Note: Although this page is under extended confirmed protection, non-extended confirmed editors may still comment on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.
If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.
One trial run of an experimental process of administrator elections took place in October 2024.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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] Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".
There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
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.[3] 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".[4] 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.
In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.[5]
Final (44/1/1); Ended Mon, 7 May 2007 13:21:38 UTC
Sr13 (talk·contribs) - Hello, and thank you for taking the time to evaluate me. To begin, I joined Wikipedia at the end of August 2006, but did not contribute heavily until October of that year. I have over 4000 edits over a period of 6 months, with 1883 mainspace edits. Here are my first and second editor reviews. Sr13(T|C) ER 07:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept myself.
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A: I have reported several vandals to WP:AIV, and I can help with clearing the lists of user and bot requested blocks. I can also definitely lend a hand to the heavy backlog at CAT:SPEEDY, as I have reported many nonsense and unencyclopedic articles there. Having the mop will also give me the ability to close WP:XfD (especially WP:AfD) nominations that have "delete" consensus, as well as helping me with the overdue WP:PROD log. I will also be very happy to help out with maintainance in the backlogs, with previous experience in the Stubsensor and Double redirects logs. I would love to help out with the Administrator backlogs as well.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am pleased with the smooth development of WP:PJAA, in which I have introduced the idea on how articles should be processed in the WikiProject. Just several days ago, I have started WP:WARRIORS, a project on improving Warriors articles. Adding references to Punahou School was another accomplishment of mine. I have even requested peer review of the article and hopefully get the article into GA-status very soon.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: The greatest conflict I have been in was with Nihonjoe as a newbie over a dispute of the full name of "Sudoku." The debate did not become as heated, but I tried to question him before finally accepting his explaination. Other discussions I have been in were with Yrgh (now indef blocked), in which I tried to solve a dispute between him and other parties. I was also in a small dispute when I nominated Lunchtime soccer for deletion, as well as List of the honours and awards of Aaron Sorkin for deletion. Note that I never was uncivil or disruptive in any of the discussions. In the future, I hope to stay cool in any discussion I end up with.
4. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). As an administrator, how rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 10:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
A: To begin, I believe that the quotes noted of the policy should not be "softened" and breaching of this guideline should result in strict enforcement. Any re-insertion of libelous, unsourced, or controversial material (after being given a clearly stated warning) will not be tolerated (especially after the Seigenthaler controversy, and others requiring legal intervention). To enforce this guideline, I would first give a fair warning stating that the user has inserted libelous material and should not continue to do so. A second offense, I believe, shall require another message stating that the user will be blocked if s/he inserts contested material again. A third time shall result from a week to a month block (depending on the offense).
If you do oppose, please state what I can do to improve myself so that I may be more useful in the future. Thanks! Sr13(T|C) ER 08:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Sr13 before commenting.
Support looks alright. Good luck! Majorly(hot!) 10:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Can not find any problems. -Mschel 11:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support With a spike in editing this month, does raise slight concerns about overall experience, but looking though contributions shows nothing but courtesy and reflection and I'm confident will not rush into using the tools. All the best. Khukri 13:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)\
Strong support based on the answers and on the endorsements at Editor Review. YechielMan 15:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support — excellent work at WP:ER, as well as useful contributions around the encyclopedia; not only can misuse be ruled out for this editor, frequent usage can be concluded as highly likely as a result of Sr's already-existent contrib's to sysop areas ... i.e., he already helps out with maintenance tasks, and the Mop would only allow him to both continue and extend this excellent work ~ Anthony 15:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support You seem like you would make a reliable admin. Shlom:)--James, La gloria è a dio 16:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support. Good experience and I've really liked what I've seen of his contributions. Would use the mop well. WjBscribe 18:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - more than adequate experience. Addhoc 19:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Very good editor. Will certainly be a very good administrator. --Carioca 19:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - I'm convinced he's ready due to these posts: User talk:Sr13#Closing AfDs and User talk:Sr13#Closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Ries. If a person is competent in closing AfDs, I think they should just close them. The rule requiring that the discussions be unanimous keeps (for non-admins to be able to close them) doesn't really make sense to me. The fact that Sr13 ignores dumb rules shows independent judgement, and I like that. The Transhumanist 20:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support seems trustworthy and reliable. No concerns here. —Anastalk? 20:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support A sound candidate for adminship. Captainpanda 20:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Looks appropriate in usertalk interface as well as other areas. --Kukinihablame aqui 20:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support: seems to know his stuff well enough, and to be level-headed. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support No problems here. Acalamari 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Good contributions, nothing adverse to see.--Anthony.bradbury 22:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support well-rounded editor. the_undertowtalk 22:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - you can use the tools, I believe you can be trusted with the tools, and (most importantly) you've taken criticism and learned from it. I can't say I'm a fan of self-noms, but I believe you're a good candidate and won't hold it against you. Dåvid Fuchs(talk / frog blast the vent core!) 00:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Support: While a couple more months of experience would be better I see nothing wrong with this editor. Seems to be trustworthy enough and should make a fine administrator. OrfenUser Talk | Contribs 00:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Support - Good Editor..:).--Cometstyles 13:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Support No evidence that the candidate would abuse the tools. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 15:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Support looks good.-- danntmTC 16:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Support. Nominee seems to be willing to listen to advice and correction from other editors, an admirable quality for an admin. Pastor David†(Review) 18:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Support no gripes here. Darthgriz98 21:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Nihonjoestrongly endorses Sr13 in his bid for adminship. I see nothing in his history that indicates the tools would be abused. On the contrary, I see plenty of evidence indicating Sr13 would be an asset as an admin. ···日本穣? · TalktoNihonjoe 05:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Support. Well within my standards. Additionally, the candidate has demonstrated a clear ability to respond positively to criticism and a strong will to learn. Vassyana 07:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Seems to understand the importance of BLP.--Docg 10:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Support, definately in the position to put the tools to good use. I have no doubt that Sr13 will become quite an active and helpful backlog clearer as well as XfD closer. Great work so far, Sr13! *Cremepuff222* 00:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Your right to oppose the candidate's adminship based on this history is unquestionable, but the tone of the second sentence is regrettably uncivil. Please consider rephrasing the tone of your comments in the future. Newyorkbrad 00:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Hawaiian Electric Industries is notable (it is the largest supplier of electricity to the state of Hawaii), and I wasn't the only one to endorse deletion (actually, the closing admin said that the consensus was to merge). Sr13(T|C) 17:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
SR13 - I think most of us know what "merge" means, so your link perhaps wasn't that helpful; could you provide a link to the actual AfD page? Thanks. -- John Broughton(♫♫) 17:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that, Mr. Broughton; the link is provided in the answer to Question 3. Here is the link. Sr13(T|C) 20:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Opposing another candidate and stating that they are "not dedicated to the project" is too harsh. El_C 18:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC) This user has retracted his vote. Sr13(T|C) 03:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Erm, I prefer to call it expression of support or some other euphemism — anything but "vote," or even worse, "!vote"! El_C 07:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I apologise for the comment. I have rephrased what I have said in his RfA. Sr13(T|C) 20:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The candidate appears suitable, but I don't have enough evidence of competency at collaborative editing to support. An endorsement from a suitable WikiProject would likely alter my opinion. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a collaborative project is it not? A WikiProject is just a miniature Wikipedia within a Wikipedia, I'd have thought... --kingboyk 19:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
AGK (talk·contribs) - Wow where do we start :). I am Arjun and I am nominating a great user for adminship AGK, now some of you may be unfamiliar with this name but he was formerly known as "Anthony cfc". Anthony had a past RFA that dreadfully failed (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anthony cfc). Now this RFA may seem rather strange since I was the first opposer at the rfa and since that oppose it somewhat snowballed :/. But that was the past and I think Anthony has greatly improved as a user since then, and I would even consider him a great wikifriend. He does great work over there at the Mediation Committee, he reports vandals (always a valid report), he even closes XFD's (and trust me that is very helpful), he can be seen all around Wikipedia since he is as busy as a bee, has done fantastic portal work (One featured portal and another one is a candidate), and to top that all off he is as civil as it gets! Now to me Anthony is the "ideal" candidate for adminship. And I do believe it is time. ~ Arjun 14:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Co-nomination byRyan Postlethwaite - It is with honour that I'm able to offer a co-nomination for Anthony cfc AGK. I have always been impressed by Anthony's effort in the Mediation Committee, he always keep a cool head, and I believe that this shows behaviour that it befitting of an admin. As an administrator, Anthony will be expected to deal with extremely delicate issues, and get involved with very heated arguments - he has already shown that he is more than able to handle himself in these situations. Anthony gained many opposes in his last RfA for lack of XfD experience; Anthony, acting like a true gent, has acknowledged this and has now done extremely good work down at AfD, always giving a very compelling comment. He's certainly a bright lad, and adminship will not change him, just give him a little more to do. I ask that you help me and Arjun mopify him! Ryan Postlethwaite 20:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Co-nomination byThe Transhumanist (hey! You started without me!) :-) - I've been AGK's admin coach for the past few months, and during that time, I've seen AGK grow into a formidable editor. I can safely say he is familar with Wikipedia's rules and procedures, especially so with mediation. He has endless energy and a deep affinity for Wikipedia. When he steps on toes, as we all do occasionally, he is quick to respond to complaints and to do whatever is necessary to end the dispute including reverting himself, apologizing, and walking away if necessary. He is also an adept graphics artist and has helped on projects such as the Welcoming committee (for which he overhauled its welcome page). He outgrew the Virtual classroom quickly (though I remember with fondness his question about barnstars), so I enlisted AGK (aka Anthony_cfc) as a co-coach to help me coach the other students there. I highly recommend AGK for adminship. The Transhumanist 21:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Co-nomination by ^demon I must say in my time at Wikipedia, there have been very few editors in which I have seen such a huge improvement in than with Anthony. I have always gotten the impression from him as being a very kind and sincere user; however he always seemed just a tad too eager to jump in to things. That being said, he has vastly improved as a user and quite frankly goes beyond my standards by such a long shot that I felt compelled to not only support, but to offer my co-nomination as well. Anthony is, as I said, a very kind user, yet being kind is not the only thing required in an admin. You also must be able to keep a cool head (as he does very often), have a much stronger knowledge of policies and procedures (as he shows as well). His track record with MedCab is unprecedented as well, with successful cases numbering far beyond any other user that I know of personally. All this being said, I must offer my strongest support and endorsement, as I know Anthony's adminship will only benefit the Wikipedia Community as a whole. ^demon[omg plz]05:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I humbly and graciously accept — Anthony 15:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
My greatest thanks to my good friend, Arjun - your kind words are truly humbling ;) as Arjun said above, I've been around the encyclopedia for a good while now - around 1.3+ years - and I've been literally all over the place (see below); my main focus is on Dispute Resolution, where I've successfully closed over fifteen cases with the Mediation Cabal (with an additional few progressing to MedCom), one with the Mediation Committee (note: I am not a MedCom member) with another one in progress, and an additional two occasions catalysing an outcome. In addition, I'm a frequent vandal-hunter, with large amounts of WP:AIV reports (mostly for username violations or vandalism after final warning), and I also close Deletion Debates per WP:DELPRO#Non-Sysops closing discussions.
In addition, I've made contributions to the content of the encyclopedia - however, rather than improve the articles themselves, I improve the links between them - I've been involved in Portal:Trains, and alongside Daniel Bryant completely re-wrote Portal:Scotland, which is currently under a WP:FPOC that at the moment is looking like it's passing (*touch wood*).
Overall, I've made both Administrator-related contributions to key areas, as well as the actual encyclopedia; I'm frequently asked for assistance from new editors; and I assist in resolving disputes between editors. In general, the Administrator tools that I have demonstrated a justification to receive would simply allow me to help out around this wonderful project in more ways than I presently do.
With the Kindest Regards, Anthony 15:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A: Fear not - the "if any" part here is not a worry; I've already had considerable experience in Administrator areas:
My experience here will allow me to hop straight to lending a hand here; I'm often online at times where sysops are thing on the ground, so my presence there would no doubt be valued by filing Wikipedians. In addition, I'm often left with tagging blocked editor's pages with {{UsernameBlocked}}, so this wouldn't be a worry for any blocks I would be require to undertake
Large amounts of pages (most often created by new users) listed for deletion per WP:CSD.
Once again, I often find that this page has a large backlog (particularly those pages that aren't immediately noticeable candidates - e.g., XYZ is a poop), so I'd be willing to lend a hand there with my Mop.
Closed a large volume of Debates as "Keep" - the Delete button would allow me to close Delete debates as well
Despite almost always being first to MfD after the next round of discussions have expired (i.e., at 00:00 GMT), there is rarely more than one debate that has consensus expressed as "Keep", which means the backlog sitting there longer than it has too.
Several reports filed for pages under edit warring by parties in my MedCab cases, as well as a few blocked editors continuing the spree at their talk page - therefore, I'm very familiar with the layout.
The wait time is often 10-15 minutes here (in my experience), so this is obviously an area that needs attention; once again, I'd be willing to drag my mop over there and lend a hand.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In pole position for this question is my personal re-vamp of WP:WELCOME; I single-handedly converted this resource from this to this, which a direct result of was the page being included on the "Help" NavBar on Wikipedia Assistance Pages - a sure sign of quality, and a reflection of dedication to assistance of new editors. In the article space, my love child is BCambuslang railway station, which unfortunately failed a recent GAC; I've contributed to Paddington station, Portal:Trains, BOCD and Portal:UK Railways (FPOC).
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Naturally, I've came into some small disagreements with editors - some were justified, some were note; in each case, I made a full apology (in some cases, simply to keep the peace and for the good of Wikipedia), and in other cases, I've became good friends with the editors...
I inappropiately closed a MfD; later apologised both at the original thread and at his/her talk page.
That non-administrators should never closed "Delete" discussions, even if tagging them for speedy deletion afterwards; I also extended my ability to respond civilly to other editors.
Learned how to post an apology (even if not from the heart) in the interest of the running of the encyclopedia.
...I'm not a naturally stressed person, and thus none of the above "caused me stress", and technically shouldn't be included; however, I believe in transparency, so I'm going to include this record of disputes, regardless, for editors considering this statement to take into account.
4. When is it appropriate to implicitly invoke WP:IAR? Explicitly? Are there times when it should not be invoked? Naconkantari 22:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
A: WP:IAR should be invoked when the letter of the law is not the most beneficial course of action, and following it would not benefit the encyclopedia; therefore, WP:IAR should be exercised when following a policy/guideline would not benefit the encyclopedia, and the intended course you wish to follow that involves ignoring said rule will benefit the project. Times when it should not be invoked - in essence, the counterpart of my previous point: when invoking the policy would prevent you from improving Wikipedia, don't do so.
5. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 02:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A: An excellent question, and one that has been subject to some debate off-wiki (e.g., at the Adelaide meetup); Wikipedia, as a pioneering project that receives enormous interest from the press, is consistently under scrutiny. In recent times, one area could this be applied more so to than Biographies of Living Persons (BLP); editors that consistently add poorly sourced/uncited material to such articles are potentially putting the project in harms way, and therefore I would most likely approach such situations with an intention to fairly rigorously implement the policy of withdrawing editing privileges from users who violate this topically-important policy. That having being said, large numbers of contributors are unaware of our policies and guidelines, and therefore I'd seek to educate them before heading towards cautions and blocking.
Further response, with an angle at articles — I responded with a view of the Block button, as this is an RfA ;); well, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such has a duty and responsibility to provide well-sourced, reliable and, above all, correct material. Incorrect material is potentially harmful the encyclopedia, which is fast becoming a leader in providing information on pretty much everything notability, and as such those whose edits repeatedly hinder this should have their editing privileges removed ~ Anthony 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
A: One of my most shameful moments; with regards to the AWB removal, that was quite simply inexperience with such a complex tool - I was not aware of the opinion over such actions at that time. Naturally, this was explained, I was given a quick run-down over such actions, and access was speedily resorted. Regarding the VandalProof actions; in this instance, I do not have a justification - I was wrong, end of ... and I'm willing to put my hands up and admit it - no matter how long ago; once again, access was speedily restored after a conversation with a moderator of VandalProof, in which he expressed his concern that access was removed by such a controversial editor. However, that is not the point - again, I reiterate ... I was wrong, and I promptly apologised; since then, I've successfully made edits a-plenty with AWB, and VandalProof, although I have since switched to manual Vandalism Patrolling.
7. Copied over for common concerns over lower-than-average mainspace edits;
Do you believe experience in article and other non-project-space collaboration is important for administrators and administrator candidates? Why? If yes, do you feel you meet your own expectations in this field?
Ideally, article experience is important for all editors - including sysops (who are simply Wikipedians with a few extra tools) and sysops?. However, experience in these namespaces are equal, and on a par with, the other spaces - some editors are good with templates, others with images and yet more articles; judging candidates on the basis of their lack of ability to articles, should not be done - those who contribute to Templates help weave masterpieces of WikiCode to assist users of Wikipedia in browsing between related articles, thus improving Wikipedia; those who contribute to Images improve the appearance of an article, and often provide as much information than an article-writer's screeds of sourced facts - after all, a picture tells a thousand words - thus improving Wikipedia; and so on and so forth. So in answer to the specifics of your question, no I don't believe I've contributed sufficiently to the article space; but to Wikipedia? Certainly - simply in a different way.
8. Why have you copied my (distinctive) RfA answer style (for Q1 and 3) without acknowledging it, in addition to the numerous (three, at least, at last count) attempts to do similar to my userpage design, and some of my "roles" (OTRS, MedCom, etc.)? "[I]ndeed, it's my aim to produce a Featured Portal within the next year if I'm promoted, in order to remain an article writer rather than a janitor" is nearly identical to my pledge during my RfA, in Q6. I find this, like people in your previous RfA who mentioned very similar things with regards to Essjay, quite disturbing behaviour. Administrators can see in the deleted history of User:AGK how, quite frequently within days of me having a fiddle with my userspace, yours changes to near-mirror it, both wording and design. The last time, it took you under a week to mirror my new design, and the time before that under a fortnight. Although it might seem minor and trivial, I find this quite strange, and I'd like a clarification before I can (hopefully) support.
A: Not at all - I'd be happy to give clarification. If you remember a relatively recent discussion on IRC, regarding RfA, during which we discussed RfA layouts; I was under the impression that you had no objections whatsoever to the RfA style. If it does make you happy, I can change it into a paragraphed style. Furthermore, I'd like to echo a fellow editor's comments that upon any objections to user page design, a reply that all content on Wikipedia is licenses under the GFDL, and thus available for re-use; user page designs (or WikiTable designs) are not "owned" by anybody, and they may be used by anybody else. However, you objected to my user page design and, whilst I was under no obligation whatsoever to comply, I wished to both remain on friendly terms with you, and keep the peace, and so I obliged and reverted to a previous version. Regarding roles - the OTRS request was up long before I interacted with you/you had OTRS, and claims that my requesting it because somebody else has it is unfounded and incorrect; the Mediation request is quite simply because I've had plenty of experience with the MedCabal, and I believed I could offer my services in another area; trust me, I'm not about to go around after you copying your every move - to be honest, I've got more valuable things to do ... we are writing an encylopedia here :-) my apologies for being quite to-the-point, but hopefully my opinion is respected - I most certainly respect yours.
Apologies, I left something out: regarding the "Essjay" behaviour - I don't believe I've being doing this to you, in fact quite the opposite - I rarely communicate with you (except concerning the FPO), and I've not being "stalking" any editors that I chat with much more/have being chatting with for longer, and they subscribe to many more roles than yourself (simply because they've been here longer :) finally, that (striving to get another portal up to FPO status) is simply an answer to the concerns voiced below that I am slipping away from the encyclopedia, and as such I simply formalised my intent over the next 1-2 years; incidentally, I am assuming we are discussing that call that you'd author a featured article for the next two years. Hopefully this clears things up ~ Anthony 16:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Your answer to question eight provides a contrary interpretation to the GFDL than what I understand, and what is used in administrator merge-and-redirect closures. From your understanding, if you copy the text (or code) from another page, do you need to attribute where you copied it from, either in the edit summary or the page content itself, or is it just a free-for-all to copy and paste without attribution to the original author? A satisfactory response is needed, or else I fear you will not be capable of closing merge AfD debates, and I will oppose you strongly if you can't. Daniel Bryant 04:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
A: the GFDL contains attribution requirements, which with regards for Wikipedia's purposes a link to the history of the copied-from page is sufficient. Attribution originally took place at a User sub page, which also outlined links to where I get images for my user page (Commons, of course :) however, I submit to your argument - although your user page was in fact from the Australian Noticeboard, which was created by several editors and therefore contact with each individual was not required - attribution was good conduct, and I should have contacted you beforehand. If (although this is unlikely) I ever wish to use an aspect of your edits that you have contributed to, I'll be sure to request your explicit permission the next time. Once again, my interpretation of the GFDL: attribution is required where content is copied - it is not a free-for-all copy+paste! ~ Anthony 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
10. You changed your username on 24 April and here we are already at RFA. My question is what came first, the decision to re-run for admin or the decision to change your name? Secondly, do you think that it is ethical to seek access to the block button so soon after a name change when a lot of users who have previously interacted with you and may want to comment on your RFA won't recognise your new name from the list of those seeking adminship? SpartazHumbug! 05:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
A: My personal style when browsing RfA is to examine each statement individually, and from there !vote where desired; therefore, an RfA under a new name does not seem inethcical to me, although if it does to other editors, I propose a move to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AGK (Anthony cfc) if that is satisfactory. Secondly, the decision to rename came first; however, since Adminship *isn't a big deal*, at the time of renaming I didn't actually have a nomination in mind (mainly because, I was nominated rather than self-nomming). Therefore, if I did have prior notice of the nomination, I would have happily put of a user rename until the RfA had run its course. Once again, I put forward an offer to move this RfA, with the intent of any potential nomination reviewers being able to instantly recognise the nomination name (although, strictly speaking, all nominations should probably be reviewed individually and then scrutinised ... but, we do have real lifes;)) however, judging by the relative interest (compared to the last RfA) such a move isn't required ~ Anthony 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
11. Sorry if this question seems a bit random, but what other Wikimedia projects do you contribute to?
A;-) random - not at all, I'd be glad to answer. At the present, I don't actively contribute to any Wikimedia projects: to be honest, my heart's in Wikipedia! I do have accounts (for example) at Commons and MediaWiki ~ Anthony 12:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
12. Given that on the two projects you mention above, your username is clearly Anthony cfc, could you reconcile this with your statement here - where you requested being renamed to AGK because you were "widely known as this across other Wikis - generalisation/standardisation."
Note — unregistered users are highly encouraged to participate in this discussion by leaving comments in this section; a large amount of my work involves working with anonymous editors, and their opinion is highly valued ~ Anthony
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/AGK before commenting.
I would love to support this RfA, however there are some concerns I have which I'd like addressed. Firstly, I love your enthusiasm here. However, you really do need to take things one step at a time. In your time here, you've become a mediator, you've requested adminship once before on here, once on the Simple English Wikipedia, and either checkuser or oversight access on Meta (I can't remember which). I really don't think you're ready for many roles yet - you often have a wikibreak notice up, and I'd rather you didn't go overboard. I once saw you editing 24 hours flat out, which is really not good for your health. Take a break proper sometime, ok? Also, don't edit your userpage so much. Here's a suggestion: create a subpage especially for userpage design, and delete (or request deletion of) it every so often. Your userpage edits are too inflated at the moment. Perhaps you could address these points, and I'll sure give my support - you're otherwise a fabulous user :) Majorly(hot!) 19:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd have thought you'd be the last person to complain about edit count... – Steel 19:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Concerns duly noted - your thoughts are very respectable, Majorly; don't worry, the whole "status-seeking" thing is done and dusted ... I promise ;) ~ Anthony 19:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can see this is the full list of Anthony's request (earlier entries from Ral315's list last time):
December 27, 2006: adds himself to the standby list for CheckUser clerks. Not yet granted. (Anthony now acts in this capacity since the requests system was deprecated)
April 28, 2007: Files this second request for adminship
That seems to sum it up... WjBscribe 19:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
As stated below, I'm not sure where this "MedCab" idea is from, but I think people have picked up on it wrong ~ Anthony 20:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The message on your talkpagepage fom Ideogram reads "Cowman forwarded me the emails you wrote regarding your ideas and becoming a MedCab coordinator. I think your ideas are interesting, but you don't need to be a coordinator to implement them." That seems to be to a response to your wishing to be a coordinator for WP:MEDCAB... WjBscribe 22:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Kick me; I'm on about a completely different email discussion here. My apologies - I didn't even take the time to examine the diff you provided; yes, I accept your opinion, whole-heartedly, and can only reiterate my promise to curb my enthusiasm for the project ~ Anthony 22:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Consensus not numbers: I regretfully ask the bureaucrats to reject this candidate. He's an aparatchik rather than an editor. In fact, although he seems to have a lot of edits in mainspace, nearly all the ones I could find were automated cleanups. Nothing wrong with that, except that I don't feel he can have developed the skills of interaction with other editors that he needs to perform well as an administrator. --Tony Sidaway 12:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, a quick look at (for example) my Archives show a high level of compotence in the area of communication; collaboration (e.g., at WP:WELCOME at Portal:Scotland) further reinforces this, and my experience in Dispute Resolution is further evidence of the ability to communicate to a high standard: after all, DR often involves editors that have gotten themselves into a dispute more due to lack of discussion and communication rather than actual right/wrong scenarios ~ Anthony 13:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Support
Strong support as co-nom, best of luck mate. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support i was considering nominating you myselfy, you are a great contributor to Wikipedia - all across the namespaces! Best of luck, you deserve the tools! Tellyaddict 20:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - A really nice chap, I have plenty of faith he'll do a fine job. He's put plenty of effort into his RfA. Good luck! Matthew 20:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support Nominator support :) ~ Arjun 20:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Very nice job with the box and the tables. I applaud you. bibliomaniac15 21:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Suport - A really good editor and he will make good use of the mop..--Cometstyles 21:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - as his admin coach and co-nom. I feel sorry for vandals now. :-) The Transhumanist 21:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support without a doubt in mind. (although I think the yellow box is going overboard!) Pascal.Tesson 21:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy to remove it if you want! Anthony 21:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't even think about it! The Transhumanist 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely support. Great answers to questions and demonstrates excellent policy knowledge, plus a yellow box to boot! Will(aka Wimt) 00:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support: Excellent edit summary usage, plenty of contributions and experience and also great answers to questions. Should make a fine administrator. OrfenUser Talk | Contribs 00:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Looks good, and I am not convinced by the oposition. -Mschel 00:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per the candidate's strong overall record. I have considered the opposer's concern but don't quite understand it. Newyorkbrad 00:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The second opposer's explanation is more clear. I will continue to follow the discussion. (I hope this potential indecisiveness doesn't make me a bad admin. :) ) Newyorkbrad 01:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - Excellent progress made since that RfA. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 01:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. I agree that you've made some problematic judgment calls in the past, but am supporting on the assumption that you will grow into the position, learn from mistakes, continue the progress you've shown, and be an overall benefit to the project. I believe you can do this. You've made a lot of very good contributions. --Shirahadasha 01:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Your mediation efforts in Jews for Jesus are appreciated and count for a lot. --Shirahadasha 02:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support The overall experience level is more than sufficient, and the dispute resolution success is a huge bonus. YechielMan 03:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support With the perfect answers to questions, the numerous accolades from esteemed editors and admins, how could I vote otherwise? Good luck! Jmlk17 05:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support, I've had several interactions with Anthony, and in all occurrences he has been pleasant and helpful. He successfully mediated a very tough dispute on Jews for Jesus, leading to a resolution all parties left happy with, and in general is civil and pleasant to interact with. Not bothered by concerns about "taking shit" (anyone who doesn't withdraw from their RfA after 5 minutes can take some heat), nor by trying to work in a lot of areas or a bit of name indecision. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 10:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. A very experienced editor. Sr13(T|C) ER 11:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong Support - with 3 nominators and a very comprehensive candidate statement, this has to be the most impressive RfA I've seen recently. The candidate clearly has extensive experience in dispute resolution as well as a good record on deletions etc., and has demonstrated a definite need for the tools. As some users have pointed out, I tend to support most RfAs; however, I would support this one even if I were a tougher voter. WaltonNeed some help? 12:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support seems good enough for me. —Anastalk? 12:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Upon extensive review of your contributions (yes, a free Sunday afternoon... ), especially your MedCom activities, your interaction with other users, and your general healthy attitude towards the project, I will support. The oppose comments are valid and should not be ignored, but I trust that the community will assist Anthony with any 'shit' that he might have to face in his first steps as an admin. Besides, we all know that your skin grows a lot thicker after a few trolls :) Oh, and I find your habit of linkingthingscute : ) – Rianaऋ 13:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I find that I must support this editor for his willingness to close deletion discussions as delete (although I am disappointed that he knuckled under to intimidation on that issue). I see enough evidence of collaborative competency to waive my endorsement requirement in this case. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I've had nothing but positive experiences of this editor, and since I hold his three co-nominators in a high level of regard, no doubt he'll make a fine admin. Good luck! The Rambling Man 16:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support I wanted to co-nom... Experienced user, friendly, devoted and trustworthy. Will make an excellent admin.--Húsönd 18:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support This is definately a good nomination to support. Captainpanda 18:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support good candidate --rogerd 21:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I'm not going to hold his enthusiasm against him.-- danntmTC 23:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I think you'll be fine, good luck mate! Majorly(hot!) 01:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Hmm, enthusiastic, knowledgeable, willing to admit his own shortcomings. I think he'll do fine. Remember, he will not be unsupervised and is his enthusiasm overflows on occassion it can be checked. JodyB 02:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support: he may be a little too enthusiastic, but I see no evidence that his enthusiasm would be at all harmful to the project, and on the contrary it shows dedication. A very experienced, friendly editor who will put the tools to good use. Krimpet (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Very strong nominator support^demon[omg plz]05:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support: Wow, you come with strong recommendations. I know the mop is going to be safe in your hands. --Valley2city₪‽ 05:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. It's kind of nice to see someone having closed slightly ambiguous XfD debates, if just for the purposes of examining their judgement. Apart from closing "delete" when that implies a need for further requests, the closes I've looked at were good; in particular, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonlance timeline where I reached the same conclusion independently, unaware that a non-admin close had previously taken place. Mangojuicetalk 14:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I've encountered this user a few times and not seen anything to concern me. Adambro 15:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. This editor has come a long way since his last RfA, and I have no qualms about supporting. He shows superb initiative and adaptability, traits that will be tremendous assets as Wikipedia begins a period of more rapid change. --Mus Musculus (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - no problems here - Alison☺ 20:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I have interacted with this editor, and I am certain that he will be a useful and helpful admin.--Anthony.bradbury 22:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. I delayed participating in this RfA until the candidate had a chance to respond to the opposing and neutral comments made below, and I am more than satsified with how he handled them. The issue of improper formatting of RfD and TfD closes is a minor one that I don't think merits an oppose for a great editor. I believe the rule of thumb is: if each nomination has a separate page (AfD and MfD), note the result above the header; if nominations are listed in a daily log (CfD, RfD, StfD, TfD, and UcfD), note the result just below the header. -- Black Falcon(Talk) 22:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - I seem to be the only person who's interacted with him who's never had any kind of fight; even though we generally disagree, everything he's said has been valid. If any of these nightmare scenarios the Opposers are postulating did happen, so be it, I'm sure the project can survive. Besides, we need a few more railway-station-article-expanders. (Kelly, even though he's not a member of ours I'll throw in a voice of support on behalf of WP:Rail for him) — iridescenti(talk to me!) 00:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Support. My experience with Anthony has always been pleasant, he is a credit to the project, and I think his desire for positions of authority will be leeched away after a few accusations of admin abuse. I'm convinced by any of the oppose !votes, and can see no reason not to have the tools. Rockpocket 06:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Support. Perhaps a bit over-zealous at times, but a fine editor nonetheless. One request: please consider spending a little more time doing content-driven article improvement. --Pastor David†(Review) 18:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Support Although I share Majorly's concern that you might be taking things up too fast (biting off more than you can chew, perhaps), I think you will still be an asset as an administrator on Wikipedia. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Support. I'm impressed with the improvements since the previous RfA, as well as AGK's enthusiasm for the project. I think that's a good thing. I see no evidence the tools would be abused, and plenty that shows they would be used appropriately. ···日本穣? · TalktoNihonjoe 05:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Support. I recently approached Anthony with a few modest advices, and his response was both humble and enthusiastic. Anthony has proven to possess the ability to learn from his mistakes, recognizing them and seeing them as an opportunity to improve. This is usually the best sign that someone's ready to use the buttons thoughtfully, so I'm glad to clear him for the mop. - Phaedriel - 06:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Definate support, I see AGK's (and his previous user name) basicly everywhere on Wikia. I'm positive AGK won't abuse the tools, and has good reason to use them also. *Cremepuff222* 00:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak support To be entirely honest, whilst I think it likelier than not that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysopped should be positive, I'd intended, inasmuch as, in view of the issues adduced by Daniel.Bryant and the inestimable WJBScribe, which raise a few questions with respect to AGK's judgment and his fitness as a repository of community trust, I couldn't reach such conclusion with any real degree of confidence, to be neutral. I am, contra Doc, quite heartened, though, by Anthony's reply to question eight, which evidences an understanding of BLP as standing alongside, rather than above, other policies and suggest that the, qua admin, AGK will be mindful of the ministerial nature of adminship and of the need properly and deliberatively to apply policy consistent with community consensus. Joe 03:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Support with my pants off: I thought he was one :p ~Magnus animum ∵ ∫φγ 15:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Support, see no problems. Plus with that many co-noms it's hard to not support.--Wizardman 15:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Not convinced he can take the shit he'll receive as an admin. – Steel 21:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Struck with apologies to Anthony [1]. I'm still behind my 'weak character' statement and still believe that some things he'd come across as an admin would 'get to him' so to speak. – Steel 13:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Anthony comes across as having a very weak character. – Steel 21:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
From this I assume you haven't received any emails from him. :-) Trust me, AGK is an irresistible force. The Transhumanist 22:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
"Please keep criticism constructive and polite." An oppose vote, like this one, is uncivil and preceding vote will be disqualified. ↔ tz (talk · contribs) 02:51:46, Sunday, 29 April2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you're the authority on this matter. – Steel 03:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
So, what will happen if he can't take it? Wikipedia will shut down? This does not seem like the kind of guy who would 1) Go crazy and delete the Main Page 2) Be the object of a RFAr. So what's the problem? GracenotesT § 03:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
"Can't take the shit he'll receive"? "weak character"? The least you could do after remarks that fall so short of the civility standards we expect is to back up those claims so that we can understand how you arrived at that rather blunt view of the candidate. Pascal.Tesson 05:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Anthony means well, but everything I've seen of his recent attempts to dabble in Admin areas have been a disaster, especially his closing of MfDs as delete in clear violation of policy. See threads here and here. His sloppy close of the MfD for Sandbox Word Association lead to confusion as to what should be deleted and ultimately a DRV. The fact that he continued to close contentious XfDs despite concerns raised on his talkpage is a big issue. I am also worried by the recent indicisiveness he has shown over his username. Anthony requested a usurpation from "Anthony cfc" to "Anthony", he then changed his mind and decided to be renamed to "AGK" as he is known by this name on other projects. He then changed his mind again and requested the usurpation of "Anthony" again [2]. He has now withdrawn the usurpation request. This does not bode well for making decisions as an admin... WjBscribe 00:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I am also moved to oppose by the fact that despite advice from Ral315 and others at his last RfA and since, Anthony has continued to court positions "of status" around Wikipedia. He made a second request to join WP:MEDCOM and seems to have pursued the idea of becoming a WP:MEDCAB coordinator by email [3]. Positions on Wikipedia, be they as an admin or otherwise, should be regarded as those of a humble functionnary by those who hold them. Anthony gives the impression that he seeks recognition and influence, which troubles me. WjBscribe 01:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Because he's not like any other editor I've encountered on Wikipedia, I've been watching Anthony very closely. To say that he's ecentric is an understatement. :) But once you get to know him, you will see that it isn't that he's seeking recognition nor influence. He is simply highly driven. He can't sit still while there are still areas of Wikipedia to explore and master. What really gets me is that Anthony and others are being chastised and berated here for showing initiative. That totally sucks. Let me go on the record: initiave is a good thing which should be applauded, encouraged, and not criticized. Way to go Anthony. Keep up the good work, and keep going for every position there is until you've mastered every nook and cranny of Wikipedia. The harder you try, the faster you'll learn. Woohooo! Yeaaaaah!!!!! The Transhumanist 20:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
(Expanding a little on the indecisiveness over usernames, he gets through an awful lot of userpage designs in a very short space of time: [4][5][6][7][8][9]. – Steel 01:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC))
Ral315, etc...: the MedCom request was made as a result of my successful Mediation of a MedCom case; however, the committee decided they did not wish to endorse a non-Administrator at that time; also, the emails regarding "MedCab co-ordinator" - that was requests from a co-ordinator to take on board my ideas, and that discussion was not related to a request to be a co-ordinator, and therefore this area of "status-seeking" has been explained. Next, the indecisiveness over user pages; this can be explained simply through my long-running experimentation with my userpage - I've been complimented on all my designs, and I simply like to occasionally chop and change ... in fact, the actual designs I've kept can be viewed at my Archive - the rest are simply experiments, and in fairness belonged in the Sandbox. Username - that is being resolved with a discussion with a Crat; the change was originally over personal privacy concerns that only came to light after the change; very recently these have been resolved, hence the pull-out. MfDs closing - I fully accept all blame here; I inappropiately closed an MfD there, and I'm man enough to hold up my hands and admit it. I made full apologies to both users, and one - Daniel.Bryant, I later worked on Portal:Scotland with, which is almost a Featured Portal ... now that's good will for you ;) last, concerns over not being able to handle the shit Admins take; well, I've had plenty of abuse in my time at Wikipedia: the most recent example can be seen here; I've also taken plenty of nonsense during my Mediation, so with all due respect, I don't believe that particular area to be much of a concern. ~ Anthony 02:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I've lost of track how many user page designs Anthony has created. But it sure explains how's he's gotten so good at wiki-layout. Some see it as indecisiveness. I see it as 1) practice, and 2) a valuable library of wiki-code which others can use as the basis for their own user pages. Such code may also find uses in the Wikipedia and Portal namespaces. But the fact that Anthony is being criticised for experimenting on his user page is idiotic. Changing one's user page is harmless. HARMLESS. And it puts new designs right out there where others can notice them and thus make use of them. I think that's a lot better approach than hiding the designs in a sandbox. The fact that he's repeatedly overhauling his user page rather than overdoing it on pages in other namespaces shows good judgement. User pages are the perfect place for wiki-layout experimentation. I say keep up the good work. The Transhumanist 20:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per WjBscribe and also because I believe that he is using a depreciated method for formatting closure of RFDs and TFDs (and has even changed admin closure to the depreciated format). In my opinion, if a non-admin is going to close discussions, they should be sure to follow the instructions. --After Midnight0001 11:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm rather confused by this post - I follow WP:DELPRO in all aspects of my Deletion Debate closure, and in addition the technical lay-out of debates closed by me do not appear to be out of the ordinary. Please do get back to me on this one - I'm particularly enthusiastic about XfD activity, as I see it as a key process on Wikipedia, and any feedback on my contributions in this area would be received with gratitude ~ Anthony 21:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, here are a recent RFD closure [10] and TFD closure [11]. I believe that the lay-out on these are incorrect. Let me know if you disagree. --After Midnight0001 01:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Those were perfectly fine. Majorly(hot!) 01:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't speak for the RFD one (never closed a debate there), but the TFD one is designed to go *just below* the header, not just above. It throws the formatting if you do the latter. Not that I see that as a reason to oppose, as I've seen that mistake many a time, and it's easy to do. ^demon[omg plz]05:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, as I said, I was opposing for per WjBscribe and I tacked on the formatting as an additional item, that probably bothers me more than it should. Given the number of people that have commented on the fact that he has improved considerably, I'm withdrawing my opposition at this time. --After Midnight0001 10:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose As a response to the question about contributions he is most proud of, the candidate mentions a template meant for userspace. I would like to see a candidate who is more interested in building an encyclopedia. —M (talk • contribs) 16:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Might I enquire as to what template in the userspace you are referring to? Upon re-examining of my answer to Q2, I have not mentioned the user namespace at all ~ Anthony 16:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I meant the WP:WELCOMEing committe. But this is still an organization for welcoming new users. I'm not disparaging involvment in this organization (I am a listed) but I would like to see more article building in a more diverse area of subjects than railway stations. Far too many non-article writing editors become admins and become embroiled in wikipolitics. We have enough of these, thank you. —M (talk • contribs) 19:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
At this point, I'd like to mirror my addition of the copied-from-my-ER question at the top: early on in Wikipedia, I realised I was not a natural article writer - frankly, I suck at it, so I got involved in building and improving thousands of related articles - i.e., I mucked in with some Portals. I believe this to be my contribution to the encyclopedia: one (hopefully, *touch wood*, soon to be two) Featured Portals is a fair achievement, and considering they are base camps for thousands of related articles, I think it's not far off the mark to say I've contributed to the encyclopedia ~ Anthony 19:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
In addition, I don't intend to become embroiled in WikiPolitics - indeed, it's my aim to produce a Featured Portal within the next year if I'm promoted, in order to remain an article writer rather than a janitor ~ Anthony 19:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I've only come across this editor with regards to his repeated renaming requests. He hide his requested renaming to Anthony for the duration of this rfa rather than remove it - presumably so he doesn't have to wait 7 days. I am minded not to do it since he seems incapable of making his mind up.. He withdrew the request on 24 April, re-requested on 25 April. On 29 April he hides the request using his sockpuppetUser:Testcfc so that those who look at his contributions don't see it? User:Anthony cfc was a name previous to the one he was renamed to, ignoring the current on-off renaming request.. Secretlondon 22:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
With respect, I did not intend to mislead anybody by editing it with a secondary account; it was simply a case of forgetting to log out of one account and log in as the next. My reasoning behind commenting the Request out was so that it did not appear I was "going on the rampage", as such - in fact, it was in the interests of transparency, so that active editors at WP:CHU/U would be able to monitor the case, rather than pull it from the edit history as a result of my deleting it at the slightest opposition (i.e., your question). On another note, could you clarify what "presumably so he doesn't have to wait 7 days means", when you get a moment? Cheers ~ Anthony 22:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I think what Secretlondon means is that by commenting out, you ensure it remains at the top of the list (as the Bot will only archive requests tagged {{done}} or {{not done}}). When you uncomment it out, if a bureaucrat other than her visits the page, they will assume that it has been visible since the date of the header. Whereas had you withdrawn the request, you would have needed to request again under that day's header and wait 7 days after that request. WjBscribe 22:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Right - got it now; thanks for clearing that up. Well in that case, nothing but my apologies goes out - I did not intend to re-request at any time. Again, my apologies, and I shall bear this advice on how the page in question works, in mind ~ Anthony 22:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Secretlondon (above) and per the concerns of Ral315 (in Anthony's previous RFA which I can't seem to find at the moment). — CharlotteWebb 21:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose You only changed your username on 25 April and here we are already at RFA. Most importantly in yout discussion with Majorly and WJBscribe about MEDCOM/MEDCAB roles you admit to not reading a diff and thereby completely misunderstand the issue being raised. That's not the kind of carelessness I'd expect to see from someone with the block button. --SpartazHumbug! 05:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, for several reasons, including some voiced above. I guess my main concerns can be summed up as a lack of stability and reflection. Speed appears to be a very if not the most important quality for you (for instance, your answers to Q1, referring to 'backlogs' of several minutes), and while you're also quick to apologise for mistakes, it makes me very hesitant about you becoming an admin. You're very enthusiastic, which is good, but I don't think giving you the tools at this time is a good idea, not in the least because of your very recent username change. I'm also worried about your interpretation of GDFL (see Daniel's concerns in Q9). --JoanneB 07:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak on BLP. More concerned with editors than subjects.--Docg 10:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Apologies, I answered from a Block point of view, as this discussion does deal with the Block button. I've extended my answer, with an additional outlook on the encyclopedia ~ Anthony 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Using User:Testcfc and deletion to hide your userspace edit count is very shady. I think the solution is to simply stop editing your userspace. John Reaves(talk) 10:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Reiteration of above: Testcfc is a proclaimed and open secondary account of myself, used for user space editing - for the exact purpose of keeping my main account's edits down. However, per the reaction of the recent deletion, I'm glad to request it be restored ~ Anthony 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
As someone who supports you in this RfA (and have no intention of changing my opinion), I would like to comment that I personally don't like it when users use socks to edit their userpage. The simple reason for this is that many of the anti-vandal tools highlight when an editor is altering someone else's userpage. Thus using a sock to edit your userpage can divert the attention of a number of recent changes patrollers. Of course, there is obviously no policy stopping you doing this, but I for one would prefer it if you edited your userpage with your main account in the future. As people have mentioned, you can always delete your userpage if you really want to keep your edit count down, but I don't really see why edit count matters anyway. Will(aka Wimt) 17:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments noted and acted on: Testcfc (talk·contribs·email) is now inactive, and has been tagged with {{Historical-User}}. Hopefully this should put to rest any fears regarding my secondary account ~ Anthony 20:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, most especially per WjBscribe. I find user's behaviour too erratic at this time for adminship, although user is a great contributer. Cool HandLuke 19:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - I'd have loved to have supported, and think that you're a great editor, but havinmg read this whole RfA, I have some concerns which can only be reconciled by time, mainly those pointed out by WjBscribe, and some memories brought back by DB's comments. Martinp23 22:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - I'm not convinced this user understands the GFDL licence sufficently and this raises further questions on copyright issues. Sorry. -- Nickt 23:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per JoanneB. —freak(talk) 17:53, May. 6, 2007 (UTC)
Neutral
Pending Q4 response Naconkantari 22:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutralpending Anthony's response to the oppose concerns, and possibly neutral even after that. – Rianaऋ 02:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks Anthony! I'm still feeling a little neutral though, I'll probably just sit this one out for a little bit. Steel's concern, although I perhaps would have worded it differently, does concern me somewhat. I will not oppose - I respect your work far too much for that - but I will perform a more thorough assessment of your contributions before making a final decision. I hope you understand. – Rianaऋ 03:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Switching to support. – Rianaऋ 13:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I was originally going to leave answering the comments, to avoid the appearance of pressuring, but per Riana's request, I've answered ~ Anthony 02:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
No worries - I understand fully; your opinion is respected and understandable. For the record, I'm off-wiki for a few hours, so questions posted won't be answered until such times ~ Anthony 03:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral, you seem to have no archiving system for your talk page. I seem to remember one, though, so if you can point it out I'd be happy to withdraw this. Either way, I'm still watching, and this may end up changing. -Amarkovmoo! 04:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Apologies - I've re-added the link; for quickness, here it is again -> User:AGK/Archive <- Anthony 10:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
At first glance, it appears this !vote has been accidentally placed at the bottom of the page, rather than at the bottom of the "Support" section; however, I'd rather not move a !vote of my own RfA, so I'll leave it to editors experienced in Sysopship discussions (e.g., Majorly) to sort it out ~ Anthony 20:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I was bold and moved it up, dropping a note on Sir james paul's talk. —AldeBaer 21:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
As I opposed Anthony/AGK's last RFA, and have been outspoken in my worries about his suitability, I'll review his latest contribs and make up my mind tomorrow. Ral315» 08:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not entirely convinced, but assuming good faith upon some of the things that have come up by the opposers, I will not join in opposing your candidacy. However, I'm still a little uncomfortable with the things brought up, and so I will not oppose but not support, either. I hope you understand. Daniel Bryant 04:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Closed on May 2, 2007 by El C (talk·contribs). Final tally was (4/18/14)
Blueboy96 (talk·contribs) - I happened on Wikipedia by accident while searching for more information on Conrad Black. That was back in 2004--and now, three years and roughly 7,500 edits later, I've decided to take the plunge and nominate myself for adminship. I estimate I've racked up 7,000 edits on the mainspace, 300 on the user talk space and 200 on the Wikipedia space. I've recently become more active on WP:CN (having discovered it by accident in an effort to swat a problem editor). I recently discovered WP:TWINKLE as well, and in the course of just a week, have become hooked on it.
