Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:23, 9 October 2005 view sourceNickshanks (talk | contribs)6,522 edits →Current nominations: new nomination← Previous edit Revision as of 17:42, 9 October 2005 view source JIP (talk | contribs)Administrators68,705 edits removing Nickshanks, candidate hasn't answered the questionsNext edit →
Line 14: Line 14:
<!-- Place new nomination(s) here, whether you are nominating yourself or someone else. --> <!-- Place new nomination(s) here, whether you are nominating yourself or someone else. -->
<!-- Please note that new RfA policy states that ALL RfA nominations posted here MUST have both acceptance by the candidate and the answers to the questions on the subpage, or the nominations may be removed. Please read the revised directions carefully. Thank you. --> <!-- Please note that new RfA policy states that ALL RfA nominations posted here MUST have both acceptance by the candidate and the answers to the questions on the subpage, or the nominations may be removed. Please read the revised directions carefully. Thank you. -->
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Nickshanks}}
----
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Qaz}} {{Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Qaz}}
---- ----

Revision as of 17:42, 9 October 2005

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Requested articles, Misplaced Pages:Requests for administrator attention, Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests, or requests for assistance at Misplaced Pages:Help desk. Note: Although this page is under extended confirmed protection, non-extended confirmed editors may still comment on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.
↓↓Skip to current nominations for adminship
Advice, administrator elections (AdE), requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives
Administrators
Bureaucrats
AdE/RfX participants
History & statistics
Useful pages
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
Policies on civility and personal attacks apply here. Editors may not make accusations about personal behavior without evidence. Uninvolved administrators and bureaucrats are encouraged to enforce conduct policies and guidelines, including—when necessary—with blocks.
Lua error in Module:RFX_report at line 63: bad argument #2 to 'format' (number expected, got nil). Current time is 16:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC). — Purge this page
Lua error in Module:RFX_report at line 63: bad argument #2 to 'format' (number expected, got nil). Current time is 16:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC). — Purge this page Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

About administrators

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

About RfA

Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
Sennecaster RfA Successful 25 Dec 2024 230 0 0 100
Hog Farm RfA Successful 22 Dec 2024 179 14 12 93
Graham87 RRfA Withdrawn by candidate 20 Nov 2024 119 145 11 45
Worm That Turned RfA Successful 18 Nov 2024 275 5 9 98
Voorts RfA Successful 8 Nov 2024 156 15 4 91

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

Nomination standards

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

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

Nominations

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

Notice of RfA

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

Expressing opinions

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

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

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

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

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

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

Monitors

Shortcut

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

Current nominations

Add new requests at the top of this section

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

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

Current time is 16:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.


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

Qaz

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

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

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I would like sysop so that I can more easily deal with the vandalization of pages, be able to delete pages that require it when someone duly request it for the right reasons, and of course for the worldwide fame and respect I see bestowed upon Wikipedian admins at exclusive social events.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I am most pleased when I am able to start a new article that we need or when I am able to help others get past something they are stuck with.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. Recently I was helping to fix the many vanalistic edits of what appeared to be a WOW incarnation. Not fun. I contacted others on user pages to get help dealing with the user. Also, I was in a debate a long time ago over what should happen to the article at Deaf but I think we were able to work it out on the talk page with only minor breaks of comity.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

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

Thank you for the nomination, i accept --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:50, 2004 May 18 (UTC)
My name is Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and i approve this message;) --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:48, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

Support:

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

Oppose:

  1. I'd want to see more substantive edits. Charles Matthews 15:41, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
  2. Have to agree with Charles Matthews. Has about 800 edits but not enough breadth for me. About 100 of these concern Little Belt bridge, about 50 Flag of Iceland. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:30, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
    Although Wik's support shouldn't cause the editor to be "Crucified on a Cross of Wik," I don't see how this encouraged three users to support. Must be a full moon. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:56, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
  3. Not yet enough community experience, IMHO. Kingturtle 06:07, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

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

Celestianpower

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

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

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Thank you - yes, I accept. --Celestianpower 21:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support another great pick by Redwolf24! Redwolf24 (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. Great user =) Sasquatcht|c 21:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Cabal, er, um Support! -- Essjay · Talk 21:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support! Good user, civil, and active in the front lines (articles). Titoxd 21:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ash Ketchum is to Kanto as Celestianpower is to Misplaced Pages. Extreme Analogic Support Acetic' 21:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Extreme Pimp Style Support Great User --JAranda | yeah 22:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. Kirill Lokshin 22:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support Kind user? we need more of those. I say support.. Gryffindor 22:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support Grutness...wha? 22:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. YYYEEEEEAAH! I was wondering when this one was going to run/be nominated. Keeps out neoligism and is in general a nice user. Ryan Norton 22:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. CAPS-LOCK KEY STUCK SUPPORT. Nufy8 22:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support (after two edit conflicts trying!) Shimgray | talk | 22:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support per cliche!  BD2412 22:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support, even though I said I wouldn't vote anymore, I'm going to anyway I guess. Just so you know, I thought Celestianpower was already an admin. Private Butcher 23:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support, how can I not? -Greg Asche (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. S'port thought you were --Doc (?) 23:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support, did i already say support. feydey 23:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 00:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  20. Strong support. One of the friendliest and most responsible Wikipedian Ive met. I didnt even know you were running, and once again, Reds was one step ahead of me:) →Journalist >>talk<< 00:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    I had to add him to User:Redwolf24/Nominations! Redwolf24 (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. Unconditionally.Shelburne Kismaayo 00:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support CambridgeBayWeather 03:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support I've interacted with this user - will be good admin, mop him. Go the musicabal (tinc). Alf 05:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support the heavenly power =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  25. ¡Apoyo Español Extremo! - FireFox 07:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support, again. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  27. Extreme cælestial support with extra dark matter! I've had much experience with this user. — JIP | Talk 07:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support Seems eager and willing to do the dirty work. Good luck! Hamster Sandwich 07:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support --Rogerd 07:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support. Should have been made a sysop last time, and most definitely this time. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  31. Yes. encephalon 10:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  32. Merovingian (t) (c) 10:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  33. Extreme support! All power to Celestian! sɪzlæk 11:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  34. Strong Support A truly great editor who keeps beating me to vandal reversion. I thought he already was an admin? Banes 11:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    If you're refering to my revert summaries, I downloaded godmode light. I'd never be able to live without it although I hear that the original one that comes with Adminship is much faster. I may be wrong. --Celestianpower 11:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  35. Strong support this time, last time, every time. Great work on the PAC and related projects! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 17:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support - Enthusiastic and assiduous; deserves it. --Baryonic Being 18:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support. Robert 20:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support this fine user. Bratsche 02:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  40. Haven't had any prior interaction with this user, but a quick assessment makes me think he'd be a good admin. Everyking 06:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  41. Cool. --JuntungWu 07:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  42. Support a name I see frequently 'bout the place doing good work.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  43. Go for it!Tan DX 09:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  44. Support. Seems like a good user (though I am hesitant to support anyone who works extensively on Pokemon). I'm going to hold you to your pledge to take care of CSDs though. -R. fiend 17:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  45. Support means the rest of us have less to worry about re Pokemon Dlyons493 Talk 20:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, improving the articles saves you a lot of time in not having to vote on their AfD's:L they don't have any! Never though of that one, thank you. --Celestianpower 22:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  46. Support Absolutely.--MONGO 01:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  47. Support. the wub "?!" 13:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  48. You think correctly. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  49. Support. El_C 03:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  50. -- (drini's page|☎) 03:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  51. Support. Very friendly, very helpful. --JCoug 14:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  52. Support - looks like a great editor to me, and puts in loads of top work on A Series of Unfortunate Events articles! CLW 19:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  53. Support - A good, and friendly, editor who I can trust to use admin powers well. Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  54. Support --Sebastian Kessel 21:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  55. Strong support -- The guy is very keen to make Wikiportals history. -- Svest 21:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;
  56. Support - yes, without hesitation. --HappyCamper 21:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  57. Support. -- DS1953 05:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  58. HELLLOO!! Who couldn't or wouldn't support? ∞Who?¿? 08:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  59. Support. --Bhadani 08:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  60. - Guettarda 13:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I am active in the Punctuation WikiProject and my word do I see the back end of Misplaced Pages there... Copyvios, speedy delete candidates (well, they're the same thing really) and I would love to sort them out on the spot. I would also like to help with VAfD closes and the odd vandal block wouldn't go a miss for my long hours gazing at my watchlist.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. In terms of major contributions, I am very pleased with my work on the A Series of Unfortunate Events coverage, that at the Pokémon Adoption Center and Pokémon Collaborative Project and on my local area. I am also however proud of my recent involvement with WP:JETFA (wikifying articles despite the dubious title) and the punctuation wikiproject which goes way beyond adding in full stops.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. As part of the WP:PCP and WP:PAC, I have been in a lot of heated discussions about Pokémon lists, merges and general notability but feel I have acted with civility at all times. My most major disagreement was with User:A Man In Black but I recently nominated him for adminship and he passed with flying colours. I respect him and I think he respects me.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

