if nominations haven't updated. |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RobChurch | Error parsing votes | Error getting status | Error parsing end time | -- | report | ||||
[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AlbertR|AlbertR]] | 1 | 14 | 0 | 7 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Ben Arnold | Error parsing votes | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | -- | report | ||||
Phroziac | Error parsing votes | Successful | Error parsing end time | -- | report | ||||
[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Beland|Beland]] | 58 | 1 | 0 | 98 | Successful | Error parsing end time | yes | report | |
Asbestos | Error parsing votes | Successful | Error parsing end time | -- | report | ||||
Scimitar | Error parsing votes | Successful | Error parsing end time | -- | report | ||||
Sam Hocevar | Error parsing votes | Successful | Error parsing end time | -- | report | ||||
RfB candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
[[Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | 23 | 14 | 0 | 62 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
[[Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Nichalp|Nichalp]] | 46 | 5 | 0 | 90 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
[[Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Rdsmith4 2|Rdsmith4]] | 51 | 1 | 0 | 98 | Successful | 06:06, 4 September 2005 | 0 hours | yes | report |
[[Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Andrevan2|Andrevan]] | 50 | 10 | 0 | 83 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RobChurch | Error parsing votes | Error getting status | Error parsing end time | -- | report | ||||
[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AlbertR|AlbertR]] | 1 | 14 | 0 | 7 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Ben Arnold | Error parsing votes | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | -- | report | ||||
Phroziac | Error parsing votes | Successful | Error parsing end time | -- | report | ||||
[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Beland|Beland]] | 58 | 1 | 0 | 98 | Successful | Error parsing end time | yes | report | |
Asbestos | Error parsing votes | Successful | Error parsing end time | -- | report | ||||
Scimitar | Error parsing votes | Successful | Error parsing end time | -- | report | ||||
Sam Hocevar | Error parsing votes | Successful | Error parsing end time | -- | report | ||||
RfB candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
[[Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | 23 | 14 | 0 | 62 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
[[Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Nichalp|Nichalp]] | 46 | 5 | 0 | 90 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
[[Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Rdsmith4 2|Rdsmith4]] | 51 | 1 | 0 | 98 | Successful | 06:06, 4 September 2005 | 0 hours | yes | report |
[[Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Andrevan2|Andrevan]] | 50 | 10 | 0 | 83 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report |
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 | % | ||||
ToadetteEdit | RfA | Closed per WP:NOTNOW | 30 Apr 2024 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Sdkb | RfA | Successful | 16 Feb 2024 | 265 | 2 | 0 | 99 |
The Night Watch | RfA | Successful | 11 Feb 2024 | 215 | 63 | 13 | 77 |
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.
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.
--
This nomination has been delisted due to the piling on of oppose votes.
Acetic'Acid 03:48, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
AlbertR
(1/12/2) ending 20:59 7 September 2005 (UTC) AlbertR (talk · contribs) - I am nominating myself to be an admin becuase I would like to help with monitoring for vandalism and clearing out the backlogs on several pages. I'll admit that I'm relatively new here, but I do have about 1,200 edits. --Alr 20:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept. Alr 21:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Support, over 400 edits in the Wikipedia namespace is quite enough, and you seem to be familiar with policy. I like your answers to the questions below, and I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be an admin. One and a half months of heavy editing is enough by my standards. Just remember to use edit summaries consistently and you'll be a fine admin. - ulayiti (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- Needs more experience. First edit was only about 7 weeks ago. Looks to be a good start though. Carbonite | Talk 21:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose per Carbonite. Will support in two more months. One suggestion for the future - please use edit summaries more frequently. It helps the RC Patrollers out a lot. Acetic'Acid 21:56, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Will support in one month. --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:18, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- So far, your edits look good, but you need to spend some more time here. A couple of months later (barring anything catastropic) the vote will probably be changed. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 13:49, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose You need a few more months under your belt before I can support. Whilst you seem to be a very promising contributor, I don't feel you've been exposed to Wikipedia long enough for us to see how well you will cope in conflicts. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 16:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Insufficient experience. siafu 00:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose – too new and no email ID specified. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:28, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too new. CDThieme 23:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not sufficiently experienced with less than 2 months here. --Jusjih 03:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. Albert you are on the right track. Keep up the good work and in the future I'll support you. Tony the Marine 04:55, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Looks like hes biting the newbies oppose Jobe6 21:54, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme Oppose of UltraDoom to anyone who bites a newbie. Redwolf24 (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme Oppose of Inexorable Doom cause 7 weeks is ridiculously too little time editing. freestylefrappe 03:07, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
- Abstention. Permanent record indicates minor conflict with this user over Template:Idw being put on my user talk page regarding Image:Bcferry.png, but this user subsequently apologized, so I will neither support nor oppose. Denelson83 23:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Not enough edits or time. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-3 04:03
Comments
- I agree with the oppose votes here more or less. Besides the comments there though seems like a good candidate... maybe in 3 more weeks Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:44, 31 August 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.)
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. I am particuarly pleased with my contributions to Montreal-Mirabel International Airport. I was mostly responsible for getting it featured, and I drew two diagrams for the article. I also reasearched it and added a significant amount of content. Alr 21:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A. I will freely admit that I have done some things in the past that may not have exactly been good, like nominating Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch for deletion. I do feel, however that I have grown as a Wikipedia user, and have learned from my mistakes. Aside from those errors, I have not really gotten involved in any pressing disputes. Most controversial edits I've hade have been resolved by discussion. Alr 21:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Ben Arnold
(7/14/7) ending 02:48 7 September 2005 (UTC) Ben Arnold (talk · contribs) I am nominating myself to be an admin because I have found myself moving into a space where I am monitoring pages for vandalism and giving assistance to new users. It seems like the natural next step to actually become an admin. I have only 920-odd edits, but they are spread reasonably evenly over the last 18 months or so. Special considerations:
- I live in New Zealand. That gives me a timezone advantage (I can revert vandalism when those in the U.K. and North America are asleep).
- I have a dream that one day, admins will not be judged on their geographical locations, but on the quality of their content. Or something like that... --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- I have installed and run a MediaWiki at my workplace, so I'm familiar with the software — and I'm a programmer so I'm familiar with software in general.
- I worked with a group of users to developing articles about New Zealand places. I created a WikiProject for the purpose (although it's fallen into disuse). There is now a message board for New Zealand Wikipedians and I intend to get re-involved under that banner.
Ben Arnold 02:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept ;) Ben Arnold 02:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Support, very good edit history, will support wikipedia's NPOV. --Vizcarra 03:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Andre (talk) 18:24, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Good candadite, great edit summaries. Too many with editcountitis around here Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support, good editor, understands NPOV, head seems firmly screwed to neck.-gadfium 05:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Pcb21| Pete 13:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, I like his idea of exploiting the time zone advantage to revert vandalism. I will support again if his 'inexperience' makes the community withhold consensus now. Uncle Ed 14:11, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support how 18 months is not enough experience is beyond me. Editcountitis are bad. Grue 16:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose, excellent history, but not enough edits for me, otherwise, try again after 1,500 edits and I'll support.--MONGO 03:11, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't care about your edit count as a whole, but your lack of edits in the Wikipedia namespace indicates a lack of experience in terms of RFA voting, VfDs, etc. I'll gladly support in a few more months. Acetic Acid (talk) 03:49, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. You've got only a few Wikipedia namespace edits, so you might not be familiar enough with policies and practices yet to be an admin. The overall edit count is not a problem in my opinion, but you need to show that you're familiar with Wikipedia's structure to get votes here. Other than that, you sound like a good contributor, and I'll definitely support after a few more months and, say, 150 Wikipedia namespace edits. - ulayiti (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose— 900 edits in 17 months is a bit few. Needs to be more consistent with edit summaries. Lastly, shows limited grasp of Wiki policy if he calls this edit 'reverting vandalsim'. Seem like a consistent editor nontheless; come back in a few months and youll have my full support.
- It was an error that he corrected himself, just a few minutes later. See [1]. --Durin 18:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- An unavoidable risk in using the normal user "revert" technique, compounded by my work connection running slowly that day. Ben Arnold 21:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm not too worried about where you edit (Wiki namespace or just article space), but I am worried about the number. Even 1,000 over 18 months isn't that much. I'd like to see an admin have more than 50 edits a month. That isn't too much more than one edit a day, on average. Perhaps later I could support. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's great to have editors that are passionate about certain topics, but I'm not sure that the narrow focus on New Zealand-related articles is grounds for the admin mop. In addition, I would prefer to see more edits in the Wikipedia namespace before I would feel comfortable supporting. --Alan Au 22:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- I think the New Zealand-related articles need attention, but my interest has been broader than that, and will continue to be so. Ben Arnold 23:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Will support in one month. --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:14, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose not enough edits. freestylefrappe 18:19, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too new. CDThieme 23:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Looks like a good editor, but what's wrong with waiting a bit? I think there is nothing wrong with maintaining that admins should be more experienced. Keep editing as you have and adminship will come in time. Jonathunder 17:20, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
- "edit-countitis" tempered with judgement is not a vice. While you shouldn't promote somebody purely based on an impressive edit count, there is nothing wrong with telling a good user to keep editing for a little while before re-applying. I will wholeheartedly support after another month or so of steady editing. dab (ᛏ) 12:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- oppose not enough experience. freestylefrappe 03:09, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose per MONGO, Derktar 00:06, September 7, 2005 (UTC).
Neutral
- I'd love to support another kiwi for admin, but 920 edits is just a wee bit too few. Once you've racked up another few hundred there should be no problem, since that is the only reason I'm stalling. Grutness...wha? 03:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral; I agree with Grutness. Good edit history, but you need a bit more edits, especially in the Wikipedia namespace. Jaxl | talk 03:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral I've similar sentiments to Grutness.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 16:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Not enough edits. BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-3 04:03
- Neutral to anyone who I don't know. Redwolf24 (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hard to effectively judge this user's proficiency with the low edit count, especially regarding janitorial tasks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Would suggest user go on RC patrol to prove that he can be effective and reverting vandalism =) Would support with another couple hundred edits. Sasquatch讲看 02:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Comments
I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia so it surprises me that my total edits are considered low. Perhaps I listen more and talk less than other Wikipedians who become admins. Perhaps I haven't done enough of the mass editing that involves making the same change to a lot of articles. Regardless I think I've failed to grasp the importance of a large edit count. I am someone who has been involved in Wikipedia continuously for 18 months, with an accelerating edit count over that time, so you can assume I'm going to be around for the long term. I have a good sense of what Wikipedia's about. I have proved myself trustworthy. And I'm volunteering to help out.
Maybe it comes down to whether being an Admin is being someone you can trust who is lending a hand in a volunteer capacity, where it's useful to have all hands on deck — or whether Adminship is a club for people who have met an edit target.
Ben Arnold 23:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- I strongly concur with all of this. Classic example of where editcountitis is harmful. Hopefully enough other editors will see this too. Pcb21| Pete 13:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Btw, bot spending too much time in the Wikipedia: namespace is a good thing in my opinion. Pcb21| Pete 13:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- I think its because you spend a "reasonable" amount of time each day here... many editors (like meself) spend like 10 hours a day or more here which leads to large edit counts... add in artificial inflation (VfD, catagorization etc.) and you've got more edit counts than one really should have Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks to those who supported my application. It's been quite an illuminating experience. One person commented that they'd like to see me help out with patrolling for vandalism in the recent changes. I'd like to do that but I find the reverting process (as a normal user) too awkward. Of course I revert vandalism when I encounter it on a day-to-day basis. I guess it's these kinds of tasks — and more Wikipedia namespace involvement — I felt I was offering to sign up for.
Anyway, barring a last-minute deluge of support it looks like the consensus is that I should not become an admin. I must admit I hadn't appreciated it would be that hard. I was only about 80 edits short of the recommended number for applying, but I had 3–6 times the recommended tenure in terms of months.
Many have suggested I reapply later. I may do. As I've already been here for 18 months I don't think I can reasonably reapply until 2007, and that's too far ahead to plan.
You have lost the opportunity to have someone commit themselves to administration tasks who has demonstrated responsiblity and long-term service to Wikipedia. I think you've made a bad decision.
Ben Arnold 22:17, 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. As an admin I mainly see myself keeping an eye on the growing problem of vandalism in the New Zealand arena, and other pages I have an interest in. It would also be useful to modify the "in the news section" page when events of global interest happen, particular things in New Zealand. I've written for "in the news" twice, when New Zealand passed Civil Unions and when former Prime Minister David Lange died.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. My most recent new article contribution is Realm of New Zealand, although New Zealand order of precedence made it to the new articles section on the Main Page. I guess ironically I get a sense of pride every time I go back to something I wrote and find that other people have reworded it to make it read better or developed it into something more thorough.
- 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 edit Wikipedia to relax, so I don't let myself take arguments personally. The one time I got quite heated about a topic I voluntarily withdrew before I let it get me too angry (kilobyte). I would be even more careful about that as an admin. After all, I use my real name as my username and edit histories last forever!
Phroziac
(56/2/2) ending 20:33 6 September 2005 (UTC) Phroziac (talk · contribs) - User has matured enough to use admin powers benefiting wikipedia. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Absolutely. :D --Phroziac (talk) 21:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Support NOT just because username sounds like Prozac. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Andre (talk) 21:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- However, I suggest you remember the difference between IRC and the mailing list... :-) [[smoddy]] 21:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support Um, YES! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. She's the kind of admin I wish I had been when I was her age (oh, wait, they didn't even have the web then, and wikis were only invented in ...). Anyway, I hope this endorsement doesn't attract a lot of oppose votes (oh, no, she hangs out with who?). Uncle Ed 21:51, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- I think you mean, "she hangs out with whom?" <Lord Voldemort pushes his spectacles up> --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support She's not one already?! — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support another one in a long line of candidates I thought were admins already... :) - ulayiti (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I have known Phroziac in person for some time now via IRC, and also via her contributions on the wiki. She is a conscientious, pleasant, intelligent editor who has made a high level of contribution to the wiki in a comparatively short period of time. I am sure that Phroziac shall make excellent use of admin tools... and... I'm amazed she isn't one already :-) --NicholasTurnbull 23:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. For being an excellent Wikipedian and having a username that sounds like Prozac. Nufy8 00:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Phroziac knows what she's doing, she knows how to do it and when, and she's got a lot of wiki-experience already. We need admins with the right balance of everything. Rob Church Talk | Desk 00:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. All-round good girl. Denelson83 00:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support— rolled back some of his contributions. Has been a consistent contributor. Also, her focus is on the 'dirty work' instead of simple editing. With the promotion, she could be better able to carryout her task.