As you'll see by my edit history, my interests are all over the place--broadcasting, politics, sports.Blueboy96 19:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course, I accept my own nomination. :) Blueboy96 20:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A: As a vandal-fighter, I intend to be around quite a bit on most of the pages dedicated to keeping them on a short leash. I also plan to be active on sniffing out copyvios--I'm a journalist by training, so I can spot articles that have been cut-and-pasted from press releases and promotional sites fairly quickly. I also plan to be around fairly often on WP:CN, and will also encourage non-admins to be more active there as well--it's getting to where the "community" is limited to just the admins who hang out there.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I started most of the articles on my hometown (Charlotte)'s television stations soon after figuring out how this baby worked. I've started several other television station articles as well. On a few occasions, I've turned several political and television-related articles from utter crap to something serviceable. I also created the Becky Fischer article, and made significant additions to Jesus Camp.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Most recently over the Every Nation article--I'll admit to slipping up a bit in my civility, but eventually reached back to my high school debate days and was able to cool down enough to focus on the argument, not the person. I believe in fighting tooth-and-nail over content, but not the sourcing.
4. Optional question from After Midnight0001: Please discuss who may remove a tag for speedy deletion and under what conditions they may do so.
A: Anyone who didn't create the page can remove the speedy deletion tag if they feel the article is worth saving. The only exception, of course, is in case of apparent sockpuppetry. I came up on a situation like this just today, when I tagged an article to be speedied, only to have a new user with a similar username show up only minutes after he created his account and delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blueboy96 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
Optional question from Naconkantari:
5. When is it appropriate to implicitly invoke WP:IAR? Explicitly? Are there times when it should not be invoked? Naconkantari 22:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
A. Mmm, this is a toughie. Answers will have to come in several parts ...
If you've inserted information that is well-sourced and someone keeps taking it out, putting it back in wouldn't be a 3RR violation. This is because taking out well-sourced information is vandalism--and it is well-established that getting rid of vandalism is an exception to 3RR.
If an article is under mediation and you've got something that you feel should be in there, you can bypass it and put it in the article as long as it's well-sourced (i.e. from a general-interest newspaper, magazine) But be sure to justify it.
Merging or breaking off articles is fine without discussion if you've got enough information to back it up.
IAR would definitely not apply in cases where WP:BLP is involved. You're talking about the potential for libel in this case, and to my mind, the legal ramifications are too much to risk it.
Spam accounts can be indefblocked on sight in case of a blatant intent to use it for that purpose.
More on this to follow ... be patient, I have to rack my brain. Blueboy96 19:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
6. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 02:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A. To the letter. I am a journalist by training, and have zero tolerance for libel.Blueboy96 02:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
7. Why is edit warring a bad thing, and how would you avoid doing this?--U.S.A.cubed 03:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A. Edit warring vitiates Wikipedia's credibility, and inevitably causes a breakdown in civility. I would combat this by strictly enforcing 3RR and encouraging users to mediate their disputes. Blueboy96 03:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Blueboy96 before commenting.
Support A good, experienced editor. Would you consider changing your preferences to force an edit summary?--Anthony.bradbury 21:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak Support. Looks good except for the edit summery thing. Will change to full support if you change your preferences to force an edit summary. -Mschel 21:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
He has change his preferences to force an edit summary. -Mschel 00:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Changed to Neutral. -Mschel 19:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
So why do you change from weak support to neutral?--Anthony.bradbury 22:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Support He has helped me deal with a sock/vandal and is very knowledgeable on policy etc. I think he would make a very helpful admin --TREYWiki 03:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Good answer.--U.S.A.cubed 03:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, for now. Parcipate more in the Wikipedia namespace for awhile, and I'll be glad to support. The Transhumanist 22:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per answer to Q5. "If you've inserted information that is well-sourced and someone keeps taking it out, putting it back in wouldn't be a 3RR violation" - since when? Ever heard of content disputes? The rest of the answer to Q5 isn't quite as bad, but many are still terrible examples of IAR, and I don't put faith in this candidate's ability to be an effective administrator. I don't hesitate to link this lack of knowledge with the lack of participation in the project-space, as well. That, and this user is one of those who has the screwed-up interpretation that CN represents the "community", in preference to ANI and the "admins". *loud buzzer* Wrong. Daniel Bryant 00:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't read the answer the same way, I don't think that he meant it in the sense of a content dispute but more of as a disruptive removal results in re-insertation kind of thing. Like if someone kept removing well sourced information but the edit was not "vandalism" as we commonly know it, but certainly by letter of the law. The same applies to the second example: I would have no qualms, either with myself or another admin, supplying relevant and sourced material into a fully protected article. Of course, provided that the edit isn't relevant to the protection reasoning. So I don't feel those are bad examples of IARs the user has chosen, I've yet to see a "right" answer to that question. Just chiming in to say that's open to interpretation, I have no other opinion of the RfA at this point. Teke 05:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - the candidate has participated in 3 AfDs. Deletion policy permeates the entire project, and I would feel more comfortable if the candidate could demonstrate more experience with it. - Richard Cavell 09:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
That says a lot more about current deletion policy being deeply problematic for Wikipedia than it does anything about the candidate - David Gerard 11:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose due to answer to Q5 (edit-warring is not acceptable because you're sure your source proves you right!), and also to concerns on having filed a sock puppetry case against a very new user. While the technical merits of the case were correct (the sock was obvious), the sock had done nothing more egregious than to remove a speedy tag, and no attempt was made to speak to the new user first at all. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 10:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - answer to Q5 apears to suggest that ignoring all the rules can be used to justify edit warring. Regarding Teke's comment - if you add a reference and someone removes it, then you should discuss why it was removed. Addhoc 10:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Er, well, yeah of course. What I was saying is that I interpreted his response differently, that he wasn't meaning reverting in a dispute so it is that regard that I was commenting. I certainly know about them tawk pages :) Teke 20:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep, apologies for spelling your name wrong. Addhoc 23:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Divisive userboxes on the candidate's user page mandate opposition to this candidate. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong oppose per Q5. Edit warring is not justified by the existence of a source, and breaking off an article without discussion should not be done. -Amarkovmoo! 16:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose There are times when a rule can be ignored, but the ignoring of rules should never be used to harm Wikipedia with an edit war. Captainpanda 18:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Q5 answer. Ignoring rules that way as an administrator can cause absolute HEAPS of trouble, like the Pedophilia Userbox Wheelwar for instance. Mangojuicetalk 14:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per A5. Clear misunderstanding of our basic rules. Per WP:VAN, vandalism is only when a user intends to reduce the quality of an article, or the encyclopedia as a whole. Edits made due to disagreement about the validity or appropriateness of sources, even when coupled with a very strong POV, are not vandalism (though they may certainly be disruptive and may be blockable for disruption). This is certainly not a case for IAR, nor an excuse to violate 3RR. Crum375 17:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Response to Q5 shows candidate does not understand IAR. Naconkantari 21:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose as per answer to Q5. Content disputes are not candalism, and not every well-sourced fact belongs in an article (it may be well sourced, but trivial, for example). Admins in particualr should be extra carful with 3RR. I don't trust soemone who answers this way with the ability to edit protected pages and with the protect and unprotect buttons. DES(talk) 22:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Oppose per Q4, actually. Speedy deletion tags should not be removed under any circumstances by anyone unless the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. The appropriate thing to do is use hangon. If the user does not understand the difference between speedy and prod, I have to wonder about qualifications for adminship. Sorry. -WootyWoot?contribs 08:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Daniel Bryant. ^demon[omg plz]14:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Wikipedia policy knowledge very questionable.--Dacium 04:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per answers to Q4 and Q5, which show lack of understanding of basic policies and guidelines used frequently by admins and editors in general. I recommend working on that and coming back in a few months. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. I think ignoring all rules is an important rule. :-P However, the candidate's response regarding IAR is deeply disturbing and leads me to believe the user would use admin tools incorrectly. I do not believe the user would abuse the tools. On the contrary, I believe Blueboy96 is a very good editor. It is unfortunate that the answer to Q5 displays a deep misunderstanding of dispute resolution that is almost certain to throw fuel on fires. I am truly sorry, but I must oppose. Vassyana 07:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I'm on shaky ground when I read the answers to the questions. Needs a little more understanding in policy and application of it. Sr13(T|C) 08:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Neutral
Neutral Good user and dedicated vandal fighter, also excellent work with WP:AIV but your edit summary usage is less than a quarter, maybe if it was 80-100% but your is too low. Good luck though! Tellyaddict 21:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral: User's edit summary usage is very low and edit count in the Wikipedia namespace is also low. I'm also not sure about the answer to Q5. OrfenUser Talk | Contribs 00:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral. Keep doing a good job and come back in three months. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 01:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral I wanted to give support, but just can't at this point. Per Jossi's comments, keep up the good work and come back in three months, and I will gladly support then. Jmlk17 06:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral per various concerns raised by opposers, including signs of unfamiliarity with the 3RR policy indicated by answer to Q5. —Anastalk? 11:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral - I would support fully, but I'm uncomfortable with the candidate's broad interpretation of IAR as evidenced by q5. Although the candidate is clearly aware of policy, we don't need admins who are willing to disregard process, especially when it comes to controversial content disputes. WaltonNeed some help? 12:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral Excellent user and I want to give my moral support, but as others said your edit summary usage is less than a quarter. Try to fix those and come back later we're waiting to give our full support on you. Good luck --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪walkie-talkie 14:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Promising editor - next time, I think.--Docg 15:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral, leaning to support there are several concerns raised above but your contributions in general are good and plentiful. Learn from this and come back in a few months. And I mean it, come back! The Rambling Man 16:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral leaning support The people who have opposed you have made some good points but you are a expirienced user who has somewhat of a need for the tools. Shalom aleichem.--James, La gloria è a dio 20:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral per answer to Q5, and weak edit summary usage.-- danntmTC 23:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral (Changed from support). Per answer to question 5. -Mschel 19:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Final (18/14/7); Ended Sat, 05 May 2007 02:08:16 (UTC)
Dark Dragon Flame (talk·contribs) - I have been an editor in Wikipedia during the last five months. During my first two months I dedicated my time to learn and adapt to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. During this time period I joined three WikiProjects one Task force and founded the Devil May Cry Task Force. Today following a suggestion made by a fellow user, I humbly present my nomination for your consideration. 凶 18:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept per nom
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A: I have been a frecuent contributor to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and I have noticed that there is frecuently a certain ammount of "Backlog", I will provide my help with that when available or needed. I have also noticed that some pages tagged with speedy deletion tags are often overlooked and they sometimes manage to survive a day or so even if they are clear cases of vandalism or nonsense, I will try to keep up with this kind of pages and monitor them to avoid recreation. I can also help in cases where pages are moved without prior disscusion and users are unable to move them back because the creation of a redirect page prevents the user from doing so, these kind of cases are frecuently seen in the Dragon Ball pages where characters are given a wide variety of names.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have contributed mostly to anime, professional wrestling, baseball, basketball and video games pages. The contribution that makes proud is the foundation of the Devil May Cry task force, a group focused on raising and improving all Devil May Cry related pages, as a group we have been able to raise three pages to Good Article status and one to Featured Article status as well as having one as a FAC at the momment, the fact that all this has been made within a month makes me believe that there is hope in our goal of making the internet a better place.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A:During my first month here I was in a mild edit conflict with User:Finsfan8499, where I reverted the page three times and warned the user in an edit not to do so in a manner that may not have been polite, the incident was ultimately resolved in the article's talk page. I was a little stressed out when I was attending Devil May Cry's featured article candidacy, but I tried to satisfy all the points presented and took it easy.
4. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
A: Although such cases are rare, there are some instances where the Consensus rule needs to be broken, this includes when a number of users break WP:COI and gather to keep either a page or material that clearly violates POV or is a violation of copyright (some pages are copied exactly as found on a source, but it seems useful wich makes users vote to keep it despite it being a violation of intellectual property), other rules such as Don't infringe copyrights and Avoid bias should never under any circumtance be broken. Shortly a policy or headline should not be broken unless it conflicts with other policies or if doing so clearly improves Wikipedia as a whole. -凶 20:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
5. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 02:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A: This one is specially important, if something can be considered libelous it should be taken out ASAP. I would try to talk to the user once without warning him or give him a {{test 1}} template, if this behavior continues I would warn him twice before proceeding to block, that unless the user has a extensive vandalism history where I would give a block based on his contributions and previous blocks. -凶 15:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
6. After you've reverted vandalism by an editor, do you warn the editor? If so, why and how, if not why not? Please refer to applicable policies and guidelines, if any.
A: I often do, unless the user has vandalism history and/or is on a vandalism spree or if the account seems to be vandalism exclusive, in this cases I go directly to WP:AIV. -凶 16:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
A: I usually just add Speedy tags to pages that are clear nonsense or vandalism unless I found a page that is beyond hope I also tag those. I propose deletion when I find a page that is a good faith contribution but falls short of meeting the criteria, examples of these are pages that may promote something indirectly and those that are about a non-notable individual or organization. Articles for deletion should be carefully judged first and a AfD should be open if there is no way of expanding it, fixing POV and OR problems or other criteria violations, before nominating it should be researched if there is a place where they can be merged. With the page you present here I propose speedy deletion because it's unreferenced, there is a large amount of POV, there are critical grammar errors, there is not enought content to make a stub, and it fails to explain why the individuals are notable. -凶 16:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Optional question(s)
8. I notice you don't seem to have email enabled. Is there any particular reason for that? Email will often be the only way blocked and other inexperienced users can contact you. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Dark Dragon Flame before commenting.
I have had personal experience with difficult administrators in Wikipedia, and feel that a more stringent review process is necessary to ensure that only patient, impartial people in
the community are elevated to administrator status. I consider editing impulsively, or as the result of a vendetta, to be the strongest warnings against adminship. That said, I found a quite angry comment left as a result of a factual error in this candidates' beloved anime character biographies:
[edit] DON'T DO IT
Listen, Goku IS NOT 6'1 HE IS 5'7. If you have a source that states otherwise provide it or at least comment it on the DISSCUSION PAGE, it will be reverted no matter how many times you put it, so don't waste your time-Dark Dragon Flame 04:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that an administrator should behave in such a way, and recommend against promoting this user.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.207.127.254 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 27 April 2007.
Please create an account to take part in this Rfa..Thanks..--Cometstyles 20:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
No, that won't be necessary. Please read the part at the top of the page which states "Any Wikipedians, including users who do not have an account and/or are not logged in ("anons"), are invited to participate in the comments section and ask questions." (In fact, I think I was the one who typed that.) Picaroon(Talk) 20:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok..that clears everything..Thanks..--Cometstyles 20:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I already commented about this, it should also be noted that I asked a few other users of the Dragon Ball WikiProject before reverting his edits wich were clearly vandalism by a user with vandalism warnings, this edit was a error by me and it happened within my first three weeks here. -Dark Dragon Flame 20:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you please provide a diff of where you have done this? Naconkantari 23:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment about that? in this same page, what I meant was that I'm not hiding it, I even added a link to the user's page. -凶 14:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
This is probably quite relevant when attempting to assess the intentions of this anonymous user. --Deskana(fry that thing!) 01:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support
Support - Your contributions indicate that you can be trusted and you have just over 4000 Edits and your contribution to Wikiproject is good and even though you aren't very experienced (5 months), I think you would be able to use the tool wisely..--Cometstyles 19:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I don't see anything that leads me to believe this user will abuse the admin tools. No, not even his spelling errors. Frise 02:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support- friendly experienced editor. Eaomatrix 11:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support Great user and good editor very friendly. Deserves adminship and will most definitally use it for good. DBZROCKS 13:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak Support - Good record, although I'd like to see more experience in projectspace. Nonetheless, adminship is no big deal. WaltonNeed some help? 16:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support My interactions with the user through the Devil May Cry taskforce leave me trusting him. While admittedly a little short on experience, I've got no doubts that he would use the tools correctly. Adminship is not a big deal, after all. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 19:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support You seem like a good, reliable person so why not support you? Shalom.--James, La gloria è a dio 20:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I suggest all those with editcountitis/timecountitis get yourselves cured quickly. 241 is not mere. I was promoted with similar experience to this user. I see most opposers have given no thought past numbers, or any rationale why it matters at all. Majorly(hot!) 15:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support, I must say I am quite puzzled at some of the comments below, and glad to see Durin is taking a role in defending against those puzzling comments. A mere 241 Wiki-space edits? that's double of what I had over a year ago when I was elected an admin, the standards are becoming way too high and this is really supposed to be no big deal. Keep up the good work DDF, even if for some strange reason consensus cannot be reached here. Croat CanuckGo Leafs Go 17:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I strongly endorse this comment. Majorly(hot!) 18:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
As do I. Incidentally only one editor has replied to Durin. How are supposed to build consensus if editors simply fly by and don't respond to comments? How does the bureacrat know if any of these editors would change their mind upon considering Durin's comments? This should be taken into account. Wikipedia:Consensus is policy; we don't do polls Unless your Jimbo and its WP:ATT which I disapproved of (but took part nonetheless). --Iamunknown 19:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Support. The candidate measures up. Metrics are meaningless. Either the candidate "gets it" or they don't. Metrics aren't going to tell anyone that. Only bothering to review the editor's contributions will reveal that. Vassyana 08:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Support. User has demonstrated his trustworthiness. I'm really baffled by people who can say things like "I think your'e a great editor and your edit history shows experience and prudence - you just need X more edits/months/whatevers". I'd trust this user with the mop, his answers demonstrate he'd use it wisely. I say give it to him. Arkyan • (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Support per Arkyan and Durin. JoshuaZ 04:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Support. I trust this user to not screw up with the tools. —CComMack (t–c) 10:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Support Intelligent answers and real understanding... I think you'd make a great admin Think outside the box 12:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Support, this was a hard choice for me, mostly because of the time you've been on Wikipedia. I don't think you'll abuse the tools, and I'm pretty sure that you'd put them to good use. If this RfA fails, don't give up hope! Be sure to try again in a few months. *Cremepuff222* 00:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose, for now - Dark Dragon Flame, I'm sure you will make a good admin relatively soon (and I really like your answer to question #4 above), but the anon reservation above, along with your low participation in the Wikipedia namespace (a mere 241 edits), makes me want to see more administrative activity from you before I support. My advice is for you to become more involved in the Wikipedia community itself, such as at its desks and request pages, helping on backlogs, participating in policy discussions, etc. I'm sure you will do fine on these, and I look forward to supporting you for adminship in the future, say 3 to 6 months and about a thousand Wikipedia namespace edits from now. The Transhumanist 21:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure a robust 242 edits is the magic number then? Take a look at his contributions, not his edit counts. For instance, reports to WP:AIV: [12][[13][14][15][16]. All of these were reported properly, and all were blocked save one who should have been blocked but wasn't only because the vandal had temporarily stopped. I.e., he gets it. But, I suppose 3.7876352 more edits to WP:AIV will prove he is trusworthy. This user's been around for four months and has way more than enough edits for anyone to evaluate with an eye towards trustworthiness. 3, 6, or 28,923,812 more months isn't going to make a difference. --Durin 15:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I echo The Transhumanist's comments and want to point out that hopefully soon, you will run again with more experience and succeed then. Captainpanda 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I just don't think this user is quite ready to become an admin quite yet. I have reservations against an edit war, and even though explained, just rubs me the wrong way. Jmlk17 21:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak oppose I am concerned about this editor's upload history; there are a large number of deleted images most of which appear to have been uploaded as "fair use" and subsequently deleted, and that concerns me. Also, the spelling errors in the candidate's comments suggest a careless attitude that is not becoming in an administrator. And I'm not exactly thrilled about the candidate's user page. There is no glaring problem, just a lot of little annoyances that leave me uncomfortable with any option other than opposition. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, lacks of experience, and not enough participation in the administrative side of things. Terence 04:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - a little too early. Metamagician3000 05:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
What, thousands upon thousands of edits and four months of dedication to the project aren't enough? --Durin 15:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, at the time of your RfA you had about the same time experience (~4 months) and fewer edits (3300) than this nominee. I'm curious. Why didn't you oppose yourself on your RfA? What it is about him that makes him less trustworthy, given his experience, than you were at that time, given your experience? Any diffs to show? --Durin 15:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Experienced but not experienced in other words? This doesn't make sense. --Durin 15:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the contradiction, let me rephrase that oppose comment. He is a good editor and all, but it is a little too early for adminship. Also I change my vote to neutral.--PrestonH(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!) 14:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - I have to oppose because there is no clear consensus emerging. These sorts of diffs - [17], [18] - make me think that the candidate's not there yet. - Richard Cavell 15:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by your statement which seems to be saying that you are opposing because others are. Pascal.Tesson 20:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm currently on a wikibreak but I feel the need to jump in because this RfA is neither clearly in support of the candidate nor clearly against the candidate. - Richard Cavell 06:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak Oppose - You're a good editor, but it's a bit too early in my opinion.--$UIT 15:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
So you can evaluate that he's a good editor, but not whether he's trustworthy? After four months and thousands upon thousands of edits, what more can he do to prove it? You obviously can evaluate him. --Durin 15:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose candidates image and signature (it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents) policy knowledge seems to be in an inadequate level at this time. feydey 21:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Has not demonstrated sufficient dedication to the project for me to trust this user with the tools. Daniel Bryant 00:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
What might be sufficient demonstration of dedication? How are you evaluating this? --Durin 15:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose You say in your self-nom that you decided to apply today after another user suggested it. To me, and I may be wrong, it seems almost like an after thought. I would feel more comfortable knowing you had given more consideration to the task before applying. Maybe sit back and keeping working for a bit longer and then come back. I'm sure you'll breeze through then. JodyB 02:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Adminship is no big deal. It's not a special class of users that someone must train for and deeply consider before accepting the possibility of the extra buttons it grants. --Durin 15:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Inadequate understanding of WP:BLP. --Docga pox on the boxes 18:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. The bulk of this editor's project space contributions have been to WikiProject pages, which indicates a good familiarity with community but not with the policies here. The candidate wants to help with AIV, but only has 26 edits to that page. In four random reports that I looked more closely at, one was reported after only two warnings. I'm not sure he is fully aware of blocking policy, and I'm not comfortable sending him out to start blocking vandals right now. He also wants to help out with speedy deletions, but I see very little participation in XfD. Again, I don't feel comfortable sending him out there to start deleting articles with so little experience in such matters. --Mus Musculus (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
XfD is not the same as speedy deletion. --Durin 19:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of that. I think most users learn the ins and outs of deletion policy through participation in XfD. Make sense? --Mus Musculus (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes/no. You can't gauge how well someone understands speedy tagging since if they are *really* good at it, it looks like they've never done it. Also, XfD and speedy are quite different aspects of deletion policy. --Durin 19:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You are correct, I can't gauge how well someone understands speedy tagging unless they have a whole mess of declines. So, barring that possibility, I look for other signs that someone has delved into the world of deletion policy. I submit that AfD is usually the first frontier, since most editors I know, myself included, first ran into deletion policy when an article we were watching got tagged. If it's okay with you, that will be my method of judging the candidate's suitability to start deleting articles. I'm open to be convinced otherwise, but just FYI your charging around here like a rhetorical rhino goring everyone in sight doesn't do much for changing people's minds. --Mus Musculus (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
That was completely uncalled for. RfA is about consensus generation, not so that every person with a position can post obstacles to someone becoming an admin. If you don't like my comments fine; that's part of consensus development, but there's no call to be attacking me personally like that. --Durin 20:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Haha rhetorical rhino, I must admit Musculus that was pretty funny. But I agree with Durin on this one, he has every right to stick up for a user he feels would be a great administrator. Croat CanuckGo Leafs Go 06:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
oppose. Too early to judge. Trends of behavior in conflicts unclear. Mukadderat 15:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Neutral
Neutral: I think you are very close. A couple months and you will surely have a successful RfA. While you have a lot of contributions I think you need more time here. However I like the answers to your questions. Try in a couple months after trying to fix what's suggested above. OrfenUser Talk> | Contribs 05:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral you're definitely doing great, but I personally prefer you get a little more experience (time-wise) on Wikipedia.-- danntmTC 17:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral. I agree with Orphen that you are close, but I think you need to work on interactions more. Participating in an edit war is not a good thing. ···日本穣? · TalktoNihonjoe 18:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral I don't see quite enough experience with admin-like activity but candidate appears to be trustworthy. Like Transhumanist, I would recommend getting a little bit more involved in project space but the suggested 3-6 months of extra activity with 1000 Wiki-space edits seems like a definite overkill. Pascal.Tesson 20:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral You are doing well but as Pascal.Tesson said come back here withing 6 months, we'll support you. Good luck. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪walkie-talkie 14:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral I do think you're well on your way to being ready for adminship, but I'm afraid you aren't quite there yet. I was looking for a more detailed answer to my questions, particularly the ability to quote the relevant policies: WP:BLOCK (which says you should be diligent in warning users who vandalize) and WP:CSD:A7. In particular the HillstoneLows example has enough of an assertion of notability (see WP:MUSIC's notability criteria relating to national tours) that it should be Prod'ed not speedy deleted (IMHO of course, its a deliberately borderline case). Its also worth noting that grammatical errors and fixable WP:POV are never reasons to delete an article. I really feel you're on the verge of having the policy knowledge that successful admins have, but you're not quite there yet. Another couple of months and some more improvement and I expect you'll sail through. Good luck, Gwernol 17:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral I perfer more time on Wikipedia (6+ month) before applying for adminship.--PrestonH(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!) 14:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Errabee (talk·contribs) - When I first registered in August 2005, I edited here only for creating interwikilinks and small things like fixing typos etc. The Dutch Wiki was my main venue then. This changed when I became so disgusted with the atmosphere there, that I voluntarily went into exile :) I started editing seriously here in May 2006.
As I was an admin on the Dutch Wiki (promoted with a tally of 50/1/0 on 17 October 2005 and resigned voluntarily on 24 January 2006) and know what tasks an admin can do, I have no real ambition to become an admin here. However, I find that I could use the tools, because I occasionally need things done that only admins can do. Adminship is no big deal to me, and I won't be upset in the slightest if this RfA does not succeed.
My main interests here are on Russian topics, especially from the 19th century literature and the occasional 20th century writers and their works. I am an active member of WikiProject Russia and WikiProject Biography. I keep an eye on the logs created by WP 1.0 bot for these projects in order to spot editing mistakes or vandalism that have moved articles out of scope for those projects, and try to correct the situation. Errabee 01:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, two most active members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine (myself included) support the candidate below without reservation. While granted that two members are not authorized to speak for the whole Wikiproject, the fact that those are two most active project members should be noted. --Irpen 19:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A: As I wrote in the introduction, I sometimes need to have things done that only admins can do. These include having articles or categories speedily deleted per WP:CSD (see [19]) for an example where a category was created when {{WikiProject Russia}} had been changed. This category could not be parsed by WP 1.0 bot, causing all articles to be listed as Unknown importance). Other examples include merging histories where two articles have been created on the same subject, (semi-)protecting pages on my watchlist or in my recent edits list that are subject to heavy vandalism, and blocking vandals (for short periods only) that are actively vandalising pages on my watch list.
To tell the truth, I'm not going to be very helpful in reducing backlog or in any XfD (as I said: I have no real ambition to become an admin), but if given the tools, I can clean up any mess I encounter myself, which means I won't be adding extra reports or requests. If admins already have a big workload now, at least I won't add anymore burden upon them.
Of course, if someone needs my help to do an admin task, they can always ask me on my talk page, and I'll be happy to take a look.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: With the substantial help of User:Vidor and User:Dbachmann, I was able to turn Erast Fandorin into a Good Article, with this as starting point. Lately, I've not been very active in the mainspace, as I've spent most of my time helping out in the Spring 2007 Biography assessment drive and after that had finished, I've set up the Biography A-class review department. That was very much needed as people started rating stubs as A-class articles.
I've also contributed significantly to Hoofddorp (old situation), trying desperately to include only those things I could find references for (which unfortunately hasn't been too much).
My editing pattern will not change if I'm given the sysop bit. I'll just be able to do things myself, that would otherwise have required me to tag these articles and wait for an admin to come by.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I'm still very much disappointed by the way editors from different countries in Eastern Europe behave towards one other, sometimes it's so bad an arbitration case is filed. I believe that if they had cooperated, this Wikipedia could have had a significantly larger number of Good Articles and Featured Articles. As an outsider who cares about these countries, that pains me a lot.
I also feel that the Commons project is a big failure, and that instead of vehemently sticking to free pictures, they should instead focus on how the projects can use pictures that are not free, but could be used as fair use. Take Pablo Picasso as an example: his works only become public domain in 2043; and how is an encyclopedia supposed to explain with just words what development Picasso went through as an artist? That is utterly impossible. The deletion of many such pictures (not just Picasso, but also Henry Matisse, Salvador Dalí, Natalya Goncharova and many others) on Commons has caused me quite some stress, as my common sense says they have taken the wrong approach. And the thing is, these pictures can be found all over the internet, so there can't be any real damage for the actual copyright holder.
Update: This opinion is being discussed at the talk page of this RfA.
Update 2: This new licensing policy (of which I was not aware when I submitted my Rfa), seems to be a step in the right direction, especially point 6. If Commons were to play a role in the second bullet by providing a platform for EDP pictures only to be used on projects with an EDP in place, that would revive my interest and belief in the Commons project.
I help people if I get the impression they made an honest mistake. I have far less patience with people who have been careless by dismissing solid arguments without reading them properly or who rate their own articles far higher than the standards allow for.
4. Someone is bound to ask sooner or later: Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
A. I'll answer that in advance, although I think people asking this question should either try to get this included in the standard questions, or only ask them to candidates which they fear might not understand this rule. WP:IAR is a very useful rule that allows admins a bit of leeway, where there sometimes is none due to instruction creep. More specifically, WP:SNOW is a very powerful tool. I'll trust my common sense over any rule, but if they differ too much, I would instead defer the matter to another admin.
5. Totally optional question from User:Grandmasterka: Why did you become disgusted with the atmosphere on the Dutch Wikipedia? What did you take from your experiences there, and what advice would you have for us, if any?
A. At that time, the Dutch Wikipedia didn't have an ArbCom, but obviously suffered from editors exhibiting poor conduct. Admins were applying preventive as well as punitive blocks. Some not totally agreed upon policy said that blocks should be doubled for each offense. Of course, other editors disapproved of this practice, and extensive wikilawyering was not uncommon, claiming punitive blocks should never be made. There was simply no way an admin could do the right thing. Finally, some proposals were made, and the proposals that gained the most support were given to the editors to decide upon. One proposal said that blocks should be voted on for a week and then the user should be blocked if that were the outcome, the other said that blocks should be applied immediately, but if editors disagreed with a block they could sign a petition requesting to unblock the user. If enough people signed the petition, the user would be unblocked. I supported the second proposal, as I thought the first would lead to instruction creep, and the vote would be held in an extremely hostile environment for both the people who contributed as the editor whose conduct was questioned. The second proposal was much easier to implement and created a positive environment as only support statements (to lift the block) would matter. Tension rose to an incredibly high level back then, with an extensive campaign being performed against the second proposal (which I supported). This campaign reached its high when supporters of the second proposal were accused of having nazi thoughts, and the contributor who said that presented himself as a paragon of civility, claiming others (including me) were uncivil. When admins didn't respond to this (I had already resigned as admin), I tried to fight this campaign without much support from admins. Any attempt to expose the user who said that was reverted, until I finally gave up editing there.
I believe this situation cannot occur here. Several dispute resolution strategies are in place, ArbCom handles punitive blocks and not administrators. So while this may not be an ideal environment, I doubt personal attacks as described above could happen here without being acted upon. I believe the Dutch Wikipedia finally established an ArbCom late last year, so I hope that the situation there will improve. Errabee 09:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
6. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 02:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A. I believe blocking should only be used as a last resort. Discussing the matter (warning only in clearcut cases) with the editor that inserts this material definitely has my preference. Further action depends on how obvious the case is. In cases where I am not sure, I would first seek counsel with another admin. Second opinions never hurt. Errabee 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
7. How important is assuming good faith in other users, and how would you make sure to do this?--U.S.A.cubed 03:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A. Assuming good faith is of the utmost importance. I'd rather err on the side of assuming good faith, than to accuse other people of bad-faith edits. Nevertheless, depending on my mood, sometimes this can be difficult. We are all human after all. There is no way one can be absolutely sure to always assume good faith in others. But my strategy in this matter has always been that when I am tempted to post an awkward message to read it again, and try to imagine how I would feel if I received the message I just wrote. That has changed my mind about some messages on a couple of times already. Errabee 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll come back and comment later... I just thought I should point out that there is one typo in your nomination - the word "typos". X-D Grandmasterka 09:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Corrected, thank you :) Errabee 09:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Errabee before commenting.
So, uh, what is this about? Commons:Deletion requests/Photos by Errabee. It looks like, in October of last year, he tried to withdraw GFDL licensing on all of the images he uploaded to Commons and have them deleted. His excuse for this was then "These photos were taken by a relative of mine" — so basically he lied in the first place when he said that he had the rights to release them under the GFDL? Errabee, can you explain what this is about? I'm really concerned about your understanding of free content. --Cyde Weys 19:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This is an episode I'm certainly not proud of. First of all, I've taken all the photographs myself. So when the big deletion was going on of all paintings by artists who died less than 70 years ago, I decided to test how strict Commons would enforce copyright laws by nominating all my pictures, expecting that the majority would not be deleted (which turned out to be a slight misjudgement as all have been kept). And to press the issue further after my request was speedy denied at first, I pretended they had not been taken by me. A clear violation of WP:POINT indeed. Let he who is without faults throw the first stone.
But this process turned up something interesting as well: several of the images I've taken are probably not free of copyright under Russian copyright law. Especially pictures of statues and buildings, even if you've taken them yourself and they are in the open for everybody to see, can only be used for non-commercial purposes. This means this, this, this and this image are probably not completely free, as more or less confirmed by User:Lupo on Commons. However, Commons has decided to wave the issues concerning these pictures for now (see Commons:Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_5#Freedom_of_panorama_and_international_issues), which I can't quite reconcile with Commons' and the Foundation's goals, but so be it. Errabee 23:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Support
Support Everything seems alright.--Húsönd 03:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Sure, why not? Changing to oppose Frise 04:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Seems to be a solid contributor with a good understanding of policy. I have no doubts about Errabee's trustworthiness, and I see nothing indicating he would abuse the tools. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Experienced, trustworthy editor without any problems that I'm aware of. YechielMan 04:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support for opposing copyright paranoia. Αργυριου(talk) 04:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support good questions, has the experience, no concerns. Sure. —Anastalk? 09:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Clearly has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, I don't see any reason to oppose. Matthew 14:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Support - I don't see any reason not to support..Good Luck..--Cometstyles 11:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Candidate has displayed administrative competency on another project. No reason not to promote. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Struck, as ample reason not to promote has been demonstrated by others. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Support it´s okay for me (after a quick check) __ ABF __ 15:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support, probably not insane - David Gerard 17:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - Yep - looks fine. Tons of great encyclopedic work. It's interesting to see an interwiki candidate here, too :) Good luck~ - Alison☺ 17:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - (This started out as a Neutral, but I decided to change to support.) Good candidate, and I have no problem with his attitude. The only thing I'm uncomfortable with is his liberal attitude to IAR (as highlighted by NeoFreak below) but that isn't a good enough reason to oppose. WaltonNeed some help? 18:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
If it makes you feel better, my talk page will always be open for discussion if you feel I applied IAR or SNOW too liberally. I'm certain we can find a common ground on these points. Errabee 18:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Full support, I know him for his Russia-related contributions and I trust him. MaxSem 19:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support a well qualified candidate.-- danntmTC 20:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - "Moderation in all things, including moderation." I don't know whose quote that is, but it seems to fit. Errabee goes by feel, and his feel seems to be on-the-mark. Having a feel for the project is good, but refining one's understanding of guidelines, policy, and Wikipedia's underlying principles over time is also important. I believe Errabee will refine his Wiki-acumen as time goes on. Having the admin tools will certainly give him a definite reason to do so! Besides's his Zen sense, he's intelligent, literate, and cares for the project, and that's what's most important. 'The Transhumanist 20:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. "Seeking the tools to make your own life easier" is fine if "making your own life easier" is defined as doing things like reverting vandalism. --Deskana(fry that thing!) 02:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support: As long as you use the tools not just to help yourself I am fine with it. You have the experience but will you said you needed to make your life easier and hopefully by making your life easier will you help the project. OrfenUser Talk | Contribs 04:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - A well established contributer with good experience, I think he would make a good admin. Camaron1 | Chris 11:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - Go ahead! (Ga Maar Door!, I think?) BookswormTalk to me! 11:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I already know Errabee to a highly effective and useful member of WikiProject Biography; that he was formerly an admin on another project and therefore knows how to use the tools is a pleasant surprise to me. Easy support. --kingboyk 13:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support; good question answers, and per experience on nl: -- maybe resigning as admin wasn't necessary, but the situation was very bad there from what was said. Mangojuicetalk 14:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support; extremly hardworking wikiproject member, a gold standard of neutrality and civility, very thoughtful and helpful. Alex Bakharev 14:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 14:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support The use of the bit to make one's own editing easier also, brick by brick, lessens the burden on others. It's teamwork, and the user knows how to use the tools from another Wikimedia project and that with experienced reading/editing the use of the bit is both helpful and beneficial to the project. Teke 05:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak Support: Not enough mainspace edits,[20] but I'm sure that he will take care that later. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪walkie-talkie 13:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Good answers to questions, adequate experience including other wikis. --Shirahadasha 20:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I see no reason to oppose him. Shalom.--James, La gloria è a dio 20:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Experienced both here and on nlwiki, very well-intentioned, good answers to questions 3 and 5, and the current opposition is unconvincing and possibly a little confused. Grandmasterka 01:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support He says two things particularly that I appreciate. One is the importance of WP:AGF and the need to expend the benefit of the doubt in dealing with people. That goes along way toward diffusing difficult situations. Secondly, his comment that he would seek the assistance of other admins before strking out on his own in WP:IAR situations. No threat here and potential for good work. JodyB 02:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Strong experience on other 'pedias, in addition to this one, makes this candidate pretty much trustworthy. I'm not terribly impressed by the strength of the opposes. Michaelas10 17:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Experienced and calm - sounds good to me. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Ik zie niet in wat er zo problematisch is aan vrijwillig je adminschap opgeven; als zodanig voorzie ik geen problemen met deze gebruiker. >Radiant< 09:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Support. This candidate seems responsible, dependable and perfectly suited to adminship. Plenty of experience and an even-temper. TheQuandry 17:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Support. Although no one is perfect, we need non-Eastern European administrators on En-WP who are familiar with the subject of Eastern Europe, and have a good command of the English language. Errabee fit the bill. Dr. Dan 17:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Support. Great editor. —dima/talk/ 18:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Unreserved support to the candidate for level-headedness, neutrality, commitment and utmost decency. The hell would freeze before the Errabee would abuse the tools. --Irpen 19:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Support. Per Dr. Dan if that helps. I also have an account with Dutch wiki, and I know he did not really jump ship there. (the best Dutch translation for "davay" is "vooruit met de geit" by the way) Actually, I feel Errabee's attitude towards Commons is really pessimistic rather than negative - there is no way he will abuse the tools to keep copyright infringements in the project. --Pan Gerwazy 20:30, 2 May 2007(UTC)
Support: I have seen Errabee few time when he has been commenting on improving pages, particularly biographies. He seems dedicated to improving standards - he also seems to like info boxes which is daft but apart from that he seems responsible enough, so he may as well be an admin. Giano 21:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support: Very good input to Russia-related topics, a priceless adition to the admin community. --Kuban Cossack 23:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Support. Qualified editor and sufficiently level-headed to be admin. `'mikka 00:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Support has he actually done anything against policy? People have a right to an opinion so long as they follow the rules. --W.marsh 02:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Successfully resisted the urge to oppose over image attitude. Ultimately, I am not getting a notion that user would use his sysop tools to BLOCK, DELETE, or PROTECT the Commons or Pablo Picasso. As such, even though I disagree with his stance yada yada, I don't think the user should fail RfA as a result. Since otherwise he is qualified-to-splendid, I am happy to support. -- Ynot? 02:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Support. I have a great deal of respect for Errabee's work on Wikipedia. Khoikhoi 03:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Support - I know how important it is to have administrators who focus on different projects too, so I support the user. --MoRsE 07:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Support - dedicated editor deserves this. M.K. 08:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Seeing the IRC-generated opposition by the likes of Kelly Martin, Cyde and Piotrus is the primary incentive to support this brilliant candidate. I know that most IRC regulars hold the view that only IRC-approved folk who contributes nothing to the article space deserves the mop. Well, I'm not one of those guys who hang out on IRC all day long, therefore I feel obliged to support this hard-working and well-intentioned nominee. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Support, we need more admins that actually write something, rather than IRC fairies... <_< -- Grafikm(AutoGRAF) 13:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Support, especially in the copyright issue. IMHO, it is the problem of these who want to become rich by selling wikipedia content to weed out properly tagged non-commercial licenses. It is a 14 minute job to write a perl or java code that does so. For the rest who are truly for free information the "fair use" is not a problem. Mukadderat 15:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Support Great Editor. Boricuaeddie 22:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This account is seven days old. --Tony Sidaway 00:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
ER, not really: [21]:661 edits, around since March 10th. He's also voted on other RfAs already. --Pan Gerwazy 10:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right. I don't know how I made that error. My apologies to Boricuaeddie and to all the community for getting it wrong. --Tony Sidaway 10:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Support. I'm willing to give this editor the benefit of the doubt. Bucketsofg 23:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Support The question should be whether Errabee will be trustworthy with the tools, not whether he has an opinion about images that might differ slightly from the party line. If we want admins with pre-programmed opinions, we should have approved some of those bots that came through. Yomanganitalk 01:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I would have a view closer to yours were it not for the fact that he's attacking our free image repository for being a free image repository.. and for the fact that he lied about the copyright status of his uploads. I'm boggled by the amount of support here, so I suppose I'm missing something.--Gmaxwell 05:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
From my reading of his comments he's suggesting that there is a failing in Commons that it doesn't allow fair use images rather than attacking it for allowing free images, and, yes, he got frustrated and pushed a point on an associated project six months ago, but he freely admits it's "an episode [he's] certainly not proud of" and I don't see any evidence it's indicative of a pattern of deceit. If there's any reason to suspect he's going to use the admin rights to somehow subvert the image policy, then the RfA should fail, but that idea seems somewhat far-fetched: we're suggesting giving him a few extra buttons, not supporting a coup against the board. Yomanganitalk 10:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Support. Based on lookign through everything I persaonally trust this user with adminship.--Wizardman 01:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Support. Back to support, probably should just vote neutral ;-) Changed to oppose upon closer examination. Would probably support next time, when the "copyright/commons" and "Polish nationalism" statements are properly explained. Good editor nevertheless. En-wiki badly needs more reasonable Russophilic admins. I hope Errabee will help to bring some more peace and common sense to the Eastern European corner of English wikipedia. This said, I also hope that as an admin, he will try to set an example, and will avoid making statements like the one about "Polish nationalist movement on wikipedia" [22] in the future. I'm still concerned about the use of non-free licensed content, and the commons comments, though. --Lysytalk 06:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Support per understanding of policy and princicples. Peregrine Fisher 07:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Support. No major objections. —AldeBaer 11:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Change to abstention.
Support Per edit history and answers to questions above. --Minderbinder 14:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose Seems that the user is seeking tools only to make his own life easier instead of a desire to help the community. I'm also uncomfortable with his liberal usage of IAR and the fact that he has already jumped ship from one adminship instead of sticking out the issues and working to make the Dutch wikipedia better. We all get frustrated with wiki-problems but simply walking away from them doesn't show me commitment to the project. NeoFreak 15:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Because you know much more about nl: than he does? How dare someone invoke their right to leave? Your objection is less than clear upon thought. Furthermore, he wants the tools to write an encyclopedia, which is the only reason to be on Wikipedia. It's not a social networking site or a MMORPG - David Gerard 17:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
No, because he hasn't displayed a community oriented thought process in his RFA at all. Of course writing an encyclopedia is the goal of wikipedia but it is the community that facilitates that. He left one wikipedia, as an Administrator, because he didn't want to deal with abusive and nasty editors. Last I checked it was on the shoulders of good admins to defend the community from that type of behaivor. How's he going to deal with problems here? From what I see he'll either ignore them and go on with his own program or he'll just leave again. His only reasoning for the tools is to facilitate his own projects. His editing work seems good but Admins are more than just editors with "bonus" features. NeoFreak 18:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I probably need to clarify somewhat further. I resigned my adminship for two reasons. The first one was that another admin was (involuntarily) desysopped because of a lapse of judgement, but the comments went a long way towards condemning his view on policy. As he and I shared much of the same ideas about policy, I started thinking that perhaps my support was dwindling as well. Furthermore, this admin was a very valuable vandal-fighting person and I wanted to show him my support. The second reason was that being an admin brought along that I felt I could not speak out as I wanted to. Both reasons combined led to my resignation as an admin on 17 January 2006. I continued to edit and fight the campaign for more than a month, until I finally left the Dutch Wiki on 25 February 2006. Errabee 18:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
And another point: as I was actively involved in the battle (and yes it was a battle) of the proposals, I could not justify using my sysop bit to advance my position. So I didn't resign because I didn't want to deal with abusive and nasty editors, I resigned because I felt a conflict of interest. Errabee 18:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused by the assertion that "the user is seeking tools only to make his own life easier". That would be so that he can get things done on wiki more quickly and more efficiently, thereby making more effective use of his time and, erm, helping the wiki, then? If he really wanted to "make his life easier" he could go get another hobby. I have no problem at all with adminship candidates who don't promise to zap every backlog in sight; I mean, why should they? We're all volunteers, and if there's a need for the tools and the applicant isn't batshit insane, why not give them? --kingboyk 13:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose because of statements concerning copyright law. Copyright law exists and this is going to be a major problem if these issues are not properly addressed. Admins. who do not properly understand the ramifications of copyright law are going to create more problems than they solve. Yes, it is unfortunate that we can't include paintings by Picasso, but that's reality. Gretab 11:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I am uncomfortable with this user's viewpoint on copyright — while Picasso's paintings can obviously be used under fair use, Commons is not a failure and this is the free encyclopedia. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 10:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I was just about to voice the same concerns as MessedRocker, and it seems he beat me to it, hehe. In all seriousness though, his views towards images as evidenced in Q3 is perhaps one of the biggest red flags I've ever seen. It is not in Wikipedia's (or the Wikimedia Foundation's) best interests to give Errabee any extra buttons in which he can implement his shockingly misguided view towards image licensing and the legal issues that come with it. I strongly suggest you all to rethink your estimation of this candidate and also for the closing bureaucrat to take note of this. I apologise for the bluntness, but that answer is completely irreconcilable with the Wikimedia Foundations aims and goals gaillimhConas tá tú? 10:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Commons has over a million images. It is a vibrant project. I don't see it as a failure at all. But that's a matter of opinion which the candidate is entitled to, I suppose, and I admit my bias since I'm an admin there, and that's not reason enough to oppose by itself. However, the candidate's stated views on copyright concern me. The WMF has a very clearcut policy on copyright and the use of copyrighted images, and the fact that they are all over the internet does not mean that we can use them. I fear that this candidate will not be willing to implement policy in this matter (or in other words, the candidate does not "get it") so it is with regret that I oppose, at least until I am convinced otherwise. See also the comments below by Durin, Tony and Nick, which I strongly agree with. ++Lar: t/c 10:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Reluctant oppose per Lar above and Durin below. If the candidate could rethink their attitude towards core policies of the Foundation before they apply again, that would be very helpful. —Phil | Talk 11:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Must oppose based on your understanding of Wikipedia's and the Foundation's mission. Collecting "free content" is the core mission. (I read your comment on this RFA talk page before opposing.) FloNight 12:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Concur in opposing, in part because of attitude towards copyright. "(T)hese pictures can be found all over the internet, there can't be any real damage for the actual copyright holder" strikes me as an incredibly naive attitude. DS 13:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Concur in opposition over copyright issues raised by others above. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think he understands the point of making Wikipedia a freely redistributable free encyclopedia. His statement about Commons is astounding, not only for the content of the statement itself, but that he brought it up on his own volition in an RFA on en-wiki, where it is only tangentially related, at best. --Cyde Weys 14:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I believe in being honest and not hiding things, and even though it is only tangentially related, it shows the way I look at things. I think that's better than when I hadn't said it and someone later found out and made a fuss about it. Errabee 14:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Well then, thanks for being honest. That is a good virtue. It has helped us out in determining whether you're a good adminship candidate or not. --Cyde Weys 16:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - I am also troubled by the view on fair use which seems to run counter to Wikipedia's mission. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. I am afraid my previous encounters with that user failed to convince me that we can trust his/her judgement when it would come to wielding powers like blocking or deletion.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to get the concept of free, and too weak on BLP.--Docg 10:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. User attitudes and statements towards Commonz and views on copyright worries me a lot. Oppose per users above. - Darwinek 16:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong oppose"I also feel that the Commons project is a big failure, and that instead of vehemently sticking to free pictures, they should instead focus on how the projects can use pictures that are not free, but could be used as fair use." ... 1.5 million free pictures that can be used for any purpose is a failure? Obviously this guy doesn't completely share our mission. Projects have local upload for a reason. Non-free images need to be as close to their use as possible because while it's acceptable to use some Picasso on the article about him it would be utterly unacceptable to use his work on Paintbrush. --Gmaxwell 17:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Gmaxwell, Lar, Gretab, Piotrus, etc. above. One of the main strengths of Wikipedia is the focus on free content, allowing use by anyone for any reason and anywhere; Errabee's stance on copyright and free content seems to counteract this goal. When copyright and fair use issues are so important when it comes to adminship regarding keeping or deleting unfree content, I am not sure someone with views that go against the main goal of the entire project will always make the right decisions. — Editor at Large(speak) 18:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - the Wikimedia Foundation is fundamentally about promoting free content. Fair use is not good enough anymore. Lcarsdata 18:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. IMHO Errabee is too trigger-happy. That's not a problem in case of a normal user, but in case of an admin it might become a huge one. //Halibutt 19:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Gretab, etc. Describing Commons as a failure because it doesn't republish copyright-infringing material has to be either bad confusion about copyright law or a demonstration of an agenda to use Wikimedia servers to fight the law by breaking it. We don't want either of these things in an admin. Jkelly 20:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Gmaxwell, Lar, EaL and others. Wikipedia being free is fundamental. Bryan 20:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I should probably block this guy then, huh? He's obviously out to ruin Wikipedia. --W.marsh 21:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Gmaxwell and Lar. Candidate's ideas are fundementally incompatible with creating a "free encyclopedia". There is a real need to cut down on the amount of frivolous fair use images on Wikipedia. I am not reassured by the candidate's responses here or on the talkpage. WjBscribe 21:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. If someone does not agree with the purpose of Commons to host free images only, that's not enough for me to oppose, though it's certainly something that would cause me to withhold support. But his lying on Commons:Deletion requests/Photos by Errabee, trying to pretend that he did not take the photos when he was upset about Commons' policies (which he admits in the Discussion section) makes me oppose. Arguing, being upset, sure, but not lying about it. ("Let he who is without fault cast the first stone," he says, but I've never subscribed to that philosophy, considering that it would completely stifle criticism everywhere: hardly a healthy result. Judge, and expect to be judged, without stooping to throwing rocks at each other.) Kat Walsh(spill your mind?) 00:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per copyright concerns. Also, in my experience Errabee has been a divisive force in some sensitive matters, including the whole "nationalism" issue. Appleseed (Talk) 02:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Not comfortable with your strong opinions on copyrighted images, per everyone above. Daniel Bryant 05:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per concerns above, especially the issue mentioned by Mindspillage. Timichal 06:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I must oppose this request because of the concerns about this user's stance on copyright issues as expressed by many people above. Images and media are becoming an increasingly important part of admin work and people with this sort of stance shouldn't be in a position to be doing that work. --bainer (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per discussion and answer to question 3. Sr13(T|C) 08:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose not necessarily because he takes a stance on image copyright that is not mainstream (if he has no intention of working with the administrative tools on images, that's a null fear), but because he lied. Sorry, trust is absolutely vital on an anonymous project such as this, and lying to make a point is something that will turn me off every time. -- nae'blis 14:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Polish nationalism movement = dangerous bias in admin. LUCPOL 16:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind elaborating a bit more? —AldeBaer 16:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Nevermind. —AldeBaer 16:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Neutral
Neutral As per comments above, user did "jump ship" on previous admin. I don't speak Dutch, and my only other language is pretty bad German, so I don't dabble in the other Wikis, so I don't know how they're run, thus I submit a neutral vote instead of an oppose, to give the benefit of the doubt. Jmlk17 21:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral per answer to question one. Real96 03:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral I'm not fully satisfied based on the answer. I think it would be ideal to assume good faith all of the time, but I won't hold that to an oppose, either.--U.S.A.cubed 00:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Not user he understands BLP. Uncited negative material must be removed immediately. Being nice to the user concerned and assuming good faith is important, but secondary.--Docg 19:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC). Switching to oppose, per other concerns
May I ask what uncited negative material that you are refering to?--U.S.A.cubed 01:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Just uncited negative material in general. BLP is a very serious thing that admins must know and be willing to enforce. It is one of the biggest problems on Wikipedia. Cbrown1023talk 10:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Per the copyright concerns, which is a shame because Errabee strikes me as a very sane user and I'd support otherwise. – Steel 17:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Moved to neutral because I don't want to oppose this guy. – Steel 17:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Abstain from voting, but wish to comment
(Wikipedia:Consensus not numbers)
This nominees stance vis-a-vis copyrights and fair use is completely unacceptable. Our goal is to build a free encyclopedia. We are not here to create such a work with all sorts of clauses, conditions, and exceptions. This nominee completely misunderstands our purpose here. Commons a failure? More than a million free license media files and it's a failure? This nominee needs to go a long way to convince me they are actually committed to the real goals of the project, and not their notions of what it should be. --Durin 13:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree with Durin on this. We should not consider promoting as administrator a candidate whose commitment to our core policy of producing a free encyclopedia is in such serious doubt. --Tony Sidaway 10:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Amended to recommend promotion, Tony Sidaway 10:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Having read Mindspillage's comments, I must now oppose promotion. --Tony Sidaway 00:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Not much more I can say that Durin and Tony haven't already said. I just can't agree with the comments on Commons, if anything, it's usefulness is being undermined by fair use images (usually lacking rationale and having no reason to exist) on local Wikipedia's making use of the free work on Commons difficult at times. If the closing crat goes for numbers, count this as a very strong oppose. -- Nickt 10:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm more than willing to enter into discussion, but I won't do it here to avoid having a very long chain of replies making a mess out of this process. All I want to say here is that if any crat thinks my stance on copyright is enough to close this RfA as a failure, I'd prefer that they snowballed this RfA. There's absolutely no sense in wasting people's time on reading my RfA and checking my contributions if there's no chance I'll get the sysop bit. Errabee 11:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
(It has been said that I'm no stranger to threading things too deeply on the RfA page itself, but I hear you :) ) As I said, my oppose is reluctant... You seem a thoughtful and serious candidate with many good qualities, perhaps discussion on the talk page of this RfA would be a good place? If not there, then where do you suggest? ++Lar: t/c 11:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Seems as good a place as any. I'll start right now, but unfortunately, I don't have much time right now, so don't expect speedy answers, sorry. Errabee 11:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Errabee, with no disrespect intended, I think you should withdraw this nomination until such time as you are committed to the goals of this project. --Durin 14:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
No disrespect taken. But I think you misunderstand me, as I am committed to the goals of this project. I think we only differ in the way these goals can/should be reached. As I've already said, if any crat thinks my stance on copyright is sufficient to deny granting the sysop bit, please snowball. But as long as there's a reasonable chance I'll get it, I won't withdraw. Sorry. Errabee 15:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Might be informative to read Simetrical's 2nd RFA. [23] His position on fair use was almost identical to your opinion. I think there was broad consensus at that time that this opinion is not appropriate for an admin. Even Brad Patrick, Foundation General Counsel at that time, made a comment about how this stance is not compatible with Foundation policy. FloNight 15:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This licensing policy , recently adopted by the foundation, seems to indicate otherwise. For me, this is a step in the right direction. Errabee 17:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You do realise that the resolution outlaws non-free content on Commons completely, and brings it under severe control on all other projects? --Tony Sidaway 18:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Errabee, you do realise that this does not say what you think it says, don't you? And as for Commons ever allowing fair use, I just don't see that happening without a massive shift in the very pillars of what the WMF is all about. Fair Use is something that is put up with, not something to be embraced. That's clear from what WMF says, over and over. ++Lar: t/c 19:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
For the moment, it seems that Commons is indeed out of scope, and that the projects indeed have to control sharply themselves. That's why I describe this as a step in the right direction, and not as the ultimate solution. However, EDP is something the Foundation is willing to support and set up in the individual projects, even if it means that the Foundation has to put up with it. That is more or less also my opinion: use free work where available, but fair use under strict conditions if not available otherwise but needed to illustrate articles. I believe that when enough projects have EDP in place, Commons can start to play a role for EDP pictures. Obviously, the current structure of Commons won't do, but I'm sure that some changes in the software and perhaps a new namespace for EDP pictures will allow Commons to host EDP to which all projects with EDP in place can link to, while projects without EDP won't be able to link to them. That way, you can disallow media uploads on the individual projects and have stricter control on the use of Fair Use itself. Errabee 21:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
And yes, I do understand that using Commons (or a new project like Commons but for EDP media) would require a new resolution. Errabee 21:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The Foundation has no intention of allowing Commons to host non-free media. Individual projects may have an EDP for those limited cases where the media is necessary and there is no reasonable alternative. But the Commons is supposed to be a repository of free media, and furthermore the non-free images would be media out of the context in which its use would be fair use if hosted there. Kat Walsh(spill your mind?) 01:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Your last point is a very good one. I don't know what can be done about that (if anything), but I hope lawyers will come up with something (one can always have dreams). Nevertheless, I think that adoption of EDP by the Foundation (albeit grudgingly) is a good step. Errabee 02:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we're roughly on the same page here although our perspectives are different in that I see the main problem for English Wikipedia as the rampant abuse of non-free images (which is being taken care of thanks largely to the resolution) whereas you put more emphasis on the absence of a good framework for controlled use of necessary non-free images within the law. That's good, and thanks for clarifying. You're otherwise an excellent candidate and I am now recommending that we promote you. --Tony Sidaway 10:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that is an excellent summary of my view on this issue. Errabee 12:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I find it quite alarming that per Kat's posting on the matter, this nominee actively lied about image status. This accusation comes from a member of the Wikimedia Foundation board and is not to be taken lightly. This juxtaposed with the user's stated position vis-a-vis copyright...I'm hard pressed to think of a scenario in which it would be reasonable to flag this person as an administrator. This is clearly unacceptable. --Durin 01:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
While Kat's posting indeed raises serious concerns, I do not think it should be taken "officially" as reflecting Wikimedia Foundation board's position or opinions; rather, I think Kat has expressed her views as a regular member of the community. Timichal 06:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Kat's opinion is no more important than anybody else's opinion (she's no angel her self...), regardless, can you provide a verifiable citation he lied? or are you just speculating? Matthew 08:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Errabee said here: "And to press the issue further after my request was speedy denied at first, I pretended they had not been taken by me." [24]. So he's not just speculating... WjBscribe 08:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that Kat's opinion weighs more heavily than any others here. I am suggesting this is not just a drive by willy-nilly comment, such as "oppose: less than 3178 wikipedia space edits". It's serious. --Durin 11:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll restate my position of fair use that I clarified in several posts:
Pictures are needed to illustrate and clarify text. Text in itself is in many cases not enough to convey the encyclopedic content of articles.
If no free pictures are to be found, and pictures are necessary for a good understanding of the article or for lending credibility to the article, non-free pictures may be used under the fair-use clause.
Fair use can only be used under strict conditions: a detailed statement of why the picture is used under fair use on that particular page is absolutely necessary.
If non-free pictures are used in places where no statement can be made as to why it is used, the picture should be removed from the article. If that means that the picture is orphaned, it will be subject to normal deletion procedures.
If some legal concerns can be overcome, a centralised framework (like Commons) for fair use pictures should be set up. In this framework, specialised access rights could be approved, assigned and watched on which pages on which projects non-free pictures are allowed to be used. If that is set up, the local upload can be abolished once all local pictures have been centralised.
I believe that this position is in no way juxta-posed to the licensing policy adopted by the Foundation in March, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Errabee 12:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Slgrandson (talk·contribs) - Slgrandson or Dylan is a user that I ran across many moons ago and I have always been deeply impressed by him. He is clear headed, understands policy, sees right from wrong and would use the tools for the overal betterment of Wikipedia. He has over 6,000 edits and has been with us for over 2 years and most certainly gained the trust of the community. Out of those 6,000 edits, roughly 2,000+ have been in the mainspace while some 800 odd have been in the projectspace. Though I must admit I find it odd that he has a heavy habit of editting articles about the carebears, but that is a minor oversight. Honestly, I think Slgrandson is the ideal admin candidate and will be nothing but a progressive step forward. Yanksox 23:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: By the powers that beseech God's Kingdom, Waterbury, the Bronx and my birthplace, Dominica—I truly, madly, deeply accept! --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 20:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A: As an admin, I will be of more assistance in the new page and RC patrols, and will help out in WP:Prod. Whenever and wherever possible, I will deal with the blocking of users and deletion of pages. And, as a member of WP:DS, I will assist in the discussion and closure of XFDs, all of whose sections I have visited, as well as WP:AIV, WP:RFP and WP:CSD's backlog.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Apart from confilcts with Angry Gnome (talk·contribs)/Jonmon6691 (talk·contribs)/71.111.56.139 (talk·contribs) in June, and Brainyshane640 (talk·contribs) in November—through both of which my page was a target—I've not seen much worry over my WP life. I now feel that I am risking another such scenario whenever I warn and welcome users and IPs of all trades, a job I am always ready to do.
4. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
A: As much as I follow site policies and guidelines, I truly find a question like this hard to answer. However, I have seen prolific users like Zanimum(talk·contribs·count) and Esn(talk·contribs·count) contribute without providing edit summaries, and even I participated in a recent RFA where the candidate, Hex(talk·contribs·count), didn't answer any of his questions until the last minute! (The same thing is starting to happen for Ragesoss (talk·contribs) in his debate, yet support for him has been rather surprising.) In short, whether to ignore rules depends on the individual Wikipedian; it is a matter of choice.
5. What is your opinion of Process is Important? How does process fit into your philosophy of how Wikipedia should be run? How strict would you be in adhering to process in using admin tools, if you becom an admin?
A: Up to this moment, I haven't come across this essay. But, for what it's worth, I think it fits some WP activity very well, especially WP:AID. I agree with what is expressed therein, that Wikipedia will never advance any further in quality, productivity, reliability or co-operation, and would have never got there, were it not for Jimbo, L. Sanger, and hundreds of other serious users like me. Even the only (few) edit(s) of a one-time account is/are better than if he or she didn't make any at all. Sometimes, as a result, readers will learn something they didn't know about an article subject prior to those edits.
Should I become an admin, I will use the process ideals in the essay to the advantage of helping out in the deletion closures/procedured at AFD/Prod/CSD/DS, and determining what pages should go and who should be blocked. I am a fair, honest man, and will always deal with situations the moment I am informed of them.
(That took me quite a while to answer this, but I hope it's well worth it!)
Thanks, but that doesn't quite address the point I had in mind. Let me clarify. There are some people who think that the only important thing is whether the "right" result is achieved in any particular case, and any given process should be used if and only if it makes getting to that right result easier (and thus helping to build the encyclopedia), and it should be ignored whenever it seems to get in the way. There are others who think that having a known and consistent process in itself helps, by making things more predictable and transparent for users, and thus it is worth making a large effort to stick with (or publicly change) existing process rather than ignore or avoid it, even when in a particular case it makes things a bit harder -- requires some hoops to jump through. How do you feel on this? For example, the speedy delete criteria are intentionally rather narrow. Many admins feel that nothing should be speedy-deleted unless it clearly fits one of the defined criteria. A good many others feel that any page that is perceived as unhelpful, as not being of value to the project, can and should be speedy-deleted whether it fits one of the defined criteria or not. Other admins fall in the middle on this issue. What is your view? DES(talk) 19:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
A: Your first suggestion is insightful; when it takes a group of people to improve an article, then it can be considered many times more helpful than a handful of users (or even one) to do the same task. As for CSD, I somehow agree with you: the categories, with which articles are classified as such, tend to be a little limited in scope. It can be helped, however, when the nominator has placed his/her own reason using {{db}}. Sometimes, it can be difficult to tell whether certain new pages are worthy of CSD status, hence the reason WP:Prod was implemented.
Optional question from Doc Glasgow
6. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this? --Docg 02:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A: In normal circumstances, I would revert the changes (sometimes cleaning it up myself where possible) and warn the user with {{subst:test}} or {{subst:nor}}. If it persists, I will take that certain user to AIV, and leave a note about this on his/her talk page. Should such edits be substantial, but otherwise questionable, editors have to take note on the main subject's talk page, and (in extreme cases) at WPP:BIO.
Optional question from Simply south
7. Of your articles and contributions to Wikipedia, are there any of which you are not proud of? Simply south 20:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A: As of yet, I am still trying to get the page on Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation to GA/FA status--ever since February 2006's FAC. The plot summary is still in a mess, and it's been taking me forever to get the production details (almost none of which have surfaced online).
Not-very-optional question from Kafziel
8. In your initial response to Question 1, you stated that blocking other users and protecting pages was something you've "looked forward to" since you started at Wikipedia. You received some opposition because of that, and you changed your answer (several days later), here. Seems to me you're using some creative revisionism, hoping that future participants here might not see your original answer. Have your views on blocking and page protection suddenly changed this afternoon, or did you just realize your RfA would fail if you didn't tell us what we wanted to hear? KafzielTalk 18:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
A: My views on blocking/deleting/protecting haven't quite changed just yet, although I feel this job is well-tailored for my tastes. I know, some of you didn't like the attitude I displayed in #1, and only now do I realise how harsh it was, so I apologise if that's the case. Still, I promise to use the tools well if I succeed.
Sorry about the rushed opportunity to participate—the original library computer on which I typed this restarted three times! --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 20:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Slgrandson before commenting.
Looking through your talk page, I really don't see much at all. Do other users just not contact you for some reason? By comparison, I have 17 talk page archives with an average size of absolutely huge. I don't know if I'm able to judge how well you work with other users, as it doesn't seem to happen too often? --Cyde Weys 02:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Sigh ... remember this is a discussion, not a vote. Anyone want to talk about this? You know, to help us make up our collective minds as to whether Slgrandson is a worthy admin candidate? --Cyde Weys 19:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
My comments are in the neutral section below. I think your point is lost when you compare the quantity of contributions to talk pages. Surely it is the quality of talk at issue here. My problem is not the absense of talk, so much as the reliance on templates to convey his messages. Then Dylan states in Q1 that he is looking forward to blocking and deleteing. This in combination with no meaningful discussion on user talk pages is why I cannot support this candidate. Basically, I do not trust this user to block and delete unless necessary. Communication is key to using those tools effectively. David D.(Talk) 20:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Answer to question 4 is perplexing. I don't think the examples gave are necessarily in the spirit of what ignore all rules is talking about. Is ignoring a rule to make the encyclopedia better good or bad? I hate to simplify the question to that extent, but I would appreciate an answer that is more clear. (I was going to put this under neutral but I am entirely confused by the answer) hombrede haha 19:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification (diff). I'm getting the feeling I know the answer now, but many things are a matter of choice. It is a matter of choice to disrupt Wikipedia and vandalize Wikipedia, that doesn't make it right. I was wondering what your choice was. hombrede haha 06:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
NoteUser:Kafziel has initiated a question on this above, however I would like to note here that the User has adjusted his response to Q1 after receiving opposes for it [25]hombrede haha 21:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Too late, the cat was already out of the bag. You don't just modify comments without some kind of explanation, this shows poor judgement. Or has this been discussed somewhere that I've missed? David D.(Talk) 21:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Shortly after User:Slgrandson adjusted Q1 and answered the other questions, [26]User:Kafziel (Q8) added his question regarding it. Slgrandson has not clarified why he did it, but at the very least it does show poor judgement. Moreover, User:Samsara discovered Slgrandson's previous opposition to IAR[27], which perhaps provides another clarification of Q4. hombrede haha 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
As far as images are concerned, let me point out that I uploaded them for the CBMI(I) page(s) in the early part of my career, before I finally got to know how serious Wikipedia's rules of fair use were: in articles, I found out later on, it is limited to 3-5 important images per page (which I have since followed). Working on CBMII as of late, many of them had to be cut out, hence the bot notices littering my talk section midway. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 21:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Support
Support I see no problems with this user. Captainpanda 20:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I've also seen the user around, and he seems quite level-headed; ready for the mop. Xoloz 20:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - He has contributions in nearly all categories and he is well experienced and seems to know what he is doing.sure.:)..--Cometstyles 21:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Aren't the Carebears all about restoring love, harmony, and caring to the world? That's an ideal for an sysop. --Valley2city₪‽ 21:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Troppus I've also been deeply impressed. Good luck! Majorly(hot!) 21:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I see no problems with this user. (aeropagitica) 22:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support, I've seen Dylan around quite a lot. The quality of his work seems top notch, and his interactions with others are most pleasant and level-headed. Gladly cleared for the mop! Phaedriel - 22:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support looks good to me.-- danntmTC 22:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support A diverse and effective contributor. No problem. YechielMan 22:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. I consider myself to be most well-versed in wiki-events, so I am ashamed to say: "I thought he already was an admin." Mandatory support. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - Two reasons: 1) I've seen this user around and I get the impression that he knows what he's doing and won't abuse the tools and 2) Kelly Martin opposed because of a userbox and images. Sean William 02:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's fair to the candidate to support because another person opposed. Yanksox 02:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't the only reason why I supported. He's a good candidate. (I feel that the oppose !vote is a bit ridiculous, though...) Sean William 02:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Kelly is entitled to Kelly's opinion. One opine does not make a consensus. Yanksox 02:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with her. We'll agree to disagree. Rest assured that I would have supported regardless of Kelly Martin's stance. Sean William 02:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Very impressive contribution record --Shirahadasha 02:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. As all the orphaned images mentioned in the notices on his talk page were uploaded quite early in his career here, I believe Slgrandson has learned from his early days. I imagine most editors here did things when they first started which they would never do now. Based on his contributions, I believe Slgrandson can be trusted with the tools, and see no indication the tools would be misused. ···日本穣? · TalktoNihonjoe 02:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support No blocks. No objectionable answers to questions. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 03:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support All my encounters (although not always direct interactions) have been favourable. – B.hotepu/t• 08:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support not likely to abuse the tools, impressive work. —Anastalk? 09:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support he is going to become a good administrator. __ ABF __ 15:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support-- will make an excellent admin. alphachimp 16:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Supportto cancel out Kelly Martin's vote, as per my comments on other RfAs. WaltonNeed some help? 18:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
As per concerns raised on my talk page, I've decided to explain this support vote further. I wasn't intending to suggest any bad intentions on the part of Ms. Martin. But I believe this candidate is adequately qualified and has a sufficient editcount, and (with respect) I don't see that userboxes alone are a good reason to oppose. The nonfree content thing is a potential problem with this candidate, but I don't consider it a good enough reason to change my vote overall. WaltonNeed some help? 15:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support seems qualified.-- danntmTC 20:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Already responded in this section. Naconkantari 23:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that.-- danntmTC 23:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - is a little rough around the edges, but will refine self over time. A diamond in the rough. :) I like your enthusiasm and dedication. The Transhumanist 20:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support — good answers to questions, good record, no reason to believe user can't be trusted; oppose reasons fail to convince me. *** Crotalus *** 21:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - none of the concerns bother me, if Cyde looks carefully at his talk page history, he deletes old messages. Kelly is worried about user boxes again, however I'm not going to understand her fascination. Also, his ignore all the rules answer was that he would generally follow policy, but still apply common sense - which is a good answer. Finally, that leaves the only meaningful concern - image policy. The reality is the image policy isn't very difficult to grasp. If he believed that he understood it perfectly, when he clearly didn't, then I would be concerned. However that isn't the case. Addhoc 22:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - Well dedicated and reasonably experienced, use of user boxes, talk page and images do not make me think he would abuse the admin tools. Camaron1 | Chris 11:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. I see nothing in his contributions, user page or answers to the questions here that makes me believe he will fail to use the tools properly. -- DS1953talk 05:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I can be comfortable with the tools in his hand. I am glad some people want to admins, otherwise we would have none. JodyB 02:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support - good editor, reasonable, polite, and level-headed person. I have seen him around almost from the time he started here, and I have seen nothing but good from him. Even as a newbie he was always one to ask questions first. Guettarda 13:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - a new administrator need not specialize in every single facet of Wikipedia. His apparent limited understanding of image policy is not of concern, these things can be learned. If a user lacks in a certain area like that, as long as it is not something they intend to focus on, that's fine with me. Keep up the good work! Croat CanuckGo Leafs Go 18:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support - It is good to see a good wikipedian-netzen go up for Adminship. I've watched Slgrandson contribute over that past couple of years and I'm confident they will be able to continue being a positive influence on Wikipedia. I fully support their nomination. CaribDigita 00:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Support. Perhaps there are significant concerns hiding behind the quibbles about his answers to the questions but I don't see any. The candidate has ample experience and his edit history offers no basis for concern. Hopefully in his next RFA the candidate just lies to avoid this trouble. Christopher Parham(talk) 01:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Has the "I wanna be an admin" userbox, plus his talk page is full of a whole bunch of orphaned nonfree content notices. Editors who upload lots of nonfree content, that subsequently ends up being deleted, are editors I don't want becoming admins. An oppose is mandatory in these circumstances. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I was under similar circumstances, I don't blame someone for wanting to move progressively upwards. However, I don't think he will use the fairuse/nonfree to an aspect that he is uncertain to, as he will just contribute in areas we is sure about. Yanksox 01:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Kelly! My backlog tracker shows, among many other needs, 68,954 articles needing sources. The backlog is growing. With this in mind, how much extra work due to being shorthanded is the userbox thing worth? Are the benefits to the project from being strict about userboxes worth getting even further behind on the backlog? Best, --Shirahadasha 02:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
You don't need be a sysop for sourcing. John Reaves(talk) 03:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
In case you're unaware, I don't think Kelly's supported an RFA, ever. I don't think Kelly's supported the vast majority of requests for adminships. Or at least not recently enough for most people to be aware of such an event. Kelly will either oppose an RFA based on minutiae or, at absolute best, with rare exception, toss in a Neutral comment about not being supported by a Wikiproject. It's Kelly's way of calling the current canvassing policy... inadequate. It's almost as regular as the tides, really. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 03:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I beg your pardon, User:Lankybugger, but history records that I supported Moralis' candidacy, about two weeks ago. Please refrain from using false information in an attempt to defame the character of other editors; such acts are potentially illegal and certainly uncivil. You would be well-advised to ensure that the facts fit your rhetoric before spouting it forth next time. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Making factually incorrect statements in the course of an RFA discussion is illegal? I'll have to make sure that I don't make statements about any editor that could be considered incorrect, defamatory, libelous, or otherwise derogatory. Come to think of it, I'll have to be careful about that in the encyclopedia articles as well. Why, just this afternoon, I made this edit in which I denied that Martin Lopez, formerly of Opeth, is the greatest drummer ever. I'm also expecting the lawsuit from the heirs of William W. Eastman and John L. Merriam for making this edit in which I asserted that the tunnel they dug under Nicollet Island wasn't such a good idea. --Elkman(Elkspeak) 04:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, mostly due to a confused sounding answer to (4). I am left thinking that the Slgrandson has no idea what WP:IAR is about or what its purpose is... The mountain of orphaned non-free images is also troubling, perhaps more so from someone who professes to believe the strict rules adherence is important. Further, he has a fair number of Wikipedia: space edits ... but the overwhelming majority of them appear to be simple votes (with little / no discussion) or basic maintenance stuff.. Pretty much no wikipedia_talk edits.. as a result I'm unable to measure his understanding of Wikipedia overall. In the future perhaps? Today I just don't see enough good information to offset the worrysome stuff.--Gmaxwell 03:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Per unclear answer to Q4. Naconkantari 15:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I actually like his answer to Q4 and the go get 'em attitude in Q1 but I doubt this user's understanding of image policy. If he could convince me otherwise I wouldn't have a problem supporting him. NeoFreak 15:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, speaking from personal experience. The tools do not indicate that you need to work on all fields of adminship just the ones that you are certain about. He can continue to grow in terms of that and become a better user. Yanksox 16:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
But there's no such thing as limited adminship. If he gets the bit, he gets all of the mops, including the dealing-with-images mops. And if he's unclear about Wikipedia's mission to create a free content freely redistributable encyclopedia, and overuses non-free images, this will affect how he will deal with non-free images upon being handed the mop. It is a concern. --Cyde Weys 19:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose From Q1: Something I've always looked forward to since I got used to this site: blocking users and deleting pages. At least it seems to be an honest answer. I find it troubling. Hopefully, if this RFA passes, I am just reading too much into it. The clarification of Q4 was not really a clarification at all; the User said it "depends on the individual Wikipedian" and "is a matter of choice."[28] Forced to read between the lines, I gather that the user is not crazy about ignore all rules but really doesn't want to make it an issue in this RFA. I thought about asking the user clarify this again, but I already asked once and Q1 is unsettling enough. No further clarification is needed for me. Q5 feels like a bit of a dance as well, or the user didn't understand the question. I do feel bad about this oppose because the user's main space edits seem very good. Good luck to you. hombrede haha 10:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose—user opposed me unfairly in my own RfA and ignored me when I tried to talk to him about it, which is the kind of thing that really rubs me the wrong way. Everyking 11:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
That's like tagging your 'oppose' with "please ignore this oppose, it's entirely personal" - David Gerard 11:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Please don't ignore my oppose. Everyking 09:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Although the candidate's mainspace contributions are good, I don't think he is quite ready. I oppose per the answers to Q1, Q4, and Q5.
Q1: The statement that "Something I've always looked forward to since I got used to this site: blocking users and deleting pages" worries me. Now, this is not indication that the candidate will delete the main page and block Jimbo, but it does seem like a sign of slight trigger-happyness and overexcitement for a position that involves a lot of tedious, repetitive tasks.
Q4: IAR should be invoked only for the benefit of the encyclopedia. I don't see that contributing "without providing edit summaries" or not answering RfA questions in any way benefit the encyclopedia (or even that they fall under IAR). Overall the answer is rather vague and does not suggest (to me) a sufficient grasp of the policy.
Q5: The following statement, in relation to CSD, bothers me: "the categories, with which articles are classified as such, tend to be a little limited in scope. It can be helped, however, when the nominator has placed his/her own reason using {{db}}." I am one of the people who believes that "nothing should be speedy-deleted unless it clearly fits one of the defined criteria" and the candidate's statement seems to suggest that he views speedy-deletion of articles that do not meet the CSD as valid as long as a reason is provided. -- Black Falcon(Talk) 20:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Black Falcon et al. "Looking forward to blocking users and deleting pages" is not the attitude I'm looking for, sorry. —AldeBaer 08:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Correcting to strong. The answer to Q4 is very weak. Candidate seems not at all to know what IAR is. And even if, it's precisely not a matter of "individual choice", but of common sense and the better of Wikipedia. If Slgrandson really believes that not answering optional questions in RfAs is "ignoring all rules", he may have wanted to apply it in this case. —AldeBaer 08:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak oppose. While I believe Slgrandson could be a valuable admin, I'm too much worried about his answer to Q1. People who look forward to blocking users and deleting articles, are not likely to show sufficient contemplation about when to do so. Sorry. Errabee 14:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Changed from weak oppose to oppose because of the answer to Q6. Many unsourced material that is added happens to be true; many editors are simply unaware of the necessity to source their edits. This is best explained to them in a civil manner, but certainly not by warning them with a template. And though the unsourced contentious material should be removed, this discussion could result in an addition of the material, but now properly sourced. Errabee 22:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not, per answer to Question 1. KafzielTalk 14:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Based on his answers to both the IAR and PII questions, and his stated desire to 'block users and protect pages', combined with his apparent inexperience/lack of judgment when it comes to non-free images, lead me to believe that this user cannot be trusted with the tools at this time. Sorry. -- nae'blis 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Changed to oppose from neutral due to this edit to rewrite answer to Q1 without addressing the issues raised from multiple comments on this RfA. David D.(Talk) 21:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose The asnwers to both Q4 & Q5 were unclear and seemed to miss the point of the questions, and of the underlying policy issues. The changes to the answers to Q1 & Q4 (both linked above) rather than striking out and re-wording trouble me. The answer to Q5 seems to imply that Slgrandson supports speedy deletion outside of the rather restricted limits of the approved WP:CSD, and that is a red flag for me. In short, i don't trust this user with the delete button at this time. DES(talk) 22:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. I find this candidate's honesty refreshing (Something I've always looked forward to since I got used to this site: blocking users and deleting pages). Voicing loud and strong what others only whisper, his statement neatly encapsulates a key motivation for the endless stream of hopefuls whose names grace this page day after day. Of course, the correct answer is: assisting users and improving pages. --JJay 01:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - Per his original answer to question 1 (incitefully established by the detail at optional question 8) I also am very troubled by the non-striking out at Q1 and also at Q4 which hides the reality of the prompting those answers gave him to adjust his appearance. All in all not ready at all yet.--VStalk 09:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per troubling responses to questions, as noted by all above, and revision rather than strikethrough of answers. Pastor David†(Review) 18:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Not convinced he's got the importance of BLP and per other concerns.--Docg 10:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
oppose. Only 2/6 ratio for real article edits means seriously worries me. As well as some other expressed positions. Mukadderat 15:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Neutral
Neutral Whilst they look like they have a healthy amount of experience in both article and Wikipedia type contributions amongst other things (so i'm leaning to support), it seems from Q1 that they are not really interested in many other things as much. As stated numerous times, it is not all just about vandalism and deletions. Simply south 20:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Erm... I can't think of much else I do :) Majorly(hot!) 21:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Speaking as a former admin, for the most part it is all about vandalism and deletions everything else is not fun and glory. Yanksox 01:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral Per Majorly; I would probably support in the future, but for now, more rounded contributions are needed. Jmlk17 22:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Majorly supported, actually. Do you mean per Simply south? Picaroon 23:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so keen on this comment from Q1: "Something I've always looked forward to since I got used to this site: blocking users and deleting." This makes you sound a little trigger happy. And given your non existent talk record with users why should we trust you to try preventive measure other than blocks? Likewise are you going to get trigger happy in deleting embryonic articles. it is hard to tell from your answers and contributions the type of targets you are after here. Sorry but i cannot support you for adminship at this time. David D.(Talk) 05:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC) change to oppose until answers question from Kafziel.
Neutral per Q1 and Q4. Q4 seems slightly confused and per David D. on Q1. Answer concerns me slightly but I do not think that this user would abuse the tools. OrfenUser Talk | Contribs 22:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral. I'm rather worried by "Something I've always looked forward to since I got used to this site: blocking users" answer to Q.1. I also agree that Q.4 is pretty weak. WjBscribe 23:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
We are delighted to co-nominate The Rambling Man for adminship...
Co-nomination by Dweller: Following (and during) an unsuccessful nomination under his previous username (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Budgiekiller) which ended three months ago at 69/26/11, The Rambling Man has addressed the concerns raised. He changed his username, has vastly increased his WP-space contributions (including XfD) and, in counter to a misconception that he hadn't contributed much to article writing, he has now chalked up four FAs, working in small collaborations; in each case, it's my estimation that his contribution was the largest. (FAs: 1, 2, 3, 4). There was also an unfortunate misunderstanding at the last RfA, where an ambiguous comment led The Rambling Man to think he was being criticised for not not responding to every oppose !vote, with predictable results(!)
This candidate is well known to the cricket WikiProject, as well as the football one.
The Rambling Man is a true workhorse; he's racked up a couple of dozen thousand edits, maintains his cool and works for the greater good. I know that if given the mop, he won't stop his fantastic work on developing the highest quality articles - he's highly motivated. I strongly recommend this user. Dweller --15:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Co-nomination by The Transhumanist: I am honored to co-nominate The Rambling Man (TRM) for the mop. When I became The Rambling Man's admin coach, I told him he was already experienced enough to be an admin. Well, that was 5 months and about 20,000 edits ago. Now he's qualified to be my coach! TRM has worked dauntlessly on several facets of this encyclopedia. TRM is obviously interested in the Wikipedia project as a whole, in its success, and in the wellbeing of the Wikipedia community. He has been active in deletion discussions at WP:AfD, and in featured article development at WP:PR and WP:FAC, and in vandalism hunting (he also authored a definitive lesson on vandalism for the Virtual classroom). In each endeavor he pursues, he does so with gusto - no half-measures. Most importantly, The Rambling Man treats others the way he would like to be treated: with courtesy and kind regard. I am confident he will apply the admin tools with the same competent approach and level of thoughtfulness as he has done so throughout his involvement in Wikipedia. He will be a valuable addition to the team. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 15:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With thanks, I accept. The Rambling Man 16:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
A: As of late, my primary contributions to Wikipedia are in the fields of vandal hunting and pushing articles to featured status. This means I'd be most interested in ensuring there is never a backlog at Administrator intervention against vandalism, deleting speedy's, obviously with an emphasis on removing attack pages and page protection.
I also periodically spend whole days obsessing over articles for deletion and having improved my contributions in that area I feel that I could, slowly at first, close these as well.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: In the months since my failed RFA I have very much enjoyed raising the profile of a number of articles, as User:Dweller has pointed out above. On a personal level I enjoyed taking Ipswich Town F.C. to featured status and just for the amount of effort involved, Adam Gilchrist, another featured article is one of my major triumphs of citation. Using the experience I've gained on the way I've started contributing to peer reviews, mainly at Wikiproject Football, which has been very pleasing. I'm also proud with my vandal hunting, most recently the job has been conducted less with VandalProof and more using manual reversion and additions of suitable warning templates.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Well, having spent a large proportion of my time vandal-hunting, yes I've had plenty of vitriol directed at me but it typically indicates that I'm doing my job well. The only thing that's ever caused me any real stress here was my failed RFA. I hope that my contributions in the intervening period will show that I've learned from that and improved as a contributor.
4. If you became an admin, would you still have time to write and improve articles to Featured Article status? How would you balance administration against article writing?
A I'm pretty polar when it comes to my WP contributions, in other words I'll spend six hours vandal-hunting one day, I could spend six hours another day dedicated to getting an article to featured status. If I were to be handed the mop, I'd still continue to work hard on the articles but of course I'd be spending a lot of my time maintaining the integrity of the Wikipedia. I think that helping four articles to featured status in four months (with another at featured article candidates and one at feature list candidates right now) is pretty good going by most standards and I will admit that if I'm able to assist as an admin then that rate will be unsustainable. However, I'd like to think that my potential contributions as an admin would outweigh the reduction in my featured article output, but that's for the community to decide!
Optional question from Naconkantari:
5. When is it appropriate to implicitly invoke WP:IAR? Explicitly? Are there times when it should not be invoked? Naconkantari 17:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
A This is a common question here at Request for adminship and, as yet, there seems to be contrasting consensus as to the correct answer. From a personal perspective, I'd be reticent, both implicitly or explicitly, to ignore all rules, and I've yet to encounter a situation where this process is appropriate. Some may argue that quick responses to situations that endanger Wikipedia validate the concept and some argue against that. I believe that if I ever ignored all rules, it would be purely related to my obligation to protect or enhance the project.
6. It appears you're overqualified for the job. Can you name any weaknesses in your editing skills? - Mgm|(talk) 08:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
A I'll happily admit that I am no master of the wiki markup language yet. I do perform several gnome-like tasks for a few fellow editors in some articles (like the citations for Norwich City F.C.) but I often find myself referring to the help pages. I also don't use the preview button enough, but that's something I'm working on all the time.
7. Although this doesn't quite relate to this RFA, what's your secret to creating a featured article?
A: Well perhaps the first thing I should do is point you to this, soon to be published article which User:Dweller has created as a result of our joint experiences of pushing four articles (hopefully six soon) to featured status in a matter of months. Secondly, I consider that in most cases I stay in my comfort zone and write about things I know. Adam Gilchrist is a perfect example, featuring on the front page today, with the Cricket World Cup Final, he's just broken a few records and during the FA drive with WP:CRICKET we opted for him. Thirdly, and most importantly, be persistent, ask questions, respond postively to criticism. You have to understand policy and the manual of style, learn WP:DASH (for those sports articles!), WP:CITE and WP:LEAD, and finally get a grip on image rules and regulations. I hope some of that helps, but I'm more than happy to answer this further, either here or outside this RFA. The Rambling Man 21:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
8. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 02:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A Yeah, I feel pretty strongly about this sort of thing, I believe that we all have an obligation to correctly and adequately source any assertions of fact, particularly when dealing with biographical articles. I would enforce this official policy to the letter I think, but I would endeavour to discuss the matter with the editors who are re-inserting such material rather than go ahead and warn them straight away. It's clear than 99% of editors are unaware of the many WP policies so I'd see it initially as an opportunity to spread the word. Of course, should the editor persist in his/her behaviour, I'd head down the warning template/block route. The Rambling Man 10:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
9. Is assuming good faith an important guideline, and if so, how would you apply this guideline when dealing with newcomers or vandals?--U.S.A.cubed 20:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A I believe this guideline is one of the most important across all of Wikipedia and I endeavour to apply it to everything I do. In particular, with newcomers I will strive to point them in the right direction if they make erroneous edits and try to encourage them. As for vandals, assuming good faith here is often challenging but the way I apply the policy in this case is to use my own judgement to determine whether a vandal's edits really are just test edits in which case I'll go gently with them, or a calculated attack on WP in which case I will escalate my warnings to them more rapidly. I'd like to think that I treat everyone here the way I would wish to be treated myself. The Rambling Man 06:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support as nom and as member, cricket WikiProject --Dweller 15:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - but of course! :) - Alison☺ 16:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support Overqualifed. :) – Rianaऋ 16:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I nom'd TRM myself a while back, however he had the wisdom to decline, feeling he wasn't ready. He's an excellent user in every way. Dåvid Fuchs(talk / frog blast the vent core!) 20:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support (admin vandal fighter). alphachimp 16:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Troppus gnorts. A fabulous candidate, my pleasure to support (again). Best of luck! Majorly(hot!) 16:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. It's time. Good luck. YechielMan 16:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support: Looks to be overqualified. Good luck! .V.[Talk|Email] 16:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Duh. No-brainer. Knows what he's doing. MoreschiTalk 16:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support excellent candidate.-- danntmTC 16:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Pleasure to work with, will undoubtedly make a good admin. Oldelpaso 16:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support from my limited interaction with him, great candidate. Pascal.Tesson 17:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Concerns of the previous nomination in regards to lack of encyclopedic contributions were overwhelmingly addressed. I hold full confidence in this candidate. Michaelas10 17:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Great job addressing previous concerns; excellent candidate. Xoloz 17:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
lol :)))))) --dario vet (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support–Been doing great work at WP:CRIC. Well-deserved! Well done!--Evabd 17:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Clear need for tools with no chance of abuse. - auburnpilottalk 17:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support. I was sure you were one. Way overdue RFA. -Mschel 17:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support a very valuable editor who will do even more great work if given the tools. Gwernol 17:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support of course... Outstanding Wikipedian. κaτaʟavenoTC 17:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Unnecessary pile-on support. John Reaves(talk) 18:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Very strong support^demon[omg plz]18:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. This user is long overdue. Sounds clean. Sr13(T|C) ER 18:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I feel much more comfortable supporting this time than I did before. Agent 86 18:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support after a couple of edit conflicts trying to edit this RfA. User looks very good to me. Adambro 18:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - not enough category talk edits! Just kidding. Support, obviously. WaltonNeed some help? 18:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Strongest possible support - an extremely competant editor, I completely trust the candidates judgement. He should be an administrator already. Experience is key to being an administrator and The Rambling Man has certainly got that. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support in agreement with Black Falcon. We need that category. :) Acalamari 18:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. All my experience with this user has been positive.--ragesoss 18:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Maybe even overqualified for the job... --Valley2city₪‽ 18:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support - (ec)Ahh.. I thought you were already an Admin..Give him the tools so that he can start building Wiki(and repairing it in most cases)..Good Luck..--Cometstyles 18:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Full support- Brilliant editor, always thought he actually was an admin. I believe he deserves the tools. Retiono Virginian 19:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Looks good... ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 19:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support. - Get to it. -- Pastordavid 19:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. If you want the demotion take it! Pedro | Chat 19:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Top man - deserves this. Mattythewhite 20:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - Seems fine, plus per some of the folks who opposed the last RfA. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - no problems, and I like his response to my question. --Elkman(Elkspeak) 20:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Solid experience, good attitude, clear answers. All round good bloke. Angus McLellan(Talk) 20:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - good contributor who is very helpful to other users and knows that the site is here for the benefit of the readers, which is what an admin should be like. --BlackJack | talk page 21:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Looks great all-around; good luck! Jmlk17 22:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support A very good contributor and an excellent member of the cricket project.--THUGCHILDz 22:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I feel confident in this user to mop wisely... — Scientizzle 00:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Definately a good admin here. Captainpanda 00:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support - Strong support. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Allman Brothers Support. I hope your name is in reference to the song...but if it isn't...well don't let that happen. Anyway, TRM is a fantastic editor on Wikipedia, and I think he's demonstrated a thorough knowledge of policy and he will do a fine job as an administrator. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Excellent work.--Húsönd 01:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Supports -- zzuuzz(talk) 01:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Very, very much so. Daniel Bryant 02:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support due to a very excellent contribution record. I trust The Rambling Man with the tools, and sincerely doubt he'd ever abuse them. The changes made since the last RfA contributed heavily to my decision, as well. I think The Rambling Man will be an asset as an admin here. ···日本穣? · TalktoNihonjoe 02:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per all of the above. Excellent contributor. It's overdue. --Shirahadasha 02:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support His record shows him to be an excellent editor and I'm sure he'd do a tremendous job. Nick mallory 03:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
On review of the candidate's participation with the Football and Cricket WikiProjects, and his recent article talk edits, I'm satisfied that this editor has sufficient collaborative experience to meet with my expectations for an administrator. I am therefore pleased to support his candidacy. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support Breaking the terms of my wiki-break to come along and show my support for this excellent candidate. Gone from strength to strength since the last one. – B.hotepu/t• 08:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support Absolutely, should be an asset to the admin team. —Anastalk? 09:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - An excellent, hard-working user. HornetMike 11:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support For extreme insanity, and per last time. (Still can't believe you're not already an admin!) ;-) · AndonicOTalk 11:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Excellent work all round, as far as I can see. Johnlp 12:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
strong Support I somehow doubt another voice in support is needed, given that you've even managed to win over Kelly Martin & have a current count of 71-0-0, but you're one of the best around —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iridescenti (talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
Support has the attitude, very helpful, everything an admin needs. V60干什么？ · VDemolitions · ER 3 14:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"I thought you already were one" Support. This is destined for the list! Kntrabssi 16:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Only positive experiences of this user. The JPStalk to me 17:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Experienced, responsive to suggestions and constructive criticism. JavaTenor 17:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Definitely.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support as per currently unanimous consensus. No reason I can see not to do so. *** Crotalus *** 21:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per everyone and everything. Newyorkbrad 22:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support: User seems very experienced and plenty of edits. Looks very willing to help the project. Should make a fine administrator. OrfenUser Talk | Contribs 22:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - A fine user since day one. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support -Like last time. --TeckWiz is now RParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 02:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - An excellent candidate, well experienced and has made some excellent contributions on making articles reach FA status and helping in WikiProjects. Camaron1 | Chris 11:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support- brilliant editor, and a noob is saying this. Eaomatrix 11:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Implement the reverse snowball clause, somebody, please! Evilclown93 15:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Kelly supported you? Auto-support then.--Wizardman 20:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. He's not afraid to refer to the help pages, which is always a good thing. Appears level-headed. My only fear is that his FA production will suffer. Mgm|(talk) 18:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Should have been made admin along time ago.--Dacium 04:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Support my oppose last time was on the basis of a paucity in article space contribution. Since then, The Rambling Man's has made droves of impressive article space contributions, including to the FA's as listed in the nom. Well done! Hope you enjoy adminship! -- Samir 07:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Support - i supported him for the first RfA, and reading over his re-nom, it looks like he tripled his efforts. i'm quite taken aback by his experience and his motivation. JoeSmackTalk 19:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Support: I thought he was one. ~Magnus animum ∵ ∫φγ 23:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Support - I have no problem with "pile-on-support-votes", clearly. Philippe 01:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Support. I trust this user to not screw up with the tools. —CComMack (t–c) 11:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
No obvious problems; support withheld pending an endorsement from a WikiProject per my policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Changed to support. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd argue that his long-term interaction at WP:WPF, where he is extremely well-respected (in part due to being insightful and friendly, and in part to writing and commenting on a load of football (soccer) F*C's), would meet this criteria and what I understand to be the logic behind it (collaboration and interaction). Maybe I'm totally off the mark, but oh well, worth a try. Daniel Bryant 04:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Final (49/1/1); Ended Thu, 3 May 2007 16:30:56 UTC
Stephen (talk·contribs) - After recently passing 6000 edits I would like to nominate myself for admin, appreciating that this is unacceptable to some. I'm an active participant in the Australian and Sydney Wikiprojects, and have a whole load of articles under my watch. I have a clean block record, and a talk page that I hope will testify to my constructive activities. I'm a fairly active new page patroller, always taking time to warn if there are issues with new articles and content, and helping upset users with advice on their edits. However, I'd see the mop in addition to my building of an encyclopaedia; creating content, and most recently, assessment and categorisation of (mainly) Australian articles. I used to edit as User:Slf67, but hooray for usurpation! --Steve (Stephen) talk 06:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A:WP:CSD is nearly always given as an answer here and I'm not going to shy away from this area. My edit count would be about 1000 higher if the articles I regularly tag for speedy deletion didn't take that edit with them when they're deleted. I've been a fairly active participant at WP:AFD but less so lately as I'm trying my hand in other areas, but I'd still like to get involved with closing debates, obviously starting with the uncontentious keeps, for which sysop isn't needed (and of which I've performed a couple) and moving deeper from there. I'd also look to clearing old Prod's. From my watchlist I regularly revert trivial vandalism, and occasionally discoverer deeper, more malicious swathes for which I'd like to assert quicker blocks after warnings. However, my recent WP:AIV reports have been acted on very quickly so I don't perceive a great problem there, but it would be good to help the others acting off this list. Other areas that I've had to use and would be willing to assist are requested moves and page protection, and I'm pretty good at spotting copyright violations, and the quicker they can be deleted before they proliferate to mirrors, the better. I'm a lurker and infrequent poster on WP:AN and WP:ANI so I'd also see that as a guide to what needs doing. Basically, in my early days I'd like to clear some of the routine admin tasks, and let experienced admins take on the more complex issues and grow from there, in just the same way that I've grown as an editor.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I was one of the core of editors responsible for getting Palm Island, Queensland to Good Article status, but my efforts are second to WikiTownsvillian who has been driving the content. I'm looking forward to the next push to WP:FA. I'm also quite proud of my addition to Australia and the United Nations which added a fully referenced table of Australia's involvement in the UN in a single edit [30] (after several tens of edits in a sandbox!). I'd also like to mention my most humbling moment which was when the father of Fleur Lombard (Britain's first female firefighter to be killed in the line of duty since the War) emailed me to thank me for creating the article and to correct me on a few details. That sort of experience is worth the hassles that we all face in our editing here.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: We've recently been dealing with a disruptive user at Top Gear (current format) and associated templates. I was named in a an ArbCom case that he filed, but which was quickly dismissed (The last version before it was deleted is here). I've never come close to a WP:3RR violation, but seen him blocked twice for such and a further week for disruption. I get the occasional angry message from an editor who's lost an article or some content, but that actually encourages me most times to engage in discussion and discuss the policies that have been broken, and to help them going forward. I'm rather unstressed by it all to be honest, and can't see myself getting stressed in the future by anything here!
4. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
I've only ignored rules in two areas: Firstly in not letting every process run it's full course; Is it really necessary to get another keep on an AfD that's already unanimously a keep? WP:SNOW is in essence a way of ignoring the rule that a process should remain open for its allotted time. The other area is in adding non-biographical content that is not meticulously verifiable from its first creation, to let an article develop and then be referenced at a later stage. Ignoring rules should never be used to work against consensus, as the community will come down on you if you try that one. --Steve (Stephen) talk 09:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
6. In this diff on Talk:Virginia Tech massacre, you wrote over a previous comment with a different comment of your own, leaving replies to the previous comment dangling and appearing to be a non-sequitur reply to yours. Why did you do this?
That's a strange one, and certainly not intentional. I recall adding two comments on that particular tragedy, but didn't make any edits to discussions further up the page. All I can think is that it was edited underneath me and my earlier version was saved, and edit conflict didn't kick in? It was one of the highest trafficked and sited pages recently, so I'll take the normal IT Support response, and tag as unreproducible error! --Steve (Stephen) talk 01:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
7. What would you do if you ran across an article like this one (I ask that everyone allow the candidate to respond before editing the article). Please be as detailed as possible (i.e., step-by-step, what would you do?).
