mNo edit summary |
UninvitedCompany (talk | contribs) rm Bureaucrat consensus poll |
||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
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 <nowiki>{{subst:Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Candidate questions}}</nowiki>. New bureaucrats and failed nominations are recorded at [[Wikipedia:Recently created bureaucrats]]. |
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 <nowiki>{{subst:Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Candidate questions}}</nowiki>. New bureaucrats and failed nominations are recorded at [[Wikipedia:Recently created bureaucrats]]. |
||
See also: [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrat consensus poll]] |
|||
''Please add new requests at the top of this section immediately below (and again, please update the headers when voting)'' |
''Please add new requests at the top of this section immediately below (and again, please update the headers when voting)'' |
Revision as of 20:54, 7 September 2005
if nominations haven't updated. |
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.
There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. Details are still being worked out, but it is approved for one trial run which will likely take place in 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
Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | O | N | % | ||||
Pickersgill-Cunliffe | RfA | Successful | 15 Jun 2024 | 201 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
Elli | RfA | Successful | 7 Jun 2024 | 207 | 6 | 3 | 97 |
DreamRimmer | RfA | Withdrawn by candidate | 31 May 2024 | 45 | 43 | 14 | 51 |
Numberguy6 | RfA | Closed per WP:SNOW | 27 May 2024 | 5 | 23 | 2 | 18 |
ToadetteEdit | RfA | Closed per WP:NOTNOW | 30 Apr 2024 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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).[1] 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[2] and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.[3]
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
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.[4] 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".[5] 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.
Drini
Final (61/0/0) 06:12 14 September 2005 (UTC) Drini (talk · contribs) - Drini is a dedicated and fast hunter of vandals who has been with us since February, and in earnest since May. Drini has also made a number of contributions to the article namespace, especially on the topic of mathematics. I think that giving Drini the mop, bucket and shotgun will be a great boost to our anti-vandalism efforts. --Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination -- (☺drini♫|☎) 18:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Support. As the nominator, of course! Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, seems like a good candidate, over 1400 edits in main namespace and over 700 in Wikipedia namespace. — JIP | Talk 06:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. A dedicated RC-patroller. Someone who even bothers to emulate the standard rollback edit summary by hand (or by script?) deserves to get access to the real thing ;-) jni 07:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, seems to have a good eye with regards to maintaining quality. -- Egil 09:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Martin - The non-blue non-moose 09:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian (t) (c) 10:49, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Great RC patroller. --Canderson7 12:21, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- CryptoDerk 13:09, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Kirill Lokshin 13:30, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Support I was fooled into thinking that Drini is already an admin by the fact that he reverts vandalism with an edit summary as produced by the admin rollback tool. :) By the way, Drini is one of the post prolific contributors to PlanetMath. Oleg Alexandrov 15:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Drini seems to be all over the place doing RC patrol. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Nice work with the new -n templates. --PhilipO 20:28, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, I actually thought Drini was an admin for the reason Oleg stated. Great vandal fighter. Jaxl | talk 20:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. One of the good guys. Andre (talk) 21:01, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-7 21:40
- Support His contributions to tackling vandalism are stellar, and he is experienced with over 3500+ edits. I hope adminship does not interfere with your gallant battle with vandals! :)--Knucmo2 22:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, had me fooled too. Rje 23:51, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- OMFG Support! -- BD2412 talk 00:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support ! android79 01:07, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Thunderbrand 01:25, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I really am gonna have to read WP:LA because I keep seeing people at RfA I thought were admins! Redwolf24 (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, I have been working with Drini over at WP:PNT for a while now and have built a very positive impression of him. I am sure that he will make good use of sysop rights. However, please remeber that I am still the admin-in-charge at PNT, even after you are promoted. ;) --Sn0wflake 03:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. 4000+ edits since february 2005, comments 99.9% of it. This guy is a vandal slayer. Quality contributions, and obviously an intelligent person. He deserves the extra buttons. - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 06:47, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Good user --Ryan Delaney talk 08:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Really did think you were one! Ral315 12:59, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 13:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Full Support per R Lee E; also shared Oleg and Jaxl's confusion because of these (helpful) edit summaries.—encephalonέγκέφαλος 15:12:54, 2005-09-08 (UTC)
- Support: Drini is a first-rate vandal-hunter. Owen× ☎ 15:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support - no explanation needed, as the record speaks for itself. --Scimitar parley 17:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. All of my dealings with Drini have been positive. Zoe 18:50, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Noticed his good handling of vandalism when he was still a newbie, and am happy to support now. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support. BTW not to steal Drini's thunder or anything, but the edit summaries are from using "godmode light", a script by Sam Hocevar which emulates the rollback function for non-admins, and which I highly recommend. the wub "?/!" 19:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Per everybody else. Molotov (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support I've noticed Drini's work and value the input he makes. Alf melmac 21:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- I thought he was an admin already because of his rollback edit summaries—he shouldn't be making those, because they're misleading, but nevertheless he seems to do enough vandal-fighting that he ought to have a real rollback button. Everyking 22:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support I've only seen good things from this guy/gal. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. ITHWO - GHTM! Nufy8 00:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support; truly excellent candidate, and gives me an opportunity to use the cliché (it sure looked like he has the rollback tool!). Superb contributor and vandal-fighter. Antandrus (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support. I keep bumping into Drini's edits all the time: a very trustworthy and responsible user... FireFox T C E 18:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. No big deal. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yup. Post Drini at the Wiki gates with the required weaponry. Them vandal varmints won't be crossin' us agin! Grutness...wha? 04:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Like FireFox, I keep bumping in to Drini's edits all the time. Nandesuka 11:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support absolutely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:12, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Support - I see Drini RC'ing all the time; he'll make good use of the TurboMop! FreplySpang (talk) 14:44, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Ruairidi 02:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Oh yes. – Bratschetalk | Esperanza 04:45, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 19:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Jayjg (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 22:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support unreservedly! Hamster Sandwich 02:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support vandals should beware! -Splash 06:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Annoying as Drini almost always zaps vandals faster than me. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support - very responsible and professional editor. --Ixfd64 08:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Extreme lesbian support! --Phroziac (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support - not that he needs to know this (or indeed my vote), he meets my standards. --Celestianpower hab 15:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support! Of course. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 21:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. No question in my mind. -- Essjay · Talk 01:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-14 02:49
- Support Gotta get my vote in before the polls close. Acetic'Acid 05:40, 14 September 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.)
- As it was pointed, most of the chores I do relate to RC patrol but will also help clearing backlogs. The admin is handy, but editingship (that everybody has) is a bigger deal than adminship .
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- Well, my most cherished contributions are the pictures enhancing math entries, which I will continue making. I'm also particulary proud of the expansion to Rouche's theorem, since I felt that the entry as it was before, was intelligible only to very specialized people, whereas pictures and geometric intuition always help. I'm also fond of my {{test*-n}} templates, but they aren't of that a big contribution. Finally I don't know if it counts as a contribution, but I like translating articles for WP:PNT.
- 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?
- I have been involved in a controversy with Rktect user relating measurement units entries, although I cannot say it really stressed me. The way to deal with such issues, is to document statements, backup claims, and present cases to the proper channels. But I don't really think I'm prone to wikistress, if something stresses me, I just go for a walk and do some other thing for a while..
Salvag
(0/10/2) ending 06:06 14 September 2005 (UTC) Salvag (talk · contribs) - I nominate myself for admin as I believe in ridding Wikipedia of vandals in order to make it the best place possible. I check Wikipedia for vandals every day and often spend up to an hour+ editing articles with new information. I will do the job of admin as best possible. --Salvag 06:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my nomination. Salvag 06:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Support as nominator. Salvag 06:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose, only slightly over 1000 edits, and only 16 in the Wikipedia namespace. Also most edits seem to be minor, without edit summaries. — JIP | Talk 06:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose: Salvag has wiped his/her talk page twice (last week and again today) without ever having replied (on a talk page, at least) to any comment left by anyone. Most of the removed comments were critical and requested an explanation or action. Salvag, I'm not implying it was done in bad faith because I can see you did act on some of the suggestions made, but it still doesn't provide evidence of the sort of participation in the Wiki community I expect from an admin. Only 9 edits total in the User talk: namespace. ~ Veledan • Talk 11:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose as above. the wub "?/!" 15:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, as per Veledan. --Merovingian (t) (c) 15:45, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- As per Veledan. Andre (talk) 21:01, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose per everyone. Also, user talk pgae is blank :(
- As per Veledan. --Sn0wflake 03:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose -
too soonyou have too few edits in the time you have been here, and talk page concerns are discouraging. In time, you'll get into the flow of talk page discussions. -- BD2412 talk 23:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC) - Oppose - As per Veledan. FireFox T C E 18:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
Merovingian (t) (c) 10:46, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- encephalonέγκέφαλος 14:55:49, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
- Not enough edits. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-7 21:39
Comments
Oppose, did not answer any of the questions for a self-nomination. I am concerned over the fact that Salvag has not followed directions in how to place a self-nomination, which may indicate he or she may not follow the Administrator's guidelines. --AllyUnion (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- In reply to AllyUnion, I wanted to state that I just completed the questions for the candidate. It took me a few minutes to write my responses which is why you saw them as blank. Salvag 06:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Salvag. It's always nice to see a candidate with the confidence to step up and self-nominate. I'm voting neutral, however, because I wonder if you currently have sufficient experience for the responsibilities of adminship. I see 1132 edits to the mainspace, which is commendable; however, you appear to have made only 9 edits to article Talk pages, 1 edit to a User Talk page, 26 edits to the Wikipedia space (of which 12 were for this nom), and no edits to Wikipedia Talk. None of this means that you might not make a fabulous admin of course, only that it might be a bit difficult to judge at this stage. I'm sure many of us would love to see you here again after you've gained a little more experience. Best wishes—encephalonέγκέφαλος 14:55:49, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
- Salvag may not know this, but it's not customary for self-nominating candidates to "vote" in support of themselves. Beyond that, I find it difficult to evaluate his qualifications because of the narrow range of interests and lack of interaction with the community. --Michael Snow 16:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- It seems all anybody cares about is numbers and the user talk page. Is that all that is important? Salvag 02:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- The trouble is that that is all that we have to go on so far. Give it a little longer and interact with other editors (in particular collaborate with them on a group of articles and talk to them) so that you can become better known as a personality. Then you will be much more likely to win support. It's not that anyone thinks that you're a bad person. It's just that no one knows that you're a good one yet. Time and the right sort of collaboration will sort that out. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Salvag. No, numbers and talk pages are not everything. I am a firm believer in promoting people who spend most of their time doing the main work of the wiki (building an encyclopedia), and who will only need the 'mop' occasionally, as well as people who spend most of their time on janitorial tasks and who will use the mop lots. The reason people here quote low edit numbers as if they were bad isn't because we think that people who've made a few good contributions are somehow less deserving than people who've made lots of (maybe minor) edits; it's simply that low talk: edit numbers mean we don't have access to the sort of positive evidence we like to see before promoting someone.
- The reason I (and the others who referenced my rationale) opposed your nomination wasn't because we think you'll be a bad admin. The fact that you have acted on nearly every request placed on your talk page is a sign of your good faith and an indication that you might make an excellent admin in future. However, the fact that you haven't replied to any of them, and the fact that you have deleted the comments, implies that you don't really have a good grasp yet of the way things are done around here.
- Admins are more than just trusted editors, and a vote against you here doesn't mean the voter doesn't trust you. Editors (especially new ones) look to admins for guidance, and before we promote someone we want to know that they'll welcome enquiries and assist where they can, and support the wiki way. You may well be that kind of person, but we can't know that yet.
- Please don't be disheartened by the failure of your nomination at this stage. My advice would be to start answering Talk page posts, start using edit summaries and to get involved in a wiki project or two, then reapply in a couple of months (or wait for someone to nominate you). Your participation with the community on those things will prove you have what it takes to be a good admin :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 21:13, 9 September 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 most like to help with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion. I would also continue to help rid Wikipedia of vandalism and assist in blocking repeated vandals.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- 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 to deal with vandalism daily. It can be stressful, but I always deal with it in the correct and most proper way. In the future I hope to crack down on vandals in order to make Wikipedia the best place it can be.
dave souza
final (18/3/3) ending 22:59, 12 September, 2005 (UTC)
dave souza (talk · contribs) - Dave has been providing good quality NPOV material to Wikipedia since July 2004. He has a good understanding of how the community works and a good steady character to back it up. I believe that he will make an excellent administrator. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
- With some trepidation I accept Derek's nomination. My main interest has been in researching and adding new articles or correcting misinformation. Where appropriate I've helped to restructure muddled articles and have contributed occasionally to VfD or NPOV discussions, and am willing to do more of this....dave souza 20:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Derek Ross | Talk 23:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC) (Nominator)
- Andre (talk) 23:19, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Finlay McWalter. Dave is rational, reasonable, knowledgable, productive, and pleasant.
- Low edit count, but plenty of article edits, and has been around long enough. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-5 23:39
- Merovingian (t) (c) 06:15, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. El_C 00:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support this is my kind of candidate Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support because dave souza has answered the questions. — JIP | Talk 03:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support the wub "?/!" 07:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. The low edit count in the Wikipedia namespace worries me slightly, though. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 08:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Darwinek supports Darwin-related articles editor. - Darwinek 11:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support KHM03 11:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, believe he would not misuse admin powers. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:59, 2005 September 7 (UTC)
- Support - it is good to see a nominee without an inflated edit-count for a change. Stewart Adcock 07:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support - 198.110.249.200 13:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- SUUUUURE it was Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I'm basically voting to counteract the oppose, below. Adminship is about wearing a hat. It is a fundamentally different activity from editing. One should support or oppose an admin not based on "does this potential admin hold opinions that differ from mine", but "will this admin abuse his extra buttons, or use them responsibly?" I see nothing to indicate that User:dave souza will abuse admin powers. If the test for becoming an admin morphs into a vote on editorial position, then we are shooting ourselves in the foot and losing a lot of potentially excellent admins. Nandesuka 11:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- Ruairidi 02:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support - my standards like him. --Celestianpower hab 15:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- Strongly Oppose. I understand that David Souza was responsible for creating the Scottish national identity article. It is very far removed from the ideals of NPOV, and gives a very superficial, derivative and cliched account of the topic.
- Here is an appalling example of bias from Mr Souza: "As far as I'm concerned, Unionist in Scotland is another term for Tory, and is also a term used by Separatists to label those who don't take their position. The confusion in this article is that it doesn't state this clearly, and in trying to justify the label includes the Orange anti-Catholic position as well as misstating the aims of other organisations. An article is needed here to clarify this muddle, but care is needed to avoid Nationalist / Separatist propaganda and make it clear that many of the people and organisations mentioned have a solidly Scottish identity and believe in supporting Scottish interests within a British or UK framework without thinking themselves "Unionist" or, for that matter, being monarchist. Regarding the Scottish independence#Opposition to independence section, opposition to separatism might be a fairer statement of the position: I'll think about rewording that section." Talk:Unionists (Scotland)
- Not only is that entire statement riddled with factual inaccuracies, but, for the uninitiated, the terms "separatist" and "nationalist" when applied to supporters of Scottish independence are pejorative and offensive, and the calling-card of members of political party members opposed to Scottish self-government (Lab, LibDem or Tory). I think that you all know that the word "propaganda" should be used with extreme care, ESPECIALLY by candidates for Administrator. He is clearly not capable of being even-handed.
- In summary, David Souza is a man with a very large (British Unionist) axe to grind. If you make him an administrator he will cause havoc in the countless Scottish politics and UK constitution articles.--Mais oui! 19:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- NPOV doesn't apply to talk pages (yes, that extract is from a talk page). It doesn't require editors on Wikipedia to have no views at all about anything, only that they don't edit articles to reflect their own personal views. He only mentions propaganda there as something to be avoided. Oh, and administrators do not have any special authority over the content of articles, so he won't be able to 'cause havoc' anyhow. - ulayiti (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed? Then what do you make of this notable contribution by Mr Souza to the Talk:Political effects of Hurricane Katrina Talk Page? "Sadly, Silverback is right – these biased Liberals, more often called the neocons nowadays, are the ideological successors of the Malthusian Whigs whose Poor Law reforms aimed at making the poor become self reliant or die trying, or more humanely forced them to emigrate to the colonies – any connection to the invasion of Iraq?....dave souza 21:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)" This is clearly someone who has several axes to grind. He just does not strike me as being capable of NPOV if he publishes such diatribes on a wikipedia page.