- support DUDE! I was gonna do this next month! *shakes fist at Coolcat!* Aw well, great girl, blah blah, vote for her =) Sasquatch讲看 01:06, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Support - seems solid enough. Evercat 02:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support, thought she was already an admin. Jaxl | talk 02:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Supportize. Subjected the subject to one of my not-quite-infamous-yet grillings on wikipedia policy. She passes :-) Kim Bruning 03:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. A mature user who deserves the janitor's mop. ral315 03:39, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support So, it's finally happened. :) Congrats. I just want to note that in addition to his contributions on Wikipedia, Phroziac also founded her own wiki. She has already had a taste of sysop rights over there. Acetic Acid (talk) 03:43, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:58, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, feydey 11:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Support [Pere] I think she is completely deserving to be a wiki admin, i could not think of a more suitable website to be given the opportunity to work with such a all american talent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.7.131 (talk • contribs) 10:51, August 31, 2005- Support. Quality of edits goes ahead of quantity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- TINC. David Gerard 12:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support, {{RfAcliche}}. the wub "?/!" 15:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 16:05, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Gblaz 16:53, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Definitely. +sj + 17:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Ucucha|... 19:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support Johann Wolfgang 20:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. I'd rather you had more edits. Try again at 1,500. (Yes, I realize I have 700) --WikiFan04 19:17, 30 Aug 2005 (CDT)Support. --WikiFan04- Support Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. -Splash 22:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. *drew 23:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I trust her to use admin rights responsibly. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. --DCLXVI 02:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. --Alan Au 05:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oui! -- Essjay · Talk 05:06, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Thought she was one already. --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:08, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Yep. Thought she was one already. She shall be a good admin. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 13:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Shimgray 14:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Definitely. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:33, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Saluyot 00:33, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme thespian support ;-) Func( t, c, @, ) 01:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Doc (?) 08:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Joolz 22:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support... I'm torn between "she's not one already?!" and "hold on, she has less than half as many edits as I do!". I'll support her though, per She's Not One Already?!. :-) I've seen her around, and she does good work. --Idont Havaname 02:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I've only been here a few weeks, but she has been a constant, level headed, source of information and advice on IRC. --GraemeL (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Robert McClenon 19:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support I've seen this girl everywhere
20:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC) - Support: She's not an admin? User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Ja! \Mike(z) 13:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Not one already? ~~ N (t/c) 16:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- The Cabal Supports This User. Redwolf24 (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support even though I don't know this user, voting Oppose at this point would be useless. — JIP | Talk 16:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Meets my guidelines. Willingness to not only edit Wikipedia on dialup, but also to revert vandalism on dialup, shows dedication. :-) android79 17:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, I'm on dialup too! Alphax τεχ 14:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose. I'd rather you had more edits. Try again at 1,500. (Yes, I realize I have 700) --WikiFan04 19:17, 30 Aug 2005 (CDT)Support. --WikiFan04- But you felt that you were worthy of becoming an admin! -- JamesTeterenko 19:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- I withdrew! --WikiFan04
- But you felt that you were worthy of becoming an admin! -- JamesTeterenko 19:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sorry, and no offense, as I'm sure you're a great editor, but I feel it is important for admins to have experience adding content, and have experience in the ups and downs that come with that, in order to be able to do much of the job effectively. It looks like you'll get enough support though, so you won't miss mine :). Adding an answer that I'm sure you knew wasn't what I was looking for, but you were honest anyway, does raise your stock in my book, so I'd be happy to support in the future given some consistent content addition. - Taxman Talk 19:06, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, but I doubt my edit habits will change much. By the way, part of the problem is that most of the stuff I know about, is stuff that wikipedia has nice articles on. :) I found some HVAC articles that could use some work however. Oh, and if you see a stub you think i might be interested in, feel free to leave a link on my talk page. :o --Phroziac (talk) 22:04, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, for many topics Wikipedia is well beyond what most of us can add from our own knowledge. Anyway that probably never was a good practice as good research and citing authoritative sources is much more valuable. No one really cares that I know how a swaption works, but citing a prominent textbook for it is valuable. Anyway, like I said, you'll be fine. - Taxman Talk 17:15, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, but I doubt my edit habits will change much. By the way, part of the problem is that most of the stuff I know about, is stuff that wikipedia has nice articles on. :) I found some HVAC articles that could use some work however. Oh, and if you see a stub you think i might be interested in, feel free to leave a link on my talk page. :o --Phroziac (talk) 22:04, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
- Not enough edits. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-3 04:02
- The fact that you have only really have been here for three months since 3 June (I do not really count the edits you made to the sandbox on 2 June) combined with your relatively low edit count makes me abstain for now. It is just I do not feel comfortable judging what in my opinion is a low sample of someone's experience here. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- You mean i've been here since 2 June, and made sandbox edits on 1 June? I hope you mean low edit counts in general, not for three months -- I'm on Wikipedia all the time! --Phroziac (talk) 23:53, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Let me clarify: Actually it's a combination of both of those factors, the edit count and the time period, that makes me abstain for now. The dates I have given above are for your first dozen or so edits that you made under your account. Just because "you are on here all the time" doesn't give me enough information to judge you one way or another. It is one thing to read and study Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but it is a different experience actually applying them in practice towards different situations, especially ones that "don't go by the book" or ones that involve "problem users" and vandals. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- You mean i've been here since 2 June, and made sandbox edits on 1 June? I hope you mean low edit counts in general, not for three months -- I'm on Wikipedia all the time! --Phroziac (talk) 23:53, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Comments
- 1070 edits. Andre (talk) 21:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- What does [[smoddy]]'s comment mean? I personally view both the mailing list and IRC as deeply inferior to posting a message somewhere on the Wiki. -Splash 21:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- User:smoddy talks rather encrypted and hence rarely make sense :P. I guess its something they know between each other... Yes I am fascinated with the obvious. --Cool Cat My Talk 22:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Heh. Well, a while back smoddy commented that I did not have to reply to every post on the list. I reply there a lot. ;) By the way, I don't think they are inferior, but they have much different purposes. IRC gets fast responses, and is mostly not about wikipedia, and the mailing list has a bigger audience then most talk pages. --Phroziac (talk) 23:23, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- So does that mean you'd prefer to sound out the mailing list to sounding out a page on the wiki somewhere? -Splash 23:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, no, not exactly. I actually don't start new threads on the mailing list that often, I usually just reply there. If it's about wikipedia in general, I'd post it on the list, and if it's about a page or a dozen, i'd post it on relevant talk pages somewhere. --Phroziac (talk) 00:03, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- /me has only just seen this conversation. /me thinks that IRC is a place to make silly, off-topic comments, and use commands like /me. [[smoddy]] 16:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- /me agrees, but notes that sometimes /someone says "oh, but I asked on IRC(or mailing list) and /someoneelse said deleting VfD was ok", and things like that. Phroziac didn't and I'm sure wouldn't, but I wanted to make sure. -Splash 16:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- /me has only just seen this conversation. /me thinks that IRC is a place to make silly, off-topic comments, and use commands like /me. [[smoddy]] 16:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, no, not exactly. I actually don't start new threads on the mailing list that often, I usually just reply there. If it's about wikipedia in general, I'd post it on the list, and if it's about a page or a dozen, i'd post it on relevant talk pages somewhere. --Phroziac (talk) 00:03, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- So does that mean you'd prefer to sound out the mailing list to sounding out a page on the wiki somewhere? -Splash 23:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- 1070 is really light. The count doesn't matter so much to me, but it does indicate a lack of the type of experience I'd like to see. Can you point to at least some examples of your best contribution of material to articles? - Taxman Talk 23:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Light? Hmm, I guess you could say that. I bet it'll be atleast 1150ish before this RFA closes. Anyway, I don't do that much in the way of big edits, I usually do smaller janitorial tasks, like copyediting, RC patrol, new page patrol (mmm copyvios...). I can't think of any examples at the moment, but I did fix 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane this morning, it said that they started using 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane in 1995, but they actually started sometime in the early 90s, and in 1995 Dichloridofluoromethane was banned.[2] I also know I saw some large unwikified lumps on new page patrol, and wikified those, but I can't find them in my contribs right now :) --Phroziac (talk) 01:13, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, i did it. I have 1158 now, and I wasn't even trying. I'm such a wikiholic :/ --Phroziac (talk) 23:08, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- The fact that you didn't note that at your 1150th edit spells a little hope for you, but the fact that you did remember to check and did so indicates the dreaded editcoutitis is upon you. Run. But seriously I hope you don't take offense to my vote as I am just voting how I feel. - Taxman Talk 18:37, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Heh, your vote's no problem. Editcountitis? I'm just a trivia freak. :) --Phroziac (talk) 20:54, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, i did it. I have 1158 now, and I wasn't even trying. I'm such a wikiholic :/ --Phroziac (talk) 23:08, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Light? Hmm, I guess you could say that. I bet it'll be atleast 1150ish before this RFA closes. Anyway, I don't do that much in the way of big edits, I usually do smaller janitorial tasks, like copyediting, RC patrol, new page patrol (mmm copyvios...). I can't think of any examples at the moment, but I did fix 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane this morning, it said that they started using 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane in 1995, but they actually started sometime in the early 90s, and in 1995 Dichloridofluoromethane was banned.[2] I also know I saw some large unwikified lumps on new page patrol, and wikified those, but I can't find them in my contribs right now :) --Phroziac (talk) 01:13, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- No favorite contributions? Really? --Alan Au 22:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- I actually have been thinking about it, and I can think of a few I especially like. I like the picture I put on 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane, but it's actually on Commons, so does that count here? I also am pretty happy about finding that misinformation on the previously mentioned article, which I mentioned elsewhere on this rfa. I'm working on finding the exact date of the first tetrafluoroethane AC systems in cars though, if it's possible. And most of these edits get deleted, but I'm really happy about my copyvio tagging. It takes as much effort to do that as to write a really good stub sometimes. I couldn't do this as well without Coolcat's IRC bot by the way. Oh, and Scat Tracker is still a stub last time I looked, but I intend to contribute even more to that. I like that edit, and it's actually something i know a lot about. I remember those hours I spent getting a broken torque converter off my scat tracker! I had to cut the jackshaft off. I'm sure I could probably think of others. Oh, and I've done several audio pronunciations for Wiktionary, which are on commons. I have an american inland north accent, which nobody else who does these on en.wikt: has. :) None of them would really go into Wikipedia well, but I was thinking it might be neat to find a use for my nice voice and audio recording/editing skills on wikipedia also. I couldn't do spoken articles unfortunately, I tend to screw up when I get talking. Also, my voice is deeper then "the big voice guy" on a recent contest on a local radio station. --Phroziac (talk) 00:37, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- See my comments on Splash's nomination. Excellent candidate, still too early. Good luck if he gets it. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:55, 2 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've already been doing RC patrol for a while, the rollback button would be nice for that. Unfortunately I have dialup, and most of the time I try to revert, it gets reverted before my edit goes through! ugh! Delete would be nice too. And, block to get rid of those pesky vandals and other issues. I would excersize extreme caution with the latter two, however.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. Not really, most of my contributions have been copyedits, RC patrol, and other somewhat minor edits, and i'm very pleased with all of them. :)
- 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 really had conflicts in editing, and I follow 1rr. -Ril-'s recent actions have caused me some stress, as have several vandals, such as Willy on Wheels, and that penis vandal (the one that puts pictures of penises everywhere, not the one that redirects my user page to penis...). Oh, and that whole 6th vfd of GNAA thing! None of it has really been major enough to do more then walk away for a while. Sometimes I have had to contact admins to deal with vandals, and sometimes I ask friends for opinions on things. In the future, I would pretty much do the same thing, except I have to assume the vandals will dislike me even more.
--Phroziac (talk) 21:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Beland
- closed Uncle Ed 00:05, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
(58/0/0) ending 00:50 4 September 2005 (UTC) Beland (talk · contribs) - Okay, this one may be a little early, but we'll see how it goes. He only has ~11,500 edits and he's only been here since July, 2004. But, all joking aside, I think Beland's one of our best janitors and (fellow) Wikignomes. On a given day, the name Beland probably shows up on your watchlist, as it does mine, all the time. He also runs the User:Pearle bot, helping with CFD and other stuff too. This guy's due. --Dmcdevit·t 00:50, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept. -- Beland 20:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Support! Yay! Dmcdevit·t 00:54, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Uber-janitor. Maurreen (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, definitely. Andre (talk) 01:05, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. How on Earth did it take this long to get around to doing this?? -Splash 01:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support, definitely. Should have been in a while ago. Sarge Baldy 01:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I can't believe we've overlooked him for this long. Rje 01:19, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian (t) (c) 02:16, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Support no doubt! ∞Who?¿? 03:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Guettarda 06:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. You mean he isn't already? --Carnildo 06:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Please use the recent donations to buy a time machine and make him an admin per last month. I had no idea he wasn't one and would have immediately nominated him if I had known that. Radiant_>|< 07:51, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Good grief.—Encephalon | ζ 08:24:15, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
- Aw, I suppose so. Might just pass muster as an admin. ;) Beland is an A-grade top-quality wikipedian - I guess we'd all thought he already was an admin. Grutness...wha? 08:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support - even without waiting for acceptance and his answers to the questions! Stewart Adcock 09:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- --Sn0wflake 13:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Will Support after 12,000 edits and 14 months time in service. ;-) Func( t, c, @, ) 16:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support, absolutely. Not administrator yet? — Stevey7788 (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Dragons flight 22:56, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Unconditional support - I would have nominated him if he'd put a * by his name on this list. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:24, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Strongest possible support. A finely tuned Wiki-chine, this one is. -- BD2412 talk 00:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Surprised Beland is not an admin yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Grant him the golden mop. Denelson83 03:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Should have been one before: lots of useful work, and I really, really like his answer to Question #3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent contributor in many ways. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:34, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. El_C 08:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. --Doc (?) 09:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. --Kbdank71 15:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support -- Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 15:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. If there's a shortage of mops he can have mine for a bit; he deserves it! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I thought he was already etc etc. JFW | T@lk 21:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I do not always agree with the actions that Beland sometimes takes, and we have indirectly clashed in the past. However, Beland is also a tireless contributor to the project, and I recognize his abilities and effort as valuable and meaningful. That's enough for me to support him. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 21:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Briangotts (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support Thought he was one. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 22:20, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 01:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. ral315 05:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Support per the Comment section below. Acetic Acid (talk) 13:35, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Yep, Support. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Should have happened a long time ago. --Allen3 talk 21:07, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Dang! Support by all means. Fire Star 21:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support absolutely. Hall Monitor 22:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oh Yeaahh! the wub "?/!" 16:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 16:07, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Support with no reservations. Hamster Sandwich 16:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. +sj + 17:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support: --Bhadani 14:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Cyberjunkie | Talk 17:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. My pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:37, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Saluyot 00:45, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. siafu 00:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Almost should have skipped Admin and went straight to Bureaucrat with this one. Unfocused 19:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support without reservations. Hall Monitor 20:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support - obvious. Enjoy it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Alright, Beland! I'm now voting Support for you since Joolzer and others, such as RobChurch, who said I was being a dick and trying to make a point, and trying to buy my vote off of me, they've finally won! I'm virtually being forced to support you! So here's another support. You're the man! WikiFan04Talk 17:56, 2 Sep 2005 (CDT)
- BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-3 04:00
- Support. Long overdue. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Comments
- All together now: "I thought he already was one!"
- All together now: "Let's force people to vote YES to Beland!"
- Oppose. I don't see you very much around Wikipedia. --WikiFan04Talk 00:14, 30 Aug 2005 (CDT)
- Your vote is respected, but really, is that a valid reason to oppose someone? You've never seen them very much? What happened to looking at a person's contributions etc.
- It's a very valid reason. People were opposing me because of that very same reason, or "not talking with the community". --WikiFan04Talk 19:22, 30 Aug 2005 (CDT)
- Generally, I have a personal policy to only support users on RfA I've had some positive interaction with, or have seen on articles or RC working in a positive (or at least effective) light. I make exceptions, however, based on a user's record, and this user is one of those exceptions. I wouldn't oppose, though, based simply on unfamiliarity. Fire Star 01:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I find that seeing unknown names on RfA usually means *I* haven't been editing enough lately (or more likely, slacking on RC patrol). ;) --Alan Au 22:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- There is a very substantial difference between you not having interacted with this editor up to this point - probably due to the fact that both of you work on different areas of expertise - and lack of interaction between editors and the community in general. If the candidate for adminship has not carried several conversations with other editors, it becomes very hard to evaluate him/her as a person, and not merely as an article writer. Since admins have to deal directly with people, and worse, with vandals, it is not wise to Support the nomination of a candidate who cannot/will refuse to carry a conversation with other editors, or whom has not done enough of that. --Sn0wflake 01:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Unresponsiveness is a definite problem. A history of deliberate stonewalling would be a reason to oppose. Fire Star 04:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- And, just to be clear, I assume you're speaking in general and not accusing Beland of this sort of misbehavior (right?). -- Rick Block (talk) 17:43, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- I think that not having heard of an editor at all can in some cases be symptomatic of possible problems. Wikipedia's a huge place, but if one has been around for a while and hasn't run into an editor at the Village Pump, VfD, policy discussions, etc., that might indicate that that editor might not have sufficiently broad interests. Having said that, I think that opposing all nominations for that reason alone borders on bad faith, especially for editors who do seem to have sufficiently broad scope in editing. JYolkowski // talk 01:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Unresponsiveness is a definite problem. A history of deliberate stonewalling would be a reason to oppose. Fire Star 04:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- It's a very valid reason. People were opposing me because of that very same reason, or "not talking with the community". --WikiFan04Talk 19:22, 30 Aug 2005 (CDT)
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 often deal with batch jobs and category renaming and deletion. This often turns up articles or categories that need to be unprotected or deleted. Having admin powers would certainly help getting these cleaned up. I don't really go on vandal patrol, but if I happen to come across any situations where blocks or page protection are warranted, I may implement the appropriate policy. -- Beland 20:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. There are a few listed at User:Beland#Significant_contributions_made, most of those being pictures of San Francisco, but there are also a few articles I've nearly or completely re-written. A lot of my work is on Wikipedia: pages and category membership. I do offline analysis of database dumps to produce new or update existing problem reports, which seem to be helpful for editors to make systematic repairs to the site. I like to think that having clean coordination pages helps lots of editors be more productive, and that it makes the site look more inhabited, if not more credible.
- And of course there's Pearle, the bot which has made category cleanup a lot easier - there's even a clone. Playing with bots is fun (because I like programming small, useful projects), interesting from a research point of view, and nifty because it multiplies the amount of useful work that I and other editors can do. -- Beland 20:21, 28 August 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. Oh, sure. You can't edit articles on Wikipedia for as long as I have without running into people who have a radically different view of the world than you do, and with whom you may initially disagree about what an article should say. A few things I've learned about forming consensus, both before and during my time on Wikipedia: 1.) Keep the discussion focused on the task at hand. Don't try to reach consensus on how the world should be, or even why the article should be one way or the other. All you have to do is agree on what words to write. 2.) Most people find it difficult to argue with you if you are being polite and giving them the benefit of the doubt. So I try to do so even when I might be privately yelling at my screen. It prevents them from getting too upset to have a civil conversation, and it saves face if it turns out they were right and I was wrong. If they are being gruff or offensive, just ignore that and discuss article content instead. 3.) Do research. Sometimes it's easy to convince people that they are wrong if you present some reliable evidence from outside sources. Sometimes in the process of gathering it, you realize that you yourself are wrong, or that something more complicated is going on, which makes you both right or both wrong. 4.) Get outside opinions. Filing a request that other editors comment on the dispute can be quite helpful. 5.) Just walk away. Sometimes a dispute exceeds the time or expertise I have to devote to it. So I just make sure my greivance is noted on the talk page, that the article is appropriately tagged, if necessary, and leave it until later. There are so many things I'm working with on the site, there's no point in getting stuck on just one thing. 6.) Disengage from people who make persistent personal attacks. I'm not getting paid enough to put up with that sort of thing. Fortunately, it's hardly ever a problem.
- Given how many articles Pearle touches, a lot of people have complaints about her. When she's running, I actively monitor her talk page, and try to resolve any complaints before starting a new run. Some complaints are about the substance of what Pearle is doing. Usually this just means I have to point the person at the community decision which Pearle is implementing, of which they were unaware. Occasionally we discover the original decision was unwise, or ambiguous, resulting in my implementation not aligning with what someone was expecting. Some complaints are about the operational details, which are split between the "oh, you found a bug", and "no, it's supposed to do that" variety. I do feel obligated to clean up any messes that Pearle makes, whether by reprogramming her or reverting her edits manually (which can be rather tedious, depending on how far she's gotten before someone notices something has gone wrong). Once my personal account was blocked as a side-effect of blocking Pearle (because they come from the same IP address). That was really annoying, but all I could do was send a polite e-mail explaining that she was, in fact, authorized to be doing what she had been doing, even though I hadn't gotten around to adding that to her home page from Wikipedia talk:Bots. But I suppose misunderstandings are inevitable when you do something that thousands of people can see. -- Beland 20:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Wow, thank you all for your support. -- Beland 19:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Asbestos
Final (32/0/0) ending 08:05 2 September 2005 (UTC) Asbestos (talk · contribs) - Sam has been a member since May 2004. According to Kate's Tool, he has over 4100 edits and is active on all fronts. Sam happens to be very reliable, always staying on top of things. He keeps a to-do list on his user page. He is also extremely organized and humble. Sam keeps an unofficial RfC on himself open so users may leave constructive criticism. As a member of the Harmonious Editing Club, Sam has pledged to remain civil and to use talk pages to sort out conflicts and discuss reverts. He has also taken an interest in becoming a mediator. Methinks he deserves his own soggy mop. -- Acetic Acid 08:05, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Support as nominator. Acetic Acid 08:05, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian (t) (c) 17:44, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support I commend Asbestos for his openness to full accountability. Fine admin material. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 00:06, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Friday (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Chris S. 01:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support per nominator.Imdaking 01:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Thunderbrand 03:59, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Sure. Andre (talk) 07:57, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Rje 13:10, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Checks out and I like his ability to not only take constructive criticism but to welcome it. Admin material, he is. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 15:32, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. El_C 18:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Supporting. Denelson83 20:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support.—Encephalon | ζ 21:01:28, 2005-08-27 (UTC)
- Support. Most definately mopworthy. -- Essjay · Talk 06:40, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Everything looks excellent here. Great question-answering, and as per Bratsche's comments on Asbestos's openness to full accountability. Func( t, c, @, ) 16:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support Derktar 15:32, August 29, 2005 (UTC).
- Support. I hope the username will serve as a flame retardant. JFW | T@lk 21:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support KHM03 21:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support Briangotts (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. utcursch | talk 06:45, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Support per my standards. --Celestianpower hab | myRFA 15:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support Welcomed me and has been helpful since. Marskell 10:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oh Yeaahh! the wub "?/!" 16:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support -- Masterjamie 20:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Alan Au 23:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support Shimgray 14:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, and not (just) to go along with the flow. You have my confidence, and that of everybody else round here, it seems. :) - ulayiti (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Absolutely. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:42, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Saluyot 01:32, September 2, 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 spend a fair bit of time on RC patrol, though not in the last couple of months because of a dissertation (finally submitted Thursday). I've also been interested in copyright stuff, and have been involved in Wikipedia:Image sleuthing, so I'd be happy to work on WP:CP and related pages. Finally, while one doesn't need to be an admin to do this, I've applied to be a mediator, and possibly warring parties are more apt to listed to suggestions made by an admin than someone else. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 22:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. Not any one thing in particular. I haven't started any new articles in several months, though that will change now that I finally have a vacation. I've enjoyed working on my technical diagrams and photos, particularly my Please Don't Feed the Trolls sign, which is used fairly widely on the other 'pedias, and represents a philosophy I stand by. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 22:59, 26 August 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. Not too many, fortunately. Early in my Wikipedia carrier I got into a tiff with another user over Wesleyan and related pages, which unfortunately let to that user having an RFC brought against him by a number of users. I think if I had been more experienced, I could have avoided the trouble by bringing in more voices to the discussion. As it was, he ended up feeling attacked, and so lashed back — a reaction which I think is quite common in new editors, and which often could be avoided. Some time later, though, he got into an argument with another editor and asked me to help sort out the facts of the dispute [3], which I tried to do, and tried to restore some calm [4] [5]. I haven't really been in a dispute recently, though: I try to keep to harmonious editing — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 22:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Scimitar
(46/4/0) ending 17:38 1 September 2005 (UTC) Scimitar (talk · contribs) - I have been editing at Wikipedia since 5 April, 2005, and as a registered user since 5 May. During that time I have attempted to improve Wikipedia, both through improving existing articles and creating new ones. Although early on I made several mis-steps (particularly at VfD), I believe I've learned a lot, and now have a good grasp of Wikipedia policy, and have matured to the point that I would be a capable administrator. Thus, I request administrator tools. As a sidenote, I have over 3000 edits, and am on the List of non-admins with high edit counts. --Scimitar parley 17:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
This is a self-nomination. --Scimitar parley 17:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Strong Support OMG! I'm the first vote! Very well written answers. Acetic Acid 17:43, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Support - good editor, active on VfD, has a good grasp of policy.-Satori (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support, a fine editor. He has not been on the project for a long time, but this is a good situation for assuming good faith, it seems. --Sn0wflake 18:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support - meets my standards. I really like people who have well-written answers. --Celestianpower hab | myRFA 18:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support for an editor that I would have nominated had I realised his desire. In my experience Jonathan has been good-humoured, sympathetic, intelligent and methodical. I cannot think of any way in which he could be better qualified to wield a mop (although I think he might have trouble if he gets his fur in the bucket). —Theo (Talk) 19:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support Rje 19:10, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Support absolutely. -Splash 20:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Mega Ultra Strong Support I know this has been said before many a time, but I seriously thought he already was one... if I didn't, I would have nominated him myself! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support, is an excellent wikipedian, always good work. Also I'd say that his edits, not the time speak for themselves. feydey 20:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support, no reason to believe he would misuse admin powers. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:55, 2005 August 25 (UTC)
- Support. Journalist C.File:Smilie.gif Holla @ me!
- Support: I've had disagreements with Scimitar before and been impressed at how placid he has been and how interested to find out the options and work within the structures. He is still somewhat new, especially by the elephantine standards of some of us, but a good pick, and he's been very active in his time on project. Geogre 21:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support good answers. Seems honest, straightforward. Good luck! Hamster Sandwich 01:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support! Scimitar is really active on Wikipedia VfD's and other community activities, which is a sign that he knows Wikipedia policies pretty well and shows himself as a friendly Wikipedian. He also does a lot of much-needed work and helps out a lot. Scimitar will make an excellent Wikipedia administrator. — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Good contributions, lots of VfD work, and great answers. Jaxl | talk 01:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I've been quite impressed where I've seen him at work. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 03:22:28, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
- Merovingian (t) (c) 06:38, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Full support. Excellent WPn, 1300 articlespace edits, 1200 WPspace edits, one featured article, participates in sysop-related activites including RC and NP patrol, good participation in VfD with a display of good sense and an understanding of policy, is not "stupid or insane." Unconscionable if he didn't get the keys/mop/broom/other clichéd trope.—Encephalon | ζ 07:59:03, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
- Good idea. Radiant_>|< 08:43, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. A very friendly and active user who has a firm understanding of Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support - for all the reasons stated above --Doc (?) 11:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Will be a fine admin. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 14:10, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Friday (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. His patience in trying to deal with User:Maoririder is exemplary. Ground Zero | t 15:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Good humoured and tolerant user. Alf 16:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Good editor. android79 18:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, will make an excellent admin. Hall Monitor 20:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support fits admin criteria on my userpage. Y0u (Y0ur talk page)(Y0ur contributions) 21:07, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Suppor Change from Oppose to Support after more detailed review of user. Astrotrain 21:34, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Sure. --Chris S. 02:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Strongest possible support! OMG, why didn't someone tell me Scimitar was up for an adminship? - Lucky 6.9 06:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Full support. Strong editor, helpful, and willing to get his hands dirty. Full support. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 15:27, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- You're 19 and you're not alcoholic, huh? Oppose, then! Only alcoholics can be admins. (Sorry, the apparent non-sequitur on Scimitar's user page amused me. Support, if you haven't figured it out.) Andre (talk) 17:53, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- El_C 17:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. -- Essjay · Talk 06:45, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Time in service at Wikipedia is usually a very important consideration of mine, as I believe one needs a lot of exposure to really know how things work around here, (actually, I still don't know how things work around here), but I'm going to make an exception for Scimitar's good edits. Func( t, c, @, ) 16:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Good chap. He's been around just about long enough. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support Excellent contributor. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I just don't get the "not enough" reasoning. Not enough against some magic number? It's well enough to make a judgement how good an admin would come out. --Irpen 08:14, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. utcursch | talk 13:02, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Briangotts (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Yeah I'm happy with that. Enough time and edits to show trustworthiness. That's all that's needed for me, not edit counts and time limits. - Taxman Talk 20:50, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, you'll make a fine admin. - ulayiti (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oh Yeaahh! the wub "?/!" 16:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I shouldn't let this one get by without my vote, especially considering the very rapid growth in maturity as noted by the candidate answer to questions #3 & 4. Unfocused 18:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose. Not enough time. siafu 17:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Oppose- Not been on long enough Astrotrain 20:39, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose per Variable and Astrotrain. freestylefrappe 04:43, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Too soon. The JPS 10:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
Comments
- According to Kate's Tool I have 3164 edits. --Scimitar parley 17:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- In the interests of full disclosure, I am one of the editors who have been involved in the RfAr for Maoririder, which is currently here. I don't view it as a conflict; rather we're trying to help him see what he's doing wrong, and he's responded by ignoring everyone. If you have any problems with my actions in this respect, please let me know. --Scimitar parley 18:54, 25 August 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. There are a number of sysop chores that I would like to participate in. Several of the articles I've been involved with have suffered numerous vandalisms, and the rollback button would be an appreciated tool, altthough I will continue to revert manually if this fails. Furthermore, until recently, there has been a massive backlog at Votes for Deletion; I'd like to assist in keeping it clean, and already close discussions where admin tools are not required (i.e., keep or redirect consensus votes). It is my view that consensus varies, with 70% being the low threshhold, and I have no difficulty in instituting a ruling that goes against my personal viewpoint. I certainly am not impartial in all areas; however, I recognize that I am but one cog in a vast enterprise, and that the decisions of the majority are to be valued over my own. I also patrol New Pages, and it would be helpful to speedily delete pages rather than simply tagging them, especially in cases where the page is obviously a new user test.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. I'm particularly pleased with a number of articles. Among general contributions to NHL coverage, Canadian history and politics, as well as geography, a few articles stand out. John Manley was my first major project, and I was quite pleased to overhaul it. I rescued Okahandja from VfD, something I love to do and get to do all too rarely (perhaps because our nominators are doing it themselves). My proudest achievement was getting Major-General Sir Isaac Brock, K.B. up to Featured Article status, since it was barely a micro-stub when I started and the man was a childhood hero of mine.