I had previously posed two questions, but have removed one as unnecessary. -- Black Falcon(Talk) 20:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
A search for "Andrea Finney" poet -wikipedia throws up little (and MedLib.com is a WP mirror, even if it doesn't say so.) "Finney" "Where's mi Dad" gives even less, only the registry in a copyright vault. Amazon gives no published works. Nothing but Andrea links to the article. So all in all a non-notable poet, to be tagged as A7, with a message on the creator's talk page. Even is she was somehow remarkable the article doesn't provide any sources to back up. And if I saw that second mangled sentence in another article, I'd rewrite it as it can be read that she wrote her poem in 1910! --Steve (Stephen) talk 01:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
8. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 02:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll remove unsourced personal details, such as relationships, addresses, children's details, and criticism, from a biography with an edit summary pointing to WP:BLP. A couple of times it has been added back but in the majority of cases it stays out. When it has been added back, I've reverted again with another reference to policy and it has not been re-added. Maybe I'm editing low traffic articles, but I think the WP community has become aware of the need for meticulous referencing for biographies. I intend to be very rigorous in my enforcement of this, applying the uw-biog* series of warnings specifically, culminating in a block if necessary. Really we should be removing every sourced statement from biographies, however this would reduce most of our biographical articles to single sentence stubs, as Jimbo did to Ron Jeremy in this edit! --Steve (Stephen) talk 09:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Stephen before commenting.
Other then the comment about userpage use below I cannot find anything about this user that makes me nervous. The current contributions of this user do not indicate that they plan to go nuts with the tools and put "WIKIPEDIA IS COMMUNISM" on the main page or anything silly like that ;). —— Eagle101Need help? 04:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
A perfectly boring and very qualified vandal fighter, BLP activist, etc. I don't see anything of concern in your last 500 contibutions. This is interesting; an experienced editor unwittingly inserted modified copyvio material from another article in there. How did you guess it was a copyvio? Grandmasterka 07:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Appears qualified from the look of his contributions, and is bold enough to self-nominate. Kusma (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support everything looks very fine here. Why not? —Anastalk? 09:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - A perfect candidate..--Cometstyles 11:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 11:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support A good person to be an administrator. Captainpanda 12:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support A dedicated editor who clearly understands policies and whom I trust to apply them well. Did a good job with the DaveSmit33/TopGear issue which I was also involved with. Good luck, Gwernol 12:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support He needs the tools and knows how to use them. YechielMan 13:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Remember him from the Slf67 days, recall being impressed. No reason to suspect he would abuse the tools. – Rianaऋ 13:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - I've seen this person around, and I don't see any conduct issues. Sean William 14:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. I've checked his edits in several namespaces and they all look good. I vote support without hesitation. We need more admins active in containing vandalism. Haukur 15:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Troppus per Riana, looks great. Good luck! Majorly(hot!) 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. I am especially pleased to see the commitment to article building. -- Pastordavid 16:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Looks good! -Mschel 17:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support okay for me.-- danntmTC 17:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per all above. It's good to see a self-nomination that seems to be succeeding (often they face an uphill struggle). WaltonNeed some help? 18:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Sounds good to me. ^demon[omg plz]18:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support It looks good to me. Jmlk17 22:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. I see no evidence that would lead me to believe Stephen would abuse the tools, and his contributions lead me to believe he would accomplish a lot of good with them. I believe he is trustworthy, and therefore I have no qualms supporting his RfA. ···日本穣? · TalktoNihonjoe 01:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Candidate dones good work from what I've seen of them. Appears to have good experience in the relevant areas. No problem. By the way, re:[31], G12 speedy requests are only really appropriate when there are no copyright free versions of the page to revert to. Reverting would have been a better approach. WjBscribe 14:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support No good reason not to. *** Crotalus *** 21:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support: Has plenty of experience and seems to have done plenty of work. Seems civil and should make a good administrator. OrfenUser Talk | Contribs 21:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - seems experienced and trustworthy. Metamagician3000 05:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Ãll that there has to be saidBookswormTalk to me! 11:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - I am confident this candidate would make a good admin. Seems well experienced, civil, and not short of contributions. Camaron1 | Chris 11:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per an excellent contributions record and great answer to the questions. Essentially, there is No Reason Not ToTM promote. Best of luck, Black Falcon(Talk) 17:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. I first met Stephen through the Top Gear/Davesmith33 incident. He was level-headed throughout the entire situation. I was actually thinking about nominating him one of these days. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support --A solid editor. Matt Yeager♫(Talk?) 22:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Solid editor, every encounter I've had with him has been positive. Rockstar (T/C) 03:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
VirtualSteve supports Real Steve in his candidacy. Adminship is deserved.--VStalk 08:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Support - a very dedicated user, from his contribs it looks like he's around everywhere! Certainly needs, and wouldn't abuse the admin bit. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Support Will be an asset.--Simul8 11:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Support: Doesn't seem like a Robdurbar part II. ~Magnus animum ∵ ∫φγ 23:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Presence of the requests for adminship scoreboard on the candidate's user page suggests that the candidate is an "RFA junkie". Kelly Martin (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be more appropriate to call the likes of us ... who comment on nearly every candidacy ... "RfA junkies". Please don't misconstrue my statement as a challenge of any sort. I have no intention of trying to convince you to change your position, but would just like to point to the irony in your comment. Cheers, Black Falcon(Talk) 04:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not a candidate for adminship. You are attempting to shoot the messenger. Please refrain from such incivility. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Uhh ... incivility? I would like to point you to the following parts of my comment: "likes of us" (i.e., myself included ... I would not insult myself), "please don't misconstrue my statement as a challenge of any sort", and "I have no intention of trying to convince you to change your position" (i.e., I respect your opinion even if I don't agree with it and am not going to hassle you in an attempt to get you to change it). I'm really confused ... -- Black Falcon(Talk) 05:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to express my strong support for everything Black Falcon has said above me. His comments were not incivil; indeed, Ms. Martin's reference to the candidate as an "RfA junkie", and her frequent habit of setting unreasonable and arbitrary standards for admin candidates, is far less civil. WaltonNeed some help? 11:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
You both hit the nail on the head. Her approval is somewhat unorthodox; however, she is entitled to her oppinion as a member of the community, and I respect that. --wpktsfs 18:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
We can't forget that RfAs are not a vote tally. The outcome is decided by the b'crats, and let's be serious: there a very likely chance that the b'crats will throw out an oppose vote solely based on userboxes. No need to get upset. Rockstar (T/C) 03:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Its happened before... --Iamunknown 02:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to throw in my two cents, Kelly Martin — on Bibliomaniac15's recent RfA — made a violation of WP:CANVASS and mandated that "Bibliomaniac must have endorsement from a WikiProject." Her standards, as Walton has said, are very arbitrary and unreasonably high; perhaps I should open a RFC on her? ~Magnus animum ∵ ∫φγ 23:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Neutral
Until Q4 is answered. Naconkantari 15:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
So answered. :-) --Iamunknown 10:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me that the candidate lacks common sense , see his comments [32]--Shyamsunder 21:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Eukesh (talk·contribs) - I would like to request for sysop access in English wikipedia. I am more active in South Asian wikipedias. I have sysop access in 5 wikipedias (Nepal Bhasa, Nepali, Kashmiri, Pali and Bhojpuri and have served as a temporary sysop in 5 more (Gujrati, Oriya, Panjabi, Dzonkha and Bod Skad/Tibetan) and run a bot in Nepal Bhasa, Hindi and Sanskrit. Here, I am working on Nepal and South Asia related articles. I have felt a need of a person with knowledge of the region and sysop access to maintain the quality of articles. Eg- we have article called Madhesay (an offensive term for Madhesi and IP addresses editing template like template:Newar. Also, when a user vandaized Sherpa, his/her IP address was blocked which prevented others (mainly newcomers who didnt know much abt wikipedia) sharing the IP address from editing. If there is a candidate who is better qualified than me from Nepal or around (working on development of the regional articles) who can look up these regional issues, let that person be nominated. Thank you.
Eukesh 18:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A: I would like to serve for the regionalization of the wikipedia. There are many articles and templates pertaining to Nepal and South Asia which need to be monitored. I think that we need a person with sysop access who has knowledge of these subjects. Some of the templates need to be semi-protected eg-Template:Newar and some articles like Sherpa need to be semi-protected as well. Also, there are many articles which have faulty information. I can help in their correction. Maintaining NPOV is another aspect in these articles which needs attention.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Well, I have served as a sysop in 10 wikipedia and am running bots in 3 wikipedias. My best contribution to wikipedia is my contribution to the increase in the number, depth, quality, navigational facilities, edittools and frontpages of almost all the South Asian wikipedias. I consider development and propagation of js based direct Indic input system and the propagarion of culture of main page index to be my best contributions outside English wikipedia because these facilities have helped significantly in the navigation and editing of South Asian wikipedias. In English wikipedia, I consider Nepal Bhasa as my best contribution till date.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes, I have been involved in conflict over editing in Bhutanese refugee. It caused me a bit of stress. I requested some admins for moderation as well as warned the other editor who was personally attacking me to behave properly. I asked the other editor to use only verifiable sources. I took some break from the page and edited it a bit to represent the best accepted facts.
What leads you to believe that an article like sherpa needs to be semi-protected? Same question for Template:Newar?
A:I believe that page Sherpa needs to be semi-protected because it has been vandalized by an IP address on a number of occations. This had led to the blocking of the IP address. Unfortunately, I share the same IP address and was blocked as well. If we semi-protect the page, the assault (which I think is a mistaken one by a non-user for free web provider/blog) can be prevented. About the template Newar, again IP addresses were adding pages which had nothing to do with Newar culture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eukesh (talk • contribs) 21:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
Optional question from Naconkantari:
5. When is it appropriate to implicitly invoke WP:IAR? Explicitly? Are there times when it should not be invoked? Naconkantari 23:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
6. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 02:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
7. I notice you don't have email enabled. Is there a particular reason for that? Email will often be the only way blocked users can reach you. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Eukesh before commenting.
Using the edit counter, I am taking a few minutes to compile edit counts on all of Eukesh's Wikipedia accounts. He also has accounts at other wikis, but I'm not dealing with those. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 100 because the exact number is not important to me.
en.wikipedia: 1000
new.wikipedia: 8300
ne.wikipedia: 900
sa.wikipedia: 100
hi.wikipedia: ~370 (with account Eukesh and युकेश)
mr.wikipedia: 100
bh.wikipedia: 200
pi.wikipedia: 300
rmy.wikipedia: <50
ks.wikipedia: ~50
bn.wikipedia: <50
bo.wikipedia: 10
dz.wikipedia: 7
Total: about 11,100 edits to all Wikipedias. Among these are substantial edits to the MediaWiki namespace in some of these wikis. Given his experience running bots on three wikis, the candidate has shown a commitment to building all Wikipedias for which he has the language skills to contribute. It would be a mistake, in my opinion, to judge him only on the basis of his work within the English Wikipedia. YechielMan 01:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, we are certainly happy that Eukesh is among users who allow Wikipedias in various languages to interconnect. However, processes and practice can vary quite a bit from one wiki to the other. My main concern is the candidate's understanding about how the en.wiki functions in practice. Pascal.Tesson 01:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Eukesh is a skilled organizer in the functioning of wikipedia, with succesful initiatives. He initiated the South Asian Script Enhancement Project that resulted in the implementation of automatic South Asian specific scripts in 14 Wikipedias. It started from a debate at meta:Promoting the South Asian languages projects and by now is probably the only succesful South Asian project.
Regarding the competence, he has done a lot of work in anti-vandalism, categorization etc. in all those wikipedias enumerated.
Regarding the sysop jobs and sysop tools issues, I consider he has the necessary knowledge, he already has helped in adjusting monobook.js codes in most of the wikipedias where is active, he improved tools in Nepal Bhasa (for example, you may see the current edit bar at Nepal Bhasa wiki). Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 20:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I am happy that a lot of people are expressing their views over here and would like to thank all of the people participating here. I think there are a few things that I need to clear here for the discussion to proceed better. I think that there is very doubt of my intents of sysop access by now.
About question 4, let me elaborate on Madhesi thing as well, Madhesay is a DEROGATORY word. Madhesi people are currently struggling to establish their place in Nepalese society. This struggle has led to death of many people and very turbulent times in Terai. Although I havent found a reliable source to cite that the term is offensive, the term Madhesay has not been used officially anywhere.
I do not want to focus only on Nepal and South Asia related issues. However, since I have more experience in these issues, I would like to work more on these articles. I would be happy to do the maintenance tasks esp categorizing, polishing, protecting pages, blocking vandals and translation into English. Also, I can run my bot to establish better linking between English and South Asian wikipedias, if needed.
I did not write about sysop chores previously because I thought that it was understood that anyone who applies for sysop access would do so keeping the chores in mind. I have been doing antivandal, categorization etc in Nepali, Nepal Bhasa, Hindi, Pali, Bhojpuri, Kashmiri, Sanskrit etc. for a long time now. I dont mind doing the chores here.
About image upload skills, I have been planning to shift the images that I have uploaded here gradually to commons so that all the wiki-projects can have a fair share of them. In fact, I have uploaded some of the images there already. I think that the uploads there are upto mark. You can check my contribs there.
I am currently working on creating and expanding articles related to hospitals of Nepal. The list and template exists because I have not made up my mind till the moment as to which is better for navigation amongst the two. The Nepalese hospital project has just started and a lot needs to be done on that.
Well, a person who thinks that ANY hospital in Nepal is not significant to have an article either does not know about Nepal or about hospitals at all. These articles are in primitive state at the moment. I am working to gather information by visiting these hospitals, taking pictures myself as many of these hospitals are working in places where internet is very scarce. If the community does not approve of this endevaour, please inform me and I will move this project to Nepali, Nepal Bhasa, Hindi or Marathi wikipedia.
About lack of technical knowledge, I have experience in technical aspects like modifying .js, .css, changing namespaces, running bots, creating front page, reporting to bugzilla or anything of that sort. So, I dont know the basis of this comment.
About my lack of knowledge of community events in English, the system of requesting is a bit different here than elsewhere. I need to improve on that. However, I dont think that it necessarily shows that I lack competence in protecting pages, deletion/undeletion, block/unblock, reverting, arbiteration, anti vandalism, watching the less watched pages, verifying facts, etc. which I believe is the core of sysop access. I have been practicing these virtues almost everyday in other wikipedias.
Wikipedia:Consensus not numbers: This is an exceptionally broadly experienced candidate. While some people have taken his intention of working mainly in specialist areas to be an argument not to promote, I frankly see no downside to his intention. It isn't as if we could only promote a limited number of administrators and if we promote Eukesh we miss out on another who would do a better job. We do have a very strong bias towards English-speaking cultures in our administrator ranks, and so it seems wrong to me to turn away a willing volunteer who has proven trustworthy in a variety of Wikipedia environments. --Tony Sidaway 04:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to agree with tony here, we don't have a limited number of admin slots. Admins who know specific areas are just fine, and may be more of a benifit to the project. I don't see anything that makes me think that he will go nuts after recieving the bit. What I see here is a user that can be trusted to learn. Regards. —— Eagle101Need help? 04:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support
Support per my comment above. YechielMan 01:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support It doesn't matter to me what you want to work on. I don't think you'll abuse the admin tools, so here's a support. Frise 02:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Work on so may language editions is impressive, shows trust of the (several) communities. If he can be a good sysop on multiple wikis, I have no doubts that he will be able to be a good sysop here. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak Support Because you have adminship in other wikis, I will support. However, I see little need for the tools so this support is only weak. Captainpanda 02:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. It's about trust people. Eukesh is an excellent contributor that will do no harm. The differences from one wikipedia to another are not so enormous that they can't be figured out easily. And he clearly has experience on multiple projects, so he likely knows the differences better than those opposing. I find the opposition particularly unconvincing and unfortunate. - TaxmanTalk 16:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Eukesh has been active on Marathi wikipedia (my home wiki-project) along with many others. Eukesh has a wider view of wikipedia concept than your garden variety contributor. From my vantage point, Eukesh has a moderate view on most conflict-prone topics and seeks to find a middle-ground while maintaining the veracity of content. Eukesh has my support. asnatu 19:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support I describe Eukesh as a skilled organizer and a diplomatic user. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 20:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - shown trustworthy, will not misuse tools. Adminship not a trophy, but the only reason to not give adminship to candidate is to protect en.wiki. However, I very much doubt user will misuse tools, whether accidentally or purposefully. Concerns about WP:N are not enough to withdraw support; many users disagree on this type of matter; it's hardly clearcut. What's more, I'm not sure that this would make that big a deal on his (her?) use of the tools. Part Deux 20:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support a good contributor, and the candidate meets my guideline.-- danntmTC 20:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - I admire your dedication, and I support your efforts on the hospital articles you mentioned. Keep up the good work. Of course I'm assuming you will adapt rapidly to feedback in the position, and would apply measures such as semi-protection for only so long as they were needed. The Transhumanist 20:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support Eukesh is a skilled organizer and a diplomatic user. I am also an admin in Nepali wikipedia and I have found him worth. He deserves both the diplomatic skills along with the wiki web technologies, that is why he has been leading most wikipedia including Nepali and Newari wikipedia and RajeshPandey 20:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support looks good - activity over a large number of projects shows a strong commitment. D X-Rama's arrow (break it down) 22:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
No evident reason to oppose this candidate obtains. Normally I would withhold support pending an endorsement, but in this situation that seems unnecessary as the candidate has already demonstrated competency with adminship on other projects. Therefore, I have no reason not to support this candidate's request, and do recommend that he be promoted. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. While the candidate has amply demonstrated his competency and commitment in other Wikipedias, some opposers raise strong objections, related to his lack of experience on EnWiki. From my point of view, however, EnWiki is marred by a substantial and pervasive cultural bias, its admins appearing often as a self-perpetuating body of culturally homogeneous old boys, sharing cultural stereotypes as well as habitudes. I am not doubting anyone's good faith here. On the contrary, I have often been impressed by admins' willingness and capacity to listen to dissenting,"foreign" voices. Still, a community cannot embody a culture different from its own. This candidate has some of the cross-cultural skills that are badly needed if EnWiki is to overcome its bias. It is clear that cultural diversity creates problems, shrinking the group's common ground and making communication problematic at times. Still, diversity is essential to provide a dynamically balanced picture of issues that are often multi-cultural in nature. Bar some minor technical and attudinal weaknesses that he should be able to overcome quickly, Eukesh can give a very useful contribution here. Stammer 11:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - I dont see any definite reason to Oppose..--Cometstyles 13:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - When he is trusted in so many other Wikipedias, I do not find any reason that he should not be entrusted with adminship in English wikipedia where more stringent checks and balances exist for administrators which preclude the possibility of any serious abuse of his authority as an administrator. I also agree with Taxman and Rama. Moreover, English wikipedia certainly requires administrators exposed to South Asian realities as I have sometimes encountered highly unusual information in certain pages related to South Asian topics though I do not exactly remember the pages. A sure support. --Bhadani (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - terrible, querulous, irrelevant opposes. The likelihood of him going mad with the tools approaches zero. The insulting xenophobia is inappropriate as well, and I strongly suggest the 'crats strike all such opposes - David Gerard 17:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
David, I think it would be good for you to argue specific oppose opinions rather than dismiss all of them as querulous, irrelevant or even xenophobic. Nobody has been arguing that Eukesh is likely to go mad with the tools and this isn't the sole relevant question for adminship. Many of the opposes are from people simply saying that they don't believe Eukesh has the required experience on en.wiki. Now it's perfectly fine for you to disagree with that assessment but why would this be irrelevant? Pascal.Tesson 04:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Changed from neutral. Support per Bhadani's excellent supporting comment. – Rianaऋ 17:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Large body of experience, no significant concerns raised below. The differences between en. and other wikis are not extraordinarily significant; the primary rules and goals are identical. Christopher Parham(talk) 20:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Experienced as sysop in other wikipedias, won't abuse tools here. As mentioned above, the primary rules and goals are similar in all wikipedias.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Experienced user, judging from YechielMan's analysis above. Also he demonstrated a very mature, but no nonsense, attitude when interacting with Divinemadman (talk·contribs) on the talk page at Talk:Bhutanese_refugee as well as on the users own talk page. Very impressive stuff that is clearly demonstrates that Eukesh would be an excellent admin here in the en wiki. David D.(Talk) 20:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support: Has been a highly active user and coordinator among many South Asian Language Wikipedias. He has lead an effort to breakdown barriers in contributing to Wikipedia by various language users. Adminship at English Wikipedia will help to continue his good work. --Natkeeran 00:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support: I have no problem with you trying to keep part of wikipedia stable - vandalism is pretty frustrating, but sometimes IPs make an edit which I am not sure what to make of (and sometimes valid). Welcome aboard (hopefully) cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 08:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - Eukesh is a long-term Wikipedia user who has made many efforts with interwiki co-ordination. He also worked with bots with me and introduced me into the Hindi Wikipedia. --Wolftalk | हिन्दी | বাংলা 19:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - Eukesh is one of the most active editor in all of South Asian wikis. He is a skilled organizer and a trusted one. I am impressed by his commitment in improving Wikipedia articles in so many languages. He is trusted, skilled, committed, and knows a lot about the sysop chores. - Indiver 06:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per experience and technical knowledge. —AldeBaer 14:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. He's been around the block. Haukur 12:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. If people can use the tools, we should give them when they have demonstrated they're not likely to abuse them. Errabee 14:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. I have spot-checked Eukesh's 1000 edits on English Wikipedia and found nothing troublesome, and several I'd compliment, such as inviting users to the Assamese Wikipedia. In addition, I trust the user not to blow up the 'pedia based on a clean block log on every site he has access to. I have no worries that Eukesh will not be deliberate and careful as he learns to use the additional tools on en.wikipedia. -- nae'blis 15:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Eukesh is a very polite, modest, and cool-headed person; this is, IMHO, the first quality that an admin should have. Moreover, he is quite active member on Wikipedia[s]. He is a prolific (=P) editor. (Don't be misguided by his edit count; his edits are mostly very substantial and probably require hours to write.) So I am in support for his request for adminship. I am sure he can contribute much more to wikipedia and put a smile on the face of lurkers like me who come here mostly to find information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kushal one (talk • contribs).
Support Eukesh is a fine wikipedian and have helped wikipedia through countless efforts. I am also very impressed by his number of contributions he made to wikipedia. Runewiki777 23:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak Oppose-I am concerned about the answer to question 1. You appear to only want to maintain the articles related to Nepal and South Asia. Unfortunately my reason for opposing is that unlike the Wikipedias that you may contribute to as a sysop, the English Wikipedia is a lot larger and currently we have 1182 sysops here. Now I am not saying that we have too many sysops and we should oppose all future RFA candidates because of our current number. However, it is extremely easy to get assistance for the tasks you wish to help out with (looking at question 1 WP:AIV and WP:RFPP would be good places) here. If you planned on at least handling requests for sysop assistance (blocking vandals and protecting pages) on those pages, I would support. Frankly, I don't think you need the abilities of a sysop. Funpika 01:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak Oppose as well. Seems to be trusted in other Wiki communities and has contributed heavily there, but I'm unable to get an objective view as to the quality of the contributions. Even assuming they are all spot-on, which I am willing to do, I am uncomfortable with the answer to question 1 as well. Generally I believe that if someone is trustworthy and willing to help there is little reason not to hand over the mop and bucket but this user has not displayed any interest in assisting with janitorial duties. The answers seem to indicate the user wishes to have sysop privileges so as to selectively protect articles he is contributing to. I'm sure this is done in all the best intentions but if the desire is to maintain a few select articles the correct way to handle it would be to make the requests where appropriate - AIV, RFPP, and so on as mentioned above. Again, if there was a willingness to actually contribute to janitorial sysop chores, I'd say support, but that seems lacking. Arkyan • (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. While the wide range of contributions to multiple wikis is impressive, Eukesh's contributions show a lack of knowledge regarding proper licensing and uploading of images ([33] for example), how to use redirects instead of moving articles around, and so on. Creation of templates such as {{Hospitals of Nepal}}in addition to the all the articles listed on List of hospitals in Nepal lead me to question his understanding of WP:N--these hospitals can't all be notable enough for an article, and the mass of stubs shows this. These kinds of things are important to understand as an admin as they are frequently dealt with. I recommend spending another 2-3 months gaining a better understanding of the policies and guidelines here, and then trying again. I would support then as long as a better understanding is shown at that time. ···日本穣? · TalktoNihonjoe 02:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Contributions on other language 'pedias are fine, and they certainly demonstrate technical knowledge. The problem is, en is significantly different from most others, so I'm not comfortable with someone having sysop tools based on experience elsewhere. -Amarkovmoo! 03:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose due to the issues presented above regarding lack of substantive knowledge in the English Wikipedia. In addition, before this nomination, he submitted it using a subheader to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AndonicO (see my original message). This indicates even a further lack of knowledge of our basic processes. Please spend a few months learning the ropes and participate more in the community, I'm sure you'd succeed. Michaelas10 11:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Adminship is about trust and competence. While work on other wikis demonstrates the former, the en.wiki is sufficiently different such that it does not necessarily demonstrate the latter. Editor's experience in project-space here is very low. Malformed RfA is another negative indicator that candidate has basic knowledge still to learn. Xoloz 17:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
If you can agree a user is trustworthy, then I'm sorry to be harsh, but you are damaging the project by opposing in spite of that by removing the good they can do with the tools. If someone is trustworthy, then we know any mistakes they make will be small and small mistakes can be fixed easily. He works with bots and has plenty of competence, small formatting mistakes are not a problem. - TaxmanTalk 18:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
If I really believed that competence was irrelevant to adminship, I'd support giving every registered user adminship -- very few of our registered users are vandals; but, a great many of our newer editors would make legions of little errors, wasting loads of time correcting them. I understand that small errors can be corrected, but an uninformed admin can make loads of those small errors in a short time, creating a big problem. I'm glad the editor knows bots and coding well, but that is hardly synonymous with adminship. I'm sorry to be harsh, Taxman, but I believe your view is short-sighted; if it were generally accepted, we'd have lots of very nice newbies making thousands of tiny admin mistakes each day, and Wikipedia would be become even less reliable than it already is. Xoloz 20:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
We're very far from talking about a newbie here. It's you making the leap to allowing everyone under the sun, not me. Eukesh has shown over thousands of edits that he's not likely to make lots of mistakes and has shown the ability to learn. That and trust are what we need. - TaxmanTalk 22:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay...but I made that "leap" precisely because I don't think we're too far from talking about a newbie to English Wikipedia. He hasn't made tens of thousands of edits here, so I'm worried he might make lots of mistakes here. I understand you disagree; but, I hope you acknowledge that my point isn't completely unreasonable. Xoloz 15:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
But he does have lots of experience, so opposing based on NIH is not helpful to the project. If you didn't have los of evidence to go look at to see the type of contributions he does that would be one thing, but you do. If you choose not to go investigate his contributions that's one thing, but opposing based on that is unreasonable. Your point isn't completely unreasonable, but opposing a talented editor based on it is. - TaxmanTalk 19:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank goodness Wikipedia could disambiguate NIH for me. :) Seriously, while I might have missed something, I see nothing in his en.wiki contributions which stands out so spectacularly to render the question of his competence here conclusively. Insufficient record exists here. Opinions will differ on that also, but I do always scan contributions before giving comment at RfA, so you know. Xoloz 23:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The short sightedness of only looking at en.wiki contributions is dissapointing. - TaxmanTalk 03:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It's funny that each of us sees the same fault in the other. :) Xoloz 20:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per answer to question 4. --After Midnight0001 02:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - can't trust to be fair. Αργυριου(talk) 04:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose – I stumbled across this discussion while looking at a bunch of Nepalese hospital stubs created recently by Eukesh that probably don’t meet WP:N. (I was trying to decide whether to tag them for notability or for deletion.) It looks like Eukesh only wants administrator access to protect articles in which he has special interest. Template:Newar, for example, was not vandalized. The IP mentioned seems to have made good-faith contributions, so if Eukesh wants to block them from editing, it demonstrates a lack of understanding about how things are done on the English Wikipedia (IP editsmore). This is a stated a desire to misuse protection. I don’t know about offensive terms in other languages, but Wikipedia is not censored (WP:NOT#CENSOR), and Eukesh sounds like he wants to start censoring (e.g. Madhesay, see his many attempts to censor, including here, here, and here). There is plenty of work that Eukesh can do for Nepal and South Asia that doesn’t require admin access. Jaksmata 14:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment - How Eukesh managed to become an admin on ks.wikipedia with less than 50 edits is beyond me [34]. Edits for bh.wikipedia (200) and pi.wikipedia (300) are also very low for an admin. It's obvious things aren't done the same everywhere. Jaksmata 14:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Words like Madhesay do not deserve an article, just a mention at List of ethnic slurs, this is not censorship. About the adminship at ks.wiki, as you can see, as a whole he has more than 11,000 edits, succesful initiatives in South Asian area and for these reasons he received the admin status. Most of his edits at ks.wiki are admin related, badly needed there (the other admin was not active since January 2005). Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 15:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Quote from Eukesh: "The term Madhesay is a highly offensive ethnic slur. Any article with such ethnic offense should be deleted." (from Talk:Madhesay). This is not true. Several slurs have their own articles that should not be deleted. Before Eukesh started editing the article, there was no indication that anyone was being offended, and the article was about an ethnic group. Eukesh did not add it to a list of ethnic slurs - he tried to get it speedy deleted, twice, even after his first request was denied and it was suggested that AFD would be appropriate (see my links above). I have little doubt that if Eukesh were an admin at the time, he would have deleted the article immediately, possibly abusing his admin powers. Jaksmata 16:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed several have article, others don't have. If the mainstream doesn't know about the meanings of a certain word, this does not mean they cease to exist at Wikipedia. I wouldn't imagine an article named Nigger or Crow that would very seriously present the Afro-Americans, as the initial article Madhesay did. Moreover since, in this case, the issue is somehow confined to the South Asian people, it is pointless to accuse Eukesh of wrongdoing while he gained the respect of such a diverse community. Nothing to suggest POV or possible abuse of admin powers. As other users said before, he showed already his commitment for the project of Wikipedia and mature approach. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 16:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Jacksmata, the article did not cite any source and had been marked for POV before I put up the deletion tag. Besides, I think that you do not understand the gravity of the Madhesi situation. People are being killed everyday because of this Madhesi unrest. You can check any Nepalese newssites or mail to any of the Nepalese journalists, leaders etc. or maybe just ask people at Nepalese wikipedia about the term and the present volatile situation. The reason why I considered it for immediate deletion is because the article was started by a Pahadi person. Such kinds of issues, if found by Madhesi extremists, can lead to a lot more violence. Admin or no admin, had I been in your place I would have checked out what is happening in Nepal before making such a reckless statement about how I tried to break the "culture" of English wikipedia. About template Newar, please feel free to contact ANY person who has even a modicum of information about Newar and if they think that any of the two articles which have already been deleted (with no tagging from my side whatsoever) is more than self advertisement and deserves a place in Template Newar more than say article of any other Newar person, I will stop editing in this wikipedia. I think that the basis of any encyclopedia is knowledge. When people question my attempts to improve the level of knowledge, reliability and quality of articles here with their stereotypical attitude, I do not feel that we are in the process of contributing to the betterment of the world but are striving for our petty personal satisfation by chashing the egos. I have been conrtibuting even to wikipedia in languages which I dont know and have been developing input system for them, fighting vandals, writing to people of the language community to join wikipedia for the betterment of the language and dissemination of knowledge despite my busy schedule as a medical student because I believe in humanity and thought that wikipedia is a one of the best place to demonstrate it by sharing of knowledge. However, I think that we are so much obsessed with the peripheries over here that the core has been forgotten altogether. I dont care whether I will make it as an admin amongst thousands of admins here for I have served as the only editor and admin in places like Pali, Bhojpuri and Nepal Bhasa. However, if we proceed with this level of focus on schism between wikipedias, lack of trust and egoism, wikipedia wont be the place it was meant to be -the free encyclopedia (in good spirit). Thanks.--Eukesh 17:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Seems to only want admin tools to use for their own articles and ones related to their other admin work on other wikis. Jmlk17 21:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This is an objection shared already by other opposing users, again presented as a personal opinion without justifying it. There are created some borders (you state "their own articles", "their other admin work") and afterwards they are imposed on the newly made category of "them" (vs. "you"). Sorry, but I reject your categorisation, I still hope I don't belong to "them" category in this wiki. The presentation of the work in a specific cultural and geographic area was intented to show the accomplishments, not for sectarian purposes. It included a sense of fulfilement but that did not imply the exclusion of other cultures. I contend that this implication is only imagined by the opposing users who supported it. I see there is currently at least other candidate that states too an involvement in disseminating the knowledge about a certain geographic area. However, in that case nobody objected, the status upgrading of that user was not considered menacing (because the area belongs to the Anglosphere?). What is the message sent by this opposition point to future candidacies? That they have to shun to present a possible involvement in non-Western areas? Who is sectarian here? Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Three sentences, written by the candidate in response to the question of what admin work the candidate intended to do, worry me a great deal: Also, there are many articles [about Nepal and South Asia] which have faulty information. I can help in their correction. Maintaining NPOV is another aspect in these articles which needs attention. This bothers me for two reasons: first, and lesser, correcting faulty info and maintaining NPOV don't require admin tools; second, on the English Wikipedia, there is a strong tradition that admins who edit specific articles should not generally use their admin powers as a way of changing the article to language that they prefer. So even mentioning "admin powers" and "faulty information" and "NPOV" in the same paragraph seems to me to imply either lack of knowledge of that tradition, or disagreement with it. That tradition is very important: we want editors who feel free to express their opinions (say, on article talk pages) because they aren't worried that they will be warned or blocked by an involved editor who disagrees with them and is using his/her admin powers in support of his/her edits. -- John Broughton(♫♫) 23:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this issue was answered already by David D. when acknowledging the mature approach in NPOV debates. About the tradition, again many users considered that certain minor adjustments would not be a problem. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
My concern is with intentions with regard to having admin powers. David D.'s comment about past editing by the candidate doesn't fully address my concern, nor was he specifically discussing the three sentences I quoted. -- John Broughton(♫♫) 23:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Per Q4, and the apparent lack of knowledge regarding a) the protection policy and b) the different functions administrators can apply when blocking a user. Daniel Bryant 00:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Daniel.Bryant. Once the candidate has gained a little more experience of when the admin tools should be used on en.wiki, I would gladly support. WjBscribe 16:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users." That's a no-no for any admin in my book. Shanes 11:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Please accept my oppose as I too am concerned in very similar ways with your answers to Q1 and Q4 (in so far your need to gain the tools is not established - and indeed you would be able to overcome the problems of vandalism to those articles within your spectrum of interest by asking a current admin to assist). I also agree with many of the concerns expressed by my fellow editors above.--VStalk 08:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Oppose For not having email enabled, or Luna Santin had to ask on one of the questions, which is not a good sign. It's essential for allblocked users to be able to send you email, so that they can reach you to appeal their block. Sorry.--U.S.A.cubed 20:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Once you enable email, I will see no reason why to oppose.--U.S.A.cubed 20:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. I'm not so much concerned about the e-mail address issue, but rather your answer to question one. Your answer tells me that you don't need the tools at this time (i.e. the improvements you plan to make can be done without the tools). Sr13(T|C) 09:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Regretful Oppose Your responses above make me nervous that you've not developed your antennae enough about how things work at the English language Wikipedia, which seems (from your answers) considerably different from the others where you no doubt do excellent work. --Dweller 15:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Neutral
Neutral for now Difficult to evaluate the candidate based on his en. contributions and I don't speak Gujrati, Oriya, Panjabi, Dzonkha or Bod Skad/Tibetan! But I have to agree with Funpika that there might not be any rush to give him sysop rights given the type of things he wants to work on and so I'm leaning towards opposing.Pascal.Tesson 01:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC) I'm now leaning support as the supporters have made a number of convincing arguments. However, I still feel that the answer to my optional question shows that Eukesh does not understand the protection and semi-protection policy on this wiki. If he does get promoted, I ask him to take the time to learn more about the policies and guidelines of the English wiki before using his tools actively. Pascal.Tesson 05:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral: While his contributions to the other Wikipedia are quite large I do not feel there is enough experience in this project. I trust the user however I feel that more experience is needed for this user in this project to be fully deserving of the tools. OrfenUser Talk | Contribs 02:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral. It would be good if you could use edit summaries more often, it helps others understand what you changed. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral, leaning oppose. Your sysop work on other Wikipedias, your willingness to help here, and your flexibility, are commendable... However, I know from firsthand experience how different the English Wikipedia can be from the other Wikipedias, and I feel it would do you good to spend a little more time here. The answer to question one leaves a little to be desired in terms of understanding our protection policy and the role of an admin on enwiki. Answer question four, that will give other editors a better view of you. Grandmasterka 03:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral per Grandmasterka and Tesson. —Anastalk? 08:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral for now. Syosp access in other wikis is good. Yet, adminship is not a trophy. Also, policies differ from wiki to wiki. However, I need to see the edit count of this user to make a decision. Neutral for now. Real96 09:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral, needs more time spent on enwiki. It does not mean you are an admin on other Wikipedias so you will become an admin here. You are doing quite a good job, and keep that up. Every Wiki has different policies, so yeah. Terence 13:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral per Amarkov and Michaelas10. – Rianaऋ 14:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Switching to support. – Rianaऋ 17:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral per everything above. Give it some time - another month or so, so that we have more english wikipedia edits to judge by. -_ Pastordavid 16:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral I believe that this user can be trusted to be as good an admin as possible, and I am not concerned with the possibility that they may focus solely on a grouping of articles vs. the entire en project. I am particularly interested in the answer to question 4. Once I see that I will be prepared to give further opinion. --After Midnight0001 17:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC) - changed to oppose --After Midnight0001 02:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral. Although this user's sysop access in other wikis indicates knowledge of the wiki system, I don't think that the answer to q1 indicates an actual need for the tools. I don't consider inexperience to be an issue, when the candidate's experience on other-language Wikipedias is taken into account, but an RfA candidate needs to give us some idea of what they want to do with the admin tools. WaltonNeed some help? 18:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral Leaning Support. I really really want to support, and I definitely see the trust in this candidate, but I just think that our policies/proceedures take a bit more work to get used to than the other wikis. Get another solid month of work here under your belt, and I will be happy to say strong support.^demon[omg plz]18:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral. The last sentence in the response to Q1 is "Maintaining NPOV is another aspect in these articles which needs attention." The only way that admin tools can be useful in maintaining NPOV is through blocking POV pushers or protecting pages. The rest are things editors without the tools can do. I think that, in general, admins should be cautious in employing the tools in disputes in which they are involved (e.g., protecting, blocking), exclusive of obvious vandalism like replacing the text of an article with "SDKF S(*&#J". As the candidate seems to acquire the tools specifically for this purpose, I am wary of supporting. As the candidate's contributions to multiple wikis are commendable, I will not oppose on this reason alone. I remain neutral, reserving the right to change my opinion (either way) if new developments arise. -- Black Falcon(Talk) 04:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral You would obviously be an asset to the English Wikipedia given your extensive involvement in multiple WikiProjects. Opponents have raised concerns that the English Wikipedia may be somewhat more tolerant of user differences and disagreements than some other projects, and as a result are concerned that you might be more inclined to block or otherwise punish a user for conduct which, under the rules of the English Wikipedia, is permissable. Suggest you wait a little bit and, in your next RfA, directly address these concerns and assure us that you understand the cultural differences involved and you'll be a little bit less quick to use enforcement powers here than might be appropriate somewhere else. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Road articles, particularly those related to New York. The reason I place these in high regard is, one, it is the state I live in, and two, it was a long, drawn-out process to bring each article up to standards, a process that is still ongoing today.
