate? To me the first sentence seems factually untrue (of the three DWs I noted, he has nominated one for deletion, and I expect the others will follow - how is that "no problem"?), but not in itself uncivil or accusing bad faith. --99of9 (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed a bit crude, but I think that, like me, he finds the FOP laws in France stupid as they protect basically the famous (and rich) artists, while blocking the spreading of recent (not very old) cultural works, so basically completely against the wikipedia spirit. So asking him to go to delete all such works he uploaded is quite cruel. I wouldn't do it neither. --Foroa (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't write the laws that way either. We're talking about less than 5 files, that in his words "should be deleted". The problem I have is that his incivility and bad-faith accusations got directed against me, not against the laws. If I had asked you to look over your uploads, I'm sure you would not have attacked me like that. --99of9 (talk) 07:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that "mauvaise foi" in French is as strong as "bad faith"; bad faith is heavy in a wiki context. --Foroa (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
wikt:fr:mauvaise_foi, see Traductions (this seems to a fairly consistent translation of this phrase when I search in Google). You're right that the wiki context adds further meaning to this term, but it's pretty clear that he even intended the wiki context: "a barnstar for your bad faith". --99of9 (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a triple offense in that one sentence: barnstar, mauvaise foi, indéniablement pour but..... Nothing mild in it. People have been blocked for less. --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as my knowledge of the French language goes, the incriminated sentence is meant to express GaAs's regret that you (99of9) seemingly devote yourself to a certain fondness for rules and to get worked up over some possibly problematic uploads where GaAs has the opinion that there is no problem unless somebody makes a problem out of it, additionally, GaAs relies upon policies and possibly lacks some understanding why these issues were brought up right now. And yes, the language is quite expletive by the wording, but AFAIK not meant as a true personal attack, but only as expression of some upset (those knowing about the lyrics of e.g. Georges Brassens possibly know what I am talking about, crude words are often used in a much colloquial way without the strength of the literal meaning). T'aurais dû utiliser un langage comme la plupart des jeunes dans leurs textos, ça aurait évité cette histoire, GaAs... Sorte de sécurité par obscurité. Grand-Duc (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help, I think?? Although he has not yet answered what administrators' jobs he wants to do, most of them involve applying rules, whether fondly or otherwise. Thus is makes sense to gently test one's understanding of these rules during an application for adminship. Nevertheless, IMO it was not his knowledge of the rules that let him down, but his self-control. Regarding your last sentence: no, he should not try to disguise/obscure his inappropriate venting, he should eliminate it. Admins need to be able to handle much stronger questioning than mine without losing their cool. --99of9 (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support = 12; 
Oppose = 7; 
Neutral = 0 - 63% Result. Cecil (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Question What admin tasks do you intend to be involved with? --99of9 (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
--Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 20:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