- Thanks for an entertaining example of an editing conflict. I had understood that somewhat partisan comments were allowed on talk pages, but appreciate Mais oui!'s commitment to opposing bias as shown in his own comment on Talk:Unionists (Scotland) that "British nationalists/British unionists (Labourites, Cons, LabDems) are extremely proactive in attempting to destroy the English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish identities and attempting to erect a pseudo "British" (sic) identity. If in doubt, check out the British nationalists/British unionists in-chief: the BBC." He's right that the Scottish national identity article is rubbish: it's a stub I rushed together when editing the visit of King George IV to Scotland and found a redirect to "Scottish independence" which didn't seem to be what that arch unionist Sir Walter Scott had in mind. Suitably chastened, I'll bring forward a rehash of the national identity article, setting aside work on some Robert Burns related pages...dave souza 22:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC) Revamped to fair standard for starters....dave souza 16:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- NPOV doesn't apply to talk pages (yes, that extract is from a talk page). It doesn't require editors on Wikipedia to have no views at all about anything, only that they don't edit articles to reflect their own personal views. He only mentions propaganda there as something to be avoided. Oh, and administrators do not have any special authority over the content of articles, so he won't be able to 'cause havoc' anyhow. - ulayiti (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose too few edits in article space for someone who's been here well over a year, and too few edits in Wikipedia space period. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 00:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
Looks good, edit count is not really a worry. Awaiting answers to questions. the wub "?/!" 07:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Will support when user accepts nomination and answers to questions. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 17:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- A notable contributor, however, 61 user-talk edits shows little interaction; 24 Wikipedia names space edits shows a lack of edits on RFA, VDs, etc. I still consider changing my vote though.
- Neutral Has been around enough and has the experience, but only has 35 wikipedia edits according to Kates tool. [1]Falphin 00:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral for now. Based on dave souza's edits over the past few months, and the responses below, I am not totally convinced as to why this user needs access to the admin tools at this time. As stated by the other neutral voters above, this user is not involved enough in janitorial tasks. Also, watching AfD and NPOV lists, or trying to mediate or act as an arbiter to achieve relevance and NPOV, does not require admin tools in my opinion. Nor does reverting vandalism, unless one is very active doing RC patrol and thus the rollback tool would be handy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Comments
- Re the low edit count. Fair enough, if you look just at the edit count, it doesn't seem that high but you should also note that his edits tend to be major. This is not an editor whose editing experience consists of 5,000 spelling corrections. -- Derek Ross | Talk
- May I cite as a fairly large edit the Parliament of the United Kingdom which I came across when checking a link and found that it (a previous featured article) showed English history and not the other parliaments involved in the uniting: it was a diversion from other projects, but a quick revamp included putting most of the history into a new Parliament of England article, and another new article for the intermediate stage of the Parliament of Great Britain which had been a redirect to the article. Regarding lack of interaction, rightly or wrongly I've tended to keep chats on article talk pages unless it seems personal, and have often edited to show proposals rather than first trying to describe them on the talk page. Reaction has generally seemed favourable. With reference to Wikipedia namespace, my focus has been on creating or expanding articles using an ability to précis sources, but very much appreciate the importance of other work...dave souza 06:22, 7 September 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'd expect to put some time into watching AfD and NPOV lists, and try to mediate or act as an arbiter to achieve relevance and NPOV. I'd continue to revert vandalism which is a chore anyone can do.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. At this time I'm pretty happy with my edits to Charles Darwin and related articles, particularly the eight biographical articles which I put together for those wanting more detail, and hope to have helped to clarify what was very muddled article and corrected common misunderstandings about the man. Doune Castle and visit of King George IV to Scotland worked pretty well in pulling together different interests, and more recently Radicalism (historical) and the Radical War (with spinoff articles) have related to both George IV and Darwin and have helped to clear up an apparent misunderstanding about the historical meanings of Radical.
- 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 rather gingerly prodded some contentious areas, notably Creationism as a spin off from Darwin, and have been pleasantly surprised at how little conflict ensued: Evolutionary creationism was an exercise in NPOV resolution. There was an abusive comeback when I added the theory that Scotch was a reasonable English rendition of the normal Scots language pronunciation of Scottish, but I had to accept that this was not backed by any outside research and was rightly removed, so contented myself with replacing the comment on my user talk page with "anonymous insults will get you nowhere".
Katefan0
Final (66/2/0) ending 17:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Katefan0 (talk · contribs) - I don't know Katefan0 well, but I do know that s/he keeps showing up everywhere, and always seems to keep a wonderfully reasonable presence. This user has been here since November 2004, and with more than 5200 edits, Kate's tool seems to be a fan of Katefan0. I only learned that Katefan0 was not an admin when in the course of discussing WoW vandalism s/he mentioned wanting to help, but not having all the tools. Let's fix that. Incidentally, Katefan0 is also a reporter. While not really a reason to promote, I think it is great that members of the press should involve themselves with writing for Wikipedia. One final bit of full disclosure, Katefan0 is one of several users initiating arbitration against Rangerdude (talk · contribs) claiming abusive behavior, but I don't see that as a reason to delay this nom. Dragons flight 17:29, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
- I humbly accept and thank Dragons flight for such kind words. Oh, and it's she. ;) · Katefan0(scribble) 21:19, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Support as nominator. Dragons flight 17:29, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Is this where I say "I thought he/she was an admin already"? — JIP| Talk 17:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, I thought she was one too! ~~ N (t/c) 17:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support - (same cliche - thought she was one). Guettarda 17:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Absoblimminlutely, for all the reasons stated above. KeithD (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Absolutely. You finally got her to accept? Great at working out conflicts (Oh, and she is part of the Dmcdevit cabal). Dmcdevit·t 17:52, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support 'thought he/she was an admin. :)'
- Support Overdue, strong support! Rx StrangeLove 18:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support without a second thought. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-5 18:50
- Support. Yet another overdue candidate (there've been loads lately). Rje 19:17, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Meets my guidelines. android79 19:35, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Andre (talk) 20:05, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- [[subst:cliche]] Acetic'Acid 22:11, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 23:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Meelar (talk) 02:28, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- I give this user the go-ahead. Denelson83 03:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Katefan0 seems to be all over the place. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian (t) (c) 06:15, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Support --AllyUnion (talk) 06:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support the wub "?/!" 07:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support!! You didn't tell me you were up for a vote! Bad Kate....baaad Kate. --Woohookitty 11:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. --Canderson7 11:48, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Friday (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support - She is great at keeping her cool and helping to reach consensus in difficult situations. Both the quality and quantity of her work here is excellent. As a matter of openness, please note that I am a party to the arbitration concerning Rangerdude. Johntex 16:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Martin - The non-blue non-moose 18:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. An excellent editor. -Willmcw 18:36, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I have only a good experience with her. She will be a great addition to the admins-team. - Darwinek 18:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Good edit count, has experience in several namespaces, and is a deletionist to boot! :-) --Idont Havaname 20:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- It's nice to know that I have the support of both Willmcw and his sockpuppet. ;) · Katefan0(scribble) 20:34, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Jaxl | talk 20:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support Stewart Adcock 20:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. El_C 23:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Lack of edit summeries is annoying though Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- This looks like a Support to me, long live Texas. Func( t, c, @, ) 17:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Kate's a great editor, responsible, reasonable, lots of common sense, cares about sticking to policy and using good sources. She's exactly the kind of admin we need. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:58, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. --NormanEinstein 20:21, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, but only if Katefan0 agrees to join the cabal. --Phroziac (talk) 20:27, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Sure, why not? I get a toaster right? · Katefan0(scribble) 20:34, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. - Mailer Diablo 21:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 21:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Remember, there is no cabal. Hall Monitor 21:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. -feydey 21:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support - mature, tactful and coolheaded in disputes. The JPS 22:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Definitely.—encephalonέγκέφαλος 23:37:54, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
- Support, K1Bond007 02:47, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. What a pleasant person. kmccoy (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I'm just piling on the votes here, but Katefan0 deserves them.-gadfium 09:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Too many users lately where I (and many others) thought they were an admin. Ral315 13:08, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 16:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I don't know this user, but I like his/her answers to the questions below. Zoe 18:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Support an excellent user. If this is as gadfium says just a pile-on, it's one of the few I'm happy to add to. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Katefan has exemplary patience with troublesome users. A model for us all. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Because every time I see someone so well endorsed by the WikiCommunity, and even if I don't know them, I know that they are doing something right. Molotov (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Without reservation. Marskell 22:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Thought, admin, etc. Aquillion 03:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, with the usual cliche. Katefan0 has shown a remarkable degree of patience in dealing with some of our more vexatious editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Fire Star 18:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 00:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- Ruairidi 02:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Shauri (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support I've watched from the sidelines and have observed Katefan0 conduct herself w/ diplomacy and level-headedness on several article disputes. I think she will make a great admin. maltmomma 19:48, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Support- would make a great admin. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:34, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Double, triple my-God-you-didn't-tell-me-you-were-up-for-a-vote Support. Katefan0 has shown herself to be a level-headed, calm person, even in heated disputes. Hermione1980 00:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. JYolkowski // talk 01:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Jayjg (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support We need more female admins and I say this with utmost respect. Too much testosterone in WP, IMO. Strong support. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:31, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Way, way, overdue for adminship. -JCarriker 02:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose - way to partisan and political for adminship. She's civil most of the time and makes good contributions, but also seems to have difficulty in recognizing her own strong political biases. This editor is also very sensitive to criticism of or disagreements with her biases and views in content disputes, frequently taking them personally and responding in a hostile manner. This concerns me as I fear she would use her admin powers, perhaps even inadvertantly, to promote her POV or retaliate against those who differ from it.
- Also in the interest of full disclosure, several things should be noted about the arbitration request against myself in which Katefan is a party. This arbitration request was a retaliatory complaint by its primary initiator, User:Willmcw after I filed a request for arbitration against him here some three days prior. Katefan0 quickly joined Willmcw in this retaliatory request. A simple review of her "case" there is indicative of why she is unfit to be an administrator as she cites the very fact that I filed procedural and dispute resolution proceedings such as RfC's - all within my rights under the rules of Wikipedia - as her main "reason" for seeking arbitration against me, largely because she personally disagrees with the positions I took or advocated in those proceedings. Indeed, the majority of her diffs cited in the complaint she posted here are cases where I simply disputed her position on something or differed with her personal position in an RfC, VfD, or article content discussion. In each and every case she demonstrates an inability to tolerate viewpoints that differ from her own, dismissing them not on issues of merit or content but for the very reason that somebody else challenges what she personally thinks should be the outcome. In other points of complaint against me in the arbitration Katefan0 attempts to make issue about everything from the fact that I made reversions during content disputes well within the limits of 3RR, filed procedural motions to dispute adminship actions that I thought were wrong, and that I even dared to participate as a commentator or voter in other VfD's, VfU's, RfC's etc! Many of these complaints could very reasonably be construed as an attempt by her to limit the participation of other wikipedia editors to open content features of the forum if and when they differ from her personal position on one or more issues.
- Given this experience I fear strongly that Katefan0 would be prone to using admin powers such as page protect and blocking to suppress or control dissent from her own POV in disputes where she is either an involved party or a vocal participant. Rangerdude 15:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- I am not going to use this space to argue my RFAr, nor am I going to rehash old disputes. But if any editor is concerned about Rangerdude's comments, I will be glad to answer their specific questions. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:37, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Your contributions to Texas Rangers Division are copyright violations. I don't want that kind of behavior from an admin. Belkis 12:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- That is a most troubling assertion—could you indicate which contributions by Katefan0 were coypright violations? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- I believe Belkis is mistaken. I do see copying, for example this language added by SaltyPig (talk · contribs): [2] shows up here [3] (look for "after the Barrow Gang", middle of the page). However, I also think the flow of causality is wrong. There are also key phrases in [4] that showed up in the original July 2004 submission by Rlvaughn (talk · contribs): [5]. I note that it is unlikely that all of these users decided to copy from that website. What's more, it appears that document has a July 2005 date on it (bottom of my second link). Since all of the duplicated material seems to have been written before that, I would conclude that they copied the Wikipedia article without citation. (To be fair there are substantial sections and images that do not appear to come from us). Dragons flight 16:36, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Should that be the case, I'll apologize and withdraw my opposition, but the evidence was incriminating to say the least. The fact that the Legends of America page has a more complete and well illustrated page with a better storyline still strikes the contributions made by a couple of users as suspicious tho. The webmaster of Legends of America should be contacted to assert the truth behind this issue. Belkis 16:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- Most of the information on Bonnie and Clyde in that article was added by User:SaltyPig. He seemed quite knowledgeable about the subject and I had no reason to suspect his addition. Certainly there are pieces of information that may have been paraphrased from the site (which is listed as a source reference at the bottom of the page), but there was nothing that I personally copied wholesale. Thanks for your diligence, though, Belkis; you certainly seem to know your way around here for someone so new. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:07, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
- What reference are you referring to? SaltyPig did add reference material, but nothing pointing to http://www.legendsofamerica.com/ which is the copyvio site in question. Dragons flight 17:15, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was a little unclear -- Belkis also removed the entire section on Bonnie and Clyde and in the edit summary said it was because it was a copyvio. I think we're referring to two separate sections; Bonnie & Clyde (I have no idea if this is true or not, I haven't checked), and then the history section which he's saying was a copyvio from this www.legendsofamerica.com site. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:26, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
- What reference are you referring to? SaltyPig did add reference material, but nothing pointing to http://www.legendsofamerica.com/ which is the copyvio site in question. Dragons flight 17:15, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I would also add that the Texas Rangers material on that site is mentioned during a discussion of new content in an August 2005 newsletter: [6], which supports the July 2005 date on the page itself and the conclusion that they took content from us rather than the reverse. Dragons flight 17:10, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
- My apologies to Katefan0 for taking up so much space here, but if anyone needs more convincing, their article on Yellowstone, apparently created at the same time, also copies substantially from us: [7]. Dragons flight 17:21, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Not at all, I very much appreciate your kind attention! I of course was a little taken aback at such a serious charge and would not have had time to defend myself in this manner until the vote was nearly closed. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:26, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm currently working on the Texas Rangers article, and I'd like to point out that the "more complete" text at http://www.legendsofamerica.com/ is nothing but a careless collection of copvios from both our article and the Handbook of Texas' entry on the Texas Rangers, to the point that they even transcripted a few (very) minor mistakes from us without notice. The images they use are also easy to come by on a Google search. The only thing I see here is that someone stole from Katefan0 and other users, not the other way around. I wouldn't take this seriously. Shauri (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- Just for the record, I want to say that I plan to follow up with the LegendsOfAmerica website people. Dragons flight 23:47, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm currently working on the Texas Rangers article, and I'd like to point out that the "more complete" text at http://www.legendsofamerica.com/ is nothing but a careless collection of copvios from both our article and the Handbook of Texas' entry on the Texas Rangers, to the point that they even transcripted a few (very) minor mistakes from us without notice. The images they use are also easy to come by on a Google search. The only thing I see here is that someone stole from Katefan0 and other users, not the other way around. I wouldn't take this seriously. Shauri (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- Not at all, I very much appreciate your kind attention! I of course was a little taken aback at such a serious charge and would not have had time to defend myself in this manner until the vote was nearly closed. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:26, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Most of the information on Bonnie and Clyde in that article was added by User:SaltyPig. He seemed quite knowledgeable about the subject and I had no reason to suspect his addition. Certainly there are pieces of information that may have been paraphrased from the site (which is listed as a source reference at the bottom of the page), but there was nothing that I personally copied wholesale. Thanks for your diligence, though, Belkis; you certainly seem to know your way around here for someone so new. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:07, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Should that be the case, I'll apologize and withdraw my opposition, but the evidence was incriminating to say the least. The fact that the Legends of America page has a more complete and well illustrated page with a better storyline still strikes the contributions made by a couple of users as suspicious tho. The webmaster of Legends of America should be contacted to assert the truth behind this issue. Belkis 16:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for posting this information. I had no way to know it. I withdraw my opposition, and I sincerely apologize to Katefan0 for the trouble and personal stress I might have caused her. Belkis 11:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. No harm done on my end and maybe legendsofamerica will start crediting Wikipedia. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:19, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
Comments
- You give new meaning to the term 'Be Bold!' with your answers below. :) Acetic'Acid 01:16, September 6, 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.)