One article that I take pride in, and also one that I helped start, is U.S. Route 9 in New York. After I laid the groundwork for the article, other users came in and added to the quality of the article, making it one of the best road-related articles produced in New York.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: There have been some scattered conflicts, most due to a small misunderstanding and usually resolved fairly quickly. One major conflict was WP:SRNC, which was a large naming conventions poll involving some 100 editors and designed to end move warring that was taking place in numerous states. However, this conflict was resolved by the community at-large.
In the future, I plan on dealing with conflicts in much the same way; that is, in a cool, level-headed manner, with discussion rather than pure reversion.
4. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
A: One should ignore a rule if the rule prevents others from improving the project (that is, Wikipedia). Take WP:SRNC as an example. Pure consensus was never really achieved, as evidenced by the close final margin in part one of the poll. However, to improve the wiki and to put an end to the numerous move wars that had been occurring up to that point, it was decided to bypass consensus (ignoring the rule) and to treat the simple majority as consensus in an attempt to make progress.
IAR should not be blindly applied. An example is that, let's say, a template that I believe is useful and improves Wikipedia is up for deletion. However, the vast majority of editors believe that the template is not useful. Would I invoke IAR and close the TFD as keep, just because I believe that the template contributes to Wikipedia? No, as consensus is clearly and overwhelmingly pointing to delete.
To close, rules are made for a reason, and should only be ignored when there is a valid reason to do so. The example I gave above regarding SRNC is one (as it shifted focus from something trivial like the article name to improving the articles, which is where the focus should be). The hypothetical TFD example is not a valid reason to IAR.
Feel free to ask me to elaborate on this issue, as I realize that the examples above may be a bit vague to some.
5. In response to an anonymous user's persistent vandalism, what, in your opinion, is the most effective response: just keep reverting (no warnings), revert and leave warnings then block if he/she still continues, semiprotection of the page, or some other action? Why?
A: Based on personal experience that I've had with anon vandals, the most effective response is to revert, go through the user warning ladder ("uw-test", switching to "uw-vandal" when appropriate), and then, when the vandalism reaches a blockable point, block the IP address. If the vandalism continues from another IP, I would then turn to WP:RFPP for a second opinion on the situation.
The reason that I would go this way and in this order is that leaving warnings on the IP talk page to start with gives the anon the opportunity to cease vandalizing and to contribute productively to the encyclopedia. If the anon keeps vandalizing after the warning, then it would be clear to me that the anon is not here to improve the encyclopedia and that the blocking of the anon from editing would be beneficial to the wiki. As for RFPP, the reason that I would ask for a second opinion is that if I protected a page that I was continually reverting for vandalism, it would give the impression that I am supporting the pre-vandalized version. Yes, I know this example would be more applicable in content disputes, but my personal policy would remain the same nonetheless. Having the page protected by someone not involved with the article guarantees that there is no bias toward the version being protected.
6. In AFDs or RMs, how much would you value comments that only say "Delete per nom" or "Move per nom" without giving additional reasons? If one side has a very strong argument but is overwhelmed by the number of "votes" on the other side mainly composed of such "per nom" votes, under what circumstances would you ignore counting "votes"?
A: Not very, as unless the nominator outlined every potential reason for deleting the article, there is almost always something more that can be said. Simple "per nom" comments sometimes imply votestacking and, while often more than enough for TFDs dealing with deprecated templates, are not nearly sufficient for a discussion regarding the deletion or moving of an article, especially if the deletion/move is fairly controversial. So, to sum it up, I would definitely value elaborate comments with detailed rationale much more than simple "per nom" comments.
I think the second part of that question got touched on in the end of the above paragraph (oops). I would consider ignoring counting votes if it is apparent that spamming or votestacking is occurring, such as heavy participation by anon editors, or if the "per nom" voters do not elaborate on their comments after they will be surely questioned to do so by the side who has the strong argument.
I know that this second issue is often a touchy subject, and there is no conceivable way to give a single answer that would cover every possible situation. However, I can expand on my thoughts if requested.
7. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 02:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A: If I see this occurring on an article, or if I hear that this is occurring on an article, I will fully enforce this policy and block editors who attempt to circumvent this policy. From the perspective of the person whose article is being vandalized, I certainly wouldn't want slander being placed on my article.
As far as how I will enforce the policy, I will give warnings initially and block if it becomes clear that the user's sole purpose is to vandalize the aforementioned article.
8. Is assuming good faith an important guideline, especially for an administrator, and if so, how would you go about in applying this guideline?--U.S.A.cubed 05:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A: Assuming good faith is important, as trusting that editors are improving the encyclopedia with their additions is the only way that the wiki will improve. Personally, I believe good faith should always be assumed unless the editor has explicitly shown that their edits are not made in good faith. For an administrator, this is even more important for many reasons, including the rollback feature and the power to block editors. If AGF is not followed, then an editor with good intentions but poor writing form could have their potentially productive edits reverted and, if not enough patience is given, the editor could be blocked, creating ill will in the mind of the editor.
I would apply this guideline as I described above; that is to AGF unless there is a clear reason not to. I will also attempt to give potentially productive editors the benefit of the doubt, preventing a situation like the one described in the last sentence of the above paragraph.
Is there any reason why this spammed as a faux "you have messages" box on User talk:Vishwin60? Is it spammed anywhere else? --kingboyk 19:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I have no idea why it's being spammed there. I did not place that message there, nor did I ask the editor(s, in case it's in multiple places without my knowledge) to place it there. For the record, I do not endorse these messages nor am I campaigning for votes. I believe that this RFA should be an honest assessment of my ability, and the potential for votestacking that these messages create could cause this assessment to become a bit cheapened, something that I hope doesn't happen. --TMFLet's Go Mets - Stats 20:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you the answer, which is also the answer I had hoped you would give :) Cheers. --kingboyk 13:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/TwinsMetsFan before commenting.
Discussion
Consensus not numbers: This is an intelligent and well thought-out nomination of a Wikipedian experienced in the often-contentious highways project. I'm particularly impressed by the way he has responded to questions. I propose that we promote this editor to sysop. --Tony Sidaway 10:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Support
Troppus Looks like a good user. Particularly like answer to Q1 (backlogged areas). Good luck! Majorly(hot!) 20:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I think this user will do a good job. Funpika 20:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - Looks good to me, good luck with your RfA. Adambro 20:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support -Will make a pretty fine Admin..--Cometstyles 21:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - interactions with this user through WP:USRD have always been positive. TMF is a good, hard-working user who always displays a thorough knowledge of policy and will make an excellent admin. —Scott5114↗ 21:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak support Looks good, but think about doing more administrative work, and please be more specific than "fill the admin backlogs". I haven't seen you doing much vandal work overall, and this troubles me (even though it isn't required, but strongly recommended). Also the fact that you don't seem to participate in XFDs much, and this troubles me as well. V60干什么？ · VDemolitions · ER 3 21:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Looks good to me, seems to have firm grasp on policy, excellent contributor. Arkyan • (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support. Excellent user, good work, good policy knowledge, etc. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support No problems here. Acalamari 21:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support positive interactions with the candidate... helped me out by answering two questions I had about road articles. Would ask questions to again. A+++ --W.marsh 21:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Oh yeah. The edit count shows a year of experience and broad activity. Working in a WikiProject and general content contributions are also assets. As the saying goes, no big deal. YechielMan 22:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. I agree with Vishwin that a more specific answer than "fix the backlogs" would be great. But this editor is probably the most level-headed editor at the U.S. Roads WikiProject – rarely if ever fails to keep cool. Any editor at USRD has experience at XFD, and he gives some of the better-reasoned arguments I've seen. And even if not, XFD is probably the smallest of all the admin responsibilities. This user deserves the mop if he wants it, and I was pleased to see him accept the nomination. -- NORTHtalk 22:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Sounds okay and has a cool username. Yanksox 23:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Good luck. --Shirahadasha 01:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support. TwinsMetsFan has a long history of good contributions, and I can find nothing that would indicate the tools would be abused. Twiddle that bit. ···日本穣? · TalktoNihonjoe 02:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support: I see no issues with the user. Has the experience and seems civil. As stated above amd below a better answer than "fill the admin backlogs" would be nicer however the questions are optional and the contributions speak for themselves. OrfenUser Talk | Contribs 02:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support: Fantastic editor. Is always insightful and willing to help and offer his opinions and solutions in a calm, cool manner. --MPDT / C 02:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Many good things and no bad things. Captainpanda 02:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support. I see him all over the place. Great work, will be a superb admin. -Mschel 03:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Good fellow who I'm sure will only further help the project with some extra buttons (on a personal note, I also like the fact that he doesn't like the Yankees, hehe) gaillimhConas tá tú? 03:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per responses and candidate's overall record. Newyorkbrad 03:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - Succinct and to the point, I see nothing to suggest handing this user the flag would be bad for Wikipedia... so why not :-)? Good luck. Matthew 13:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - will make a fine admin. -- Pastordavid 16:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support seems alright.-- danntmTC 16:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per more than adequate experience and no meaningful concerns. Nothing wrong with short answers. Addhoc 19:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - keep on truckin'! The Transhumanist 20:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support, his contributions to USRD are incredible. I trust his as an admin as well. -- JA10T · C 01:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per interactions in WP:SRNC. At least this RfA doesn't seem to have turned into a Highways Dispute Round 2: Losers' Revenge debacle like mine, to some extent, did. —210physicq (c) 03:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per above. I seem to have run out of witty comments ... sorry. -- Black Falcon(Talk) 05:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Good all-around editor. Jmlk17 21:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Excellent editor and has been very level-headed in all our interactions. While he lacks experience in actual vandal fighting and participation in AFDs etc., his answers to the questions above indicate sufficient knowledge of basic policy to be able to do the job of an admin. I would suggest you also try wading into contentious AFDs/RMs and/or mediation to gain a better feel for dispute resolution. --Polaron | Talk 22:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I support this excellent contributor, having seen him around for quite a while on various pages. I always assumed he already was one: I know he'll do fine. Jonathunder 19:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support-- Definitely a good editor. Matt Yeager♫(Talk?) 22:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support, checks out for me.--Wizardman 06:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Support very good editor.Shindo9Hikaru 23:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Support We need admins who know how to write articles.--Simul8 11:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Support TwinsMetsFan has been an asset to Wikipedia as an editor and I am confident that he will continue to be an asset as an admin. ~ BigrTex 17:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
Large number of divisive and irrelevant userboxes on the candidate's userpage compel opposition. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
If you don't mind, could you clarify which userboxes do you consider divisive? I can't see any. -Amarkovmoo! 04:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I have many more "divisive" userboxes on my userbox page, would you consider me a poor administrator? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The divisive userboxes include, but are not limited to, the one declaring his sexual preference and the one declaring that he "despises" a sports team. The irrelevant ones, well, there are dozens of those. As to Rschen, if you want to know, resign your adminship, waive your right to reinstatement, and run again. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
In America, sports rivalries like that are quite common. Furthermore, everyone has a sexual preference- it's not divisive to share it with others. A userbox saying "GAYS ARE DUMB" or something like that is divisive, yes. But a simple statement of sexual preference is not. Furthermore, I'd wager that many administrators have many more userboxes that are more divisive than those that I or TMF have. If you are against the use of userboxes, then please start a WP:VPP discussion; this is not the place to garner support against userboxes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion has been noted. Have a nice day. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Just curious but any reason in particular? Khukri 19:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I suspect this has something to do with WP:SRNC. —210physicq (c) 22:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Opppose I have not seen strong evidence on assuming good faith in others. But, depending on the answer of the question of AGF, I may think otherwise. You may be on the right track with the answer to question 5, but I don't know how many warnings you will give, and more importantly, that you'll use a proper tone aswell, especially for newcomers.--U.S.A.cubed 19:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
So uh, you're assuming he won't assume good faith? Doesn't that seem a bit odd? --W.marsh 20:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Uh apparantly and all I said was that you needed to follow the directions that I was linking you to, which you did need to do. No assumption was made on my part. But that has absolutely nothing to do with this... --W.marsh 20:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I did jump too soon to oppose, and you're right. I don't understand enough how the canadate will assume good faith, but I see no evidence how the canadate will not assume good faith. I'll switch to neutral for now.--U.S.A.cubed 20:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I switched to support for an adequate answer.--U.S.A.cubed 00:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, just not convinced. ~ G1ggy!SPEAK! 05:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry I am not at all into the "Kelly Martin" thing but I am perturbed in this case that one of the two people that are listed as part of your project group (in your nomination) does not even support your candidature - considering that you should do more pre-admin time. I have run across a couple of your edits and have no personal complaints but something doesn't sit right when 50% of your fellows do not support you at this time.--VStalk 08:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a fault on the nominator in writing his nomination, not on the nominee. Myself, MPD, Polaron, and JA10 (support votes #11, 16, 32, and 36) are all also active members in WP:IH and/or WP:USRD (the parent project), and it's certainly possible I've missed a few. -- NORTHtalk 18:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Neutral
Neutral Looks good, but think about doing more administrative work, and please be more specific than "fill the admin backlogs". I haven't seen you doing much vandal work overall, and this troubles me (even though it isn't required, but strongly recommended). Also the fact that you don't seem to participate in XFDs much, and this troubles me as well. To other users: please look at his contribs carefully before voicing.V60干什么？ · VDemolitions · ER 3 21:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your nominator advertising your RfA on his userpage makes it hard to support. I hate to change my opinion because of something someone else did... -Amarkovmoo! 03:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
And I hate to see you changing your opinion for this reason. The notice of the RfA, which was not even placed by the candidate, is tasteful and neutrally worded. I find this rationale for withdrawing support from a candidate to be totally unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad 03:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I still don't like advertising RfAs at all, but this doesn't even persuade me now that you've said that. I'll make a proper evaluation tomorrow. -Amarkovmoo! 03:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral You need a little more time on Wiki, but you seem to have what it takes. just give it some more time.The juggsd86 19:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Prolog (talk·contribs) - I hereby present Prolog for your consideration. Prolog has been steadily working to improve and maintain the encyclopedia ever since he started editing in last July. In addition to his article contributions, such as Henri Toivonen and Larin Paraske (more examples on his user page), he has worked tirelessly on maintenance tasks such as vandal fighting. Prolog has also participated in deletion discussions and other Wikipedia processes and has, in my experience, always been civil and constructive in discussions with other users. I believe he would make good use of the tools. KFP (talk | contribs) 11:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Prolog 19:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A: As I have a good amount of experience in vandal-fighting and speedy deletions, I intend to concentrate on WP:AIV and CAT:CSD. I also think I have a good grasp on our naming conventions and enjoy moving pages, so I would be helping at WP:RM by completing uncontroversial move proposals. Other than those, I will occasionally help out at CAT:PROD.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In mainspace, I usually concentrate on certain topics that I feel are not yet well covered, such as currently rallying and 70's Italian "genre films". I do sometimes enjoy trying different areas too, as with Larin Paraske, mentioned by KFP above, and Tammerkoski. Of individual articles, I'm happiest with my work on Henri Toivonen, which was promoted to GA and might make it to FA-level, if it was thoroughly copyedited. Outside main namespace, I have worked on several WikiProjects. I helped in starting up the projects Finland and World Rally, and am quite active in Films and Metal.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I don't really get stressed while editing. Disagreements in Xfd discussions and talk pages are probably my biggest "conflicts", although I remember a January case when I noticed that 18 bands related to Southern Lord Records were requested for speedy deletion. I contested applying A7 on these and everything was later solved in Afd's, but I must admit that I jumped to conclusions instead of properly assuming good faith. However, I think I have improved on this aspect since then.
4. It's quite coming for the time of administrators to be taken up with protections, blocks and deletions. How do you plan to avoid them overshadowing your article creation?
A: I'm not too worried about this, because I enjoy participating in many types of tasks and creating articles from scratch is quite different from most other work that I have done so far. It might take some time to find a balance of sorts, but I have a long list of articles I want to create, expand or just edit, and that will keep me busy too. Prolog 13:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
5. What do you consider to be your weak points?
A: In content writing, I have a tendency to start too many projects, while I should be concentrating on bringing more work online instead. A weak point related to admin work could be my lack of experience with images. Although I have uploaded many, tagged a few for deletion and know the basics of the related guidelines and policies, if I would get interested in helping with the image backlogs, I would probably have to do quite a bit of studying first. Prolog 13:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from Naconkantari:
6. When is it appropriate to implicitly invoke WP:IAR? Explicitly? Are there times when it should not be invoked? Naconkantari 23:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
7. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 02:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Prolog before commenting.
Discussion
Support
Support as nominator. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - From what I have seen of this editor on this project, they would make a great use of the tools. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support Have seen this editor at work in many different areas. Reports at AIV are always spot on (almost to the point where you don't have to check whether they have been warned appropriately, because you know they have). Comments at AfD show a great awareness of current policy, and are always well documented. And this editor can write articles and participate in various projectspaces. This is almost a co-nom, heh? – B.hotepu/t• 19:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - Looks fine. Good luck with the RfA. Adambro 19:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - When did you get desysopped?! I honestly thought you were an admin already!! Anyway, a very firm editor, will use the tools extremely well. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Looks like a good editor to me. Acalamari 20:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Prolog has been around long enough to understand policy and to demonstrate his understanding of policy. He has done just that. An ability to program in logic will aid him in making wise decisions as an admin. He is a trusted user who understands policy. -- Jreferee 20:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support- has certainly been around long enough to know the ins and outs of Wikipedia, and a well-rounded editor. Good show. Dåvid Fuchs(talk / frog blast the vent core!) 20:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Prolog looks like a good candidate to me, no worries here. Good luck! Majorly(hot!) 21:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
No doubt he'll use the tools wisely. --Slowking Man 21:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I echo the others' comments of support and agree with them. Captainpanda 21:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Looks like he would make a very good admin. -Mschel 22:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support a prolific and positive contributor to the project. The Rambling Man 22:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Hmm, if you're active in four Wikiprojects, does that mean you have a Wikiproject endorsement forthcoming? Now why would I be saying that? :). Anyway, no problem. YechielMan 22:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support He looks like an excellent candidate. — Wenli 22:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support. I've seen him around, and he's a very strong contributor, has a level head, and would make an excellent admin. ···日本穣? · TalktoNihonjoe 00:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Although 17,000 edits seems a bit low... :) Prolog is an excellent contributor and can be trusted with the sysop tools. — Scientizzle 01:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support superb candidate.-- danntmTC 01:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support, in return for Prolog's prolific support of Wikipedia. The Transhumanist 02:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Just wanted to point out that while Prolog's prodigious edit count is appreciated, other admin candidates shouldn't feel a need to have anything like this many edits before being considered. Most of these edits are automated. While these are helpful in demonstrating knowledge and dedication, the smaller core of edits that show personal thought, judgment, and communication skills are what's most essential. --Shirahadasha 02:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Tuki totta kai.--Húsönd 03:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support the quality of Prolog's work is that of an admin. Will do well with the tools. —Anastalk? 12:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Signs point to yes. >Radiant< 14:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks to be a model user, with a truly amazing amount of edits amassed in a short period of time. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per more than adequate experience. Addhoc 14:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I have nothing to suggest he will abuse the tools. Michaelas10 14:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. This user has been here long enough that I do not require WikiProject endorsement to tell me how he will handle the tools. Although the 7 image talk edits is worrying. ;) – Rianaऋ 16:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per nom. I've seen this user around a fair bit on RC Patrol and he obviously wouldn't be one to abuse the tools. - Zeibura S. Kathau(Info | Talk) 18:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per nom. Seems a fine candidate for the tools. -- Pastordavid 18:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support- Has a good record in Wikipedia and would make an excellent admin Thunderwing 19:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. I honestly can't think of anything to write that hasn't already been written above. -- Black Falcon(Talk) 20:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support: Has experience, seems civil, and deserving of the tools. I see nothing bad. Should make a fine administrator. OrfenUser Talk | Contribs 02:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per answers, comments above, candidate's overall record. I note the absence of any opposition to date. The rationale for the neutral commenter's "withholding of support" remains completely unpersuasive to me. I strongly deprecate the practice of thrusting individual RfA candidates into the middle of larger debates about RfA reform and related issues, which inevitably will just make the RfA process even less appealing than some candidates find it now. Newyorkbrad 03:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. I've seen Prolog around- appears he has done good work and has the necessary experience. No issues that I can see. WjBscribe 04:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Final (68/5/2); Ended Tue, 1 May 2007 21:17:57 UTC
Matt Britt (talk·contribs) -
Overview:
User:Matt Britt is an electrical engineering undergraduate student at Georgia Institute of Technology. He first came to Wikipedia in September of 2004 (first edit), more than 2 1/2 years ago. He's been an active, regular contributor during most of that time, with generally increasing activity over the last year and a half. He's never been blocked (block log), shows coolness and maturity, and is an all around fantastic editor.
General behavior:
I've reviewed various talk space messages performed by Matt Britt and found him to be apologetic when need be [35], polite [36], helpful in attempts to quell brewing fights [37], having a good understanding of policy [38], supportive of centralized debate [39], understands the difference between vandalism and content dispute [40] and patient with other editors [41]. He also has a good approach to the concept of improving the encyclopedia [42]
Main space contributions:
Matt has contributed significantly to areas of his expertise in electrical engineering. He's been quite active in this arena with substantial contributions to Central processing unit, Computer, bipolar junction transistor, IBM System i and a whole host of other subject related articles.
Vandalism fighting:
Matt Britt has been a very active vandal fighter on such contentious articles as Jehovah's Witnesses and Xbox 360. In total, he's made more than a thousand vandalism reversions in his time here. He has received a barnstar for his work on vandalism [44].
Other:
I found Matt's essay at User:Matt Britt/Don't just do whatever to be very refreshing, and demonstrative of a strong grasp of what it is we are trying to achieve here.
Conclusion:
I find Matt to be a great presence on the project. His ideas on where we are supposed to be going, along with his patient demeanor and willingness to work with others on contentious issues show him to be well capable of the extra demands placed upon an administrator. Having Matt as an administrator will be a great asset to the project. --Durin 17:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept (note that my answers to the first three questions below are copied from my old RfA. -- mattb 17:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
A: Mostly the ability to speedy delete articles per WP:CSD and block disruptive and unrelentant spammers after warning them. Surprisingly, I come across a significant number of both just by following the trail of editors of the articles I watch (especially those related to video games and electronic test equipment). -- mattb 17:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm pleased with Oakland Cemetery and CPU simply because I put a lot of work into writing them and am proud of the result. I'm even more pleased with computer since its current state is the result of a joint writing effort with Steve Baker, and it was a pleasure to be able to collaborate on a major article rewrite. I was happy to have the viewpoints of another person in writing such a broadly-scoped article, something that I had a hard time finding with the first two articles I mentioned (one can never be quite sure if a fair treatment has been given if they are the sole author and editor). -- mattb 17:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I've been an ongoing proponent and somewhat a poster child for the binary prefix guideline at WP:MOSNUM. I've been involved in numerous lengthy debates on the matter, many of which become frustratingly cyclical and induce a lot of arm waving. This usually involves some firm language, but it rarely becomes incivil due largely to the good intent of everyone involved. I suppose that could prove stressful to some, but to be honest, Wikipedia doesn't cause me anxiety on a personal level. I say this with all the bittersweet love possible, but Wikipedia simply doesn't have any bearing on my well-being and I don't give it a lot of thought in my daily offline activity. Hobbies, however diverting, should be kept in appropriate perspective.
Perhaps a better example of a stressful situation regards the actions of two editors on pages related to (and including) Jehovah's Witnesses. Without going into gory detail, there was a lot of incivility and egregious personal attacks, things escalated to an arbitration case, and two prolific editors ended things on very bitter terms with permanent bans. Before the arbitration case was opened, I decided that my energies on Wikipedia were better spent making productive edits rather than engaging in viscious debates, so I removed the related articles from my watch list and avoided them for about a year. In the time after that I worked heavily on the aforementioned CPU and computer articles, so I think the decision was a good one. I've recently returned to editing the Jehovah's Witnesses related pages since a much nicer and more reasonable group helps maintain them now. (the full text of the RFAR can be seen at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein; back then my username was "uberpenguin") -- mattb 17:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Further to User:Radiant's oppose, below, what mainspace articles have you made significant contributions to in the last year, other than reversions, etc.? --Dweller 08:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
A: Mainspace? Radiant's position seems to regard Wikipedia space... Regardless, the aforementioned rewrite of Computer is my most major contribution in the past year. I tend to perform major rewrites on articles in bursts, concentrating on one big writing effort at a time. In the past couple of months I haven't had an ongoing major rewrite project because I've been occupied with school and research. Hopefully that explains why my edits in the past few months have largely been small copyediting, answering questions on the reference desk, etc. -- mattb 14:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from Naconkantari:
5. When is it appropriate to implicitly invoke WP:IAR? Explicitly? Are there times when it should not be invoked? Naconkantari 23:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
A: My answer to this isn't flowery, but it's honest and comes from seeing a lot of heated content disputes. To be perfectly truthful, in my experience this policy gets abused more than it is usefully invoked. That's not to say it doesn't have uses, but I think it's one of the first things people turn to when they're ready to laywer over policies in a conflict.
I think my experiences seeing this happen over and over make me take a more cautious view towards this policy. My stance is that if you're worried about making an edit in good faith because you're honestly not sure whether it breaks some rule or unspoken agreement, ignore the rules, be bold, and make your changes. People cannot be so concerned with the hundreds (thousands?) of pages of policy and guideline debates we have formed that it keeps them from making improvements to the encyclopedia. Even if they inadvertantly "don't do things the right way", it will likely be corrected in short order, and hopefully explained in a kind and courteous manner.
Where IAR frequently becomes a thorn in my side is when it's used to justify edit warring and lawyering. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone persistantly change things against consensus citing IAR as their reason for doing so (their version is, after all, an improvement from their point of view). When IAR is used as a shield to hide behind self-importance with regards to one's own views, it incites no fondness. Once an editor is made aware that there may be reasons why their contributions are disagreed upon, IAR no longer applies and they need to be more concerned with consensus.
IAR is rather a dichotomy. On the one hand it's the best thing for new users to be aware of, and on the other hand it's the worst thing for new users to be aware of. It really depends on the person. -- mattb 23:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
6. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 02:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A: I don't know. I honestly have never contributed meaningfully (insofar as memory serves) to any Wikipedia article about a living person. I'd probably ask someone more knowledgable to handle it, especially if said contentious material is the subject of an edit dispute (which seems likely).
My hypothetical by-the-book reaction would be to make sure the user re-adding content understands the verifiability and living persons biography policies and ask for them to provide a reliable source that verifies the information in question (of course, also making sure they realize what qualifies as 'reliable'). If they persist in re-adding content without any discussion and after having been asked to justify the information, I think a temporary block is appropriate. While I have my own issues with the way the verifiability policy is sometimes interpreted, cases such as this one where information is challenged clearly require the person adding it back to justify their reasoning. In any case, I'll tend to hold off for a while on blocking a person over this sort of issue until it's obvious that they have no desire to observe the policy. There are only a few behaviors that merit quick blocking action , most of which involve serious disruption (vandalism, 3RR, and extreme incivility come to mind). -- mattb 03:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Fixed template below ~ Anthony 17:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Matt Britt before commenting.
