"
 Question concering RFA votes 

As you have not answered my question that I asked you on Download's RFA, and before you show me that subpage, I already read it, so there is no need.  Secondly, do not quote policy on me and evade, simply answer the questions, please.

 1.How many more active admins do we have now then we did at the time you nominated Child of Midnight for adminship?
I nominated him because he asked for it. I probably would have opposed if he actually accepted it, but he didn't. I do not care about active/inactive admins. I am only concerned with good/bad admins. Remove all the bad admins, and then start nominating good admins.  
 2.Please explain your ideal active admin-to-article ratio.
The number of admins is fine, there are just too many bad admins that hurt the project more than they help it. Again, there could be 20,000 admins, and I would be fine with that, but there must be no BAD admin. If all 20,000 were active or inactive I wouldn't care, as long as they were good and followed policy. The current 1000+ has many bad administrators, this is why there are too many. I would be fine with 500 or 5000 admins, as long as they are all good. As soon as an admin blocks some maliciously, or deletes something that wasn't within policy - he should be desysoped by policy without a vote.  
I've always seen you vote in oppose, and while you are indeed entitled to your own opinion, I would like to understand what you view as a good admin / bad admin. I find it hard to believe one should assume bad faith in that all potential admin candidates  are considered bad. Could you please explain your criteria for what makes a good admin in your opinion?  
I also wish to still know what your desired admin-to-article ratio is, and why, if you think an admin is bad, don't you just say that, instead of answering with .— dαlus Contribs 

That is all, since you put great thought into your votes, I'm pretty sure you should be able to answer these questions with absolutely no problem what-so-ever.  Than you for your time.— dαlus Contribs 

 Something to take note of 

Hi DougsTech. I just wanted to make you aware of a bit of information regarding your RfA voting pattern. In the past you have claimed multiple times that you're not violating any policies/guidelines with your RfA votes, but you seem to be in violation of WP:AGF. You are obviously not assuming good faith when you oppose every admin hopeful you see. If you think someone will be a bad admin, you need to provide a reason specific to that candidate, otherwise you're assuming bad faith, which is contradictory to the principles on which Wikipedia was founded and on which it still operates. meh!(review me) 
No, he's not.   
Someone else can has already found their flaw, and the other that oppose the candidate give reasons why he/she is a bad admin.   
That doesn't excuse you not to give a reason though. — (talk • contribs) 
Hey I've got an idea! Start a thread about this at WT:RFA. Otherwise, accept that he has his reasons, they are good and have been thoroughly explained multiple times. Stop harassing him over it.   
DougsTech, nicely done on the cats ) Funny )   15:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC