Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.

Note: Although this page is under extended confirmed protection, non-extended confirmed editors may still comment on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.

if nominations haven't updated.

Current time is 21:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC). —

Current time is 21:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC). —

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.

This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.

One trial run of an experimental process of administrator elections took place in October 2024.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections ()

Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
				S	O	N	%
Graham872	RRfA	Withdrawn by candidate	20 Nov 2024	119	145	11	45
Worm That Turned2	RfA	Successful	18 Nov 2024	275	5	9	98
Voorts	RfA	Successful	8 Nov 2024	156	15	4	91
FOARP	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	268	106	242	72
Peaceray	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	270	107	239	72
Sohom Datta	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	298	108	210	73
DoubleGrazing	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	306	104	206	75
SD0001	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	306	101	209	75
Ahecht	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	303	94	219	76
Dr vulpes	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	322	99	195	76
Rsjaffe	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	319	89	208	78
ThadeusOfNazereth	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	321	88	207	78
SilverLocust	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	347	74	195	82
Queen of Hearts	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	389	105	122	79

The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience). However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.

If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.

Nominations

To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.

Expressing opinions

All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.

If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".

There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.

To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.

The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

For more information, see: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats § Promotions and RfX closures.

Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.

In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process. In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.

In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way". A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.

If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.

Monitors

In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.

Current nominations

Add new requests at the top of this section

Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, leave a message on their talk page and ask them to reply here if they accept the nomination.

Please remember to update the vote-tallies in the headers when voting.

Current time is 21:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

---

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

Tregoweth

Vote here (47/0/1) ending 05:27 October 18, 2005 (UTC)

Tregoweth (talk · contribs) – A HUGE help in helping slay vandals, especially in light of the all-out assault by the troll nicknamed "Mascot Guy." Great work, great fun and a great asset to this site. Please support! - Lucky 6.9 05:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. tregoweth 06:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Extreme first support vote. I was going to nominate him myself, but I am a lazy slacker and I kept forgetting. Sorry. Gamaliel 06:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Strong support. This user has put in an amazing number of edits (not to fall victim to editcountitis, but over 16,000 edits shows strong commitment to the project). I don't see any problems with giving Tregoweth the mop. Ral315 W_S 06:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Aw, nuts! I forgot to support my own candidate! - Lucky 6.9 17:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 21:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Strong Support OMG 16,000 edits Top VandalSlayer and not a Admin Im in shock --JAranda | watz sup 21:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Martin 21:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Strong support. Andre (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 22:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. El_C 22:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support CambridgeBayWeather 22:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support fellow vandal slayer ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 23:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support Private Butcher 23:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. Kirill Lokshin 00:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support, although I am not sure why it took so long. Rje 01:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support it's about time --Rogerd 02:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support Access to the rollback tool would be a benefit. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support with the quickness. Proto t c 09:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
19. -- (drini's page|☎) 05:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. If drini supports, then you must be a good user.

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhetoricalwater (talk • contribs) 14:38, October 14, 2005 UTC

21. Support. --Kbdank71 14:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
22. EXTREME COPYCAT SUPPORT. RfA cliché--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support I hold any great vandal slayer in high regard, especially this one. Banes 17:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Oh, such a cliche, but still quite true: You mean he's not already an admin?! Yes, full Support; level-headed and even-handed and good vandal-fighter. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. --Fire Star 02:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. -- DS1953 05:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support if he teaches that picture of Johnson, on his userpage, how to read. ∞Who?¿? 08:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support /me hands you a Vorpal Sword of Vandal Slaying +6  ALKIVAR™ 10:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support - Guettarda 13:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support Dlyons493 Talk 16:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 16:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
32. First-time-ever-voting-on-an-RfA-support ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 18:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Absolutely ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 23:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support, good work. feydey 23:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Get them kid! Shauri smile! 04:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support, strong contributer.  BD2412 ^talk 05:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support.encephalon 06:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Furry Alien Support will make fine admin. Alf ^melmac 07:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
39. That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 08:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
40. Support. --Anetode 12:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Support. --Bhadani 13:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
42. Support -- Francs2000 22:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
43. Definite support. +sj + 01:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
44. Support, good editor and patroller --Saluyot 01:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
45. Support. If I recognise a name on RFA nowadays it must be a good candidate. JFW | T@lk 03:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
46. Support. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 11:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
47. Support. the wub "?!" 16:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
48. Support. Hoary 12:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. Answers to the questions set below are very short. Astrotrain 21:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

   Did you want War and Peace? Mike H (Talking is hot) 08:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

   No, but he has written much less than any other candidate, it would have been better to specify what specific areas he was pleased with, and give examples of what conflicts he was involved in. Astrotrain 21:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

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. A lot of my edits now are housekeeping of one form or another (copyediting, reverting bad edits, watching for vandalism, etc.); I expect as a sysop I would continue this, along with helping other people with speedy deletes, page moves, renames, and all of the other things I've asked of admins. :)

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

A. Probably my work on categories and disambiguation pages; I'm always pleased when I can make articles easier for someone to find.

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 have had a few minor conflicts (usually resolved), and some users have caused me stress, but I try to remain calm and reasonable.

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.

---

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

Jcw69

Vote here (28/0/0) ending 17:03 19th October (UTC)

Jcw69 (talk · contribs) – Jcw69 is an experienced, dedicated user, who has been here since May, 2004. For those with editcountititis, he has well over 3500 edits. Jcw69 has almost single handedly written the geography of South Africa (in terms of places in South Africa) on wikipedia, in addition to many articles pertaining to that country's military and people. He also makes full use of edit summaries. In conclusion, he is a fine editor whom I believe ought to be given the mop. Banes 17:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Thank you Banes, I accept this nomination--Jcw69 11:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Pre Nomination Support Good User --JAranda | yeah 19:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support As nominator. You stole my spot, I thought he had to accept before anyone could vote! Banes 07:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support Any editor of South African pages knows Jcw69 Wizzy…☎ 06:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support He's a polite and dedicated editor, who has contributed a staggering amount on South Africa. Impi 08:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support per Impi. freestylefrappe 18:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. Another nomination where the vote here link does not work. CambridgeBayWeather 18:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. In looking through your talk page, I see that the Wikipedia community thinks very highly of you. So, if it's not too premature, welcome aboard.  Denelson83  18:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support MONGO 20:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support, sure. --Bjarki 20:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 21:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. El_C 22:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support Private Butcher 23:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support.Oran e (t) (c) (@) 00:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. As above. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support --Rogerd 02:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
16. -- (drini's page|☎) 05:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. A good lad, he'll go far--Xiphon 06:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. A good and experienced editor – invaluable contributions, particularly in South Africa and related articles – not much work in the Wikipedia namespace yet, but given the challenge I've no doubt he'll rise to it. --Bruce1ee 09:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. It's about time. - Darwinek 09:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support lots of excellent work. Dlyons493 Talk 16:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support to the guy in the green jersey with the 'bok on it. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support: --Bhadani 13:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support -- Great work so far, I only expect it to continue! dewet|™ 17:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support -- Francs2000 22:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 11:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. Proto t c 12:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support. Reperire 12:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. Elf-friend 14:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support. The Minister of War 10:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC) Only now noticed voting's over! The Minister of War

Oppose

Oppose till user sets/enables his email id. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

opps, did not know that was needed, anyway I think it is enabled now. (set it in preferences). Thanks for the heads up --Jcw69 19:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not a strict requirement, but Nichalp feels (and I tend to concur) that if you're going to be able to block somebody, they need to be able to email you since they won't be able to post on your talk page. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe there was such a requirement about a year back. I have no idea how it got lost in the everchanging rules. Thanks Lomn, but it's not only that. There are many situations that require some level private conversation. Issues on users for example, or perhaps on some policies. Everthing on WP can be retrieved, and so of course this is not the best medium to discuss such private matters. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• According to nom, "Makes full use of edit summaries". Edit summary usage is 40%, 80% over last 500 edits, 77% over last 100. --Durin 18:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• When I said that, I meant over the recent ones. Banes 19:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that I have been overlook the edit summaries but I am working on it. --Jcw69 19:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

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. My main goal is to put South Africa (and the rest of Africa) onto the Wikipedia map but as an administrator I’ll need to increase my work into other fields. For example not to be limited by geography and to increase my RC watch making sure that the vandals don’t get out of hand. An administrator needs to be open, approachable and transparent. Be able to listen and with the mentorship of other administrators make the right decisions. This is something that I will strive to be and with the proper guidance I believe I will be a successful administrator. Jcw

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

A. I am never entirely satisfied with any of my contributions because they always need improvement. In the beginning when I was novice, I made many mistakes but I think I have come a long way since then. This will stand me in good stead as an administrator because I’ve been there, done it and have the “bruises to show”. If I had to choose, it would be the Timeline of South African history with all its pages off it. The reason why: The pages have taken a long time to get where they have and they are many more years of work and information ahead to get them to a standard where I am completely satisfied. Jcw

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. Not what I call conflicts. I have been in disagreement with other users but most of the time I just listen. I like to ask a question on a discussion page and then watch the debate. The main one that comes to mind is the Battle of Spion Kop which in all South African minds should be the Battle of Spioenkop but a few disagree and used google as a weapon. Anyway a vote was taken and page left were it is. Jcw

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.

---

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

thames

Vote here (26/3/1) ending 15:30 20 October 2005 (UTC)

thames (talk · contribs) – I've found Thames to be a very level-headed editor, I don't think he's ever been in a serious conflict despite the fact that he specializes in political philosophy articles that attract a lot of dispute. Take a look at his contribs, and you will find plenty of "rvv"s- articles on his watchlist apparently attract a lot of POV-pushing vandals and I think Thames will find it easier to deal with them once he has the tools. Those suffering from editcountitis will be glad to hear that he has passed the 3000 edit mark recently. While most of his edits are in article space, a quick look at his user page will show that he has a firm grasp of wikipedia policies and philosophy (note the essay at the bottom). Borisblue 15:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept Borisblue's nomination.

Support

1. Borisblue 15:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support plenty of edits, and satisfactory answers. freestylefrappe 16:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. KHM03 17:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. Good user. --Bjarki 20:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 21:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. El_C 22:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. If he doesn't have time to use his powers, will it really do any harm? The candidate's amount of time available to spend on Wikipedia in the future shouldn't be a primary consideration in granting or withholding admin powers.--Scimitar ^parley 22:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support CambridgeBayWeather 22:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support Private Butcher 00:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support, good user, reasons for opposition so far are weak at best. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support I simply had to oppose those who oppose on grounds of the user's lack of time. This is, in my opinion, one of the very worst reasons I see for opposing adminship. It does not mean that the project would not benefit from a user having sysop access nor does it imply that one is at all untrustworthy, uncivil, or not knowledegble about policy (although it may mean that these things take longer to show.) Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 00:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support A part time, trustworthy admin is worth having --Rogerd 02:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
13. I actually like the honesty of admitting not having much time. Why is it that worse than people claiming that will fix everytihng on wikipedia even if they won't? – (drini's page|☎) 05:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support - Lot of dedication in vandal fighting – Obradović Goran (ta^lk 09:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support - Harmless. And many an intention to concentrate on school in favor of Wikipedia has gone awry ;) Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support user's on statements regarding lack of time show levelheadedness and honesty... passes my bar.  ALKIVAR™ 10:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support deserves the recognition. Dlyons493 Talk 16:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support - I don't see how not having a lot of time to do stuff means that you should not get admin tools - having lots of people fixing stuff now and again is surely healthier than having a few obsessives working flat out. A solid editor by all accounts. Lupin|talk|popups 03:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
19. I think it's refreshing when a potential admin admits that he won't be on the Wikipedia 24/7. People who use that against him trouble me. Hot support. Mike H (Talking is hot) 08:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Andre (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support good admins are always useful, even if they don't edit all that often.  Grue  21:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support He can have the mop, even if he doesn't use it much. -DDerby-(talk) 04:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. Opposing due to warning that he won't be an active admin is new to me. There are several very good contributors here who have admin tools but don't use them much, Camembert is one I can think of off the top of my head. The good work and experience is enough for me to support, even though I haven't interacted with Thames much, just reviewed his contributions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support per Scimitar. the wub "?!" 16:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support --MONGO 03:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. Inactivity shouldn't be a problem. Ral315 W_S 07:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support. I don't understand the insufficient activity concerns. If an editor is suitable for the tools, give them the tools. Another admin doing janitorial work once in a while is better than none at all, right? Friday (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support The Minister of War 10:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose (reluctantly): The answer to question 1 below is curious. You want to be an admin (you accepted the nom), but doubt you'll have time to do admin things? Why do you need the tools then? The things you say you'd like to spend time on do not need admin tools. Use of edit summaries is a touch lower than I like to see (59% overall, 76% over last 500 edits), and activity level is a bit lower than I like to see (7 edits a day over last 90 days, and that average has been slowly but steadily dropping for the last six months). Your intention of beginning a PhD program means this average will drop further. Also, I am a bit concerned about possible overuse on your part of the {{fairuse}} tag on various images that you have uploaded. About 1/4 of the images you've uploaded have been tagged with this tag, which really shouldn't be used if possible. Lastly, 352 of your last 500 edits have been marked as minor. Are you perhaps over-using the minor edit box? This edit and this edit, for example, do not seem minor to me (but I readily admit this is subjective). Convince me as to why you need/want admin tools when you won't be using them, and I'll probably change my vote. All the best, --Durin 18:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

   I nommed him because I noticed he does deal with a lot of vandalism despite not being an active rc-patroller- this is due to the nature of the articles he is interested in. And stuff about being busy- well, I would think that it's more important to be sure our admins don't abuse their powers rather than be sure that they do use them. There was an interesting discussion pertaining this in here. Note in particular that last comment by dab.Borisblue 18:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

   I appreciate your comments, as nominator, but I'm hoping for an answer from the nominee. In particular, he says "If I had the time, I would likely involve myself in this project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles". So he doesn't have time, but wants the admin tools? This doesn't make sense, to me anyways. --Durin 18:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

   Durin, you raise several relevant points. I wanted to make very clear that I was nominated—I didn't request the nomination myself, the reason being that I did not feel that I could find the time to perform regular maintenance tasks. That's something that everyone considering this nomination should weigh. As for your other concerns, a good portion of my edits without summaries are done to my own user page, which is the only page I edit without summarizing (perhaps I should start, but I never thought my own user page was a big deal). I also did make clear that my ability to contribute is limited by my real world activities (job, PhD), although one cannot go simply by number of edits alone—some are quite minor, like reverts, others are rather larger, like some of my recent edits to Isaac Newton, wherein I used the preview button in order to limit the number of edits I made. I only upload images when an article I'm editing needs one, and in many cases a public domain image does not exist. I am conscientious about tagging all of my images, and have been from day one. I am not indifferent, however, to the free nature of wikipedia, and my use of fair use images is not indiscriminate. Finally, you are correct that some of my edits are tagged as minor when they shouldn't be—I have the "This is a minor edit" box checked automatically in my preferences, and sometimes, when editing in haste, I forget to uncheck it. I don't mark edits as minor in some sort of attempt to obfuscate my changes from other wikipedians. Finally, I certainly don't need admin tools, but if approved to have them, I believe I could use them prudently when needed. Yours, —thames 20:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose. User admits to not having the time to do admin chores. Also, with the projects that he/she wants to be involved in, no admin powers are needed. User is a good editor, though. I will support when he/she is "ready". Oran e (t) (c) (@) 22:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose WHats the point of having admin powers if you don't have the time. And if you did't want to be nominated you could have just declined. Jobe6 23:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Remaining neutral - this is a good user who could benefit from having admin abilities, however openly admits to not having the time to actually do admin things. – Francs2000 22:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

1. I would like to quote dab in a recent wikipedia talk comment, since he has wise advice that deals with admins that can't commit that much time to Wikipedia. Context is found here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_29#Do_we_need_more_admins.3F Borisblue 18:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

   I notice there are a lot of nominations lately. Having enough admins is good, because it lets us be picky about candidates. If there is some doubt, or if they do not clearly have enough experience, vote oppose. However, if the candidate is obviously good, there is no reason not to vote for them. Note that not all admins spend all day fixing things. I'm one, and I don't feel obliged to clean up after WoW when I prefer to spend my time adding content (I'm not paid for this after all) So, while I make occasional good use of my admin powers, blocking the odd vandal here or deleting some nonsense there, I am not a dedicated member of the mopping-up squad. Now, 5,000 good editors doing the occasional admin work are at least as good as 50 full-time admins. Bottom line, be picky, but keep nominating trusted users! dab (ᛏ) 21:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC) (quote by Borisblue)

   The number of pages and articles per admin has been steady over the last month, as has the # of edits per day per admin. I don't see any reason to be less picky about who we select. I personally like to see active admins. I always have. That does not cast any judgement on the worthiness of an editor. --Durin 18:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Since I'm not familiar with the candidate, no vote, just a comment: what does it matter if he won't have much time to do admin chores? It's not as though promoting him takes up a place someone who has more time might get; there's no limit. If he also does a little, that a little less work everyone else has to do. I don't believe there's any reason to deny a trustworthy editor admin rights. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Getting somewhat ahead of yourself, aren't you? jguk 16:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

   Hehe, I like to think positive. If it doesn't work out, it can easily be changed. —thames 22:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

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. Unfortunately, this is an area where I may not be able to shine as an administrator. My real world job, and the fact that I'm going to be applying to PhD programs in the next month or two, will mean that I will have very little time to perform regular maintenance, or assist in various projects. My own watchlist is rather small (about 500 articles), and I'm mostly concerned with defending article quality there. If I had the time, I would likely involve myself in this project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. (In real life, I was able to go to the DC Wikipedian's meetup, which I very much enjoyed, and was able to advise on the founding of the U.S. Chapter of Wikimedia.) But as far as chores, I just don't have the time right now, and that's worth considering as you vote on my nomination.

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

A. I've been a regular participant in the Wikipedia Collaborations of the Week, which I think is a very important community institution. I also helped to create the Wikipedia:Collaborations overview page, in order to assist others in setting up more collaborations. In the real world, I'm a research assistant in a think tank, so a large number of my contributions come out of my reading: either news stories on current events, or history books. Some of my most contentitious editing has been in various templates (Template:Christianity, Template:Islam, Template:Communism sidebar) where I've consistently tried to fight bloat and enforce talk page consensus. I've also worked on NPOV issues, such as the Rendition page, which I created, and on Neoconservatism (Japan), which I also created. Some of my larger and longer contributions are Geopolitik, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Oswald Spengler, and Decline of the West—all of which are still works in progress.

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 had one instance of copyvio, which I disputed because I didn't think that corporate bios were copyrighted (see my talk page). Outside of that, I've not had any particular transgressions. As I said above, most of my editing conflicts were in trying to enforce talk page consensus and anti-bloat measures on templates. I had a bit of a tiff over whether the dissolution of the Soviet Union counted as Decolonization, where, again, I relented. I defended Neoconservatism (Japan) from VFD, where I cited enough sources that those opposed to my article relented. I defended Chickenhawk (politics) from User:Walabio's very POV assertions. Other than those relatively minor incidents, I've not really had any full-out conflicts with other users, something I'm particularly proud of. Generally, if you approach others with respect, cite your sources calmly, and let other Wikipedians know that you enjoy editing with them, most conflicts can be avoided before they have a chance to begin.

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.

---

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

Freestylefrappe

Final (38/11/3) ending 01:10 October 19, 2005 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe (talk · contribs) – This is Freestylefrappe's second nomination (May 2005 was the first) after an earlier self nomination failed essentially to not enough edits (only about 450 at that time). Today, Kate's tool shows a total of almost 3,000 edits for those that care about edit counts. Freestylefrappe is well rounded; he almost always uses edit summaries, contributes to Wiki namespace, has made big contributions of quality to numerous articles, doesn't engage in edit wars, utilizes talk pages and is an overall asset to Wikipedia. He has been around for over a year and has familiarity with six languages. Time for a mop and a bucket MONGO 01:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I gratefully accept. freestylefrappe 01:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support As nominator, absolutely! MONGO 01:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support does not fit my opposing criteria. --Bjarki 02:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support --JAranda | watz sup 02:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support RfA cliche #1. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support, he seems to do good work. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support Can't have too many! And doesn't seem to be an Albanian, Macedonian, Pakistani, Indian, Hindu, or Ahmadi. --BorgHunter (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. El_C 03:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support Jobe6 03:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Weak Support. This user once annoyed me about a joke I did to WikiFanatic after I already apologized days ago, so that rather ignored me that s/he (assume she) was reprimanding me for it after it was over. But otherwise the Frappe is a pretty good editor. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 03:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Yup (I was sure he was an Albanian Hindu). Grutness...wha? 05:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. For sure! Banes 05:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support Give him a mop`! --Rogerd 05:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Merovingian (t) (c) 07:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support would have been easier if the vote here link worked. CambridgeBayWeather 07:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
15. S'port --Doc (?) 07:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. --Monkbel 10:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. the wub "?!" 11:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. Frappe does good things. -Splash^talk 12:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. utcursch | talk 13:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. KHM03 15:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. Kirill Lokshin 15:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support.Oran e (t) (c) (@) 15:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support Looks to be a strong editor. Maltmomma ^(chat) 17:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support --{{IncMan|talk}} 00:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
25. -- (drini's page|☎) 05:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
26. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Bring him in, boys! (And girls; no bias here.)  Denelson83  22:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. CDThieme 03:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support Molotov (talk)File:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif
    
30. Guettarda 13:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 19:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support Good history. Dlyons493 Talk 19:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. Jonathunder 22:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Slac speak up! 20:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Strong support -- Francs2000 22:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support editcountitiscountitis is fatal.  Grue  21:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support —Wayward ^Talk 06:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Martin 09:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Weak Oppose. I would support, but during my RfA, this user went around to other people's talk pages and told them to vote against me. He failed to assume good faith on multiple editors parts. I do not particularly care for this type of behaviour. This should be no big deal, so I should at least vote neutral since I don't mind his contributions, but I just cannot support this candidate at this time. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Oppose. --Scimitar ^parley 16:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I'd have expected this user to have been a bit more proactive in solving edit disputes, especially on articles started by him. Seems to be like he is on his own track offering little assistance to the actual issues on hand. More maturity required. Idleguy 16:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose. I have no objections against him as an editor, and this is the first time I ever oppose a RfA; but his attitude of contacting other users who, like him, had voted against my RfA based on edicountitis in order to establish a common baseline to oppose other "inexperienced" users from becoming admins [1], dissapointed me. Shauri smile! 00:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose, I am sorry Freestylefrappe, but learning how important you feel edit counts to be, I'd rather see you get more experience, first. If your vote should fail, see that as an opportunity in your personal evolution as a Wikipedian.--Wiglaf 06:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

   He has over three thousand edits and he's been here a year. How much more experience do you think he needs? unsigned edit by CDThieme (talk · contribs)

   Since he feels that edit counts are so important that he wrote what Shauri has indicated, I really think we should give him the opportunity of building up an edit count that makes him feel worthy. He deserves that opportunity.--Wiglaf 21:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

5. Weak Oppose. While I can place trust in you, I don't know if you know all the WP guidelines yet. Back in late August/early September in my own RfA, you said that "you cannot become an admin until you have made 1,000 edits". Sorry. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 23:48, 13 October 2005 (CDT)}

   As I left a note below in the comments section, Freestylefrappe lost his first nomination due to a low edit count, at which time a half dozens folks then told him his edit count was too low...this is the primary reason he may have made the comments to you and to others along a similar vein.--MONGO 04:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

   Hahaha, no, see WikiFanatic's talk page and my own for an explanation. I wasnt speaking in terms of policy, I was trying to be realistic. freestylefrappe 19:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

6. Oppose per Wiglaf. Places a strong emphasis on edit counts. Andre (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
7. "a total of almost 3,000 edits for those that care about edit counts" (emphasis mine). A rather ironic comment. Oppose. – ugen64 02:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   Why is that an ironic comment?--MONGO 05:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   In regard to the last five users who have voted oppose, RFA voting style has nothing to do with being an admin. It does not reflect my experience with Wikipedia nor does it have any connection to how I will use sysop privleges. You are voting against me based on a longstanding and precedented policy of requiring a certain number of edits. Perhaps you have not seen Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards...? Or perhaps you had seen that page, but were unaware of my Userpage where I state a minimum of 1,000 edits - which, compared to the standards of many other users, some of whom are admins, would seem small. freestylefrappe 03:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   Actually, the fact that your RfA votes usually look like "oppose, per so-and-so" shows a worrisome lack of communication. This RfA is the first time I've opposed without stating my reasons, and I did it to show you exactly how frustrating it can be to a candidate when the opposition refuses to say why they distrust you.--Scimitar ^parley 17:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   Never have I once given any objection regarding your not stating your reasons. If you have a problem with voting per another user you should make a suggestion of changing Wikipedia policy. freestylefrappe 19:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   No, but I state my reasons. My problem is that an admin voting should give reasons for his vote- they should adhere to the spirit, not the letter, of policy, and should realize that it can be frustrating for candidates when they see "Oppose- less than 3000 edits" and then you underneath going "Oppose, per above". Admins should be models in communication.--Scimitar ^parley 14:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

8. Oppose, sneaky personal attack on the user page? Not nice. Proto t c 10:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   And I really don't care for contributions like this, this and this - let people decide to vote to oppose/support a candidacy for adminship under their own steam. Proto t c 15:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   As repeatedly stated, Freestylefrappe lost his first adminship attempt because many thought his edit count was too low along a similar voting train of thought as the one you did here. We all have standards either advertised or not that we follow for such things.--MONGO 20:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   I don't understand what point you're trying to make. See my comment below. Proto t c 11:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

   I simply informed other users that their stated requirements were not met by a user up for adminship. I neither suggested they vote oppose nor did I make any outstanding remarks. If you look at Comics' talkpage you'll notice I offered to re-nominate him after he got more experience. freestylefrappe 19:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   I would imagine users are simply able to inform themselves of how to vote. I don't like vote influencing. Proto t c 11:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

9. Oppose per Proto. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 22:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Sorry, I have to agree with Proto. The "get out the vote" campaigns show poor judgment. Garnering for "oppose" votes on user talk pages shows poor judgment, and it once became an ArbCom issue. The case here is much less severe, but it still makes me uneasy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Weak oppose, as I'm not really happy with FSF's response to the criticisms above. Radiant_>|< 21:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Oppose, per Proto. Even if his actions were in response to his previously being denied adminship, that doesn't mean he needs to run around ensuring that no one else with low edit counts becomes an admin either. It seems kind of immature, and isn't the kind of person who I would like to see be an admin. Also, I think that people should use {{subst:test}} as an initial warning on a talk page, instead of [2], in the spirit of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. --Kewp (t) 15:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Oppose. A confrontational attitude is not desirable in an admin. Friday (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Oppose From weak neutral, after I suddenly found this on my talk page<Please remove "not even Durin...". This is inappropriate and pointless. freestylefrappe 02:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)> Unfortunately, this confirms, in my mind, the concerns raised here. Much anger is there in this one. Better inappropriate and pointless than confrontational and humorless. Clearly lacks the temperment to be an effective Sysop.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Question: Do the last 2 votes in oppose count since they were made after the deadline? I think the ending should be the 20th and not the 19th, but that still questions the last two oppose votes.--MONGO 05:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • If so Kewp's oppose vote also has to count. He only stroke it because he thought the vote was over.--Wiglaf 06:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
      • It is long established principle that all 'votes' count until a 'crat closes the debate. Same principle applies to AfD etc etc too. As long as the question is open, everyone is invited to join in. -Splash^talk 12:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Then why have it open for 7 days to a set time and date if it isn't going to be followed? What good are rules like that if they aren't strictly enforced? You don't need a 'crat to close an AfD vote anyway.--MONGO 13:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
          • On AFD dbeates people may, and do vote after the five (or six)-day deadline has passed. The rules mean that closing a debate prematurely is disallowed, it does not forbid postponments of the closure. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
            • Then why have it read as "ending 01:10 October 19, 2005 (UTC)" Ending....are we now waiting for the "missing chads"? It matters not when a 'crat decides to close the debate part, I just don't see why votes after the time which says "ending" should count. Oh well.--MONGO 13:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
              • I think b-crat may ignore the votes being cast after the deadline, at least that's how I was promoted. After the voting time for me finished, I opposed some other nomination and then I got oppose vote from one of his supporters. I don't think that was counted.  Grue  14:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Generally, I haven't had a bad experience with him, but he needs to steer clear of taking sides in petty disputes. Aside from that, good work. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutral I'm neutral on this one after reading the comments on this users behavior by Lord Voldemort, and Anonymous editor. Private Butcher 15:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Weak Neutral. Changed vote from oppose. I still am a bit wary of his/her behavior (see my last vote above), but he/she has been a great sport in responding to private emails. I guess it's no big deal. Good luck, my friend. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Weak Neutral Although I'm impressed by the contributions, there is something about this candidate's style I find confrontational and perhaps a wee bit vindictive. While I've yet to have any direct dealings with the nominee, I cannot bring myself to support.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• I would like to take this as an opportunity to clear up some misconceptions. For the record, I am and have never been an Albanian, Macedonian, Pakistani, Indian, Hindu, or Ahmadi. In the near future I plan on adding John Adams' Second State of the Union Address, and a page on October 11 2005 letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi. freestylefrappe 01:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Does he really speak 720 languages? — JIP | Talk 05:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

No Jip, the parenthesis denote multiplication, so he actually speacks 4320 languages -- (drini's page|☎) 05:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the number in parens could be an order of magnitude - 6! = 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 720; so six (6!) could mean 6 to the 720th power. My calculator does not go that high.  BD2412 ^talk 03:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• The "Vote Here" link doesn't appear to be working on this nomination...anyone know how to fix it?--MONGO 10:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed. -Splash^talk 12:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

After going through his edit history exhaustively, I see that many of the articles he has created and or worked on would possibly be in areas that would cause friction as far as substance and following NPOV and in the few cases in which he had difficulty with this, it was months ago. But in none of those, did I notice any POV pushing, hostility, or edit warring...a pretty big achievement considering the potentially of angry debate due to the subject matter.--MONGO 20:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Voters should bear in mind that Freestylefrappe's first nomination failed primarily because of his low edit numbers, hence his apparent concern over edit counts for all admin nominations.

"Even if his actions were in response to his previously being denied adminship, that doesn't mean he needs to run around ensuring that no one else with low edit counts becomes an admin either. It seems kind of immature, and isn't the kind of person who I would like to see be an admin. Extremely well put by Kewp. Shauri smile! 13:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• For any curious users: [for adminship/Shauri]. Wiglaf nominated, Scimitar is number 10, Andre is 13, Sjakkalle is 16, and Radiant! is 25. I can understand - and believe Andre, Sjakkalle, and Radiant!'s votes as legitimate concerns that have nothing to do with that RFA. Scimitar, Wiglaf, and Shauri are trying to pick a fight with me over one vote. Shauri's comment to ALKIVAR is contradictory to her oppose vote here, "if the number of edits is what matters to you, I guess I can understand". freestylefrappe 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm truly sorry that you think that way, Freestyle. But I know my motives for opposing, and they have nothing to do with edit count, and even less with a personal issue. In fact, if you read my argumentation, I clearly state that "I have nothing against (you) as an editor". I believe my reasons are expressed clearly, and they are closely related to Sjakkalle's: it's the "get out the vote" campaign based on editcountitis that you clearly stated you were trying to organize against other users' RfAs what I found distasteful. By then, my own RfA was over, so I was safe from it; but not other users whose own nominations were active. Furthermore, such campaigns have nothing intrinsecally bad from my humble point of view, but it's their objectives that define them; and I definetely consider reprehensible one specifically made to oppose your fellow editors' RfA. My comment to Alkivar is also misquoted: I meant that, if his criteria for voting was based on edit counts, I understood, I respected it and had nothing further to add; which is far from stating that I approve it, as I have shown by supporting other users whose RfAs were controverted on the grounds of editcountitis [3][4]. Your suggestion that I'm taking some sort of "revenge" on your oppose vote also fails to address the fact that I supported the RfAs of other users who, like you, had opposed mine, like RyanNorton [5] and Durin [6] (who later changed his opposal to neutral). It saddens me that you don't assume good faith in my motives, which I believed were clear. I also don't think for a minute that Wiglaf's or Scimitar's reasons can be questioned on that basis. I opposed you for that self appointed campaigning, but now, I should also add rude manners and not assuming good faith to that. I leave an open door for the future, and may well support you should this nomination fail; I even offer you sincerely my friendship, in case you want to accept it. But right now, I can't betray the dictates of my conscience. Shauri smile! 11:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I back Shauri up all the way here. Learn to assume good faith and Wikipedia:civility if you ever hope to become an admin. Moreover, your conspiratory work against Shauri's nomination and your groundless assumption about a conspiracy here convinces me that it is right of me to oppose your nomination. Don't judge others by yourself.--Wiglaf 12:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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. Most of my sysop-related activities would be closing afd debates and reverting vandalism. Especially the latter as I have found my edits increasingly taken up by reverting anonymously added nonsense. I think the role of administrator should act more as a pacifier than a settler of a contentious dispute.

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

A. John Adams' First State of the Union Address and List of Christian terms in Arabic were some of the better ones. Robert Davis of New Orleans will probably see a lot of action, and Terrorism in Pakistan has had an unusually high edit response. See also: the slightly outdated Pages I started

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. The Slavic Macedonian Culture page has generated a large amount of pov pushing, and endless moving (though this seems to have toned down to legitimate disambiguation). Most of this seems to stem not from a dispute over this page in particular, but a larger argument over the use of Macedonia verus Republic of Macedonia. Qiyamah - which I rewrote and expanded upon, triggered a series of reverts between myself and one other user, Universaliss, who is no longer active. Univ. insisted on deleting huge amounts of information, and spent his last few edits blanking the page except for comments like "F*** Islam."

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.

---

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

Kzollman

Final count (24/0/0) ended 17:21 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Kzollman (talk · contribs) – Kevin is a dedicated Wikipedian, who has accumulated 2297 since he first edited on 1 March 2005. He started the successful WikiProject Game theory which he clearly puts a lot of effort into. Judging from his contributions he would certainly make good use of the various admin capabilities. He is also very calm, polite, rational and easy to work with. Martin 17:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Thank you very much, Martin! --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 18:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Wholeheartedly Martin 18:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Yes, he should be an admin. Banes 19:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support, I think he would make a good admin. Private Butcher 19:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. An ambitious project; fine contributions. Marskell 20:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 20:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support, nice contributions, I just spent 20 minutes browsing. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support Very active in AFD --JAranda | yeah 00:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Merovingian (t) (c) 01:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support plenty of edits. freestylefrappe 02:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support, seems harmless. --Bjarki 02:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

    In wikipedia 2.0 this will read "mostly harmless" :) --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 03:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

11. Support. El_C 03:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support --Rogerd 05:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support CambridgeBayWeather 07:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support enough experience, great WikiProject, seems calm --Monkbel 10:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support beyond remarkable work on the game theory wikiproject, I've been struck by his patient and constructive dealings with people I'd have dismissed as vandals. Sharp, long fuse, has my vote. Pete.Hurd 04:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
16. -- (drini's page|☎) 05:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support Always found his contributions civil and to the point. Dlyons493 Talk 01:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support have seen this editor about the place, I believe will used the mop wisely. Alf ^melmac 07:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support -- Francs2000 23:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support Good, level-headed editor. Xoloz 15:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. Have had great interaction with this editor and definitely helps with the necessary cleanup!! >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist • E@} 02:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support --MONGO 02:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support Ran into Kevin a few times in his drive to add Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy links to WP: struck me as a careful and disciplined editor, should be a good admin --- Charles Stewart 03:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
24. I second Pete Hurd's sentiments. encephalon 14:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

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. Probably most often I would use the rollback button to correct tests and vandalism that I come across on my watchlist. I would also help close AfDs and help sort through the backlog of copyright tagged articles (in homage to Martin :). I like to find things that don't require real deep thought to do when I'm tired, and I think these two would satisfy that desire. I'm pretty game to help out wherever people need help, except RC patrol. If I do that for too many days in a row it starts to feed my misanthropic tenancies too much. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 18:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

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

A. I just (yesterday) posted a substantially rewritten version of the Game theory article. Although, I was planning to work on it for another week, the Nobel committee inspired my haste. I'm really happy with how it turned out. I have also worked on a lot of game theory games. Of those, I'm probably most proud of Stag hunt and Centipede game (although, I'm happy with all of them; see my userpage for a list). --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 18:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

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. As I said above, RC patrol freaked me out a bit. I don't think I really did anything inappropriate when I was regularly doing RC patrol, it just made me too anxious (especially for what is my hobby) Nowadays, I only deal with a few vandal/testers a day on my watch list. With respect to disputes, I try to deal with them in a couple different ways. First, I think often the prudent action is to ignore it. Obviously, one should not feed trolls, but also I try to stay out of conflicts when others are handling them well. Although I dealt with many of Dot Six's edits, I really didn't try to deal with him myself. Other users were doing a great job trying to reason with him, and I thought my jumping in would just cause more confusion and turmoil. When I need to deal with someone regarding content, I try to always both keep myself calm and take whatever action I think will help defuse the other user. After using an impolite edit summary [7], I think I handled a conflict with User:Wragge well here. Also, I think its always important to cite sources for one's arguments, this keeps egos from getting too involved (for example, see my discussion at Talk:Complete information). --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 18:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

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.

---

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

NickBush24

Final count (43/22/3) ended 03:54 October 19, 2005 (UTC)

NickBush24 (talk · contribs) – NickBush24 came to Wikipedia as one of the most prolific people from GameFAQ's. Since then, he has left GameFAQ's for Wikipedia. He has enough edits where I don't think Editcountitus will be a problem, and he got his welcome on July 1st. The first time I saw him was when he reverted vandalism to my user page circa July 10th. The troll then made the name NickBush24isgay and a few other names. He practices RC Patrol and I've seen him helping people out. His user page has suffered about 50 times due to his RC Patrolling and trollslaying. He deserves the tools I believe. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: OMG I ACCEPT LOLE >_> NickBush24 04:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Cabal,erm...GO FOR IT!!Amen...[[User:Tdxiang|Tan Ding Xiang | ☎]] 04:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Definitely. Redwolf24 (talk)
3. I support him fully. -GregNorc (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
4. I definitely would support this decision. foxdude333 (talk)
5. I believe NickBush24 has the potential to become an excellent administrator! Thatdog 08:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

   Extreme Hula Hoop Support! Acetic'^Acid 10:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

   Changed to neutral. Acetic'^Acid 10:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

6. Heh. If your userpage gets vandalised 50 times, you're doing something right. David Gerard 11:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support--Exir Kamalabadi^Esperanza 11:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support: the response to the antics of User:NickBush24isgay seals it for me. Graham/pianoman87 talk 11:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

   Support Seems good to me. Dlyons493 Talk 13:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

9. My support too. --MissingLinks 14:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support I beleieve NickBush24 would make a good admin. Alf ^melmac 15:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. →Journalist >>talk<< 15:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support, a bold fighter of vandals. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Merovingian (t) (c) 15:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
14. FireFox 16:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support Vote change to Weakest Possible Support in Wikipedia History A good RC patroler but Im very worried about incivilty. In December maybe --JAranda | yeah 17:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support - most certainly....en passant! 17:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support CambridgeBayWeather 17:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support Yes, definitely. A great RC patroller. Banes 17:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support He isn't already? Private Butcher 19:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. Good vandal hunter. Rje 20:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

    Extreme RickK support! Nothing more appropriate than giving a hard-working floorscrubber a mop. -DDerby-(talk) 20:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC) changed vote to neutral, see below.

21. Definitely, seen him, liked him, protected his pages. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Continue to support. Nick has been here for quite a while, and his first task was to begin RC patrol on a full time basis. If civility is a concern, I volunteer to be an informal mentor to Nick to help diminish this problem. -- Essjay · Talk 00:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. I've seen his edits and he also reverted vandalism on my own user page. -x42bn6 Talk 01:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Strong Support was helpful at GF, still helpful now. freestylefrappe 02:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support this guy needs the tools! --Bjarki 02:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. No wonder your name sounds familiar.. I've seen you all over the GameFAQs boards. :p Coffee 03:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
27. -- (drini's page|☎) 03:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. El_C 03:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Extreme Mop and Flamethrower Support! Vandals are dreading the day Nick gets those two tools. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support Go get the vandals! --Rogerd 05:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
31. We are power incarnate! — JIP | Talk 09:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support. the wub "?!" 11:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. utcursch | talk 13:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support. --NormanEinstein 13:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Support . Excellent contributor. Hall Monitor 21:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support. Good edits :).Rhetoricalwater 14:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support. Unfair to accuse him of incivility. The vandal personally attacked him and said that he "hated" him. The response was perhaps a bit immature, but not really so bad. Tfine80 19:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Support. Being rude to a newbie who'd made a test would be unacceptable. Being rude to a persistent vandal when you're getting the hassle this guy has is considerably less serious, and imo is outweighed by all the excellent work he's done. I trust him not to abuse his admin powers and find it hard to imagine someone more deserving of the rollback button. CTOAGN 01:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
39. Support. Everyone has their limits, and I've definitely seen worse reactions to persistent vandals. --Calton | Talk 07:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
40. Support because of the odd opposition votes below. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Support. Some conflict is inevitable. Excellent editor. --orizon 12:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
42. Support.  Grue  21:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
43. Support. The diffs presented in the oppose column are regrettable, and it would be better if those edits had been made differently. But they are certainly not the worst reactions to vandalism which I have seen here, it does not seem to show a long pattern of incivility, and they are not severe enough to push me into the oppose column. Indeed the history of vandal-fighting and other good work puts me here, among the supporters. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I know this RfA will pass even with this oppose vote. I'm making it because of a diff that I find clearly unacceptable for an admin to make. I don't really care what the provocation is, how immature a user is or what the situation is, mocking a user is never an appropriate reaction for an admin to take. This is completely unacceptable. Nick, you'll pass this RfA as it is 36-1 currently. But, please promise you'll never engage in activity like that again. --Durin 21:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose, Durin is right, it wasnt acceptable and this was only what..about a week ago. Jobe6 23:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I would really, really like to support, but I have to agree with Durin's comments. I cannot support a user who taunts vandals and seems to have a short temper. Robert 23:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Durin. Temperament is a consideration of utmost importance for admins. Friday (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Jaxl. Too many incidents of incivility. Radiant_>|< 09:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose this time round. Thanks to Durin for above note - I'd checked for incivility but missed any (which probably means it was just an off-day; we all have them). Dlyons493 Talk
7. Oppose as per Durins (and others) comments above. Vandalism and such can be frustrating but I would expect a much higher standard of any admin. If this were a year ago I'd give the benefit of the doubt but it was this month! --Nycmstar 13:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Weak Oppose. I am so torn. He's a good vandal fighter, but overall attitude seems harsh and unwelcoming. I believe this RfA will pass, but please be aware of your tone in the future. You note in question 3 that you have never been in conflicts over editing, but that seems to be what a lot of this RfA is about. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Weak oppose (changed from "support", after reading above) - your abrasive attitude is probably at least half the reason you are vandalized :-/ Seeing your excellent cleanup work, I want to give you a mop, but please using for scrubbing, not hitting. -DDerby-(talk) 20:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose - a noticible fraction of edit summaries in your history are a bit over the top for me, and I feel needs to be toned down before the mop is given. --HappyCamper 22:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

    Oppose This guy is a bully and I don't want to see him stepping all over the new comers to Wikipedia. --Greenmonkey 01:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)likely sockpuppet vote of User:129.15.120.186 --Durin 16:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

11. Oppose --Ryan Delaney ^talk 01:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
12. 'Oppose. I just can't feel comfortable adminning someone with this history of incivility, especially given his stated lack of experience in and techniques for dealing with conflict with other users. With all due respect to Essjay's offer of mentorship, I'd rather see a change in his conduct before making him an admin. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 06:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Oppose too many people have pointed out stuff that makes me uncomfortable with this nominee... perhaps later.  ALKIVAR™ 10:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Oppose — While I feel NickBush24 has done some good work, I expect all admins to be civil and not insult other Wikipedians. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 18:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Very reluctant oppose mmm... tricky one. Definitely be a vandal's worst nightmare if he got the tools, but not too sure about his temperement. That's what's difficult about tempremental vandal-fighters- Giving admin tools may bring both great good and great harm to Wikipedia. I'd like to see more WP-space edits in an admin, though and I guess this pushes my vote toward oppose. Borisblue 21:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Oppose per reasons given above gkhan 23:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Weakest conceivable oppose. I fully adhere to Borisblue's and DDerby's comments above. Incivility is not a matter to be taken lightly, and stirring the fire when dealing with vandals is the best way to ensure that they'll keep on hitting you and us all. I'm sure you'll make a great admin, but not just yet - a little more time and more control over your reactions and I'll gladly support you. Shauri smile! 04:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Oppose for now - incivility towards another user in recent edit history. Also I've been an admin since March 2004 and my user page hasn't been vandalised anywhere near as much as this user's, which may also be a telling sign. -- Francs2000 23:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

    I hope that wasn't a suggestion of bad faith... though now re-reading it I think you're saying his reactions cause the returning vandalism. The first time I read it I thought you were suggesting he was the sockmaster of the vandals. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?)

    No it wasn't a suggestion of bad faith. Yes there are vandals out there however it is my belief that a lot of vandalism towards you can be caused by your own actions towards those users to start with and the evidence of this user's brashness and incivility of recent weeks appears to make this quite clear. -- Francs2000 23:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

19. Oppose, familiarise yourself with WP:BITE and retry. Great apart from that. Proto t c 10:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Oppose I wanted to support this, but the evidence of incivility was too much. Keep your record clean, then try again later. Xoloz 15:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Oppose, reluctantly, as per the incidents recently brought to light surrounding issues of incivility. Please do not let the vandals get the best of you. Will gladly support in the future if these actions are not repeated. Hall Monitor 20:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

    Oppose --Blueballs 03:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Created User Account Today. Karmafist 06:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC) probable sockpuppet of User:129.15.120.186, who has vandalized this page and is currently blocked for a month --Durin 16:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

22. Oppose for now. I'd very much like to support him, but the civility problem and the lack of communication (as per Lord Voldy) is making me leery. On the other hand, the outburst certainly wasn't unprovoked: please refer to this diff to understand NickBush24's reaction. All of us have their bad days. All the same, I'd feel better about this if this wasn't such a recent event. I am hoping that NickBush24 will consider the impact of his uncivil reaction on this discussion, and reform. I would like to see him re-apply in a month; if he can continue his good work with no similar occurences, he'd definitely get my support then. --Ashenai (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Oppose, for now, despite excellent work on the whole. My problem is much the same as those above, although I can definitely understand the reactions. I would advise NickBush24 to read aboutSoft Security, which is the preferable way to deal with vandalism.--Scimitar ^parley 16:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Changed to Neutral per the incidents mentioned in the Oppose section. I don't think Nick will abuse his admin powers, but I don't feel comfortable supporting someone with a history of uncivility. Acetic'^Acid 10:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutral. I would have supported if not for the incidents of incivility. Assuming he keeps his temper, I'm sure he'll make a great admin. Carbonite | Talk 12:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutral The RC good portions were cancelled out by the incivility, but not enough for an oppose vote. Wait a bit, chill out, and keep up the good work against the vandals and you'll have a landslide. Karmafist 04:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Wow he's such a good vandal fighter that Im reverting vandalism in this page from annons that don't want this to happen. --JAranda | yeah 19:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't seem very interested in talking to the community. Has 2457 article edits (I'm assuming mostly vandal fighting), but only 33 article talk edits and 2 project talk edits.(edits No I don't suffer from editcountitis, I would just like to see more involvement. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Other editors are concerned over Nick's ability to remain civil. I have no doubts in my mind that Nick is administrator material, but, if Nick is agreeable, I am willing to serve as an informal mentor to monitor and help Nick avoid incivility in the future. -- Essjay · Talk 22:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

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. Basically blocking vandals, keeping an eye on the speedy deletion candidates, and other stuff. Those are the two things I intend to do at the start of my adminship, with more chores coming in the future.

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

A. I'd have to say starting the articles for each of the six divisions in Major League Baseball. There's others I'm happy about but can't think of at the moment.

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. Nope, not really. Right now... I'm not quite sure how to deal with it, but I should find a way sometime in the very near future. Currently I just listen to music to help take my mind off it >_>

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.

---

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

Wikiacc

Final (18/0/0) ended 23:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikiacc (talk · contribs) has proved worthy of adminship for a few months now. In #wikipedia, he mentioned starting a self nom. But, I'd like to nominate him instead, so maybe his nomination could fare better. Here you go, Wikiacc. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 23:28, 10 October 2005 (CDT)}

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination below this line.

I accept. Wikiacc (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. An obvious Support, as long as he accepts the nomination (which I'm sure he will, since he said he would.) --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 23:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)}
2. Support --Rogerd 01:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support--User:AYArktos | Talk 01:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support Sure, why not? Private Butcher 02:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Merovingian (t) (c) 06:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support CambridgeBayWeather 06:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Weak support, I seem to remember seeing this user somewhere. — JIP | Talk 07:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support lots of image work and user interaction seems civil. No evidence of campaigning (which, I've only just realised, creates difficulties for me). Dlyons493 Talk 11:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
9. →Journalist >>talk<< 15:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support, though I haven't seen this user around. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
11. FireFox 16:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. I checked out a bunch of his edits to User Talk pages, and was uniformly impressed with how he dealt with other people. I'm still trying to figure out why =Nichalp «Talk»= stepped in and answered my question for the candidate (see below); I was interested in how the candidate answered, not a third party, but that won't stop me from giving my support to what looks like a fine candidate. --RoySmith 02:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

    Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't think it was a direct question to the candidate. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

13. Support, I liked this comment on your talk page. Seem to be able to keep a cool head, a highly valued quality in my books. --Bjarki 02:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
14. -- (drini's page|☎) 03:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. El_C 03:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support because you are not User:Witkacy... Renata3 15:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support -- Francs2000 23:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. Yes, Wikiacc will be a fine admin. — mark ✎ 10:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

• I was goint to shout on top of my lungs, "People what are you doing?!" All because I thought you are User:Witkacy... Good luck! :) Renata3 15:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

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. I would work on clearing admin backlogs, such as WP:CP, AFDs, IFDs and old unsourced images, and make use of the rollback button for reverting vandalism.

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

A. I am pleased with LHC@home and Nix v. Hedden, both stubs that I created.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. As a less experienced user, I ran into conflict with User:Hpnadig over the usage of a template infobox at Kannada. The argument gradually faded. I have also been in conflicts with users over issues such as copyvio images and POV. I have responded to most conflicts in a civil manner and will do so in the future. (For more information, see my talk page and archive.)

Additional questions

1. I'm curious about this edit. Why did you think the picture was inappropriate? It seems apropos to the article to me. --RoySmith 00:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

   He's justified in removing the link because it hotlinked to an image. Hotlinking images from another site is a waste of bandwidth of that site. This applies to all websites, not necessarily wikipedia. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

   Concur with Nichalp. Wikiacc (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

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.

---

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

Hermione1980

Final (48/12/4) ending 11:55 October 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hermione1980 (talk · contribs) – Hermione1980 should be an admin. She's been here since March, and is a greatly experienced editor. She has done a lot of work on Harry Potter -related articles and even admitted my addition of Hermione/Ginny shipping into her shipping listing. She is also very active on WP:AFD and has even started to close AfD discussions (that result in keep). Kate's tool says she has 911 edits, which isn't a lot, but who needs editcountitis anyway? — JIP | Talk 11:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you very much, JIP! Hermione1980 13:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. — JIP | Talk 11:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. Excellent candidate. Shimgray | talk | 13:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support Ya-hoo! gkhan 13:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Merovingian (t) (c) 15:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. She's been asking all over the place on how to follow procedure properly, which tells me quite a bit about her being suitable for the mop and the flamethrower. You've got my support, just promise that you're going to wander away from Harry Potter every once in a while. Titoxd^(?!?) 16:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

   I do already! (Occasionally.)Hermione1980 17:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

6. Support - In like her concise and convincing answer to my question. I see no reason to doubt that she'll use her newfound powers well. --Celestianpower ^hablamé 17:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support CambridgeBayWeather 19:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
8. I trust the nominator. →Journalist >>talk<< 20:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
9. I trust her and the nominator but less than 1000 edits overall is a slight worry though. But Im nice and will vote support :) --JAranda | yeah 21:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Full Support. I'm confident in her abilities, and when she didn't know what to do, she would ask. So don't worry about edit count. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 23:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. I would point out that being useful and responsive on the Help Desk indicates a good admin temperament and intimate knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia. Low edits may mean inexperienced, but not in this case, and it doesn't look like the opposers have done much research if they really want to say that. Dmcdevit·t 02:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Strong support. I have already seen her mediate and defuse a situation between Albus Dumbledore (talk · contribs) Chosen One (talk · contribs) and Draco Malfoy (talk · contribs) vs. Mikkalai (talk · contribs) and handled herself admirably -- she really helped calm things down. I look at her earlier edits and see her asking others before doing things the first time, out of an abundance of caution. Looking at her edits, I see that it is strong on Talk, User Talk, and Wikipedia Talk. She engages the community, which is a great sign. I might oppose a candidate with low edit count (especially with low on talk pages) because there may be too little indication of how the person interacts with others. However, I think Hermione1980's editing history gives us ample examples of how she would behave as an admin, and what they show is right on target. --Tabor 04:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. Has well-demonstrated all the qualities needed in an admin. --Aquillion 05:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. From what I see, Hermione1980 has done plenty of good work and has plenty of experience, and that outweighs any concern about the edit count being fairly low. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
15. I've seen her around, and she's a good editor. Support.-gadfium 07:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Strongest possible support. Hermione is a prime example of applying editcount criteria for adminship can lead us to make poor decisions. While the number of her edits is comparatively low, looking through them one can see a few things: (1) the quality of her contributions is uniformly high. This is someone who is careful and deliberate, and takes each submit seriously. Such people are naturally going to have a lower edit count than someone else (like, uh, me) who fires off edits in staccato bursts. (2) She has been here for a long time, and demonstrated her commitment to the project. (3) Her willingness to seek consensus (for example, via article RfCs) rather than just hammering her opinions home mindlessly is great. I think she absolutely shows the temperament and commitment needed to be an admin. I urge those of you who are voting based solely on the number of her edits to go the extra mile and actually examine those edits more closely; I think if you do that, you'll consider changing your vote. Nandesuka 14:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
17. FireFox 16:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. I do like to see 1000 edits from a candidate, but I won't oppose her for being a few dozen short. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with being a low(er) activity admin. Carbonite | Talk 18:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support, this should be no big deal! This user has established her trustworthyness to my satisfaction and never before have editcounts have seemed so utterly frivolous... --Bjarki 02:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. El_C 03:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. Trusted? Yes. Long term experience? Yes. Good at dealing with conflict? Yes. Quality edits? Oh yes. Has an arbitrary number of edits? Who cares! the wub "?!" 11:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Alohamora. Quality user, and I find the opposition unconvincing. Radiant_>|< 12:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. Sure, could use a few more edits but it seems churlish to object on those grounds. Looks like a solid reliable contributor. And I hope you don't mind that I ship you with Ginny. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. Low edit count is meaningless if someone is committed, literate and willing. This candidate has given creditable, clear and concise answers to the questions posed below and seems, well, Wikipedia-minded. That should do. Redvers 19:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support I like the answers to the q's. Borisblue 20:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. The "low" edit count doesn't concern me. I like the answers, I like the attitude. I feel she's demonstrated that she's trustworthy. Friday (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support I see no good reason not to. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 01:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support, and damn the editcountitis. Ral315 W_S 04:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
29. -- (drini's page|☎) 04:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Tony Sidaway^Talk 04:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Good candidate.
31. Support. I've had the pleasure of getting to know Hermione1980 over at the Harry Potter WikiProject, but I have nonetheless run into her in a multitude of places across the wiki. She is a mature, thoughtful editor, and I have no doubt in my mind she is completely qualified to be an admin. She has been here for several months, one of my criteria. Personally, I like to see a higher edit count, but in this case, my personal knowledge of the user overrides that, and I can vouch for her that she is an excellent candidate. Wikipedia cannot have too many quality admins, and Hermione1980 would be a wonderful administrator, therefore her low edit count should be overlooked in recognition of the quality work she has been doing for Wikipedia. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support From what I've seen of her, (mainly working on Harry Potter articles back in July), she definately seems to be admin material. Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Oppose Support. Advertising in one's sig strongly suggests that the candidate considers adminship more than "no big deal". Further, such behavior suggests that the candidate does not have a full enough understanding of Wikipedia's culture at this time. Otherwise appears to be a very good candidate. Please remove the reference from your sig and return in a few short months. Unfocused 15:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

    See response to Rogerd above. Hermione1980 15:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

    Responses to the comments here (including my own) prove that my initial impressions were very likely wrong, so I've changed my vote. Unfocused 00:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

34. Support. Normally, I would say there is nothing wrong in seeking a little more experience of pressing save and having to live with the consequences than this edit count implies. However, Hermione1980 demonstrates considerably maturity beyond her edit count, and I have been especially impressed at the responses to this RfA. If this RfA succeeds, she might consider branching out a little from Potter, and should be careful never to use the admin buttons to settle any disputes on those articles. -Splash^talk 02:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. X factor. We require a reasonable edit count to provide the substrate to decide if a User is experienced and suitable. Once that is already clear, a high absolute count matters less. encephalon 07:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support I have seen some good work done. Good editor. should make a good admin. ∞Who?¿? 08:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support. Kirill Lokshin 14:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Support. Great editor and contributor in all kinds of subjects. Chosen One 19:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
39. Yes, please. Lupin|talk|popups 03:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
40. Extreme Wingardium Leviosa Support! Shauri smile! 05:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Support, it is the quality of the candidate and their contributions which should matter, not quantity.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
42. Support Hermoine1980, oppose editcountitis. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 11:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
43. I cannot believe I am going to Support. What is the world coming to? But seriously, Hermione is a great editor and can be trusted with the tools. A little while back, I was thinking of people that would make good admins and she was one of the first people I thought of (although an even lower edit count prevented me from doing so). --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
44. Support The edit count may be a little low, but I have found her to be circumspect and reasonable. Xoloz 15:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
45. Support. A fine user, dedicated to Wikipedia's betterment. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
46. Support! Incidentally, she is now only 19 short of the magic number. I trust those 19 edits will be good ones!  :) Thatdog 22:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
47. Support edit count is irrelevent, user has done tons of good work. NSR (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
48. Support upgrade from comment to support...school comes first and surely she'll still have some time to be an admin...Good luck!MONGO 10:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Less than 1000 edits suggest lack of experience. Astrotrain 14:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose Lacking edits, lacking experience. Private Butcher 20:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose too few edits. freestylefrappe 23:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose too inexperienced, also the "advertising" in her signature for this RfA I find distasteful. --Rogerd 01:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

   Ouch Roger, you cut me. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 03:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

   Oh THAT signature. I thought you meant the Esperanza one. Anyways, I wouldn't hold it against her if she's excited, even if it is a mistake. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 03:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

   I really don't consider adminship that big a deal. I had seen some other users put a link to their RfA in their signatures before, so I didn't think that was that big a deal, either. Hermione1980 15:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

5. Oppose: nothing personal, but this is way too low a level of activity for adminship. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose per Fadix. I'll support in a while. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 21:14, 12 October 2005 (CDT)}
7. Oppose. Seems like a very good editor, but not experienced enough in my opinion. I'd like to see more edits to a wider variety of articles, but beyond that I don't see any reason I would oppose in the future. Gamaliel 20:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose for the time being until this editor gains more experience. Hall Monitor 22:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose too new, not enough edits... cant predict trends yet... sorry maybe later.  ALKIVAR™ 10:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

   Trends of what? I've noticed she has a trend of making good contributions, and there's no prediction involved there. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

10. Oppose. As others, this is too early. I also like to see a more regular level activity in admin candidates because the wiki world actually can change pretty fast. (Though I totally understand and respect the need to devote much of one's time to college.) Dragons flight 02:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

    What? SHe's made consistently good edits for several months. She's a good editor. We need good admins, regardless of how often they sign on. A good admin that signs on once a month is a good admin, period. Fortunately Hermione manages more time than that, despite being in college. Sure, Wikipedia changes fast, and we have people who watch IRC and the RC logs and keep an eye on that. Wikipedia also moves with slow, careful deliberation, and that side of the wiki will be Hermione's strength. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

    Evil, it's not RC and the like that I worry about. Its the fact that the policies themselves change over time. Admins are supposed to be knowledgable in policy and a source of information for others. However, things like CSD, deletion policy, image use policy, and others are themselves fluid and evolve with time. An admin that only makes a couple edits a week (which is where Hermione was for several weeks) is likely to miss these changes. I can think of several examples where admins who infrequently participate in Wikipedia have wrongly enforced old or changed policy due to their own ignorance. It is a problem I would like to avoid. If Hermione gains more experience and chooses to participate more often, I would reconsider in the future. Dragons flight 18:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

    Check out her answer to question 4. No, she's not here as much as, say, Redwolf24, but she's also conscientous enough to pay attention to policy and policy changes. I understand your concern, but knowing how diligent Hermione1980 is, I don't think that's ever going to be a problem with her. Note that she reads AN/I regularly...she pays attention to whats going on. Sure she has periods of less activity, she's in college, but she is here enough to keep up with what's going on. She's not gonna wander off for three months and then show back up one day and start slashburning mass quantities of CSD's and images without checking out what's been going on. Admin actions are undoable, and in the highly unlikely case that she did make a mistake due to something changing and her not noticing, there's enough other people running around paying attention to what's happening that it's not going to escape notice and not get corrected. But policy doesn't change at a speed that Hermione1980 can't keep up with, I assure you. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 19:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

11. Oppose - too few edits imo -- Francs2000 23:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Oppose, don't really care for edit countitry, but sub 1000 would be a bad precedent Proto t c 12:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral with comment below. Marskell 13:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I'm sorry, this is editcountitis. I have nothing at all against your record. I am, however, concerned about setting a precedent of having admins with fewer than 1000 edits, which, given the difficulty in removing admins who go on to show questionable judgement, could be a problem.--Scimitar ^parley 16:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

   As a rhetorical, stupid question, would you change your vote if I ran out and got 90 more edits before this RfA was up? Hermione1980 16:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

   I actually prefer ~1500 edits for admin candidates, especially ones I'm not overly familiar with. The "hard line" at 1000 is like the legal drinking age- it's an arbitrary line, and although a good many younger than that age are responsible, and a good many older aren't, the line needs to be there.--Scimitar ^parley 19:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

   Out of curiosity, why does the line need to be there? The system would seem to allow you to decide on a case-by-case basis. I could understand concerns over edit counts if you linked them to some specific problem with the nominee; but rejecting a qualified candidate simply because you're worried about the precedent it will set seems to me to, itself, set an exceptionally poor precedent. --Aquillion 05:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

   I'm changing my vote to neutral, because over the course (thus far) of this RfAr, Hermione has attempted to go into administrator areas (closing old afds, reverting, etc.) and maintained a sense of humour ("I swear I'm not trying to build up my edit count" - from an edit summary). I laughed at that comment, and frankly, she couldn't be any worse than some of our current admins (feel free to site me as one of those, if you like). Good luck.--Scimitar ^parley 15:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

3. Neutral — Hermione1980 is a great Wikipedian and has done some valuable work around here, and I have full confidence in her. However, I would like to see more experience. I will gladly support her in the future. And oh, just curious, but what do you do if you ever run across You-Know-Who? :-) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 18:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

   Ah, him. Mostly feign deference and respect :-) I mustn't get on the Dark Lord's bad side, you know... Hermione1980 00:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

   "Feign"?! Hmm... I see how it's gonna be. :) --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

4. Weak oppose. Seems to be a good person, but some of her answers to the concerns raised here, don't satisfy me. Maybe re-applying in a few months. Fadix 17:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC) I changed my vote, to contrast this one with my other votes, which were all oppose. And since I believe her to be more "Admin able" than the others I opposed, opposing her would be comparing her with those. Fadix 20:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• A chart showing this user's edits along with a total # of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:Hermione1980-edits.png. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia. --Durin 14:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've been fascinated with the RFA process ever since I came across it. Too bad an IP doesn't get much of a voice here, but I understand I can comment and speak my mind without fear of getting bitten. I strongly disagree with providing this information like this - it is targeted and selected information. I think it should either be given to all candidates, or not at all, or done on request by the candidate. Simply put, any particular representation of data is POV - it highlights particular information and suppresses others. Why should a particular representation of data be chosen to take priority? Even if a bar graph of edits per day may seem relevant, it does not reveal all information about a candidate. It is only partial information, and it is being used under a thinly veiled guise of "objectivity". And another thing about "editcountitis": Even *if* there was a historical trend of support for candidates after 2000 edits, this result is not independently verified. Using 2000 edits as a cutoff is poor use of statistics. It tells us nothing about the nature of the distributions, nor does it offer any insight as to the extent to which this is valid. And as far as I can tell, the results have not been verified independently, nor have they been officially sanctioned by the project. Simply put, these nice graphs are being presented as an objective measure of a candidates edit behaviour when clearly it is inadequate, incomplete, and biased. Shouldn't we be going through the edits and evaluating the quality of them? Seeing how the user interacts with others? Looking at the intellectual quality of contributions of the user? The graphs are nice, but I think are encouraging laziness on RFAs where Wikipedians aren't really looking at edit content, and only looking at an aggregate. Wikipedians - make sure you really know what you're doing if you are using edit counts like this to evaluate on RFAs. Can candidates really trust that you'll look at more than superficiality, especially when these graphs are floating around? That's all I've got to say, and I think I'm gonna move on to something else more interesting now. --216.191.200.1 14:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • First, have a look at User:Durin/Admin_nominee_charts#Frequently_asked_questions and User:Durin/Admin voting measures. I have not and will not create these charts as an attempt to objectively measure a candidate. I have and continue to do these charts in an attempt to get people to not focus in on edit counts as a measure of acceptability of a candidate. I believe my notations regarding edit counts and having the graphs have resulted in more discussion about period of contributions and usage of edit summaries rather than just straight edit counts and time on Wikipedia, which was the metric previously used. For example, a user who signs up in 2004, makes a handful of edits, and then has a large number of edits over a 1 month time span (say, 3,000) could say "I've been here for a year, and have over 3,000 edits". Few RfA voters would check to see how long they've been actively contributing to the project. Having the graphs gives a rapid way in which people can evaluate that. Also, the data that I used for the study is available at User:Durin/RfA results. Lastly, I have never said and never implied that these tools are the best way to evaluate a nominee or should be used in isolation. I have continually encouraged people to use them (quoting myself) "as just one tool". I have not suggested any benchmarks that others should adhere to in considering this data. I provide the data. Others can do with it as they will. I have my own benchmarks regarding the data, but they are not absolutes. Those that are obsessed with edit counting alone are not going to be less obsessed by not having these charts available. Providing them under the basis that I have has encouraged more appropriate (in my opinion) reviews of candidates. I have never believed that we can determine the value of a single edit in any objective way. There is no way to gauge whether a stub-sort edit is worth more than a 30kb contribution to an article or less. There never will be. It's purely subjective and I've always recognized that. I am actively trying to get people to stop using edit counts alone as measure. The shocking reality is that 2,000 edits is the level at which suddenly nominees become (in the eyes of many) as suddenly capable of being an admin. That needs to change, in my opinion. My data and charts are part of my effort to change that. --Durin 16:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Use of edit summaries 90%, 94% over last 300 edits. Average edits per day at 4.4 --Durin 14:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• I will make my mind up on hearing your answer of my question below. Thank you. --Celestianpower ^hablamé 15:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Everything looks fine but the low edit count and relatively low amount of recent activity indicates that the admin tools won't be used all that much, so I'm not sure what the point would be of becoming an admin. I'd like to see more contribution to the janitorial stuff and then I will gladly vote support:)--MONGO 01:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The reason I haven't been quite as active as some of the other really enthusiastic editors is I recently started college. I am more active in the summers. Hermione1980 15:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Pretty much the same as above, I think Hermione is a great editor, but a wee bit more experience would be good. Banes 07:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Regarding the editicountitis, is the problem perhaps one of a patience with nominators? Has a 1000 which is low but they are good edits. Nominator doesn't think edit count all that important but knows that others do. So just wait a month or two, right? Why squeak through at 1000 or possibly be opposed when you can sail through at 2000? I'm neutral per Mongo, BTW. Marskell 13:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• I've added a couple of questions I normally ask of candidates on IRC, but I don't think I've seen this one on IRC, so I'll ask them here instead. Kelly Martin 03:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Is anyone entitled to add questions? My major problem here, is that, I believe most of the RfA I've seen revolved around more administrative anti vandal tasks and measures etc, and few, more important things(in my opinion) like, the quality of articles in Wikipedia. We need also administrators that have worked in various articles beyond one subject in particular, and be able to sense quality, if the article is encyclopedic, and also, somehow being able to act in conflicts where the content of an article is concerned, even though they ignore the subject(sense, it does not take a knowledge of a particular subject, to know if an article in encyclopedic). Right now, the prime concerns seems to be vandalism, and it seems that articles contents involved disuptes(POV, NPOV etc.) are left to be handled by common users. That is why, I believe we also need administrators who have long experiences in this domain too. Fadix 18:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that kind of question might be good to add. However the qualities you describe are great, but they aren't required to be an administrator. Just about anybody with reasonable judgement can be an administrator. The qualities you describe would make for a good mediator, an exceptional editor. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I do occasionally participate in AfDs, so I have some idea of what is (un)encyclopedic. The reason I work mostly to Harry Potter-related articles is that is where I feel I can contribute the most. I hope to be slightly better educated after four years of torture, so I will certainly try to contribute to more areas as I gain more knowledge. Hermione1980 00:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

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. I would close AfDs, for one thing. I have recently begun closing those that had a unanimous or near-unanimous result of keep, but I would like to help close those with a result of delete. I would also like to be able to block vandals instead of having to ask someone else to do so. I would never block someone who I was in a dispute with. I would also like to have the rollback button.

I was also recently granted admin privileges on the Harry Potter Wiki, which has given me a little knowledge of what adminship entails.

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

A. I mostly copyedit and revert vandalism, so I don't really have any contribution that I'm particularly proud of.

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 and several other users were in a particularly heated dispute over a particular paragraph in the Clay Aiken article. I must admit, I started out far more patient than I got towards the middle of the discussion. I excused myself from the debate for a while to lower my Wikistress, but was able to come back in later and help form a consensus. My policy is to stay cool, but if I can't stay cool, I will back off and let other, cooler heads prevail.

4. Very few editors are promoted at less than 1000 edits. In your eyes, what makes you more qualified for adminship than those other users?

A. I have spent a great deal of time researching what adminship entails. I am familiar with most Wikipedia policies and read the WP:AN/I daily, so that I know what admins deal with and how they deal with it. I do my best to stay cool when the editing gets hot and try to resolve issues rationally, which I think is a very important trait in an admin.

5. Explain your point of view on the meaning of WP:IAR. How you will apply IAR to your activities as an admin (if at all)?

A. WP:IAR — while not necessarily a "last resort" — is a policy to be followed with great caution. Anyone citing IAR as a justification needs to be absolutely, 100% certain they are in the right. I honestly can't predict how I would apply it to my admin activities; most of the time, another policy/rule probably applies.

6. How much time have you spent at MeatBall? What have you learned from MeatBall about being an administrator?

Can I suggest that time spent at meatball can be zero for all most people care? A better question would be "what have you learned from your time on Wikipedia about being an administrator". -Splash^talk 21:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

A. (to original question) I have not spent any time on MeatBall at all. I have seen people linking to specific pages on MeatBall on pages like the admins' noticeboard, but I have never gone there. (to Splash's question) I have seen that being an admin is not always the most pleasant thing to do. I have learned that admins are nowhere near above Wikipedia rules — they are held to higher standards than the rest of us, and that is as it should be. Basically, admins are ordinary users with a few extra tabs at the top of their screens. Admins must be careful about the ways they exercise their powers, and those who aren't careful and judicious with such matters are not worthy of having admin powers.

I have wielded a mop and broom around here for sixteen thousand of your Earth years, and the time I've spent on meatball can be measured in terms of the time it took the last mammoth to breathe its last. Is that a serious question? I mean, why not ask how long they've spent on Usenet or Slashdot while we're at it? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The above adminship 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

---

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

Wayward

Final (17/3/2) , ended 02:00 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Wayward (talk · contribs · count) I'm quite honored to nominate for Wayward for adminship. He's been around since February and has over 2000 edits. For those who know, Wayward quietly copyedits many of the featured article candidates and many other articles with a rather decieving "minor edit" (which, if one looks at one such as [8] its rather major for a minor edit). Anyway, Wayward also reverts a bit of vandalism every now and then (with a decieving admin-like edit summary) and I think he could use the REAL revert button. Give him the mop!! :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept RN's gracious nomination. —Wayward 03:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as the nom :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support CambridgeBayWeather 02:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support for no obvious reason. — JIP | Talk 07:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Merovingian (t) (c) 15:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. He has shown a firm understanding of our policies, and I am sure he will use the tools wisely. Copyediting is a vastly underrated task in Wikipedia, Wayward is a prime example of a user making a very valuable contribution without necessarily adding reams of content. Rje 15:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support copyediting is more relevant to administrating than writing is. 2000 edits is more than enough. freestylefrappe 23:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support Good editor. Give him a mop. --Rogerd 01:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. Copyediting is a much-needed task, and users shouldn't be looked down on for focusing on it. --Aquillion 05:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support Wizzy…☎ 15:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
10. FireFox 16:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. Stereotyping "acceptable editing behaviors" for adminship seems counterproductive. Besides, Wikipedia needs better writing more than it needs new articles. Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. Seems unlikely to cause destruction. --Bjarki 02:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
13. -- (drini's page|☎) 03:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. El_C 03:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Good candidate. Nice to see a normal editor for a change. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 04:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support so long as you work on using more usertalk, especially in dealing with vandals:)--MONGO 08:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support -- Francs2000 23:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support Dlyons493 Talk 00:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. An admin should ideally contribute more to articles than simple copyediting. I think more experience of writing articles from scratch, or contributing to existing articles is necessary attribute for an admin. Astrotrain 14:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose Same reason as given by Astrotrain. Private Butcher 20:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
3. An admin should not regularly violate Wikipedia policy. In this case, the nominee's besetting sin is a lack of respect for previous editors' national spelling. Examples: [9] [10] [11] Shimmin 12:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assessment of my respect for other editors. I have never attempted to foist upon an article my preferred version of English. When I begin to edit an article, I try to determine what variety of English is most prevalent and standardize on that. Once I mistakenly changed an article from one version of English to another. It was brought to my attention on my talk page, and I apologized and changed the article back. As for the articles you site as evidence of my misdeeds, please take a look at the versions prior to my edits.[12][13][14]. Run any of those versions through a spell checker and you will see that they contain a mix of both American and British English. I did my best to standardize on one version of English. I may be a lot of things, but I am not disrespectful to anyone, and I do not push any particular version of English. I hope you will look into the links I have provided and perhaps you will change your opinion of me. —Wayward ^Talk 13:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Oppose per Journalist 7 talk page edits way too few --JAranda | watz sup 01:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I really want to support, as he is a very good editor (plus I trust the nominator), but 7 usertalk namespace edits are just too few. →Journalist >>talk<< 21:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Per Journalist. the wub "?!" 11:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Whoops - fixed voting link. Blame the nominator please :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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. I already revert vandalism, check for poor edits, and delete link spam of the articles on my watch list. As an admin I would expand my efforts to speedy deletions, page protection, and other admin functions as I become familiar with them.

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

A. That's a tough one as I'm mostly a copyeditor. I would have to say I take the most pleasure in copyediting feature article candidates, putting the finishing touches on the best of what Wikipedia has to offer. In addition to copyediting, I have added footnotes to a number of articles, including feature articles Exploding Whale and Tooth Enamel. I am also active in reverting vandalism and participating in MoS discussion.

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 haven't had a conflict with anyone so far. And while I have strong religious and political convictions, I check them at the Wikipedia door. However, I do avoid editing a handful of articles which I feel I maybe too emotional invested in. As far as dealing with future problems, I don't think I'll have any: I'll continue to contribute to those articles which I can and avoid the few which I feel uncomfortable with.

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.

---

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

RobyWayne

Final (20/4/3) ending 20:12 October 17, 2005 (UTC)

RobyWayne (talk · contribs) – Nominee joined Wikipedia in April of this year. He has been heavily active since August. He's done a large amount of work on redirection repair, disambiguation repair, stub sorting, category sorting and RC patrol. He's been active in AfD, frequently welcomes new users and tries to help them, and has been cool and level headed. What Kate has to say. He has also developed a script to update statistics on himself, which I've suggested he turn into a tool for all users. He exceeds all my standards for adminship, and I fully expect he'll meet or exceed most everyone else's as well. --Durin 21:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept this nomination. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist• E@} 20:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Per above. --Durin 21:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

   Support, thanks! >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist• E@} 20:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC) Please see comment below.

2. Support. Regardless of that mistake above. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Strong Support First off, Durin basically has RfA as his main focus on Wikipedia, so while his vote might not be as impressive as say, a Support vote from Boothy443, or seeing a Delete vote on WP:AFD from Kappa (both of which are incredibly rare for those of you who don't know them), his views carry alot of weight. Add to that point that he showed me some Wiki Brotherhood in supporting my my RfA and that his stats are far better than most Admin Candidates, and he definately has my vote as well as my support in trying to collect assistance in him becoming an admin.
   

   I'll go into more detail on my Wikiphilosophies page, but in my opinion, this so far has not been fair to RobyWayne in my opinion, and i'm appointing myself as his advocate here because i've seen too many good people make a mistake(or in this case, not even a mistake, you can vote for yourself if you like, it's just an unwritten rule that you shouldn't), and be unnecessarily hurt by it. Karmafist 00:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
   

4. Support Tintin 01:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support CambridgeBayWeather 02:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support because he voted for himself. Everyone has the right to vote on RfA. This kind of thing should be encouraged.  Grue  13:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Merovingian (t) (c) 15:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support script looks nifty and edit # suffices. freestylefrappe 23:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support even though he is a U of L guy :) Go Cats!! --Rogerd 01:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support, a positive user with a fantastic capability to contribute to cleaning (eg:link repair - ideal for admin activities. --Commander Keane 02:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
12. FireFox 16:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Oppose - The self voting does not bother me at all - it is an honest mistake that many Wikipedians make. Excellent, dedicated work on various cleanup tasks - these are very much appreciated here on Wikipedia. I would however, prefer to see marginally more edits to the Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk namespace. There are other areas in need on Wikipedia, such as WP:CP, WP:IFD and WP:RM. Should administrative functions be granted to you by the community, would you consider helping out at these places at your leisure? --HappyCamper 01:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

    HappyCamper, thanks for the comments regarding areas for improvement. I am constantly looking for tasks that I can perform to help the community. I did delve into WP:CP on a few occasions and, recently, was indoctrinated on the new db-copyvio category. I would have more WP:CP activity if I came across them more often in RC patrol, but am versed in how to handle the situation. Admittedly, I have not had involvement in WP:IFD and WP:RM, but have now watchlisted all these, plus WP:CP, and will take an active role after monitoring activity for a short while to get a handle on how things are run. Again, thanks for the tips and your guidance. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist • E@} 03:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

    What a difference a well thought out response like this makes! I get the feeling that you thoroughly believe in doing things better and better for Wikipedia, that you'd be willing to learn along the way, and that you'd stay level-headed when the "going gets tough" with holding the proverbial mop. This sentiment was not there when I went through your edits the other day. Your answer was one of the most frank and honest I've seen in a while here, and I liked it very much. It was very well balanced - and it made my day. Thank you. :-) -> Switched to support! --HappyCamper 00:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

14. Support--Kewp (t) 20:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support, RobyWayne does great work, and as Commander Keane noted, he has a very positive attitude. I believe he will make a fine admin. Robert 23:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support anyone can make a mistake. It's not clear that you must not vote for yourself. It's like on Afds when it's not clear that nominators need not to vote too (the nom itself is a vote unless explicitly stated) -- (drini's page|☎) 05:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. --ScottyBoy900Q 20:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support self-vote is a single mistake among otherwise well-judged contribution. Dlyons493 Talk 01:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support, as per HappyCamper and CommanderKeane. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Martin 15:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. You can't vote for yourself. Andre (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

   Let me clarify why this oppose remains: I believe RobyWayne did not, when he voted for himself, understand what a grant of adminship from the community means. People can change, but they cannot do so in a matter of days. I continue to oppose and perhaps will support at a later date if this nomination fails. Andre (talk) 02:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Andrevan. Been here actively for only 2 months, most edits are either user categorization and disambig, so I dont see th need for admin powers. Jobe6 02:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

   As I noted, nominee has been active in AfD, CfD, etc. 99 edits in those areas. He's also been active in RC Patrol. 64 edits in that area. Substantial areas of his work have been in cleaning and fixing. This is entirely in line with admin responsibilities. He's been on Wikipedia for six months. I spent much of my first months on Wikipedia just reading so I could learn the ropes. I expect he has done the same. With >4,000 edits which aren't being undone by others, I think he's demonstrated his skill and experience. Furthermore, you self nominated with half the # of edits he has, and with a similar amount of time actively editing, and a similar amount of time overall on Wikipedia (see Image:Jobe6-edits.gif). You didn't oppose yourself? :) --Durin 18:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

   Yes I would probably have voted oppose on myselft at the beginning of September now. but he only had a few edits in April and i had quite a few useful edits in November of last year. Also his edits are usually minor disambigs and redirects. I didnt see any major contributions of his that were outstanding. Jobe6 22:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

3. Oppose Astrotrain 17:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose for now - not enough time of heavy involvement in the project -- Francs2000 23:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, Good user, but voted for themself, which isn't good in my book. Private Butcher 22:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutral Not enough effort in article talk and not enough time in yet.--MONGO 03:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
3. I want an admin to have at least three months active - IMO it takes that long to become decently seasoned and get a feel for the community. If this round fails, try again in a couple of months ;-) - David Gerard 15:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• I apologize for the delay in my acceptance as a family emergency arose shortly after I was notified of the nomination. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist• E@} 20:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• I find myself apologizing again. ;-) I have been lurking and participating in RfAs for awhile. During that time I saw individuals list their name under support. It seemed pointless and I viewed it is as that individual saying "duh, why wouldn't I?". When the unexpected nomination came last week, Durin warned me to read the instructions related to RfA to make sure that I followed them to the letter. I even read the portion about "self-nominators" should not vote for themselves. I hesitated putting my own support on my own RfA as it seemed rather conceited. Again, it just didn't cross my mind in that regard as many have already noted that it probably should have. I still appreciate any and all comments on this RfA that has started off on the wrong foot to help me grow as an editor. I look at this as a learning experience. I will still have the same capabilities that I have today for fighting vandalism and blatant CSD's and my commitment to the project won't waiver....I'm addicted :-). >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist• E@} 22:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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. Chores have such a negative connotation.  ;-). When I wish to take a break from editing, I often find myself on RC Patrol. I enjoy perusing all of the new submissions to Wikipedia. Many of them are quite fascinating. Some articles, however, need some tender loving care. If possible, I will take a one- or two-line submission and attempt to expand on it, format it to Wikipedia standards, stub and categorize it for someone else with more experience on the topic to expand. Unfortunately, there are quite a few submissions which are definite (and blatantly obvious) candidates for speedy deletion. I especially like the addition of copyvio as a CSD category. Being an administrator would allow to me continue patrolling recent changes for the obvious offenders and handling them without creating a backlog for another administrator to take care of.

Also while on RC Patrol, I tend to focus on edits made by users that are not logged in and definitely on edits made by those individuals on User namespace pages. Having the ability to revert vandalism is an essential tool in keeping Wikipedia a clean and safe environment for everyone. It doesn't take long for me to manually revert vandalism, it just isn't as efficient as with "the button."

I would like to assist in the backlog related to unsourced images, AfD, CfD, TfD, and other areas of Wikipedia as needed. As can be seen from my contribution history, I am not afraid to tackle the sometimes mundane tasks that come with the mop and bucket.

Adding Copyright Problems, Images for Deletion and Requested Moves as stated in my response to User:HappyCamper above. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist • E@}

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

A. My first edit on Wikipedia was actually creating a new article for WAVE television. I was reading the Louisville, Kentucky page and surfed through some of the links and found them to be red. Whoa! At the top of the page it said I could edit here! I remember fretting for quite sometime comparing my fledgling article with other similar pages to see if I had all the i's dotted and t's crossed. Of course, I didn't. Shortly after creating the article, I learned about stubs and categories and having other people changing what you wrote!! It is truly an amazing experience to start that way.

Though some may not find disambiguation and redirect repair a rewarding opportunity, I feel that they can be a significant contribution to the ease of use and readability of Wikipedia. The more we aspire to make an easy-to-use repository of knowledge, the better we will be perceived as a community and a project. One could have the wealth of all knowledge on earth in one place, but if it is not easy to use or comprehend, most individuals would be turned off by it.

As noted above, RC Patrol is also a contribution to the community that I am pleased with. I endeavor to expand and correct where possible to keep articles of only a few lines and turn them into stubs, annotate them with appropriate stub and category tags and send them on their way.

I also enjoy welcoming new users. It is interesting to see all of the new "faces" as they come into the fold and introducing yourself to them and offering your support and assistance is gratifying.

Lastly, and not a direct contribution to Wikipedia in general, but to the editing community, the Durin-inspired statistical analysis that I put together in my spare time.

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 suppose that I have been lucky or uncontroversial in my editing that I have not run into any editing conflicts. I have no problem accepting constructive criticism of my work and am always looking to improve myself. When first joining Wikipedia, I had prepared myself for the presumed devastating affect of an AfD. Though, I haven't had an article I have worked on nominated for AfD, I did have a template I worked on nominated for TfD. Once I read what other individuals' thoughts were on the matter, I was persuaded to vote delete, as well. Working within a project of this size, I believe it is okay to assume an custodial role over certain articles or subject matter--but it is still a community of peers that is ruled by consensus. I think it is fair so long as there is active participation. Thus, I don't stress easily, enjoy communicating with other editors about their thoughts on matters and definitely try not to take anything personally.

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.

---

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

Cyberjunkie

final (63/0/0) ending 00:45 October 17 2005 (UTC)

Cyberjunkie (talk · contribs) – Cyberjunkie has been contributing to Wikipedia since November 2004. He has over 6300 edits, with about 2600 in the article namespace, and an even spread across the other namespaces. He would be one of the most level-headed contributors I've had the pleasure of working with. He makes good article contributions; is always cool even when the editing gets hot; never resorts to personal attacks and is quick to defend others against attacks; is free with compliments and encouragement, especially to newbies; does his share of vandal-fighting; and generally shows all-round good judgement and a friendly demeanour. Snottygobble | Talk 00:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept. Thanks for the kind words!–Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. In before sticky nominator. --Merovingian (t) (c) 08:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Excellent contributor to Adelaide and Australia-related articles. Frequently noticed having reverted vandalism. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support as per nom, an excellent contributor to work with. --Vsion 10:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support obviously. User:Hesperian 11:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
5. support - a dillegent and constructive editor. works constructively with others to solve problems, and I've never seen Cyberjunkie involved in petty squabbles (or even more serious disputes). Adz 12:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support, per nomination. Excellent Australian contributor. --bainer (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support, per nomination. Plays well with others Qaz ^(talk) 13:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Strong Support. Cyberjunkie is brilliant Australian editor whose work is always of a very high standard. Extending administrative privileges to Cyberjunkie will be of immense benefit to Wikipedia. -- Ianblair23 13:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Strong Support.User:SatuSuro 14:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Strong support. He should've been an admin months ago. Ambi 15:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. "I thought he already was one!" --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support I had no idea that CJ was not an admin. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support Private Butcher 18:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support Dlyons493 Talk 19:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support CambridgeBayWeather 19:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support per nom. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support--JAranda | yeah 21:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. I thought CJ was an admin, too. I am sure the name tag will give it away in the future. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist• E@} 21:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support Geoff/Gsl 22:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support Martyman 22:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support--nixie 23:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support - not already an admin? Astounding! If I had to start up my own wiki and pick fifty wikipedians to be admins on it, Cyberjunkie would be on that list. Give him one of those special gold-plated mops! Grutness...wha? 00:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support--User:AYArktos | Talk 00:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. RFA has had a lot of candidates lately, huh? Good thing that this one is another of the "excellent" kind. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Default support.  Denelson83  02:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Is it too late to add one more support vote? - Lucky 6.9 05:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Cool. --JuntungWu 07:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Exactly. Slac speak up! 09:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support. Why isn't he already? JPD 10:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. Friday (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support Astrotrain 17:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. →Journalist >>talk<< 21:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support {{Template:RFC cliche}} Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 00:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Support --ZappaZ 04:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support --Seems like he knows what he's doing ;) James Pinnell 05:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support — mæstro ^t/c4 05:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Support, has done very good work on Australia and New Zealand articles/portals, shows good judgement.-gadfium 07:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
39. Support: good candidate. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
40. Support Cyberjunkie is seen by me around the place and I happily support their admin-ing. Alf ^melmac 15:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
41. FireFox 16:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
42. Support - of course - a first rate Wikipedian. I'm amazed he's not an Admin' already.. ...en passant! 17:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
43. Support. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 23:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
44. Strong Support. ITHAWO. -- Chuq 00:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
45. Support; definitely. Antandrus (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
46. Support Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
47. Support. El_C 03:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
48. -- (drini's page|☎) 03:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
49. Support. the wub "?!" 11:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
50. Support. --NormanEinstein 14:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
51. You dare tell us what to do? You... you are a good and experienced editor! Cyberjunkie...

    Get

    out

    of

    my

    head! — JIP | Talk 14:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

52. Support, I've been waiting for this one! Alphax ^τεχ 11:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
53. Support. ∞Who?¿? 08:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
54. (CTU) 5002 rebotcO 51 ,24:01 ™RAVIKLA eciohc doog ...yug dedeah level troppuS
55. Support. --Bhadani 13:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
56. - Guettarda 13:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
57. Support. --Mozasaur 15:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
58. Support. Seems good enough.  BD2412 ^talk 05:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
59. What Nichalp said. encephalon 12:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
60. Support. a first rate user -- Ian ≡ talk 15:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
61. Support -- Francs2000 23:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
62. Support for an excellent contributor and editor --Saluyot 02:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
63. Support Nominator's name is pretty wierd. File:Smilie.gifMolotov (talk)
    04:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

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. I imagine my main sysop activity will be combating vandalism, something I do pretty frequently already. Although I tend to shy away from Afd – because I find the atmosphere a little…icky – I will continue to regularly vote there, and perhaps close some non-contentious discussions in the backlog. I also intend to assist newbie’s and other users, and to mediate in any conflicts taking place in any of the 2,300+ articles I currently monitor.

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

A. I don't keep a record of articles I either write or contribute to, so you'll have to review my contributions to get a more specific idea. In article space, though I do write new articles, I mostly expand upon or attempt to improve existing ones. My primary aim is to improve coverage of Australia- and Adelaide-related topics and issues, but I also dabble in more general articles. My major work has been in templates and portals.

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 suppose I've been relatively fortunate in that I've not been involved in any serious conflicts, and certainly none personal – although I was once called "bossy" by an editor with whom I have since worked amicably :). Any disputes about content I have with others or others have with me have been worked out constructively on talk pages. I've skirted around the Skyring issue but have recently become more involved, and am prepared to weigh-in further if necessary. Most importantly, I dislike confrontation and will seek compromise wherever possible. I find Wikipedia therapeutic; however, every-now-and-then I will be on a (leniant) Wikibreak due to "real life" circumstances.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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.

---

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

Robchurch

final (60/0/0) ending 00:20 Monday 17th October (UTC)

Robchurch (talk · contribs) – I have known Rob Church for some time now, both here on Wikipedia and on IRC; I have always been impressed with the quality of his work, his dedication to the project, and his civility and politeness. He has, amongst many other things, co-founded of the Featured Article Drive, and done a lot of vandal fighting. With 2,608 edits, across 1,438 pages, I feel that even the editcountitis sufferers should be suitably satisfied with this user's abilities as a Wikipedian. I wholeheartedly recommend this excellent fellow for adminship, and I look to the community to recognise his value as a prospective administrator. NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 00:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I accept this nomination with pleasure, and would like to thank Nicholas for making it. I would appreciate this opportunity to garner feedback about how I do things, and to begin correcting myself even as the discussion progresses. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAD} 00:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Why, of course. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 00:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support, I'm supporting, hopefully user will accept the nomination. Private Butcher 00:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support again. Good user, good person, goodgasell! Ral315 W_S 00:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support Promised myself that I wasn't going to vote until my RfA was over, but Rob deserves my early support. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 01:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support --Rogerd 01:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support Good egg. Good luck! Hamster Sandwich 01:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support exactly as before: "Going by previous interaction I expect he'll treat admin rights carefully and thoughtfully." Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support; eminently trustworthy. Should be an excellent admin. Antandrus (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. Kirill Lokshin 02:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Supp Ort. I keep seeing him around. ~~ N (t/c) 02:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support Goes without saying. Dlyons493 Talk 02:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support he isn't one? -Greg Asche (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support, good editor. Robert 02:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support CambridgeBayWeather 03:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support After reading what others have posted and looking through some of the user contributions I feel this would be a fine admin. Qaz ^(talk) 04:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support Good User --JAranda | yeah 04:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Andre (talk) 04:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Rob Church isn't an admin? You gotta be kidding me. --Merovingian (t) (c) 08:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
21. S'port certainly --Doc (?) 11:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support Seen him around countless times, and he's left a very positive impression. --JoanneB 12:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. And why not, eh? --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support, same as last time. Rje 17:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. He wants to delete unused fair use images, so I say let him.  Denelson83  20:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support, per nominator. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support, per nom.  BD2412 ^talk 20:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Extreme Chav Support! Administator Rob in da house! Acetic'^Acid 21:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support. Have bumped into him on RC Patrol and he was doing what I was doing so must be good ;-). >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist• E@} 21:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Oppose, gawd dammit! Nahh, just kidding, Support! I know him mostly from IRC where he is one of the coolest people around gkhan 22:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support even though I normally don't like supporting per nom, per nom. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support, RFA cliché No. 1. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support you actually notified redwolf and company of that RfAr... LOL :).Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support. We've gotten on each other's nerves more than once...but when all is said and done, Robchurch is a well-meaning, great guy. He truly is. :-) --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 21:03, 10 October 2005 (CDT)}
35. Support a good pick for sure.--MONGO 03:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support dedicated editor. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Cool. --JuntungWu 07:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Was suitable for admin last time already! Kim Bruning 10:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
39. You beat me to nominating him! - David Gerard 15:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
40. Phroziac^(talk) 20:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Support Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 22:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
42. Oh my, of course That's a support from this Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 00:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
43. Support again! :-) FreplySpang (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
44. support. Another good candidate. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

    He feels dedicated to Wikipedia as far as I know. Support.  Denelson83  02:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

    You have voted twice. I've indented your second vote so that it doesn't mess up the numbering. — JIP | Talk 10:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

45. Fools! Your comments are useless against us... me! We... I cannot be harmed! Erm, I mean support. — JIP | Talk 07:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
46. Support Ive seen this user around. →Journalist >>talk<< 15:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
47. Furry Alien Support no doubt about it. Alf ^melmac 15:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
48. Support. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 23:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
49. Support Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
50. Support. El_C 03:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
51. -- (drini's page|☎) 03:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
52. Support. the wub "?!" 11:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
53. Support. --Fire Star 02:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
54. Support- --Bhadani 09:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
55. Support keep up the good work mate.  ALKIVAR™ 10:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
56. "Support. $user is not an admin?" – ABCD✉ 04:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
57. Support! -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 20:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
58. Support. I could have sworn that I had voted, but apparently not. This one is a no-brainer. Here ya go, Linuxbeak | Talk 22:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
59. Very strong support, a very fine editor -- Francs2000 23:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
60. Support death to unqualified Fair Use! Alphax ^τεχ 23:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose, user's very first edit was to AfD. I find this worrying and possibly indicative of a hidden agenda. Alphax ^τεχ 09:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, I guess there's a perfectly logical explanation for that somehow... Alphax ^τεχ 23:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I can't explain exactly why my first edit as a registered user would be to a deletion discussion, but you are correct. I feel obliged to point out, however, that I had done some editing as an anonymous user prior to that event, and in addition, my opinion on that particular discussion was to merge the article. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 01:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• Previous nom: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Robchurch -Greg Asche (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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. I already do a considerable amount of recent changes patrol, specialising in new pages patrol. I also vote to keep useful articles on the various "for deletion" debates rampaging around. I'm also somewhat interested in cleaning our our copyright violations, especially the massive backlog of images with no source or licensing information. One of my most important roles, I feel, is in welcoming new users; people are our best asset, and I have customised templates to make them feel welcome. Mentoring new users is always an option, if they request it.

