→Current nominations: adding myself |
No edit summary |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
<!-- Please note that new RfA policy states that ALL RfA nominations posted here MUST have candidate acceptance, or the nominations may be removed. Please read the revised directions carefully. Thank you. --> |
<!-- Please note that new RfA policy states that ALL RfA nominations posted here MUST have candidate acceptance, or the nominations may be removed. Please read the revised directions carefully. Thank you. --> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Garykirk}} |
|||
---- |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enochlau}} |
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enochlau}} |
||
---- |
---- |
Revision as of 13:11, 25 November 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.
Current nominations
Add new requests at the top of this section
Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, leave a message on their talk page and ask them to reply here if they accept the nomination.
Please remember to update the vote-tallies in the headers when voting.
Current time is 10:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated. |
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Garykirk
Closed (0/5/0) ended 13:13 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Garykirk (talk · contribs) – I started off just using Wikiepdia to do research for homework and so on, then in September 2005 I created an account and began editing. I am a member of WikiProject:Harry_Potter. Gary Kirk 13:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Withdrawing nomination
Support
Oppose
- STRONG OPPOSE, failed to do RfA self nom properly, which I had to fix (and got caught in an edit conflict with Deathphoenix, trying to fix). Failed to list ending time.
Failed to answer questions. Too little time on pedia. Too little edits. I sense a pileon. NSLE (讨论+extra) 13:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC) - Oppose. (triple edit conflict) Sorry, at 271 edits at less than two months of activity, you need some more time (and much more edits) to learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia. With time, you'd be a good user. Even with this RFA, there were a few problems: Inserting a space before a line of text results in that text being displayed as a fixed width font, not as the Wikiformatting. You should "subst" the RfA template, otherwise when other people try to edit your RFA page, they get to the template page instead. Finally, self-nominators should already answer the candidate questions before putting themselves up for nomination. Come back when you have more experience (I might as well register my vote before perusing the now-answered questions, before I enter into yet another edit conflict). --Deathphoenix 13:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I concur with NSLE, being a member of the Cleanup task force and articles to be created does not require admin powers. You have the ability to do those things right now as an editor. --Deathphoenix 14:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)No need for further comments with the withdrawal of the self-nom. Good luck in the future, Gary. --Deathphoenix 14:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. He needs to do more editing before requesting for adminship. 271 edits is not enough. --Ghirlandajo 14:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Do a lot more here over the next few months and try again. (Can someone end this?) --Rogerd 17:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose per reasons already given, too soon, more edits, etc. Quentin Pierce 03:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
Comments
- Just a note for Gary in the future. All the things you list as wanting to do if given sysop powers, you can do right now! Get involved in these endeavours, show you're a good member of the community, and try again for RfA with lots of edits and time on Wikipedia under your belt. Good luck. Harro5 06:01, 26 November 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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- I would like to become a member of the Cleanup Task force, and am keen to carry out work sorting out the backlog of articles to be created, and wikified.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- Not particularly, but I enjoyed starting and writing Myma Seldon, as I was able to contact the person to check certain details. It even survived AfD, which was pleasing.
- 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?
- No, not at all. Everyone is very nice, apart from some vandals who use the same computers at school as me (we have a proxy server with a static IP address, and this caused me (the ip) to be banned for about 30 minutes before being resolved.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
----
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Enochlau
Final (26/0/0) ending 10:15 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Enochlau (talk · contribs) – I have been a Wikipedia user for nearly 2 years now, and I've made nice contributions, both in terms of content as well as administrative duties. I would hope that others have found me pleasant to work with, and someone they can trust. I hope it's not too much to ask for a mop and a broom :) Enochlau 10:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nomination. Enochlau 10:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Support entirely. Enochlau has been helpful to the community. --Ghirlandajo 10:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. This candidate demonstrates a true zeal for this project, along with an uncanny sense of duty and responsibility. I have absolutely no doubt that he will carry out his responsibilities with our community's interests in mind. Jogloran 10:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support MONGO 11:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I have no problems at all with this user. Raven4x4x 11:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support because I'm at work and sober. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support good editor --Rogerd 16:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support never encountered this editor, but he's been around for a long time and that's good enough for me. Grue 17:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- 'OMFG Support. BD2412 T 00:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support this excellent candidate. Antandrus (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Quentin Pierce 03:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Enoch has been a tireless contributor to Wikipedia, and is an excellent candidate for adminship. Kewpid 05:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*) 07:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support most definately, --cj | talk 09:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian 10:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Izehar 22:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC).
