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that i asked you on download's rfa and before you show me that subpage i already read it so there is no need secondly do not quote policy on me and evade simply answer the questions please how many more active admins do we have now then we did at the time you nominated child of midnight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 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 admins and i would be fine with that but there must be no bad admin if all were active or inactive i wouldn't care as long as they were good and followed policy the current has many bad administrators this is why there are too many i would be fine with or 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 d lus 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 d lus 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 may utc