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

A. A tricky one; to narrow them all down. Well, my first major edit was to Federal Firearms License - it was the first article I really felt proud of afterwards. Since then, I've dipped my toes into a lot of things; many of which are articles I wouldn't necessarily have taken an interest in, but which I have been drawn to through new pages patrol; articles such as Wyatt Eaton, Mick Manning, etc. I am also the main organiser of the Featured Article Drive, which is now a helpdesk for those who'd like to see an article promoted to Featured Article status.

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. Well, I'm notorious in some ways for being one of the initiators of the Ed Poor arbitration case earlier this year. Myself, and two of the other initiators were able to reach a resolution with Ed, and I feel we all came out of that learning some lessons about consensus; something which really can never be underestimated. I generally avoid making edits to really controversial articles such as abortion and the like, but that is probably from a lack of interest in those subjects. I am firmly against edit wars, wheel wars and abuses of power, and always work to maintain consensus, keep the quality of articles up, and make sure everyone is happy with things.

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.

---

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

Nickshanks

Final (13/0/0) ended 11:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Nickshanks (talk · contribs); edit count; self-nomination. I have been mainly active in my interest areas of space, archaeology, british history, computing and linguistics for a year or so, and contributed articles about places in which I've lived or have visited, with sporadic contributions where I wasn't logged in. I also lightly contributed for a couple of years from various university IPs (147.197.*) but with no registered account. I am a bit of a grammar nazi and often make tiny changes here and there to spruce up pages, make tables prettier, use Unicode instead of HTML entities, fix hyphenation et cetera. I also revert vandalism wherever I see it, for example Planet. I have been involved in a couple of disputes as you can see from my talk page (as I am sure anyone who's been here long enough has). I hope that you are able to see I can resolve them amicably, either by explaining better what I was doing, or by admitting error and reverting changes.
I feel that a strong, consistent record over the past year, a level head when communicating with others, a varied spectrum of disciplins about which I am knowledgeable and solid contributions both large and small stand me in good stead for consideration as an admin on the English Wikipedia. I am also an admin on the Latin, and minor contributor to the French, Kannada, German and Old English Wikipedias, and use the Wikimedia Commons wherever appropriate for uploading images.

Support

1. Support Good consistent (not consistant) editor and obviously not such a grammar nazi after all! Dlyons493 Talk 16:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

   Oops, yeah well spotted Nicholas 18:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Support, yeah, what the heck. — JIP | Talk 18:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support --Rogerd 20:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
4. I give him the nod.  Denelson83  22:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support, Not the most active of users, but that's alright, active enough to have over 2000 edits (Not that I look at edit counts or anything) Private Butcher 22:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support CambridgeBayWeather 02:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Merovingian (t) (c) 08:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support Use edit summaries though please :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Cool. --JuntungWu 07:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support nearly three thousand edits. freestylefrappe 23:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

    Only two thousand of those are on article pages, the other 700‐odd are talk pages. Nicholas 23:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

11. Support sample checked a small amount of edits, good quality stuff on numismatic articles too. Alf ^melmac 15:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. El_C 03:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. --NormanEinstein 14:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. This user can be trusted. The Singing Badger 17:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

Questions
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. Primarily the same stuff I do now, but better :-) i.e. reverts to vandalism, moving images to Commons, etc. I will probably also take on a role deleting pages that ought not to be.

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

A. I tend not to write whole new articles, but where I do they usually stand unchanged for a long period of time. I suppose this is either because the are either very good or very obscure! The articles that I have written in their entirety, and which have not had people complain about or make substantial changes to, are the ones I feel have been accepted and welcomed into the community. Some examples are [1], [2],[3], [4], [5], [6] and just today [7]. The first of which I have had compliments about how interesting readers found it! The second and third are my most substantial single contributions.

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 have not felt stress at any point (yet, fingers crossed). I have a tendency to copy conversations into my own talk page so that when people reply I get notified and can follow the thread. It also mean that the disputes I have had are there for all to see. All have been resolved quickly and amicably, as I have explained in my nomination speech. I don't believe there's anyone on here who holds a grudge against me, at least, I hope there isn't! :-)

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.

---

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

Qaz

final (19/0/0) ending 04:54 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Qaz (talk · contribs) – Great future admin (modest too) Qaz ^(talk) 04:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I accept my self nomination.Qaz ^(talk) 05:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. CambridgeBayWeather 05:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Has been editing Wikipedia far longer than most. First edit: September 2001! Andre (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Deserves the dustbuster, unequivocally.  Denelson83  06:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support --Rogerd 07:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Qapla'! — JIP | Talk 09:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
6. The nomination statement alone gets my vote. :) encephalon 10:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Merovingian (t) (c) 10:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support Have come across him often and always has been pleasant and sound. Dlyons493 Talk 11:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support --JAranda | yeah 17:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
10. FireFox 17:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Strong support —through my interaction with this fine editor, Ive realised that Qaz is friendly, courteous and dedicated. One of the most deserving of sysop powers Ive seen since Ive been here. →Journalist >>talk<< 18:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support Private Butcher 22:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Cool. --JuntungWu 07:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
15. That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 08:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support Good wikipedian, good balance of namespaces for edits, too. ISTR I've seen a few welcome messages from Qaz too. This time, It's mop time! :) Grutness...wha? 11:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support I've seen this user doing good work on wikipedia. I vote yes!--Alhutch 15:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support in sheep mode, a number of editors I trust have led the way. Alf ^melmac 16:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. El_C 03:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

• I nominated myself once long ago when I was much newer. I was inspired by the "this should not be a big deal" and the requirements of good faith and support of the ideals of WP. I thought, "hey" I meet all that -- so I put my hat in the ring. It immediately became clear that this is much stricter process to get through than I had realized and that I would have to have more "meat on my bones" in order to get through with at least some left once I was done getting stripped down. So, I quickly removed my former self-nomination thinking I would see how it went at some point in the future. It is now that point. Qaz ^(talk) 05:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment please fix the RFA ending time. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Is there a link to your old nom, or was this before the time there were subpages for them? encephalon 10:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The previous one can be seen here. Qaz ^(talk) 01:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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. I would like sysop so that I can more easily deal with the vandalization of pages, be able to delete pages that require it when someone duly request it for the right reasons, and of course for the worldwide fame and respect I see bestowed upon Wikipedian admins at exclusive social events.

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

A. I am most pleased when I am able to start a new article that we need or when I am able to help others get past something they are stuck with.

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. Recently I was helping to fix the many vanalistic edits of what appeared to be a WOW incarnation. Not fun. I contacted others on user pages to get help dealing with the user. Also, I was in a debate a long time ago over what should happen to the article at Deaf but I think we were able to work it out on the talk page with only minor breaks of comity.

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.

---

User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (gotta love the name) has been around since February, is approaching 1,000 edits, and is an active member of the Wikipedia community. I think he would make a fine admin. -- Danny

Thank you for the nomination, i accept --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:50, 2004 May 18 (UTC)

My name is Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and i approve this message;) --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:48, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

Support:

1. Seems cool-headed (would you expect otherwise from someone from Iceland?) -- Viajero 11:53, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
2. Support - good choice. 172 13:23, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
3. Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (gotta love the name) has been around since February, is approaching 1,000 edits, and is an active member of the Wikipedia community. I think he would make a fine admin. -- Danny (taken from nominating statement, 172 13:28, 18 May 2004 (UTC))
4. Dori | Talk 13:53, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
5. Assuming that Ævar, son of Bjarmi, is not related to Halfdan the Half-troll, by way of Erik Njorl, son of Frothgar... --Wik 14:56, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
6. Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:04, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
7. Support. --"DICK" CHENEY 17:31, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
8. A user who receives support from Wik, something seen on this page about as frequently as the deity Ævar worships, has probably the most ringing endorsement one could possibly get. In fact, the sense of humor rather makes me wonder what impersonator got a hold of Wik's password. Anyway, I find nothing wrong, and the shortage of substantive edits is compensated for by the work on images. --Michael Snow 20:00, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
9. Angela. 21:30, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
10. Support firmly. Beelzebubs
11. Cool, cool-headed, nice hair_=) --Merovingian ↕ T@Lk 06:02, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
12. I suppose you'll tell me he wasn't one already. Fennec 19:21, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
13. Everyking 19:27, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
14. john 21:25, 19 May 2004 (UTC) My god, Wik supports somebody for adminship? And makes a joke? That's enough for me.
15. Agree with John. :-) Also, no big deal if he hasn't done a lot of content writing, as long as he's trustworthy and wants to pitch in on site maintainance. Isomorphic 21:41, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
16. Support. Notwithstanding 5/t typing errors. - MykReeve 22:47, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
17. Support. Fredrik 18:30, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
18. Support. Good image work. +sj+
19. Support. Nohat 14:20, 2004 May 22 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I'd want to see more substantive edits. Charles Matthews 15:41, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
2. Have to agree with Charles Matthews. Has about 800 edits but not enough breadth for me. About 100 of these concern Little Belt bridge, about 50 Flag of Iceland. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:30, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

   Although Wik's support shouldn't cause the editor to be "Crucified on a Cross of Wik," I don't see how this encouraged three users to support. Must be a full moon. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:56, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

3. Not yet enough community experience, IMHO. Kingturtle 06:07, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

• Charles Matthews: You are right that most of my edits here are not substantive, most of what i do here is pure maintanance, fixing licence notices, spelling errors ( adding and fixing them ;). I do however sometimes write/rewrite/expand articles such as Flag of Iceland, Little Belt Bridge (1935), Screenshot, WiX and currently Banjo-Kazooie, Cheers;) --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:26, 2004 May 18 (UTC)

• How do you pronounce your name :) ?? MvHG 09:59, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
  • As soon as i find some good howto on the International Phonetic Alphabet i will write my name in it on my users page, currently i dont however so i can't tell you;/ --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:39, 2004 May 22 (UTC)

---

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

Celestianpower

final (60/0/0) ending 21:31 October 15, 2005 (UTC)

Celestianpower (talk · contribs) – What's there to say about Celestianpower? He's among the kindest users I know among other things... Been here since April 17th and has amassed over 3000 edits for you editcountitus sufferers. He has over 500 user talk edits, so he interacts enough. He has ALMOST 500 Wikipedia edits, so he's familiar with Adminly things. And in the article space, approx. 1500. He's proved himself trustworthy, now toss him a mop. Redwolf24 (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you - yes, I accept. --Celestianpower ^hablamé 21:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support another great pick by Redwolf24! Redwolf24 (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. Great user =) Sasquatcht|c 21:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Cabal, er, um Support! -- Essjay · Talk 21:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support! Good user, civil, and active in the front lines (articles). Titoxd^(?!?) 21:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Ash Ketchum is to Kanto as Celestianpower is to Wikipedia. Extreme Analogic Support Acetic'^Acid 21:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Extreme Pimp Style Support Great User --JAranda | yeah 22:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. Kirill Lokshin 22:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support Kind user? we need more of those. I say support.. Gryffindor 22:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support Grutness...wha? 22:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
10. YYYEEEEEAAH! I was wondering when this one was going to run/be nominated. Keeps out neoligism and is in general a nice user. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
11. CAPS-LOCK KEY STUCK SUPPORT. Nufy8 22:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support (after two edit conflicts trying!) Shimgray | talk | 22:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support per cliche!  BD2412 ^talk 22:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support, even though I said I wouldn't vote anymore, I'm going to anyway I guess. Just so you know, I thought Celestianpower was already an admin. Private Butcher 23:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support, how can I not? -Greg Asche (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
16. S'port thought you were --Doc (?) 23:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support, did i already say support. feydey 23:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 00:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Strong support. One of the friendliest and most responsible Wikipedian Ive met. I didnt even know you were running, and once again, Reds was one step ahead of me:) →Journalist >>talk<< 00:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

    I had to add him to User:Redwolf24/Nominations! Redwolf24 (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

21. Support. Unconditionally.Shelburne Kismaayo 00:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support CambridgeBayWeather 03:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support I've interacted with this user - will be good admin, mop him. Go the musicabal (tinc). Alf ^melmac 05:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support the heavenly power =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
25. ¡Apoyo Español Extremo! - FireFox 07:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support, again. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Extreme cælestial support with extra dark matter! I've had much experience with this user. — JIP | Talk 07:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support Seems eager and willing to do the dirty work. Good luck! Hamster Sandwich 07:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support --Rogerd 07:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support. Should have been made a sysop last time, and most definitely this time. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Yes. encephalon 10:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Merovingian (t) (c) 10:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Extreme [INSERT WITTY COMMENT HERE] support! All power to Celestian! sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 11:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Strong Support A truly great editor who keeps beating me to vandal reversion. I thought he already was an admin? Banes 11:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

    If you're refering to my revert summaries, I downloaded godmode light. I'd never be able to live without it although I hear that the original one that comes with Adminship is much faster. I may be wrong. --Celestianpower ^hablamé 11:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

35. Strong support this time, last time, every time. Great work on the PAC and related projects! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 17:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support - Enthusiastic and assiduous; deserves it. --Baryonic Being 18:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Support. Robert 20:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
39. Support this fine user. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 02:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
40. Haven't had any prior interaction with this user, but a quick assessment makes me think he'd be a good admin. Everyking 06:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Cool. --JuntungWu 07:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
42. Support a name I see frequently 'bout the place doing good work.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
43. Go for it!Tan DX 09:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
44. Support. Seems like a good user (though I am hesitant to support anyone who works extensively on Pokemon). I'm going to hold you to your pledge to take care of CSDs though. -R. fiend 17:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
45. Support means the rest of us have less to worry about re Pokemon Dlyons493 Talk 20:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

    Yes, improving the articles saves you a lot of time in not having to vote on their AfD's:L they don't have any! Never though of that one, thank you. --Celestianpower ^hablamé 22:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

46. Support Absolutely.--MONGO 01:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
47. Support. the wub "?!" 13:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
48. You think correctly. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
49. Support. El_C 03:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
50. -- (drini's page|☎) 03:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
51. Support. Very friendly, very helpful. --JCoug 14:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
52. Support - looks like a great editor to me, and puts in loads of top work on A Series of Unfortunate Events articles! CLW 19:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
53. Support - A good, and friendly, editor who I can trust to use admin powers well. Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
54. Support --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
55. Strong support -- The guy is very keen to make Wikiportals history. -- Svest 21:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;
56. Support - yes, without hesitation. --HappyCamper 21:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
57. Support. -- DS1953 05:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
58. HELLLOO!! Who couldn't or wouldn't support? ∞Who?¿? 08:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
59. Support. --Bhadani 08:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
60. - Guettarda 13:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Celestianpower - first nomination.

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. I am active in the Punctuation WikiProject and my word do I see the back end of Wikipedia there... Copyvios, speedy delete candidates (well, they're the same thing really) and I would love to sort them out on the spot. I would also like to help with VAfD closes and the odd vandal block wouldn't go a miss for my long hours gazing at my watchlist.

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

A. In terms of major contributions, I am very pleased with my work on the A Series of Unfortunate Events coverage, that at the Pokémon Adoption Center and Pokémon Collaborative Project and on my local area. I am also however proud of my recent involvement with WP:JETFA (wikifying articles despite the dubious title) and the punctuation wikiproject which goes way beyond adding in full stops.

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. As part of the WP:PCP and WP:PAC, I have been in a lot of heated discussions about Pokémon lists, merges and general notability but feel I have acted with civility at all times. My most major disagreement was with User:A Man In Black but I recently nominated him for adminship and he passed with flying colours. I respect him and I think he respects me.

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.

---

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

ScottyBoy900Q

Final (35/12/1) ended 05:12 16 October 2005 (UTC)

ScottyBoy900Q (talk · contribs) – I feel kinda awkward doing a self-nom, but I've been around Wikipedia for a couple years now and feel it's time I try for adminship. I spend my time in a variety of ways. I'm very interested and participate in uploading images, especially with uploading ship images for naval craft. I also have spent considerable time voting on featured pictures. Aside from images, I spend my time editing subjects, mostly history, that i'm interested in. A bit of my time lately has been spent discussing the need for a possible Featured Diagrams listing. I'm coming up on 2,200 2,600 edits and a definite wikiholic. Wikipedia is such a great resource and I think that through my objectivity and usually neutral point of view, I could be a good admin.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Selfnom, accept. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 05:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Grant him the mop.  Denelson83  05:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

   My support is now much stronger.  Denelson83  22:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Merovingian (t) (c) 06:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support CambridgeBayWeather 07:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support Not all admins have to be active all the time. There are over 1000 500 of them, and some of them are not very active. It doesn't mean that they don't do good work. There is no reason that any user who has some experience in wikipedia and has shown that they can be trusted shouldn't be an admin. --Rogerd 18:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

   Actually we only have around 600 of us =(. Sasquatcht|c 06:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

5. Support 2200 edits is more than enough. freestylefrappe 20:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support because we need more good admins! Sasquatcht|c 06:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support, confident that he will not misuse admin powers. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support I don't know this editor much, so I sample checked some of their edits and all seems fine to me. Alf ^melmac 08:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support ScottyBoy's edits speak for themselves. His edits are quality and while he has quantity going for him as well, it is the quality of his edits that wins my vote of support. --Caponer 23:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support as per Caponer, Alf. Hamster Sandwich 01:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support Scotty just sent me a request on my own talk page about supporting his adminship. -- Mike Garcia | talk 02:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support I see no reason to not support him.PiccoloNamek 03:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support We had a slight disagreement recently, but he was most reasonable about it. I'm sure he will be an excelent admin and try to do what is right. Raven4x4x 06:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support Really good user and I often find his analysis of a photo on FPC exactly what I would say. Very nice guy, and I certainly don't think that his edits are not enough. You can't expect someone to always to be active - most people (I think) have a life aside from Wikipedia and can't be expected to be glued to the screen 24/7 (not that such users aren't extremely valuable). Anyway I agree totally with his idea's on diagrams on FPC - in my opion they don't belong. --Fir0002 09:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. I'm confident that he will be a valuable addition to the ranks of administrator. Enochlau 10:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. —wwoods 00:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support... after all, he's from Wild, Wonderful, West Virginia! –Uris 01:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
18. That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 08:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support  Grue  13:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. No substantial reason to oppose. "Campaigning for a delete vote", I have to say, is quite routine and desirable admin behaviour. Slac speak up! 20:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Strong support per Slac; putting in extra effort should be rewarded not punished. freestylefrappe 23:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. Self-awareness and humility, as expressed in reaction to the opposition's comments below, is how I know that an admin will strive to act responsibly, and will work to correct mistakes. Stan 02:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. I think I was too hasty and harsh opposing. After taking a closer look at this editor's record, I see a long time contributor who generally interacts well with others. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 14:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. See no substantive current issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. ScottyBoy900Q has rightly and judiciously raised questions about editors working on articles about themselves, a very difficult issue that a lot of us haven't had the guts to touch. I don't see that as a reason to oppose. Chick Bowen 02:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. --Bjarki 03:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support. El_C 03:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support User meets my admin requirments on my userpage. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 01:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support Monicasdude 18:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support. Guy who's leading the opposition is retaliating. No spurious AfD, almost half responses say he's non-notable or borderline case. Tanya! Ravine 20:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. -- DS1953 05:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support --Celestianpower ^hablamé 07:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support MONGO 12:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support. With respect with the AFD incident, everyone is allowed to have one bad day. And while RFA campaigning is a bad thing, it does not strike me as a reason to oppose a candidate. Titoxd^(?!?) 17:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Support Seems like a good editor, reasons for oppose are lacking to say the least. Martin 23:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Been here for over a year, and only has over 2000 edits, user doesn't seem active enough to me, to be an admin. Private Butcher 16:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC) I now oppose for reasons that have been brought before me. Private Butcher 21:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

   How many have been over the last few months though? I think i've been a lot more active than most in that time period. Been here for over a year does not equal has been active for over a year. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 17:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

   But you should be active at all times. I don't want an admin that'll be active for a few months, leave for awhile, come back then be active for a few months again. That's why I'm opposing. Private Butcher 17:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

   Its totally unreasonable to ask a person to be active at all times. People have family issues that must take priority over wikipedia. I'll discuss in private with you the reason I was absent if it will put your mind at ease, it's not something I need to prove myself on here on this page. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 17:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

   Fine, I've retracted my vote. Private Butcher 17:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose. A recent spurious AfD is a bad sign (and doesn't reflect knowledge of notability guidelines). (restored per Fawcett5) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

   Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is voting to oppose because I listed a page, of which he is the subject matter, up for deletion as it seems to me to be a vanity page for self promotion. If this is of concern to you, please check out the AfD here and see for yourself why this user is voting no. If you feel so inclined, cast a vote to keep or delete as well while you are there. --ScottyBoy900Q 18:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

   I was aware of the guidelines as a matter of fact. That's not really what I was protesting by listing it for deletion. I'm just a little concerned the article is extremely prejudiced as you yourself have done a considerable amount of the editing to the article. --ScottyBoy900Q 23:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

3. Oppose - I withhold judgement about whether the above mentioned Vfd vote was spurious or not (the old Vfd vote was a resounding keep). However, when ScottyBoy900Q set up the new Afd, he simply overwrote the archive of the old discussion instead of creating a new Afd article. This to me clearly indicates that he has insufficient knowledge of administrative procedure at this time. I would be happy to reconsider my vote in a few months when he has demonstrated more knowledge about "the way of the wiki". Fawcett5 21:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

   Can you please show me where the directions are for listing articles that had already been voted on that come up again? I didn't just delete the previous vote page, it can be found right here. I didn't want the new article to show up as a possible 2nd vote, that is why i kept it on the original voting page and moved the archive to the new one. No one else seems to have had any problems finding it. --ScottyBoy900Q 22:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