- Support. El_C 12:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Энциклопедия* (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- SupportSarah Ewart 00:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Several positive experiences with this user. —Cryptic (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, excellent seasoned candidate with plenty of experience. Silensor 22:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support- a very nice guy in person; a very good editor on Wikipedia. jnothman talk 00:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Give him the mop and broom ... and a bucket and dustpan to boot!. -- DS1953 04:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Seen him around before. :) --Andylkl (talk) (contrib) 08:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Very useful contributions re: sydney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novacatz (talk • contribs) 19:54, 30 November 2005
- Support I think you have been around long enough to deserve this :-) Gryffindor 20:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support see him around regularly. Dlyons493 Talk 21:02, 1 December 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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A. In the past, I have done Special:Newpages patrol, and I anticipate that I will continue to do that. I have also closed the occasional vote at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, where I am a regular contributor. I am also avid at cleaning out vandalism, and wikifying and tagging pages, in particular disambig pages. In particular, what I would like to be able to do is delete obvious rubbish and delete redirects in anticipation of moving a page to a name that currently redirects to it, in addition to other admin requests and duties.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. Although my photography will never be able to live up to the professionals around here, I love contributing images to Wikipedia; in particular, Image:Sydney harbour bridge nye2004.jpg has made it to the Main Page as part of selected anniversaries. In addition, my edits to photoelectric effect back in January 2004 (which started me on Wikipedia!) would prove to have a lasting effect in the reworking of scientific principles, which were previously horribly incorrect. More recently, I have made extensive contributions to contract and its related articles, which while nowhere near perfect, have seen a vast improvement.
- 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 my few minor disagreements, but I strenuously avoid edit warring with anyone - it's pointless. I don't recall ever being stressed over any work at Wikipedia however. Where I've had disagreements or in general concerns that what I'm doing isn't quite right, I'll just drop a note on the talk page and gather comments to see what others think. Communication and concensus are the key to success, I believe.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Mushroom
Final (26/0/0) ended 18:36 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Mushroom (talk · contribs) – I think Mushroom should be an admin because he is very nice, and has joined many Wikipedia projects to help out the community! His contributions are very helpful, and he knows what vandalism and what it's not! He's also someone willing to explain his reasons for editing, and he's not afraid to help someone that needs help!VenomousNinja 03:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- As VenomousNinja is fairly new, I'll throw my two cents into the nomination and note that Mushroom has been here since December of 2003, and a cursory review of his edit history indicates that he has participated in several improvement projects, including fixing bad links and bypassing redirects; also, he reverts anon vandals, and is very consistent about dropping a polite note on their pages afterwards. BD2412 T 03:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination! Mushroom 18:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Support: Like I said in the nomination, he's very helpful, nice, and will help with alot of things!VenomousNinja 03:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, looks good to me. Quentin Pierce 19:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Go on, then The Land 19:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support! BD2412 T 19:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. If BDA is in favour, (s)he can't be bad. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 19:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, I don't know much about this user, but (s)he seems to be OK, and I just want to support someone named "Mushroom" for adminship. — JIP | Talk 20:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support even though I once ate some bad mushrooms on a pizza and got really sick. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support seems like he make a good admin --Rogerd 01:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. utcursch | talk 03:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- SupportMONGO 05:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian 07:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support long term worthy contributor. (plus it doesnt hurt to have another inclusionist as an admin :P) ALKIVAR™ 07:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Proto t c 11:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support DanielES15 He looks like he has good exeperience and he has helped with Wikipedia projects. 16:48(UTC), 25 November 2005
- Support --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*) 07:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Izehar 22:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Works hard around here! delldot | talk 06:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, maybe more so because I like your name.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 12:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Psilocybin support. El_C 12:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Энциклопедия* (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Supporting mushroom, oh no Mushroom, a good editor. --Bhadani 15:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Wow last 500 edits are stub sorting! Keep working hard and I like your user name. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support as per BD2412. Silensor 22:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - shows excellent janitorial skills. -- DS1953 04:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Jobe6 00:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support. nobs 06:34, 1 December 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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A. I think I would mainly help with fighting vandalism. These days, I see a lot of pages get vandalized and I can't do much, except reverting and warning vandals. I like to do this, and if you have a look at my contributions, a big percentage of edits is made of reverts, warnings, or adding the sharedip template to anon user pages. But I feel this isn't enough: vandals return, and I can't block them. As an administrator, I could do more: block vandals, protect pages, speedy delete nonsense, revert vandalism faster. I could also help with backlogs, WP:AFD and WP:CFD.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. Usually, I don't make extensive edits to articles. I often fix red links, redirects, formatting, categories, unicode and so on. These may be minor edits, but I consider them important. I like lists: I'm the main editor of the List of GameCube games, and I did a lot of work on it. I also created five lists of Italian ministers: Interior, Foreign Affairs, Instruction, Justice and Defense, and I added succession boxes to the 80+ articles about people on these lists. Recently, I created the Agenore Incrocci stub, and I plan to expand it in the future. Since I'm Italian, I can also translate articles from the Italian Wikipedia: I'm currently in the process of translating my first "big" article, Andrea Zanzotto (compare with the small stub here). I will upload it when I have finished.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A. I have never been in major conflicts with other editors and I've never participated in edit wars. If another Wikipedian tells me I've made a mistake, I try to correct it. If I think I was right, I discuss it with that person. I think the most important thing is to be open minded: a peaceful compromise can always be reached. Sometimes I feel stressed when dealing with persistent vandalism, but this is not a big problem for me, since I don't get angry easily. I don't like to revert edits of other (registered) users, and when I do this I try to explain my reasons, though sometimes I forget to. This happened with VenomousNinja, for example. I reverted one of his edits without giving an explanation, but then we talked [1], and now he's nominated me, so... :-)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