ScottyBoy900Q

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

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

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

Support

  1. Grant him the mop.  Denelson83  05:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    My support is now much stronger.  Denelson83  22:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Merovingian (t) (c) 06:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support CambridgeBayWeather 07:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support Not all admins have to be active all the time. There are over 1000 500 of them, and some of them are not very active. It doesn't mean that they don't do good work. There is no reason that any user who has some experience in wikipedia and has shown that they can be trusted shouldn't be an admin. --Rogerd 18:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    Actually we only have around 600 of us =(. Sasquatcht|c 06:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support 2200 edits is more than enough. freestylefrappe 20:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support because we need more good admins! Sasquatcht|c 06:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support, confident that he will not misuse admin powers. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support I don't know this editor much, so I sample checked some of their edits and all seems fine to me. Alf 08:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support ScottyBoy's edits speak for themselves. His edits are quality and while he has quantity going for him as well, it is the quality of his edits that wins my vote of support. --Caponer 23:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support as per Caponer, Alf. Hamster Sandwich 01:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support Scotty just sent me a request on my own talk page about supporting his adminship. -- Mike Garcia | talk 02:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support I see no reason to not support him.PiccoloNamek 03:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support We had a slight disagreement recently, but he was most reasonable about it. I'm sure he will be an excelent admin and try to do what is right. Raven4x4x 06:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support Really good user and I often find his analysis of a photo on FPC exactly what I would say. Very nice guy, and I certainly don't think that his edits are not enough. You can't expect someone to always to be active - most people (I think) have a life aside from Misplaced Pages and can't be expected to be glued to the screen 24/7 (not that such users aren't extremely valuable). Anyway I agree totally with his idea's on diagrams on FPC - in my opion they don't belong. --Fir0002 09:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. I'm confident that he will be a valuable addition to the ranks of administrator. Enochlau 10:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. —wwoods 00:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support... after all, he's from Wild, Wonderful, West Virginia! –Uris 01:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 08:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support  Grue  13:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. No substantial reason to oppose. "Campaigning for a delete vote", I have to say, is quite routine and desirable admin behaviour. Slac speak up! 20:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  21. Strong support per Slac; putting in extra effort should be rewarded not punished. freestylefrappe 23:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. Self-awareness and humility, as expressed in reaction to the opposition's comments below, is how I know that an admin will strive to act responsibly, and will work to correct mistakes. Stan 02:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. I think I was too hasty and harsh opposing. After taking a closer look at this editor's record, I see a long time contributor who generally interacts well with others. --MPerel 14:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. See no substantive current issues. Jayjg 16:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support. ScottyBoy900Q has rightly and judiciously raised questions about editors working on articles about themselves, a very difficult issue that a lot of us haven't had the guts to touch. I don't see that as a reason to oppose. Chick Bowen 02:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. --Bjarki 03:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support. El_C 03:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support User meets my admin requirments on my userpage. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 01:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support Monicasdude 18:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support. Guy who's leading the opposition is retaliating. No spurious AfD, almost half responses say he's non-notable or borderline case. Tanya! Ravine 20:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. -- DS1953 05:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support --Celestianpower 07:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support MONGO 12:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support. With respect with the AFD incident, everyone is allowed to have one bad day. And while RFA campaigning is a bad thing, it does not strike me as a reason to oppose a candidate. Titoxd 17:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support Seems like a good editor, reasons for oppose are lacking to say the least. Martin 23:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Been here for over a year, and only has over 2000 edits, user doesn't seem active enough to me, to be an admin. Private Butcher 16:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC) I now oppose for reasons that have been brought before me. Private Butcher 21:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    How many have been over the last few months though? I think i've been a lot more active than most in that time period. Been here for over a year does not equal has been active for over a year. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 17:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    But you should be active at all times. I don't want an admin that'll be active for a few months, leave for awhile, come back then be active for a few months again. That's why I'm opposing. Private Butcher 17:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    Its totally unreasonable to ask a person to be active at all times. People have family issues that must take priority over wikipedia. I'll discuss in private with you the reason I was absent if it will put your mind at ease, it's not something I need to prove myself on here on this page. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 17:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    Fine, I've retracted my vote. Private Butcher 17:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. A recent spurious AfD is a bad sign (and doesn't reflect knowledge of notability guidelines). (restored per Fawcett5) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is voting to oppose because I listed a page, of which he is the subject matter, up for deletion as it seems to me to be a vanity page for self promotion. If this is of concern to you, please check out the AfD here and see for yourself why this user is voting no. If you feel so inclined, cast a vote to keep or delete as well while you are there. --ScottyBoy900Q 18:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    I was aware of the guidelines as a matter of fact. That's not really what I was protesting by listing it for deletion. I'm just a little concerned the article is extremely prejudiced as you yourself have done a considerable amount of the editing to the article. --ScottyBoy900Q 23:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - I withhold judgement about whether the above mentioned Vfd vote was spurious or not (the old Vfd vote was a resounding keep). However, when ScottyBoy900Q set up the new Afd, he simply overwrote the archive of the old discussion instead of creating a new Afd article. This to me clearly indicates that he has insufficient knowledge of administrative procedure at this time. I would be happy to reconsider my vote in a few months when he has demonstrated more knowledge about "the way of the wiki". Fawcett5 21:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    Can you please show me where the directions are for listing articles that had already been voted on that come up again? I didn't just delete the previous vote page, it can be found right here. I didn't want the new article to show up as a possible 2nd vote, that is why i kept it on the original voting page and moved the archive to the new one. No one else seems to have had any problems finding it. --ScottyBoy900Q 22:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    Well, now I see that the situation is even worse than I first suspected. You did NOT create an archive, what you did was execute a forbidden cut and paste move that fails to preserve the page history. As I cannot see the edit history in the so-called archive, we are just expected to take your word for it that this is what everybody actually said last time around. Anybody that wants to be an administrator should know enough not to make this beginners mistake. In any case, the usual practice is to leave the old Afd article alone and to create a new one titled something like "Pagenamefordeletion 2" or some such. Once again, if you had been around long enough, you would know this. I reiterate that I would be willing to reconsider in several months. Fawcett5 12:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    Yeah I guess you're right. I should have known better. I'm fully aware of how to do a move properly (as you'll see i'v done it plenty of times before). I just wasn't thinking i guess since I don't often deal with AfD. --ScottyBoy900Q 13:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I rarely oppose a nomination, but feel I need to in this instance. What drew my attention in the first place was the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David Mertz incident. While one can see reasons for putting the article up for deletion, I wan't very happy with the tone of the nomination and there is some evidence of ScottyBoy900Q campaigning for a delete vote which is unbecoming in a potential administrator. Also this is a self-nomination and there is evidence of campaigning for support - allowable, but it bothers me a little. All in all, oppose this time round, but hope to be able to support in a few months time. Dlyons493 Talk 20:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    Just for note, to put David's mind at ease I not only informed the people who voted against the article, I also contacted all the people that SUPPORTED keeping it. There were certain conditions that I feel were placed, namely David not editing the article anymore, that just weren't met. The fact that David is so stuck on himself and feels his article HAS to stay here is one reason we got into a debate. All of my arguments though were for the sake of preserving the integrity of wikipedia, when we start allowing complete vanity articles exist here, I feel we're doomed. What other kinds of other unimportant non-notable stuff will be posted after that kind of thing is allowed. --ScottyBoy900Q 21:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    Actually ScottyBoy900Q initially notified only editors who had previously voted "delete". After I complained of this behavior, he reluctantly agreed to also notify the previous "keep" voters. After that, he engaged in quite active campaigning for his self-nominated RfA (and in the course of that made quite snide comments about the AfD vote, and my opposition to it. Overall, very unbecoming of an admin, IMO. And it seems somehow hypocritical to complain that I made autobiography edits (which are completely NPOV, and far more minor than the AfD purports), while simultaneously self-nominating for administratorship. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    David is correct, originally i notified those people because I figured they were the ones who's mind might have changed. As far as snide, let's not even go there. People can see for themselves when looking at your arguments and the way you talk down to everyone what kind of person you are. People have told me since I nominated myself they would have nominated me if i would have expressed interest. This whole episode started when David over-reacted about me not thinking he was important enough to need an article. I am perfectly happy to let the voting take its place and have the outcome be the outcome. I told him I would appologize for offending him after the voting was completed. He just seems unable to let it go and accept that other people may not view him as significant or important enough to have his own article. He has accused me of secretly talking to other people through non WP channels about listing him for deletion, which is completely outrageous. He has also campaigned for his voting as well, leaving messages on people talk pages and asking them to vote. While I see nothing wrong with this, as I have done it myself obviously, David seems to have developed a personal vandetta against me and anyone who would vote to delete his page. --ScottyBoy900Q 23:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    No, this is plain wrong: and is really the exact reason I think ScottyBoy900Q isn't temperamentally suited to administratorship just yet. My issue didn't start because Scott "didn't think I was important enough for an article." It started because the AfD nomination was quite dishonest in tone, purporting a number of false, or at least dissimulative things (mischaracterizing my edits to David Mertz; trying to pretend earning a Ph.D. is identical to being admitted to an M.A. program; claiming a vanity-press book with no ISBN is the identical to a book from Addison-Wesley; and overall just a really snarly and combative tone). FWIW, I wouldn't make a good admin either; largely for the same reasons ScottyBoy900Q wouldn't—but then, I'm not nominated, and wouldn't accept if I was :-).
    Frankly, the AfD nomination is just plain wrong per noteriety guidelines. I can accept that ScottyBoy900Q hadn't seen the Google scholar results, Alexa ranking, 85k Google hits, or evidence of 500k-ish readership at the time of nomination. People make mistakes. But a good admin shouldn't dig in his heels and stick to his guns after making a mistake; rather, he should correct it as best possible (i.e. change his nomination text and vote, and apologize for the judgement error). That's exactly opposite to what ScottyBoy900Q has done. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    Once again, these are all thing David has come up and created on his own. The nomination was NOT dishonest and nothing was purported incorrectly. Quite frankly, there hasn't been a judgement error as far as I'm concerned. David created the idea on his own that I said anything along the lines of an MA being identical to a Ph.D., not did I ever make a claim that my book was anywhere on the scale as he claims his to be. He also claims that I reluctantly contacted his orignal supporters which is also completely false. There was no reluctance about it. I did it because it was the right thing to do and as soon as he had a complaint I took the liberty of doing it. As far as those accusations go, feel free to read my wording on your own and you will see that David has made these factors up himself and it never got out of tone until David starting taking personal offense to having the page listed for deletion. As a matter of fact, I never said anything at all about MA's or Ph.D.'s until David decided to compare them himself. I informed him it was important, as stated on the deletion page, that he not take anything personally, but it seems he has been unable to do so. --ScottyBoy900Q 23:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    Yes please follow the link, and read the AfD comment: I myself have published books, have taught classes, and have many of the same qualifications as this man seems to have, but I don't feel the need to glorify myself or make a completely vanity-like article.. Then decide if you want an admin who writes in that tone (and given that Scott explicitly claims that being admitted to an M.A. is the same credential as earning a Ph.D.; and the thing with vanity and major publishers). Look: if he had claimed "only publishing one book isn't enough" that would be fine (though no follow noteriety guidelines; and in this case miss that most of my readers are in periodicals), but his actual tone is plain dissimulation and false insinuatino. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    Simply amazing. As I mentioned in my last post, i never said anything at all about M.A.'s or Ph.D.'s so thats not an issue in any way shape or form except in David's head. I have said (on my user page) that i am in the Master's program and have never one single time equated that to having or being a Ph.D. student. It's childish to even bicker about that point as it is only you making that an issue. And as far as the other material goes, I HAVE been published and I HAVE taught classes. This whole issue winds down to you taking personal offense to this (which you absolutely shouldnt). I listed the article for deletion because i truely believe it covers non-notable subject matter. The whole point of voting is to get other people pov on that issue. And as I keep saying time after time, i'm fine with whatever people decide on. Relax and stop taking it personally. If you weren't a wikipedian and there was no one to argue for keeping the article, it would be deleted in a heartbeat. --ScottyBoy900Q 00:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    It's exactly the opposite. If I weren't a Wikipedian, no one would have nominated it for AfD, or voted for deletion. The delete votes are almost exclusively on the grounds of your false claims that my edits violated NPOV. Well, two or three people with some personal animus about past editing conflict (yeah, I'm gruff). It's still hard for you to back away from your comment: many of the same qualifications, I think. I don't think everyone with a Ph.D. should have an article, by any means, but to even for one moment equate earning a Ph.D. with being admitted to a Masters program shows just how very inexperienced you are to the academic world (and you can't even bring yourself to write "earning a Ph.D.", but in every instance equivocate with just being a Ph.D. student). I think in your edit history you write about some military stuff: imagine if someone completely failed to understand or acknowledge that the difference between a General and Major rank really means something, it's not the same qualification. If you ever earn a higher degree (no, not a masters), you'll eventually be able to understand just how youthful you were this year. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    Well, I'm fine leaving this conversation as it is. As I continue to say, you're the only person hung up on the M.A. vs Ph.D. so i'll leave that alone. I wouldn't equate MA's and Ph.D.'s as I am fully capable or seeing the difference between them. By saying i've accomplished many of the same things as you, i did not necessarilly mean in terms of academics. I'm sure with everything else i've done in my life i could come up with an equally encyclopedic article (not that I ever would). And to be honest, I still think I would have listed the article for deletion regardless as I still do not believe you are as important as you think you are (that's what the voting is for and i'll still be big enough after all this to appologize when the voting is over). Drop me a line on my talk page if you would like to continue talking...its getting to be a bit entertaining actually and i'm sure you're a good guy aside from this issue. --ScottyBoy900Q 01:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. I'm not a big fan of RfA campaigning, if this one fails I'd be happy to vote in support in a few weeks on an RfA without it. --fvw* 22:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I think a prospective admin should have enough involvement in the community that they don't have to spam users talk pages soliciting votes, It looks to me like bad form to cut and paste notes asking for support. It comes from a fairly narrow particapation history, I think an admin needs to have wider experience to have the backround to act on policy. There isn't much work on some of the activities listed in the first question, most don't need any admin powers to at least pitch in, no reason to jump on in some of those backlogs! Vote reinstated after reading User:Flcelloguy's qoute and realizing that nominee challenged six of the voters, he just doesn't show that he has any real grasp of policy/pratice here. Rx StrangeLove 03:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    I certainly appreciate the opinion, and would have to say that most of my activities have been pretty theme specific and i usually do not have a lot of contact with the people involving my edits for some reason. One thing I really would like to start doing would not necessarilly require adminship but would certainly help. I'd like to be more active in the welcoming committee and publicity issues where adminship would be helpful to have. Im not trying to get it just to have it. And I see nothing wrong with asking people for their opinions or votes. If they feel my contributions have been unacceptable i would expect they would vote to oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q 04:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    Personally, I like that he informed me that he was up for adminship. Not everyone in this community follows the RFA page religiously, so I found it to be a chance to vote for a candidate I found suitable in an instance where I probably wouldn't have checked the RFA page (I usually check it maybe once or twice a month). Mike H (Talking is hot) 08:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    I agree with User:Mike Halterman above. I think that in no way should asking people to take a look at their nomination be counted against them. In most cases, if someone has worked on a particular area for quite a bit, the people he/she has worked on would probably know that editor best, and those editors might not necessarily check this regularly (I certainly don't - I have better things to look at). Enochlau 08:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    That's what watch lists are for, you don't need to check this regularly. Asking for votes is just another way of gaming the system, people don't spam talk pages of those that might oppose, they ask editors they think will support. Rx StrangeLove 18:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose For spamming of user pages alone. Is the RFA process turning into something akin to a US presidential campaign? -- Egil 06:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    I don't really see how that is a problem. If ScottyBoy hadn't told me about it personally, I wouldn't have even known about this. Enochlau 08:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Votes for self in self-nom and a cutnpaste AFD. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    I went ahead and removed the self vote as after reading further...you are correct and I should have left that off. I've seen plenty of other people do it in the past so I just assumed it was a common practice. As far as the cut/paster AfD issue, no one has been able to provide me with clear instructions posted anywhere about what to do in that case. I have admitted that was done as a last resort as I did njot want to start a new vote with the old information on the page. --ScottyBoy900Q 22:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    The self-vote has benn deleted from the page so that one has to visit the page history to see it. RobyWayne above is receiving a lot of flack for a self-vote but has just struck it through leaving it visible for new potential voters and this seems to me to be better practice. It says at the top of this page that self-noms should not vote for themselves, it's surprising that aspirant admins miss it so often - should it should be bolded or added to the nomination form? Dlyons493 Talk 01:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    Oppose, based on the behavior I see on this RFA and the AFD that's mentioned. I'm open to reconsider in the future. --MPerel 00:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC) (changed vote, see above)
  9. Oppose for vote-pimping. Proto t c 08:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose based on comments above.  ALKIVAR™ 10:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose — not only do the AfD and the self-vote worry me, but this comment from above to Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters: People can see for themselves when looking at your arguments and the way you talk down to everyone what kind of person you are. It doesn't matter how heated the argument is or how frustrated you are, but I don't expect admins to insult other Wikipedians or to infer that someone is a bad person. While I feel you are a good contributer, I just don't think you're ready yet. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 18:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. I wasn't the b'crat who extended this (though I believe the extension merited) and I won't be the promoting or removing b'crat, but as often happens with extensions, nothing definitive has happened. Voting as an editor, not as an admin, I believe that the substantive objections in both content and number indicate that this nomination should be brought up again at a future time. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
This last vote from Cecropia came in 10 minutes late so im not sure that it counts....but I wanted to address it because I actually think the issues brought up by the opposers all revolved around one major issue that was heavily promoted by a certain user. The comments all really deal with the AfD, which was ultimately voted down, but had a great deal of support. The issue of the AfD was blown way out of proportion by this certain user simply because he took the deletion vote way too personally and sought to ultimately avenge my listing his article for deletion by campainging/hampering the voting here. --ScottyBoy900Q 05:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
The issue, however, was never that you wrote an AfD, but the unprofessional tone you took both in the AfD, here on this page, and in spamming many editors to solicit delete votes. Moreover, the multiple administrative errors you made recently were the actual reason for many oppose votes here, not anything about the AfD. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Since the candidate responded directly to my vote, let me say this: I am expressing my opinion as to where I believe this nomination stands as a non-promoting/removing individual. As another bureaucrat(s) will make the final determination, the numerical effect of my vote is not, IMO, material but I would expect its substance to be taken into account (agree or disagree with my analysis) when a decision is made. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


Neutral

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

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

Comments

  • Upon further review of the recent spurious AfD, the opposition's arguments seem to be based more off of sour grapes than off of pure objective criticism. Fawcett was able to produce one situation in which the contributor in question did not follow administrative procedure to a tee. If we were to judge all administrators on singular slip-ups here and there...we wouldn't have many admins to criticize or to vote down. Just as I believe that the David Mertz article would have been easily deleted if he hadn't been a contributor himself, I believe ScottyBoy would have been easily confirmed without harsh opposition if he hadn't have taken action against this one article. He should be judged by his body of work, not by this one instance.--Caponer 00:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • FWIW, at least the votes of Tanya Ravine and Monicasdude are solely meant to disagree with me, rather than to express any opinion on ScottyBoy900Q. Neither, certainly had ever heard of teh RfA before casting this vote (via links from the failed David Mertz AfD. Take it or leave it. The rest of the support votes are certainly quite sincere. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • FWIW, Lulu/Mertz is simply fabricating a statement of my motives; he's been engaged in a long-running vendetta against me since I slighted his (quite inaccurate) comments about "fair use" on a talk page some months ago. His malicious comments should shed light on his motives for opposing this nomination, qhich are quite inappropriate. Monicasdude 18:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Before voting ends, I just wanted to say that I am sorry if there were any hurt feelings regarding the RfD. It was done with the best of intentions. I definitely would not have put the article up for deletion at the same time as voting was open on my adminship if I was doing it for a negative reason. It's unfortunate that some of the votes (both supporting & opposing) on here were simply products of that deletion vote and really have nothing to do with whether or not I'd be a good administrator. I also believe that some of the opposing comments are misguided in the sense that they really all reflect one single thing and not my overall ability/contributions to wikipedia. --ScottyBoy900Q 05:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. As an admin I hope I'll be able to do a few more things than I do now, including joining the group who welcomes newcomers, being more diligent in monitoring vandalism, and also monitoring new pages. I would like to continue to be an active member of the featured picture community and also get a bit more involved in finding and fixing copyright issues. I am also starting to get involved in working on ways to promote Misplaced Pages, either through the media or maybe a campaign through universities (that's something i've just been giving a lot of thought lately)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I rather like the work I've done in regards to the Baltimore Maritime Museum and each of the articles branching off of it. They definitely aren't that impressive, just something dear to my heart. I also think i've done a good amount of work i'm proud of in regards to some musical band templates and also of course my work in finding ship images which I have spent considerable time on.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I Have never really been involved in any edit wars, but I have definitely gotten into some heated discussion. A big issue I brought up recently is that I don't think it's fair to judge diagrams/charts using the same criteria as we judge photographs and pictures on. That's an ongoing discussion but I believe I've been able to prove my point and bring the issue into people's minds.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Jossifresco

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

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

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

Support

  1. Support As nominator (almost forgot, but Essjay reminded me. Thanks Essjay) -Greg Asche (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. (You're welcome, Greg.) -- Essjay · Talk 01:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support Good User --JAranda | yeah 01:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support Good janitor --Rogerd 02:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support as per Essjay (in all things, unto Essjay) -] 03:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support, I've seen this user around. →Journalist >>talk<< 03:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support This user removes vandalism a lot and had a high edit count ---- ☺Adam1213☺|talk 03:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    That's got to be the winner of the coveted "gaudiest signature ever" award. --Durin 15:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. Thoughtful on substance, works toward consensus, and takes initiative on grunt work. — RDF 03:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. Agree with GregAsche and RDF. In addition, he responds promptly and courteously to messages on his Talk page, takes time to explain things, and graciously accepts edits and suggestions by others. Finell 03:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Private Butcher, your standards are absurdly high. Andre (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support see him around all the time and is very sound. Dlyons493 Talk 05:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Merovingian (t) (c) 06:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support CambridgeBayWeather 07:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support, active vandalfighter with good judgement. --JoanneB 08:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support, this guy is an excellent vandal fighter. Rje 11:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. First rate vandal-fighter! Owen× ☎ 12:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support I wouldn't think that editcountitis would be an issue with 4600 edits! This user has a good way of dealing with other users. Bratsche 13:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support should be good admin. Alf 14:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support a fellow RC patroller. Robert 15:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  20. double support this guy really deserves the adminship, he's helping us a lot with RC --(☺drini♫|☎) 15:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  21. support he did good on vandal-busting and 4,600 edits is way plenty. --Isolani 15:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  22. FireFox 17:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support; yes, definitely. Lots of good work, including versus vandals, for which he could use the keys to the admin closet. Antandrus (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support - yes! A valued member of the community we can trust with the mop. --HappyCamper 19:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support. Kirill Lokshin 20:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  26. S'port vandal-slayers need weapons --Doc (?) 08:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  27. Yes. encephalon 10:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 17:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support I was about to revert some vandalism on Periodic Table, only to see that Jossi had beaten me to the punch. That and his vote for my Rfa make this an easy choice. Karmafist 23:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support Vandal patrolling is often a thankless job. Jossi's adminship will at least make it a more efficient thankless job. Jkelly 16:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. Troll-slayers deserve the mop and the flamethrower! Titoxd 02:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  32. Cool. --JuntungWu 07:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support. Friday (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support, (I almost missed his RFA!). Excellent contributor to hundreds of articles and a good vandalfighter. Worked with him extensively on the Prem Rawat collection of articles last year, and I admire his capacity to withstand abuse, personal attacks and the stress that came with it. Since these early days, Jossi has shown that he is a valuable contributor to this project and is most deserving of the mop and bucket! --ZappaZ 04:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support. Good vandal slayer. --GraemeL 15:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support for all of the reasons given above and for his contributions to the troubled article List of people who have said that they are gods. --goethean ॐ 16:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support. Intersofia 22:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support. El_C 03:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  39. Strong support I came here by accident, I was on Jossi's user page to ask him for help with a page badly wounded and desperately in need of attention. I know him to be a thoughtful neutral party, working together with him bringing Human towards FA status. If only Jossi were an admin, he could be even yet more helpful! Sam Spade 21:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support. To me Jossi represents new thinking, something desparately needed. Like me he prefers an emic POV on things, especially new religious movements, counteracting common prejudices. -- mizar ॐ Talk 01:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support. I am currently up for an RfA as well and I totally understand how the oppose votes sometimes focus on the wrong qualities. You look good to me. --ScottyBoy900Q 20:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  42. Support. As per nomination. --pgk 20:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  43. Support. Sarge Baldy 20:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  44. Support. KHM03 22:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  45. Support. I have seen Jossi in action working on the Human article. Seems to be a very constructive editor who strives to reach consensus in a polite way. Also, I have not seen Jossie lobbying for support with regard to this vote. I too stumbled across it re: Sam Spade's comment above. David D. (Talk) 23:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