   Well, now I see that the situation is even worse than I first suspected. You did NOT create an archive, what you did was execute a forbidden cut and paste move that fails to preserve the page history. As I cannot see the edit history in the so-called archive, we are just expected to take your word for it that this is what everybody actually said last time around. Anybody that wants to be an administrator should know enough not to make this beginners mistake. In any case, the usual practice is to leave the old Afd article alone and to create a new one titled something like "Pagenamefordeletion 2" or some such. Once again, if you had been around long enough, you would know this. I reiterate that I would be willing to reconsider in several months. Fawcett5 12:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

   Yeah I guess you're right. I should have known better. I'm fully aware of how to do a move properly (as you'll see i'v done it plenty of times before). I just wasn't thinking i guess since I don't often deal with AfD. --ScottyBoy900Q 13:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

4. Oppose I rarely oppose a nomination, but feel I need to in this instance. What drew my attention in the first place was the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Mertz incident. While one can see reasons for putting the article up for deletion, I wan't very happy with the tone of the nomination and there is some evidence of ScottyBoy900Q campaigning for a delete vote which is unbecoming in a potential administrator. Also this is a self-nomination and there is evidence of campaigning for support - allowable, but it bothers me a little. All in all, oppose this time round, but hope to be able to support in a few months time. Dlyons493 Talk 20:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

   Just for note, to put David's mind at ease I not only informed the people who voted against the article, I also contacted all the people that SUPPORTED keeping it. There were certain conditions that I feel were placed, namely David not editing the article anymore, that just weren't met. The fact that David is so stuck on himself and feels his article HAS to stay here is one reason we got into a debate. All of my arguments though were for the sake of preserving the integrity of wikipedia, when we start allowing complete vanity articles exist here, I feel we're doomed. What other kinds of other unimportant non-notable stuff will be posted after that kind of thing is allowed. --ScottyBoy900Q 21:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

   Actually ScottyBoy900Q initially notified only editors who had previously voted "delete". After I complained of this behavior, he reluctantly agreed to also notify the previous "keep" voters. After that, he engaged in quite active campaigning for his self-nominated RfA (and in the course of that made quite snide comments about the AfD vote, and my opposition to it. Overall, very unbecoming of an admin, IMO. And it seems somehow hypocritical to complain that I made autobiography edits (which are completely NPOV, and far more minor than the AfD purports), while simultaneously self-nominating for administratorship. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

   David is correct, originally i notified those people because I figured they were the ones who's mind might have changed. As far as snide, let's not even go there. People can see for themselves when looking at your arguments and the way you talk down to everyone what kind of person you are. People have told me since I nominated myself they would have nominated me if i would have expressed interest. This whole episode started when David over-reacted about me not thinking he was important enough to need an article. I am perfectly happy to let the voting take its place and have the outcome be the outcome. I told him I would appologize for offending him after the voting was completed. He just seems unable to let it go and accept that other people may not view him as significant or important enough to have his own article. He has accused me of secretly talking to other people through non WP channels about listing him for deletion, which is completely outrageous. He has also campaigned for his voting as well, leaving messages on people talk pages and asking them to vote. While I see nothing wrong with this, as I have done it myself obviously, David seems to have developed a personal vandetta against me and anyone who would vote to delete his page. --ScottyBoy900Q 23:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

   No, this is plain wrong: and is really the exact reason I think ScottyBoy900Q isn't temperamentally suited to administratorship just yet. My issue didn't start because Scott "didn't think I was important enough for an article." It started because the AfD nomination was quite dishonest in tone, purporting a number of false, or at least dissimulative things (mischaracterizing my edits to David Mertz; trying to pretend earning a Ph.D. is identical to being admitted to an M.A. program; claiming a vanity-press book with no ISBN is the identical to a book from Addison-Wesley; and overall just a really snarly and combative tone). FWIW, I wouldn't make a good admin either; largely for the same reasons ScottyBoy900Q wouldn't—but then, I'm not nominated, and wouldn't accept if I was :-).

   Frankly, the AfD nomination is just plain wrong per noteriety guidelines. I can accept that ScottyBoy900Q hadn't seen the Google scholar results, Alexa ranking, 85k Google hits, or evidence of 500k-ish readership at the time of nomination. People make mistakes. But a good admin shouldn't dig in his heels and stick to his guns after making a mistake; rather, he should correct it as best possible (i.e. change his nomination text and vote, and apologize for the judgement error). That's exactly opposite to what ScottyBoy900Q has done. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

   Once again, these are all thing David has come up and created on his own. The nomination was NOT dishonest and nothing was purported incorrectly. Quite frankly, there hasn't been a judgement error as far as I'm concerned. David created the idea on his own that I said anything along the lines of an MA being identical to a Ph.D., not did I ever make a claim that my book was anywhere on the scale as he claims his to be. He also claims that I reluctantly contacted his orignal supporters which is also completely false. There was no reluctance about it. I did it because it was the right thing to do and as soon as he had a complaint I took the liberty of doing it. As far as those accusations go, feel free to read my wording on your own and you will see that David has made these factors up himself and it never got out of tone until David starting taking personal offense to having the page listed for deletion. As a matter of fact, I never said anything at all about MA's or Ph.D.'s until David decided to compare them himself. I informed him it was important, as stated on the deletion page, that he not take anything personally, but it seems he has been unable to do so. --ScottyBoy900Q 23:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

   Yes please follow the link, and read the AfD comment: I myself have published books, have taught classes, and have many of the same qualifications as this man seems to have, but I don't feel the need to glorify myself or make a completely vanity-like article.. Then decide if you want an admin who writes in that tone (and given that Scott explicitly claims that being admitted to [not completing] an M.A. is the same credential as earning a Ph.D.; and the thing with vanity and major publishers). Look: if he had claimed "only publishing one book isn't enough" that would be fine (though no follow noteriety guidelines; and in this case miss that most of my readers are in periodicals), but his actual tone is plain dissimulation and false insinuatino. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

   Simply amazing. As I mentioned in my last post, i never said anything at all about M.A.'s or Ph.D.'s so thats not an issue in any way shape or form except in David's head. I have said (on my user page) that i am in the Master's program and have never one single time equated that to having or being a Ph.D. student. It's childish to even bicker about that point as it is only you making that an issue. And as far as the other material goes, I HAVE been published and I HAVE taught classes. This whole issue winds down to you taking personal offense to this (which you absolutely shouldnt). I listed the article for deletion because i truely believe it covers non-notable subject matter. The whole point of voting is to get other people pov on that issue. And as I keep saying time after time, i'm fine with whatever people decide on. Relax and stop taking it personally. If you weren't a wikipedian and there was no one to argue for keeping the article, it would be deleted in a heartbeat. --ScottyBoy900Q 00:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

   It's exactly the opposite. If I weren't a Wikipedian, no one would have nominated it for AfD, or voted for deletion. The delete votes are almost exclusively on the grounds of your false claims that my edits violated NPOV. Well, two or three people with some personal animus about past editing conflict (yeah, I'm gruff). It's still hard for you to back away from your comment: many of the same qualifications, I think. I don't think everyone with a Ph.D. should have an article, by any means, but to even for one moment equate earning a Ph.D. with being admitted to a Masters program shows just how very inexperienced you are to the academic world (and you can't even bring yourself to write "earning a Ph.D.", but in every instance equivocate with just being a Ph.D. student). I think in your edit history you write about some military stuff: imagine if someone completely failed to understand or acknowledge that the difference between a General and Major rank really means something, it's not the same qualification. If you ever earn a higher degree (no, not a masters), you'll eventually be able to understand just how youthful you were this year. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

   Well, I'm fine leaving this conversation as it is. As I continue to say, you're the only person hung up on the M.A. vs Ph.D. so i'll leave that alone. I wouldn't equate MA's and Ph.D.'s as I am fully capable or seeing the difference between them. By saying i've accomplished many of the same things as you, i did not necessarilly mean in terms of academics. I'm sure with everything else i've done in my life i could come up with an equally encyclopedic article (not that I ever would). And to be honest, I still think I would have listed the article for deletion regardless as I still do not believe you are as important as you think you are (that's what the voting is for and i'll still be big enough after all this to appologize when the voting is over). Drop me a line on my talk page if you would like to continue talking...its getting to be a bit entertaining actually and i'm sure you're a good guy aside from this issue. --ScottyBoy900Q 01:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

5. I'm not a big fan of RfA campaigning, if this one fails I'd be happy to vote in support in a few weeks on an RfA without it. --fvw* 22:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose I think a prospective admin should have enough involvement in the community that they don't have to spam users talk pages soliciting votes, It looks to me like bad form to cut and paste notes asking for support. It comes from a fairly narrow particapation history, I think an admin needs to have wider experience to have the backround to act on policy. There isn't much work on some of the activities listed in the first question, most don't need any admin powers to at least pitch in, no reason to jump on in some of those backlogs! Vote reinstated after reading User:Flcelloguy's qoute and realizing that nominee challenged six of the voters, he just doesn't show that he has any real grasp of policy/pratice here. Rx StrangeLove 03:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

   I certainly appreciate the opinion, and would have to say that most of my activities have been pretty theme specific and i usually do not have a lot of contact with the people involving my edits for some reason. One thing I really would like to start doing would not necessarilly require adminship but would certainly help. I'd like to be more active in the welcoming committee and publicity issues where adminship would be helpful to have. Im not trying to get it just to have it. And I see nothing wrong with asking people for their opinions or votes. If they feel my contributions have been unacceptable i would expect they would vote to oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q 04:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

   Personally, I like that he informed me that he was up for adminship. Not everyone in this community follows the RFA page religiously, so I found it to be a chance to vote for a candidate I found suitable in an instance where I probably wouldn't have checked the RFA page (I usually check it maybe once or twice a month). Mike H (Talking is hot) 08:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

   I agree with User:Mike Halterman above. I think that in no way should asking people to take a look at their nomination be counted against them. In most cases, if someone has worked on a particular area for quite a bit, the people he/she has worked on would probably know that editor best, and those editors might not necessarily check this regularly (I certainly don't - I have better things to look at). Enochlau 08:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

   That's what watch lists are for, you don't need to check this regularly. Asking for votes is just another way of gaming the system, people don't spam talk pages of those that might oppose, they ask editors they think will support. Rx StrangeLove 18:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

7. Oppose For spamming of user pages alone. Is the RFA process turning into something akin to a US presidential campaign? -- Egil 06:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

   I don't really see how that is a problem. If ScottyBoy hadn't told me about it personally, I wouldn't have even known about this. Enochlau 08:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

8. Oppose Votes for self in self-nom and a cutnpaste AFD. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

   I went ahead and removed the self vote as after reading further...you are correct and I should have left that off. I've seen plenty of other people do it in the past so I just assumed it was a common practice. As far as the cut/paster AfD issue, no one has been able to provide me with clear instructions posted anywhere about what to do in that case. I have admitted that was done as a last resort as I did njot want to start a new vote with the old information on the page. --ScottyBoy900Q 22:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

   The self-vote has benn deleted from the page so that one has to visit the page history to see it. RobyWayne above is receiving a lot of flack for a self-vote but has just struck it through leaving it visible for new potential voters and this seems to me to be better practice. It says at the top of this page that self-noms should not vote for themselves, it's surprising that aspirant admins miss it so often - should it should be bolded or added to the nomination form? Dlyons493 Talk 01:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

   Oppose, based on the behavior I see on this RFA and the AFD that's mentioned. I'm open to reconsider in the future. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC) (changed vote, see above)

9. Oppose for vote-pimping. Proto t c 08:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose based on comments above.  ALKIVAR™ 10:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Oppose — not only do the AfD and the self-vote worry me, but this comment from above to Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters: People can see for themselves when looking at your arguments and the way you talk down to everyone what kind of person you are. It doesn't matter how heated the argument is or how frustrated you are, but I don't expect admins to insult other Wikipedians or to infer that someone is a bad person. While I feel you are a good contributer, I just don't think you're ready yet. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 18:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Oppose. I wasn't the b'crat who extended this (though I believe the extension merited) and I won't be the promoting or removing b'crat, but as often happens with extensions, nothing definitive has happened. Voting as an editor, not as an admin, I believe that the substantive objections in both content and number indicate that this nomination should be brought up again at a future time. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This last vote from Cecropia came in 10 minutes late so im not sure that it counts....but I wanted to address it because I actually think the issues brought up by the opposers all revolved around one major issue that was heavily promoted by a certain user. The comments all really deal with the AfD, which was ultimately voted down, but had a great deal of support. The issue of the AfD was blown way out of proportion by this certain user simply because he took the deletion vote way too personally and sought to ultimately avenge my listing his article for deletion by campainging/hampering the voting here. --ScottyBoy900Q 05:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The issue, however, was never that you wrote an AfD, but the unprofessional tone you took both in the AfD, here on this page, and in spamming many editors to solicit delete votes. Moreover, the multiple administrative errors you made recently were the actual reason for many oppose votes here, not anything about the AfD. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Since the candidate responded directly to my vote, let me say this: I am expressing my opinion as to where I believe this nomination stands as a non-promoting/removing individual. As another bureaucrat(s) will make the final determination, the numerical effect of my vote is not, IMO, material but I would expect its substance to be taken into account (agree or disagree with my analysis) when a decision is made. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Suggest that interested parties read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Mertz which is what is being referred to in the above comment about A recent spurious AfD. Dlyons493 Talk Dlyons493 17:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

1. The cut and paste was unfortunate, but was certainly an error, and can presumably be undone by an admin if necessary. I don't think this RfA should be turned into an RfC on the AfD – what a lot of abbreviations! In my view, the timing of it showed poor judgment from a would-be admin for his own sake, but if it had been done in bad faith, he would surely have waited until the RfA was over. It's worth noting, also, that ScottyBoy is not the only one to recruit votes [15]. I would hope that anyone who feels that the David Mertz article should be kept would vote accordingly in the appropriate place, rather than here. By the way, I'm voting neutral because I don't know enough about ScottyBoy to decide whether or not he'd be a good admin. One piece of advice I'd give is that you need to use edit summaries more frequently. Your nomination will probably pass next time. Good luck! Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 22:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Upon further review of the recent spurious AfD, the opposition's arguments seem to be based more off of sour grapes than off of pure objective criticism. Fawcett was able to produce one situation in which the contributor in question did not follow administrative procedure to a tee. If we were to judge all administrators on singular slip-ups here and there...we wouldn't have many admins to criticize or to vote down. Just as I believe that the David Mertz article would have been easily deleted if he hadn't been a contributor himself, I believe ScottyBoy would have been easily confirmed without harsh opposition if he hadn't have taken action against this one article. He should be judged by his body of work, not by this one instance.--Caponer 00:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• FWIW, at least the votes of Tanya Ravine and Monicasdude are solely meant to disagree with me, rather than to express any opinion on ScottyBoy900Q. Neither, certainly had ever heard of teh RfA before casting this vote (via links from the failed David Mertz AfD. Take it or leave it. The rest of the support votes are certainly quite sincere. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• • FWIW, Lulu/Mertz is simply fabricating a statement of my motives; he's been engaged in a long-running vendetta against me since I slighted his (quite inaccurate) comments about "fair use" on a talk page some months ago. His malicious comments should shed light on his motives for opposing this nomination, qhich are quite inappropriate. Monicasdude 18:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Before voting ends, I just wanted to say that I am sorry if there were any hurt feelings regarding the RfD. It was done with the best of intentions. I definitely would not have put the article up for deletion at the same time as voting was open on my adminship if I was doing it for a negative reason. It's unfortunate that some of the votes (both supporting & opposing) on here were simply products of that deletion vote and really have nothing to do with whether or not I'd be a good administrator. I also believe that some of the opposing comments are misguided in the sense that they really all reflect one single thing and not my overall ability/contributions to wikipedia. --ScottyBoy900Q 05:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

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. As an admin I hope I'll be able to do a few more things than I do now, including joining the group who welcomes newcomers, being more diligent in monitoring vandalism, and also monitoring new pages. I would like to continue to be an active member of the featured picture community and also get a bit more involved in finding and fixing copyright issues. I am also starting to get involved in working on ways to promote Wikipedia, either through the media or maybe a campaign through universities (that's something i've just been giving a lot of thought lately)

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

A. I rather like the work I've done in regards to the Baltimore Maritime Museum and each of the articles branching off of it. They definitely aren't that impressive, just something dear to my heart. I also think i've done a good amount of work i'm proud of in regards to some musical band templates and also of course my work in finding ship images which I have spent considerable time on.

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 Have never really been involved in any edit wars, but I have definitely gotten into some heated discussion. A big issue I brought up recently is that I don't think it's fair to judge diagrams/charts using the same criteria as we judge photographs and pictures on. That's an ongoing discussion but I believe I've been able to prove my point and bring the issue into people's minds.

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.

---

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

Jossifresco

Vote here (45/2/0) ending 01:09 October 15, 2005 (UTC)

Jossifresco (talk · contribs) – Jossifresco is a great guy, he does RC patrol all the time and is active in the community. In addition to the usual admin stuff, he is working on actual articles (getting Human up to FA status), which is sorely lacking in some admin candidates these days. kate's tool has him at around 4600 edits, with plenty of those being to the wikipedia namespace, for those who care about editcountis. -Greg Asche (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 01:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support As nominator (almost forgot, but Essjay reminded me. Thanks Essjay) -Greg Asche (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. (You're welcome, Greg.) -- Essjay · Talk 01:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support Good User --JAranda | yeah 01:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support Good janitor --Rogerd 02:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support as per Essjay (in all things, unto Essjay) -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{03:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)}
6. Support, I've seen this user around. →Journalist >>talk<< 03:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support This user removes vandalism a lot and had a high edit count ---- ☺Adam1213☺|talk 03:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

   That's got to be the winner of the coveted "gaudiest signature ever" award. --Durin 15:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

8. Support. Thoughtful on substance, works toward consensus, and takes initiative on grunt work. — RDF ^talk 03:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. Agree with GregAsche and RDF. In addition, he responds promptly and courteously to messages on his Talk page, takes time to explain things, and graciously accepts edits and suggestions by others. Finell 03:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Private Butcher, your standards are absurdly high. Andre (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support see him around all the time and is very sound. Dlyons493 Talk 05:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Merovingian (t) (c) 06:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support CambridgeBayWeather 07:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support, active vandalfighter with good judgement. --JoanneB 08:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support, this guy is an excellent vandal fighter. Rje 11:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. First rate vandal-fighter! Owen× ☎ 12:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support I wouldn't think that editcountitis would be an issue with 4600 edits! This user has a good way of dealing with other users. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 13:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support should be good admin. Alf ^melmac 14:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support a fellow RC patroller. Robert 15:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
20. double support this guy really deserves the adminship, he's helping us a lot with RC --(☺drini♫|☎) 15:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
21. support he did good on vandal-busting and 4,600 edits is way plenty. --Isolani 15:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
22. FireFox^esp 17:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support; yes, definitely. Lots of good work, including versus vandals, for which he could use the keys to the admin closet. Antandrus (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support - yes! A valued member of the community we can trust with the mop. --HappyCamper 19:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. Kirill Lokshin 20:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
26. S'port vandal-slayers need weapons --Doc (?) 08:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Yes. encephalon 10:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 17:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support I was about to revert some vandalism on Periodic Table, only to see that Jossi had beaten me to the punch. That and his vote for my Rfa make this an easy choice. Karmafist 23:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support Vandal patrolling is often a thankless job. Jossi's adminship will at least make it a more efficient thankless job. Jkelly 16:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. Troll-slayers deserve the mop and the flamethrower! Titoxd^(?!?) 02:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Cool. --JuntungWu 07:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. Friday (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support, (I almost missed his RFA!). Excellent contributor to hundreds of articles and a good vandalfighter. Worked with him extensively on the Prem Rawat collection of articles last year, and I admire his capacity to withstand abuse, personal attacks and the stress that came with it. Since these early days, Jossi has shown that he is a valuable contributor to this project and is most deserving of the mop and bucket! --ZappaZ 04:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. Good vandal slayer. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support for all of the reasons given above and for his contributions to the troubled article List of people who have said that they are gods. --goethean ॐ 16:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support. Intersofia 22:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Support. El_C 03:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
39. Strong support I came here by accident, I was on Jossi's user page to ask him for help with a page badly wounded and desperately in need of attention. I know him to be a thoughtful neutral party, working together with him bringing Human towards FA status. If only Jossi were an admin, he could be even yet more helpful! Sam Spade 21:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
40. Support. To me Jossi represents new thinking, something desparately needed. Like me he prefers an emic POV on things, especially new religious movements, counteracting common prejudices. -- mizar ॐ Talk 01:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Support. I am currently up for an RfA as well and I totally understand how the oppose votes sometimes focus on the wrong qualities. You look good to me. --ScottyBoy900Q 20:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
42. Support. As per nomination. --pgk^(talk) 20:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
43. Support. Sarge Baldy 20:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
44. Support. KHM03 22:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
45. Support. I have seen Jossi in action working on the Human article. Seems to be a very constructive editor who strives to reach consensus in a polite way. Also, I have not seen Jossie lobbying for support with regard to this vote. I too stumbled across it re: Sam Spade's comment above. David D. (Talk) 23:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose, I think this person for being here so long needs more edits, so then I know that this person would be an active admin. Therefore I have to oppose. Sorry forgot to sign, I'll just sign now, and erase the old "signing". Private Butcher 03:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

  Out of curiosity, why is a low-activity admin a problem? ~~ N (t/c) 16:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

  It's a problem because they should be active in wikipedia, since they'd be admins FOR wikipedia. Therefore they should be very active in all things, articles, RfAs, User Talks, etc. They should know all about how wikipedia works by experiencing it by being very active. That's just what I think, I know you all disagree with me, but it's just what I think. Private Butcher 17:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

  I think it's unreasonable to expect an admin to be active all the time. If you look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards not one of 60 have put "must be active all the time to be an admin" as a prerequisite for becoming an admin. It is normal to expect normal users and admins to have breaks from wikipedia like vacations, sickness, exams, work related travel, deaths in family etc. and normal "wikibreaks" just to relax. Wikipedia is not a job for editors or admins, it's all voluntary. So Your insistence of having "active admins" is very curious as it is not expected of admins. Admins are not some 24/7 editing/RC patrolling "elite breed", they are just normal editors with more tools available. Best You can do is put Your sig under Neutral, if you still think this being a problem. I hope you consider this and all the best otherwise. feydey 18:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

  Don't bitch at me about this ever again, I don't give a damn, I try to vote to make wikipedia better, and you tell me "oh you're reasons are wrong", there are no "wrong or right reasons". I have reasons, I expect them to be active a lot, alright, why? Because if they want to be admins they should treat it like a job. I removed my vote because you bitch at me, and I'm tired of it, and I can't vote neutral either because I'll get bitched about that too. So I refuse to support your bastard canididates, I do oppose, but since you're making me remove my vote I will. Private Butcher 19:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

  You don't have to remove your vote just because he wants you to, you are entitled to vote however you want. Please do try to keep the hostility down though. Cheers. -Greg Asche (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

  I apologize for being hostile, but it just bothers me that I can't vote how I want without being complained to. All I did was vote which way I thought was best, but I'm sorry for saying what I said. Private Butcher 20:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

  Apology accepted. No bad feelings. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 21:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

1. I would ask the admins who count the votes to count Private Butcher's. He clearly states that he did not withdraw his vote because he had any second thoughts about the candidate's fitness, but rather because he was harassed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

   By "harassed" I assume that you mean "asked a simple question". --goethean ॐ 18:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

2. OpposeStrong Oppose Recent POV pushing on List of people who have said that they are gods leaves bitter taste in my mouth. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

   Interesting that your considered my intervention as "POV pushing". All I was trying to do was to assist in a bitter dispute by making proposals, attempting to keep editors talking to each other and when all failed, posting an RfC that was well responded to. You can read my comments at Talk:List_of_people_who_have_said_that_they_are_gods. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 22:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