HorsePunchKid
Final (49/0/1) ended 10:30 30 November 2005 (UTC)
HorsePunchKid (talk · contribs) – HorsePunchKid is a really helpful and sensible guy, I want him to be an admin because I think the community would be better off if he was. He already does many admin things such as reverting and warning vandals, and would greatly benefit from the various admin buttons. For those who care; he has almost 3000 edits, has been around a long time and never fails to leave an edit summary! Martin 15:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Accepted! —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-23 07:29:32Z
Support
- Support Exlibris 03:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support of courses! Martin 10:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support nothing but good experiences with this user. A good vandal fighter, I think he can live up to the high expectations of an admin. -- malo (talk)/(contribs) 10:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support but are you the kid that punches horses or the kid that was punched by a horse? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. A good and experienced wikipede and a ruthless vandal fighter.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 11:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, yeah. Looks good as far as I've looked through his contributions. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support per nom.Gator (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Joke137 15:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, this user is unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, I thought he was an admin for sure. Titoxd(?!?) 17:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support per everyone's favourite cliche. --Celestianpower hablamé 18:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Kefalonia 18:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support per nom. BD2412 T 19:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support On condition you stop making it too easy for the kids to do their homework ;-). David D. (Talk) 21:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, needs more time? Are you crazy? Fahrenheit Royale 21:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Per nom --VileRage (Reply|C|Spam Me!*) 21:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Make it be known on the record that Martin stole this nomination from me, and then went and took the corny support statement I was going to use, grrr. HorsePunchKid is always helping people on the Help desk, and becoming an admin will expand his scope there. He also fights vandalism and leaves some of the best edit summaries going around. Lastly, he's a good bloke, great have around.--Commander Keane 23:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- I actually asked him about adminship about 2 weeks ago, it was just a strange coincidence that you mentioned it to him while I was writing the nomination! spooky Martin 23:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry about that Martin, despite checking I somehow missed that.--Commander Keane 07:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- I actually asked him about adminship about 2 weeks ago, it was just a strange coincidence that you mentioned it to him while I was writing the nomination! spooky Martin 23:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support will be a good admin --Rogerd 00:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support RfA cliche no. 1.--Sean|Black 01:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support with pleasure. TomerTALK 01:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Edits a diverse range of articles in a professional way. Will do great as admin. Full support!! deeptrivia 02:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support MONGO 03:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support pgk(talk) 07:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support saw him fighting evil vandalism on Aishwarya Rai, even when he did not know the language it was in. --Gurubrahma 08:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, and I don't do this often - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 10:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Orange Furry Alien Support go the musicabal (tinc) Alf melmac 11:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support:--Bhadani 14:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 15:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Jacqui★ 16:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Good interactions, fine edit summaries, cool head, experienced, good WP knowledge. Turnstep 21:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - will make a fine admin. PJM 05:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support absolutely, --cj | talk 05:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian 07:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support my interactions have always been friendly. I see no reason why this user shouldnt be given the chance to shine. ALKIVAR™ 07:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Very friendly and helpful; active RC patroller. Hope you're not still punching horses. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. All I've seen of him was good. - Mgm|(talk) 12:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. -- DS1953 18:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support notable good egg. Hamster Sandwich 23:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Seen this editor around --Jaranda(watz sup) 18:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Izehar 22:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. El_C 12:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- support William M. Connolley 13:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC).
- Support! good interactions with this user in the past.--Alhutch 17:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- STRONG SUPPPORT WITH THREE P'S. Энциклопедия* (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Contribution history looks good, will make a fine admin. --Alan Au 22:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support as per nominator. Silensor 22:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Oops, I forgot, we're not supposed to pile-on. ;-) --hydnjo talk 17:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. [insert cliché here] Hall Monitor 22:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Jobe6 00:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
- Neutral needs a little more time. EddieSegoura 13:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Although vote is neutral, I would like to say that this account was created November 18, 2005. Fahrenheit Royale 22:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's even more ironic than you think. Check out this Rfa Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/EddieSegoura_2.David D. (Talk) 22:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Although vote is neutral, I would like to say that this account was created November 18, 2005. Fahrenheit Royale 22:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Comments
- I'm just curious, but would you mind explaining your user name? It's very interesting. :-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- I get asked this pretty often—often enough that I wish I had some clever story to go behind it. Maybe I'll write one someday! But in truth, it's just some silly nickname from high school that has absolutely no meaning, as far as I'm aware. Or maybe it was just a joke I never got... I'll have to think on that. Anyway, it's my online pseudonym, which works well because it is, if nothing else, unique. :) —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-11-26 04:58:30Z
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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A. Fighting vandalism is a high priority. Adminship would make the process more efficient and leave me more time to either be constructive or watch more pages for vandalism. Many of the categories in the backlog list do not require admin functions to deal with; among the ones that do, I'm most interested in the transwiki process. I try to divide my time equally between creation (adding or improving content) and destruction (removing vandalism, participating in deletion discussions, and such). With the added responsibility of adminship, I would expect to be more involved in the destructive aspect.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. It's probably all too clear from my user page[2] that I'm a music nerd (among other forms of nerdship). The series of barbershop-related articles you'll see there is something I'm pleased with, though none are terribly exciting, even to me! However, I believe them to be generally interesting and the topics well worth documenting encyclopedically. My contributions of photographs and diagrams are probably more interesting, though I've been slow to get my photos onto the Commons.