Oppose

  • Oppose, I think this person for being here so long needs more edits, so then I know that this person would be an active admin. Therefore I have to oppose. Sorry forgot to sign, I'll just sign now, and erase the old "signing". Private Butcher 03:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    Out of curiosity, why is a low-activity admin a problem? ~~ N (t/c) 16:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    It's a problem because they should be active in wikipedia, since they'd be admins FOR wikipedia. Therefore they should be very active in all things, articles, RfAs, User Talks, etc. They should know all about how wikipedia works by experiencing it by being very active. That's just what I think, I know you all disagree with me, but it's just what I think. Private Butcher 17:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    I think it's unreasonable to expect an admin to be active all the time. If you look at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Standards not one of 60 have put "must be active all the time to be an admin" as a prerequisite for becoming an admin. It is normal to expect normal users and admins to have breaks from wikipedia like vacations, sickness, exams, work related travel, deaths in family etc. and normal "wikibreaks" just to relax. Misplaced Pages is not a job for editors or admins, it's all voluntary. So Your insistence of having "active admins" is very curious as it is not expected of admins. Admins are not some 24/7 editing/RC patrolling "elite breed", they are just normal editors with more tools available. Best You can do is put Your sig under Neutral, if you still think this being a problem. I hope you consider this and all the best otherwise. feydey 18:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    Don't bitch at me about this ever again, I don't give a damn, I try to vote to make wikipedia better, and you tell me "oh you're reasons are wrong", there are no "wrong or right reasons". I have reasons, I expect them to be active a lot, alright, why? Because if they want to be admins they should treat it like a job. I removed my vote because you bitch at me, and I'm tired of it, and I can't vote neutral either because I'll get bitched about that too. So I refuse to support your bastard canididates, I do oppose, but since you're making me remove my vote I will. Private Butcher 19:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    You don't have to remove your vote just because he wants you to, you are entitled to vote however you want. Please do try to keep the hostility down though. Cheers. -Greg Asche (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    I apologize for being hostile, but it just bothers me that I can't vote how I want without being complained to. All I did was vote which way I thought was best, but I'm sorry for saying what I said. Private Butcher 20:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    Apology accepted. No bad feelings. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 21:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. I would ask the admins who count the votes to count Private Butcher's. He clearly states that he did not withdraw his vote because he had any second thoughts about the candidate's fitness, but rather because he was harassed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    By "harassed" I assume that you mean "asked a simple question". --goethean ॐ 18:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. OpposeStrong Oppose Recent POV pushing on List of people who have said that they are gods leaves bitter taste in my mouth. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    Interesting that your considered my intervention as "POV pushing". All I was trying to do was to assist in a bitter dispute by making proposals, attempting to keep editors talking to each other and when all failed, posting an RfC that was well responded to. You can read my comments at Talk:List_of_people_who_have_said_that_they_are_gods. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 22:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    I hate it when RFA candidates try to attack oppose votes. Like I'm just going to let you sit there and play martyr? How ironic - . Does your concept of "assisting in a bitter dispute by making proposals" include stepping into the middle of the dispute and enforcing your prefered version by reversion? Wait - how about your recent comment that the list is in shambles, needs to be revised so it looks like what you want or it should be deleted? Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    I invite you to continue this discussion in the talk page and to help in resolving the dispute on that article, if you want. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 02:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    I don't care about the article nearly as much as I care about what it says about your qualifications for adminstratorship. The passive-agressive editing on your part does not give me comfort. Your lack of understanding of my problem (your editing, not your edits) gives me even less. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Strong Oppose. Jossifresco lacks the most important traits that an admin must have, integrity and honesty. Examples? Argued that Criticism of Prem Rawat should be deleted because the view of Prem Rawat's critics "do not deserve more than a short mention as already included in Prem_Rawat#Criticism." What makes this a show of utter lack of integrity? The fact that Jossi had created that very article himself, stating "Opposing views can be added here". It's hardly the only time that Jossi has both taken a role shaping an article of "opposing views" and then called for it to be deleted because of factors that never seemed to bother him when he was supposedly working for the good of the article. (,),(,) In general, what Jossi prescribes for "opposing views" is always different from the views he is in sympathy with. Here, he argues that List of purported cults must get deleted because "NPOV requires that a controversial subject is treated in such way that the controversy is described and conflicting views be given a balanced coverage. This cannot happen here and thus, this article is POV and fundamentally flawed." Yet when the new religious movement is the source of the accusation, Jossi shows no concern at all for whether there is "balanced coverage" of the accusation -- only for whether the accusation itself goes in. I also like how he describes "serious POV conflicts during the editing last year of the Prem Rawat articles with one active WP editor and few anons." I'd suggest anyone who wants to know how far Jossi can be trusted look up those conflicts and see how many more than "one active WP editor" was involved. No, Jossi is not someone who can be trusted with admin powers. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    I followed these links and the only thing I read on all these, is an editor engaged in discussions about making articles NPOV and contributing in a civil and measured manner.--ZappaZ 04:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    Well, yes. That's because you also believe that what is the "NPOV" way of handling an accusation is different depending on whether your NRM is on the business end or pulling the trigger. Even if you were a party with sufficient integrity to be a judge of Jossi's or anyone else's integrity (which you are not) what you've said is only a distraction from the real issue: does Jossi talk the talk about NPOV? or does he walk the walk? The edits I cited show clearly that he can talk a great game about NPOV, all day long, but somehow what he deems NPOV for the goose will always be different from NPOV for the gander. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    All I can see is only, that you have a different POV than Jossi, don't mistake this for NPOV. In fact I do not believe that there is anything like an absolute NPOV. You mentioned List of purported cults and stated that Jossis views were POV. But it is agreed among sociologist that the word cult or sect are not to be used anymore for new relgious groups, because they have a very clear negative perception in the public, and as such the word in itself is in fact POV. Any religion, and any religious view started out as a sect. Attempts of such lists as the one you mentioned and of course the List_of_people_who_have_said_that_they_are_gods, where a category is created, are very likely to create strong POV, especially if one lumps together criminals (Manson etc) with purported people of divine origin (like Jesus), in fact in order to make a statement by such comparisons, instead of differentiating between them and seeing each case in its own religious context. To point this out, and to see the danger of discrimination of minorities inherent in such an approach is not POV, but rather the task of an Admin. And I hope very much for you that you are not taking offense on his personal beliefs or mine or Zappaz's for that matter, and say we are all POV because we belong to one or the other NRG. This would in fact say more about your non- NPOV than his. About the article Criticism of Prem Rawat: It is indeed difficult to understand, why criticsim is not integrated into the main article about Prem Rawat, and if it is there already, why there should be a separate article. I have seen the same discussion in the german WP, and there was not even a disagreemant that there couldn't be two articles. And of course in the main article, the views need to be balanced. What that means in each individual case is of course a matter of dispute and opinion. And I don't think there is anything like an absolute neutrality. If you believe so, you are indeed strong POV taking your own opinion to be neutrality. -- mizar ॐ Talk 10:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    It is not Jossi's standards that bother me. It is the clear evidence of his double standards that bothers me. If he had created Criticism of Prem Rawat and said "Opposing views can go here", and then spoke up in the deletion discussion and said "we shouldn't delete this because it's where opposing views were encouraged to go", that would be consistent. If he had not created Criticism of Prem Rawat and had then advocated for its deletion, stating that critical views "do not deserve more than a short mention as already included in Prem_Rawat#Criticism", that would be consistent. It is the fact that Jossi created the article to hold opposing views and called for those opposing views to be deleted as not deserving their own article, that should give pause to anyone considering entrusting him with admin powers. It is not just that he helped to develop the criteria determining which allegations of cultic nature would be listed at List of purported cults. It is not just that he argued for the deletion of List of purported cults, stating that the criteria of the article made it "original research", and that accusations presented without "balanced coverage" of "opposing views" were inherently POV. It is not just that he himself pushed for the unneeded inclusion of an accusation against a group, without balanced coverage of opposing views. It is that he did all three which is cause for concern. These double standards require a good explanation. What they do not deserve is an attack on the messenger, alleging that that person is simply motivated by holding the opposing POV, rather than the documented evidence that the candidate has exhibited favoritism and double standards unacceptable from anyone of any POV.
    Finally, I would like to know your basis for that very surprising statement, "it is agreed among sociologist that the word cult or sect are not to be used anymore for new relgious groups"? That's a very surprising statement; I'd like to know who said that and which sociologists they had the authority to speak for. However, since that's completely off-topic to the current discussion, it would be better to discuss it on one of our talk pages. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    "it is agreed among sociologist that the word cult or sect are not to be used anymore for new relgious groups"? That's a very surprising statement; I'd like to know who said that and which sociologists they had the authority to speak for. However, since that's completely off-topic to the current discussion, it would be better to discuss it on one of our talk pages. If you don't want to discuss issues (like Jossi's reaction to the term cult), don't bring them up as an argument. If you think it's an argument, why not bring it up here? I am not running for Admin, so why should it be on my talk page? I have all the arguments from the german page about de:Sekte#wissenschaftlich (sect:scientific). It says:Das Münchner Rechtslexikon schreibt zum Beispiel, der Begriff „Sekte“ habe in staatsrechtlicher Hinsicht seine Bedeutung verloren, da er eine negative theologische Beurteilung enthalte.(The Munich Lexicon of Law writes, the term 'Sekte'(= cult) has lost its legal meaning, since it contains a negative theological judgement) -- mizar ॐ Talk 22:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