- 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 a few tiffs in my short time here, although most were easily remedied misunderstandings. I played a bit role in the POV battles with Argyrosargyrou, and had my user page repeatedly vandalized for it. I was quite upset, as this was my first real conflict, but now I generally remain calmer when faced with some troubles. As I voted delete on the l0de Radio Hour article, I was stalked by a couple of anon IP's, and again, vandalized; however, all things considered, I view this as minor. The most stressful thing, from my standpoint, is seeing strife between good Wikipedia users, of which the Schools debate is one example. Simply because we have diverging opinions doesn't mean we shouldn't value one another's contributions and viewpoints, and I have a great deal of respect for those who clean up and expand school articles. Although I feel most school articles don't particularly help the encyclopedia, these editors ensure that they don't hurt it through poor quality or shoddy writing either. A wakeup call for me was when RickK left. It made me realize that even the best editors are only human in the end, and deserve the same amount of civility and respect I would accord a flesh and blood person standing in front of me. Thinking in this manner has helped me minimize the amount of stress I experience, and I will strive to treat other users with civility and respect, regardless of whether or not I serve Wikipedia as an administrator or an editor.
- 4. You say you've "made several mis-steps (particularly at VfD)", but what you've answered to #3 doesn't sound like missteps (or is that what you were referring to?), so what are you referring to specifically? Keep in mind I think everyone is entitled to some mistakes and I'll likely vote support anyway, but I'd like a little more honest elaboration on what you meant. Thanks - Taxman Talk 22:28, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- A No, none of the incidents that I cited referred to my early errors. Most of my early VfD mistakes were a lack of policy understanding, and then a lack of civility. In my first two weeks in particular, I tended to be sarcastic and not terribly civil- things I've tried to remedy since. There weren't any huge, glaring errors, mostly just an early pattern of incivility that I hope hurt nobody's feelings. Sorry for being vague originally.--Scimitar parley 14:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Sam Hocevar
Closed (57/6/11) 03:35, September 1, 2005 (UTC) Sam Hocevar (talk · contribs) - Sam has been contributing to the English Wikipedia since May 2004. In addition to his content contributions, he has fixed a very large number of spelling and grammatical errors in articles, amassing a total of 23,874 edits in article space. He seems a pleasant person with a good sense of humour to me, and obviously dedicated to this project. Furthermore, he already is an administrator in the French Wikipedia. I think we should make him administrator in the English Wikipedia too. --Sietse 18:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks, I accept your nomination. Sam Hocevar 23:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Support, reasons: see above. Sietse 18:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support--Duk 18:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support A fine wikipedian. It should also be noted that he has made scripts which are used by many people. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 21:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. An old hand. Should have been etc etc. JFW | T@lk 23:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Andre (talk) 23:46, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Sam clearly knows the rules and should be a good admin, as he is on fr. Rje 00:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Yusss. Grutness...wha? 02:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support, does good work. K1Bond007 02:17, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. The cliche holds. -- BD2412 talk 04:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. And so on and so forth --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thought he was one. --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I'm embarrassed at how many of my spelling mistakes that Sam has corrected. It must be in the hundreds. Sam is one of our most productive editors, and I'm sure that every tool we can give him will be well-used. -Willmcw 07:37, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I've only seen good edits from him. --Dave2 08:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. We need people such as Sam. - Darwinek 09:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support - obvious choice. Proto t c 10:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support Antoinou2958 11:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support Agree with Carbonite on that one ;-) . This said, I am not sure I am even allowed to vote for him. Well, if not, I'll just vouch for his magnificent work on the French Wikipedia. notafish }<';> 11:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:49, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. utcursch | talk 12:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, no doubts here. Intelligent, diligent, reasonable, and strange; good combination. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Cool. JuntungWu 15:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. --NormanEinstein
- Support. Also has a funny userpage! (You're the second Wikipedian to make me laugh because of it. ;)) --Andylkl (talk) 15:38, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Support obviously. - ulayiti (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support Jisha C J 19:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Supportcan't support anymore, that's just too close a connection. I've never seen anything but good editing from you, but your response re GNAA is troubling. For someone with the best interests of the project in mind, what could you possibly find enjoyable about their actions? Feel free to answer in comments instead of here. - Taxman Talk 22:33, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- I answered in the comments section. Sam Hocevar 17:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support A man's word is his bond. 'nuff said. Hamster Sandwich 22:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Initially I hesitated to vote in this RFA, but have to admire the way in which Sam has responded to Brian0918's objections and wish him the best in his endeavor to persuade members of the GNAA to contribute, not vandalise. Hall Monitor 23:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support--MONGO 01:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Support – Sarge Baldy 02:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Stewart Adcock 10:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support totally. Grue 11:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support nobs 17:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support - so long as xe's aware of community concern with the GNAA, and mindful of dealing with it, there should be no problem at all. An exemplary record, IMHO. Slac speak up! 21:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I see Sam on my watchlist now and again, and he's always fixing something. His ties to the GNAA don't bother me in the least, nor should they bother anyone else, really. Mackensen (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Fred-Chess 11:47, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Don't let him get away!! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:57, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Are you serious?--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- SUPPPORT and yes, I spelled it with three p's again. D. J. Bracey (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- El_C 17:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. His tons of edits show that he's very dedicated to this project. Regarding the RfC - it was last year. He's made over 24,000 edits; don't judge him based on one thing that he did almost a year ago. --Idont Havaname 20:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support this character. Denelson83 20:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. --Mattb90 00:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support I've seen him around, fixing the spelling in my articles. Tony the Marine 02:02, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support— I think that he would make a very good administrator.
- Given my micro-hagiography of him on my user page, I can but strongly support. Alai 16:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support — he'd make a great admin. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 17:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I've only seen him make good edits, and I'll support in light of his reasonable responses to the objections listed below. --Alan Au 08:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Already an admin on fr:, which sort of invalidates most of the gloomy arguments against him; recipient of the Nemo of honour, which hopefully indicates that he is helpful. Rama 09:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I definitely trust the guy for this kind of job and not cause he's also on fr:. (:Julien:) 09:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. --FoeNyx 10:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support - based on his track record on enwiki I sincerely believe he would not abuse a position of privilege. silsor 00:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 16:06, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent work, and a cool temper. +sj + 18:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Hipocrite 19:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. *drew 23:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose - Accuse me of stereotyping if you must, but I feel that his links with the GNAA are of some concern. While I almost hate to suggest it; he could be open to peer pressure from the group once he's "in", so to speak. This is not a personal attack; this is me stating that I'm concerned. Even the nicest people can sometimes succumb to peer pressure. Rob Church Talk | Desk 03:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Friend of trolls, admits to trolling (I find goatse a lot less shocking than many other subjects; from a purely sociological point of view it's interesting to see reactions) per User:Silsor/Sam Hocevar. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Silsor's IRC logs, coupled with Sam's longtime insistence on having an unlabeled goatse link on his userpage, do not inspire confidence. — Dan | Talk 20:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- I feel rather uneasy that your trust (or lack thereof) is based on 9-month old, carefully chosen IRC logs by an individual with whom I have been in conflict, who deliberately omitted to quote my attempts at calming down everything, and who has been making personal attacks towards me even since I chose to ignore him. Sam Hocevar 21:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like judging people based on their friends, but for the best of the community, I might have to. How easy it would be for GNAA to peer pressure their admin friend into trolling. Acetic Acid (talk) 13:53, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, not big on the GNAA stuff. --fvw* 14:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. I believe this user is too quick to side with blocked users, and after a lengthy and unpleasant experience with another user who became an admin and then unblocked essentially all users blocked based on admin judgement, I feel I must oppose. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
- His relationship with vandals from the GNAA worries me. Even so, I've vowed never to vote oppose, so I'm stuck with neutral. I won't be reading this page, so feel free to spin away. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-24 21:31
- Comment: I think I should make my position very clear on this. It is true that have friendly relationships with a few GNAA members, and I do enjoy some of the actions of that group, but I also condemn (and have done so publicly) other actions by them, and that includes Wikipedia vandalism. Trying to convince GNAA members of doing legit contributions to Wikipedia is not an easy task, but I think I am doing a pretty good job (as anyone can witness on their IRC channel). Of course, a few cases are probably hopeless, and I absolutely do not object to their being banned. As for me personally, I hope my involvement so far with Wikipedia and with the Fundation leaves little doubt as to my commitment to the goals of this project. Sam Hocevar 06:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Eh, I'd love to support, but I'm stuck 'cause of GNAA. There's a warning bell going off in a small part of my head, and even though I'm sure there will be no problems, I can't vote support at this time. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 03:22, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Does good work generally, but set up a fake RFC on me with a troll (fake as in appearing real, but really made just to troll me). I don't know whether he'd abuse it or not, so neutral. silsor 16:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)- See also User talk:Silsor/Sam Hocevar for Sam's response to this page. Sietse 08:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: the RfC was not a fake. A user was blocked because of the comment shown here and I thought it was unfair. Please see Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute on User:Silsor/Sam_Hocevar/RFC for what happened afterwards. Having been ignored so rudely for such a long time, I did not know what to do, and I was told on the Village Pump that an RfC was the way to resolve the issue. Also note that at that time (it was ten months ago) I was mostly familiar with the procedure on fr and I did not know much about RfCs on en.
- Also, my calling of the whole situation (and not just the RfC) a troll was taken out of context (just like most of the IRC quotes that silsor chose) and was a comment of silsor’s attempts to avoid answering by every possible means. Also, see User talk:Silsor/Sam Hocevar for my answer, and the main page’s history where silsor endlessly removes my comments.
- I then just chose to avoid situations where I would have to interact with silsor. On Christmas 2004 he unblocked GNAA Popeye with a quite friendly message and I thought everything was forgotten, but he recently publicly accused me of cheating on the Wikipedia chess championship and I have since then lost all hopes of reconciliation without further efforts on his side. Sam Hocevar 09:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- "Taken out of context" - I would very much like you to say, for everybody to see, what the correct context for calling the RFC a troll was. I also would like to call you on an untruth in saying that I "chose" the quotes from my logs (I omitted nothing that I observed), a half-truth on saying that I endlessly removed your commentary from my user page (in fact I endlessly moved it to a talk page), and another half-truth in saying I "accused you of cheating" (full truth available at the bottom of this page). With regards to the original dispute and subsequent RFC/IRC logs, I think the facts speak for themselves. silsor 17:06, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, please, you are just playing on words. My use of the word "troll" in that context was not very clever, but I really didn’t know how to call the situation. If it was really a "troll", you would have found dozens of occurrences of me using that word. You used it as the sole reason for further ignoring my questions and Paul’s, and made it look like an attack directed towards Wikipedia while it was just a feud between you and me. Also, you did not only "endlessly move it to a talk page", you also reverted all my attempts at adding a notice that the talk page contained my answers. And you have so far not explained which context justifies <silsor> hah, Hocevar is probably playing you against gnuchess or something, or insulting me on various talk pages I am not watching. If you really thought I was a threat to Wikipedia you would have taken proper action (you certainly know about blocks, RfCs, an RfArs) to prevent me from doing anything bad; instead of that, you just try to ruin the positive collaborations I am having with people. So please, go away from my personal space. Bug off. I have taken great care not to step on your toes for months, yet you haven’t stopped with the personal attacks. Go spoil someone else’s motivation. Sam Hocevar 17:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- "Taken out of context" - I would very much like you to say, for everybody to see, what the correct context for calling the RFC a troll was. I also would like to call you on an untruth in saying that I "chose" the quotes from my logs (I omitted nothing that I observed), a half-truth on saying that I endlessly removed your commentary from my user page (in fact I endlessly moved it to a talk page), and another half-truth in saying I "accused you of cheating" (full truth available at the bottom of this page). With regards to the original dispute and subsequent RFC/IRC logs, I think the facts speak for themselves. silsor 17:06, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Support. Meets my guidelines. Thought he was one until I saw his username atop the list of non-admins with many edits.Vote changed to Neutral pending an explanation of the events brought up by Silsor.Not that there's a whole lot of difference between Neutral and Abstain, but I'll change my vote anyway. Based on some odd behavior displayed here, I will just sit this one out. android79 01:49, August 31, 2005 (UTC)- I have to confess that I am concerned here. Obviously, a lot of great spelling/syntax work, (which, based on edit times, I suspect may be at least partially script-assisted), but Sam's connections to (and perhaps even admiration of) the GNAA seem quite real, and a number of his non-spelling related edits are worrisome, such as where he reverted Natalinasmpf here, and where he had this link to a "furry" image on his user page, (indeed, he has place a number of not-clearly-marked links within pages in his own namespace that don't seem entirely appropriate to me, even if he was demonstrating what he called a "proof of concept"). I also don't see many edits in the Wikipedia namespace, outside of things like Wikipedia:Chess championship. In short, I'm not sure that he has what I think of as the appropriate qualifications for adminship on .en. Func( t, c, @, ) 17:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Duh, I don’t know why you find my reversion of Natalinasmpf "worrysome": click on my immediate next edit, I removed the foul language as an attempt to clean up the page (the font was rather big but there wasn’t anything really serious with the CSS on my browser). Theresa then told me she’d rather do it the other way, and I didn’t object; finding anything worrysome in my behaviour here would require some explanation, please. As for the "proof of concept", it now links to oralse.cx and though it is indeed quite "furry", there is nothing terribily inappropriate there. Finally, at the time it was linked from my userpage, the hello.jpg image was safe for work (except for silsor, but then I have already stated I wasn’t proud of how I dealt with that specific issue; not that he didn’t have his part of responsibility in the fight).
- About the repartition of my edits, you are absolutely right. Well, I cannot (and do not wish to) be everywhere, but I do have edits in the Talk and Wikipedia namespaces, they just look scarce because of what I mostly do. Note however that, as stated below, they are totally compatible with the sysop chores I expect to help with. Sam Hocevar 18:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- I am extremely uncomfortable about supporting the adminship of someone with such a close connection to the GNAA. Additionally, if the examples Silsor cites had been more recent, this would be a strong oppose vote, because trolling is completely unacceptable for someone who represents Wikipedia as a sysop. However, ten months is a relatively long time (on the internet at least), so I'm neutral. --Scimitar parley 15:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- per abbove. Derktar 15:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC).