- I know the idea here is that adminship should be no big deal, but I personally think it is. Not because it imbues a user with significantly greater powers, but because putting "I am an administrator" on your userpage sends a message. This is particularly important with more casual users, who will naturally feel that an admin is someone they can trust as impartial and turn to for guidance to steer them in the right direction. So those can be large shoes to fill. As an admin, I would want to be the sort of person a user can look to for help. I also would anticipate continuing to do vandalism patrol as I do now, as well as helping with VfD closures. Also, I think WP:VIP and WP:RFP sometimes don't get patrolled enough. Or at least, from an outsider's perspective, requests there don't get answered very quickly even if they're acted upon, and in those situations waiting to hear an admin response can be very frustrating. I would anticipate being a presence on those pages, which seem to need extra attention. I'm open to helping with other tasks as well, generally believing that the most important job is the one that needs doing.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- I have done quite a lot of work expanding and tweaking the article on Katharine Hepburn. While not quite satisfactory, I'm very proud of the way it's shaped up and will be pursuing a FAC nomination on it soon. I'm also proud of Texas Ranger Division, which I expanded greatly, as well as articles I wrote to help complete WP's coverage of the most recent freshman class of the U.S. Congress (Mike Conaway, Lynn Westmoreland, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Mike Sodrel, Dan Lungren, Randy Kuhl, John Salazar, Gwen Moore).
- 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?
- One of the overlooked portions of WP's dispute resolution system, I feel, is WP:RFC, so I've tried to be active there when I can. I have actively participated in several conflicts listed on WP:RFC hoping to help broker a consensus between warring users, and as a result have gotten into several content disputes, most of which have ended on a good note. I would particularly point to Clay Aiken, which is finally stable after months of hit and run edit warring over the pop culture speculation that he's gay, Perverted-Justice.com which is also now relatively stable (thanks to several other users, I should add), and GreenFacts, which I helped adhere to NPOV. Others have not been so successful, primarily Price-Anderson Act, which is currently undergoing mediation. And, as Dragons flight mentioned, there is the matter of my current RFAr with User:Rangerdude, which initially began with my responding to an RFC on Jim Robinson but has spilled over into other articles about which we have a mutual interest. If anyone is concerned about this RFAr I'm more than happy to answer their questions. In terms of how I deal with conflict, generally I find that adhering to (and reminding people about) WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and related policies helps calm things greatly. And I always, always try to be polite. If wikistress ever feels like too much, I generally go back to writing articles or expanding things I'm interested in until I feel levelheaded again.
Nv8200p
Final (25/0/1) ending 16:01 September 12 2005 (UTC) Nv8200p (talk · contribs) - Nv8200p is extraordinarily active on WP:IFD, dealing with many cases of obsolete, unsourced, and duplicate images daily. He's been at Wikipedia since August 2003 and has 8200+ edits, with about 1700 in the article space, 1800 in the Wikipedia space, and almost 3000 in the image space. He is interested and capable, and I believe he would be a great asset to our admin team. --Andre (talk) 16:01, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Enthusiastic support. Was about to nominate him myself; thanks for allowing me to cast the first support vote. Nv8200p has put tremendous effort into WP:IFD, listing dozens of images each day, and now we need his help dealing with the resulting backlog. ;-) I have reason to believe that has made a lot more than 3000 edits in the image namespace, since most of his recent edits in that namespace consist of adding {{ifd}} tags to image pages, and those edits are lost and not counted when an image gets deleted. --MarkSweep✍ 16:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Andre (talk) 16:03, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Martin - The non-blue non-moose 16:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I see this username pop up often on IfD, doing the dirty work. Give him the mop. android79 18:51, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-5 18:53
- Support. Nv8200p's name is all over the IFD page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, another easy decision. Rje 19:16, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Thunderbrand 01:45, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- No question here, automatic support. Denelson83 04:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I'm just jumping on the bandwagon.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 04:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian (t) (c) 06:14, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, not come across him myself but seems like an excellent editor who will make good use of admin powers. the wub "?/!" 07:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. He deserves the WikiPower :). - Darwinek 18:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, good editor, seems strongly committed to janitorial tasks. 172.162.10.219 19:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- IIRC, anonymous votes are not counted on RfA. Did you forget to log in? android79 19:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, above vote is mine. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:18, 2005 September 6 (UTC)
- IIRC, anonymous votes are not counted on RfA. Did you forget to log in? android79 19:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. El_C 23:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Um, yeah Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yep, tireless image work. Support. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 21:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, sure. --Sn0wflake 03:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Your help on WP:IFD will be appreciated. Just remember not to delete images you nominate. dbenbenn | talk 17:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 00:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- Ruairidi 03:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, looks like a worthy candidate. JYolkowski // talk 01:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support; I really appreciate the people who take on the non-glamourous, tedious, dirty-work jobs. Very deserving candidate. Antandrus (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Oppose - this vote demonstrates a current misunderstanding about VfD (Images should be deleted even if the VfD is a clear no-consensus even before it was nominated?)Neutral or perhapas it demonstrats a current misunderstanding about IfD, by me, though this is a policy to change - see my comments on the pump shortly. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)- I'd interpret Nv8200p's comment to mean that if an article was nominated for deletion (per a VfD/AfD), and if an image associated exclusively with that article is up for deletion as well (on IfD), then that image should be deleted, pending the outcome of the VfD/AfD. This is entirely consistent with current IfD policies: if the result of the VfD is a consensus to delete, and the article is deleted, then the image is orphaned and it can potentially (depending on what it depicts) be considered as unencyclopedic. Those are two valid and very common reasons for listing an image on IfD, according to current policy and practice. Also keep in mind that this is just a vote: I don't see any evidence that Nv8200p would delete an image if the consensus was to keep. --MarkSweep✍ 12:05, 9 September 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.)
- I would be glad to help with maintenance on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images and any other areas as needed..
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- I'm most pleased with the articles Armadillo World Headquarters and Austin Aqua Festival. I spent a couple of hours researching each at the Austin History Center and I think the articles are well layed out and informative..
- 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?
- I have not had any editing conflicts. Other users edits to articles I've worked on have been proper and useful. I have not received any great complaints about edits I have done, just occasional questions as to why I did what I did..
Android79
Final (54/0/0) ending 12:45 12 September 2005 (UTC) Android79 (talk · contribs) - I think Android79 should be an admin. He is a very active and prominent Wikipedia editor and even has written his own criteria for admins (see user page). He has 3848 edits, which is enough by far. --— JIP | Talk 12:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- I humbly accept the nomination. As JIP says, I have a set of guidelines that I judge others by when voting for administratorship on my user page. If you feel that I don't meet my own guidelines or yours, please let me know how I can improve. I will take all criticism to heart in order to improve as an editor. android79 17:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Support obviously, as I'm the nominator. — JIP | Talk 12:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. The man is ready, he merely needs a mop. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Mad respect, nearly 2,000 Wikipedia namespace edits. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 13:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, thought you were one. Jobe6 14:17, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support--MONGO 15:19, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, you weren't? ~~ N (t/c) 15:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, Andre (talk) 15:51, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Martin - The non-blue non-moose 16:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Dragons flight 16:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Jaxl | talk 17:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Active in
VFDAFD, new pages patrol, et al. and would benefit with all the admin tools. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC) - BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-5 18:54
- Support Banes 19:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Have seen him around, and just been talking to him. Very good man.—encephalonέγκέφαλος 19:51:56, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
- RFA cliché no. 1. Dmcdevit·t 20:27, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. He already is one. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support notable "good egg". Hamster Sandwich 23:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Great user and will make a great admin =) Sasquatch讲看 02:44, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Anyone who hangs around with Lucky and Klenk can't have too many screws loose. (Tears up in laughter as the mental picture of an "android" with "loose screws" comes to mind) Actually, 'Droid. . . Your screws are just fine! Your insightful responses to certain "loose screws" on the Wiki and the janitorial services already rendered give me much confidence my vote will be well-placed. Give 'em the toolbox so he can "tighten up" the Wikivandals and keep the 'pedia clean! Please promote to wikijanitor. --avnative 03:15, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- As one of the aforementioned "loose screws," I have to say strongest possible support! (Just kidding about the screw part, Av.) I simply cannot think of anyone more deserving of the tools to help maintain this site. One of the very best! - Lucky 6.9 03:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian (t) (c) 06:13, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, with customary "he's not?" confusion. Flowerparty 06:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. An excellent contributor and a very sensible participant in debates. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, what ^^they said. the wub "?/!" 07:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Extra-strength support, for an allround good guy, especially at AfD, who helped me fix my user page. --Scimitar parley 13:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support I see this name everywhere.
15:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC) - Support. I've seen him around and he does good work. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 15:35, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Friday (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Stewart Adcock 20:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. This is the droid we're looking for. — Phil Welch 21:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Android is very dedicated to Wikipedia Policy and is not the least bit effected by trolls(an art which I am finally beginning to master). He has even changed my opinion about WP Policy enforcement. Definitely a solid admin choose.Voice of All(MTG) 21:18, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. El_C 23:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support ITYWO Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent user. All of these quality candidates this week are sucking half the fun out of RfA. Someone nominate Scott Norwood for balance. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support KHM03 11:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yup --Doc (?) 13:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support for great work on VfD/AfD and related areas. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. - Mailer Diablo 21:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support! After all, the man is a machine... ;-) -- BD2412 talk 01:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Just so long as he doesn't run around... on wheels. Dragons flight 04:43, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Support - A worthy candidate who deserves the admin tools. Enjoy the mop :) Ral315 13:10, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Support SchmuckyTheCat 19:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Hand him the mop and bucket quick. I have seen a lot of android79's comments of AfD and they have built up my respect for him. Alf melmac 21:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support. The only reason I'm not up there at #2 is waiting for my own RfA to finish. The sooner Android79 is an admin, the better for us all. -Splash 15:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Fire Star 20:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Another goody. Grutness...wha? 04:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Add me to the "I thought he already was one" list. --Alan Au 06:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support ... me too! FreplySpang (talk) 14:38, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
- —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC) (I especially admire his handling of the SamuraiClinton affair.)
- Ruairidi 03:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support I've seen Android79's work before so I support. The Fascist Chicken 05:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yes support. --Bhadani 14:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Comments
- "After all, the man is an machine..." ;-) So, BD, are you saying that he's like the Robot from Lost in Space who would issue warnings like "Danger, Will Robinson!"? Keeping folks like the nefarious Dr. Smith at bay? "Oh, the pain, the pain. . . oh, the pain!" :-)) --avnative 02:32, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of a Cylon – snuffing out vandals instead of human beings, of course. :-) android79 13:20, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- You mean a RickK 'droid? I fall down and "worship" you, o Imperious Leader! --avnative 23:02, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Does make you wonder, tho, whether he dreams of electric sheep. -- BD2412 talk 03:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- You mean a RickK 'droid? I fall down and "worship" you, o Imperious Leader! --avnative 23:02, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of a Cylon – snuffing out vandals instead of human beings, of course. :-) android79 13:20, September 8, 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 continue to do what I've already been doing, but I would be able to take more decisive action as an administrator.
- I have a large number of frequently-vandalized articles on my watchlist. As an administrator, I would be able to use rollback to revert vandalism more easily, and I would also be able to block persistant vandals.
- I already participate frequently in AfD, both by discussing nominated articles, and by closing out some discussions, such as those that are obvious "Keep"s or those for articles that have already been speedied. As an administrator, I would be able to close discussions for articles with a consensus to delete or for those articles where the consensus is unclear.
- I do new page patrol frequently, tagging for CSD or AfD, stubifying, wikifying, or tagging for cleanup as appropriate. As an administrator, I would be able to evaluate CSD tags placed by others and carry out speedy deletion when an article clearly meets the criteria.
- A. I would continue to do what I've already been doing, but I would be able to take more decisive action as an administrator.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. I'm no great writer of featured articles, at least not yet. I feel that "janitorial" activities are very important to the success of Wikipedia, second only to writing good content. I've been very active on AfD, reverting vandalism, and new page patrol/random cleanup activities, and I feel those contributions have been very worthwhile and have increased the quality of the encyclopedia as a whole. That said, I have been attempting to get more involved in significant editing in article space, such as the baseball players WikiProject.
- 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 try not to get too stressed out about editing, and if I do, I simply take a break for a while. I try to follow the 1RR (though sometimes that slips to 2RR) and always discuss disagreements on the talk page rather than reverting again, so as not to start a revert war. That said, there are some editors who have caused me great frustration in the past. For example, SamuraiClinton (also known as SuperDude115) had a habit of creating articles on extremely idiosyncratic topics, and after working with many other editors to try to convince him to alter his behavior, we decided to open up an RfC. Later it was revealed that SuperDude is autistic, a fact that I suspected, but decided not to act on, since I felt at the time it would be a gross violation of Wikiquette to essentially accuse someone of being autistic without any firm evidence. In retrospect, I wish I would have acted on my hunch, but it all worked out reasonably well in the end, with SuperDude becoming much less disruptive under the tutelage of Lucky 6.9.
Lectonar
Final: (23/0/0) ending 08:40 12 September 2005 (UTC) Lectonar (talk · contribs) - Lectonar is another of the good guys. Nearly 6500 edits (full details here) in En-wiki alone since November last year, and multilingual, so that’s not the only place he edits. He probably would have been nominated for admin long ago, if not for the fact that his access to the ‘net is somewhat restricted (though that shouldn’t be a huge problem). Edits include much wikifying, sorting, and more than a little vandal-reversion. Give him a mop! --Grutness...wha? 08:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Support
- Ja, Oui, Yes, Si... - Grutness...wha? 08:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Give him a +3 mop of smiting.-gadfium 09:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Looks good to me!--MONGO 10:33, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian (t) (c) 11:51, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Happy to Support. Rje 12:35, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Andre (talk) 15:50, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Martin - The non-blue non-moose 16:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yep. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Another multilingual user who would benefit with the admin tools. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-5 18:55
- Yes OUI Goldensun 08:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC) very sympathetic user and accessible for all people
- Support/Dafür And not just because we live in the same city and are both interested in Irish, and not just because he already supported me! --Angr/tɔk tə mi 10:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. El_C 23:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support wow Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support KHM03 11:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, com certeza fará bom uso dos poderes a ele conferidos. ;) --Sn0wflake 03:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Another presence I have been impressed with. Alf melmac 21:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Good man.—encephalonέγκέφαλος 17:05:47, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
- Support. Hooray for multilingual editors! Also, dependable nominator and support voters. Fire Star 20:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- Ruairidi 03:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Mairi 05:52, 12 September 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 do a fair bit of RC-Patrol already (I try do about half an hour per day), mostly welcoming new users, reverting obvious mistakes, here an there spotting a speedy deletion candidate, and tagging it accordingly. The rollback button would be much appreciated, though.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. I 'm quite happy about my translation work (watch out for germanized grammar), especially the German/English requests, and, let's quote from my talk page, that's a part much underestimated, and I'm always glad to help.
- 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 really; apart from the stress caused more or less in an indirect form (by Wiki_brah lately), I'm still surprised about how this project works out for the good..for further info, have a look at my userpage.