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

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I am currently spending 60% of my time on RC patrol and new page patrol, and intend to continue doing so. I also check for copyvios and welcome new users and ip users that contribute good stuff. I have been also answering questions at the Reference desk (Humanism) and I find that quite rewarding (I know that is not an admin task, but it keeps me sharp...).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. That probably would be the series of articles I started a few weeks ago on Category:Book design and Typography. I intend to create 200 articles featuring the most known typefaces, with samples. I am also proud of my work at Human, that hopefully will be submitted to FAC soon. There are also several other articles that I am proud of, not only because of their content, but because they were fun to edit in a collaborative environment.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. Yes. I had serious POV conflicts during the editing last year of the Prem Rawat articles with one active WP editor and few anons. I even got serious anonymous hate mail, that prompted me to abandon WP for a while. What I have realized is that time and patience and the aggregated effort of many editors are the best tool to ensure fairness and NPOV in articles about subjects that are controversial. Trust the community: it works. I have learned to trust that. Nowadays, and as the articles are somewhat stable, I keep myself busy on other areas such as Digital art, Typography and Book design articles.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Brighterorange

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

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

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Support

  1. Support CambridgeBayWeather 22:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. S'port -Ahh, I wanted to be first - --Doc (?) 23:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support See him around Afd a lot where he shows good judgement. Dlyons493 Talk 23:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Bright Support Good User also see her alot in AFD --JAranda | yeah 23:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Late-breaking nominator support.  BD2412 23:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support from a Kick Ass User. Private Butcher 23:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. Robert 00:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support -Greg Asche (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. EXTREME ORANGE SUPPORT WITH EXTRA PEELS!! dedicated contributer. Ryan Norton 01:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support. Kirill Lokshin 01:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. A good editor with a cool head who knows how things work. -Splash 02:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC) (I missed my sig the first time)
  12. Support Good editor --Rogerd 02:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Old Fashioned Support  ALKIVAR™ 03:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Andre (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. support: Good contributor. Ombudsman 04:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. Merovingian (t) (c) 06:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support - seen this user lots. --Celestianpower 07:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. Extreme lesbian support and damn the controversy! Brighterorange is very active on AfD. — JIP | Talk 07:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    The controversy about extreme lesbian support, I mean.
  19. Support Amren 13:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  20. Orange Furry Alien Support have seen plenty of edits on my watchlist and in AfD participation, should be good admin. Alf 14:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  21. Orange mustache support. One that knowns were to put a semicolon and were to put a comma, and willing to spend time fixing these, gets my vote. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 19:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support Grutness...wha? 22:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support - seen lots of him on AfD. — ceejayoz 04:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support see him around quite a bit now, a good editor who could make good use of the mop and bucket. Jtkiefer ----- 04:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  25. Yes. encephalon 10:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. Several good contributions in a variety of places. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  27. Extreme support!. sɪzlæk 11:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support Very active on AFD and other places. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support --Allen3  23:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  30. Lesbian support of the most extreme variety! Seen this user around a bit, always seems responsible enough. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. I have pleasantly encountered this color on several occasions. >: Roby Wayne 21:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support. His leadership in the Punctuation Project is noted and appreciated. Jonathunder 01:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support. Amazing job in Punctuation project. By the way, it's ok for a non-admin cast a vote here right? -- WB 04:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    yes, any user in good standing (aka no anonymous votes/no banned users...) is allowed to vote here.  ALKIVAR™ 04:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  34. "Yeah Fool. Better recognize -- Check Yo Self" Support w/X-treme Predjudice Clarence Thomas 01:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  35. Cool. --JuntungWu 07:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support. Friday (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  37. Yes --ZappaZ 04:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support. No reason to think admin powers will be abused. Jayjg 16:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  39. It hurts my eyes, somehow! El_C 03:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Actually, I already do a lot of chores. ;) I'm pretty active on AfD, and I would like to help with closing discussions there. Also, new pages patrol would be a whole lot more efficient with the ability to speedy pages instead of tagging them and waiting for others to do it. Of course I expect that, as time goes on, I'll discover other fun tasks to help me avoid working on my thesis.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. All of my major contributions are listed on my user page. Other than a few articles about type theory, my area of expertise, the contributions I'm most proud of are as follows. First, I've taken a lot of photographs, often improving the quality of existing ones (for instance from this to this at Highwayman's hitch) or adding totally new ones. The biggest, though, is my project "Project Punctuation", which has made 1¼ passes over the entire article namespace to correct typographical errors. We've also bagged and tagged or fixed loads of other problematic articles that passed RC/NP patrol in the process. Though these small edits account for a large fraction of my article namespace edits, on the other hand they're supported by a real lot of work behind the scenes to write and run the software that produces the dumps.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. Not much. My editing has not been particularly contentious, and years of dealing with troublemakers on my own websites has given me a pretty thick skin, so I am not the kind of person to get in heated arguments. I know some people on RfA see conflict resolution as an important test before adminship, so how about the argument over repeated copyvios at Talk:Bloodsport (film) (where I am called a poopoo head (heh), attacked variously, and threatened with e-mail bombs) on my birthday. The page was eventually vprotected after I asked for help, and I got a copy of the movie so I can watch it again and rewrite the summary (hopefully) to everyone's satisfaction soon. — brighterorange (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Wikibofh

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

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

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

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

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. My style of editing means that I tend to work on different things and cycle around. I expect I would work on AfD closure, monitor Vandalism Intervention and as well as other sort of "admin only areas" I haven't accessed yet. My watchlist is roughly 600 items, and I would continue to monitor that. I would also hope to prudently use short term blocks to lower the overhead of the pass through vandals that we spend a lot of time with.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I'm not particularly good and creating large articles from scratch, so don't expect to see a lot in the way of FAC work. I do have a few favorites though. As documented on my userpage I'm pretty much solely responsible for the Monster trucks category. I'm also happy with the status of Gas lighting which was a cut-n-paste of a PD text from Project Gutenberg. I went through it all, and although the language and organization aren't great, it's much better than the original.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I generally don't get wikistress. I can come back if it's bothering me. I have had a few conflicts that I'll try to detail:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Justinc

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

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

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Neutral, has been here a long time, and doesn't have edit as many edits as I would expect. But its not enough to oppose, but also not enough to support. Private Butcher 22:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    You've got to be joking. He has nearly 4000 edits and that's not enough for you to support? Exactly how many edits would you expect a user to make in a year? This editcountitis is really absurd... Carbonite | Talk 01:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Absurd? Absurd? What is with you people, I'm not opposing, it not like it hurts the canidate that I'm neutral. I expect over 5000 a year, but people don't do that, so I'm not opposing, I'm just being neutral. But fine, while I'm retracting votes, I'll retract this one too. Private Butcher 17:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I wasnt going to comment, but I have to mention three mitigating factors: 1. I make too many edits because I cant see typos on the preview, so they get fixed as minor edits. 2. All the edits I made on {{ifd}} and {{copyvio}} have gone into the ether and are not counted. And 3. I have several hundred edits on Commons (mostly alas related to en wikipedia) that I would like to be taken into nonconsideration. Remember editcountitis is fatal. Justinc 23:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I stand by my statement that it's absurd to considering 4000 edits a year to be "not enough to support". You do realize that only about 400 editors have over 5000 edits total (not per year). Most of those users are already admins. It's quite valid to expect users to have some minimum number of edits. Myself, I like to see 1000 - 1500 edits, although I did just support a user with only 700 edits. Expecting candidates to make over 400 edits a month to earn your support just seems over the top. Carbonite | Talk 02:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Mostly at the moment helping with cleaning up the backlog of {{nosource}} images for deletionwhich is causing a lot of stress as there are very few people working on it and so people are being aggreived when things are done too hastily. I read the EN mailing list and can pick up on miscellaneous things to do from there. My watchlist has nearly 1500 pages on it now and there are a few disputes to try to calm down (Trappist beer has just flared up).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I did a lot of work on the classification under Category:Beer, filling in articles there and encouraging other users which seems to have given some structure to what was rather messy. I wrote all of Kenwood House, which is a nice article if short. There are lots of times that passing by when writing something else I added a stub or redlink and later I come back and found that that was enough to start a better article - Beverley Nichols is one example.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. There have been a few incidents enforcing picture policy, but they havent caused me stress. I once had to ask for admin help when a user started vandalising my talk page, but generally I just write a reasonable explanation and wait, almost always without reverting. These have usually been quite productive.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Denelson83