- Neutral, any link to GNAA at all worries me. ral315 05:28, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Support. I'd prefer candidates to have 24,000 article space edits, but I guess I can make an exception here. ;) Carbonite | Talk 11:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Neutral. I can't support due to the GNAA links. Carbonite | Talk 13:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)- Swithced to Neutral. It looks like you'll be fine without my support anyway. - Taxman Talk 20:59, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Support, I have been seeing positive contributions from this editor for a long time, and it is of my belief that he will make good use of sysop rights. However, his links to the GNAA do not please me much. I am assuming, though, that this will never come into the way of his judgment, thus I vote Support. --Sn0wflake 18:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Abstain, but I will be clear in stating that it has been made clear to all that User:Silsor is the troll himself here. The information he brought to this request for adminship should be ultimately regarded as flamebait. Thus, for all purposes, I abstain not out of trust for Hocevar, whom has been upfront about the issue and has proven to have essentialy positive intentions, but as a partial crictic to his connections to the GNAA. Said group, despite whatever relative merits might have in Hocevar's view, have been known Wikipedia trolls. I hope this nomination passes - as it surely will - and that Hocevar joins the Wikipedia team of admins, as it is only fair. --Sn0wflake 00:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Comments
- Edit count: see here. Sietse 18:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Question: Could you describe what you would take into account when closing a VfD? Hipocrite 13:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- That is a complex question, I am afraid I am having trouble answering it. See below for what I think represents consensus. Amongst the other things, I try to give "Merge" votes the attention that I feel they often lack. They mean "get rid of the article, but not of the content" and if consensus is reached when adding them to the "Delete" total, I usually merge. But then, not always. Honestly, my answer can only be vague, because so many VfDs look like special cases. I just try to be reasonable. Sam Hocevar 23:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Question I would like to know, what percentage specifically (within 5%) would you consider to be consensus when closing a VfD or related function? Hamster Sandwich 20:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- I tend to be rather conservative and usually expect a two-thirds majority for a change to happen. Well, at least I consider that to be conservative. Sam Hocevar 22:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thats the right answer! Give him a cigar! And a mop! Hamster Sandwich 22:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Answer to Taxman’s concerns: I find most of their press releases very enjoyable, and a few of them absolutely hilarious (the Debian, Matroska and GNAA/Hard ones, for instance). Parts of the humour reminds me of Adequacy.org, and I cannot help laughing when I read things like Our private beta now loads the system BIOS, then displays "Hello World" in rainbow colors. Our codebase at this point is now roughly 500% more mature than GNU/Hurd." or The Debian project was started in 1993 by Ian Murdock, who was unsatisfied with the level of political bickering and useless hand-wringing found in other projects at the time. Their crusade against Slashdot also amuses me, I have not much compassion for a website that encourages groupthink by automatically blocking users who get modded down. I also liked their P2P hoaxes (getting thousands of people to download gigabytes of Goatse or GNFOS) and a few of their prank calls. As for the things I do not like, that would be most of the threatening phone calls, and the destructive vandalism in general. Sam Hocevar 14:14, 26 August 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 probably be doing what I have also been doing on fr for eight months: RC patrolling and dealing with vandalism, but my everyday contributions would probably be mostly janitorial duties (moving images to commons, fixing double redirects). Also, it might be a minor thing, but my searches for spelling mistakes occasionally lead me to protected pages and asking a sysop to do such minor edits is quite a waste of time.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. I am very satisfied with the minor spelling and grammar fixes I am doing here and there, because I feel they improve the overall quality of the articles.
- 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 had a very long argument with silsor about a user block that I thought was unfair. I am definitely not happy with how I dealt with it (it became more of a personal fight), but everyone eventually calmed down and the user was unblocked. That was 9 months ago. A similar scenario recently happened with Brian0918, but I just gave up, not wanting to get into another fight, and the user is probably still blocked. From an editor point of view I think I usually try to reach consensus, and I never took part in intense edit wars.
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. No bureaucrats have been appointed since October 2004. The three unsuccessful applicants since that time attracted comments about their experience and about there being little need for new bureaucrats. 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)
Linuxbeak
Final: (23/14/10) Ended 20:38 September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Alright, I'll run too. Andre poked me on IRC to run for bureaucrat, and I figure that it wouldn't hurt anything to do so. I have been using Wikipedia for at least a couple of years. I started editing anonymously from school about a year and a half ago, and I was finally compelled to join as a registered user on March 12, 2005. Like everyone else, I made some of the expected newbie mistakes, but I also learned quickly how to do things "the Wikipedia way". As a way of saying thanks to Wikipedia, I completely overhauled the Civil Air Patrol article, and with some effort and dedication (thanks in no small part to Bishonen), I sucessfully nominated the article to FA status. Just before I hit three months as a Wikipedia editor, User:AntonioMartin nominated me to the post of administrator, and on June 6, 2005, I was elected in. Shortly thereafter, on June 20, 2005, I was given channel operator permissions for the Wikipedia IRC channel, #wikipedia. Just yesterday, on August 29, 2005, I pledged to dedicate some of my abilities in programming and coding towards the development of the Mediawiki software.
I can say with confidence that I am one (not the one ;-) ) of the most active administrators on Wikipedia. I don't have any problem getting down and dirty when it comes to fighting vandalism and disruptive users, and as you can see from this, as well as my user page's history, I believe I have enjoyed at least a level of success in doing my job correctly. I try to be friendly with everyone, but even with those that I disagree with, I see value and strength in community. I am one who is willing to admit his errors and flaws as well as one who is willing to give second chances. I think of myself as fair, efficent and able.
I am running for bureaucrat now because I know for a fact that I can be trusted by the Wikipedia community. I strongly believe that the reason why I have been entrusted with a relatively large portion of responsibility in a relatively short period of time is because I have proven that I am, in fact, reliable and trustworthy. I also believe that it has come time that more existing administrators are elected to the offices of bureaucrat. I know that I am fully able to take on the extra responsibility and handle it to the better of Wikipedia. I am now asking you to allow me to demonstrate it even further by granting me the position of bureaucrat. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 20:38, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Strong support. Go, Linuxbeak, go! Great editor and admin. Andre (talk) 20:45, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. One of our most level-headed and careful admins. Bishonen | talk 20:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support SqueakBox 20:50, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Absolutely support. Very engaged as an admin. Makes the rest of us look bad. Edit conflicted twice on this vote!-- Pakaran 20:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support This one's a "d'uh". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support 6 months for bureaucratship is too little on principle, but he's everywhere, so I must support.--Scimitar parley 21:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support - the experience is a bit light, but I've had nothing but productive dealings here, and no indication that the lack of time conceals anything worrying. Always good to see a name I know. Shimgray 21:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support Me and Redwolf24 stole your talk page messaging thing!!!! :-) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support You're very helpful on IRC...and why not another bureaucrat (as long as we don't have 5000 ) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support I'm sure he'll make a great Bureacrate Tony the Marine 02:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Apoyo Fuerte!!! Linuxbreak is an awesome wikipedian who always works within reasonable parameters and has the mind and intelligence to be a bureaucrat, and help wikipedia go to another level in society of the 2000s. Let's celebrate early and have a Cuban cigar, Linux! Ooops! I forgot, Cuban cigars are not allowed here and, well, you are young...but you will win! Antonio (Puerto Rican) Cigarro Autentico Martin 12:37, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Support – personally dealt with this user on a few occasions. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:55, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- To me, the quality of a user's experience with the project matters more than its lenght. Ingoolemo talk 20:13, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
- Support Never directly interacted, but from what I have seen, would make a good bureaucrat Tintin 04:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian (t) (c) 12:39, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Support! --Kbdank71 16:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Mild Support. Strong support in 6 months or so. --2mcm 06:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Prevent editcountitis (or in this case, accountageitis). Linuxbeak is an excellent user. Radiant_>|< 08:30, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I think Linuxbeak would make a good bureaucrat. — JIP | Talk 12:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- FireFox T C 16:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support I haven't seen Linuxbreak in many if any edit wars, and only being around 6 months is a weak arguement. Falphin 20:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. If adminship is no big deal, then bureaucratship should be a formality. --MarkSweep✍ 16:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Looks like it's not going to pass, but I do want to register my support. Ral315 22:14, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- Linuxbeak, you're an excellent admin and a very nice guy, but I think a bureaucrat should have a bit more than six months of tenure with the project. You have my full support next March (providing you don't go completely wacko in the meantime :-) — Dan | Talk 21:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Dan that you need more time as an active participant, a registered user and an admin. Also, the edginess that you have shown in your dealings with users like JarlaxleArtemis (talk • contribs) and MARMOT (talk • contribs) is a problem for me. I think a bureaucrat needs to be more detached. I am looking forward to supporting you at a later date. FreplySpang (talk) 21:07, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- I appreciate your vote, and I agree with you: I have been edgy when dealing with those two. In my own defense, I must mention that Jarlaxle did in fact e-mail bomb me, and MARMOT to this day still vandalizes Wikipedia. It was through my "dedication", have you, that MARMOT was discovered to be the user behind the User:Love Virus vandalbot attacks. Still, I totally agree that I should be a little less edgy. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 21:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose: too new. CDThieme 21:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. I believe that "bureaucratship" legitimately requires judgement that is borne only of time and ongoing engagement in administrative and community-related tasks. Fewer than six months, no matter how intense the work during that time, is not enough. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, I'm sure you're an excellent admin and so, but six months is just not enough time and experience. Will support in a few more months. - ulayiti (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, despite his favorable background as an editor and as an admin. Six months is not what I would consider enough time for somebody to be promoted to the status of bureaucrat. --Sn0wflake 02:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose for a few reasons. First, as stated above, you haven't been here for very long. I think you should at least be an admin for six months before being promoted to b-cratship. Secondly, do we really need four new bureaucrats? The three who ran below are essentially stepping up in the absenceof Cecropia, Raul654, and Angela, who have other concerns at the moment. Third, I'm not too crazy about your last answer. You sound a bit cocky. Acetic Acid (talk) 06:32, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Like other oppose votes that have "meat" to them, I appreciate your feedback. However, I do have some fundamental issues with parts of your opposition. Ever since first voting on RFA, the entire notion of "we don't need any more bureaucrats" has struck me as a bit too conservative. I figure that if a person is deserving of a position of responsibility and if he or she has demonstrated maturity and reliability that would be expected, then why stop the person from being promoted? There isn't anything "wrong" with having more on a team rather than less; in fact, it strengthens the pool (see my response to Dragons flight's comment). I'm not accusing you of "disruption", per sey, because you hold a known stance. However, I think voting against somebody because "they're fit for the job, but we don't need anyone else" is the same as voting oppose because you disagree with the system. There's a reason why there's a "Requests for bureaucratship" section, and that's to allow administrators to request it. If there is a serious feeling that "we don't need any more bureaucrats", then let's get rid of the entire "Requests for Bureaucratship" section altogether. Now... second. You say my last answer is "cocky". I disagree. There's a difference between being "cocky" and being "assertive". Sure, I've made mistakes in the past. However, I also know that out of the thousands of contributions I have made, the vast majority of them are of quality. I'm not trying to make any attempt to brag; instead, I'm trying to show that my work is of a worthwhile nature. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 20:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, don't get me wrong. I would never oppose someone for the sole reason of "we have enough already." If they are qualified, they desire you. I just don't think you're qualified, at least not yet. Six months as an administrator and a year old account sound a bit more promising. As for the part about being assertive, it's great to have a positive outlook on your contributions. There have been a few times on RFA where I've seen people refer to themselves and their work as mediocre, poor, etc. But you sound a little too sure of yourself in that last answer. Even in the nomination foreword, you consider yourself "one of the most active administrators." You don't know that for a fact. I'll gladly support you in a few more months. Provided you don't go on a vandalism spree anytime soon, I'll have no reason to oppose you again. Acetic'Acid 21:09, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Like other oppose votes that have "meat" to them, I appreciate your feedback. However, I do have some fundamental issues with parts of your opposition. Ever since first voting on RFA, the entire notion of "we don't need any more bureaucrats" has struck me as a bit too conservative. I figure that if a person is deserving of a position of responsibility and if he or she has demonstrated maturity and reliability that would be expected, then why stop the person from being promoted? There isn't anything "wrong" with having more on a team rather than less; in fact, it strengthens the pool (see my response to Dragons flight's comment). I'm not accusing you of "disruption", per sey, because you hold a known stance. However, I think voting against somebody because "they're fit for the job, but we don't need anyone else" is the same as voting oppose because you disagree with the system. There's a reason why there's a "Requests for bureaucratship" section, and that's to allow administrators to request it. If there is a serious feeling that "we don't need any more bureaucrats", then let's get rid of the entire "Requests for Bureaucratship" section altogether. Now... second. You say my last answer is "cocky". I disagree. There's a difference between being "cocky" and being "assertive". Sure, I've made mistakes in the past. However, I also know that out of the thousands of contributions I have made, the vast majority of them are of quality. I'm not trying to make any attempt to brag; instead, I'm trying to show that my work is of a worthwhile nature. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 20:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. For short length of time with the project and the uneasiness I have with the tone of the comments you are making throughout this process. See also my comment below and Michael Snow's "neutral". Dragons flight 20:30, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. I do think you are a fine contributor and admin, but I personally feel that beaurocrats must have a minimum of six months experience as an administrator before being promoted. Thryduulf 11:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Amazing admin and contributor but I think I'll wait for some more time.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nothing personal, just not completely convinced we need that many more bureaucrats. Even if we do need to promote a few more, (as seems will happen), I would prefer ones with more experience. Jonathunder 20:47, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
- Oppose. I believe you will go many places, but I don't feel you have been on long enough, regardless of your number of edits. --WikiFan04Talk 19:03, 2 Sep 2005 (CDT)
- Oppose. Quoting Linuxbeak from above: I know for a fact that I can be trusted by the Wikipedia community. This statement strikes me as bizarre. Trust is something given to a person not assumed by that person. Simply on the basis of what Linuxbeak has written in his own self-nom I vote against. Oska 22:51, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Wait, what? You're opposing me because I'm confident in my trustworthiness and my reliability to the community? I know that I'm trustworthy, and I know that the Wikipedia community can trust me. You're opposing me because I state that? I'm sorry if I sound exhasperated, but a vote opposing me because of something that I said... which if anything is positive... is unfair. Please elaborate. What is it that you find "wrong" with me stating that? I don't follow your logic at all. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:01, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Look I'm sorry Linuxbeak but yr reply just contributes to my feeling that you lack maturity for this position in not seeing my point at all. Simply, I give credence to other people saying I respect and trust so-and-so rather than so-and-so proclaiming I am worthy of trust and respect. See the difference? The tone of yr self-nom is all rather demanding and self-promotional. And how people speak on Wikipedia is in my opinion a valid criterion for judging when careful and sincere communication is very important in fostering effective co-operation and community feeling. Oska 00:42, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Also, all bureaucrat requests are self-noms... Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:03, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- I used the term 'self-nom' merely in its descriptive sense and not as a criticism. Oska 00:42, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Wait, what? You're opposing me because I'm confident in my trustworthiness and my reliability to the community? I know that I'm trustworthy, and I know that the Wikipedia community can trust me. You're opposing me because I state that? I'm sorry if I sound exhasperated, but a vote opposing me because of something that I said... which if anything is positive... is unfair. Please elaborate. What is it that you find "wrong" with me stating that? I don't follow your logic at all. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:01, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
- I always find "voting neutral" to be a weird thing, but I feel a need to express my views here. As noted, Linuxbeak's experience is relatively short, and I would add that some of the points mentioned in his favor have little bearing on whether he would make a good bureaucrat. Blocking vandals has no connection to the work bureaucrats do. I also find the tone of Linuxbeak's statement, which smacks of an election campaign (who are you running against?), a little out of place, which suggests an underdeveloped appreciation of community norms. This relates much more closely to bureaucrat qualifications, since they need to have a very keen sense of the mood in the room in order to make the right call in close cases. I don't think Linuxbeak completely unqualified, but my concerns leave me close to opposing. Finally, I would say that if Linuxbeak is serious about working on MediaWiki development, his efforts are needed far more there than with the very limited set of tasks handled by bureaucrats. --Michael Snow 23:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe he is a little new to be a bureaucrat, but maybe not. But I feel he's a great guy and would probably be a good bureaucrat. --Phroziac (talk) 02:48, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Just as I think you need three months before getting admin, a bureaucrat should have a fair while, I think. Neutral for now, but "yes" in six months - Linuxbeak is a fine and clueful admin who got up to speed quickly - David Gerard 12:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Like others, I would prefer a few more months of experience serving as just an admin. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Linuxbeak, you know what I think already, and Michael and David already said it again. Not no, but not now; keep doing a fine job as an admin and think about running again after some more time has passed. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'm on the fence since Linuxbeak is a great contributor and likely deserving, but I'm a little concerned by the recent upsurge in the number of bureaucrat nominations. Would support a later nomination
, if it weren't a self-nom. --Alan Au 23:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)- Bureaucrat nominations are always self-noms. Andre (talk) 00:59, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, I won't worry about that part of it then. Still, even though I feel bad about it (because he really does do a good job), I can't quite bring myself to fully support so soon after his adminship. --Alan Au 09:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Bureaucrat nominations are always self-noms. Andre (talk) 00:59, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral leaning weak support. Linuxbeak is a great admin and Wikipedian; I do not question that for a second. However, while I feel that adminship should be no big deal and handed to nearly all good faith and civil users, bureaucratship IS a big deal. Other than closing some more VFDs as speedy keeps, I do not see sufficent experience in determing consensus on other things. Also, the user is newer than I would like to see in a bureacrat (preferably at least a year.) Having said all that, I simply cannot oppose such a hard-working admin. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 19:06, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral, absolutely nothing against the editor, but I concur with the thought that he may need more time as an admin before jumping into bureaucratship. I would definitely support in the future. K1Bond007 21:10, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- NeutralRobert McClenon 19:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral
Comments
- Question: Linuxbreak, your answers seem to be strangely missing something I would expect to see in a forum like this, so I am going to give you a chance to have a try at it. Why do we need another bureaucrat, and how will you, in that capacity, benefit the community? Sure, good editors and admins deserve a pat on the back, but that in itself is not a reason to keep giving them more power. Your statements in the introduction are coming across to me as something like: "I've been good, please reward me" (An oversimplification, I know, and probably not how you meant it). I'd much rather hear something along the lines of "If you trust me with this, I'll use the power to make the world a better place, and here's how:...". So, would you care to take a go at explaining why making more bureaucrats, and you in particular, will be good for the community? Dragons flight 21:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Sure. I want to think of the bureaucrats as a team. A team, like a chain, is only as strong as it's weakest link, and that is why only the best are accepted to be on the team. Likewise, a team may be strengthend by adding a strong player. Our bureaucrats are swamped; Angela is constantly busy with the Wikimedia board, Raul654 is similiarly busy, and Cecropia is going on a Wikiholiday. With each new task, the effectiveness of the bureaucrat team dwindles, and not because they aren't capable, but because they are swamped. I have proven to be an effective administrator, and I believe that I can also be an effective bureaucrat. By being a part of that team, I can utilize my skills and energy towards productivity. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 21:41, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was in error - it looks like it really is too early. Ah well, at least now you have a sneak preview of next time. Andre (talk) 02:06, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
- A. I have. To become an administrator is not just a matter of what the overt consensus reflects. I know that this has happened in the past: an editor receives a fair amount of votes, both for and against his or her promotion, and then it is discovered that both sides have been using meatpuppets or socks. At this point, the bureaucrat must assess the situation. How much influence did the unfair votes have on legit voters? Is there evidence of a past dispute that might have triggered this? Is there evidence of a "herd mindset"? All of these factors must come into play. Unless there is no evidence whatsoever of vote tampering or manipulation, an RFA is not as clear-cut as an 80% consensus. Every case is different; it is up to the bureaucrat to investigate and determine the correct action, and then consult with the other bureaucrats.