Jobe6
(12/11/0) ending 04:23 12 September 2005 (UTC)Jobe6 (talk · contribs) - I have been actively contributing to Wikipedia since June 2005 and have 1800 edits and almost 1000 edits to articles. I participate in Vfd or Afd, Cfd and occasionally Tfd and am very familiar with the policies around here. I am also on RC patrol from time to time. Although i was a very minor vandal way back in November 2004, I have not vandalized pages since then and after a long break from Wikipedia have become a more mature contributor. --Jobe6 04:23, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Obviously I accept.
Support
- Merovingian (t) (c) 06:06, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Count is low, but distribution is nice. BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-5 06:35
- support. Redwolf24 (talk) 06:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Martin - The non-blue non-moose 16:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support -Surachit 22:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Yes. A little early... OTOH would make a good admin so why not Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support He would make a good admin, in my opinion. --WikiFanaticTalk 23:33, 7 Sep 2005 (CDT)
- Supporte He would make a good admin and is very hepful and cool (he is from South America like me too!).Wiki brah 02:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- Ruairidi 03:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support He would make a good admin and is very helpful and trustworthy (Jessica Liao 03:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC))
- Support He helped get all my history back for my account. It was deleted before and now I have it back. thanks to him! (Kyla 21:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC))
Oppose
- I believe that this user has not been editing for long enough as a non-vandal. My standards state 3+ months, and though I am willing to support those who do not meet them if they have other redeeming qualities, I don't see enough in this user to do so. Additionally, past history of vandalism gives me some pause. Oppose. Andre (talk) 01:00, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too few edits in too little time.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 04:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, too little experience. — JIP | Talk 09:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sorry, but 3 months is my magic line (except once).--Scimitar parley 13:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose per Andrevan, Derktar 23:46, September 6, 2005 (UTC).
- Oppose It's not because of your past, though. I trust that you have reformed. I've seen it happen before. But since you have only been productively editing since June 25, I've support you after September 25, as you get the good three months in there. Acetic'Acid 00:34, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. I find it hard to support anyone with only two and a half months of quality edits. Past history of vandalism sets the bar even higher. (But you deserve props for being frank about it and reforming.) --NormanEinstein 20:39, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, nice edit count, but a very short time. -feydey 21:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Besides being a former vandal and taking off six months (I checked), your user page strikes me as being a bit uncivil. "Political s***" and "Kick "a** links" for headers just don't sit right with my understanding of WP:Civil. Yes, you have been making reverts and helpful contribs, but you're too self-centered and absorbed to be an ambassador to new users of Wikipedia. My advice: become more civil in your use of the English language, learn more new words in the language to help self-expression, and learn from more experienced, respected editors here on the Wikipedia. Find an area of interest you don't know much about (other than bands and music) and learn and contribute to it. Then come back and see about adminship. I hope I've said this in a gentle, constructive way. . . that's my intent here. Thanks for listening. --avnative 22:32, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
- How is it uncivil? I haven't personally attacked any other wikipedian. Also it seems that you might have not followed WP:Civil because of the "belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice". It is my user page and I have the right to fix my userpage however i want. I'm not using controversial words in the actual article space. Also i have tried editing in areas of which i had little or no knowledge about and was blasted at and told not to edit in areas of which I was not familiar with. Besides music I have also made contributions in areas of Colonial Viriginian history and also am involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League. Jobe6 01:31, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Only ten weeks of good editing, preceeded by a six month break, preceeded by minor vandalism? What's the harm in waiting? Keep doing good editing, use edit summaries each time for article edits, and in a few months let's re-evaluate for adminship after considering the friendly criticism above. Jonathunder 00:32, 2005 September 12 (UTC)
Neutral
Neutral. I added a question for you, though, which I would like you to answer. Andre (talk) 23:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)Moved to oppose.
Comments
- A chart showing this user's edits along with an total # of edits line is available here: Image:Jobe6-edits.gif. 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 15:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Although its not very important I can proudly say that i was one of the first if not the first person on the internet to say that Kanye West said his George Bush statement here and also when Chris Rock jokingly said his George Bush hates midgets statement here. It's just an example of how the editing process can allow normal people and now famous news sites to show how fast current events, important or unimportant, can show up on Wikipedia seconds after they happen. Jobe6 00:47, September 10, 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. The usual RC patrol, Afd,and speedy delete patrol. Rollback feature and block will certainly help.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. I'm pleased with my work on William Randolph and many Soundgarden related articles such as singles, albums and related bands.
- 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 never had any conflicts or edit wars with anybody although numerous anon IPs have caused me some trouble becuase they haven't stopped and I could not block them and when they were listed on Vandalism in Progress no body seemed to do anything.
- 4. For how long have you been a productive editor? That is to say, at what date did you start editing productively? Andre (talk) 23:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Rx StrangeLove
(30/0/0) ending 04:51 12 September 2005 (UTC) Rx StrangeLove (talk · contribs) - Rx StrangeLove has been productively contributing to Wikipedia since February of this year, and has amassed 2700 edits. During this time, Rx has reverted tons of vandalism, as one can see from his edit history, and the praise he has received on his talk page is as great of an indictation of his dedication to RC patrol as any. If anyone deserves the mop, it is this user. --Nufy8 04:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept. I'm flattered, this came right of the blue. Thank you for the generous nomination! Rx StrangeLove 05:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Support, of course. Nufy8 04:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- A horse is a horse. BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-5 04:56
- Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Great vandal fighter. Rx has beaten me to the revert quite a few times, too. Jaxl | talk 05:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, absolutely. I can't count the times I have gotten his name on that "rollback failed!" page. Great vandal fighter; everything I've seen is good. Antandrus (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- "It is not only possible, it is essential." --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:04, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support - one of the good guys. Grutness...wha? 06:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Weaksupport. Rx Strangelove, please answer the candidate questions below. — JIP | Talk 06:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)- Support. As has been said, great vandal fighter. --Canderson7 15:25, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, I would have nominated him myself. --Sn0wflake 15:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Suppppppport.' ~~ N (t/c) 15:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Andre (talk) 15:51, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support ITHAWO! Martin - The non-blue non-moose 16:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support.—encephalonέγκέφαλος 16:27:33, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
- Support This user would benefit with the admin tools. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, I second what Zzyzx11 said. Rje 19:12, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Meets my guidelines. android79 19:35, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Thunderbrand 01:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. El_C 23:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, Meets, and would definetly benefit from admin tools as suggested by Zzyzx11. Falphin 23:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support What's with all the good candidates lately? Yes :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support without the slightest doubt. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Sure. No doubt reading the comments and editors above – Bratschetalk | Esperanza 21:10, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Support absolutely! Hamster Sandwich 02:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Good focus on RC actions: newbies, edits, vandals + able to see the value of an article in AfD, even it is in a poor state, jump in and make it something worth keeping = priceless. Alf melmac 21:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Swift with RC patrol. Friendly. Helpful. An all-around good Wikipedian. Joyous (talk) 00:09, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Support: Great commitment to the quality and aims of the project. Geogre 02:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Ruairidi 03:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, fighting vandalism is a chore that he does admirably. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:26, September 12, 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'll be continuing to do RC patrol which I enjoy. The extra tools will come in handy, as will the ability to backup final warnings. I look forward to helping with the Copyright problem backlog. I’ve been going though them seeing if there’s something a non-admin can do to help. I’ve been rewriting some, reverting others…I’m looking forward to being able to carry the process to completion. I’d also help with the other backlogs that exist. Though non-admins can help out with them at some point in the process, a lot of them need admin intervention at some point and I want to help with those as well.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A I think that of the contributions I’ve made I’m most pleased with are the articles I’ve saved from deletion by rewriting them. I regularly go through AfD and look for articles that look like they are headed for deletion when a rewrite would change peoples votes. I’ve had a fair amount of success doing that. As I’ve noted above I’m happy with the work I’ve done rewriting articles that have been listed on Copyright problems. Also, as I go through New pages I find articles where the subjects belong but whose writing is often very poor. There are some articles I’ve created about Twin City (Minnesota) institutions, the Guthrie Theater and Northeast Minneapolis for example, though those are older examples. I also was a determined stub sorter and helped out with updating Wikipedia:Stub
- 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 only real conflicts I’ve had have been with vandals, but in the sense that the question was asked I haven’t had any real conflicts with other editors. Working as a general editor I usually state my objections or pose the objection as a question, and then tend to move on. Moving on won’t always be an option if I’m accepted but I really don’t anticipate any problems, I really believe in being civil and I think Wikipedia:Civility and not turning conflicts personal goes a long way toward keeping them constructive.
- The key for not getting stressed out is to keep to the point in conflicts and don't make it a personal conflict as I wrote above. Also, fight the feeling of having to respond to something right away. Taking a step away often does wonders in stress reduction. And finally make the goal consesus rather then clinging to a position without being flexable.
- Sorry for the delay in answering these, the nomination came close to 11:00 pm so I thought I'd accept and work on them in the morning.
- I'd be happy to answer any other questions people might have!
The Singing Badger
(27/2/6) ending 01:00 12 September 2005 (UTC) The Singing Badger (talk · contribs) - Self request. Wikipedian since May 2004. More edits than you can shake a stick at, in a wide variety of subjects. Been asked to be an admin more than once (1), (2). And have even been mentioned in a newspaper, how many of you can say that?? [8]
Support
- Support almost 6,000 edits. freestylefrappe 02:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Deserves adminship to better and more easily accomplish any task he chooses. Not every admin has to be a janitor or Walmart greeter. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-5 04:51
- Merovingian (t) (c) 05:57, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, seems to have enough contributions, and getting a contribution noted in a newspaper is a good thing too. — JIP | Talk 06:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. The 'Badger has been around for a while and all my interactions with him have been positive. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support I believe this user won't go rogue with his admin powers. Grue 15:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Does good work creating an encyclopedia; I can understand why he doesn't have time to muck about in the Wikipedia: namespace. :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Wholeheartedly support. I was one of those that offered a year ago to nominate Badger, and I stand by that 100%. Badger is a fantastic editor and contributor--I understand that the focus these days is on new admins who will do work on Wikipedia upkeep projects, but back in the old days if we had a good editor who contributed a lot to the project and didn't cause trouble, I recall us giving them admin privileges if they wanted them. I can foresee only benefits if we give Badger admin privileges--if for no other reason (and I can think of many others) than that a user who has made as many good, well-written, high-quality contributions to this project as Badger has deserves to have that recognized. Adminship is supposed to be "no big deal"--in a perfect world, all wiki users would have admin privileges. We restrict them because there are people who will abuse the privileges -- I can't believe there's any concern about Badger in that respect. Sorry for the long note, but I've been wanting to nominate this editor for a year, and I can't believe there are so many oppose votes right now. Jwrosenzweig 17:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Meets my guidelines. android79 19:35, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Looks good to me. Deb 20:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Good editor and a great username too. CheekyMonkey 22:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- A user I recognize and respect. —Cryptic (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, I decided to research him after I saw his nomination removed (strange that) and he seems like a good user. I hope I don't regret it! Sam Spade 15:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, but if Hallett Smith is such a "noted Elizabethan scholar" shouldn't we have an article about him? --Michael Snow 20:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support first few oppose votes about setting up RfA wrong seem a bit harsh Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, excellent editor, would make a fine admin. -- Curps 02:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. A name I've seen associated with nothing but good edits. A longstanding good user ought to be given adminship even if he will use it only rarely: long experience without problems suggests he is suitably acquainted with policy despite lack of interest in its creation. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- An exemplary editor who deserves a mop even if it's for occasional use. Veledan • Talk 21:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support The Musical Mustelidae has clarified my worry (personally being somewhat inclusionist, if there's a chance that an article is under the apparent junk - I was concerned that he might not scratch the surface before hitting the delete button). Alf melmac 23:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support: Not a very social person, but a good article author and editor, and we need people whose idea of content extends beyond format (as well as the people whose idea is format....not trying to pick another fight). In particular, he satisfies a need, as Wikipedia has too few folks working on Renaissance British literature. Geogre 02:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support; I'm also partial to people who mainly contribute content to the main article space. Everything I see is good, and I see no reason to oppose. Excellent contributor. Antandrus (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. The only thing that might mitigate full support is the relative paucity of WP and WPTalk space edits (currently 44 and 4 respectively). However, the quality of his (her?) work is so good, and the interactions which I have seen so positive and thoughtful, that I think this objection is easily overcome. This badger deserves all the accoutrements (s)he asks for.—encephalonέγκέφαλος 08:53:42, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
- --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support. After perusing Kate's Tool, looking at the classification of edits, looking at his (yes, you're a he!) user page/user talk page, and looking at a (judicious) sampling of his edits over the last few months, I have come to the conclusion that Jwrosenzweig is correct. This is an editor that not only knows how to rewrite and expand articles (a complex task at times) but owns up to prior mistakes in article entries (and corrects them himself). He reverts obvious vandalism on sight when he sees it, and gives room for not knowing everything about a topic (thinking gray: see my own user page for context). To top it off, he has a very delightful sense of humor. Just because he is more interested in adding article content does not mean he does not know how to interact well with other editors (I've checked that too). Admins are trusted members who happen to have a set of tools at their disposal, not perfect or all-encompassing folks who participate in everything. . . I know I as an editor here follow my own fields of interest, as does TSB. I see no reason not to promote him to Administrator status. He's been trustworthy to date. . . and he, I believe, will be trustworthy with the Admin buttons. Correcting the William Shakespeare article for his correct signature - the one from his will - is the icing on the cake for me. Knowledge gathering and contributing like TSB's are simply marvelous. Promote. --avnative 19:21, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Support as per Antandrus. Hamster Sandwich 19:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- I apologize. I misunderstood your comment about the newspaper article, which, combined with the small amount of trouble you had formatting this RfA, gave me a bad feeling. Since the issue of the article has been explained, and based on UC's comment below, I will support your request for admin powers. Andre (talk) 19:59, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Ruairidi 03:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose, too few Wikipedia namespace edits. Also the problems you had with setting up this RfA show that you're not familiar enough with procedures yet to be an admin. Your edit count looks promising though, and with a bit more participation in the community I'd definitely support in a month or two. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 01:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
#I agree. Also, where were you mentioned in that article, and how is it relevant to this RfA? Andre (talk) 02:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC) Switched to support.
Comment: The article (fallaciously) cites the fact that the Shakespeare article being edited by "the 'wise and all knowing' Singing Badger" rather than people such as "Hallett Smith, a noted Elizabethan scholar" as reason to disregard the content of wikipedia for academic purposes. (I'd suggest it's a good object lesson for students in never believing anything you read unquestioningly)Er.. just see below. Seems the problems I had answering this question show that I'm not familiar enough with procedures yet to respond to stuff on RfAs... --zippedmartin 03:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose: Failure to follow instructions in submitting his self nomination [9] shows a potential trait to not follow policies that admins need to know. Answers to question 1 below indicate desire to revert vandal behavior. I'm slightly concerned that in the last five months and 1,000 edits this nominee has reverted edits a total 38 times, or <4% of his edits (judging by edit summaries, searching for "rv" and "revert"). Lastly, over the last 100 edits, edit summaries were not used in ~40% of edits. Show more interest in what it is you want to do as an admin, use edit summaries more frequently, and do your self nomination properly the next go around (if this one doesn't pass) and I'll gladly shift to support. --Durin 17:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Please see my comments in the comments section below. --avnative 19:50, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral—might need a few more edits in "wikipedia", and "wikipedia talk" namespace; shows little interaction.