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

  1. Opposed Friday's RfA because the user was once "uncivil" and therefore, says Denelson83, can never have a clean reputation. Needs to learn more about Wikiquette, how it is applied, and how to judge others. Andre (talk) 04:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    Has since re-evaluated that situation, but I still feel uncomfortable about supporting. Andre (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Andre. android79 18:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Weak oppose. There were quite a number of objections on his second RFA that had not been addressed then, and I see no evidence that they have been addressed now. Radiant_>|< 12:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    (copyied from my talk page, responding here) Radiant_>|< 09:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    I see you voted to oppose my adminship nomination because I had not fixed certain objections raised on my last RfA. Could you please tell me what they are so I can endeavour to fix them? I really want to show that I'm on Misplaced Pages's good side.  Denelson83  15:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I appreciate you wanting to clear this up. In particular, the suggestion that you may be volatile, and may have problems interacting with other users since you may have trouble understanding them. Please note that I am not speaking from personal experience with you, as I don't think we've crossed paths in the past months. I'm not saying that you haven't improved, I'm just saying that I haven't seen it, and I found it a bit strange that nobody on this RFA really mentioned it. Radiant_>|< 09:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    I expressed in the candidate question section below that I can funnel any negative emotions generated from "bad" messages into the wikimood on my user page. That will allow me to respond to such messages in a civil manner. I did not know how to react to such messages at the time of my last RfA, but I do believe I have remedied that problem.  Denelson83  19:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose quite strongly. Denelson, while well-intentioned, is immature, prickly and quick to anger. His behavior on IRC is a consistent source of irritation, and does not demonstrate that he has fully addressed the issues of his RFC. — Dan | Talk 07:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    How am I being irritating? Is it because I just said one comment on #wikipedia that expressed my opinion on a very controversial subject, or did I build this up over time? Please help me to fix this.  Denelson83  08:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • I want to be able to trust an administrator to take the right action when made aware of copyright infringement. I cannot trust this editor to do so after reading his response to the RfC. --Tony Sidaway 04:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    Individual admins don't do all of the superior functions on Misplaced Pages, such as tagging copyvios, blocking vandals, or protecting pages. Heck, some admins just continue acting as regular editors. On this basis, I won't take any action on copyright violations, unless somebody notifies me. I will let the senior admins continue with that responsibility. Besides, the comment I made on my RfC pertained to possibly copyrighted images, not articles.  Denelson83  05:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks for the reply. I don't think this takes either copyright or Misplaced Pages seriously. We have a legal obligation to do so. Should there ever be a Misplaced Pages copyright case, the matter of Misplaced Pages's policy of delegating most of the grunt work to untrained, unsupervised administrators would inevitably arise, and then we can ill afford the possibility of administrators turning a blind eye to obvious infringements. --Tony Sidaway 05:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    Then I'll admit right now that the only way I know how to handle alleged copyvios would be simply to flag 'em and list 'em. I really frown on unilateral admin actions on Misplaced Pages, such as deleting copyvios immediately on sight. They have to be sent to the community at large first.  Denelson83  05:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    I think I've been too hard on Denelson about something that he said some time ago. I'm withdrawing. No vote at all. --Tony Sidaway 05:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I'm hoping to guard the Sailor Moon series of articles from any vandalism, as that is one of my greatest passions. That "rollback" feature may come in handy if I spot any vandalism against any of those articles. I have done a few rounds of RC patrol in the past, and I hope to be able to act on the speedy deletion candidates on my own instead of simply having to tag them and wait for them to be deleted.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I was the creator of the article series on British Columbia provincial highways. I put in all of those articles single-handedly, and that certainly qualifies as a significant achievement on Misplaced Pages. I also put in articles on WWV and WWVH, albeit anonymously, as I had not yet signed up for an account when I created those articles. I also made the Template:CSS IPA vowel chart for the article series on the International Phonetic Alphabet, which is no small feat per se. I also started up the Canada WikiPortal and the Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. Other articles that I worked on include the consolidated country code lists, e.g. Country codes: A, as well as Canadian postal code, which I completely overhauled and added a useful map to.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. The aforementioned RfC details my most recent incident of incivility. That happened about half a year ago, when I decided I did not want any negative messages on my talk page. As a remedy, I no longer touch my talk page, and I funnel any bad emotions that result from negative messages into the "wikimood" meter on my user page. That should keep me civil everywhere else. If I am made an administrator, I will assure you that if my wikimood is at -3 or below, I will not use any of the admin functions until my wikimood improves.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Rd232

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

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

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
-selfnom, not schizophrenic. Rd232 15:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC) (Neither am I. Rd232 15:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC))

Support

  1. Merge this solid contributor into Misplaced Pages:List of administrators.  BD2412 15:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. A bit light on the edit count given that y'all both worked here. ;-) --hydnjo talk 15:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support Phroziac 18:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support -Greg Asche (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Merovingian (t) (c) 22:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support Private Butcher 22:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support CambridgeBayWeather 23:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support 1) this stuff about time is ridiculous. Being an admin isn't a job where you have to put in X number of hours a week. I am sure rd232 will put in enough hours, but even if he doesn't put in a lot of admin time, whatever he does would add value to wikipedia. 2) There is nothing wrong with self-noms. --Rogerd 03:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Andre (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support good solid work and history of user interactions looks good which I think is specially important in view of self-nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support self-noms are fine from candidates such as this. Alf 15:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support--Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support Thanks Rd, we're all set. Please excuse any problems my concerns may have caused.
  14. Support. Dragons flight 18:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. El_C 03:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. Hey, nice sense of humour. We need more admins like you with that quality.  Denelson83  18:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I wonder if this user has time to manage his own wiki project and the wikipedia at the same time. Deryck C. 17:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    I doubt it'll be a problem. I do this myself. --Phroziac 18:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    I doubt it would be a problem too, but in my case it doesn't really arise - I'm handing over day-to-day running to others, as they gain experience. Rd232 21:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Weakest Possible Neutral.(Vote Changed Above Karmafist 15:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC))

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

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

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Various, as needed. Vandalism issues are the main reason I want admin tools.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Stefan Heym was a recent one I was pleased with that I did a lot on. Also created Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Climate change.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. Conflicts, yes; only serious ones were (AFAIR) with one user. Dealt with as pleasantly as possible, focussing on substance; requesting others' opinion; and as last resort by, er, giving up. Life too short, and all that.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Evilphoenix

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

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

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I do. Ëvilphoenix 05:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. He's done some excellent work, Support wholeheartedly. --fvw* 05:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. EXTREME... erm... I've seen good work. Sup some port Grutness...wha? 07:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Merovingian (t) (c) 11:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. Carbonite | Talk 12:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. Kirill Lokshin 12:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support without any witty comments. Thryduulf 13:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support: After a review of your edits, the only one I questioned was this one. A quick Google search would have shown you this individual had a #5 hit in the UK (3rd link on Google search). Be a slight bit more careful in placing things for AfD, ok? I loved this comment from this nominee "We have no sense of humor here on Misplaced Pages" (on this page) Hysterical! Nominee seems to have a solid grasp of policy and is a strong contributor. Participation level is high, and use of edit summaries over the last 500 edits is 96%! --Durin 13:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Man-zier support.--Scimitar 14:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support a good editor and a good future admin. -Splash 15:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support. Cabal member 16 will serve my- er- our cause well. Dmcdevit·t 15:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. Good-natured guy.  Denelson83  18:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. A very good contributor who has displayed a good grasp of policy. Rje 18:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support without prejudice. Evilphoenix is a wonderful editor and future admin. Hall Monitor 18:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support Private Butcher 18:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support --JAranda | yeah 19:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. Michael Snow 20:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Simply Support. Every time I've run into him I've seen that he has good knowledge of policy. Titoxd 23:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. S'port --Doc (?) 23:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support CambridgeBayWeather 23:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  20. Andre (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support Dlyons493 Talk 13:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    scritch (that's the sound of me adding one more chalk mark to the support tally) Grutness...wha? 22:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    ::Oops - seems I'd forgotten that i'd already voted!
  22. Weak Support because he never told me he was running! I would have been glad to nominate! :P Strong support anyway. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    Aww, I'm flattered. Thanks for saying that you would have liked to nominate me, and I'm sorry I didn't tell you, but I didn't want to give the appearance of campaigning. I appreciate the endorsement nonetheless, though. Ëvilphoenix 13:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  23. He's not one already? I guess if I thought he was one before and I didn't have any issues, I could support. JYolkowski // talk 21:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support A great contributor and a reasonable voice. Cmouse 06:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support Strong editor, helpful, should make a great admin. Johntex\ 18:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support - another good one.  BD2412 05:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support. Friday (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support. --hydnjo talk
  29. Support. Good edits, seems to understand policy. Jayjg 16:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support. El_C 03:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support fellow vandalbuster ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 03:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    Support Removes vandalism --☺Adam1213☺|talk 03:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    Replaced and struck through text after voter blanked it from page.
    See:, Ëvilphoenix 06:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  32. He's got my vote :) --AppleBoy 03:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  1. My only memory of Evilphoenix is this edit , which was marked "rvv". Since this wasn't vandalism, but a content dispute about moving something to another page, with an edit summary saying "see talk", I feel that more though could have gone into it. The other votes suggest that this is an isolated event, which I hope it is. JPD 10:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I reverted that (yesterday) coming directly in from IRC, and when I double checked the edit I noticed the pointer to the talk page from the anon. However when I looked at the talk page, I didn't really see anything that maintained a clear consensus for removing that section, indeed I didn't really see anything that I felt gave me clear guidance as to the consensus on that section, but that's also me looking at an unfammiliar discussion on an unfamiliar page. I did however, see Talk:French_ensigns#Reverting_User_69.156.107.3_changes.__Please_stop_your_un-warranted_deletions, which was a comment asking the IP that had just blanked a serious portion of the article to not do so. Noting that, I felt reasonably safe in letting the reversion stand. Had I seen something that gave me clear guidance otherwise, I would have reverted back to the anon's edit, but I didnt feel like I had. Thanks for your comment. Ëvilphoenix 16:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A.I would like to work on to clearing pages from Copyvio, work on Speedy deletion patrol (mostly clearing articles already tagged by other users), and close out AfD discussions. I would also not mind having page protection and rollback abilities to deal with vandalism. I would also like to participate more in the RfA process. I have been observing RfA's here for some time, and I know that some editors prefer to see RfA candidates that have participated in RfA discussions. In my mind, I feel that sysops would know best what qualities to look for in a sysop, so I have not generally participated at length in RfA discussions, with exceptions for a few candidates that I did know well enough to voice an opinion on.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
Generally, I do one of two things: copyedit and New Page patrol. For copyediting, I enjoyed working on Tooth enamel , Korean Buddhism , and Kinnaur . I founded the Harry Potter WikiProject, which is doing very well. I also participate in an outside wiki using MediaWiki software, the ClemsonWiki, and I edit there as Evilphoenix as well. I am a sysop on that site, so I have had a chance to get a feel for the added buttons, but in all fairness, the infrastructure there is not nearly as complex as on WikiPedia, and there is also less vandalism and conflict.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A.I do not feel I have had any serious editing conflicts. There have been a few occasions where I have disagreed with other users. Generally, my practice has been to discuss it on the Talk page when I find evidence of disagreement with another editor. I am a big believer in the value of consensus and discussion, and the culture of pursuing those ideals on Misplaced Pages was one of the things that appealed to me about the project, and is part of why I chose to participate. I have occasionally encountered "WikiStress", but that has thankfully been rare, and more from fighting Vanity, Linkspam, and hoaxes on New Pages than from any dealings with regular Misplaced Pages users. I believe that in any conflicts I would encounter, I would follow the practices of the Wiki, seek to build consensus, and engage in discussion of the issues.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