- There are some rather extensive copy-edits I've done[3][4][5][6] that I'm vaguely proud of, in a way that only people who enjoy proofreading are likely to understand. ;) Also, I am generally pleased when I can save an article from deletion by improving it, though the results have never been particularly interesting. This, to me, falls under the topic of not biting the newbies, which I believe often requires action rather than restraint.
- ^ Please don't oppose me on the basis of my photo of myself! :)
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A. I have not yet archived my talk page since joining, and I'm sure it evidences some of my more contentious edits. The one that probably holds the record for the ratio of bytes of discussion (several kilobytes, I'm sure) to bytes changed (one character) is the whole Blackface "affect" issue. I'll leave the interpretation up to you, though I'm happy to comment on it if need be. More recently, there is the continued vandalism of Adolf Hitler by Hans Rosenthal [7] (search for "ROHA" on the page). I thought we might be able to come to some constructive agreement, but obviously I failed.[8]
- Stress is not an issue. I'm not exactly the most cool-headed person around, but I can redirect stress energy toward more creative ends. In any case, I tend to agonize over my own words: By the time I hit the submit button, I've cooled down and thought through what I'm saying and how it might be (mis)read.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns or if you would like me to elaborate upon any of the points above. Thank you, Martin, for the nomination and kind words! —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-11-23 07:24:10Z
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Harro5
Final (57/0/0) ended 06:18 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Harro5 (talk · contribs · count) – I am requesting adminship after my second RFA (this contains a link to the older one as well) which failed due to a small number of votes being cast leading to a majority being overruled by the minority. Anyway, that was four months ago, and as I approach 5000 edits I believe I have proven myself an involved member of the community who, while not letting vandals or otherwise negating editors go unnoticed, fully understands the five pillars of Wikipedia and an admin's role in upholding these. Harro5 03:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nomination. Harro5 03:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Support Haven't voted in his other RfAs, but it looks like the objections presented there have been fixed. I don't think he will abuse admin powers, and he seems like a useful contributor. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support main reason for opposition in previous rFa was lack of experience. Certainly worthy of mop now Borisblue 06:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Looks good ;] --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 07:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support I worked with Harro5 on the George W Bush article and found his contributions there to be excellent.[9]--MONGO 10:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian 11:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support for helping where needed in less glamorous admin tasks. - RoyBoy 800 11:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, aye. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- That made me chuckle:
leading to a majority being overruled by the minority
— what an intro! He has no chance. El_C 13:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC) - Support, unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support- I think he deserves now. --Bhadani 13:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support Great guy, really deserves this in my opinion. Banes 15:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Harro5 has seen more action than many actual admins, and handles conflict with skill and tolerance. Bishonen|talk 17:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Good guy Martin 20:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Looking good.--Sean|Black 20:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sup Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 22:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Well earned. BD2412 T 00:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Good luck. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) Make Céline Dion a FA! 00:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support seems like mop wielding material to me. Alf melmac 02:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support as I ran into him on my RC Patrol. --Gurubrahma 07:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support pgk(talk) 08:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support will be good admin.Gator (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- You must promote him... with a herring! — JIP | Talk 13:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, 2 times out of 3. Grue 13:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. And I was going to nominate him... guess now I'm just a Johnny-Come-Lately. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, I'm making up for missing RfA voting, I've been doing stuff. Don't yell at me. Fahrenheit Royale 17:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support on the basis of interaction on Australian articles--A Y Arktos 23:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support has made a valuable contribution especially on Australian articles. Capitalistroadster 00:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support for all the work he has done on Australian related articles. Roisterer 00:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support; I'd been wondering when he'd become an admin. Good luck! Deltabeignet 02:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. As the lone neutral last time, I wholeheartedly support this time. -- JamesTeterenko 06:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Rogerd 06:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Commonly pops up on my Australian watchlist with good edits. I followed his Request for Comment and it was handled well. Cnwb 09:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support without hesitation. Hall Monitor 21:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Article work looks good. Dlyons493 Talk 22:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support --tomf688{talk} 03:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Alot of things can change in four months, eh? – ClockworkSoul 05:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support because "I can almost taste the sweet taste of the rollback button" is a wonderful line, and because I've encountered him so often on RC patrol. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 10:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Geogre 12:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC) (who has nothing to add, for once)
- Support Persistence is a good trait for an admin. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Kefalonia 18:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Happy to support this fine Aussie editor. Cheers!! -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support dedicated to keeping the wiki vandal free, must be mopped. Alf melmac 11:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Izehar 19:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Troppus noelip emertxe. Radiant_>|< 19:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Definite support. +sj + 06:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support he took our criticism of his last 2 RFAs in stride, and has shown a marked improvement since then. I think he's ready now. ALKIVAR™ 07:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. His cool and courteous handling of previous constructive criticism makes me wish some current administrators were more like him. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Cliché support. --Deathphoenix 13:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support No longer does it stand at 50. Derktar 17:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC).