- Neutral, I too am concerned by his limited interaction with other users. Rje 07:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Please come back to RFA after you have interacted more with other users.Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)Too little involvement in discussion (245 talk edits, 62 user talk, 36 Wikipedia, 2 Wikipedia talk). I really appreciate your article contributions, but administrators need to have a lot of community involvement as well. Start participating on Wikipedia:Village pump and trust me, you'll like it. Then come back after racking up a few hundred Wikipedia:/Wikipedia talk: edits, and you'll have good luck. ~~ N (t/c) 01:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)- Neutral, I like SB but he doesn't have enough interaction for adminship. Will support, in a blink of an eye if an effort is made to interact more often. Falphin 23:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Normally, this would be an Oppose vote due to a low number to Wikipedia: and User talk: edits. However, several respected editors vouch for you. Also, 6000 edits in main is nothing to sneeze at. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 21:07, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Neutral. I would like "deleting rubbishy new pages" clarified as it is my only concern with The Musical Mustelidae. Alf melmac 21:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)- I was simply referring to the obvious junk and vandalism that frequently appears on the new pages list. The stuff described at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. It bugs me.
Comments
- Kate's tool: 6409 edits, 5852 main namespace. ~~ N (t/c) 01:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- From the article: "However, its lengthy article on Shakespeare appears to be impressive but is frequently edited by, among many unidentified others, the "wise and all knowing" Singing Badger. Grolier Online's Americana Shakespeare article, on the other hand, is signed by Hallett Smith, a noted Elizabethan scholar." freestylefrappe 02:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- That is irrelevant. Worldtraveller appeared on the BBC, but it was his edits and contributions that got him promoted to admin. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- I thought it was fairly obvious that the Badger was making a lightly self-deprecating joke--clearly the journalist writing that article was bashing the idea of an encyclopedia that allows a wise and all-knowing badger to contribute. TSB has always had a good sense of humor about him/herself (in my experience), and I think that a healthy sense of humor about ourselves is important. :-) If TSB didn't intend to make a joke, I hope that will be clarified, since I agree that it's hard to see how that quote offers much evidence of suitability for adminship (unless it's that the article's description as "impressive" and written in part by TSB is a kind of endorsement, I suppose?). Jwrosenzweig 17:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- The Badger was indeed making an attempt at humour. Scientists who have studied badgers in the wild have often remarked upon their overly ironic demeanours. The Singing Badger 18:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- I thought it was fairly obvious that the Badger was making a lightly self-deprecating joke--clearly the journalist writing that article was bashing the idea of an encyclopedia that allows a wise and all-knowing badger to contribute. TSB has always had a good sense of humor about him/herself (in my experience), and I think that a healthy sense of humor about ourselves is important. :-) If TSB didn't intend to make a joke, I hope that will be clarified, since I agree that it's hard to see how that quote offers much evidence of suitability for adminship (unless it's that the article's description as "impressive" and written in part by TSB is a kind of endorsement, I suppose?). Jwrosenzweig 17:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- That is irrelevant. Worldtraveller appeared on the BBC, but it was his edits and contributions that got him promoted to admin. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- I would like to observe that I find some of the oppose votes to have particularly weak rationale. The Singing Badger has significant editing experience here prior to the widespread use of transcluded pages, and many who became accustomed to editing without them find them awkward. I believe that opposition based on the distribution of edit counts among namespaces is inappropriate. Those editors who are concerned about insufficient community participation would be better advised to review the nominee's contributions carefully, as I believe that he has had more than sufficient meaningful interaction with the community. Not everyone plays chess on the wiki or tries to build a consensus for policy changes, both things that rapidly build up edit counts in nonarticle namespace without necessarily making someone better qualified for adminship. I also note that the Singing Badger does not participate in IRC, and wonder whether the familiarity that comes from IRC participation is becoming a de facto requirement for adminship. It shouldn't be. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- I keep misreading the candidate's name as "The Stinking Badger". Nothing against him, though. — JIP | Talk 16:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- I think you're confusing me with this fellow. The Singing Badger 21:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Regarding Durin's comments: I just did a count myself of omission of edit summary notes, and I found 25 missing in the last 100 as of now. More of the summaries are missing toward the bottom of the list, and the very recent entries are edit summarized. Furthermore, 7 or 8 of the missing summaries relate to his adminship. . . give him a break, he was probably excited about getting his nomination placed for a vote. As far as not placing his admin nomination in the proper place, can't a WP editor make a mistake once in a while? It's in the right place now. That's all that counts in the end, right? (smile) --avnative 19:50, September 10, 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. Reverting vandals and deleting rubbishy new pages would be my principal contribution.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. I am particularly pleased with the numerous lengthy articles I created on the etymology of solar system geology - see Geological features of the Solar System and Meanings of asteroid names. I'm fond of these because they create links between very different spheres of knowledge.
- 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 discussions, sometimes heated, on Talk:Alexander the Great#On the three ethnically-based changes, Talk:Mimas (moon), Talk:Christopher Marlowe, on naming principles for asteroids, among others. I believe strongly in keeping my cool and attempting to use common sense and compromise to defuse rows.
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/pmam21
Nickptar
(38/2/1) ending 02:23 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Nickptar (talk · contribs) - Has been a Wikipedian since March 2005. While Nickptar's contributions are mostly minor, Nickptar's been active in the area of vandal-fighting. Nickptar's dealings with other Wikipedians have been polite, and with no major controversies, as far as I could see. I believe Nickptar would make good use of the extra sysop abilities. --cesarb 02:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Support
- Support of course. --cesarb 02:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Seems like a fine candidate to me Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Actually thought he was an admin already. Andre (talk) 02:29, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. 'Nother good one. Dmcdevit·t 02:32, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Thought he was one. --Merovingian (t) (c) 02:37, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Support this maker of sensible comments—encephalon | ζ 03:35:34, 2005-09-04 (UTC)
- Support though we've disagreed at times, I support N unconditionally. He would be an incredible admin. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support with pleasure. I've seen Nick get involved in a few conduct- or block-related issues (to help out, not as the object of them), and he's invariably civil, reasonable, and insightful. He'll make a great admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:01, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Support with ease, I know he'll make a good admin -- Joolz 15:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-4 17:34
- Support, good vandal fighter. the wub "?/!" 17:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support; would make a great admin. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 17:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, judging by other's comments, he'll be a good admin. Plus anyone who mistakes me for an admin and runs for an admin himself is a good candidate to vote for. — JIP | Talk 18:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Good at making his points civilly/calmly. FreplySpang (talk) 20:54, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I have disagreed with Nick on more than one occasion. However he never seems to freak out on people or lose his cool. He's a great guy. Good luck to you Nick. Redwolf24 (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Phroziac (talk) 21:49, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, will make an excellent admin. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 23:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 00:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support; good candidate. Antandrus (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Plenty of great work. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Excellent editor. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Great editor. Meets my guidelines. android79 19:36, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support no reservations whatsoever. Hamster Sandwich 23:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. (Insert superlative here.) Flowerparty 06:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Give the man the
flamethrowerrollback button! --Titoxd 06:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC) - Support --AllyUnion (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- SUPPORT
15:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC) - Support. El_C 23:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Fine vandal-fighter. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yup, this is a Support. Func( t, c, @, ) 17:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Upport-say. – Bratschetalk | Esperanza 21:01, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. -- DS1953 05:16, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Fine candidate, seen lots of examples of his work. Alf melmac 22:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support... so heavy... can barely... lift. -- BD2412 talk 23:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support You mean he isn't an Admin now? But, but, I was listening to him because I thought he WAS one already! Uncle Ed 01:45, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Weird, I thought I already voted to support, but seeing as I apparently haven't, I may as well do so now! --Alan Au 07:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support I've seen his bot at work a number of times, always doing great work. Jacoplane 09:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- i don't know this user, but based on my experiences with people elevated to authority, just this single edit portends a potentially abusive admin. was frankly shocked to see this sort of wannabe-cop remark in a wikipedia article. it's not in line with normal administration behavior here. suggest a year or so for seasoning. SaltyPig 22:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- It's not a new idea; for a time, there was a much stronger one at the top of George W. Bush (and that one was added by an administrator, AFAIK). There was also one at the top of Gay Nigger Association of America. And that's only the ones I know of. --cesarb 22:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- "And that's only the ones I know of"? let the vote go down already; you don't need to run interference with a broom. i'm guessing the result won't be too scary for ya if you sit back. SaltyPig 06:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- It's not a new idea; for a time, there was a much stronger one at the top of George W. Bush (and that one was added by an administrator, AFAIK). There was also one at the top of Gay Nigger Association of America. And that's only the ones I know of. --cesarb 22:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
- I would like to hear why you made this accusation of sockpuppetry against Toby~enwiki (talk · contribs), who has made no contributions since april 2002. Radiant_>|< 16:16, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Unintentionally - I meant TOBY (talk · contribs), who seems far too familiar with WP process and Wikipedia:Toby for a new user, and whose first few edits are... quite strange. ~~ N (t/c) 16:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Comments
- Kate's tool says: 2251 edits on 1081 articles, 853 of the edits being on the article namespace. [10] --cesarb 02:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Also, his bot has made 1002 edits, 873 to articles. [11] the wub "?/!" 17:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Huh? I thought you were just on requests for bureaucratship? But you're not an admin yet? --Phroziac (talk) 21:49, September 4, 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. The usual - closing VfDs, blocking vandals. I would especially focus on patrolling Category:Candidates for speedy deletion - I find that obvious speedies can stay in there for hours.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. My janitorial bot, which seems to be working fairly well and led to my receiving a Janitorial Services Medal. I have no substantive article contributions to be pleased with, but am proud of all of my cleanup, vandalfighting, and 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. Talk:Otherkin, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gabrielsimon, and Wikipedia talk:Toby (if that counts) are the biggies. I've been watching Gabrielsimon (now Gavin the Chosen) for a long time, and have contributed to the RfC and RfAr against him. These have all led to minor stress. I try to remain reasonable and argue for NPOV, NOR, verifiability, and consensus. All of those conflicts, plus a few more minor ones, have all helped me in understanding how to see others' POVs and try to mediate.
- 4. What is your threshold for deleting in closing a VfD? (added because I know this is a big issue)
- A. 75-80%. May vary on a case-by-case basis depending on the people and arguments involved. I will try not to close VfDs on which I have a strong opinion.
Luigi30
(11/9/6) ending 21:14 10 September 2005 (UTC) Luigi30 (talk • contribs) Luigi made a failed application for adminship in March, which failed due to an edit count under 1000. He now has 1333, and has been here effectively since last September. He is not the most active of users, but seems cool, rational, and interacts well by my experience on IRC. He is the kind of user I can see doing significant amounts of RC patrol once he has the tools that adminship gives (in my own mould). My own formula for deciding whether to support an adminship is to take away the potential costs of promotion from the potential gain. Luigi30 easily passes that test. [[smoddy]] 21:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Accepted! User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 21:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Me, of course. [[smoddy]] 21:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- See comments to Jobe's oppose. --Phroziac (talk) 21:55, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- I asked him a question about deletionism on IRC. He replied, "I've purposely avoided the inclusionist/deletionist thing; I don't like partisan politics." Strong support. Andre (talk) 00:36, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Luigi has demonstrated intellegence and tact, which are traits we really need from administrators. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 01:22, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 02:05, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Super Mario! Having over 10,000 and not being an admin I dont believe in edit counts mattering. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Excellent candidate. Committed to unglamorous work that is however essential. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Sweet yams! Redwolf24 (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support this candidate, oppose editcountitis. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 04:40, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Been around a bit, clueful, not insane - David Gerard 14:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, please - as per David Gerard. Lupin|talk|popups 20:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- 1333 edits in a year, thats not much activity, lack of edit summaries and spends too much time on Chess. Jobe6 21:45, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose — I agree with Jobe6, needs more edits (only 500 edits in article namespace). We need to know he is 'not an idiot', but we also need someone who is 'involved'.
- Will support at 1K article edits. --Merovingian (t) (c) 02:36, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure this guy insulted me at some point in the past. Everyking 11:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- ...?! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 15:18, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- News to me. User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 16:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell from Googling for Luigi30 and Everyking on Wikipedia (search results: [12]), their only interaction was a report posted by Luigi30 about Everyking possibly violating his revert parole on Ashlee Simpson articles: [13]. There could be something Google hasn't indexed or that wasn't signed, of course. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, I knew there was something. That's actually even worse than what I thought because he was trying to get me blocked when I had done nothing wrong. So make that a strongly oppose. What would he do if he had admin powers himself? Everyking 14:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- He pointed out what he saw as a violation of the terms of an arbitration decision - that strikes me as a helpful act. The linked discussion does not support your claim that you had done 'nothing wrong'. Worldtraveller 14:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Er, the edits that Luigi30 pointed out as a possible violation of Everyking's revert parole ultimately led to this clarification of Everyking's first ArbCom case where the ArbCom unanimously endorsed Luigi's position. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, I knew there was something. That's actually even worse than what I thought because he was trying to get me blocked when I had done nothing wrong. So make that a strongly oppose. What would he do if he had admin powers himself? Everyking 14:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell from Googling for Luigi30 and Everyking on Wikipedia (search results: [12]), their only interaction was a report posted by Luigi30 about Everyking possibly violating his revert parole on Ashlee Simpson articles: [13]. There could be something Google hasn't indexed or that wasn't signed, of course. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. Luigi30 doesn't seem to have enough experience to be an admin. — JIP | Talk 18:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. There's nothing wrong with encouraging would-be admins to get a little more experience first. Please keep editing, start using edit summaries consistently, and in due course you will be a shoo-in. Jonathunder 23:55, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
- Oppose not enough experience. freestylefrappe 02:54, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose more time and will support, Derktar 23:55, September 6, 2005 (UTC).
- --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral Almost never uses edit summeries, and mostly does extremely minor things like changing stub types. OTOH I'm not going to oppose because smoddy's judgement is quite good and I don't see any reason that the candidate wouldn't be a BAD admin. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Edit countitis is bad. Still I require some minimal number of edits before I consider the 'soft' criteria. 1300 edits is borderline: It would certainly have been enough a year ago or so, but with the growth of WP, and the admin pool, I think it is reasonable to ask for a little more activity. I have no objections to the user as such though and will not vote oppose. dab (ᛏ) 11:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with the other neutral votes. There's nothing that makes me think he'd be a bad admin, but there's also very little to make me trust him. In addition, it makes it really difficult to judge a candidate when they interact more on IRC or the mailing list than on Wikipedia itself. There's nothing wrong with interaction outside WP, but I think adminship should be based solely on contributions that everyone can view. Finally, I strongly encourage Luigi to use edit summaries on a more consistent basis. Carbonite | Talk 16:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Not enough edits. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-4 17:35
- I don't oppose, as Luigi30 is a longtime contributor and probably wouldn't be harmful. It wouldn't hurt to come back in a month or two after his activity picks up, though. I'd also like to see more edit summaries. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Only about 300 edits since the last RFA makes it hard to judge how this user has improved. And it makes it even harder when there are not enough edit summaries.Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Comments
- Is there a reason for the inactivity? There's only been about 100 edits in the last three months, a fair amount of which were to a chess game. I'm also disappointed by the lack of edit summaries. This seems to be one of those cases where IRC users may have had a good deal of interaction with the candidate, while non-IRC users have not. Carbonite | Talk 21:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- School started up recently, so I haven't had much time for Wikipedia-related tasks. It's calming down though, so I think I'll have some more time soon. User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 21:58, 3 September 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 help with RC patrol, blocking repeated vandals, and using the good old Mop and Bucket(tm).
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. I made it my job for a month to comb Wikipedia:Requested Articles of blue links. I also have done quite a bit of stub categorization.
- 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 find that I haven't been in many conflicts that haven't been against pure vandals or trolls. I've never had an RFC or RFAr against me, so I think I don't have much experience in edit wars or editor conflicts.
Cedar-Guardian
(12/2/2) ending 17:07 September 10 2005 (UTC) Cedar-Guardian (talk · contribs) - I have been registered in Wikipedia since February (not counting some edits I made anonymously) and my editcounter have reached more than 2000. I'm most interested in maintenance work, supporting new projects, organisation. I'm also very strict over Wikipedia policies, especially the NPOV policy. --CG 17:07, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Support
- Merovingian (t) (c) 02:35, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Merovingian beat me yet again.... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-4 17:35
- Support the wub "?/!" 17:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Seems like a good editor. I'm sure I've dealt with you before, but I can't remember where... - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 23:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support but please clean up your user page. The WWW is not Microsoft's personal playfield. — JIP | Talk 12:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Why not?
15:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC) - Very emphatically support. I haven't voted in this forum for a while, as recent nominations have tended to names I haven't recognized. I'm pleased to see a name that is not only familiar to me, but one for which I have a very high regard. Cedar Guardian has worked hard to remove POV from Lebanese-related articles, and has taken a strong stand against persistent POV-vandals. At all times, I have found him to be courteous, fair-minded, and even-handed in his dealings. By the way, what he has on his user page is his own business. Give him a break! David Cannon 11:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support HappyCamper 18:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I support. Andre (talk) 20:04, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. C-G has an incredible 562 edits in the Wikipedia namespace, and 2410 edits overall as of now. It's obvious he's interested in organization, and of course, his own geographical area of Lebanon. My sample check of his edits show C-G to be fair in his editing, but just a bit "out of sync" with knowing some of "the cabal." That's fine. . . C-G was very nice in responding to Ambi from what I saw. And the time C-G asked the Help Desk on where to place replies to other editors (C-G's space or the other editor's) shows a mark of humility. I judge C-G as trustworthy, and vote to promote to administrator status. --avnative 21:39, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose for not amending user page to make it visible to people who don't use Internet Explorer. Wikipedia should be accessible to all. Willing to reconsider if this change is made. David | Talk 14:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
- I have never heard of you. Redwolf24 (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- User is keen, but perhaps should have a little more experience before becoming an admin. Ambi 10:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Comments
- User page is broken or uses unorthodox code. I think users should have a clear user page, especially admins. David | Talk 13:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- His user page looks great in my IE, but is a bit of a mess in Firefox. the wub "?/!" 17:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Respond to the posts stating that I should change my User page because it's not suitable for navigators other than Internet explorer. I'm really sorry but most of the code of this page is copied from another one. I've just made few minor changes. I'm not really good at CSS and creating tables. But I'm willing to accept if someone could change my User page for me to make it suitable for all navigators. CG 11:22, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- His user page looks great in my IE, but is a bit of a mess in Firefox. the wub "?/!" 17:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know if I'm allowed to, but I've posted a reponse about an opposing vote made by User:Ambi. Please could you read it here and state your comments. Thank you. CG 09:35, September 7, 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 watching a lot of controversial articles that get vandalised a lot and reverting automatically comes real handful.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. I like mostly to visit the Village pump and the Reference Desk. I am into supporting new interesting projects and proposals and organising the Wikipedia and Template namespace. And being an Arabic and French native, I enjoy answering to translations request.
- 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 remember two long conflicts: One concerning some information in the Cedar revolution article that wasn't documented, and where we didn't reach any consensus, and another in the Samir Geagea article over NPOV where the user left wikipedia without being able to reach a consensus. I mostly defend my opinon by branding ahead, and applying Wikipedia policies.
Ral315
Final (27/1/0) ended 16:36 10 September 2005 (UTC) Ral315 (talk · contribs) - I think Ral315 should be an admin. He seems to be a reasonably good Wikipedian, and is doing a great benefit to Wikipedia by editing the Wikipedia Signpost. He has 2846 edits, which seems to be plenty enough. --— JIP | Talk 16:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
- I have to admit, I'm a bit shocked, but I accept. Ral315 04:32, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Support Seen him everywhere too. Nominator was supposed to do this, but oh well.
20:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC) - That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 02:07, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- That's spicy (yes) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- That's a spicy meatball. Andre (talk) 02:32, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- That's sweet and sour, and I thought he was one. --Merovingian (t) (c) 02:33, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- That's... er, support-worthy. Dmcdevit·t 07:13, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Support – sensible candidate. Plus doing a lot of good work for WP. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:19, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Tasty support. - Darwinek 07:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support – yes, it is tasty, courtesy Darwinek. --Bhadani 08:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, yes I forgot to add my own vote, here it is. — JIP | Talk 10:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support -- Joolz 15:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-4 17:36
- Support, before he fires me from the Signpost! the wub "?/!" 17:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support- he he, I'm a special contributor, and immune from firing! ;-) (not really, but...) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Mommy, what's men-stru-a-tion? Redwolf24 (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- SupportTrevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 00:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Very active doing janitorial tasks, and should benefit with all the admin tools. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Very good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Impressed by his initiative at WP:POST Ingoolemo talk 07:55, 2005 September 5 (UTC)
- Support. Meets my guidelines. android79 19:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Michael Snow 20:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- That's enough of the comments... and support. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 21:45, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. El_C 23:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support this dedicated contributor. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- David Gerard 14:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support no prob. Alf melmac 22:22, 8 September 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 would take care of speedied articles, and closing VFD debates. Also, I plan to help with the copyvio backlog, which seems to grow every day.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. I don't really do that much work on articles in general; I try mostly to keep to janitorial-type work like removing double-redirects, RC and New Pages patrol, etc. My favorite work right now is (temporarily) publishing the Signpost every week.
- 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 was once (about three months ago) blocked for 24 hours for violation of the 3RR. The page I was reverting was a user page that promoted warez; I removed the information. After being banned, another user added a speedy tag, and the article was deleted. I will not do this in the future, and other than this incident, I've had relatively few conflicts, and the others have been resolved quite peacefully and cheerfully.
Angr
(35/0/0) ending 14:40 10 September 2005 (14:40 UTC) Angr (talk · contribs) - a professional linguist editing mainly (but not only) linguistics related articles, I am always glad to see Angr's name show up on my watchlist. He has proven himself valuable in both adding original content, and defending existing content against degradation. kate says Angr has 7372 edits (two thirds of which are to article namespace). dab (ᛏ) 14:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- I am pleased and honored to accept dab's nomination for adminship.
Support
- dab (ᛏ) 14:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, SqueakBox 15:49, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- FireFox T C 15:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Thought he was one. --Merovingian (t) (c) 16:00, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Angr is one of a few editors whose contributions I occasionally go and have a look at just to see what interesting stuff he has been working on. Great contributor who also gets involved outside the article space in
VfDAfD etc. Will make a fine admin. — Trilobite 16:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC) - Support, an ever-interesting contributor. Rje 16:13, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, seems reasonable enough. — JIP | Talk 16:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Martin - The non-blue non-moose 18:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support-Although I think there are no important things then edit counts, 7000+ shows and outstanding devotion. Ive also seen some of his work and think he will make an excellent admin. --Gpyoung talk 18:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support. Thought he was one. Dmcdevit·t 20:16, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Dependably good quality work from this user. Fire Star 21:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support why not Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- But of course Radiant_>|< 07:58, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Paul August ☎ 14:44, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-4 17:36
- Support; excellent candidate. Antandrus (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I really thought he was one! Redwolf24 (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Andre (talk) 21:32, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Very active on
VFDAFD and linguistics related articles. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC) - Support Lectonar 08:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Meets my guidelines. android79 19:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 11:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Proto t c 11:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. El_C 23:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- səˈpɔːt. Flowerparty 06:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. – Bratschetalk | Esperanza 21:00, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Support — interesting contributions ~ Veledan • Talk 21:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Got skills. -- BD2412 talk 01:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support-- Pjacobi 07:30, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Answered some wp:rd questions of mine. Thats all i know of Angr. --Wonderfool t(c) 10:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Is prepared to go the extra mile when its necessary. Alf melmac 22:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. – AxSkov (☏) 09:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Withdrawing until candidate accepts nominations and answer questions.
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. The admin privileges that are most important to me are: deleting appropriately (both speedy candidates and failed AFD nominees), undeleting where necessary, and rolling back vandalism.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. I'm especially proud of my contributions to the areas of Celtic linguistics, the field I know most about. The contributions to Irish phonology are almost entirely mine; its current state can be compared with what it looked like before I started work on it.
- 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 too much. I had a fight with Miskin a couple months ago after calling one of his edits vandalism (I was provoked by a sarcastic comment in an edit summary of his). I later apologized for doing so. The experience taught me a lot about dealing with other editors with whom I disagree, and to be more careful about assuming good faith. My only other conflict was with Zivinbudas, who came into conflict with a lot of editors and wound up getting banned for a year. With him, I had tried placation and the voice of reason to no avail.
JIP
(29/0/0) ending 17:13 September 9 2005 (UTC) JIP (talk · contribs) - I nominate myself for adminship. I have previously done so on April 1, but that was a frivolous nomination because it was April Fool's day. This time I'm nominating myself for real.
I feel I have been on Wikipedia long enough to learn the general rules and customs, and contributed quite a lot of useful information. I have even been mistaken for an admin once, by User:Kourosh ziabari. — JIP | Talk 17:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Support
- Strong support, very prolific editor on Finland-related articles (and others as well). Over 6,500 edits, of which more than 2,000 to the Wikipedia namespace. I've dealt with this user quite a lot, but I was still sure that he already was an admin... oh well. :) - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 17:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)#
- File:Smily.jpg FireFox T C 20:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme Cabalistic Support; possibly one of the first votes where I can honestly say, "I thought you were one". Ral315 21:06, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Anybody who was a schoolmate of Janne Wirman receives inconditional support from me. He also seems to be a fair editor, though. --Sn0wflake 01:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- --Jusjih 03:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-3 04:07
- Thought you were one. --Merovingian (t) (c) 09:38, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. A good editor whom I see all over Wikipedia. --Canderson7 21:32, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Great editor; meets my guidelines. android79 21:35, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Support YEP Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support The JPS 12:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support as the first person I've mistaken for an admin. ~~ N (t/c) 16:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-4 17:37
- Support. I've disagreed with JIP before. However it would make me a useless POV cluttered editor if I voted him down for that. As long as he didn't lose his cool, he's good for the wikipedia. Its about the pedia, not about me raising an army of admins who think the same way I do ;) Redwolf24 (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Andre (talk) 21:32, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- "Support" Good contributor... enough to make up for those silly edits on Battle of Alesia (see below). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. A really good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Proto t c 11:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support cannot resist V. Molotov 15:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Derktar 23:58, September 6, 2005 (UTC).
- Support I've been impressed those actions of his that I've seen around the site. KeithD (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Alan Au 19:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. – Bratschetalk | Esperanza 21:00, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. - Mailer Diablo 21:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support! I'd have gotten here earlier if I know such a fine crop would spring up today! -- BD2412 talk 01:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. utcursch | talk 12:12, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Support What, you're not? Quick, pass the m&b. Alf melmac 22:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. JIP must promise that the answers to the question below about uncertainty over deletion guidelines will be replaced by "I'll read the relevant documents before I dive in, and will watch some experienced admins do it too". -Splash 15:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Comments
- May I ask that you put an edit summary when you nominate yourself. It is not as if you have nothing to say. :) Oleg Alexandrov 18:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- You come close to losing your temper when you make frivolous edits and people don't get the joke? --Michael Snow 20:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- My first edit to the Battle of Alesia was frivolous and I didn't expect it to be kept. I later changed it to a more serious edit, but it was still rejected. What made me close to losing my temper was a comment saying "Attempt to use Asterix books as an authoritative source. Surely that's a joke." when I never claimed Asterix books were an authoritative source. — JIP | Talk 20:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps, instead of reading the comment so literally, did you consider that once you started editing frivolously, you lost a great deal of credibility and weren't in a position to expect other editors to take you seriously? --Michael Snow 21:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- My first edit to the Battle of Alesia was frivolous and I didn't expect it to be kept. I later changed it to a more serious edit, but it was still rejected. What made me close to losing my temper was a comment saying "Attempt to use Asterix books as an authoritative source. Surely that's a joke." when I never claimed Asterix books were an authoritative source. — JIP | Talk 20:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- About the candidate questions, I'm curious why you're unsure about judging deletion processes and handling arbitrations in question 1. Also, could you clarify what you mean in question 3 about expecting "other conflicts to proceed in the same way"? --Alan Au 07:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- I am not sure about the guidelines for administrators for judging deletion processes and handling arbitrations, how they should behave to determine the consensus. Still, if I am accepted as an administrator, I may try to judge deletion processes anyway, to see how it's done. About the conflict question, I cannot foresee any further conflicts in the future (although there still could be some), so I don't think future conflicts will cause much harm. The conflict between me and User:Muriel Gottrop has been settled and we don't hold any grudges against each other. I don't expect any grudges from future conflicts either. — JIP | Talk 10:43, 4 September 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 be speedy deleting obvious patent nonsense or personal attack pages, and blocking vandals who, for example, post spam links over and over again. I am not sure I am up to the task of judging deletion processes or handling arbitrations.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. At least Frontier (computer game) (originally started when I was still anonymous) and Helsinki slang. I have also written numerous articles about Star Trek and Transformers characters.
- 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 only time I remember having really been in conflict was when User:Muriel Gottrop (or however it is spelled) disagreed with my additions to Battle of Alesia. I came close to losing my temper, but the matter was later arbitrated, and my addition about the Battle of Alesia in the Asterix books was kept. I hold no grudges about the matter. In the future I expect possible other conflicts to proceed the same way.