- 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
- A. Undoubtedly, some users might not be the most popular. However, popularity has absolutely no business entering the arguement over consensus. If an editor has reached at least an 80% level of consensus (more or less), then that editor is to be promoted. As I have stated before, I don't have any issues with getting my hands dirty and upholding what Wikipedia has set forth as established rules and policies.
- 3. Wikipedians expect Bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
- A. First, I'm going to be ever-so-slightly unoriginal and steal from Andre's nomination. My contributions are hereby laid out in front of you, and I invite you to audit them. I also invite you to look at my block logs. I believe I do not only follow Wikipedia policies, I also believe that I effectively enforce it fairly. As far as engaging others in the community, I've always been one to drag people I know into IRC. It is, quite frankly, one of the most effective places to learn about Wikipedia, and you get to make a lot of friends. I know I have.
Nichalp
Final: (46/4/3) Ended 18:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I hope three's not a crowd. I've been thinking of nominating myself for the past four days, and to my surprise two people have applied for the post. (telepathy?) I have been an admin for 11 months now and I've faithfully used all my admin powers to good use. I've deleted content, protected pages, carried out requested moves, merged histories, blocked vandals, and effected rollbacks. I've used all the special tools that admins have and I would like to be of more use to the community as a bureaucrat. I've noticed a few people (two people I've closely been associated with) who would like to change their username and their cases were pending for quite some months. With Cecropia on holiday soon, and Raul and Angela already extremely overworked, I'd wish to lighten their burden in the renaming department.
As for me, I'm in the quality control department, so you'd see me mostly in FAC, FLC, and PR. I have chosen to focus my edits mainly to India-related articles, and occasionally cricket-related topics. Since Feb this year, I've contributed 500+ photos/maps/sounds (exclusive videos coming in Oct/Nov) to commons. I've also helped 18 19 20 articles/lists/images to featured quality (two one more are is in queue). +1 more!
I'm approaching my 10,000th edit crossed! (& 5,000 to article crossed), and I hope both coincide with this event. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:45, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Harro5 08:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC). I'll start the ball rolling. Nichalp seems to be trying to do everything on Wikipedia - he's an active admin, and he also has a new India-related FAC every week. A great admin and a first-rate contributor. Good luck!
- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:47, August 30, 2005 (UTC) Harro5 beat me in this vote. Have worked closely with this user on many India-related articles. Very sensible, knows the wiki system well, quality contributor, great admin, and occasionally shown his mediation skills.
- Support I see you a lot around WP:RFA, always making useful comments when you vote. You have good judgement/judgment (depending on which way you want to spell it), which will be useful as a bureaucrat. Acetic Acid (talk) 12:02, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian (t) (c) 13:50, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I have a feeling that becoming a bureaucrat has just become a little bit more possible ;-) Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:26, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. One of the best. Dmcdevit·t 16:57, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Sure. Andre (talk) 20:03, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Thoughtful and reasonable answers below; seems on an even keel. – Friejose 20:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support Nice answer to first neutral voter too Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support Good editor. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support - meets my standards and I see no reason to oppose. Keep it up! --Celestianpower hab | myRFA 23:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support - nice history as an admin. Well worth being made a bureaucrat. - ulayiti (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support- this great editor and great admin would make a great bureaucrat. (Oh, did I mention he's great?) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support - a thoughtful admin. -- Ian ≡ talk 03:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support- Very helpful editor, and good answers; still owes me a picture on the shoe polish article though. Proto t c 09:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support, changed from neutral. On re-reading Nichalp's answers to my questions, I'm happy that he'll not simply disregard votes he disagrees with and will make a good bureaucrat. Though I would urge him to accept everyone's bars to a supportive RfA vote, whether he personally agrees with them or not. The promise to discuss controversial RfAs with other 'crats is an important one. -Splash 13:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Nothing more to add :-) Tintin 14:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Contributes widely across the breadth of Wikipedia. --Ngb ?!? 14:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Theo (Talk) 16:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I am comfortable with what I have seen of your edit history and your answers to the questions posed below. Dragons flight 19:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. ral315 03:26, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Support because if he doesn't qualify, I'm not sure who would. ;) --Alan Au 09:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support: I am just a 5-month old wikipedian, but I have been seeing him around from the beginning of my wiki-career . Almost everything has been said about his work here, and I have nothing more to add. I am sure that he is capable of functioning as a bureaucrat and share the responsibility with existing bureaucrats. --Bhadani 15:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, and if we expand bcrat powers even more, I'm sure you'd do just fine with those too. - Taxman Talk 15:32, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Support I am greatly impressed by his work on FAC and India-related articles in particular. From what I've seen of his interaction with the community, I believe him to be level-headed and fair, and I feel confident these qualities will continue if he achieves bureaucratship. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 16:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Nichalp is a nice chap, and I strongly support him for bureaucratship, he is an efficent editor and a guiding light for many users including me.--Cyril Thomas 20:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support. Nichalp has been a great admin and contributor and has always been very helpful and nice (he's even wished me happy birthday, though 2 months in advance).--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support - I think he is really well suited for the job. Guettarda 14:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support - nice guy, deserves the reward. ALKIVAR™ 16:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 06:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, great contributor, editor, and very neutral. --Ragib 16:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Sam Hocevar 17:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support-Its hard not to notice the work he does around Wikipedia, an excellent contributor and an asset to the community. --Gpyoung talk 18:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support-I agree with Gyyoung. Falphin 20:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent candidate. Flowerparty 00:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support --{{IncMan|talk}} 05:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Tuf-Kat 00:32, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Jisha C J 06:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support I almost missed this! Squash 08:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support as per above. --Alcidebava 10:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Highly efficient and active editor --Sarathtly 15:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, sure, why not. More bureaucrats can't hurt. — JIP | Talk 08:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Good man.—encephalonέγκέφαλος 11:45:13, 2005-09-06 (UTC)
Oppose
- --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Weak oppose on grounds that I am hardly familiar with him (and, given that I know most of the adminship candidates that's not really a good sign as to his visiblity). I'll admit he looks competent enough. Radiant_>|< 07:02, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nothing personal, just not convinced we need very many more bureaucrats. Even if we do need a few more, I prefer to promote ones I have seen and interacted with on policy pages. Jonathunder 21:35, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing personal but i am not satisfied with the way Nichalp handle many posts. I don't think we need more bureaucarts and bureaucrats like nichalp NO AND NEVER because sometimes he is very biased when it comes to Hinduism related issues.Universe inside 20:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Bureaucrats please note: this is a sockpuppet account of the below IP address. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:02, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- The above user refuses to accede to wikipedia policies. I reverted his edits because they feature
possible unfree imagesCopyvio images (one of them is a Hindu temple). Despite me asking him to take a look at the talk pages and discuss the issue at hand, he refuses to talk or respond, instead choosing to criticise & slander me without even personally asking me the reason for the revert. I'd also listed the issue in "Vand. in Prog and asked Flcelloguy to watch over the Mumbai page." =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:17, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- The above user refuses to accede to wikipedia policies. I reverted his edits because they feature
- Bureaucrats please note: this is a sockpuppet account of the below IP address. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:02, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose I have often seen this person as Biased against Hindu ideology and Hinduism. He is handling India related articles but trying very tactfully misusing his powers by neglecting Hinduism. I think it's very serious to give such person any powers.
Previous unsigned comment made by 221.134.238.2 (talk · contribs), who has 2 edits
- Those who wish to know why anon has made these comments, plz see [7]. PS anons are NOT allowed to vote. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:57, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
I am afraid that I'm entirely unfamiliar with Nichalp. Perhaps this is because our article-editing interests do not coincide, but I don't recall having encountered him in community pages either, and I believe that interaction with the community is an important part of being a bureaucrat. However, he's recieved a lot of glowing praise above from users I trust, so I remain neutral. — Dan | Talk 02:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Same here, actually. --Phroziac (talk) 22:12, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral Robert McClenon 19:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral. Has not responded to question 4. —RaD Man (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Comments
NeutralChanged to support. Some of the subtleties in the answers concern me. Q1 says you would only examine the seriousness of opposing votes. What about the supporters, why does your scrutiny not cut both ways? In Q2, you say you would basically never reverse a decision you'd made. Does that apply more widely? Why would you be effectively unwilling to hear community objection to your (non-easily-reversible) actions? What sort of quantity of active bureaucrats do you think might keep things oiled? -Splash 16:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)- 1) To get to the tally of 80%, an oppose vote is worth four support votes. So I would definately need to look at the charges levelled. Charges such as "needs 4000 edits IMO" isn't what I would call a serious charge, and negates four support votes. An admin needs to be fair and trustworthy above all. I wouldn't disregard the vote completely, but I won't negate 4 votes at the same time for an extremely minor issue. (Note this is for 75-80% only) Admins need the trust of the community, a support vote is usually not accompanied by a reason. People vote in affirmative if they feel that the candidate meets their standards for adminship. I cannot disregard this. As long as there are no sockpuppet votes, I'll count all votes as valid. 2) As I've said, I'll discuss a potentially controversial nomination with other bureaucrats first. If the BC consenus is to promote, I'll promote, its the overall community decision. If I face flack from some for promotion, I would have at least 3/4th of the community behind me, and the backing of other bureaucrats; its not a one-man show. If I do not promote, again its the community vote, and the candidate always has the chance to apply once again. 3) For controversial decisions, I would seek a minimum of four bureaucrats' opinions. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:57, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- All good. But. I'm not too happy with the suggestion that you will weaken someones vote if their bar is set higher than yours. Provided it's not a troll vote or socking or whatever, surely it's just as valid? -Splash 23:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- I cannot weaken a vote if the raw tally is <75%. I've not been given the mandate to do this. What I've been given, is the right to excercise my judgement as a bureaucrat if the tally is between 75-80%. I can't keep a candidate in limbo for too long. So I would have to take a decision, and I've detailed my procedure for promoting a candidate above if it falls in this critical range. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:16, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- All good. But. I'm not too happy with the suggestion that you will weaken someones vote if their bar is set higher than yours. Provided it's not a troll vote or socking or whatever, surely it's just as valid? -Splash 23:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Question: Bureaucrats have recently gained the technical ability to rename user accounts. In some cases this is being done involuntarily to combat user names judged to be inapprpriate, see: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard for examples. What types of usernames do you personally feel are inappropriate, and what process do you think should be followed before renaming accounts involuntarily? Dragons flight 17:44, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- As far as involuntary changing of names goes: 1) Inappropriate usernames as mentioned in Wikipedia:Username. However what may be inappropriate to one culture may be accepetable to another. If a strong objection is lodged, (say, if the translation is globally offensive) I'd suggest the offending person opt to change his name, and then change his/her user name to something less controversial. [note: I have blocked a user permanently for having an inapprop username of a Hindi word written in English]. 2) Non-English characters that are difficult to type. (the Unique tamil case) This would make it pretty hard for users to contact/describe that person here in en:.
(My answer is incomplete, I'd like some more time to evaluate it. Will complete in a day's time. Got to log off) =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:46, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I would effect an involuntary change for the above two cases. In the case of a user name being misleading/confusing (but not inflammatory), I would open an RFC before changing the username based on the RFC votes. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:10, August 31, 2005 (UTC)- An instance of the difficulty with certain scripts can be seen here. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 19:49, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Would you draw a distinction between names like User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and இ / 음낭? All of these present challenges typing on US/UK keyboards, and so have the same level of difficulty using them in technical contexts around the site. The latter two also lack a convenient handle for users to refer to, but I would think that could be solved by asking these individuals to use an English language sig. Also, இ / 음낭 were both renamed not only without discussion but also without Ed talking to them about what name they might like, do you intend to act in a similar manner. Dragons flight 15:40, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, there is a difference. Characters used in Ævar Arnfjörð are supported by many fonts, and have ASCII keystrokes assigned to them (in Win at least). Tamil, Chinese, Hindi, Arabic are not so straightforward, and are not supported by many fonts. [Eg त्र is a Hindi character which does not have a unique unicode number assigned to it.]
I personally have no problems with such user names but would request the user that the name be 1) hyperlinked (v. imp) 2) Either the user name or signature should have Latin-based characters. Will also explain to the user the practical problems.
Ed has chosen to change the names unilaterally but this is what I would do: 1) Receive complaints about the username. (I cannot monitor all new user names) 2) Request the person to change his username/use a different signature. Explain the practical reasons to the user. 3) If he disagrees to either option, (and I've exhausted all my convincing powers), I'll open an RFC, and also request users to suggest an alternate name in the event it should be changed. 4) I'll also post a link to the discussion in the admins' notice board & B'crat NB; and if the script is a language-based one, I'll also CC the link in the relevant regional notice-boards to seek a more clear mandate. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:49, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, there is a difference. Characters used in Ævar Arnfjörð are supported by many fonts, and have ASCII keystrokes assigned to them (in Win at least). Tamil, Chinese, Hindi, Arabic are not so straightforward, and are not supported by many fonts. [Eg त्र is a Hindi character which does not have a unique unicode number assigned to it.]