Consensus not numbers: I propose that the bureaucrats promote Matt Britt for reasons discussed in the previous nomination, which has just closed. --Tony Sidaway 18:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur with that assessment. --Durin 18:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that would be a good idea. From looking at the RFC RFA, I don't see a consensus. A large part of the opposition, my own included, was a result of the format, but an a priori objection is still an objection. I have supported this nomination and hope it will be successful, but I don't think that the previous RFA is in and of itself sufficient. --BigDT 18:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no strong opinion on this. I'll just as well accept the outcome of this RfA as that of the previous one. -- mattb 18:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I could have worded it better. I don't mean the bureaucrats should look at this RFA and the other one and just say "oh I'll promote now, no need to wait for the end of this discussion." Far from it, I'm just saying that at the end of this second application I think he should be an administrator. During the course of this discussion I could well change my mind, depending on what turns up. But for now I think I've seen enough to convince me at least as strongly as any other candidate. I happened to find the trial format far more informative than the usual one (under which this one is being run) and Instead of entering a statement under "support" (which in my opinion would risk turning this into another silly vote) I'm stating my support here. --Tony Sidaway 18:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree with a summary judgment based on the original RFC-style RFA (which is what I thought Tony was proposing, initially), but I do agree that input there should be considered in addition to that here, in the end. If people found the original RFA difficult/unwelcoming to participants, a different cadre may find this one superfluous and not (re)participate. I believe the original RFA did not demonstrate consensus on the question of granting the bit, unfortunately, which makes this exercise necessary. -- nae'blis 19:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the preceding request for adminship did not demonstrate a compelling reason not to promote this candidate; as such, he should have been promoted as a result. This discussion should merely ratify that result; I believe he should be promoted. I decline to vote in this discussion as a result. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I am concerned that this candidate has applied for adminstratorship merely 1-2 days after an unsuccessful bid. While there is no absolute rule regarding reapplication, I think that 3 months is entirely reasonable and rare candidate might wait as little as a month to reflect. If this editor is successful, then it calls into question the objectivity and fairness of the entire process, i.e., why would someone be unsuitable one day and be suitable the next day? I wish candidate MattBritt well. As a result, I do not wish to register comments under "Oppose" despite the concerns listed.VK35 21:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
See discussion and links under the "Oppose" comment below. In brief, the bureaucrat who closed the prior RfA said that he felt uncomfortable finding a consensus to promote based in part on the format of the RfA, although on balance the requisite level of support was probably there. Based on this, there was a discussion on RfA talk that concluded the candidate should be encouraged to reapply immediately using a more conventional format of RfA. Newyorkbrad 21:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I made up my mind a week ago. Matt's handling of this stressful situation only strengthens my confidence that he will keep his cool no matter what comes up. YechielMan 19:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Endorse the above. Michaelas10 19:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. He tripped and fell. So what. Now he's picked himself up and is moving on. I think we should encourage rather than discourage him. Based on Durin's meticulous assessment above, I think we can trust Matt with the admin buttons. Good luck Matt. The Transhumanist 19:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support, of course. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per nominator's statement, answers to questions, and candidate's overall record. The concern based on the timing of the nomination, under the circumstances, is unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad 19:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Meets and exceeds my standards. There's nothing wrong with Xoloz's oppose, though. He has high standards for XfD experience and is consistent about them. Haukur 19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I actually liked some aspects of the experimental RFA (although it would obviously need major tweaks to prevent an excessive number of "views" being introduced), but it certainly didn't affect my opinion about Matt, which is that he's well-qualified to be an administrator. JavaTenor 19:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I fundamentally disagree with some of his opinions, but he's proven entirely capable of still conducting himself in a neutral fashion. Trustworthy with tools, and no bullying-sounds like what we're looking for to me. Bladestorm 20:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support From what I saw, this user remained calm during that last RfA. That's a good reason to support. Acalamari 20:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support As near as I can tell, I supported Matt in his jumbled RfA#1 that closed April 24, 2007 and he has not given reason since that time to change my support. -- Jreferee 20:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. If it was not clear in the experimental RfA - and it may well not have been - I think this user would make a fine admin. Arkyan • (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support This user is be a good admin. The results of the previous RfA were inconclusive and should be tested again as they are here. Captainpanda 21:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per nominator's statement, and I agree that argument against based on the timing of the nomination, under the circumstances, is unpersuasive. Matt appears trustworthy.--Bduke 22:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per my support in the experimental RFA.-- danntmTC 22:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Per the other RfA, which says a lot about him. – Steel 22:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This candidate is experienced enough for me, and then some. His willingness to help try new things out is very commendable. Normally I would not like to see a candidate rerun without some sign of having taken feedback given to him on board. But in this case, per Dan's comments (as summed up by NYBrad in the commments section) that is no reason to oppose... there are no comments to take on board. Also, I think he Gets It, he has a Deft Hand, and most importantly, is Not Likely to Go on a SpreeTM... ++Lar: t/c 22:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's not whitewash things; there are plenty of examples of constructive criticism in the previous RFA that Matt could have worked on betweentimes if he so chose. -- nae'blis 23:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Supportpace Xolos a willingness to be bold and risk himself as a test subject for the good of the encyclopedia is commendable.--Docg 23:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support as in the experimental RfA. An excellent contributor, and I see nothing that would indicate untrustworthiness or potential abuse of the tools. Twiddle that bit! ···日本穣? · TalktoNihonjoe 00:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Suppost Your edits look good, and I think you were generally levelheaded during the experimental RfA. Good luck! --Shirahadasha 02:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Told ya he would've passed no problem with a regular rfa.--Wizardman 03:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per, well, last time. Will make a good specialist admin, experienced, seems levelheaded, and his willingness to be our guinea pig for that hideous RfA format is commendable. Grandmasterka 04:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Supported before, and I don't see a single reason to change that now. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 09:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - The previous RfA questions users as to their findings of fact about the candidate. The present one questions them as to whether the candidate should be promoted. The bureaucrat who assessed the previous RfA felt unable to promote, but his decision is not binding on the present discussion. Xoloz is being harsh, I think. If the candidate had not submitted to the experiment, his previous RfA would probably have closed successfully. - Richard Cavell 10:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - The format of the previous RfA was absolutely appalling. I'm tempted to oppose him just for agreeing to the "experiment", but that wouldn't be fair when his achievements and wide experience are taken into consideration. WaltonNeed some help? 12:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support absolutely. —Anastalk? 12:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support No Doubts..!!..--Cometstyles 14:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per Walton. I am also somewhat disturbed by the level of disruption caused by this user by agreeing to be part of the RFA experiment though. Hope it isn't part of a general pattern. AKAF 14:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I would have no qualms with trying another such experimental format if it were for the potential good of Wikipedia. As I have stated before, I do not see such well-intentioned experimentation as particularly disruptive. I appreciate your support position, but you should know that I'm not opposed to testing out new formats in the wild as a means of determining their viability (and my test RFA indeed showed some viability problems with the format). -- mattb 14:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support After consideration and making comments above, I'd like to support the Matt Britt application for RfA. Good luck!VK35 17:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Ah, how refreshing to see a format that doesn't have 25 sections and subsections and where participation is actually meaningful rather than a mishmash of irrelevant or confusing "views". I'll write essentially what I wrote the last time: My review of his contributions history has revealed him to be a valuable and civil editor who I doubt will misuse the tools. My only concern is this edit made to the 1st RfA, wherein he states I could have just as well ignored your question altogether. I feel it is never acceptable for an admin candidate or an admin to ignore other editors' good-faith questions. However, given his history, I am inclined to think it was only a poor choice of words and a unique incident. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 19:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. The limited experience I've had with Matt has been positive, and upon reviewing both the support and the oppose side of the debate, I think that he would make a fine admin. Rockstar (T/C) 21:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support A sensible editor who will be an asset as an admin. His willingness to be the subject of a recent experiment is in his favour, and the zero delay between that RfA and this one is wholly reasonable.--Anthony.bradbury 22:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support as great candidate. I don't see any chance for admin abuse here. - auburnpilottalk 23:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - not insane, no likelihood of abusing the tools. The objections (particularly Xoloz') completely fail to address this and I would suggest disregarding them - David Gerard 23:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support more than enough experience, brave enough to accept an RFC on his qualifications ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support: Plenty of experience and seems like a great user. Seems well deserving of the tools. Should be a great administrator. It's nice to see a user willing to try something different and even though the new RfA format did not work he has moved on but was willing to try and help further the project. OrfenUser Talk | Contribs 02:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Matt appears to be a dedicated volunteer, and I'm sure he'll only further help the project with some extra buttons. gaillimhConas tá tú? 03:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I think him as a good person and non of the opposing arguments are impressive enough for me. --- ALM 14:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This eitor has made great contributions to the project and I expect he'll be a good admin too. -Will Beback · † · 22:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I see nothing compelling in the opposition. --kingboyk 23:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per kingboyk. My experience with Matt has always been positive and I appreciate his willingness to participate in an experiment to improve the RfA process, when he must have known some individuals would hold it against him. Rockpocket 01:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. The trial of a new RfA format was definitely a trial for Mattb also. He came through it showing a much better attitude than most could. The willingness to allow himself to be a guinea pig for a new RfA format shows he has the good of the project as a goal. I hated the new format - I see nothing wrong with the editor. (Oh, and maybe MOS work was a trial also? ;-) ) Shenme 03:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - I think Matt wasn't promoted because his RfA was so confusing, not because he was underqualified or unsuitable. Will(I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 22:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support consistent with my RfA guidelines and Yyy? and with the reservations of Pascal, namely to the effect that Matt's permitting his first RfA to be conducted under a system for which a consensus of the community did not (and ostensibly will not) exist wasn't perhaps the wisest thing ever one might have done—experimenting for the good of the project is generally to be favored, but not where it appears plain that the net effect of such experimenting will be disruptive or negative [one might properly infer that I mean to suggest that one's thinking that such situation was not plain is itself demonstrative of (or, rather, a specific instance of) bad judgment], but this particular issue is one to which, the length of this support notwithstanding, one need not to devote much concern—but is surely not representative of the candidate on the whole. Joe 08:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Support — a bit late in the day, but I never had a chance to drop by; anyway, a fine editor who will do well with the Janitor's Trolley ~ Anthony 18:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
Strong Oppose Editor doesn't seem to have gained much experience since his last RfA closed yesterday; therefore, my concerns regarding inexperience remain as voiced therein. While the editor shouldn't be punished for the format of his first (failed) "experimental" RfA, he should at least wait a bit before reapplying. "Too many bites at the apple..." sets a bad precedent. Xoloz 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If a b'crat chooses to ignore a perfectly valid reason to oppose, that is his business, and his insanity. I have no control over that. Xoloz 18:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Can we tone down the rhetoric please and stop calling Dan insane? Thank you. --Durin 18:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Please cease your habit of mischaracterizing my statements. I called no one insane. I assume Dan has the good sense never to ignore a valid oppose, despite his off-hand statement, which I assume was an ill-thought "slip of the tongue/finger" Xoloz 18:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If you don't want people to presume you're calling someone insane, I would recommend you not call ignoring votes per Dan's stated intention to do so "insanity". I'm mis-characterizing nothing. Please remember the limitations of textual language; I recommend you avoid the use of the word "insanity" as you did above in the future. --Durin 18:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Conditional statements are marvelous things. If Dan were to ignore my comment, that choice of his would be insane. I stand by that sentiment, although I'm sure Dan would never make that mistake To avoid needlessly escalating disputes with inappropriate allegations, I suggest you read my statements much more closely in the future. I am very careful to use language precisely. Xoloz 18:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Just so we can be perfectly lucid, what exactly are your concerns regarding inexperience? My lack of participation in XfDs? You're certainly entitled to oppose my candidacy for that, but I must point out that I have stated no desire to participate in the closing of XfDs. -- mattb 18:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Xoloz seems to opposing on 2 grounds. Lack of experience and time since last RfA (too many bites at the apple). Even if per Dan the latter is not a valid oppose, it seems to me that the former (though I disagree with it) is a valid reason to oppose an RfA. WjBscribe 18:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Xoloz, I have absolutely no problem with someone opposing because he finds Matt to have insufficient experience (even though I disagree) but to oppose because the last RfA closed yesterday, well now that's just a tad silly given the circumstances. Matt went ahead with an experiment which turned out to be not so convincing but by all accounts instructive (if only to demonstrate how unworkable that format is). Now a b'crat has expressed his concerns that he cannot make much sense of the resulting 200kb of text and suggested that a standard-format RfA would be a decent idea. I think it would be good for Matt's sake (and everybody else's) to avoid turning this RfA into another debate about the value of the experimental format. Pascal.Tesson 19:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no desire to debate the format of RfA here. The only point which I sought to defend is the integrity of my comment, and the fact that it should never be ignored. My reply to Matt's question (and yours too, I think, Pascal Tesson) is at Matt's talk page. Xoloz 19:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
So he's going to abuse the tools ... why? Or are you saying he won't? Please be clearer - David Gerard 23:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Intentionally abuse? No. Misuse because of inexperience? Possibly... that's my concern. For future reference, whenever I oppose for inexperience, my worry is accidental misuse, unless I say otherwise. Very few people who submit an RfA are potential deliberate abusers. Xoloz 01:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, sorry. I didn't find this user's tone and communicative skills particularly praiseworthy in his previous RfA.--Húsönd 03:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I object. The nomination explains at length how Matt contributes to project pages, but over the past year the only project page he has made sizeable contributions to is the reference desk. So I have my doubts about experience. >Radiant< 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this demonstrates you're going by editcountitis, which I do not consider a compelling argument. If we're going into that kind of reasoning, I should note that Matt has not been endorsed by a Wikiproject :) >Radiant< 14:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going by editcountitis. I asked you what you considered "sizeable". Since so many people do use editcountitis, it seemed reasonable to suppose you meant edit counts, and thus responded. What do you mean by sizeable? --Durin 14:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
If I had a strict definition, that would make it editcountitis. Using a board for a single issue does not imply any familiarity, and neither does "touching on" something. >Radiant< 08:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong oppose. This user has used ad hominem, directed attacks against the person rather than attacking the subtance of an argument, which shows a lack of good faith and manners. Fnagaton 11:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Care to provide some diffs to back up this accusation? Pascal.Tesson 12:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I suspect he means my comment here. While I admit that this remark was a lapse in judgement, I encourage you to read the surrounding context wherein I have, at numerous times, tried to be very understanding of this user's point of view [46][47], tried to facilitate productive discussions [48], tried to keep the conversation on track [49], encouraged other editors to be civil to him [50], etc. I'm a little offended that he chooses to ignore all of this, but that's his prerogative. I am admittedly a bit fed up at dealing with the massive cyclical argument that led to these remarks, but my borderline ad hom. remark wasn't helpful. However, it is my personal opinion that this oppose argument is simply on the basis that I strongly disagree with this user's reasoning on the whole binary prefixes issue, and not on the basis of my overall behavior in that debate or others. I'm not at all ashamed of how I've conducted myself in this latest binary prefixes debate, and I'd be happy for any of the RfA reviewers to read all of my comments on that page. -- mattb 14:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The argument is cyclical because you refuse to answer valid questions and instead attacked the person. If you had simply kept quiet or apologised then I may not have added my strong oppose. However it's not just towards me that you demonstrate "lapses of judgement" (to put it nicely), it is also for those times that I added my oppose. I also have to oppose on the grounds that you are re-applying too quickly. Fnagaton 09:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm tempted to respond, but there's no point in extending that debate into RfA. I'm just disappointed that you've ignored my concerted efforts to be accommodating. -- mattb 12:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. - If you are going to suggest that I've made multiple attacks against you or anyone else, please do provide diffs. The instance I linked is the only place I can recall where I should have held my tongue. -- mattb 14:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I've not ignored your attempts "to be accommodating" and don't try to second guess what I'm thinking. I don't think your efforts are as concerted as you think and as I stated before you lack of apology with your general style leads me to think you are not admin material. There are examples of what I mean on the page you linked above and the other recent example I can think of is here [51]Fnagaton 12:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Your cited example is obvious sarcasm. Read Centrx's post that I was responding to. P.S. - I apologize for the borderline ad hom. remark; it had no place in the discussion. I do not apologize for my general behavior. -- mattb 17:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Radiant. His contributions to the project space are very limited outside of the reference desk, so I worry about experience. Also, he seems to spend a lot of time editing the reference desk, something I hope he won't do too much of as an admin, when this RFA passes. Mangojuicetalk 14:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Why does it matter if he continues working at the reference desk as an admin? Admins are not required to do anything. It's just extra buttons. --Durin 14:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if he does, I just hope that with the admin buttons he'd do something more useful, because those priveleges are needed badly in many places, and I've always considered the reference desk a distraction. My opposition is based on lack of experience with admin areas in project space. Matt's participation on the Reference desk (which I looked over) is down-to-earth and doesn't encourage meaningless chatter, so I saw no reason to oppose based on those contributions. I just hope adminship will draw some of his attention towards other areas. Mangojuicetalk 15:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I know I won't change any minds as to lack of experience, but believe it or not I've seen almost every major and many many minor guidelines come my way in the process of editing articles over the past two plus years. I reject the notion that one has to be embroiled in constant policy debates (which I often am anyway) or help run the XfDs to have adequate experience in how Wikipedia functions. There are plenty of people who like running XfDs and I have never had any desire to be one of them. -- mattb 15:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral
Neutral. While the nominee seems a good candidate, I have trouble supporting a nomination so close on the heals of his last nomination (whatever the reason that it closed the way that it did). -- Pastordavid 18:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral. Too close to last RfA, I'd hate to see this nomination be repeated over and over and over and over.... — xaosfluxTalk 04:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
What makes you think it would be? After the first experiment and the suggestions of the closing bureaucrat et. al., I asked Durin to use the conventional format when he wanted to re-nominate me. While I see nothing wrong with experimentation, I figured it was time to give things a break for awhile to let people cool off a bit. -- mattb 04:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Final (8/17/14) Ended Tue, 1 May 2007 21:17:37 UTC
Max Naylor (talk·contribs) - I joined Wikipedia on 25 November2004. First of all, I began very minor edits and started expansion of the Rainham, London article, my hometown. Since then, I have expanded the article thoroughly. Lately, I have been making larger contributions in the form of article and template creation, and I plan to actively carry on with this in the future. Max Naylor 17:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to help with general article maintenance, article deletion and so forth. Many times I have seen redundant articles on Wikipedia and wished that I could do something to clean up the disconnected or irrelevant articles. Whenever I spot an error or layout issue on a page, I edit the page, even if it’s just a minor spelling error or a misplaced punctuation mark.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have greatly expanded the Rainham, London article, which is now comprehensive and fairly well referenced. I intend to finish referencing in the next few weeks, after which I will put the article up for good article status for the third time. After each good article review, I have improved the article according to the criteria and now I believe the article is ready for GA status.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have not really been involved in any edit conflicts per se, the only bone of contention that I have come across is the uploading of images that can’t really be claimed under fair use. However, that is not say that I would be unable to deal with conflicts in the future; I will try to see both sides of the argument and will ask the opinions of other contributors so that a compromise or agreement can be reached.
Optional questions
4. What is the proper action for an administrator to take when they come across a redundant article? What about an article that lacks context, but is long enough to give some grounds for expansion? What should a non-administrator user do in such cases? --ais523 17:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
A: A redundant article should be judged to see if it falls within the notability guidelines, if it does not, it should be nominated for deletion. If the article lacks context, it should be tagged with a template like Template:expand or Template:expert, both are tasks which a non-adminstrator can perform. In this particular area, however, there are no adminstrator-specific tools which would be that useful for improving an article in that state. To be honest, it also depends on the definition of ‘redundant’—some articles may have potential and qualify in terms of notability—however irrelevant articles that have recently been created are candidates for speedy deletion, I want to be able to take part in the deletion of such articles. I think that I have earned the trust of other users and that I will be able to contribute usefully with administrative powers.
5. What do you feel is the biggest problem facing Wikipedia today? Since you've been around for several years as an observer rather than an 'insider', I am hoping this will give me more insight into why you nominated yourself for the sysop tools. -- nae'blis 23:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
A: Of the many problems Wikipedia faces today, vandalism is the most predominant and destructive. The ability to quickly revert vandalism to articles is the main reason I am asking for administrative tools, instead of having to edit a previous version of the page and save it over the existing one. Another tool that I will find useful is the ability to protect articles, even if only for a short while, because I have witnessed spates of persistent vandalism on articles such as Havering Sixth Form College which seem to be too minor to grab the attention of other administrators. Many a time have I been frustrated at my inability to instantly take action against vandals, having to go through sometimes frustrating channels to try and get the attention of a sysop. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Max Naylor (talk • contribs) 14:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Max Naylor before commenting.
Moral Support — I don't think there's much chance of this RfA being successful, unfortunately, judging by the current weight of consensus; however, don't let that get you down! Get in some sysop-related chores under your belt (e.g., closing unambiguous "Keep" Deletion Debates) and keep up your civility; check the option in your preferences which reminds you before you save without an edit summary; and thoroughly review the advice given to you by your peers below, and I'm sure you'll make a fine janitor one day ~ AGK 16:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way, if you need an admin coach, keep AGK in mind. ;-) He's a good one. The Transhumanist 20:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure why you're applying for adminship; it seems as though you're not doing, or intending to do, things that require admin access. (I like the answer to Q4, by the way; I was trying to find out whether you misunderstood the nature of adminship, but you seem to understand what it's about.) I can only find 4 occasions on which you've requested something that needs help from an admin, or commented on a page which is used to help form consensus for administrator decisions ([52][53][54][55]) (and one instance of requesting an action from a 'crat, not counting this RfA); this leaves it unclear to me exactly what you want the tools for. However, there isn't anything obviously wrong with your contributions; it's just unclear why you want the tools or what you'd do with them if you became an admin. I've looked through what you've been doing, and it seems useful to Wikipedia but unrelated to adminship; as such, I can't really come to an opinion, as I have little data about what sort of admin you'd make or whether you understand when it's appropriate to take admin actions or not (you might do, for all I know; I don't know whether you do or not), but I can at least put this information here to help other people come to a decision. --ais523 17:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Consensus not numbers: I don't see any reason to hold off on sysopping this Wikipedian of long experience and many good edits, who understands Wikipedia policy as well as any Wikipedia-space junkie. Since he's bound to get his bit soon anyway, I propose that we sysop him at the end of this discussion rather than waste another month or two. --Tony Sidaway 11:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support
Weak Support - Not really a high enough editcount when compared to general RfA standards, but seems like a trustworthy user. Adminship is no big deal. WaltonNeed some help? 17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Max is quiet but effective. Looking at his contribs, which are not watered down with talk posts like the rest of us, one finds that Max is both constructive and meticulous. The quality of his edits is consistently high, with virtually no opposition to his edits (which accounts for his low talk edit-count), and this shows he has a feel for the project. My guess is that he reads Wikipedia more than he edits. Applied over time, the nature of Max's contributions, in my humble opinion, qualifies him for the mop. I believe Max will utilize the admin tools in the same way he has done with the general tools, and that is: responsibly. Please take the time to look over his contribs carefully. Thank you. The Transhumanist 18:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Adminship is about trust, not a reward for number of edits. Grace Note 00:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Adminship is no big deal. Also, what Grace Note said. Frise 02:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Moral Support You seem to be a good editor so I'll support, but I suggest you withdrawl and apply again in about 3 months. Otherwise, a 'crat will probably close this early per WP:SNOWI'm a newcomer so please don't bite me 14:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
User's first and so far only edit (under this account). --kingboyk 13:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak oppose I really hate to do this, but I'm opposing for lack of experience. The edit count is lower than I would prefer, the edit summary usage is insufficient (about 50%), and the candidate has not experienced any difficult situations (e.g. vandalism, content disputes) that would lead me to know how he would deal with those situations. Other than that, the content contributions are first rate, and a second request in a few months is likely to earn my support if I'm still around. YechielMan 17:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Editor is very inexperienced, especially in project-space, a necessary realm for administrators. Xoloz 18:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Not enough experience in the few admin areas in which he wishes to participate. I'm not sure he needs (or would ever use) the tools. --- RockMFR 19:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per low Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk, and total edits. Also, I see very little need for the tools. Captainpanda 21:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose The editor seems like a respectable editor, but has a lack of experience and low edit count. I don't think he's ready for adminship yet. — Wenli 23:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak oppose for the same reasons as YechielMan. I would definitely support if the current level of contributions continued for the next few months. ···日本穣? · TalktoNihonjoe 00:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak oppose. Low edit count generally isn't a deal breaker for me if there are compelling, or at least good reasons for handing over the standard-issue broom and super-sized bucket. Like Lankybugger, I am somewhat concerned with the lack of talk space edits though. Personally, I believe that communication is good and using talk pages (even if it's just to add templates in order to explain one's actions to new editors) is important. I'm also not to thrilled with the answer to Q1, to be quite honest. This may all be a misunderstanding but especially redundant articles are something that can usually be dealt with regularly. And, frankly, I just don't really see the need for adminship in this case. Sorry. -- Seed 2.0 01:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Your edits show quality work and thought, and I'm not a believer in edit count for its own sake. You could be a great admin. But I have to agree with those who say you need more experience on the project including more interaction on Talk and Wikipedia pages and in dealing with policy issues, user problems, and problem users. Come back in three months or so and I'm sure things will go just fine. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Simply put, some things can only be learned through experience. While you seem a fine editor, I would like to see more interaction - i.e., edits - throughout the project before I would support. Raise a few articles to GA/FA, participate more in the wikipedia space, etc. Not because those things are good in and of themselves, but because in doing so you will learn more about the way the project works. -- Pastordavid 18:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Only approximately 1500 edits, very low edit summary usage, too inactive for an admin and showing little need for the tools, you could be a sysop in the future with about 3 months of solid contribs and improvement. Tellyaddict 20:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose: While the user has been around for a while edits have not started to pick up until recently. Until this user's edits level out and become active in the many different aspects of the project I will have to oppose. OrfenUser Talk | Contribs 02:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose needs more experience. — xaosfluxTalk 04:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This editor does not demonstrate a need for the admin bit. Naconkantari 23:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Has not demonstrated sufficient dedication to the project for me to trust this user with the tools. Daniel Bryant 05:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. This user does not need the tools at the moment. Sr13(T|C) ER 05:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per low Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk, and total (mainspace) edits.--VStalk 08:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak Oppose a good editor, but more experience would be needed before I can give support. Jmlk17 05:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Neutral
Neutral Basically for a low edit count and a lower project-space count. Also, your biggest activity was this month; I don't consider 60-100 edits per month active. You can continue your good article work with out the tools. :-) —Anastalk? 17:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral while you have a decent amount of good mainspace edits, there's little evidence of your understanding of policy here. Your edit summaries could do with improvement as well and I'm not 100% of exactly what you need the tools for. However, your contributions are good and with some more experience I'm sure you could succeed here at RFA. The Rambling Man 17:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I see no obvious problems with this candidate; I am therefore withholding support pending a WikiProject endorsement per my policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral While this user has made positive contributions they should make more use of the cleanup tools available to everyone before requesting access to the admin tools. Also needs more recent activity. Monty845 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral for the same reasons as those noted by The Rambling Man. Adambro 19:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral While the user's contributions are very good and the edit count doesn't concern me at all, I'm somewhat concerned with the low use of talk pages or edit summaries. I would be willing to support if the user agrees to alter their preferences to remind them when they've not added a edit summary and if they could expand the answer to Q1. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 19:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral leaning heavily towards oppose. I'm not at all sure why this user wants the admin tools, since none of the things he mentions in his answer to Q1 require them. Contrary to those above, I do have a bit of a problem with the edit count - he has a much lower edit count (both in mainspace and generally) than I do, and I certainly don't consider myself ready for sysopship. He has very few talkpage posts (less than 40 so far this year), which makes me think he doesn't have experience in either discussions or disputes. His last contribution of any kind on any XfD was a year ago, implying he doesn't have much interest in the matter. If he doesn't intend to get involved in either vandal-fighting/protection/blocking, deletions or interface redesign, I'm not at all sure what admin tasks he does intend to do. — iridescenti(talk to me!) 19:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral A nice self nomination, but I don't think you're ready just yet - keep up the good work though my dear, and you'll be an administrator before you know it :) Lollipop Lady 21:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral leaning toward support per adminship is no big deal. Edit count may be "less than average" for successful RfA candidates, but in my opinion is enough to establish the user is trustworthy. The only thing keeping me from supporting the candidate is the weak answer to why he wants the tools - as has been stated above none of the things he states he intends to do require a sysop bit. If the candidate would like to elaborate on what adminstrator duties he plans to partake in I would likely be persuaded to support. Arkyan • (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't oppose someone for inexperience who has been editing a year longer than I have, but I guess I would prefer to see a little more recent activity. Pick up the pace and come back in three months and this might become a landslide support. Grandmasterka 04:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral. Largely because of Q4. The failure to mention merging as an option when encountering redundant articles bothers me somewhat. -- Black Falcon(Talk) 19:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral I am not going to oppose just because of low edit count:I hate that. But you do not show much experience in namespace, and while you may well have been there, without edits to show we don't know that. Experience in the major pages on namespace is really necessary for an admin. Get that, then re-apply.--Anthony.bradbury 22:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral, needs to be more active on the project. Answers are slightly weak and do try in five to six months time. Terence 14:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Final (54/1/1); Ended Tue, 1 May 2007 12:48:43 UTC
Selket (talk·contribs) - I'd like for RFA patrollers to take a look at this candidate, Selket. He joined the project way back in 2003, but has only recently been seriously working for Wikipedia. I first met saw him in Wikipedia:Third opinion, which he occasionally serves to help, but did not really look at his work here until his editor review in March where I told him I would keep an eye on him. He has some very fine edits, a total of about 5900 edits. Selket is knowledgeable when it comes to images, as shown by his clickable maps on the article Ear. He also operates a bot, SelketBot, which inserts {{Shared IP}} on education institution IPs. He also helps with repeating laborious tasks (e.g. fixing disambig links) and helping with backlogs. Finally, although he makes mistakes (as do all of us), he knows when to acknowledge his mistakes, such as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhode Island Route 11. I have no doubt that Selket will be an asset to the project and the community as an administrator. Thank you. bibliomaniac15 22:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A: I expect to spend a lot of time in whatever backlog seems the longest. IfD and Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons come to mind. My (real world) work is such that menial tasks are actually enjoyable at the end of the day. I have been doing a lot of maintenance here, and look forward to being able to expand the types of maintenance I can help with.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am proud of the ear diagrams mentioned by Bibliomaniac15, although I need to share some of the credit with Zondor, creator of the tool that greatly assisted. On the whole, I am a firm believer in incremental improvement so a lot of my big contributions are not a few big contributions, but many small ones. Examples I like to give are neuroanatomy articles and pharmaceutical articles.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have certainly been in conflicts but don't generally find them stressful. Of course, everyone gets a bit worked up from time to time, myself included, but I have begun to see disagreements as an opportunity to build consensus. I do enjoy convincing people of my point of view; however, I also enjoy finding common ground. I will argue vehemently for my position, but I'm always open to being convinced that I'm wrong. When this happens I admit it and quietly move on.
4. If you want to work in various backlogs, you cannot avoid cases were copyright is involved. How much do you know about copyright and have you shown such knowledge in your editing?
I think I'm towards the high end of people who are not IP lawyers. I do want to point out that the vast majority of cases where copyright is involved are uncontroversial. As for showing such knowlege, I think you can look to some of my recentposts on the debate over the merits of SVG logos. But do note that these are issues that are controversial, so even if you disagree with my initial position (it has changed somewhat) look to the way I support my position. --SelketTalk 14:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
5. What do you consider to be your weak points when it comes to editing Wikipedia?
This is one of those dangerous questions, and I've noticed a lot of people don't answer it. I'm not trying to hide my mistakes so here are a few. (I'm not implying anyone else is either.) I think my biggest weak point is that sometimes I "pull the trigger" a little too quickly. When trolling recent changes, for example, I might revert something that looked like vandalism and then realize it probably wasn't so then I have to un-revert it. I've done this with discussion posts also such as here where I misread a policy statement.
I am aware of this tendency and, as a result, will be very careful when using admin tools if I'm given them. --SelketTalk 14:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Would you consider opting in for the graphs in Interiot's edit counting tool if you became an administrator?
7. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
We are building an encyclopedia, not a new legal system. If the rule, as it could be applied to a particular situation, uncontroversially obstructs rather than aids in that end, it should probably be ignored. Someone who does this though should probably be ready to explain his or her actions. --SelketTalk 14:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
8. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 02:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I think a this can be a little bit of a judgment call but requires a little common sense. Unsourced, potentially libelous material should be removed immediately, but following that I think the prefered course of action should be to assume good faith and encourage the editor to do some homework and provide a source. If the user refuses, or simply insists on re-adding unsourced material, then warnings are in order. When that fails, blocks should be employed. How rapidly one progresses through those three steps requires some discretion based on the history of the editor and the nature of the statement. --SelketTalk 00:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Selket before commenting.
Support as nominator. bibliomaniac15 22:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I know this editor from all the pharma/med work they've done & I've seen them in action. "Interesting edit history", ramping up in a big way this year. I certainly trust them with the mop. - Alison☺ 05:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - Thip ("this person") is as intelligent as thip is thoughtful. (I noticed thip's opinion about gender-based pronouns being arcane, and thought I'd try my hand at creating some genderless ones). :) Thip has wide experience. Thip is trusted by the community. Thip is fine by me. And I trust thep ("the person") who nominated thip, and you should trust thap ("that person") too. (At least it's not arcane). :) The Transhumanist 05:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - Y Yes. Real96 06:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - No Problems and has been around a long time (about to go into WikiRetirement)..:)..--Cometstyles 08:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - no problems here... good luck! Majorly(hot!) 08:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Checked through his contribs, saw nothing obnoxious or broken, just a lot of good work. Trustworthy nominator, trustworthy candidate. Why the hell not? MoreschiTalk 09:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Had dealings with Selket. Was impressed during these dealings with Selket. Am further impressed by Selket here. All good, to my way of thinking. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Selket is an asset to the project, and will continue to be so with the tools.--Xnuala (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - probably not insane - David Gerard 10:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support: Per Moreschi as there is a lot of article writing in his contribs. ~Magnusanimum(aka Steptrip) 11:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per suffucient experience and willingness to deal with image backlogs is appreciated. Addhoc 12:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support looks good. —Anastalk? 13:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. I reverted a change made by this editor because it looked liked vandalism. Rather than getting worked up at all, the user took the time to apologise for not including an accurate edit summary and calmly explain why his edit was appropriate and supported by policy. He was right, of course, but his actions showed that he understands being right is not enough. I have no doubt this editor would be a good administrator. --Yamla 14:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support good hard worker, trustworthy. Love the bot. – Rianaऋ 14:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support He's been around forever and he claims to enjoy maintenance tasks. If there were any reason to mistrust him, we would know about it by now. YechielMan 14:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Long and productive history, used to maintenance tasks as mentioned by YechielMan (and good at them, too!), and—this may be unorthodox—I feel that experience running a bot shows responsibility and commitment to the project. On a personal note, he has also done some very important work on pharm pages (an interest of mine), and I will forever be indebted to Selket for this tip :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 15:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why not. --WinHunter(talk) 17:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support, primarily to cancel out the vote given by Kelly Martin, which was (with respect) utterly irrelevant to adminship and to Wikipedia policy. WaltonNeed some help? 17:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support Seems like a good user. Acalamari 18:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Looks fine.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Looks good to me and SelketBot has just saved me some work. Adambro 19:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Trusted user who will not abuse the tools. -- Jreferee 20:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Looks trustworthy.-- danntmTC 20:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Good work at Third Opinion, WikiGnoming, the bot... --AnonEMouse(squeak) 21:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support as I can find nothing which would indicate this editor can not be trusted or would abuse the tools. I do suggest, however, that having a vandalism counter on your user page is generally a bad idea. It tends to attract vandals, and we certainly don't need more of those here. ···日本穣? · TalktoNihonjoe 00:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Per above. Daniel5127 02:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Thoughtful answers. The reason for opposition given below can't be serious. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Good work, thoughtful answers. Interesting choice of nominators (and username genders). Best, --Shirahadasha 03:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. I'm not entirely sure Selket was correct in the posts linked to the answer on question 4, but the rest of the questions have been answered to my satisfaction. - Mgm|(talk) 08:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. The name rings a bell even though I can't really quite put my finger on it right now. Anyway, Selket looks like a good editor and I don't see any reason whatsoever not to support him. --Seed 2.0 20:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. A fine editor from what I can tell. I particularly like the answer to Q5 as it shows maturity and the willingness to engage in introspection. A look at contributions to XfDs reveals a good understanding of policies and guidelines. I must disagree with Kelly Martin and Nihonjoe on the question of the vandalism counter. Vandals will vandalise irrespective of the presence of counters. However, I think vandalism in the userspace is preferable to vandalism in the article mainspace as the userspace is of secondary importance and as userpage vandalism is more likely to be caught. -- Black Falcon(Talk) 20:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support: Plenty of experience and user seems very civil. Answers to questions also very good. Should make a fine administrator. OrfenUser Talk | Contribs 01:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Do I think this user will abuse the tools? No. Frise 02:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per answers, comments, overall record. Newyorkbrad 03:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I support this candidate; I agree with the sentiments of the nominator, and the answer to my question was probably the best so far. --bainer (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per User:Kelly Martin. (Actually, because I think Selket has enough experience and lacks copyright paranoia.) Αργυριου(talk) 05:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support good candidate; I don't see anything that would give me reason to oppose.--Isotope23 16:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I've interacted with Selket regarding bot work. Seems likely to benefit the project from the tools. Gimmetrow 04:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per Argyriou. And question answers, looks good. Mangojuicetalk 14:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support, I see no reason to think this user will go insane. (And the road nominations don't look like a mistake to me at all, though all the ILIKEIT/ALLXARENOTABLE votes in the debate certainly do.) SeraphimbladeTalk to me 10:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The presence of a vandalism counter on the candidate's user page indicates that the candidate does not know the importance of dissuading reputation. May reconsider if candidate resolves this problem and convinces me of his understanding of fundamental principles of governance in a wiki environment. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Kelly, please read meatball:GodKing and meatball:SnipingCriticism. meatball:CommunityExpectations would help in this case too. And please read Wikipedia:Consensus. Your strident opposition to everyone's RFAs isn't helping to build consensus. --Elkman(Elkspeak) 13:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC) I have been asked to retract this rather bizarre comment. Obviously, I need to shut the hell up and not express my rather bizarre opinions in RFAs. I'm expecting the block for disruption any time now. --Elkman(Elkspeak) 15:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see Kelly's opposition as strident, so much as the opposition to her opposition. I don't agree with opposing a user for something as trivial as a dumb template, but kudos to anyone sticking to their guns *shrug* – Rianaऋ 14:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I have responded to Elkman's rather bizarre comments on his talk page. Please do not disrupt this RfA further by discussing them here. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Kelly, can you clarify what dissuading reputation means to you? That link isn't clear or even sure that the definition presented is correct. --AnonEMouse(squeak) 21:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with AnonEMouse. I find the essay that you've linked to be jargon-laden and substantially incomprehensible. Newyorkbrad 03:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should create a new policy: Meatball is not bloody Wikipedia. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral - Whilst I am trying to understand your frequent and lengthy disappearences? (I ask from the perspective of being available as an admin - any comments?)--VStalk 08:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I poked around as far back as 2003 and occasionally made edits. I have been using it as a reference source since. It was only in January of this year that I became serious about making contributions. Four months is on the shorter side of time to become an admin, but it's not at all unprecedented. --SelketTalk 00:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Bibliomaniac15 (talk·contribs) - Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Bibliomaniac15, to whom I will herein refer as Bibliomaniac. That being said, Bibliomaniac created his account in September of 2005, since then, he has made a variety of contributions across a spectrum of namespaces. He does a lot of vandal-fighting work and warns the appropriately, however, that is not all that he does in the mainspace, he has significantly contributed to Komodo dragon (120 edits, for those infected with editcountitis). He is a prolific10 contributor to MOTD in which he participates virtually every day, but not only that does he do, he also is an active member in ACID, XfDs, and the reference desk. His account is currently 19 months old and, combined with the experience in the main and Wikipedia namespaces, is ready to "wield the mop with equanimity." ~Magnusanimum(aka Steptrip) 01:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:bibliomaniac15 02:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC) (My signet ring, if you will)
Things have changed so much around. I'd really like to thank Magnus animum for requesting me and writing a glowing report on my deeds, as well as Majorly and BuickCenturyDriver, who had asked me before. I've always considered myself a slow learner, but apparently, it wasn't slow enough. bibliomaniac15 02:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A: The job of an admin is to benefit the project and to help others out if they need it. I find that protection and blocking is a good way to achieve both those goals. Having monitored pages such as Hannah Montana (TV series), Miley Cyrus, Vanessa Anne Hudgens, and other pages that receive quite a large amount of puerile vandalism, I feel that I've attained a pretty good feel for what constitutes as vandalism and under what circumstances a page should be protected. Deletion also stands out as another job, but I don't want to scald myself by diving in headfirst into XFD waters. I'd like to start with speedy deletions and get a feel for using the deletion button. As for images, my experience is rudimentary (only 2 or so uploads), so I don't expect to work in that category, although I'll be there if I'm called into action. However, I also trust that experience as an admin will help me find other potential admins.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As Magnus Animum mentioned, I've devoted a lot of time to Komodo Dragon, which I rigorously cited and got up to GA status. It's undergoing peer review right now (time to do a little blatant advertising, please stop by and help me improve this article) and is well underway to be an FA by my standards. I'm also pleased with my two DYK's, Golden Conure and Trachodon mummy. Finally, although this isn't in mainspace, I'm very proud for nominating User:Xiner for adminship, who passed just last month or so.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: For a forgetful and sometimes not-too-lucid person like me, I have definitely screwed up before. The earliest conflict I can remember was back in the newbie years with User:Interrobamf in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aciedactylus mandocaris. He voted delete, and I dissented, unfortunately pointing to his past conflict to back up my statement of bad-faith nom. Mercifully, the mergeists took consensus, and I later apologized to Interrobamf [56]. I admit that I also grappled in the famed first deletion as a stereotypical, green Esperanzian and making a not-so-nice comment to the presently retired User:Elaragirl[57]. I eventually sobered up after the failed overhauls, and went on with my wiki-life. It sometimes makes me wonder what the fate of the Simple English Esperanza will be--will they learn from our mistakes and deletion, or will they succeed where we have not?
4. You've told us about your strengths, but I'm wondering if you can identify your weaknesses. If you gained administrator status, which tasks would you need to read up on and which would you stay away from altogether due to lack of experience in that field or something else? - Mgm|(talk) 11:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
A: I've always considered myself as an indecisive person. I suppose that the task hardest for me would be to make a difficult block or deletion closing. I would really want to stay away from 3RR, when full-protection is a better intermediate step. As I said also, I don't expect to be working with images, but I suppose I could read up on it and perform duties there just in case someone asks me. As for templates, don't even bother. Excessive code makes my head spin. To clarify, it pretty much means anything more than a userbox. bibliomaniac15 15:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
A: I just knew someone would ask me this. As I said on question 4, I consider one of my faults to be that I can be indecisive and ineloquent. From my experience at looking at places where IAR has been applied, I can only say that the person has to be prepared to argue themselves out. An example where one can exercise IAR, in my opinion, is in censoring. Normally, WP:CENSOR prevents people from removing pornography or graphic images where used appropriately (tagging random talk pages would be analogous to shouting fire in a crowded theater). However, edits like Jimbo's removal of an image from Fellatio do demonstrate, however subjective, a standard where a picture is just "too much." From my thoughts, outside image has a great deal to play with this. What would the media and the general public say if people saw these images and used them for immoral purposes? It's obvious that every policy must be weighed contextually to find if this is really the best choice for the project.
If I may, I'd like to extend this question into a specific example. What would you do about the picture on Gangrene? Obviously it's a terrible condition, but when does a picture "cross the line"? Would you agree that people who insert such images in articles are merely testing WP:Censor? ALTON.ıl 06:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe so. In WP:NOT#CENSOR, it says that pretty much any image, provided it is relevant to the subject, not violating any policy, and not violating the law of the State of Florida, is acceptable. Also, positioning is important too. Notice how the pictures on the Gangrene article are towards the center instead of towards the top like images often are, so there's time to read the intro and notice that it's a gruesome subject. However, I do suggest, like you have in the talk page, put a disclaimer in the article. As for when a picture crosses the line, that's pretty subjective, but my thinking is that objectionable content should be more limited to drawn illustrations instead of photos. No one wants, for example, to see a real-life picture of a decapitated head, but people are better able to look at a black and white drawing of someone's severed head. bibliomaniac15 23:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Do you agree that biting the newcomers or anyone else, even, is a bad thing, and what would be your approarch in avoid this if you did?(Even with people who blatantly vandalise Wikipedia or troll)--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.(talk) 01:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
A: As someone who's been vandal-fighting and welcoming newcomers before, I totally agree that biting is a very bad thing to do. The first two weeks is an integral time that will decide whether a new user will be a valuable contributor, leave in disgust, reform, or turn vandal. That is why adoption and welcoming newcomers is a good idea. To avoid biting is a different matter. I wrote an essay before on how to tell someone that something they're doing may be wrong, WP:BUTCHER, that can be applied to avoid biting. Basically cut short, be direct but not blunt when telling anyone, newcomer or tech wiz, that they may have made a mistake. When talking to newcomers, be warm and sincere, and be especially sure to watch your connotation, especially when warning trolls or vandals. Avoiding negative connotation when conversing is a good idea when it comes to that. It's a generally good idea to stick with the "subst:" messages (I personally favor the test and bv templates because I've been accustomed to them) if you would like to warn without biting. I acknowledge that vandalism and newcomer questions will be something that I'll have to face as an admin, but it is made so much easier if you just keep patient and answer warmly with a good tone. It works wonders. bibliomaniac15 02:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from Simply south
7. Of your articles and contributions to Wikipedia, are there any of which you are not proud of? Why? Simply south 16:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
A: Yes, I do. I do regret not getting Le Cygne (Saint-Saëns) up to DYK, when it had such potential. I also remember some edits that were reverted on the article Leech that I had made. My lesson was: "Don't use antiquated trivia books as sources," and that leeches do not have group sex by oozing their spermatozoons from their skin. I also had another edit reverted because I failed to provide a source for the Norman Rockwell Code in The Da Vinci Code (film). After these problematic edits, I learned to find reliable sources, and I read the policy of which I had not known before.
8. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 02:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A: I believe that blocking should only be considered as an extreme measure if severe disruption results. First, if they add an unsourced, questionable material, look for a possible source for it. If it can't be found, revert it (don't rollback it) and ask them to cite it. If they add it again without a citation, ask them again and ask for some discussion on the talk page. If they keep adding it, an RFC or a third opinion may be needed. Finally, if it is added again, a request for community ban may have to be endorsed to stop them. bibliomaniac15 00:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
General comments
You can view Bibliomaniac15's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Bibliomaniac15 before commenting.
Support per my positive encounters and constructive interactions. —210physicq (c) 03:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Nothing but good from this user; should have been promoted long ago. — $PЯINGrαgђ 03:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - It's all good--$UIT 03:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support, no question. Pascal.Tesson 03:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Excellent candidate; very trustworthy. Xoloz 03:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Does great work with AID and from what I've seen will make an excellent admin. Amphy 03:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Using the word "Conure" over "Parakeet" is a big plus....Good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 03:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Meets all of my criteria and then some. NeoFreak 03:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support because, dammit, anyone who maintains an alternate account styled as User:Grammar-check, even if such account is largely unused, absolutely rocks. That, and, you know, what everyone else said, especially relative to the overdue nature of this RfA. Joe 04:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. I've seen this user around, and I'm surprised he's not already an admin. He has shown himself to be a competent editor and trustworthy member of the Wikipedia community, and that's good enough for me! The Transhumanist 04:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - everything seems to check out. No problems here :) - Alison☺ 05:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Good user; I have seen him around and have no concerns about promoting him. WODUP 05:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support:Oh boy, one of the people in my "people to nominate for adminship backlog", so of course I support.--Wizardman 06:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Sure...more than enough experience, and a good, all-around editor. Jmlk17 06:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I actually, thought this user was an admin already. happy to support --SelketTalk 06:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support due to excellent contributions. Seems to be generally good all around. I also support due to lack of an endorsement by a WikiProject. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - Good Contributor and well experienced :)...--Cometstyles 08:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support — excellent editor, will make a fine admin. — Feezo(Talk) 08:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Good god no! yes :), since I offered... good luck! Majorly(hot!) 08:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support Good input throughout the EA debacle. Civil, polite and prolific. I endorse this candidate. – Rianaऋ 09:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - a great editor, always very thorough with his actions - he knows his stuff. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - no question at all Khukri 09:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Eh? I could have sworn I had supported you for adminship about three months back! · AndonicOTalk 11:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - Bibliomaniac have done a lot especially in adopting new users and i am sure they would never get tired in helping w/ the admin tasks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 11:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. I have see his work, he will make a good admin. -Mschel 12:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support this here is a great user. He does some good work in Wikipedia and I am absolutely confident he will make an excellent admin. —Anastalk? 12:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - the candidate has the full support of wikiproject endorsements and is therefore entirely qualified. Addhoc 12:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support - Sorry I didnt see this before. Great editor, taken an interest in helping me with my History of poisons article. Good luck, and I hope you are promoted! —ÅñôñÿMôúsDîššíd3nt 13:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support. I normally don't comment on votes that are going to be landslides, but this candidate's worth it; I've most noticed his excellent vandal-fighting work, as that's the project in which I am most involved -- however, I'm also very pleased with his project and namespace edits; Komodo dragon is an excellent example. Madman bum and angel 13:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Rather thought he already was one. Not perfect, and makes mistakes, but then so does everyone. Willingness to admit errors is a must, so thumbs up on that count. Seems like a user we can trust to use the mop with due care and attention. No reason as of yet given as to why not, so not-a-big-deal. MoreschiTalk 14:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I've seen him contribute at AFD. Anything else I would say has probably been said already. YechielMan 14:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support Another one of those users who you think is already an administrator and you get a shock when you find out they're not one at all. :) Acalamari 16:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support; definitely looks like a good candidate. Antandrus (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Per RfA info, Bibliomaniac15 has been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether Bibliomaniac15 is trustworthy. Also, I think Bibliomaniac15 is trustworthy. -- Jreferee 21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I have seen this user in many places around Wikipedia, and I think that this user has a definate use for the tools. Captainpanda 21:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Reliable, Responsible, Hard-working. Good luck mate, Dfrg.msc 00:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Trustworthy, mature and responsible. Rockpocket 01:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I've only ever seen positive things from this editor and I can't think of a good reason why a few extra tools wouldn't be in order. Keep up the good work! — Scientizzle 01:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Great guy, glad I didn't miss this RfA. Dar-Ape 02:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support: Plenty of experience and looks to be a very civil person. Should make a fine administrator. OrfenUser Talk | Contribs 02:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per above. --Shirahadasha 03:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support (edit conflicted) A fine candidate.--Húsönd 03:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support: User is consistently helpful and well versed in Wikipedia-related stuff (yeah, probably not the most eloquent way to put it). Heimstern Läufer 06:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support: Biblio will clearly be careful with the tools when in doubt. I do recommend him to read up on template coding. There's no need to go into parser functions, but depending on what he means by complex coding, be might need to do some reading up on template coding. - Mgm|(talk) 08:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support: Has a great variety of edits on different articles. QuasyBoy 9:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Great user. Dina 18:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support My mentor, who welcomed me to Wikipedia in the first place. Clio the Muse 19:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support For a good answer. I think you understand that biting the newcomers is not acceptable, and that you will be one of the administrators that I don't have to worry about that happing for;one of the good-faith administrators. Speaking of good, good luck!--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.(talk) 20:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support seen his work around the wiki. Why not promote him?Shindo9Hikaru 01:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per good answers to questions and the candidates overall record. The lack of any expressed opposition to date is noteworthy. The neutral commenter's stated rationale for "withholding support" remains completely unpersuasive to me. RfA candidates should not be placed in the middle of larger arguments about RfA reform and related issues. Newyorkbrad 03:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - Nothing concerns me, I believe bibliomaniac15 will make a fine administrator. I do not believe bibliomaniac15 would abuse an administrative position. Matthew 13:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - got courage, seen loads of places, believe they know policy etc. Good contributor. Too late to co-nom. Simply south 16:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per Newyorkbrad. Hojimachongtalk 20:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Seems to be a great user; also, not even one single oppose yet! ♠Tom@sBat 23:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Geez, did I come upon this late. Anyway, this is a completely reliable editor whom I'd have nominated myself - had he not nominated me last month. Xiner (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - His answers are nice, albeit interesting. ALTON.ıl 02:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per nom and above. VegaDark 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Seems solid, with decent XfD and article review experience. Gimmetrow 05:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support seen him round, looks good. James086Talk | Email 07:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Running-around-with-my-pants-down support. Virtual Cowboy 11:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support, great contribs, positive attitude, good experience, thoughtful replies to questions... brand new mop over here, please! And dear Bibliomaniac, one of these days, I'll teach you to pronounce my name if you wish! ;) - Phaedriel - 20:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Parodying songs is surprisingly hard, but I'll welcome your teaching, as long it isn't in IPA. :) bibliomaniac15 20:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Not that you need it at this point, but support nonetheless. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 01:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support with my pants on. - Richard Cavell 14:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support with my pants off. The Rambling Man 16:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that statement, however, Willy On Wheels was blocked some time ago and has no surviving sockpuppets or impersonators (the latter were probably blocked as {{Blockedimpersonator}}). ~Magnus animum ∵ ∫φγ 21:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes I support - good steady contributor - lots of pre-admin skills.--VStalk 08:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
support -- Good answer about disturbing images: placement is the trick, and selection. DGG 23:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Candidate has no obvious problems; support withheld pending endorsement from a WikiProject per my policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
How do you suggest I attain such endorsement? bibliomaniac15 04:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Why, by supporting Kelly Martin's campaign to change the canvassing guidelines so that this endorsement becomes possible of course. Pascal.Tesson 04:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Too bad Wikiproject Endorsements is "red crossed." bibliomaniac15 04:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Red crossed does not mean inactive. – Rianaऋ 09:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the membership of the Disney or Nintendo project would care to do so? Of course, I'm not sure you can ask, but if they happen by and see this and then start a discussion on the WP.... --After Midnight0001 04:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If they come here and see this then I sure hope they have enough common sense to understand that this would be considered against our current guidelines about canvassing. They should also realize that there is considerable opposition to this sort of thing. Pascal.Tesson 04:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Or, for that matter, those who partake frequently of ACID (amongst which group I can't, unfortunately, count myself); whilst it is neither topic-specific nor titularly a WikiProject, it is probably properly a Wikipedia maintenance WP. Of course, I agree with Pascal on this issue, but, if we are to apply the Kelly Martin test strictly, Biblio might genuinely, despite the policy's inherent unworkability, be able to pass, principally because the "membership" of ACID is so nebulous and broad as likely to comprise many editors who otherwise participate at RfA. Joe 04:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I can ask some other prolific contributors (meaning anyone but myself) at MOTD and gather consensus on whether or not the WikiProject will support you. ~Magnusanimum(aka Steptrip) 22:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Kelly's entitled to her request, but I think it really seems like a possible violation of WP:CANVASS to me. bibliomaniac15 23:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't speak on behalf of Wikipedia:Motto of the day, but I'd like to point out that in my experience, bibliomaniac15 has been an active voter as well as nominator of mottos at WP:MOTD since the project recently took off (just scan for his name among the archives) I can't find evidence of edits to the project itself, but I do know that all of his votes came with valid reasons, and that several of his nominations have been approved. So whether WP:MOTD is a good example of a WikiProject or not, I can say that his contributions to it have had a positive influence. --Tewy 02:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we (Tewy and I) should alert the other prolific contributors to MOTD and see what consensus favors per a WT:MOTD discussion. ~Magnusanimum(aka Steptrip) 19:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Scientizzle (talk·contribs) - I first encountered Scientizzle a month ago when he brought some complicated sockpuppetry and vandalism to my attention. I was pleased by his thoroughness in reporting the problem, providing relevant diffs and links to block logs. I learned that he was interested in becoming an administrator, and offered to go over his edit history and give some advice. I found nothing to worry about, and offered to nominate him as soon as he was ready. Scientizzle has logged over 8000 edits in over a year of consistent activity on the project. His contributions range from reverting vandalism, minor wikignome-like tweaks, and serious article creation and improvement. His high user-talk space count is evidence of his committment to WP:BITE, taking the time to explain to users what they can do to help the project. Scientizzle is polite, conscientious, and knowledgeable of WP policies and procedures. I am confident he will make an excellent administrator. -- Merope 13:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for a thoughtful nomination...I accept. — Scientizzle 18:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A: A sizable portion of my edits have been combating vandalism (with associated user talk and AIV activity, and resulting in an oft-vandalized user page), so it's natural that I'd be active at WP:AIV. I've also been a regular speedy deletion tagger and an avid user of proposed deletions, so I'd willingly lend support to the (commonly backlogged) CAT:CSD and CAT:PROD. WP:BLP/N is an area that I've only recently entered, but such a tumultuous territory is always in need of admin input and actions. Finally, I have a good deal of experience at XfD—particularly AfD—and would extend my participation to closing completed discussions (I've already done a few). Most of all, I'm a quick study and am willing to assist in any area that could use additional help.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I recently overhauled HIV and AIDS misconceptions for factual accuracy, spelling/grammar, organization, clarity, and citation style; I'm rather pleased at how much clearer the page reads. I'm currently improving a woefully inadequate Dopamine receptor article, and that seems to be shaping up well.
The majority of my mainspace contributions are decidedly wikignomish (copy editing, cleanup, sourcing, ad nauseum), not to mention vandalism reversions, but I have created a number of (I believe) very useful stubs that run the gamut from little-known signaling molecules to conspicuously absent non-science topics. I've worked to expand a plethora of science articles that require something of an expert's touch, but readily lend my writing and editing to any article a run across while surveying recent changes or good ol' Special:Random. I'm lucky to have real-life experience in biological research and copy editing, a rare combination that serves me well as I tackle the grammar and prose in more technical articles.
Additionally, my work at the science reference desk and, for example, Talk:Cannabis (drug) have been fine examples of the balanced, reasoned style with which I approach my edits. I think it's paramount that all information in Wikipedia be accurate and well-sourced as this project serves as a prominent athenaeum for the general public.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: By nature, I'm a very amicable and agreeable individual, which, I believe, is reflected in my Wikipedia edits. It's rare that I get in edit conflicts over anything that isn't vandalism-reversion, especially as I've gained more experience.
The only recent interaction that caused me any irritation was with DesignReferences (talk·contribs), a new editor that contacted me about the now-deleted page, Grace Bonney, seeking to have the article deleted on behalf of the subject because of "defamatory content" and vandalism. Not thinking much of it, I responded, pointing the editor to a few important pages. I even tried to help by opening an AN/I thread asking for input. I felt the subject was of gray-area notability and I knew there was some precedent for subject-requested deletions of marginally notable biographies. Anyways, the thread devolved somewhat, the article was speedily deleted, and I had unfortunately overlooked that DesignReferences had contributed to the vandalism of said Grace Bonney article, dragging me into some sour exchanges between other editors. In any case, off-Wikipedia evidence suggested that the whole thing was likely a trolling ploy. I've no problem assuming good faith, but more skeptical thoroughness would have served me well...
My relative lack of conflicts on Wikipedia is, I think, a testament to a congenial disposition and willingness to admit to—and learn from—those inevitable mistakes. I've helped a lot of new editors find their way as contributors and acted as a persistent voice-of-reason in a variety of disputes; I've experienced that article talk & user talk discussions on can be highly successful when editors treat each other with a modicum of respect.
4. Can you give an example of an XfD that you think was closed wrongly, and explain why it should have been closed differently? — coelacan — 20:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
A: Hmmm...good question. I looked through my contribs (as discussions in which I had participated would be the simplest to cover) and found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eve of the Apocalypse (2nd nomination). I actually nominated Eve of the Apocalypse for deletion in October '06 because it was a fan-made Warcraft mod/map that failed WP:WEB & Wikipedia is not a game guide. It closed as "No consensus" based on the single claim that it made Blizzard's battle.net hall of fame. That's true, but I contend that such a claim fails to meet WP:WEB's "The...content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation" as a sufficient claim of notability since battle.net is run by Blizzard and only covers their games. Additionally, there were (and still are) no other presented sources with which to verify the article's content, and the page is even more of a game guide than it was when I nominated it. Finally, another member of the aforementioned hall of fame was deleted through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Footmen Wars roughly a week earlier.
I disagree with the no consensus closure because the keep recommendations were largely based on the existence of articles on other such maps, being "informative", and the battle.net hall of fame status. I think, overall, the case for deletion was stronger than the case for keeping. I do, however, understand that deletion discussions focused on notability can be a bit touchy; it's probably generally practical to keep content rather than delete it in cases of perceived gray-area notability. While I disagree with the AfD outcome, I also respect it...but I will have no qualms against any potential re-nomination of this article for the exact same concerns.
5. What do you believe to be your weak points when it comes to Wikipedia editing (and admin tasks in particular)? - Mgm|(talk) 11:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
A: Off the top of my head: images. I have little experience dealing with proper licensing of images and would need to spend some time studying the relevant policies before I'd feel confident lending a hand to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion and the elephantine backlog of image CSDs. Also, I have not had much interaction with Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I hope to learn from more experienced admins the nuances of balancing the project's massively open source nature with practical intervention to prevent damaging edit wars.
As I mentioned above, I consider myself a quick study. I'm confident that I could be a valuable participant in these (and other) areas in which I currently have little experience.
6. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
A: Ignoring the rules should be done rarely and judiciously. In my opinion, IAR exists as a safety valve to prevent bureaucracy from stifling positive, practical changes to the project; it is not an excuse to expedite an action that could benefit from community discussion. The yang to IAR's yin is the application of common sense. A block for WP:POINT violations may be advisable, even necessary, in some instances, but only after less drastic avenues have been exhausted. WP:SNOW should rarely be invoked, but, with ample application of common sense, it has been used effectively for speedy keep closures of XfD and speedy deletion of obviously unencyclopedic content that may not fall under a strict interpretation of WP:CSD.
I'm not huge on process wonkery (I don't even like that phrase), but I'm a strong proponent of transparency—too many IAR actions (particularly inappropriate deletions) show insufficiently clear rationale, leading to confusion and irritation (and worse) within the community. I feel the justification behind any IAR action should be crystal clear to an uninvolved editor, and relevant policies/discussions/reasoning/precedents should presented as obviously as possible...such clarity can only reduce the negative effects that can accompany even good-faith unilateral action.
7. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 02:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A: This topic would require, in my opinion, reasonable case-by-case variation in enforcement. It is important to strike a balance between assuming good faith on the part of the editor, not biting newbies and protecting both Wikipedia and the article subjects from these types of problems. Reverting unsourced material is easy, and one needn't worry about the 3 revert rule (for derogatory and unsourced content, per WP:BLP); the obvious step is to inform the editor in question of the relevant policies and guidelines on verifiability, reliable sources, and living person biographies. What happens from that point—the response of the editor and the nature of the content being applied—should dictate further actions in regard to warnings and blocks. I would expect to be rigorous in enforcing this rule so long as I feel the editor has been given good-faith information on why such material is inappropriate and how the situation can be remedied.
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Scientizzle before commenting.
Discussion
Support
Support I have good experiences of this user whose (clearly proven in his contribs) scientific background is a bonus, as is his informed, objective view of Cannabis (drug), one of our more controversial topics, all of which will make him a very welcome admin, SqueakBox 18:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Mature editor, experienced, dedicated, welcoming to new editors, and an already great list of article contribs. κaτaʟavenoTC 19:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. I have looked through some of his contribs. Have not found anything of concern. -Mschel 19:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I see no problems with this user. Acalamari 19:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support No problems whatsoever..Good Luck..--Cometstyles 20:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support competent and cooperative. YechielMan 20:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I like you. Yanksox 20:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Seems to have everything in order. Good work, organized, and a good editor. Jmlk17 21:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per more than adequate vandal whacking plus article writing. Addhoc 22:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. In your very competent edit history, I noted with particular appreciation the light humor in this this diff, which suggests a lighthearted touch, and the concern for users in this one. Good luck. --Shirahadasha 22:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support' look alright.-- danntmTC 22:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support On viewing the contributions you can clearly see a competent editor, a good user to have as an administrator. Jsc83 22:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support happily. Productive user without any black marks to make me think twice. Helpful as well. Arkyan • (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Sufficient experience with demonstrated understanding of process. Trustworthy. Also, you gotta love the name Scientizzle. -- Jreferee 00:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I see no problems here. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Scientizzle politely informed me of a mistake and cleared the cunfusion, and after going through his contribs a little I find no problem Altosax456 01:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support A thinking person who seems to be well involved and aware of the issues. --Kevin Murray 02:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Definitely someone who can be trusted with the tools. One Night In Hackney303 02:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support We need more scientists here. Xiner (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Totally thought he was already an admin. Rockstar (T/C) 02:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. fine candidate for an admin who's doing a great job building an encyclopedia. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 03:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Handles himself well (doesn't get hot under the collar) and is familiar with the project. And he knows English fairly well. :) He's got my vote. The Transhumanist 05:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Very good editor. --Carioca 05:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support due to excellent contributions and lack of a WikiProject endorsement. Appears to be trustworthy, and adminship is no big deal. Twiddle away. ···日本穣? · TalktoNihonjoe 06:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support as a good candidate who I think will use the tools judiciously... and per Nihonjoe (talk·contribs). Don't even get me started on why I think Wikiproject endorsements are an utterly daft idea.--Isotope23 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Goodness me, yes! Lollipop Lady 20:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Definately a good user to receive tools. Captainpanda 21:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. It doesn't happen to be ebonics in your name, hmm? bibliomaniac15 00:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support; all looks good, and also per David Gerard, LOL. Besides, you've been the target of repeated recent trolling so you must be doing something right. Antandrus (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support; strong candidate in my experience. Rockpocket 01:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support as a great candidate for adminship. — Wenli 01:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support: Seems to have plenty of experience and seems well deserving of the administrative tools. Should make a fine administrator. OrfenUser Talk | Contribs 02:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Everything seems alright.--Húsönd 03:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support no problems here. —AldeBaer 05:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Changing to very strong support upon further investigation. Scientizzle doesn't "need" it at this point, but why not mention merits beyond the lack of any reason to oppose? Candidate displays good language, level-headedness and flawless attitude towards Wikipedia in general. Strong answers to all questions. I'm compelled to even invoke the rolemodel near-stereotype here. —AldeBaer 08:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - no issues here, far as I can see. Good reputation over on AIV, too. Yep! - Alison☺ 06:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Merope nominated you? Highly doubt there are any problems, then. Next please :) – Rianaऋ 06:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Sorry, I don't have a witty remark. - Mgm|(talk) 08:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per nom and above Bucketsofg 14:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support All looks good and this made be laugh. Adambro 19:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
This candidate's CHIMP-T coefficient is 5.09296, just barely enough for me to support. The CHIMP-T coefficient, calculated as the square of the sum of the number of preserved edits to the Category talk, Help talk, Image talk, MediaWiki talk, and Portal talk namespaces, divided by π, is the most advanced method to calculate RfA candidates' level of spiritual oneness with the spirit of the Great Wiki. A candidate with a CHIMP-T coefficient of less than 5 are liable to delete the main page and/or block Jimbo. As Scientizzle scores just above that, I endorse the statement that Scientizzle Is Not Likely To Go On A SpreeTM. -- Black Falcon(Talk) 19:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
SupportGood answers to questions.Shindo9Hikaru 01:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support with a particularly clear and reasonable response to the question on IAR.DGG 01:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
No obvious problems; withholding support pending a WikiProject endorsement, per my policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
How would a WikiProject endorse a candidate? I think the WikiProject would have to take a vote on there own. Have any users ever been endorsed by a WikiProject (Besides WikiProject Endorsments)? Please keep in mind that the RFA is not an election. -Mschel 19:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I would kindly recommend that the candidate ignore the above request for an endorsement. I, among many editors, would consider this unacceptable canvassing. Pascal.Tesson 20:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
See Kelly Martin's talk page (or archive) for her reasons for opposing users without WikiProject endorsement. Nishkid64 20:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, going around looking for a WikiProject to endorse you seems to be a bit excessive, especially considering that most admin noms seem to be approached by a third party in the first place. So making this demand of the nom after he's been nominated, rather than of the nominator before he's made the nomination, seems rather absurd. Also, it would add another level of bureaucracy and repetition to the RfA process - each member of the WikiProject would be voting for the nominee twice - once on the WikiProject's page concerning the endorsement, and again here. We don't need to be expanding the RfA process to WikiProject talk pages! The Transhumanist 05:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Adambro (talk·contribs) - Hi, I'm Adam. I first starting editing Wikipedia August 2004, between then and December 2006 I made a small number of contributions where I found articles I was reading that I could contribute to. From December 2006 onwards, I've taken a much more active role in Wikipedia and have found many different ways in which I can contribute when not writing article content. In particular, I enjoy fighting vandalism and find it very satisfying to know that my efforts are helping to protect the great work of my fellow contributors.
I do however, have a much wider experience than just vandal fighting. I partake in XFD discussions, monitor new pages, search for free images, and of course write content whenever I can. I feel the diverse range of activities I get involved in has given me a good understand of policy.
Whilst I'm slightly apprehensive about putting myself forward for adminship, I look forward to hearing the opinions of other editors, and I'm sure whatever the outcome, I'll have some useful feedback to improve my contributions further. Adambro 15:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A: I've spent a fair amount of my time on Wikipedia fighting vandalism and patrolling new pages and so these are certainly areas which I'm familar and would feel in a position to use the administrative tasks. I've also got my eye on the administrative backlog and would try to help with this where I could.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Hopefully, I can be pleased of all of my contributions, but I do accept it is possible that I have made some mistakes and in those situations I've appreciated the assistance of other editors in highlighting appropriate guidelines or better approaches to problems.
I am particularly pleased with my contributions to Grayrigg derailment. This article was a major news item at the time it was created and it was important to ensure that despite the rapidly changing circumstances that the article quality was maintained as additions were made. I've made a large number of edits to the article and feel that the addition of the photograph of the crash and my drawing showing the location are both of significant value. I spent time searching for an appropriate photograph and seeking permission from the photographer.
I nominated the article for Good Article and it was successfully promoted. I'm proud of the contributions I've made and feel that they have aided its progression to GA status.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I think it is important to recognise on Wikipedia that what makes the project great is the diverse backgrounds of our contributors. We all have something different which we can add and topics which we are more familar with. This does of course mean that there are also many different opinions and so it is inevitable that disagreements will occur.
It is important when differences of opinions turn into disputes to look to the guidelines for assistance. They are of great importance to Wikipedia but I do of course appreciate that they shouldn't be considered as being set in stone and I shouldn't allow them to prevent me from making positive contributions.
Whilst I have always regretted seeing discussions turn into arguments, often a case where editors try to get their point across by shouting the loudest, I do feel that attempting to resolve such arguments has helped develop my understanding of the guidelines and policies and how these work in practice.
Ultimately, Wikipedia would suffer if I allowed myself to get stressed out about the project and so if I felt the quality of my contributions is suffering then I would take a break from editing or find different tasks to work on.
4. You suddenly went from a very small number of edits to a rather high editing rate on December 16th. On that day you made as many edits as you did the entirely prior year, and before that day you'd made under 115 total edits. Your editing pattern also changed to include a lot more bulk/semi-/automated editing. What caused this change in the level and character of your contributions? Also, have you ever met any other Wikipedian's in person? --Gmaxwell 19:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
A: That is a good question, but not one I can answer completely I'm afraid. I'm not sure what prompted my sudden increase in activity, I suppose some of it could be credited to me being on Christmas break and so having more time available to spend familiarising myself with Wikipedia. This lead me to find other ways to contribute to the project when not adding content to articles. The larger edit count can be attributed to tasks including fighting vandalism and repairing links to disambiguation pages with the help of AWB.
In response to the second part of the question, no I haven't met any other editors in person. I would have to carefully consider the implications of such a meeting. It would be important to ensure that any real life relationships with other editors don't get in the way of work on Wikipedia, whilst of course recognising the possible benefits of a better understanding of other Wikipedians.
5. Can you give an example of an XfD that you think was closed wrongly, and explain why it should have been closed differently? — coelacan — 20:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
A: That's certainly an interesting question. One instance where the closing of an XfD was not how I would have expected would be the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faye Turney which was closed as a redirect decision. My vote was:
Keep - Her involvement in such a significant event makes her notable, as per the primary criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people), "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". This is most certainly true. She has also been singled out by both the Iranians and the media as being the only women in the group.
Glancing through the other comments seems to suggest that Keep was the general feeling. However, to properly consider how I would have closed the AfD I would have to read through the whole discussion and that will take me a while to ensure I properly understand all the points raised. Would it be helpful if I do that, in addition to what I have said here, coelacan?
I do note that following the closing of the AfD, the decision was taken to Deletion review (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 6) which would support my questioning of how the AfD was closed. I do of course respect the closing admins judgement, however I do feel the circumstances were quite difficult as her involvement in the 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel was still very much ongoing. The page Faye Turney, has since been reinstated and the discussion continued on the article talk page.
If my RfA were to be successful, I would certainly steer clear of complex discussions like this AfD until I had a greater experience of closing XfDs which a more obvious outcome.
6. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 02:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A: I believe that is an extremely important issue, WP:BLP is a key policy in maintaining the reputation of Wikipedia. I feel that it is better for an article to say nothing than something that is unsourced and could potential be seen as libel. Even just last Monday's Signpost provided an example of the consequences of unsourced material and highlights the importance of the policy.
If I found such material in an article, I would remove it and bring our policies to the attention of the user, I would however, attempt to find references first. I did this when an editor added such material to Glen Johnson (footballer). If an editor ignored requests to comply with policy, I would not hesitate to apply a block for continued disruption of the project. In some circumstances page protection may be appropriate.
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Adambro before commenting.
Discussion
Consensus not numbers: He's been around a while and he's acted in a trustworthy, creditable manner. I hope he'll get over the Wikidefcon nonsense and whatnot. I propose that we give Adambro sysop privileges. --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Support
Support - Has been very active in the last 5 months and with over 6700 Edits, he has good mainspace and user talk Edits...--Cometstyles 15:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - Experienced user w/ a clean block log. A vandal fighter indeed. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 16:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support A good candidate, no problems... Majorly(hot!) 16:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Edit-conflict Support Just browsed through your recent contributions and I see good things. You have done some great article work and have a fair understanding of the policies. Would've only liked to see a higher project-space count, though. —Anastalk? 16:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Good guy, level headed, trustworthy enough to know how to use the mop. -- Jreferee 16:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - a good editor and participates well in admin area's. Best of luck! My only concern is that you haven't got a wiki-project endorsement, but I suppose I can overlook that! Ryan Postlethwaite 16:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per sufficient experience and no concerns. Addhoc 17:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - probably not insane, and I like the response to Kelly's concern even though I really hate those userboxes too - David Gerard 18:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Why not? I see no reason to believe this user will abuse or misuse the tools. Vassyana 18:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Looks good to me. I see nothing wrong with promoting someone who wants to be promoted. --SelketTalk 19:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - Good answers to the candidate questions and a solid answer to the question about the userboxes. Johntex\talk 19:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Adminship is no big deal. I don't see any problems. YechielMan 20:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I'm satisfied.-- danntmTC 21:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Looks good. An all around editor. Jmlk17 21:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Looks good. Appreciated the answers to questions. I understand you were relatively inactive until December, but your edits suggest experience more reflecting your first edit date. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. I like how he has handled the Kelly Martin ordeal. Shows that he is a true gentleman through his responses, and how he kindly counters Ms. Martin's criticism. --wpktsfs 02:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. I trust this user to not screw up with the tools. —CComMack (t–c) 04:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. I admire this user's candidness and courage to step forth and ask for more responsibility in a venue that historically has burnt users at the stake for being so bold. Based upon his contribs and conduct on his talk page, I think we can trust him with the tools. The Transhumanist 06:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. I see no reason to not twiddle the bit. And I like your userboxes (weak reason, I know, but hey...) Adambro appears trustworthy. ···日本穣? · TalktoNihonjoe 06:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I've had only the briefest of interaction with Adambro, in a situation with another (rather acerbic) editor, but his demeanor and response to that situation was very reasonable and measured, and I was impressed by it. If he can keep that cool when dealing with the daily grind of the mop and bucket I think he will do just fine. His edits and answers look good as well.--Isotope23 16:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support in order to cancel out Kelly Martin's vote. WaltonNeed some help? 17:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Adambro has handled difficult situations admirably, and does his fair share of chores (particularly with anti-vandalism and AfD), so should become a good admin. --RFBailey 18:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. Great user! -Mschel 23:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support: Don't see any problems with the user and looks like this user has plenty of experience. Should be a good administrator. OrfenUser Talk | Contribs 02:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support: No reason to believe Adambro is untrustworthy. Plus I am mentioned below, so I had to come here. Hi mom! As far as that situation goes, I believe your replies are well written and informative, as well as logical to me. Prodegotalk 02:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per my comments in the section below and also: great editor, no obvious problems, excellent handling of the single oppose, good responses to the questions. -- Black Falcon(Talk) 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support We disagreed re the UK/Caledonia debate but your civility and common sense suggests to me you will make a fine Admin. Ben MacDui(Talk) 19:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC) PS Great userboxes btw.
Support per David Gerard, and my experience of this user involving disagreements where other parties tend to to get quite upset. Usually keen to use calm down the situation - perhaps too optimistic in that regard, but that's probably not a bad thing! JPD (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I have been impressed by his calm and rational approach to helping calm down and re-focus disagreements that are quickly becoming squabbles and out of control. I think he would be a good admin, and I would have no hesitation in approaching him if I found myself in need of an independent, calm, and rational view about anything. DDStretch (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support: a dedicated, experienced editor with a knack for keeping cool and resolving disputes. Will undoubtedly wield the mop with skill. Krimpet (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no reason not to support this good candidate.--VStalk 07:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support because of calm behaviour, although, like Y and Xoloz, I'd have liked to see more experience in project space. ElinorD(talk) 11:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. More projectspace contribs would have helped me make up my mind sooner, but candidate seems reasonably experienced and looks trustworthy. WjBscribe 18:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
Questionable user page content (specifically, the "I wanna be an admin" userbox, and the CVU "WikiDefCon" stupidity) compels me to oppose this candidate. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
And that means that the user obviously going to be a crazy admin who would 100% abuse the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you advocating that this vote should be discounted for being absurd? --Durin 18:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I sure am although I'm not sure I should be admitting that to you! :-) Pascal.Tesson 18:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Durin, this opinion is absurd by my standards (and yours and Pascal.Tesson's). However, I oppose the notion that it should be disregarded. Ms. Martin has her personal standards for judging RfAs and she is free to express them. At RfA, we only ignore comments by sockpuppets and disruptive trolls. If you want to argue that Ms. Martin falls into one of those two categories, you may do so, but I doubt your argument would gain much traction. -- Black Falcon(Talk) 18:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you meant to address that to Pascal. I wasn't advocating anything. --Durin 18:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, Durin is only thinking that it should be ignored, but I'm advocating it. Not because Kelly Martin is a troll or a sockpuppet but because we just can't continue to oppose candidates on the grounds of a behavior that's perfectly acceptable to an overwhelming majority of established Wikipedians. RfA is byzantine enough as it is. Pascal.Tesson 19:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Pascal! Don't you see what's happening? You're being assimilated! :) Sorry, Durin, apparently I got the comments mixed up. So then, how about this for a compromise: we respect Kelly Martin's right to oppose for reasons that we may find to be eccentric (a better term than absurd), and I'll support this user to counter-balance this single "oppose". I wsa going to support anyway as I could find no non-eccentric reason to oppose. -- Black Falcon(Talk) 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that Kelly Martin feels those two userboxes in particular aren't appropriate. However, I feel they are useful. The WikiDefCon userbox allows me to get a basic idea of the current level of vandalism allowing me to judge whether I should focus my attention on fighting vandalism. With regard to the "This user is not a Wikipedia administrator but would like to be one someday" userbox, I'd hope that would encourage other editors to approach me with any concerns so I can improve my contributions to the standard required for adminship. Adambro 17:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
An odd question perhaps... but do you actually look at your own userpage? I ask because I've never had much cause to look at mine.--Gmaxwell 18:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I find it useful sometimes to know where I can find links to various pages so I do look at it occasionally. It's also an easy place to keep tabs on the various pages I'm working on in my own userspace. Adambro 18:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Kelly, I'm sure there would be users who don't like your userboxes as well. How about we stop using userboxes as a Wikipolitical wedge? They indicate approximately nothing about someone's suitability as an admin. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully, I disagree. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the point Kelly is making, a persons userpage does say something about them. Hopefully she can understand the reasons that I have set out in response to her concerns. Adambro 18:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, the offending userbox does not say "I wanna be an admin." It says "This user is not a Wikipedia administrator but would like to be one someday." I, myself, proudly sport one not because I think it would "be cool" to be an admin, but because I think sometime in the future I could help Wikipedia by becoming an admin. I don't see anything sinister by having this userbox. Gutworth 02:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Insufficient projectspace experience to formulate opinion on user's policy knowledge. -- Ynot? 16:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Y. A little more experience will do wonders here. Xoloz 16:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral
Neutral. Some very good contributions, including good article-building. However, only really active on Wikipedia for five months, I would like to see another month of active editing before I could support (but I won't oppose, knowing that he was "here" but not active long before that.) -- Pastordavid 17:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
What do you believe will change in a month? How is five months different from six in your opinion, especially given that he was "here" (your words) before that? I submit that your reliance on hard numbers may be harming this candidate's chances to succeed in helping Wikipedia through obtaining the sysop tools/bit. -- nae'blis 20:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe that in a month the nominee will have a month's more interaction with the project and a month's more experience editing. Also, my vote is neutral - not oppose; if others don't see this as an issue then I haven't harmed anyone's chance's of anything. Finally, the nominees comment (a nominee with only a few weeks less experience of active editing) on another RfA would indicate that he thinks that the experience that comes with time is a factor in becoming an admin. -- Pastordavid 22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your considered response. Neutrals are sometimes taken into account in cases of 'close' RFAs (which this one isn't trending toward, you're right on that) so I just wanted to see a little more of your thought process. No further questions yerhonor. :) -- nae'blis 17:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.
The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.
Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert
{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}
At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.
While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.
Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.
A summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes, as well as a list of past cases of de-adminship, may be found at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship
^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.
Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 17:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Paddington station, 
Portal:Trains, B OCD and 
Portal:UK Railways (FPOC).
Yes. Real96 06:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[33]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Garud.JPG){kind=link}