Splash
(77/1/0) ending 06:29 September 9, 2005 (UTC) Splash (talk · contribs) - I nominate Splash for adminship based on my overwhelming respect for his contributions in the various talk spaces and the Wikipedia name space (not that his article contributions are shabby, either). He's an eminently reasonable user who already contributes a great deal to the various _fD processes admins are involved in, as well as assorted consensus-building pages. He's also prolific beyond belief, which may contribute to why I was startled to learn that someone whose name I've seen so much around Wikipedia (and always in a positive light) isn't an "old-timer". --The Literate Engineer 06:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I can't believe this! I'm co-nominating! We agreed I'd nominate Splash today (see!) and then I wake up and here this is. He's a thoughtful person that I would certainly trust with the admin tools. And I would point out that he's already been closing VfD discussions, but only keeps as he's allowed. I guess I don't really have to say much more. Dmcdevit·t 15:20, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. And thank you, The Literate Engineer, for such a generous nomination statement. Apologies for the long answers to The Questions; I figured I might as well be thorough. -Splash 12:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Support. Splash has shown a great deal of good work during his three months here, with well rounded contributions and levelheaded participation in VFD debates. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Wouldn't have nominated if I didn't support. The Literate Engineer 06:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Remember you from the crazy AfD debate... I honestly thought he was already one, so I'll have to vote support. Just remember to try to detach yourself when you use the new tools :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian (t) (c) 07:42, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support - not only did I think he already was one, I was absolutely certain of it. Very very very good contributor. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 08:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support ITHAWO Martin - The non-blue non-moose 08:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, competent and level-headed user. Radiant_>|< 08:27, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, Loom91 08:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support no worries with Splash --Doc (?) 08:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support Don't worry about the relative newness: Splash is a prolific, dedicated, and intelligent contributor with a strong sense of policy. Great work all around, but on VfD specifically. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:53, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support Ditto to what ulayiti said. I see you at VfDs so much, I figured you were an admin, just waiting to close them. Acetic'Acid 10:57, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support. Great contributor to many areas of Wikipedia. --Canderson7 12:05, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support. --Kbdank71 13:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support AfD work speaks for itself.--Scimitar parley 14:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:26, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I too was surprised to discover that he wasn't already an admin. --Alan Au 14:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Very solid. Rx StrangeLove 15:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Nominate. It's been eight hours and I'm #18. Hmph. Dmcdevit·t 15:20, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Splash has been doing awesome work at VfD (or shall I say AfD now) 71.106.28.156 15:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Contribs look great. Very hard worker. 8000+ edit, adminship seems long over due! Also, if Acetic Acid says support that is good enough for me. Psy guy (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Michael Snow 15:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, long overdue. Rje 16:11, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support — thats over 8000 edits in three months! Rolled back his edits; a very notable candidate. I also like the 'essay type' answers to the questions :) You would make a very good admin. Good luck! <
- Yes, I Support too. --Bhadani 16:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Friday (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- I've seen you around. Support. Andre (talk) 17:18, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Support - although I'm not familliar with this user, his responses to the questions were excellent. He's obviously given a lot of thought to the admin position, and I believe he will make an excellent one. -Satori (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support! Heck yes! A very helpful and useful user. Good luck with your admin duties :) -Sunglasses at night 17:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support. I like to see a little longer with the project, but excellent record of contributions shows Splash is trustworthy, which is the most important thing. - Taxman Talk 18:22, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support. Trustworthy, as well as effective at RC patrol. Joyous (talk) 19:23, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, good all-around editor K1Bond007 21:03, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Support - as I said I would, once you had a few months experience. Guettarda 21:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Simple Support. -feydey 01:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support, absolutely. Just look at the way Splash answers the "Questions for the candidate" section so throughly and professionally. He does a lot of excellent judgement on VfD and other Wikipedia processes and is quickly one of Wikipedia's "backbone" members. It really is time for him to get admin status. Great guy, and great work on Wikipedia. — Stevey7788 (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support. What? Isn't he already an admin???? Then he surely deserves to get the broom and the flamethrower. No objections from here. --Titoxd 03:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Dragons flight 03:12, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- --Jusjih 03:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-3 04:07
- Support Fully, unconditionaly and completely! I'm only sorry I wasn't first on this list. Hamster Sandwich 04:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Absolutely, without hesitation; can certainly be trusted with the mop and bucket. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support. He will make a great admin, in fact I thought he was one already! JeremyA (talk) 04:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support as per all above. Meelar (talk) 05:01, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. — JIP | Talk 07:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Wow, really thought Splash was an admin. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 09:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- WT...? Splash is not an admin? Well, then it's about time he was.—encephalon | ζ 12:19:37, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
- Bing! - yes folks! That's the sound of yet another vote being added! Grutness...wha? 13:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Of Course FireFox T C 15:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, thought he already was an admin. Jaxl | talk 16:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support I absolutely hate using ye olde RFA cliche, but again, I'm forced to: thought he was one already. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 17:21, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Jonathunder 20:14, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
- Strong support. He's sober, thoughtful, and thorough. Nandesuka 21:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Appears to be a strong deletionist, but I'm confident that he won't abuse sysop powers. JYolkowski // talk 23:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Extremely active in janitorial tasks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. -- Joolz 01:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I've seen this guy in action during RC Patrols; he knows what he's doing! Owen× ☎ 13:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. the wub "?/!" 17:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. You are the only person to vote oppose on my RfA who I would vote for. You've caught my mistakes and helped me fix them before the community found em many times ;) You've been helpful to me and I hope I have been to you but now you get your own SysOp :) Redwolf24 (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, even though it's not needed. Proto t c 13:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I notice Splash regularly doing RC and A/VfD. He is clear and helpful. Alf melmac 16:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Contributes a lot Hbdragon88 16:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support I thought he was an admin already. Pilatus 17:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Meets my guidelines. android79 17:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. In my brief return, I have been impressed by Splash's work. I don't understand how it was Splash's fault that 13 other people opposed an RfA. Zoe 23:52, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support. Of course, Splash gets nominated while I'm out of town. Pity; I had a truely moving bit of prose in the works for my support vote, now it would just be a waste of pixels as this deserving nominee appears to have near-unanimous support. Splash will be a great admin. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support I tried to nominate him before. : (
15:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC) - Support. I've been waiting to support Splash, I'm glad to see this nomination. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 15:31, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. A reliable editor. -Willmcw 18:41, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Hiding talk 20:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Stewart Adcock 21:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. El_C 23:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, I don't know him all that well, but he had a minor disagreement with me on a VFD i closed today, and I really like the way he handled it. Obviously not an idiot, :) --Phroziac (talk) 02:37, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. - Mailer Diablo 21:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Showed extreme good sense in the Lame 'upper middle income' edit war in Malaysia. Blaming him for Rls departure is harsh btw. Borisblue 00:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Dedicated contributor. -- BD2412 talk 01:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. utcursch | talk 12:17, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. We need more like Splash. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Mmm hmm. siafu 01:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose ironically because of dodgy voting in RFA: started a trend, the outcome of which was detrimental to the wiki. The JPS 12:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- To further clarify, I am referring to this which has resulted in this. It is clear that this user does not value honesty and maturity. It would have been far preferable to offer to coach the user. Be wary of the pack mentality. The JPS 16:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- I wasn't going to comment on any votes, but that's quite a serious charge. Respectfully, my RfA vote there also resulted in RI asking for clarification here, and me giving a lengthy explanation here. RI replied "Wow. Thanks for your detailed explanation". We had had a very civilised discussion, and I considered it case closed. -Splash 16:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- IMO your behaviour there was very childish and immature and although you trapped the guy and won with your vote a very good editor left Wikipedia as result. I very much regret not to instruct RI beforehand to be aware of people on hunt here. Pavel Vozenilek 21:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Pavel as editor, contributer and member of this community I find your comments to be innapropriate in the extreme, particularily in this space. Hamster Sandwich 22:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, everyone has an opinion. Back to the problem: RI felt cornered and and target for easy chase and left in disgust. He made a lot in keeping Wikipedia clean and its's a huge loss. His thousands and thousands of fixes will be missing now. (I am commenting the question raised here from what I know, I am not willing to vote on Splash.) Pavel Vozenilek 01:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Pavel as editor, contributer and member of this community I find your comments to be innapropriate in the extreme, particularily in this space. Hamster Sandwich 22:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- IMO your behaviour there was very childish and immature and although you trapped the guy and won with your vote a very good editor left Wikipedia as result. I very much regret not to instruct RI beforehand to be aware of people on hunt here. Pavel Vozenilek 21:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- I was possibly a little too harsh in my comments, for which I would like to apologize. I won't strike them from the RFA, but my tone possibly articulated more hostility than intended. The JPS 12:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- I wasn't going to comment on any votes, but that's quite a serious charge. Respectfully, my RfA vote there also resulted in RI asking for clarification here, and me giving a lengthy explanation here. RI replied "Wow. Thanks for your detailed explanation". We had had a very civilised discussion, and I considered it case closed. -Splash 16:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- To further clarify, I am referring to this which has resulted in this. It is clear that this user does not value honesty and maturity. It would have been far preferable to offer to coach the user. Be wary of the pack mentality. The JPS 16:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
Comments
- <sigh> Yet another very promising candidate that I'm passing up solely because it's far, far too early. I won't do anything lame like opposing--if he gets it, good luck, but I personally cannot endorse someone who has only been editing for three months. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- As a PhD student, is your wiki availability going to be significantly different during the school year than during the summer? Dragons flight 13:38, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- No, as I do my PhD throughout the year. We're not expected to take the summer (or any of the other undergrad holidays) off. I probably take less actual holiday than I would if I had a proper job. I'd never finish otherwise! Despite the number of hours I've spent editing in the last few months, I've been doing my PhD at the 'same' time. -Splash 13:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Darn engineers don't you have to grade any papers or teach classes? Sure, you've been working on your PhD. I wonder what your advisor would say? Dragons flight 03:12, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Mercifully for the undergrads, my Department has enough academics that postgradlings are not needed to take classes, or to do any assessment. I will acquire the odd practical session to demonstrate, but that's an afternoon every other week or so. From your phrasing, I guess you're not in the UK — postgrads here have generally (but not always) light to non-existent teaching loads. -Splash 14:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Darn engineers don't you have to grade any papers or teach classes? Sure, you've been working on your PhD. I wonder what your advisor would say? Dragons flight 03:12, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- No, as I do my PhD throughout the year. We're not expected to take the summer (or any of the other undergrad holidays) off. I probably take less actual holiday than I would if I had a proper job. I'd never finish otherwise! Despite the number of hours I've spent editing in the last few months, I've been doing my PhD at the 'same' time. -Splash 13:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Kate's edit counter reports 8000+ edits. --Alan Au 14:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Remember when you start doing VfDs Splash, BJAODN counts as a Delete, mmmk? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. -Splash 14:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- It looks like Splash is really going to need a nudge to get through, so I thought I'd help his cause by pointing out that this attempt at mediation is an excellent example of first-rate conflict resolution; anyone displaying such a clear-headed thought process deserves the keys. Keep up the good work, Splash.—encephalon | ζ 03:31:23, 2005-09-04 (UTC)
- Dodgy voting on RfA? I think not- because it isn't Splash's fault that everyone decided to pile on after- it was the fault of those who merely restated what he had said. The last time I checked, RfA was supposed to be about civilized, reasoned discussion, particularly when opposing. If we all took the Boothy method it would be extremely detrimental. The results are extremely regretable, but it isn't Splash's fault, it's the sheep who followed him. --Scimitar parley 14:11, 6 September 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 what I can in this regard: I close clear-keep VfDs regularly, I patrol Special:Recentchanges when my broadband connection is up to the task and Special:Newpages when it's not, or when I'm feeling less energetic. I'm active on CfD and TfD too, and I do cleanup when I'm feeling bored. It would be nice to cleanup properly and complete the job I start. Having a mop would help with all of those. I have a firm grip on policy (speedy, blocking and the others) and will apply them firmly but fairly, although I'm a little soft on adding speedy tags — given any doubt I take it to VfD. I will only resort to WP:IAR in emergencies — it's too unilateralist for my taste in regular use.
- I'd plan to work hard in playing my part on the various pages with backlog: TfD and CP in particular need some attention at the moment, and I'd be keen to extend my VfD closures to keep that down to size, too. I'd be careful to evaluate the debates as well as the outright expressions of button-pressing-or-not. Consensus is not a mere matter of statistics. In my current closures, if people want me to merge, or redirect then I do as I am told (check my contribs list). I do my best to merge articles where that is the outcome, although sometimes the material is beyond me and I wouldn't want to leave a mess behind. If people want something more complex done, I will comply as best I can, and if I don't know how to comply, I will leave it someone who does, or ask someone. They're bound to be out there somewhere. I do not presently close CfD or TfD debates — I feel uncomfortable committing things to deletion without being an admin, but given a mop-and-bucket I would help take some of the load (and the flak!) in both places.
- I already watchlist WP:VIP, WP:AN, WP:AN/I (and would add WP:AIAV) and would be able to react to what I read there more usefully than at present. I'd (gently) pay WP:AN/3 some attention as sometimes it responds more slowly than it might; having not been involved there yet I'd take some driving lessons first. I participate at VfU too, although it's something of trying to pin the tail on the donkey so removing the blindfold would be welcome!
- This is a lot of stuff: I'd do it in a round-robin kind of way so that I didn't get too hung up on one thing, and still had time to write decent articles. -Splash 12:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. My most significant contributions are in the middle of my user page. The first bunch I basically rewrote from scratch and I'm happy enough with all of them, to varying degrees. They are mainly telecommunications articles, as well as the set about my University. My first article, University of Bristol, I still retain affection for, and I think it's written neutrally, factually and clearly and is comprehensive. It is a little heavy on the detail, though. I'm currently trying to get Phase-shift keying ready to go to WP:FAC, with help from User:HappyCamper. I rewrote it comprehensively a while back and have made all-but-one of the images myself. Dull as it is, Space-time block code is also an article I'm pleased with. It's well referenced, covers the groundwork and key discussion points, and has an introduction I hope most people can understand. After a comment from an undergrad at my Uni, I rewrote RC circuit and RL circuit as both were seriously lacking. You'll have spotted that I'm heavy on theory; this is a result of studying too much of it. I think it needs to be in technical articles, or they do not do the 'pedia justice. I should perhaps think about arranging it spin-out articles instead, however, or scrunching it into its own sections. Being an engineer, I'm careful to offer applications of the theory where I can, and being a PhD student, I cite my sources wherever possible. (In the two circuitry articles, I don't cite sources because I did that off the top of my head, and it's basic theory that can come from anywhere from lecture notes upwards.)
- Edit-counters will want to know that I do my major edits in the sandbox-with-preview button, so I post them in a single edit, fully-formed.
- There's a fair collection of images on my user page too; most of them are technical, but they're accurate and important in the articles they appear in.
- As I said, I do NP-patrol when I can. This being a slower thing than RC patrol, I try to stub-sort stub articles as best I can and wikify where it's needed. I do not plan to stop writing articles if should be made an admin; it's fun, rewarding, self-educational and what I came here to do in the first place! -Splash 12:39, 2 September 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.My major article edits are to such dry subjects that I have not become embroiled in wars over them (I'm often the only substantive editor). Nevertheless, I have helped out in a few disputes either by invitation or by noticing it. Some fixable things get posted to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and I've responded to those a few times. I give the page(s) in question a thorough reading and consideration and then write my response. Where I can I look for a compromise, and am careful to justify why I think each party should give the necessary ground to reach it. Often, they've been citing sources 'at' each other: a careful and critical evaluation of these can often lay the groundwork for proposing a weaving together of peoples opinions. A good example of this, is my response to a disagreement over Malaysia, my response is in this diff. That ended the question, pretty much and, although the result was something else, at least both sides had seen where the other was coming from, what they needed to fix and how they might fix it. I was asked to take a look at London, Ontario — an anon had threatened to "revert until I die". My initial response is this diff. It's a binary question over inclusion of a single bullet-point or not so I give a clear answer whilst balancing both sides' views. I'm not sure if this is settled or not yet (the protection was the result of the execution of the above threat), but we've certainly got the anon to register and participate in discussion, so it's a minor triumph.
- A particular case is one that is running at the moment, to which I and User:JeremyA are third-parties. Genseiryu and WGKF (both currently protected) have suffered long, high-grade edit-warring for at least 2 months. JeremyA and I have both tried informal mediation and clear-cut warnings, and JeremeyA administered some stronger medicine. Throughout, I've (we've) tried to offer ways of bridging the gap and asked (pleaded) that both sides remain civil and discuss. Since this hasn't worked, I've learnt the sort of way that a conflict can self-escalate despite cooling efforts. This has two uses: 1)I'd never behave that way in a conflict myself and 2) I know what the most determined disagreements can look like. We have not yet reached a conclusion, although we are currently trying a 3rd-party RfC. Note that I am a third party to this, and have no interest in the articles themselves, only in ending the scuffle. Since Jeremy has been involved with it longer than I have, I'd leave any adminny actions to him. I've thought "GAH" at times, but I refuse to allow others to stress me with their stubborness.
- I'm a religious user of the show preview button. I almost never post the first draft of any edit I make. I think we all wish we'd had a second-chance to reconsider saying something in real-life, and the show-preview button gives just that. It is one of the most powerful tools in keeping things cool. -Splash 12:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Joolz
(35/0/0) ending 00:32 9 September 2005 (UTC) Joolz (talk · contribs) - Joolz is a really friendly guy, who I've collaborated with on a number of articles and projects. He's level-headed, he's got the right mindset, and I don't doubt that he'll be an excellent administrator (he is currently an administrator on Commons). Plus, he might get a comb in the janitor kit. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Wow! Thanks Talrias, I accept :) -- Joolz 13:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Support
- I give Joolz my full support. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support -- Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:49, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Just take a look through his contributions - it's quite obvious that he will do a great job of administrating Wikipedia with all this work and experience. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, I think Stevey has said it all already. Rje 02:08, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Thought he was one. --Merovingian (t) (c) 02:17, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, SqueakBox 02:38, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Support FOR GREAT JUSTICE! (I've seen some of his edits on RC patrol and they are quite good) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support: Solid contributor, reasonable dispute resolution, nice distribution of edits. I'd be surprised if someone votes Oppose barring any revelations of behavior misconduct. --Durin 14:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support THEY SET UP US THE POV --Phroziac (talk) 15:59, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Seems like a responsible user. Andre (talk) 17:19, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, seems deserving of sysop rights. --Sn0wflake 01:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- --Jusjih 03:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-3 04:06
- Support. Another reasonable person who can be trusted to do the job well. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Super strong support on wheels! I had planned to nominate him myself a few weeks ago. Joolz will make a fine admin. — Trilobite 14:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yup FireFox T C 15:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- For sure. violet/riga (t) 17:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Of course. Falphin 20:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Solid contributor. Surprised that this user was not one already. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 02:06, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Supporting. Denelson83 05:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- You supported me, I'll support you. ~~ N (t/c) 16:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support. the wub "?/!" 16:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Warren Harding approves of this user. Redwolf24 (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. --MarkSweep✍ 16:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support Proto t c 11:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. El_C 23:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Good man.—encephalonέγκέφαλος 18:09:22, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
- Support. --NormanEinstein 03:52, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- David Gerard 14:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I haven't had much interaction with Joolz, but recently he was remarkably insightful, not to mention friendly. He'll make a fine admin. I'd caution slightly that the best decisions are made in the full flux of on-wiki discussions, rather than on IRC, but as an admin on Commons I'm sure he already knows that. -Splash 22:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support no prob with this one. Alf melmac 22:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, with a broom, strongly. -- BD2412 talk 23:18, 8 September 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'd like to help with basically anything that needs dealing with, such as the
VFDAFD backlog or the copyright problems backlog. I'd also like to help with requested moves which need administrator intervention. You might also want to see my commons contributions and administrator actions on commons.