- As far as involuntary changing of names goes: 1) Inappropriate usernames as mentioned in Wikipedia:Username. However what may be inappropriate to one culture may be accepetable to another. If a strong objection is lodged, (say, if the translation is globally offensive) I'd suggest the offending person opt to change his name, and then change his/her user name to something less controversial. [note: I have blocked a user permanently for having an inapprop username of a Hindi word written in English]. 2) Non-English characters that are difficult to type. (the Unique tamil case) This would make it pretty hard for users to contact/describe that person here in en:.
- Comment: I've made an addition to Q2 below. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:16, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
- A. Yes, I've read the discussions many times over the past few days. I'd promote a candidate automatically if he/she received 80%; and not promote if less than 75%. If it falls in the critical range (between 75 to 80), I'd prefer to discuss it with other bureaucrats, evaluating the seriousness of the oppose votes before taking a decision.
- 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
- A.In such cases I'd prefer to discuss it with other bureaucrats, so that it's not a 100% unilateral stance. But once I make a decision, I'd always stick to it, despite the flack I may face in the short term. I'll of course state my reasons for promotion if questioned so I don't face the stick for favouritism etc.
- <insert>I just remembered: I had closed the explosive Calcutta vs Kolkata poll/debate [8] in April this year. Till date nobody has contested the changes. (See Talk:Kolkata) =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:14, September 1, 2005 (UTC) </insert>
- 3. Wikipedians expect Bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
- A. I've never failed to respond out a request if I'm messaged on my talk page (be it a newbie or an admin), or if a message is directed to me on a talk page which I frequent. If I genuinely can't carry out the request (happened only once or twice), I'd apologise so that the person is not kept waiting. You can also check out my edit history and recent talk archives for proof. I'd also informally tried to arbitrate once between User:Mr Tan and User:Mel Etitis sometime back, I did manage to get Tan to admit to some of his shortcomings in the early phases, before an RFC was put up against Tan. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:48, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- 4. Bureaucrats have the capability to rename user accounts. Aside from normal conditions where a user specifically requests that their name be modified, do you believe that a community consensus should be required before a bureaucrat makes such a change?
- I'm sorry, I didn't know when this question came along here. Yes, as I've clearly mentioned above, I do believe that a consensus is necessary. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:14, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Rdsmith4
(51/1/0) ending 06:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I've been a Wikipedian since April 2004 and a sysop since October 2004. Like Andrevan, I nominated myself last year (see my old nom, which for some reason does not appear in the archives) and discovered that many editors did not think additional bureaucrats were necessary. However, I feel that the new duty of changing usernames warrants a few more helping hands, and I am quite willing to assist in whatever administrative duties I can.
I believe that in my actions as an administrator I have gained the trust of the community; thus, I once again submit my request for bureaucratship. — Dan | Talk 06:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- To everyone who supported me, thanks so much. I really appreciate your compliments and will continue to serve the community as best I can. — Dan | Talk 06:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Support
- As I supported last time, so will I support this time. Andre (talk) 06:27, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Most definately, a great admin and I think that we need more bureaucrats to help users with username changes. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 07:11, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. Radiant_>|< 07:56, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Support--Exir KamalabadiFeel free to criticize me 09:23, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I believe that the pool of bureaucrats should be enlarged, and Dan is a perfect candidate. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 11:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support! We need more bureaucrats, and Dan's the man ;-) Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 13:12, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian (t) (c) 13:41, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. As with Andrevan, this is a no-brainer, entirely worthy. Func( t, c, @, ) 14:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Due to username changes, we now need more bureaucrats. Carbonite | Talk 14:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support Uh-oh...what has andre started? A new influx of bureaucrats...this oughtta hold us for 3 years now! Anyways, Rdsmith4, in my opinion, is one of the best editors of Wikipedia, and thus is fully deserving of the bureaucrat title. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support; another I fully support and trust to use good judgement here. Because of our increased, and still increasing size, a couple more bureaucrats are a good idea. Antandrus (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support - we need bureaucrats who can ignore the red tape at times. Dan is a fair, level-headed and practical person. Rob Church Talk | Desk 23:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Phroziac (talk) 23:14, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Yup - a sudden flurry of worthy potential bureaucrats - is this the start of a trend? Grutness...wha? 01:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know if it's a trend, Grutness, but it's good for the community to have a little practice with these nominations. --Michael Snow 01:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Absolutely. I think it's distinctly unfortunate that nominations were effectively frozen for so long, and I have no problem admitting that some of the current bureaucrats (myself included) have been slow to act. Pakaran 01:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Great admin, would make a good bureaucrat. JYolkowski // talk 02:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support: a trustworthy and valuable editor who will handle the position well. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support, Tony the Marine 05:39, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, K1Bond007 05:51, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- El_C 08:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support, Dan would be a very level-headed bureaucrat. Rje 12:02, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Support -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 18:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support, It's a wonder to me why you failed in your previous campaign. Keep up the good work! I hope to see you as a bureaucrat soon! corypark 17:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- corypark, why don't you use your user account to vote instead of the anonymous IP address 68.21.6.1 (talk · contribs)? You know, the user account "corypark" you created just today, a few minutes after you (as 68.21.6.1) nominated corypark for adminship... the user account that still has zero contributions as of this moment? Please don't take this as an attack, it's just a bit puzzling. -- Curps 23:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Not sure we need more bureaucrats, we just need the ones we have to realise their duties have been extended to renaming accounts. But what the heck, have a bureaucratship. --fvw* 05:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. ral315 05:26, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. JuntungWu 12:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. A pleasing addition to the poorly named "bureaucrat" class. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 13:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Oh, why not? B-crats could use some new faces. Acetic Acid (talk) 14:33, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Good candidate. Thanks for answering my questions :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support I believe that he would make a great B-Crat. If you don't agree with me, take a look at some of the great admin above who are supporting him. Tony the Marine 04:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. The more, the merrier! --Titoxd 06:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- David Gerard 12:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- James F. (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Theo (Talk) 16:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Absolutely. --Canderson7 18:14, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- On my first opportunity to vote on a candidacy for bureaucratship, I vote support for this user. Denelson83 23:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:38, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Give this one a bigger mop! -- BD2412 talk 17:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Saluyot 01:40, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Support No brainer. Jobe6 08:26, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Alan Au 14:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- He can have the keys to the key cabinet to the mop cupboard. [[smoddy]] 17:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support without prejudice. Hall Monitor 18:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, thumbs up! - Mailer Diablo 06:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support, I never forget those who believed in me. I think you'll make a great Bureacrate. Tony the Marine 08:16, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- SupportRobert McClenon 19:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Fire Star 22:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. —RaD Man (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Comments
- Just for fun I'll throw out a question :). You mention in 3A that you've never been sufficiently "wikistressed" by any turn of events, and assert that you're uncontroversial enough for bureaucratship. So, does this mean that you've never been in any real edit wars? Does it mean you've been in several edit wars and have been able to keep level-headed? Or, does it mean you've intentionally avoided edit wars and left them to others to handle? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- No, I can't recall ever having engaged in an edit war over content. This is certainly not to say I've never been in conflict with another user, but rather that whenever a conflict has arisen, I've always been able to hash it out in discussion. — Dan | Talk 21:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer :). For the followup (and final) question - when determining whether or not a candidate will be promoted to an admin, do you consider any edit war at all negative? Do you think someone who has been in a few wars but has made up with most of the participants is better than who has not? Will this not factor into your decision? Or will you generally go more with the votes of the community instead of using personal judgement? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- If I am the one making the decision, my opinion on the candidate with regard to editing habits is marginally relevant at best. I trust the community to determine whether a candidate is qualified; my discretion only applies to discounting votes whose legitimacy is in question. — Dan | Talk 23:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer :). For the followup (and final) question - when determining whether or not a candidate will be promoted to an admin, do you consider any edit war at all negative? Do you think someone who has been in a few wars but has made up with most of the participants is better than who has not? Will this not factor into your decision? Or will you generally go more with the votes of the community instead of using personal judgement? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- No, I can't recall ever having engaged in an edit war over content. This is certainly not to say I've never been in conflict with another user, but rather that whenever a conflict has arisen, I've always been able to hash it out in discussion. — Dan | Talk 21:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Did the candidate answers disappear from the previous nomination? I'm just curious where they went. --Alan Au 09:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
- 1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
- A. The community has decided that 80% is the magic proportion of support votes, and I will abide by this decision, using, as always, a bureaucrat's discretion with regard to sockpuppet or otherwise questionable voters.
- 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
- A. I am practiced at enduring criticism and am unafraid to make a decision with which some editors may disagree. My standards for all nominations, contentious or otherwise, are the same.
- 3. Wikipedians expect Bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
- A. I have peacefully resolved all of my disagreements with other users, whether by compromise or persuasion, and have yet to become "wikistressed" by any turn of events. My extensive editing history has required that I read and interpret all manner of policies and guidelines, and I feel that I am levelheaded and uncontroversial enough to serve as an example for the community. — Dan | Talk 06:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- 4. Bureaucrats have the capability to rename user accounts. Aside from normal conditions where a user specifically requests that their name be modified, do you believe that a community consensus should be required before a bureaucrat makes such a change?
- If a user with a disruptive name actively resisted a name change, I would request comments and require consensus before changing it. I don't think this will occur very often, however, since such users are normally blocked and given the opportunity to create a new account before they have the chance to make many edits with the old one. — Dan | Talk 21:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Andrevan
Final (50/10/1) ending 02:27 September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Last time I put myself up as a potential bureaucrat, over 9 months ago, consensus was, Wikipedia does not need to enlarge the bureaucrat pool. Though my nomination failed, I think the aftermath (which you can read in the Talk:RfA history somewhere) enhanced my understanding of the thin line between a failed nomination and a successful one.
Anyway, here I am again. What has changed? Well, aside from the personal growth that a person such as myself can experience in 9 months, there has been a MediaWiki upgrade. Bureaucrats don't just end RfAs anymore - now they handle Wikipedia:Changing username as well! Apparently there can be seen a fair number of requests there now that have not yet been fulfilled. I think I could help out with that, and maybe do some RfAs when the other bureaucrats are busy. I believe that adminship isn't a big deal; bureaucratship even less so.
Here's my old nomination. Thanks! Andre (talk) 02:27, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- I know this nomination is just getting started, but I just wanted to say a huge "thank you!" for all the kind words on this page. You flatter me. Andre (talk) 17:48, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Given his history of successful dispute mediation and successful adminship, Andre's a fine choice for overseeing a consensus and as such, dealing with the overflow of RfAs--which may or may not exist. D. G. 02:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support Yes. Consise answers too Ryan Norton T | @ | C
- Support Although Cecropia seems to be doing most of the RfA stuff (I'm helping too ;)), we seem to have a backlog of name change requests. In other words, why not? You're a good editor and admin too, so I'm sure it'll work out. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- No reason not to have another few bureaucrats. Andrevan's a trusted editor and is very deserving of the honor. — Dan | Talk 02:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support Seems like a good admin deserving of bureaucratship, and he has been here long enough to know the ropes.Amren (talk) 03:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support. Absolutely. Great guy, and great administrator. Frankly, I think people who say "we don't need more bureaucrats" are unoriginal. Who cares? If the person is worthy, then I say give it to him or her. Andre is fully suited to the job of bureaucrat. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 03:10, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support The best answers to any questions on a RfA or RfB. Unequivocal support from this user, who is: Bratschetalk 5 pillars 03:15, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Worthy. I have a lot of trust in him. I think we need a couple more; we keep growing. Antandrus (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. A fine contributor and admin. Thunderbrand 03:45, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. An enormously responsible, intelligent, reasonable, and dedicated person who can only do more good for Wikipedia the more options are made available to him. It is not he who has to live up to this responsibility, it is this responsibility that has to prove it is worthy of him. (... Whatever that means.) -Silence 03:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support, Responsible and trustworthy. K1Bond007 03:56, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support Everything has been said, I only regret that I can only vote once. Tony the Marine 04:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Support He does what needs to be done in a professional manner, notices what needs to be done, AND when it does get done. Comic 04:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. My full support, worthy. Func( t, c, @, ) 05:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Andre is a good person and a highly competent administrator and editor; I believe he is more than capable of being an excellent bureaucrat as well. A fine Wikipedian. αγδεε (ε τ c) 07:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. whee - my first ever Bureaucrat-support vote! One of the few I would vote yes for as Bureaucrat, too. Grutness...wha? 07:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support I need not repeat the above reasons (responsible, reasonable, etc.). Grumpy Troll (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC).