- Support. -- DS1953 18:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Jobe6 19:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support -- I'm a little late to the party :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- "Sorry I'm so late" support. NSLE (讨论+extra) 08:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Sarah Ewart 11:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- --Jaranda(watz sup) 18:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Comments
- which failed due to a small number of votes being cast leading to a majority being overruled by the minority- can you please clarify your understanding of "cosensus", Harro5? Borisblue 05:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought that was an iffy choice of words. The RFA saw 11 support votes to 4 oppose votes and 1 neutral, which shows about 70% support. If there had been more votes cast (some other RFAs at the time, and now, attract over 50 or even 100 votes), and that ratio haad continued, the outcome may have been different. I know consensus in the community must be a very strong majority (about 75-80%+), but what I was looking to convery is that the RFA was unsuccessful because of mixed results, not a flat oppose from the community where everyone voted no. Sorry for any confusion, and don't read too much into it. Harro5 05:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, if the ratio had continued the result would still be 70%. Ooh, sorry, couldn't resist nitpicking your math there :) Borisblue 05:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought that was an iffy choice of words. The RFA saw 11 support votes to 4 oppose votes and 1 neutral, which shows about 70% support. If there had been more votes cast (some other RFAs at the time, and now, attract over 50 or even 100 votes), and that ratio haad continued, the outcome may have been different. I know consensus in the community must be a very strong majority (about 75-80%+), but what I was looking to convery is that the RFA was unsuccessful because of mixed results, not a flat oppose from the community where everyone voted no. Sorry for any confusion, and don't read too much into it. Harro5 05:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Could you explain this edit, which was brought up at your previous RFA? Coffee 05:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- That edit was made 6 months ago, and was meant as a bit of a joke; I'd only been a serious editor for a month. I have made no other similar edits in over 5000 now (milestone achieved this week on RC-Patrol), and believe I have proven that it in no way demonstrates what sort of contributor I have been to Wikipedia. Hoep that settles this. Harro5 05:38, 23 November 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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A. I have always been involved in various things like these, and seem to go through a cycle of involvement in areas. I get involved in the various deletion processes (particularly speedy deletions in WP:NP, as shown by over 400 edits to now deletd articles; and AFD, TFD), and would also lend a hand at Did You Know, In the News, blocking/unblocking, and generally answering the call for a mop around the place. Plus, I can almost taste the sweet taste of the rollback button.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. Obviously my pet, featured article Caulfield Grammar School, but also various endeavours and contributions, including the School Portal (which I manage), helping the NBA WikProject get up off the ground, and the other articles I've written or edited, of which there are many.