   I hate it when RFA candidates try to attack oppose votes. Like I'm just going to let you sit there and play martyr? How ironic - [16]. Does your concept of "assisting in a bitter dispute by making proposals" include stepping into the middle of the dispute and enforcing your prefered version by reversion? Wait - how about your recent comment that the list is in shambles, needs to be revised so it looks like what you want or it should be deleted? Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

   I invite you to continue this discussion in the talk page and to help in resolving the dispute on that article, if you want. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 02:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

   I don't care about the article nearly as much as I care about what it says about your qualifications for adminstratorship. The passive-agressive editing on your part does not give me comfort. Your lack of understanding of my problem (your editing, not your edits) gives me even less. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

3. Strong Oppose. Jossifresco lacks the most important traits that an admin must have, integrity and honesty. Examples? Argued that Criticism of Prem Rawat should be deleted because the view of Prem Rawat's critics "do not deserve more than a short mention as already included in Prem_Rawat#Criticism."[17] What makes this a show of utter lack of integrity? The fact that Jossi had created that very article himself[18], stating "Opposing views can be added here". It's hardly the only time that Jossi has both taken a role shaping an article of "opposing views" and then called for it to be deleted because of factors that never seemed to bother him when he was supposedly working for the good of the article. ([19],[20]),([21],[22]) In general, what Jossi prescribes for "opposing views" is always different from the views he is in sympathy with. Here, he argues that List of purported cults must get deleted because "NPOV requires that a controversial subject is treated in such way that the controversy is described and conflicting views be given a balanced coverage. This cannot happen here and thus, this article is POV and fundamentally flawed." [23] Yet when the new religious movement is the source of the accusation, Jossi shows no concern at all for whether there is "balanced coverage" of the accusation -- only for whether the accusation itself goes in.[24] I also like how he describes "serious POV conflicts during the editing last year of the Prem Rawat articles with one active WP editor and few anons." I'd suggest anyone who wants to know how far Jossi can be trusted look up those conflicts and see how many more than "one active WP editor" was involved. No, Jossi is not someone who can be trusted with admin powers. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

   I followed these links and the only thing I read on all these, is an editor engaged in discussions about making articles NPOV and contributing in a civil and measured manner.--ZappaZ 04:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

   Well, yes. That's because you also believe that what is the "NPOV" way of handling an accusation is different depending on whether your NRM is on the business end[25] or pulling the trigger[26]. Even if you were a party with sufficient integrity to be a judge of Jossi's or anyone else's integrity (which you are not) what you've said is only a distraction from the real issue: does Jossi talk the talk about NPOV? or does he walk the walk? The edits I cited show clearly that he can talk a great game about NPOV, all day long, but somehow what he deems NPOV for the goose will always be different from NPOV for the gander. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

   All I can see is only, that you have a different POV than Jossi, don't mistake this for NPOV. In fact I do not believe that there is anything like an absolute NPOV. You mentioned List of purported cults and stated that Jossis views were POV. But it is agreed among sociologist that the word cult or sect are not to be used anymore for new relgious groups, because they have a very clear negative perception in the public, and as such the word in itself is in fact POV. Any religion, and any religious view started out as a sect. Attempts of such lists as the one you mentioned and of course the List_of_people_who_have_said_that_they_are_gods, where a category is created, are very likely to create strong POV, especially if one lumps together criminals (Manson etc) with purported people of divine origin (like Jesus), in fact in order to make a statement by such comparisons, instead of differentiating between them and seeing each case in its own religious context. To point this out, and to see the danger of discrimination of minorities inherent in such an approach is not POV, but rather the task of an Admin. And I hope very much for you that you are not taking offense on his personal beliefs or mine or Zappaz's for that matter, and say we are all POV because we belong to one or the other NRG. This would in fact say more about your non- NPOV than his. About the article Criticism of Prem Rawat: It is indeed difficult to understand, why criticsim is not integrated into the main article about Prem Rawat, and if it is there already, why there should be a separate article. I have seen the same discussion in the german WP, and there was not even a disagreemant that there couldn't be two articles. And of course in the main article, the views need to be balanced. What that means in each individual case is of course a matter of dispute and opinion. And I don't think there is anything like an absolute neutrality. If you believe so, you are indeed strong POV taking your own opinion to be neutrality. -- mizar ॐ Talk 10:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

   It is not Jossi's standards that bother me. It is the clear evidence of his double standards that bothers me. If he had created Criticism of Prem Rawat and said "Opposing views can go here", and then spoke up in the deletion discussion and said "we shouldn't delete this because it's where opposing views were encouraged to go", that would be consistent. If he had not created Criticism of Prem Rawat and had then advocated for its deletion, stating that critical views "do not deserve more than a short mention as already included in Prem_Rawat#Criticism", that would be consistent. It is the fact that Jossi created the article to hold opposing views and called for those opposing views to be deleted as not deserving their own article, that should give pause to anyone considering entrusting him with admin powers. It is not just that he helped to develop the criteria determining which allegations of cultic nature would be listed at List of purported cults. It is not just that he argued for the deletion of List of purported cults, stating that the criteria of the article made it "original research", and that accusations presented without "balanced coverage" of "opposing views" were inherently POV. It is not just that he himself pushed for the unneeded inclusion of an accusation against a group, without balanced coverage of opposing views. It is that he did all three which is cause for concern. These double standards require a good explanation. What they do not deserve is an attack on the messenger, alleging that that person is simply motivated by holding the opposing POV, rather than the documented evidence that the candidate has exhibited favoritism and double standards unacceptable from anyone of any POV.

   Finally, I would like to know your basis for that very surprising statement, "it is agreed among sociologist that the word cult or sect are not to be used anymore for new relgious groups"? That's a very surprising statement; I'd like to know who said that and which sociologists they had the authority to speak for. However, since that's completely off-topic to the current discussion, it would be better to discuss it on one of our talk pages. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

   "it is agreed among sociologist that the word cult or sect are not to be used anymore for new relgious groups"? That's a very surprising statement; I'd like to know who said that and which sociologists they had the authority to speak for. However, since that's completely off-topic to the current discussion, it would be better to discuss it on one of our talk pages. If you don't want to discuss issues (like Jossi's reaction to the term cult), don't bring them up as an argument. If you think it's an argument, why not bring it up here? I am not running for Admin, so why should it be on my talk page? I have all the arguments from the german page about de:Sekte#wissenschaftlich (sect:scientific). It says:Das Münchner Rechtslexikon schreibt zum Beispiel, der Begriff „Sekte“ habe in staatsrechtlicher Hinsicht seine Bedeutung verloren, da er eine negative theologische Beurteilung enthalte.(The Munich Lexicon of Law writes, the term 'Sekte'(= cult) has lost its legal meaning, since it contains a negative theological judgement) -- mizar ॐ Talk 22:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• I know this edit count thing has taken some twists and turns, but here's my Gold Standard for how much edit counts relate to someone's contributions to Wikipedia: Jimbo's edits >;-o) — RDF ^talk 05:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

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. I am currently spending 60% of my time on RC patrol and new page patrol, and intend to continue doing so. I also check for copyvios and welcome new users and ip users that contribute good stuff. I have been also answering questions at the Reference desk (Humanism) and I find that quite rewarding (I know that is not an admin task, but it keeps me sharp...).

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

A. That probably would be the series of articles I started a few weeks ago on Category:Book design and Typography. I intend to create 200 articles featuring the most known typefaces, with samples. I am also proud of my work at Human, that hopefully will be submitted to FAC soon. There are also several other articles that I am proud of, not only because of their content, but because they were fun to edit in a collaborative environment.

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. Yes. I had serious POV conflicts during the editing last year of the Prem Rawat articles with one active WP editor and few anons. I even got serious anonymous hate mail, that prompted me to abandon WP for a while. What I have realized is that time and patience and the aggregated effort of many editors are the best tool to ensure fairness and NPOV in articles about subjects that are controversial. Trust the community: it works. I have learned to trust that. Nowadays, and as the articles are somewhat stable, I keep myself busy on other areas such as Digital art, Typography and Book design articles.

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.

---

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

Brighterorange

final (39/0/0) ending 22:41 13 October, 2005

Brighterorange (talk · contribs) – brighterorange is a fine editor who has collected over 3200 edits since he signed up in March of 2005. In addition to being a regular AfD participant, he has contributed a great deal to Wikipedia:WikiProject Punctuation, putting in countless edits for the thankless but important task of making sure our periods and commas are in the right place - and believe me, I've seen him pop up on my watchlist plenty of times for this purpose. He has also participated in a number of policy discussions, offering his thoughts towards making Wikipedia a better place overall. I therefore heartily endorse brighterorange for an adminship.  BD2412 ^talk 01:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

• I am honored to accept! — brighterorange (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support CambridgeBayWeather 22:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
2. S'port -Ahh, I wanted to be first - --Doc (?) 23:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support See him around Afd a lot where he shows good judgement. Dlyons493 Talk 23:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Bright Support Good User also see her alot in AFD --JAranda | yeah 23:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Late-breaking nominator support.  BD2412 ^talk 23:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support from a Kick Ass User. Private Butcher 23:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. Robert 00:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support -Greg Asche (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
9. EXTREME ORANGE SUPPORT WITH EXTRA PEELS!! dedicated contributer. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. Kirill Lokshin 01:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. A good editor with a cool head who knows how things work. -Splash^talk 02:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC) (I missed my sig the first time)
12. Support Good editor --Rogerd 02:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Old Fashioned Support  ALKIVAR™ 03:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Andre (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
15. support: Good contributor. Ombudsman 04:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Merovingian (t) (c) 06:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support - seen this user lots. --Celestianpower ^hablamé 07:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Extreme lesbian support and damn the controversy! Brighterorange is very active on AfD. — JIP | Talk 07:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

    The controversy about extreme lesbian support, I mean.

19. Support Amren ^(talk) 13:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Orange Furry Alien Support have seen plenty of edits on my watchlist and in AfD participation, should be good admin. Alf ^melmac 14:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Orange mustache support. One that knowns were to put a semicolon and were to put a comma, and willing to spend time fixing these, gets my vote. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 19:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support Grutness...wha? 22:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support - seen lots of him on AfD. — ceejayoz ^★ 04:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support see him around quite a bit now, a good editor who could make good use of the mop and bucket. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 04:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Yes. encephalon 10:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. Several good contributions in a variety of places. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Extreme [INSERT WITTY COMMENT HERE] support!. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 11:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support Very active on AFD and other places. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support --Allen3 ^talk 23:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Lesbian support of the most extreme variety! Seen this user around a bit, always seems responsible enough. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. I have pleasantly encountered this color on several occasions. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist• E@} 21:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support. His leadership in the Punctuation Project is noted and appreciated. Jonathunder 01:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. Amazing job in Punctuation project. By the way, it's ok for a non-admin cast a vote here right? -- WB 04:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

    yes, any user in good standing (aka no anonymous votes/no banned users...) is allowed to vote here.  ALKIVAR™ 04:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

34. "Yeah Fool. Better recognize -- Check Yo Self" Support w/X-treme Predjudice Clarence Thomas 01:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Cool. --JuntungWu 07:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support. Friday (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Yes --ZappaZ 04:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Support. No reason to think admin powers will be abused. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
39. It hurts my eyes, somehow! El_C 03:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

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. Actually, I already do a lot of chores. ;) I'm pretty active on AfD, and I would like to help with closing discussions there. Also, new pages patrol would be a whole lot more efficient with the ability to speedy pages instead of tagging them and waiting for others to do it. Of course I expect that, as time goes on, I'll discover other fun tasks to help me avoid working on my thesis.

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

A. All of my major contributions are listed on my user page. Other than a few articles about type theory, my area of expertise, the contributions I'm most proud of are as follows. First, I've taken a lot of photographs, often improving the quality of existing ones (for instance from this to this at Highwayman's hitch) or adding totally new ones. The biggest, though, is my project "Project Punctuation", which has made 1¼ passes over the entire article namespace to correct typographical errors. We've also bagged and tagged or fixed loads of other problematic articles that passed RC/NP patrol in the process. Though these small edits account for a large fraction of my article namespace edits, on the other hand they're supported by a real lot of work behind the scenes to write and run the software that produces the dumps.

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. Not much. My editing has not been particularly contentious, and years of dealing with troublemakers on my own websites has given me a pretty thick skin, so I am not the kind of person to get in heated arguments. I know some people on RfA see conflict resolution as an important test before adminship, so how about the argument over repeated copyvios at Talk:Bloodsport (film) (where I am called a poopoo head (heh), attacked variously, and threatened with e-mail bombs) on my birthday. The page was eventually vprotected after I asked for help, and I got a copy of the movie so I can watch it again and rewrite the summary (hopefully) to everyone's satisfaction soon. — brighterorange (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

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.

---

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

Wikibofh

final (17/0/0) ending 21:01 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikibofh (talk · contribs) – Wikibofh has been a Wikipedian since March. He has substantial contributions mostly consisting of article work, but spread out nicely. I first encountered him at this RfAr, where he seemed quite reasonable and civil, and have since been impressed by his persistence as a wikignome. Give him the LART, I say! ~~ N (t/c) 21:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

• I accept. Thank you very much. Wikibofh 21:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator. ~~ N (t/c) 21:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support Plenty of contributions, courteous. Would be a good admin. Dlyons493 Talk 22:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support Sure, does a lot of editing to articles, so I support. Private Butcher 22:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Merovingian (t) (c) 22:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support CambridgeBayWeather 22:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. Robert 00:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. Kirill Lokshin 01:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support --Rogerd 02:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Andre (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Extreme BOFH support. — JIP | Talk 08:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support seems reasonable candidate for the mop. Alf ^melmac 15:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support I met user here, [27], from what I've seen Wikibofh seems to be a conscientious user. --Kewp (t) 07:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. Good admin material. android79 17:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support!!!  BD2412 ^talk 21:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Cool. --JuntungWu 07:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support, nice editor. --MissingLinks 14:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. El_C 03:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

• Number of edits may be misleading. It takes me many attempts to write correctly as I am new to editing, though have been reading the stuff a lot. Therefore, I feel overall impression of the person is more important. --MissingLinks 14:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

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. My style of editing means that I tend to work on different things and cycle around. I expect I would work on AfD closure, monitor Vandalism Intervention and as well as other sort of "admin only areas" I haven't accessed yet. My watchlist is roughly 600 items, and I would continue to monitor that. I would also hope to prudently use short term blocks to lower the overhead of the pass through vandals that we spend a lot of time with.

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

A. I'm not particularly good and creating large articles from scratch, so don't expect to see a lot in the way of FAC work. I do have a few favorites though. As documented on my userpage I'm pretty much solely responsible for the Monster trucks category. I'm also happy with the status of Gas lighting which was a cut-n-paste of a PD text from Project Gutenberg. I went through it all, and although the language and organization aren't great, it's much better than the original.

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 generally don't get wikistress. I can come back if it's bothering me. I have had a few conflicts that I'll try to detail:

• Taipei American School: One of the first real controversies. An anon insisted on trying to add POV and unverifiable information. The details are in talk, in particular here and here.
• Power violence: Anon claiming it wasn't a recognized genre on talk and my talk.
• Mexico: This is the most embarrassing, but I think it's illustrative. I was monitoring my watchlist and accidentally started reverting to the vandalized version. It's covered on my talk. I made sure I apologized.
• Reformed_Government_of_the_Republic_of_China : The only one that every really irritated me is when a user accused me of bad faith on a VfD after having this conversation on my talk page.

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.

---

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

Justinc

(18/0/0) ending 16:36 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Justinc (talk · contribs) – Justinc has been with us on Wikipedia since October 2004. He has made 3869 edits, 2918 (75%) of which are in the article namespace. He's been pretty active with maintenance work, particularly with images and cracking down on invalid fair use claims. He seems to know his way around Wikipedia policies and procedures, and has a good long history of edits. I think he would be an asset as an admin. Coffee 16:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Accept. Justinc 20:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. First one, Justinc.  Denelson83  20:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support why not? -Greg Asche (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Merovingian (t) (c) 22:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support CambridgeBayWeather 22:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Michael Snow 02:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support I don't have editcountitis--Rogerd 02:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Oh yeah, I support too, if that isn't already implied by my nomination. :"> Coffee 04:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Andre (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support has been doing good work on food and drink among other things. Has some minor weaknesses on the subleties of Irish beer - but he just needs to drink more of it :-) Dlyons493 Talk 12:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support Gmaxwell 13:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support I don't know this editor, but maybe I'm not getting out much, would appear to good candidate. Alf ^melmac 15:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support We need more admins working with images. Marskell 16:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support We do not have enough London admins. We do not have enough East London admins. We do not have enough London images. From what I can see of Justin's oeuvre, he's needed. Tarquin Binary 02:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. JYolkowski // talk 20:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Cool. --JuntungWu 07:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. Walter Siegmund 04:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. El_C 03:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. My only reservations is he coming across as an expert on United States fair use doctrine. I don't know his qualifications for telling other Wikipedians what does and what does not qualify as fair use. --Nv8200p (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. Neutral, has been here a long time, and doesn't have edit as many edits as I would expect. But its not enough to oppose, but also not enough to support. Private Butcher 22:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

   You've got to be joking. He has nearly 4000 edits and that's not enough for you to support? Exactly how many edits would you expect a user to make in a year? This editcountitis is really absurd... Carbonite | Talk 01:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Absurd? Absurd? What is with you people, I'm not opposing, it not like it hurts the canidate that I'm neutral. I expect over 5000 a year, but people don't do that, so I'm not opposing, I'm just being neutral. But fine, while I'm retracting votes, I'll retract this one too. Private Butcher 17:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I wasnt going to comment, but I have to mention three mitigating factors: 1. I make too many edits because I cant see typos on the preview, so they get fixed as minor edits. 2. All the edits I made on {{ifd}} and {{copyvio}} have gone into the ether and are not counted. And 3. I have several hundred edits on Commons (mostly alas related to en wikipedia) that I would like to be taken into nonconsideration. Remember editcountitis is fatal. Justinc 23:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I stand by my statement that it's absurd to considering 4000 edits a year to be "not enough to support". You do realize that only about 400 editors have over 5000 edits total (not per year). Most of those users are already admins. It's quite valid to expect users to have some minimum number of edits. Myself, I like to see 1000 - 1500 edits, although I did just support a user with only 700 edits. Expecting candidates to make over 400 edits a month to earn your support just seems over the top. Carbonite | Talk 02:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

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. Mostly at the moment helping with cleaning up the backlog of {{nosource}} images for deletionwhich is causing a lot of stress as there are very few people working on it and so people are being aggreived when things are done too hastily. I read the EN mailing list and can pick up on miscellaneous things to do from there. My watchlist has nearly 1500 pages on it now and there are a few disputes to try to calm down (Trappist beer has just flared up).

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

A. I did a lot of work on the classification under Category:Beer, filling in articles there and encouraging other users which seems to have given some structure to what was rather messy. I wrote all of Kenwood House, which is a nice article if short. There are lots of times that passing by when writing something else I added a stub or redlink and later I come back and found that that was enough to start a better article - Beverley Nichols is one example.

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. There have been a few incidents enforcing picture policy, but they havent caused me stress. I once had to ask for admin help when a user started vandalising my talk page, but generally I just write a reasonable explanation and wait, almost always without reverting. These have usually been quite productive.

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.

---

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

Denelson83

(36/4/0) ending 18:22 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Denelson83 (talk · contribs) – Denelson83 has made numerous edits to the English Wikipedia, and I feel he will be a fine administrator. I've known him on IRC for a while, and I see no reason not to give him the sacred mop. In the interest of full disclosure, he currently has 6809 edits, two failed RFAs (Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Denelson83/first and Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Denelson83), which failed due to an RFC filed on him (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Denelson83), but I think that's far enough behind us now. --Phroziac^(talk) 18:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Accepted. The third time could be the charm.  Denelson83  18:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Supportize as nominator. --Phroziac^(talk) 18:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support Denelson seems to have modified his behavior since the last RfA. Go Denelson83! -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 18:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. Dedicated user.  BD2412 ^talk 18:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support Good User I think 3rd time is going to be the charm --JAranda | yeah 19:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support - Guettarda 19:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. Seen him around using good judgment and being reasonable. Dmcdevit·t 21:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. What is in the past is in the past. Good luck, Denelson. -- Essjay · Talk 21:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Merovingian (t) (c) 22:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. IMHO, a valuable contributor. IceKarmaॐ 22:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support Private Butcher 22:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. Has recognized and worked hard to address past mistakes. --Scimitar ^parley 22:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support CambridgeBayWeather 23:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Strong support as per last time. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 01:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. Kirill Lokshin 01:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. --Fire Star 01:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Strongest Possible Support He definately knows his stuff, and despite what he went through, which would have soured many people on the project, he grew from it. I'm proud to be a fellow "Aspergian" and I'm sorry I got beaten to the punch in the nomination process. Karmafist 01:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. Has stuck around despite the criticism from before, has learnt from it and made changes as a result of it. More admins should do that, and adding a knowledgeable, experienced user to the sysop list can only be a good thing. -Splash^talk 02:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support, per Splash. I opposed on his previous RfAs, but he's gone out of his way to improve and seems like he has gotten much better at handling criticism. Most people would have run away from such objections, but he's still here and has improved. I think we need to reward him for that by making him an admin; he's earned it! --Idont Havaname 04:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Sup Port. I was neutral last time, since it was still too close to a RFC, but Denelson has kept his nose clean since, and I see no reason not to support. Grutness...wha? 05:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support well done on sticking around and working on dialogue. Dlyons493 Talk 05:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support Though I opposed previously, user seemed very interested in improvement, and has since done so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support byegones be byegones. Alf ^melmac 15:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support freestylefrappe 20:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support I could have sworn he already was an op, he definately has the experience and the attitude to be one. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 04:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support. After the RfC incident months ago, he has shown an unbending commitment to being civil with other editors, instead of just becoming bitter and argumentative like many other editors would do. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 12:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. JYolkowski // talk 20:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Extreme Autistic Spectrum Support! Having Asperger's too (but being less lucky than you, my temper is getting me on the wrong side of Wikipedia right now), I know what it's like. Denelson83 is a pretty good guy. He has his flaws, but so do I (and I have them much worse, I'll admit it). Nobody's perfect. Overall, Denelson rocks! :D->-< --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs Happy Birthday to #4! 22:21, 10 October 2005 (CDT)}
30. That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 08:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support--Exir Kamalabadi^Esperanza 12:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support--User:AYArktos | Talk 01:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Yup gkhan 17:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support Proto t c 08:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. After you gave me your vote I went and looked at your credentials and everything looks good to me. --ScottyBoy900Q 20:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support. We all make mistakes from time to time, but after reviewing the recent history of this editor I am convinced this person would make a fine sysop. Hall Monitor 22:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Opposed Friday's RfA because the user was once "uncivil" and therefore, says Denelson83, can never have a clean reputation. Needs to learn more about Wikiquette, how it is applied, and how to judge others. Andre (talk) 04:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

   Has since re-evaluated that situation, but I still feel uncomfortable about supporting. Andre (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Andre. android79 18:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose Weak oppose. There were quite a number of objections on his second RFA that had not been addressed then, and I see no evidence that they have been addressed now. Radiant_>|< 12:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

   (copyied from my talk page, responding here) Radiant_>|< 09:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

   I see you voted to oppose my adminship nomination because I had not fixed certain objections raised on my last RfA. Could you please tell me what they are so I can endeavour to fix them? I really want to show that I'm on Wikipedia's good side.  Denelson83  15:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

   • I appreciate you wanting to clear this up. In particular, the suggestion that you may be volatile, and may have problems interacting with other users since you may have trouble understanding them. Please note that I am not speaking from personal experience with you, as I don't think we've crossed paths in the past months. I'm not saying that you haven't improved, I'm just saying that I haven't seen it, and I found it a bit strange that nobody on this RFA really mentioned it. Radiant_>|< 09:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

   I expressed in the candidate question section below that I can funnel any negative emotions generated from "bad" messages into the wikimood on my user page. That will allow me to respond to such messages in a civil manner. I did not know how to react to such messages at the time of my last RfA, but I do believe I have remedied that problem.  Denelson83  19:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

4. Oppose quite strongly. Denelson, while well-intentioned, is immature, prickly and quick to anger. His behavior on IRC is a consistent source of irritation, and does not demonstrate that he has fully addressed the issues of his RFC. — Dan | Talk 07:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

   How am I being irritating? Is it because I just said one comment on #wikipedia that expressed my opinion on a very controversial subject, or did I build this up over time? Please help me to fix this.  Denelson83  08:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• I want to be able to trust an administrator to take the right action when made aware of copyright infringement. I cannot trust this editor to do so after reading his response to the RfC. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 04:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  Individual admins don't do all of the superior functions on Wikipedia, such as tagging copyvios, blocking vandals, or protecting pages. Heck, some admins just continue acting as regular editors. On this basis, I won't take any action on copyright violations, unless somebody notifies me. I will let the senior admins continue with that responsibility. Besides, the comment I made on my RfC pertained to possibly copyrighted images, not articles.  Denelson83  05:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reply. I don't think this takes either copyright or Wikipedia seriously. We have a legal obligation to do so. Should there ever be a Wikipedia copyright case, the matter of Wikipedia's policy of delegating most of the grunt work to untrained, unsupervised administrators would inevitably arise, and then we can ill afford the possibility of administrators turning a blind eye to obvious infringements. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 05:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  Then I'll admit right now that the only way I know how to handle alleged copyvios would be simply to flag 'em and list 'em. I really frown on unilateral admin actions on Wikipedia, such as deleting copyvios immediately on sight. They have to be sent to the community at large first.  Denelson83  05:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  I think I've been too hard on Denelson about something that he said some time ago. I'm withdrawing. No vote at all. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 05:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

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. I'm hoping to guard the Sailor Moon series of articles from any vandalism, as that is one of my greatest passions. That "rollback" feature may come in handy if I spot any vandalism against any of those articles. I have done a few rounds of RC patrol in the past, and I hope to be able to act on the speedy deletion candidates on my own instead of simply having to tag them and wait for them to be deleted.