- Support. I've found Andre to be a level-headed decent guy, and I believe there's no reason to make such a big fuss about these things. I can't remember if I asked to be notified, but I'm grateful I was. Johnleemk | Talk 14:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Nothing but positive experiences. El_C 18:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Capable admin. -Willmcw 18:27, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. WAS 4.250 18:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. No reason to oppose. Adraeus 19:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Moderately strong Support. I wasn't quite sure about the picky answer, so I questioned Andrevan with a fairly difficult hypothetical situation on irc. He gets an A ;-) -- Kim Bruning 19:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I'm satisfied. Kelly Martin 19:57, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Support! - I think those comments on those oppose votes is enough --Phroziac (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support Andre is an extremely responsible person who I'm happy to call my friend. I know the time and effort he puts into helping to make wikipedia such a great place, and he deserves this. Zchangu 21:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support Would make a great bureaucrat Tuf-Kat 22:56, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Obviously. Neutralitytalk 00:08, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I trust him to handle the position with good judgment. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian (t) (c) 02:25, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 11:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Great admin. Very worthy contributor. Full support. Jacoplane 16:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. My pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:11, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support I was debating not voting so *someone* would be neutral enough to close it, but I couldn't let such a great editor pass by without my vote. Pakaran 21:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support- great editor, would make fine bureaucrat. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. We need some more bureaucrats, and you're a great candidate. ral315 05:24, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. JuntungWu 12:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Regarding the two issues raised below, I believe the campaigning was done in good taste, addressing people who are familiar with Andre's work. The alleged "newbie biting" was, in this case, just what was needed. Owen× ☎ 16:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support - you are met by my standards. I've seen yu around and liked what I've seen. --Celestianpower hab | myRFA 23:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Great Wikipedian. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:53, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:45, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Apoyo! A great wikipedian.....and if you don't know what "apoyo" means in Spanish,, then look at the list under which Im putting my vote and you will...:) hehe! Antonio shaken, not stirred Martin 12:31, August 31, 2005(UTC)
- James F. (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Enjoy your bureaucracy! Ingoolemo talk 20:16, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
- Support He has proved himself to have sound judgement, and will be a competent and useful bureaucrat. Giano | talk 06:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I suppose I should eventually list my standards somewhere in my userspace, but in any case he meets them. --Alan Au 09:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. No reason to oppose. -- user:zanimum
- Support --Saluyot 01:50, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. --Lst27 (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Sam Hocevar 16:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose. Andre, I don't know you well, so maybe today is an aberration, but in the last few hours you have done two things that I find distasteful: newbie biting [9] and ballot stuffing [10]. I feel somewhat bad in opposing, because I think you probably are a pretty good guy, but I also think we ought to expect the highest standards of behavior from bureaucrats. Dragons flight 04:10, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- While I appreciate your feedback, I respectfully don't feel that I was doing either. My vote on that RfA was merely a statement of fact, and was not intended to be mean in any way. I welcome many new users and answer many new user questions, and always do so in accordance with Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. As for ballot stuffing, if you'll take a look at User:Andrevan/Archive4 you can see that many of those who voted on my previous nomination requested to be notified when I ran again. I extended this notification to some others who have interacted with me more recently. Andre (talk) 04:24, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- I count 5 people asking to be notified on that page (plus one for Func below). You informed them and 14 others plus one wiki project. Had you posted a big flashing banner on your user page, I wouldn't have objected. If you had campaigned at the Village Pump, I would have thought that overkill (and a little silly), but of no real harm. Instead your actions have the appearance of rounding up your friends in order to get yourself elected, and I strongly believe no part of Wikipedia should boil down to that kind of popularity contest. If you did not intend this to be the effect of your actions, then I am sorry, but again I believe in high standards here. On the other issue. A 4 day old newbie has no credible place as an RFA, you know this. You could have removed the RFA and nicely explained to the newbie what was wrong, like I did. Instead you chose to be strongly critical, without so much as an example of how he ought to behave. To your credit, after going through the last 45 days of your User talk edits, I do see a half dozen or more newbie welcomes, but I am still left to wonder why you were so blunt with a clearly inappropriate RFA. I will think about this more, but right now my vote stays oppose. Dragons flight 05:23, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Regarding the notifications, I really don't have anything else to add; I informed users who had explicitly expressed interest in voting and other users who I thought would be interested. Make of that what you will. As for the RfA, when I investigate potential admins I do so in a certain order, and when I encounter something that disqualifies I cease investigating. Essentially, I only got as far as the questions and the edit count, and then voted Oppose. I did not read that much into it, and, as far as I know, I did not say anything inflammatory; I merely voted as I do on many RfAs. In my experience, newbie-biting usually takes the form of a nasty remark, often accompanied by a personal attack. I merely stated the facts, and no harm was meant by my vote. Anyway, I respect your opinion and your feedback. Andre (talk) 05:47, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- I count 5 people asking to be notified on that page (plus one for Func below). You informed them and 14 others plus one wiki project. Had you posted a big flashing banner on your user page, I wouldn't have objected. If you had campaigned at the Village Pump, I would have thought that overkill (and a little silly), but of no real harm. Instead your actions have the appearance of rounding up your friends in order to get yourself elected, and I strongly believe no part of Wikipedia should boil down to that kind of popularity contest. If you did not intend this to be the effect of your actions, then I am sorry, but again I believe in high standards here. On the other issue. A 4 day old newbie has no credible place as an RFA, you know this. You could have removed the RFA and nicely explained to the newbie what was wrong, like I did. Instead you chose to be strongly critical, without so much as an example of how he ought to behave. To your credit, after going through the last 45 days of your User talk edits, I do see a half dozen or more newbie welcomes, but I am still left to wonder why you were so blunt with a clearly inappropriate RFA. I will think about this more, but right now my vote stays oppose. Dragons flight 05:23, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- What you're referring to is not ballot stuffing, it's campaigning. And the second instance is hardly what I'd call "newbie biting," either, considering that everything he said was true and he didn't say anything particularly insulting. At worst, he didn't go out of his way to randomly compliment the guy. But, that's just how I see it; if you find what he did that unappetizing... It just seems trivial compared to all the months of fantastic work. -Silence 04:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- I think maybe Andrevan bit that newbie just a little, but it's no big deal, and won't affect my vote. Remember, blunt comments can sound very rude over the internet to people, since there isn't much for non-verbal communication. And, I see no problem with a little campaign. Had he gone through Special:Listusers with a bot (or without, if he wanted to follow policy on WP:BOT!), and spammed everyone on wikipedia about it, I would oppose. Or even anything anywhere near that! --Phroziac (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- While I appreciate your feedback, I respectfully don't feel that I was doing either. My vote on that RfA was merely a statement of fact, and was not intended to be mean in any way. I welcome many new users and answer many new user questions, and always do so in accordance with Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. As for ballot stuffing, if you'll take a look at User:Andrevan/Archive4 you can see that many of those who voted on my previous nomination requested to be notified when I ran again. I extended this notification to some others who have interacted with me more recently. Andre (talk) 04:24, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose While you have everything else going for you, you don't usually include explanations when you vote on RfAs, especially when it comes to opposing. (See Casito's nomination). It would be one thing if 10 people opposed because it would be assumed that you opposed for the same reasons. But in Casito's nomination, you were the first person to oppose, and you didn't give Casito any idea why. RfAs are about consensus. Consensus doesn't just mean having 80% of the support votes. It means having a common idea of a person's capabilities. You provided no opinion on how that person would do as an administrator. Bureaucrats sometimes have to make difficult calls in close nominations. If you can't explain your reasoning, you might not be ready for bureaucratship. Acetic Acid 08:08, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- When I don't explain my RfA votes, and I'm not just agreeing with everyone else, it's because I don't want to offend anyone. I do have reasoning, but I can't think of a way to phrase it non-offensively. This was the case with Casito's nomination. I can certainly understand that you would oppose because of this, though, and I appreciate that you took the time to explain it! Andre (talk) 17:43, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Somewhat agree, but I don't think that's a reason to deny him bureaucratship! --Phroziac (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- But what happens if a nomination is a really close call? Your decision could offend not just one, but a lot of people. If you give a good reason, it will lessen the blow. And Phroziac, less than 10% of the voters are opposing him. I doubt he won't be promoted. Acetic Acid (talk) 14:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- The difference is, as a bureaucrat, I am merely interpreting others' views, and as such am not responsible for offending. When I vote on an RfA, I am bringing my own opinion to the table. Andre (talk) 17:59, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- But think about a really close RFA, like Lucky 6.9's. The comments on the RFA discussion page are still fresh. Bureaucrats began second-guessing each other and changing each others' decisions. Whenever someone made a decision, they followed it up with a thorough explanation. Would you be capable of doing that as a bureaucrat? Acetic'Acid 09:52, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Of course. Bureaucrats don't express their own opinions, they interpret the opinions of the community. That is not something I have trouble doing. Andre (talk) 18:15, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Also, please note that I was not the only Oppose on Requests for adminship/Casito. Andre (talk) 02:27, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- But you were the first to oppose. As I mentioned above, if there were six or seven oppose votes before yours, and they explained their reasoning, it would be assumed that you are opposing for the same reasons that they are. But as the first, you should have said why Casito wasn't worthy. I respect the fact that you wish to remain civil, but it's only fair that the candidate understands why Andre doesn't want them to become an admin. Would you mind explaining here why you opposed Casito? If Casito reads this, please take no offense from Andre's reply. I want Andre to be completely honest. Acetic'Acid 10:18, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- OK. I had a less than flattering opinion of Casito because of the Pope chart formerly on his user page [11], the way he endorsed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dai Grepher, and the trollish nominator, User:Wiki brah. It seemed to me based on these and my further examination of messages Casito had left on talk pages that he was a somewhat pompous and foolish individual. Sorry, Casito - I've attempted to word this explanation as gingerly as possible. Andre (talk) 18:17, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Of course. Bureaucrats don't express their own opinions, they interpret the opinions of the community. That is not something I have trouble doing. Andre (talk) 18:15, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- But think about a really close RFA, like Lucky 6.9's. The comments on the RFA discussion page are still fresh. Bureaucrats began second-guessing each other and changing each others' decisions. Whenever someone made a decision, they followed it up with a thorough explanation. Would you be capable of doing that as a bureaucrat? Acetic'Acid 09:52, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- The difference is, as a bureaucrat, I am merely interpreting others' views, and as such am not responsible for offending. When I vote on an RfA, I am bringing my own opinion to the table. Andre (talk) 17:59, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- But what happens if a nomination is a really close call? Your decision could offend not just one, but a lot of people. If you give a good reason, it will lessen the blow. And Phroziac, less than 10% of the voters are opposing him. I doubt he won't be promoted. Acetic Acid (talk) 14:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Somewhat agree, but I don't think that's a reason to deny him bureaucratship! --Phroziac (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- When I don't explain my RfA votes, and I'm not just agreeing with everyone else, it's because I don't want to offend anyone. I do have reasoning, but I can't think of a way to phrase it non-offensively. This was the case with Casito's nomination. I can certainly understand that you would oppose because of this, though, and I appreciate that you took the time to explain it! Andre (talk) 17:43, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose; while I'm sure Andrevan is a solid admin and contributor, I'm sorry say that I haven't seen or heard much of him. The only thing that comes to mind is his "Defending the Status Quo" proposal, which I found not particularly impressive. I'm familiar with at least half of the adminship candidates, so I'm reasonably sure that I know quite a lot of Wikipedians. So for bureaucratship, I wouldn't support one that I don't know. Radiant_>|< 10:54, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Posting solicitations for votes to specific users is liable to skew the vote into something not representative of community opinion. I'd be happy to support a next RfB, I'm sure plenty of people will vote without notification. --fvw* 02:48, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, pimping for votes is not conduct becoming of an admin, let alone a bureaucrat. Proto t c 09:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. I am concerned because I am not convinced that Andre will maintain appropriate judgement in the face of difficult decisions. I have seen little of his activity, so I recognise that my opinion may be unfair, but his recent explanation of unexplained oppose votes tips my uncomfortable neutrality into opposition. Bureaucratship is high-profile decision-making. Andre appears to recognise that he cannot always explain the unpalatable without being offensive: This is not what I seek in a bureaucrat. —Theo (Talk) 16:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'd like to clarify this a little bit. It's not that I can't explain the unpalatable, it's that my unexpressed opinions on certain RfAs are inherently offensive, e.g. "This user acts like an idiot," and so on. I would never say that to someone's face, and as such I would never say it in an RfA. I value respect and civility. That is not at all analogous to gauging consensus in the face of a difficult decision and breaking it to the user in question, which I have no problem doing. Andre (talk) 18:15, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Are you saying that the only way to explain oppose votes is to offend someone? You could simply say, "not enough experience," "too few edits," or "user is uncivil." And so forth. English (as well as other languages) are broad enough to allow you to explain the same thing different ways using different words. Acetic'Acid 20:02, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- I do explain many oppose votes in that fashion. However, when a user hasn't done anything specific, and my only grounds for opposing are insulting, I merely list my name in the oppose column. If I give any more specific examples I run the risk of offending users who I have opposed without reasoning. Andre (talk) 20:09, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstand. In the occasion of a user where I can find nothing specific wrong, no violations of policy, but I nonetheless feel the user is in some way not fit for adminship, and my reason for thinking this is one that the user would find insulting and/or offensive (ex. the user says stupid or inane things), I will oppose without a reason. This is in no way related to what I would do as a bureaucrat. Andre (talk) 00:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- There's more than being a good wikipedia editor than just following all the rules though. The proper temperament with handling new users is required too, and you can follow all the rules and still have bad style of interaction with others. There's no harm in indicating that, I seem to recall that was one of the reasons for opposition against my first RfA. --fvw* 01:07, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- But there have in the past been users who have been fine in every respect, except they just rubbed me the wrong way with some of the things they said and did. I do not feel comfortable with these people as admins, but they haven't done anything wrong, per se. Andre (talk) 01:13, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- It most certainly is valid! If comments made by an editor suggest to me that the editor is an idiot, that is a valid reason to oppose. I would not state that as a reason though: it is inherently offensive. Andre (talk) 01:44, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- If you have reason to doubt the editor's soundness of judgement there's nothing wrong with saying that though. NPA should never prevent you from saying something relevant to the discussion, it merely restricts inflammatory comments (otherwise "user marks stuff for speedy that isn't a CSD" would be a personal attack too). --fvw* 01:50, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily doubt his/her soundness of judgement. I doubt his/her intelligence, or sanity, or something else. That's an attack any way you slice it, and I fear I may offend everyone I ever voted oppose on without a reason if I elaborate further. Andre (talk) 02:02, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- I wouldn't trust loopy individuals in positions of responsibility, and I don't think it's unreasonable for me to feel this way. Regardless, none of this has any bearing on what I would do as a bureaucrat... I have no trouble making decisions that might upset people, as long they aren't ad hominem. Andre (talk) 02:11, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, and I do appreciate your feedback. As a bureaucrat, if I become one, I will always explain my decisions. Luckily, my personal opinions of users will not come into play, as a bureaucrat. Andre (talk) 02:36, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Are you saying that the only way to explain oppose votes is to offend someone? You could simply say, "not enough experience," "too few edits," or "user is uncivil." And so forth. English (as well as other languages) are broad enough to allow you to explain the same thing different ways using different words. Acetic'Acid 20:02, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- It seems to me that someone who is able to show restraint, and not post offending comments is an ideal candidate. Sometimes stupid propositions get made here, and I feel it is a good thing that Andre simply opposes instead of pointing out how stupid the matter being voted on is. Are you really opposing his bureaucratship because he has offensive thoughts that enter his mind, which he then decides not to use in an offensive manner? Jacoplane 00:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support, Jacoplane. Andre (talk) 00:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- It's cool that he wishes to remain civil, but many take constructive criticism from those opposing. Look at Andre. He's changed from his last failed nomination. He's improved. I just wish he would offer criticism to the people he opposed. It's possible to do it in a peaceful manner. Acetic'Acid 10:18, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support, Jacoplane. Andre (talk) 00:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- I'd like to clarify this a little bit. It's not that I can't explain the unpalatable, it's that my unexpressed opinions on certain RfAs are inherently offensive, e.g. "This user acts like an idiot," and so on. I would never say that to someone's face, and as such I would never say it in an RfA. I value respect and civility. That is not at all analogous to gauging consensus in the face of a difficult decision and breaking it to the user in question, which I have no problem doing. Andre (talk) 18:15, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Again, as with my votes on other bureaucrat nominations, this is not at all personal. Just not conviced this addition is needed at this time. The case has just not been made, and I am also share the concern others expressed about pushing the nomination. Jonathunder 21:40, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think Andrevan is an excellent contributor to Wikipedia, but respectfully the candidacy as it is presented here does not project enough of the type of leadership and due diligence I feel Wikipedia's community has come to expect of bureaucrats. --HappyCamper 01:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose per Acetic Acid. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:44, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral, but not so much as to only be a comment. The 'ballot-stuffing' should have been unnecessary. A few, such as Func had requested notice, so that's of course ok. But this is not, or should not be, an election where you need to "get the vote out". It should happen naturally or not at all. -Splash 16:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Comments
Neutral 'till my picky followon question is answered below. (And yes I realise that at some point it might be my turn :-P ) Kim Bruning 11:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
- A. Consensus. 80% generally, as well as a sizable amount of interest in the nomination, or between 75-80% in cases where consensus is clear despite the numeric gap. Sock puppets may be discarded if the vote is close, and so on.
- This is a bureaucrat vote so I get to be really picky for once! (yay!);-) Is that Consensus or 80% ; is that Consensus := support>80% ; is that something else? Kim Bruning 10:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- A. Consensus. 80% generally, as well as a sizable amount of interest in the nomination, or between 75-80% in cases where consensus is clear despite the numeric gap. Sock puppets may be discarded if the vote is close, and so on.
- 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
- A. Contentious nominations aren't special; they also must meet consensus. If it is close, I will suggest an extension of a day or two.
- 3. Wikipedians expect Bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
- A. I submit my edit history for your approval, readers of this answer. I feel I have shown myself to be a solid admin and contributor.
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.