- 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. Most notably, and recently, was a Request for Comment brought on by my reverting vandals-turned-victims, in which my actions were totally vindicated (see Bishonen's summary and supports for a good idea of what really was involved). I'm glad to say progress with these guys is being made to allow good editing to continue on what were the disputed articles. Other than that, I've had no major issues except for a little misudnerstanding where a user continually posted articles with no content (eg. [10] [11]) and I, on RC-Patrol at the time, left a brief note for content was read the wrong way by the user. But I'm pretty good with dispute resolution, and haven't had any trouble with long-time users or people contributing positively in their edits.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Sean Black
Final (56/1/0) ended 01:36 November 26 (UTC)
Sean Black (talk · contribs) – Sean has been here since June 11 [12]. Looking at that diff, one can see that his very first edit was reverting vandalism, and he did it correctly, and he used an edit summary even. This first edit showed good potential, and from what I've seen, he's been great. He's got 1949 edits as of me typing this up (please don't say 'will support at 2000' it's rather pointless ;-) Let's go over some statistics: last 500 edits (as of 00:33 November 18 UTC) have been between the end of November 1 and November 18, so I believe he passes the activity test. He is JUST shy (983 as of typing this) of 1,000 article edits, he has over 400 talkspace edits, and he has over 350 Wikipedia edits. I believe he's past all those bars. Sean works on everything from articles to welcoming newbies to RC Patrol to complimenting people. I think he's earned the extra tools, and proven he's to be trusted. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 01:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Wow. I'm shocked, but I will accept. This is an honor, and I do hope that I can be trusted by the community. Thank you again.--Sean|Black 02:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 01:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support A productive and fair editor.--a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support good overall work, would like to see them with admin tools. «»Who?¿?meta 02:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. NSLE (讨论+extra) 02:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Good editor --Rogerd 04:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support per above. BD2412 T 04:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- SupportMONGO 05:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Andross' enemy is my enemy...uh, Red's friend is my friend... (Plus, I've seen you around and think you'll do just fine). -Mysekurity 06:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support and happy to do it! – ClockworkSoul 06:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Solid user, trustworthy. Xoloz 06:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Per all of the above. He deserves the mop. Banes 07:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian 08:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support from slasher moviez lover. - Darwinek 10:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support I coulda sworn he was one! Hiding talk 15:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Suppoer Great user, trust the nominator. - GregAsche 17:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support! Kirill Lokshin 17:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support --pgk(talk) 19:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support. Good luck, mate. Blackcap (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Good active vandalism fighter. --Nlu 21:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. El_C 23:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Robert T | @ | C 02:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support great work on several horror film articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support looks good and, of course, I've been brainwashed by User:Redwolf24. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Calm and rational. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support as a fellow troll. — JIP | Talk 11:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. All my personal interactions with him have been positive, his answers below make me believe he'll use the admin toolbox responsibly and we need more admins. It's an open and shut case. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 12:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support; this user is unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yup. Martin 20:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. KHM03 21:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) Make Céline Dion a FA! 00:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Blimey I haven't stated it already. Alf melmac 02:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support 172 07:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. -Willmcw 09:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support per nom.Gator (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- --Jaranda(watz sup) 16:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- This user will never, ever be an admin while I'm here. I guess I'll just leave then Support. Fahrenheit Royale 17:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support cool person (or so it seems ;) --TimPope 23:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, good record, will be a good match for the job. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. A fine fellow, deserving of the office. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Lookin' good ;] --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 06:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hayupp. A little low on the article-space edits, but editcount ain't everything, so everyone keeps saying. Has shown good skills since he's been here, so I'll add my scrawled X in the plus column. Grutness...wha? 08:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thryduulf 08:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - no objections from me. --Ixfd64 09:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Should handle admin duties with aplom. --GraemeL (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I've seen him in action; he'd make a good admin. Owen× ☎ 17:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Per nom. Good record--Dakota t e 21:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. Exceptional newcomer, an asset to Wikipedia. - Mailer Diablo 23:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, I would have nominated him if I had know he wasn't a member of the mop and flamethrower federation. Titoxd(?!?) 17:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - I thought he was an admin already O_o TDS (talk • contribs) 04:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support: --Bhadani 15:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Izehar 19:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support.per nomination.--Pomegranite | talk 02:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. +sj + 07:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. AnnH (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well I was going to vote oppose but it seems he reached 2,000 edits...Support! (just in case you didn't know I was kidding about the 2,000 mark thing) Derktar 17:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC).
- Support. -- DS1953 18:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Comments
- He just broke 2000 edits, and so now is infinitely more worthy of adminship, QED. Blackcap (talk) 23:12, 19 November 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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A. I believe that deleting speedies, closing AfDs, assisting with backlog (WP:RM, WP:CP, ect) will be high on the list, but I don't anticipate blocking too much (Titoxd and Curps are better at it, no reason to step on their toes), although I'll do so if necessary. Basically, I'll help out however I can!--Sean|Black 02:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. Tough one. Many of my edits are minor, tweaking little things here and there, but I think I did a good job on Jason Voorhees, Friday the 13th (film series), which I heavily cleaned up as part of an ongoning project to improve horror film related articles. Critters (film series) was something I picked from WP:RA, and I feel that that's a significantly good article for a third rate Gremlins rip-off :), and Pip and Jane Baker, which I was surprised didn't exist before. However, I'm most proud of the diversity of the articles I've edited- everything from The Brain of Morbius to Hamas to Galvatron to John Kerry. I think that I have both greatly increased my knowledge of the world through WP, and hopefully, others knowledge of it as well. Additionally, I'm very proud of those new users that I helped learn ways of WP- It's more than just welcomes, it's answering what many of us percieve as "dumb questions" kindly, honestly, and openly.--Sean|Black 02:21, 19 November 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.Mostly no, as I tend to avoid contentious areas. However, I was part of a nasty edit war at List of minor Doctor Who villains which I felt I dealt with well. Additionally, I recently started editing Political views of Lyndon LaRouche and related articles in an attempt to broaden my Wikipedian perspective: as most know, these articles have a history (including two ArbCom decisions), but I feel that the editing has been mostly civil, with less POV pushers and far more good faith concerns about neutrality and original research, and I think that I have handled it well.--Sean|Black 02:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
MarkGallagher (fuddlemark)
Final (100/0/0) ended 15:56 25 November 2005 (UTC)
MarkGallagher (talk · contribs · count) – This miscreant seems to have been around for ages. He seems like a good chap, but is always bothering me to do administrator stuff. I'm nominating the blighter to get him out of my hair. He refused a nomination by Phroziac last month. He's Australian and he often signs himself as "fuddlemark". What more is there to say? Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Oh, crikey. I accept. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC) Good chap, should be useful with the mop and broom.