- A. I'd like to help with basically anything that needs dealing with, such as the
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. I'm proud of my efforts on the constituency project and Newbury (UK Parliament constituency) in particular because it contains things which aren't available elsewhere on the internet (the 1885-1950 results). I like to see wikipedia improve so I'm proud of any of my edits which have helped raise the standard, even a little bit ;)
- 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 conflicts, I think sometimes it's inevitable and impossible to avoid sometimes, the important thing is when a conflict occurs that it doesn't escalate into a revert war or something nastier. I'm currently in a disagreement with someone over Castro's placement on the Cult of personality article (see Talk:Cult of personality) - if I get stressed at any time (which is in itself rare) I deal with it by staying away from that article until I'm calmer - I can't think of any particular time where I've been properly stressed though, not yet at least :)
Ulayiti
(29/1/0) ending 13:01 8 September 2005 (UTC) Ulayiti (talk · contribs) - This is a self-nomination. Ed Poor mistook me for an admin the other day, so I decided to try and actually become one. I've been a registered user since July 2004, but I've only been editing actively since April this year. I now have a bit more than 2,000 edits, with 1,200 of them on the article namespace (plus lots and lots of speedy tags). I've been active with all sorts of things having to do with Wikipedia maintenance, such as RC patrol, fighting vandalism, welcoming new users and helping them around, and participating on VfD and RfA. Having admin tools at my disposal would make a lot of this much easier. I'm confident that I'm familiar enough with policies and guidelines to become a responsible and useful admin. --ulayiti (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Well, it's a self-nomination, so obviously I'm going to accept. :) - ulayiti (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Support Looks good. Acetic'Acid 13:38, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Support strongly! Over 200 vandalized pages reverted in the last week alone, not counting numerous nonsense pages speedy-deleted away. This guy is a vandal-fighting machine...imagine what he can do for us with the Rollback and Block buttons enabled! We need more people like Ulayiti. Owen× ☎ 15:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian (t) (c) 18:05, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Support freestylefrappe 18:16, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Rje 19:03, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Support We need more vandal fighters...Amren (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Friday (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, {{Sockpuppet|Willmcw}} Redwolf24 (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yup. ~~ N (t/c) 01:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Seems like an excellent vandal fighter. Andre (talk) 02:35, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Support SMOOTH! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Evil Monkey∴Hello 09:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. — JIP | Talk 09:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:09, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- --Jusjih 03:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-3 04:05
- FireFox T C 16:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Sam Hocevar 17:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I trust a mop in his hands. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 17:26, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Hand this user the rollback tool. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- I know him from IBscrewed, so I know he's a good one. Support. Mike H (Talking is hot) 02:06, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, and not just because he reverted vandalism on my user page :) the wub "?/!" 18:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support we need more inclusionist admins. Klonimus 04:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Meets my guidelines. Good vandal- and troll-fighter. android79 17:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support
- Support emphatically. Hall Monitor 20:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. El_C 23:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, Derktar 00:07, September 7, 2005 (UTC).
Oppose
Neutral
Comments
- What are the edits in "unknown namespace 100"? ~~ N (t/c) 01:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- It's the Portal namespace - Kate's tool seems to have problems with that. I've left a note about this at Wikipedia talk:Kate's Tool. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 01:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- There is one opposing vote with no reason here. Is it valid? (I never oppose anyone's candidacy for adminship without a reason at any wiki site.)--Jusjih 03:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- I see that you have not been a frequent visitor to RFA. Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Boothy443. In short: that user opposes almost all RfAs to seemingly prove a point that "Admins are evil". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- He has a right to do so, though. I mean, of course it would be nice to know specifically why he's opposing, but he's not violating WP:POINT or anything just because he doesn't say it. He says he has high standards for adminship, and he does sometimes support some exceptionally good candidates. And while I disagree with his view that he doesn't need to give a reason for opposing, I perfectly understand him and can accept that. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 13:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- I did not visit RFA when I was very busy at Chinese Wikipedia as an administrator there, but I now come here sometimes. Thanks for your replies and explanations so I understand better now.--Jusjih 08:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- He has a right to do so, though. I mean, of course it would be nice to know specifically why he's opposing, but he's not violating WP:POINT or anything just because he doesn't say it. He says he has high standards for adminship, and he does sometimes support some exceptionally good candidates. And while I disagree with his view that he doesn't need to give a reason for opposing, I perfectly understand him and can accept that. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 13:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- I see that you have not been a frequent visitor to RFA. Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Boothy443. In short: that user opposes almost all RfAs to seemingly prove a point that "Admins are evil". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:32, 3 September 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. The main reason why I'm nominating myself is that I'd like to be more active in fighting vandalism. I'd find the rollback tool very useful, and the ability to block persistent vandals without having to go to WP:AIV would also be nice. I'd also like to help out with closing VfD debates and deleting speedy candidates. I'm somewhat of an inclusionist (not very extreme though), so you wouldn't have to worry about me deleting anything that could be useful in WP.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- 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. Persistent vandalism that I have no means to counter sometimes causes me a bit of stress, but I don't generally tend to be stressed. I recently had something of a conflict with User:Leistung, who accused me of systematically reverting all of his edits (see my talk page). I wasn't aware of doing this, since to my knowledge I was only reverting POV edits on the Adolf Hitler article. I think I was able to satisfactorily resolve the situation. There have been a few other conflicts, and I'm sure there will be more in the future, but I'm not the type to get mad about stuff like this, and I'll be able to resolve anything peacefully.
Robchurch
(34/11/4) ending 22:14 September_7 2005 (UTC) Robchurch (talk · contribs) -
Rob Church has already been doing some advanced admin work, with among other things Ed Poors RFAr. He knows policy well enough, and kate's fine tool says he's safely past the 1500 edits required by those afflicted with edicountitis. :-) --Kim Bruning 22:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and am pleased to be considered as trustworthy enough for this position. Thank you, Kim. Rob Church Talk | Desk 22:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Support
- First one is always free. Kim Bruning 22:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- A good friend of mine, RobChurch is intelligent, reasonable and friendly, all three of which are vital to the success of admins in the field. He has proved himself invaluable in many respects, including mediation regarding the Ed Poor RfAr, and a primary founder of the WP:FAD project. I am certain that he would be a great asset to the community as an administrator, and I can grant my personal trust in his abilities. --NicholasTurnbull 22:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- I thought you were one. There were a few edits w/o summaries, but nothing bad... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support; would make excellent admin. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Andre (talk) 23:31, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, an outstanding candidate. Rje 23:37, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Nuke from orbit. And if that doesn't work, support. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme eggplant Mountain Dew that lesbians love support --Phroziac (talk) 00:05, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Since no one else has used this yet "I can't believe he isn't one already". 75% is in my opinion a bit high in determining say, a VfD concensus, but all indications point to a level headed and non-extreme POV concerning this. Hamster Sandwich 01:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'll settle just for Support. feydey 01:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Jaxl | talk 03:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- A fine edit history, earning my Support. --Alan Au 05:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Proto t c 09:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support I could have sworn you already were. I see you everywhere, doing virtually everything! Acetic'Acid 09:49, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian (t) (c) 12:23, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Duh. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:31, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. No question. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:35, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Support: A sane and energetic editor who will, I think, be a sane and moderate administrator. Geogre 19:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Going by previous interaction I expect he'll treat admin rights carefully and thoughtfully. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Baaaaaa. No good reason not to, breif interaction suggests good reason to.--Tznkai 20:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Ral315 00:18, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, as per the trifecta of SlimVirgin, Geogre, and Mindspillage, (yeah, yeah, and the rest of you people, too). ;-) Func( t, c, @, ) 01:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 02:41, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Evil Monkey∴Hello 09:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support. Rob's good judgment will make an excellent admin; every time he's alerted me to a problem user on the #wikipedia IRC channeltime, I wound up agreeing with analysis. Rob has also impressed me with his precise understanding of both the mechanics and the purpose' of the RFArb process. I'm a better man because of Rob's intervention, and I look forward to his joining the Mediation Committee in the near future. Uncle Ed 14:58, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. All-around good guy. FreplySpang (talk) 23:35, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Per those above. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 17:17, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Screw editcountitis, Rob is a good user to talk to and every time I seen him around, he is very civil with everyone. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Normally I wouldn't consider 2 months enough, but 1500+ edits wins over that. ~~ N (t/c) 16:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Por supuesto.
15:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC) - Support, fight editcountitis... er, accountageitis! - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 15:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, expect him not to abuse admin powers.
172.162.10.219 19:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Sorry, not logged in. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:19, 2005 September 6 (UTC) - Support. Has made an very strong impression on me in his short time here. As many of the oppose votes below point out, tt's something of a gamble to support such as relatively new user. With Rob, however, I think it's a very safe bet. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Support CambridgeBayWeather 02:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Somehow ended up on this page instead of the correct one. CambridgeBayWeather 03:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- Eh, I don't know you very well. --WikiFan04Talk 17:24, 31 Aug 2005 (CDT)
- ... you are seriously going to start proving a point expertimentally on Requests for adminship? Because that has been done before and nothing good came from it. You were not promoted because you have close to no experience and interaction on the project, that's it. Move on. --Sn0wflake 22:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Snowflake please don't bite the newbies :) (I should note that on requests for buerocratship I've seen people oppose for the same reason... so at least its a reason... even if an infuriating one :)) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Even so, Ryan Norton, I really have to agree with Sn0wflake on this one. It seems as if WikiFan04 has been deliberately voting Oppose just to prove a point, and I dont think that its fair to the candidates. "I don't know you very well?". If you have only managed 700 edits in 19 months, obviously, you cant know anyone because you are not very involved in the project. Oh well, what can you do?
- WikiFan isn't a newbie. But, this bitterness about not becoming an admin is going to make things worse for him next time around. Andre (talk) 23:31, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- RN, I don't think said editor fits the usual definition of a newbie, and should have known better, but nevertheless, I merely believe that with this behavior the editor has ensured that he will not be promoted to the status of admin - which seems be of meaning to him - any time soon. --Sn0wflake 23:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Not voting, but I think the Catch 22 aspect is quite amusing. -Splash 00:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Slightly oppose. You seem to be a serious and dedicated Wikipedian, but you are also very young here. Your account was registered two months ago but you did less than 75 edits in your first month here, which is really not much and leaves in fact only 1 month of active work to judge your contributions. You do not seem to meet your own standards for adminship yet. Sam Hocevar 13:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Rob, I like what I've seen of you, but I don't think that 1 month of active editting and 1 month of occassional editting is enough time to have sampled the full wiki experience and be prepared for adminship. If this were a couple months later, I expect you would have my full support. Dragons flight 02:37, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, agree with Dragons flight, too little experience. — JIP | Talk 15:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with Dragons flight completely. Jonathunder 15:56, 2005 September 5 (UTC)
- As above. — Dan | Talk 16:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, I believe I have seen you on occasion and thought good of your work. However, your first edits were on the first of July which is a little to soon for me. I believe by November I would support your nom. but an admin IMHO needs more experience. Falphin 23:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, as above. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose for reasons cited by Dragons flight — Ringbang 19:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, not enough time - yet. --Sn0wflake 03:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
- Not enough edits or time (only 2 months). BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-3 04:05
- Although I agree with most of the other admins who voted support above, I do feel uncomfortable that this user has only been with us since 1 July, with only less than 75 edits in that first month. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral. Not enough experience. Keep up the same pace of editing for a few months and I'll gladly support in the future. android79 17:42, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral more time, Derktar 00:04, September 7, 2005 (UTC).
Comments
- Questions for the candidate are at the top, just below the nomination notice. --Alan Au 23:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- I put it back below... someone can revert it back to top if they think it looks better that way :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Hey! Let the candidate organise the page the way he wants, that gives us an impression of what kind of person he is too, doesn't it? :-) Kim Bruning 23:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- I did explain why I'd done this, when I did it (see (currently) bottom question), but if people object, that's fine. I just think it's unusual to vote for someone without understanding them first. Rob Church Talk | Desk 23:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- I don't care.... I just put it this way becuase that's the way the others were... feel free to change it back :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hey! Let the candidate organise the page the way he wants, that gives us an impression of what kind of person he is too, doesn't it? :-) Kim Bruning 23:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- I put it back below... someone can revert it back to top if they think it looks better that way :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yet another apparently excellent candidate that I would like to watch for a couple more months before forming an opinion. --Tony SidawayTalk 03:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- edit count Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Regarding the edits in July, all I can assume is that I must've created the account earlier than I remembered. My real wiki-ing started in August, and I don't remember doing a lot in July; unless the account was created at the end of that month? Rob Church Talk | Desk 20:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with?
- I already do a lot of recent changes patrol, particularly, monitoring of new pages. A rollback link would be useful for reverting simple vandalism, and blocking persistent vandals would also be a help. I would also patrol WP:AIV, as I know what it's like to be a regular user fighting persistent and mindless vandalism. I do participate in the messy process that is VfD, and would like to be able to help clean up backlogs and close old debates. I have a reasonable grasp of copyright laws, and would also be able to clean up after articles with those issues, once the time period is up.
- Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- I suppose the first contribution I really noticed as being unusual was Federal Firearms License. I spotted what appeared to be a copyvio'd stub whilst on new page patrol. Unable to find the copyvio, I cleaned up and expanded the article. Other contributions I'm pleased with are Wyatt Eaton and Nedrick Young, for similar reasons.
- 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?
- I avoid edit conflicts like the plague; if someone makes a revert I don't agree with, I start a discussion on the article's talk page, usually proposing compromises and then drop a link to it on their talk page. I revert bad faith edits once, and then leave the article as-is, only adding or correcting content. In the interests of full disclosure, I was originally one of the initiating parties in the Ed Poor ArbCom case. I am pleased to say that, through informal mediation, we were able to reach an agreeable settlement, and were able to withdraw the case. Insofar as I can gather, Ed bears me no ill will, and we all learned some lessons during that process.
Questions I (the nominee) expect will be asked, and would like to answer now:
- Why did you move the questions above the votes and refactor the page?
- I prefer to be transparent and open about things, and I'd rather people based their votes on their impression of me overall, coupled with the impression derived from my answers. I think it's madness to vote before you see someone's opinions and planned implementations.
- What do you consider consensus to be?
- Consensus is an interesting thing, sometimes difficult to determine; it's certainly not a straightforward majority vote. In looking to determine consensus, I'd look for a 75% or higher general trend towards an idea, but also consider the bigger picture. All opinions must be taken into consideration if a decision is to accurately represent the wishes of the community. I appreciate that in being promoted to admin, I'd be labelled as a trusted member of the Wikipedia community, and would respect that trust. If in doubt, I'd seek advice from a more experienced admin, bureaucrat, etc.
Requests for bureaucratship
Bureaucrats are administrators with the additional ability to make other people admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. They can 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 misuses of sysop rights
If this page doesn't update properly, either clear your cache or click here to purge the server's cache.
- ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
- ^ Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
- ^ The initial two discussion-only days are a trial measure agreed on following Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial). It applies to the first five RfAs opened on or after 24 March 2024, excluding those closed per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW, or until 25 September 2024 – whichever is first.
- ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
- ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.