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

A. I was the creator of the article series on British Columbia provincial highways. I put in all of those articles single-handedly, and that certainly qualifies as a significant achievement on Wikipedia. I also put in articles on WWV and WWVH, albeit anonymously, as I had not yet signed up for an account when I created those articles. I also made the Template:CSS IPA vowel chart for the article series on the International Phonetic Alphabet, which is no small feat per se. I also started up the Canada WikiPortal and the Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. Other articles that I worked on include the consolidated country code lists, e.g. Country codes: A, as well as Canadian postal code, which I completely overhauled and added a useful map to.

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. The aforementioned RfC details my most recent incident of incivility. That happened about half a year ago, when I decided I did not want any negative messages on my talk page. As a remedy, I no longer touch my talk page, and I funnel any bad emotions that result from negative messages into the "wikimood" meter on my user page. That should keep me civil everywhere else. If I am made an administrator, I will assure you that if my wikimood is at -3 or below, I will not use any of the admin functions until my wikimood improves.

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.

---

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

Rd232

Final (16/0/1) ended 16:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Rd232 (talk · contribs) – When I recently built a wiki project using MediaWiki software, I had access to the admin tools, and now miss having them on Wikipedia. I've been on Wikipedia long enough and active enough [28], and generally played well with others. Rd232 15:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

-selfnom, not schizophrenic. Rd232 15:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC) (Neither am I. Rd232 15:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC))

Support

1. Merge this solid contributor into Wikipedia:List of administrators.  BD2412 ^talk 15:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. A bit light on the edit count given that y'all both worked here. ;-) --hydnjo talk 15:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support Phroziac^(talk) 18:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support -Greg Asche (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Merovingian (t) (c) 22:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support Private Butcher 22:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support CambridgeBayWeather 23:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support 1) this stuff about time is ridiculous. Being an admin isn't a job where you have to put in X number of hours a week. I am sure rd232 will put in enough hours, but even if he doesn't put in a lot of admin time, whatever he does would add value to wikipedia. 2) There is nothing wrong with self-noms. --Rogerd 03:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Andre (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support good solid work and history of user interactions looks good which I think is specially important in view of self-nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support self-noms are fine from candidates such as this. Alf ^melmac 15:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support--Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support Thanks Rd, we're all set. Please excuse any problems my concerns may have caused.
    • No problem, Karmafist. Thanks for taking the time to consider my candidacy. Rd232 08:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. Dragons flight 18:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. El_C 03:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Hey, nice sense of humour. We need more admins like you with that quality.  Denelson83  18:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. Neutral. I wonder if this user has time to manage his own wiki project and the wikipedia at the same time. Deryck C. 17:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

   I doubt it'll be a problem. I do this myself. --Phroziac^(talk) 18:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

   I doubt it would be a problem too, but in my case it doesn't really arise - I'm handing over day-to-day running to others, as they gain experience. Rd232 21:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Weakest Possible Neutral.(Vote Changed Above Karmafist 15:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC))
   

Rd232 is definately qualified, but self-noms worry me a bit since they show a lack of understanding of the social side of Wikipedia. Just ask somebody to nominate you(now co-nominate) after explaining to them why they should do so and I'll change my vote to support. Unilateral actions can often cause problems with someone who has admin powers. Karmafist 02:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

1. • If self-nominations weren't allowed we wouldn't have the words "You may nominate yourself" on this page. o_o Coffee 04:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
     • Just because they're allowed doesn't mean they're accepted. Self-Noms can often be an unwritten no-no similiar to voting for yourself on an RfA. Any Wikipedian worth being nominated to adminship in my opinion should have gotten to know some other user fairly well and been able to ask them to nominate them or if they should be nominated. I think it's too late for me to nominate Rd232, but I would have if he asked me originally since I think he deserves it, and if he takes the 2 or 3 seconds it would take to ask someone he's known over the course of his time here at Wikipedia, I'd change my vote to support. Karmafist 14:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
       • Given that there's a "nominate yourself" button here, it's fair to say that self-nomination is generally accepted. If you want to suggest a policy change requiring users to get something like an endorsement from another user, do so in the appropriate place. I'd be skeptical of the value of that, since, as you indicate, anyone with even a fairly small amount of Wikipedia experience should be able to get an endorsement, so it won't necessarily reduce the number of bound-to-fail adminship requests; and it would require people to look at both the endorser and the candidate, meaning possibly more work, not less. I do see your point about indicating trust, but given what I just said, in practice I think this page, which collects the community's opinion of a candidate in one place, achieves that just as well. (Plus, people might rely too much on endorsements and examine candidates themselves less thoroughly.) Rd232 15:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
         • Some of our best admins were self-nominated. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
           • But then, I was also self-nominated, and look what came out of that. — JIP | Talk 11:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
         • Comment I recall another RFA where a user asked someone else to nominate him, and got an oppose vote for not having the confidence to nominate himself. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
           • I'll continue any further discussion of this on my talk page and views of what I consider to be my personal policies on my Wikiphilosophy page and connected talk page. Like I said before, my neutrality is very weak and can be swayed, but that's up to Rd. I'd like to hear directly from him rather than scrounge through his contribs, the question answers don't give me that much insight, and the fact that only 5 people have voted so far when someone with his experience should have at least 20-30 votes by now is making me think that I was right in him needing to work a little more in the social aspects of Wikipedia. However, that alone isn't enough for me to oppose. Karmafist 18:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
             • If you don't want to "scrounge through contribs", ask me what you'd like to know; I appreciate I gave short answers to the standard questions. As to the number of votes, at time of your comment above it was 11, not 5 (the vote tally was at 5, not updated), and I'm sure I could double that easily if I asked a few editors I know to support me. Unless there's some numeric vote quantity criterion, I don't see the need to do that. Rd232 21:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
   • This is discussion is getting too long and isn't productive, so I'll come to you instead of you coming to me like I asked before. Let me just reiterate that i'm not against Rd, I'm just concerned. I still think the self-nom hurt you in the vote department, but it looks like you'll be ok regardless, which is good. Karmafist 01:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Changing the date for closing to 14th, which is 7 days, instead of 10. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 16:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Please improve your use of edit summaries. 63% over the last 500 edits, 35% overall. --Durin 16:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanx Evilphoenix, and fair enough, Durin. Rd232 10:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

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. Various, as needed. Vandalism issues are the main reason I want admin tools.

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

A. Stefan Heym was a recent one I was pleased with that I did a lot on. Also created Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change.

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. Conflicts, yes; only serious ones were (AFAIR) with one user. Dealt with as pleasantly as possible, focussing on substance; requesting others' opinion; and as last resort by, er, giving up. Life too short, and all that.

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.

---

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

Evilphoenix

Vote here (32/0/1) ending 05:20 October 14, 2005 (UTC)

Evilphoenix (talk · contribs) – I joined Wikipedia on May 9th, having lurked for several months, enjoying reading the encyclopedia and learning more about the method in which it is being created. The culture of civil discussion, consensus building, and striving for a neutral, factual point of view greatly impressed me and led me to my decision to contribute to Wikipedia, which has been a very enjoyable experience for me so far. I have over 2,100 edits (Kate's Report), and spend most of my time here either copyediting or working on New Page patrol, with occasional participation in AfD discussion. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I do. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. He's done some excellent work, Support wholeheartedly. --fvw* 05:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
2. EXTREME... erm... I've seen good work. Sup some port Grutness...wha? 07:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Merovingian (t) (c) 11:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. Carbonite | Talk 12:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. Kirill Lokshin 12:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support without any witty comments. Thryduulf 13:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support: After a review of your edits, the only one I questioned was this one. A quick Google search would have shown you this individual had a #5 hit in the UK (3rd link on Google search). Be a slight bit more careful in placing things for AfD, ok? I loved this comment from this nominee "We have no sense of humor here on Wikipedia" (on this page) Hysterical! Nominee seems to have a solid grasp of policy and is a strong contributor. Participation level is high, and use of edit summaries over the last 500 edits is 96%! --Durin 13:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Man-zier support.--Scimitar ^parley 14:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support a good editor and a good future admin. -Splash^talk 15:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. Cabal member 16 will serve my- er- our cause well. Dmcdevit·t 15:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. Good-natured guy.  Denelson83  18:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. A very good contributor who has displayed a good grasp of policy. Rje 18:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support without prejudice. Evilphoenix is a wonderful editor and future admin. Hall Monitor 18:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support Private Butcher 18:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support --JAranda | yeah 19:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Michael Snow 20:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Simply Support. Every time I've run into him I've seen that he has good knowledge of policy. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
18. S'port --Doc (?) 23:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support CambridgeBayWeather 23:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Andre (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support Dlyons493 Talk 13:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    scritch (that's the sound of me adding one more chalk mark to the support tally) Grutness...wha? 22:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    ::Oops - seems I'd forgotten that i'd already voted!
22. Weak Support because he never told me he was running! I would have been glad to nominate! :P Strong support anyway. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

    Aww, I'm flattered. Thanks for saying that you would have liked to nominate me, and I'm sorry I didn't tell you, but I didn't want to give the appearance of campaigning. I appreciate the endorsement nonetheless, though. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 13:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

23. He's not one already? I guess if I thought he was one before and I didn't have any issues, I could support. JYolkowski // talk 21:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support A great contributor and a reasonable voice. Cmouse 06:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support Strong editor, helpful, should make a great admin. Johntex\^talk 18:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support - another good one.  BD2412 ^talk 05:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support. Friday (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. --hydnjo talk
29. Support. Good edits, seems to understand policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support. El_C 03:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support fellow vandalbuster ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 03:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    Support Removes vandalism --☺Adam1213☺|talk 03:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    Replaced and struck through text after voter blanked it from page.
    See:[29], Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
32. He's got my vote :) --AppleBoy ^Talk 03:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. My only memory of Evilphoenix is this edit [30], which was marked "rvv". Since this wasn't vandalism, but a content dispute about moving something to another page, with an edit summary saying "see talk", I feel that more though could have gone into it. The other votes suggest that this is an isolated event, which I hope it is. JPD 10:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I reverted that (yesterday) coming directly in from IRC, and when I double checked the edit I noticed the pointer to the talk page from the anon. However when I looked at the talk page, I didn't really see anything that maintained a clear consensus for removing that section, indeed I didn't really see anything that I felt gave me clear guidance as to the consensus on that section, but that's also me looking at an unfammiliar discussion on an unfamiliar page. I did however, see Talk:French_ensigns#Reverting_User_69.156.107.3_changes.__Please_stop_your_un-warranted_deletions, which was a comment asking the IP that had just blanked a serious portion of the article to not do so. Noting that, I felt reasonably safe in letting the reversion stand. Had I seen something that gave me clear guidance otherwise, I would have reverted back to the anon's edit, but I didnt feel like I had. Thanks for your comment. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 16:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

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.I would like to work on to clearing pages from Copyvio, work on Speedy deletion patrol (mostly clearing articles already tagged by other users), and close out AfD discussions. I would also not mind having page protection and rollback abilities to deal with vandalism. I would also like to participate more in the RfA process. I have been observing RfA's here for some time, and I know that some editors prefer to see RfA candidates that have participated in RfA discussions. In my mind, I feel that sysops would know best what qualities to look for in a sysop, so I have not generally participated at length in RfA discussions, with exceptions for a few candidates that I did know well enough to voice an opinion on.

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

Generally, I do one of two things: copyedit and New Page patrol. For copyediting, I enjoyed working on Tooth enamel [31] [32], Korean Buddhism [33], and Kinnaur [34]. I founded the Harry Potter WikiProject, which is doing very well. I also participate in an outside wiki using MediaWiki software, the ClemsonWiki, and I edit there as Evilphoenix as well. I am a sysop on that site, so I have had a chance to get a feel for the added buttons, but in all fairness, the infrastructure there is not nearly as complex as on WikiPedia, and there is also less vandalism and conflict.

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 do not feel I have had any serious editing conflicts. There have been a few occasions where I have disagreed with other users. Generally, my practice has been to discuss it on the Talk page when I find evidence of disagreement with another editor. I am a big believer in the value of consensus and discussion, and the culture of pursuing those ideals on Wikipedia was one of the things that appealed to me about the project, and is part of why I chose to participate. I have occasionally encountered "WikiStress", but that has thankfully been rare, and more from fighting Vanity, Linkspam, and hoaxes on New Pages than from any dealings with regular Wikipedia users. I believe that in any conflicts I would encounter, I would follow the practices of the Wiki, seek to build consensus, and engage in discussion of the issues.

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.

---

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

LordAmeth

Vote here (23/0/0) ending 23:17 13 October 2005 06 October 2005 (UTC)

LordAmeth (talk · contribs) – LordAmeth has made numerous edits & many excellent articles. He is a cool, calm & extremely knowledgable editor & deserves to be an administrator for his extensive contributions to Wikipedia. Spawn Man 23:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept this nomination ^_^. LordAmeth 15:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Enthusiastic support! for a great editor. Kirill Lokshin 16:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Strong Support Spawn Man 23:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Merovingian (t) (c) 00:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support even though over 10% of his edits seem to be on his own user page--Rogerd 01:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. Over 1700 article space edits, including creation of many new articles. Decent participation in other areas as well. Please continue to use edit summaries. Jonathunder 03:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support CambridgeBayWeather 04:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. Carbonite | Talk 12:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. Very good work on Wikiproject:Battles, amazing work on Japanese history!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support Private Butcher 18:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. CDThieme 02:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Andre (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support from Japanese history lover. - Darwinek 08:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support from another Japan Fan. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. Excellent work in articles related to Japan--Confuzion 23:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Zach (Sound Off) 04:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. Referenced and intelligent coverage of a number of Japan-related topics; great creation of new articles. --Dvyost 04:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. utcursch | talk 05:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support Dlyons493 Talk 19:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support: RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 22:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. No big deal. Sounds evil enough. We need to build the House of Lords. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. Good quality edits, particularly on Japan. See no reason for concern. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. Count me in! Shauri smile! 19:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

• Hi Ameth; for the sake of other people, how many articles have you roughly created or contributed to? Spawn Man 23:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• At the moment, I have created (or contributed to in a major way) 285 articles. The list is on my User page. FYI, this list is also the reason that so many of my edits are to my own page - I'm updating the list every time I create a page. LordAmeth 02:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

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. I have already been watching and occasionally posting on the speedy deletion and Cats for deletion, Manual of Style, and other pages, and in dealing with certain NPOV issues. I can't make any guarantees how often or how much I'll be able to become more active on this pages, or to what extent I would choose to take it upon myself to mediate a discussion, but I'm certainly eager to give it a try. I think, I do a fair amount of this sort of stuff already (to the extent that I can as a non-admin), and beyond that if people wish to ask me specific admin-related requests or questions, I'll be happy to help them as best as I can.

Two issues I would like to help see resolved are (1) various categorization disputes. I enjoy categorizing things, and I enjoy seeing things categorized in a simple and meaningful way. We've finally reached consensus on the vast majority of "History of Foo", "Battles of Foo" and related categories; I think my next target will be WWII battles which are currently organized by campaign, and not under the "Battles by country" category tree. (2) The use of diacritics and foreign letters in article titles. I don't know what the consensus is, and to be honest, I'm confused what the official policy is. But as a Japanese historian, I do not know how to pronounce the French "ç" or the Portuguese "ő", and I do not want to have to search for things under those names. Anyway, this is not the place to argue my entire opinion on the matter, but suffice it to say that if Tōkyō and Kyōto are to be titled as Tokyo and Kyoto (no diacritics), then articles from other languages should be too.

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

A. At the moment I have a list of 285 articles which I have either created or which I have made significant major changes.

Genpei War - One of the first articles I created, the page for the war itself doesn't look like anything special, and perhaps could use some work. However, the articles of all but one of that war's battles were created by myself and edited only superficially by others.

Tzippori - One of a handful of articles which I edited towards NPOV, Jacob Schiff being another. I was astonished to discover that Tzippori had no article, and the only reference was a brief article about the nearby Muslim/Arab town which was destroyed in the 1948 war. A strongly anti-Israel (read: biased) article, ignoring entirely the long history of this town, one of the oldest Jewish settlements ever discovered.

Japanese castle - While the argument could certainly be made that Spanish, English, and Eastern European castles differ in significant and important ways, I think Japanese castles are different enough to warrant a separate article. Another long, involved article, complete with pictures which I created and which remains 80-90% my own edits.

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 have been involved in edit wars a handful of times, particularly over POV issues relating to Israel, and to Japanese involvement in (or relations with) China and Korea. My expertise, if I could presume to say I have one, and my focus is Japanese medieval history, and so to a large extent I try to avoid adding or removing facts, instead focusing on the style of the article. Even if something is true, does it need to be included? Does it need to be stated in that way? POV is a very difficult thing, and I do not presume that my views on history and politics are unbiased; I keep my eyes out for glaring problems, I point them out on talk pages, make suggestions for changes (often without making the changes myself) and leave it up to those who know the subject better to make the change.

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.

---

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

Sebastiankessel

Vote here (22/3/0) ending 20:57 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Sebastiankessel (talk · contribs) – I really hate to self-nominate but I really think I can be a good admin and asking for it is even worse. You will probably find me around Argentina and Jewish related topics, although lately I've been making rounds around Soccer topics too. I have always tried to be a balanced and fair editor, keeping my POVs in check and trying to compromise whenever possible. I have been involved in a few minor edit wars (experience that I hope never have to repeat) but I usually came out allright, especially since I always try to be open to other views and ideas. I do my best to listen and generally I concede a point when the other editors make it, like I did with the Falkland Islands article. I have around 1300 edits, which is not too much, but neither is too little. I hope you can all see past that and judge me in the quality of my edits more than their number. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I guess I have to, right? :) --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Sometimes passionate but very reasonable to deal with. Unfocused 21:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. Don't always agree with his POV, but seems very reasonable to deal with, and unlikely to abuse admin privileges. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support, not only a talented editor, but also a natural born leader. I've seen him organize very interesting initiatives by himself, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Argentina. Shauri smile! 21:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support CambridgeBayWeather 22:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support Private Butcher 22:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. --Merovingian (t) (c) 00:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. there can't be enough. and I think he is a good guy :-) -- Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support I've come across him on the Falkland Islands page, and his edits relating to that subject have impressed me. He seems reasonable, considerate and (from what I've seen so far) a really nice guy. User:SoLando (Talk) 03:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. Is the kind of person that wouldn't abuse of the Admin status. Mariano(t/c) 07:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support- friendly user, with good approach to editing. Astrotrain 10:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. Carbonite | Talk 12:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. Friendly, no-nonsense guy. Number of edits is just a matter of time. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. Displays great leadership in the Argentine group. --Bosko 17:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support, Friendly user!!! Mxcatania
15. Support, very polite and at the same time objective, has kept his cool even when others haven't, knowledgeable in the areas of his interest, etc., etc., etc. --Vizcarra 00:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support, I never ran into the guy however I am very impressed with his style after checking him out. Tony the Marine 04:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Andre (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support Dlyons493 Talk 19:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support, Ejrrjs | What? 22:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support, I've been impressed w/his edits and reasonable interactions w/users on contentious pages. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support: --MissingLinks 12:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose 4 months and 1374 edits is not enough. I am sure that eventually, he will make a good admin--Rogerd 03:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Rogerd. freestylefrappe 21:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose, nothing personal, but four months is just a little less than I feel is needed to really evaluate. Jonathunder 01:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• A chart showing this user's edits along with a total number of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:Sebastiankessel-edits.png. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia. --Durin 22:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Uses edit summaries 59% of the time, 74% of the time over the last 500 edits. Average edits per day is 10.5, 13.6 over the last 90 days. --Durin 22:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• "warning: editcountitis can be fatal " Especially to Dwarves;)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The charts and stats are not edit counting. In fact, quite the opposite. Please see User:Durin/Admin nominee charts. --Durin 04:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

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. That's a tricky one... I spend a good deal of time reverting vandalism, the "revert button" would be a real help. I believe in blocking as a very very very last resort, but I won't hesitate to use it if the situation warrants it. I would patrol the Speedy Deletions page, helping keep Wikipedia free from articles that have no place here. I would also be definitely on top of WP:ANI and would try to help users to the best of my abilities, in whatever form I can. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

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

A. I am particularly pleased about Colectivo. It wasn't my article but I did an extensive copy edit and I will probably nominate it for WP:FA in the near future, after it goes through some peer review. I like improving my English skills, and I find that Wikipedia is a great place to do it and make a valuable contribution at the same time. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

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 don't think my interactions with other users have caused me "stress", but I definitely have had some arguments in the past. I find that the best way to approach edit conflicts is in the talk page, usually after a few back-and-forths the situation gets resolved with a compromise. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

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.

---

Requests for bureaucratship

Bureaucrats are administrators with the additional ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. They could also change the user name of any other user. The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above, but is generally by request only. The expectation for bureaucratship is higher than for admin, in terms of numbers of votes, ability to engage voters and candidates, and significant disqualifications. Candidates might consider initiating a discussion here of the prevailing consensus about the need for additional bureaucrats before nominating themselves.

Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions. Vote sections and boilerplate questions for candidates can be inserted using {{subst:Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Candidate questions}}. New bureaucrats and failed nominations are recorded at Wikipedia:Recently created bureaucrats.

Please add new requests at the top of this section immediately below (and again, please update the headers when voting)

---

Related requests

• Requests for permissions on other Wikimedia projects
• Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on meta
• Requests for self-de-adminship on any project can be made at m:Requests for permissions.
• Requests to mark a user as a bot can be made at m:Requests for permissions following consensus at wikipedia talk:bots that the bot should be allowed to run.
• Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges

If this page doesn't update properly, either clear your cache or click here to purge the server's cache.