- Fuddle Him. Immediately The Land 16:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- I can't believe Tony beat me to this nomination! Mark has good sense and would benefit from having admin tools; he's done good work in article space as well as helping clear up disputes. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support out of strong respect for nominator.Gator (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support. Very impressed with his boldness when he first came here, and I'm certain he can be trusted with adminship. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Duk 17:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Grue 17:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Cuddle Fuddle. Bishonen|talk 17:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support - who hasn't seen him about the place? --Celestianpower háblame 17:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I've seen him all over the place and I also trust Tony's judgement as nominator. Carbonite | Talk 17:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - a conscientious editor who already shadows many administrative functions. His attitudes to cracking down on image misuse and copyright is commendable. Give this man a mop! Rob Church Talk 18:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, I seriously need to go through WP:LA and figure out who is an admin and who isn't, because I seriously thought he was one. Titoxd(?!?) 18:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Need more admins. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-18 18:15
Oppose ∾ The ruddy blighter thwapped me in IRC.n00b support ∾ Mark seems to be a good chap with a square head on his shoulders and a strong desire to improve Wikipedia. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 18:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)- Support. From what I've seen he merits it. Aabha (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. He clearly knows the rules, and will use the admin tools wisely. Rje 18:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. KHM03 18:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Even-headed, open to criticism, understands well the role of an admin. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support per nominator and others who have yet to raise a single solitary objection.MONGO 19:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Yes, without a doubt! Banes 20:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Per all other folks, especally the bit about the square head...we need more of that. Rx StrangeLove 20:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Passed lightning adminship-exam, and mindspillage showed me an example of conflict resolution here: [13]. Kim Bruning 20:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support per my reasoning on Ianblair's RfA. Youngamerican 20:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support -- confident this user would not abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support: Astonishing: I was on IRC with him at the same time (rare for me to be there), and I never heard a peep about this. That's some good non-spamming. Geogre 21:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support gladly. NatusRoma 21:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Good lord, you're not one? Ral315 (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme support per all of the above (and the RFA cliché #1, but Ral already used that one). --JoanneB 22:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support as per nominator. Hall Monitor 23:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme fuddle. BD2412 T 23:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, good work, deserves the extra tools. feydey 00:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Always reminds me of Leroy Anderson's Fiddle Faddle (for the benefit of the musicabalists). --Michael Snow 00:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme "Australia are going to the World Cup" support, heheh. NSLE (讨论+extra) 00:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- {{RFA cliche}}. Radiant_>|< 00:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme I-welcomed-him support. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 00:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. has a good history and needs the tools.--Dakota t e 02:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Aye. A good man. encephalon 02:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. definitely a good user who would make good use of the mop and bucket. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 04:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Rogerd 04:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support for very funny man! Xoloz 06:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- He comes from a land down under. --Merovingian 08:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Only know him from IRC, but he seems like he knows what the heck he's doing. ;-) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. A great guy who'd do a fine job. —DO'Neil 11:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Now there's a bandwagon I'm willing to jump on. We need more admins! - Haukur Þorgeirsson 11:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Answers to questions below are exactly right IMHO. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 12:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Thunderbrand 14:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. One of the most prolific users I've ever seen: I see him around here everyday.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Shimgray | talk | 16:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support: I am sure real miscreants shall run away for cover seeing this "miscreant". --Bhadani 16:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support see him round often. Dlyons493 Talk 17:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Fuddle. — JIP | Talk 18:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Ann Heneghan (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support pgk(talk) 19:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support. Blackcap (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support ² --FireFox ™ 21:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Fuddled Alien Support will use the tools well. Alf melmac 21:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Elmer Fudd support. ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 23:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. El_C 23:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Absolutely. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, oh my goodness me, yes. -Splashtalk 03:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strewth!, give this chap a mop.--cj | talk 12:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Will make a good admin. Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hell yeah. Martin 20:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Of course. David Gerard 23:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support; obvious one. Good work, good user, will be good admin. Antandrus (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support. Always turning up on my watchlist. Plus I like the term "fuddle me", it sounds rude :D lol. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) Make Céline Dion a FA! 00:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support should have voted a long time ago, despite the immenent landslide. Wikipedia needs more fuddlemarks. Karmafist 04:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. It's starting to get a lil tight up here on the bandwagon. Harro5 04:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Holy mackrel anoint him now Support great Wikipedian, great guy, Fuddle will truly be an admin among admins. Babajobu 04:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. What more can I add? IceKarmaॐ 04:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I almost didn't bother checking out the RfA for a Mark Gallagher, who I had never heard of but luckily I did, for Mark is fuddlemark in disguise. Whatever name he uses, he is a fine Wikipedian and deserves to enter the pantheon of admins. --Roisterer 04:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm tempted to oppose simply because he told me that he wouldn't run for admin until January when I wanted to nominate him. But I won't. I'll find some other way to get even with him (evil laugh). Kelly Martin (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - has made valuable contributions as a user and I'm sure he will make a fine admin. Capitalistroadster 11:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- He isn't an admin? Well I'll be fuddled! I'll add my support - despite him being an Aussie ;) - for three reasons: 1) Mark's a great wikipedian; 2) he'll make a great admin; 3) Tony's refreshingly honest nomination! Grutness...wha? 13:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Support Of course Outstanding User --Jaranda(watz sup) 16:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support this is going to pass, I'm just doing it for more edits....Mwahahahahahahaha!!!!! Okay, maybe I just want to support, or do I? Fahrenheit Royale 17:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. A solid non-fool; well deserved. PJM 19:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support - This fine Australian editor has done wonders for this project and I'm extremely happy to support his nomination. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hah he said Crickey whoops! Should that have been bolded? Anyways, good user and total support. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Did I miss a memo? Is it Long Overdue Nomination Week? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'll 84th that! -- DS1953 06:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Would be a valuable addition to the admin team ;] --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 06:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme fuddlecycle on wheels support. —RaD Man (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy support That's right, just close this now and promote him. Proto t c 10:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent contributer. Would have voted sooner, but I decided not to vote during my own RFA. --GraemeL (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 23:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strewth, I know some say that he doesn't know Christmas from Bourke Street, but I reckon and he's cunning as a dunny rat and he'll be flat out like a lizard drinking clearing out admin backlogs, plus has Buckley's chance of abusing his powers. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support' Johann Wolfgang 00:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sheep Support Baaaa... Borisblue 00:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support (just in case) Doc ask? 01:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Fuddling him ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Sarah Ewart 03:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- w00t. Jacqui★ 16:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Izehar 19:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Someone set up us the support ALKIVAR™ 07:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme fuddle duddle support. --Deathphoenix 13:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme 100 GET support -- grm_wnr Esc 14:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose section moved to BJAODN. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 00:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
Comments
- Comments section moved to BJAODN. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 00:31, 26 November 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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A. I do RC patrol from time-to-time (whenever I'm bored, really), and it would be nice to be able to stop bugging admins (except Tony_Sidaway, who's fun to bug) to do admin stuff for me. I have worked on copyright problems, and have been active in AfD (if not a constant presence), and clearing up CP backlogs and closing AfDs is an obvious extension of this.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. I'm one of those terribly immodest people with a "brag list" on my userpage. 'Course, what I consider brag-worthy might be just routine edits for most users. Pride of place is Lang Hancock, which was rescued from cleanup. I'm also rather fond of the major copyedits I made to Manchester United F.C. and softball (in fact, softball was my first logged-in contrib). I'm also proud of DeForest Richards, which was a rewrite of a copyvio. The stuff I prefer doing most is writing or copyediting – RC patrol is enjoyable enough in its way, but I get restless if I go too long without adding or editing actual content.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A. I haven't been involved in that many conflicts; most of those I have have been resolved by talking about them on talkpages or IRC. I've recently been trying, like User:Aaron Brenneman and User:Geogre, to push up the quality of nominations and votes on AfD. Sometimes it's worked, sometimes it hasn't, sometimes it's led to conflict. One incident that occurred a few weeks ago was a slow-motion "war", of sorts, with a user who insisted on adding irrelevant trivia to Chalmette, Louisiana. I am not all that happy with how I handled it – I should have taken it to the talkpage, or asked for an admin to help me – but I like to think I learned something about how to deal with conflict from the episode, and from discussions on IRC afterwards.
- 4 Are you Lir? Please provide evidence stating otherwise. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 05:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Requests for bureaucratship
Bureaucrats are administrators with the additional ability to make other users 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)
Requests for self-de-adminship and confirmation of adminship
Requests to relinquish adminship are granted on request and may be made at m:Requests for permissions. Do not place such requests here because the stewards will not act on them unless they are placed at m:Requests for permissions.
If you wish to have the community confirm or re-affirm your adminship, the correct process is:
- Voluntarily relinquish adminship by placing your request at m:Requests for permissions
- Apply for adminship here utilizing the usual procedure.
If you have concerns about specific aspects of your administrative performance, consider posting a request for review on the Administrators' Noticeboard or employing a Request for comment.
Related requests
- Requests for permissions on other Wikimedia projects
- Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on meta
- Requests for self-de-adminship on any project can be made at m:Requests for permissions.
- Requests to mark a user as a bot can be made at m:Requests for permissions following consensus at wikipedia talk:bots that the bot should be allowed to run.
- Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges
If this page doesn't update properly, either clear your cache or click here to purge the server's cache. en:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
- ^ 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.