LordAmeth

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

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

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

2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. At the moment I have a list of 285 articles which I have either created or which I have made significant major changes.

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

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

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


3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I have been involved in edit wars a handful of times, particularly over POV issues relating to Israel, and to Japanese involvement in (or relations with) China and Korea. My expertise, if I could presume to say I have one, and my focus is Japanese medieval history, and so to a large extent I try to avoid adding or removing facts, instead focusing on the style of the article. Even if something is true, does it need to be included? Does it need to be stated in that way? POV is a very difficult thing, and I do not presume that my views on history and politics are unbiased; I keep my eyes out for glaring problems, I point them out on talk pages, make suggestions for changes (often without making the changes myself) and leave it up to those who know the subject better to make the change.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Sebastiankessel

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. That's a tricky one... I spend a good deal of time reverting vandalism, the "revert button" would be a real help. I believe in blocking as a very very very last resort, but I won't hesitate to use it if the situation warrants it. I would patrol the Speedy Deletions page, helping keep Misplaced Pages free from articles that have no place here. I would also be definitely on top of WP:ANI and would try to help users to the best of my abilities, in whatever form I can. Sebastian Kessel 21:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I am particularly pleased about Colectivo. It wasn't my article but I did an extensive copy edit and I will probably nominate it for WP:FA in the near future, after it goes through some peer review. I like improving my English skills, and I find that Misplaced Pages is a great place to do it and make a valuable contribution at the same time. Sebastian Kessel 21:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I don't think my interactions with other users have caused me "stress", but I definitely have had some arguments in the past. I find that the best way to approach edit conflicts is in the talk page, usually after a few back-and-forths the situation gets resolved with a compromise. Sebastian Kessel 21:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Wikiwoohoo

Closed (1/10/3) ended 8:00 12th October 2005 (UTC)

Wikiwoohoo (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate myself. I am not trying to be big headed ;) but would love to be able to help out with the project in a greater capacity. I have loved editting and want to be an admin to do more and have the extra powers to make a positive difference. Although this account is new, I am not to Misplaced Pages. I gave up with an old account some time ago (I forgot the password) and only recently created this.Wikiwoohoo 17:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC) In my time as Wikiwoohoo I have created two UK specific stubs - UK-bank-stub and UK-retail-stub and made edits to some already in existence, such as bank-stub. My main interests are in UK television, hence why I joined the British TV channels WikiProject (mentioned in my answers to questions). Wikiwoohoo 12:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept.Wikiwoohoo 17:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. By AGF, I should assume that this user's claim as having an old abandoned account as true. Deryck C. 17:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Sorry, you really need a lot more edits and you haven't really been here long enough. FireFox 18:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Yes, you need about an order of magnitude more experience. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per FireFox and Rick Block. Maybe in about four months' time. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Astrotrain 19:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Its very good that you want to become an admin to help Misplaced Pages, but Im afraid that you dont have enough experience. Please continue to be a dedicated and contientious editor, and come back when you have amassed over 1000 valuable edits, and have shown yourself capable of handling admin tools. Good luck. →Journalist >>talk<< 20:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose because of reasons given above. Private Butcher 22:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Strong Oppose and Delist too few edits --JAranda | yeah 00:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. User is on a good road to being a strong contributor. --Merovingian (t) (c) 00:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Sorry Wikiwoo, but you have fewer edits than me, & I don't have a lot. You are a great editor however, but you need more edits. Re request after you have at least 2000 edits, (Which is the norm for admins). Spawn Man 01:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Extreme les... sorry. Oppose, too little experience, as the low edit count and previous malformed nomination show. — JIP | Talk 09:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral: The first seven votes on this RfA under oppose are all about editcountitis. This nominee has been on Misplaced Pages before, and took a long break. His contributions since his return, while light, have all been in good faith. He has been courteous to users, and shows no sign of losing his cool under pressure. I think he can be trusted with the tools of adminship. I have no reason to oppose him based on edit counts. My only reasons for opposing are his activity level per day being lower than I normally find acceptable, and his edit summary usage is lower than I like to see. If someone is going to delist this RfA, I suggest coming up with better grounds than editcountitis for doing so. An RfA is useful for instructing a nominee on how they should improve to become a better nominee in the future. So far, the oppose votes are speaking just one lesson. Let this RfA stand. If Wikiwoohoo wants to delist it, he can withdraw the nomination on his own. --Durin 00:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The nomination really ought not be delisted, as those should be reserved for bad faith nominations. Wikiwoohoo is a good user, and I will be happy to support him at a later date. --Merovingian (t) (c) 00:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. As of now, I am neutral to this nomination. I have kept my options open for some future time when I shall be able to form an opinion based on his/her activities with the present user name, as I do not have any clue to his/her earlier edits. I also welcome him/her back to wikipedia. --Bhadani 14:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    Granted Grant his correct sex , which I learnt from his immediate message on my talk page in response to my vote to his present nomination. I am sure Grant was a good editor and shall prove that again. --Bhadani 15:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. I won't oppose of do anything like that. Your contributions show that you're a good user, but the thing is, we need to know how you've helped around here in order to consider you for adminship. Your edits appear to be in good faith, but without the rest of your contributions, I can't know how you'll behave with the mop and the flamethrower. I can't know if it is true that you did in fact have another account, but I'm believing you because I assume good faith. That said, keep up the good work a few more months and you'll have no problem rounding up support. Titoxd 23:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

(Journalist below is responding to Durin's neutral vote above and Merovingian's response)

  • Doesnt his low per-day activity level links to his low total edits? I have not opposed solely on edit counts, Ive said that the user needs experience... While focusing on edit count can be a bad thing, it still shows a person's involvement and assiduity (ie. experience). If an editor who has been on Misplaced Pages for over a year has 1000 edits, then he would be delisted for being uninvolved and lethargic. Therefore, if someone has a high edit count, it usually points to the fact that he/she has devoted a lot of time and attention to the project. They only way persons can become known in the community, and the only way others can vote, Support, seen him around is if he has been 'far and wide' on wikipedia, editing and conversing. The result of such actions is exteriorized in his edit count. Edit count really isnt as bad as how people make it out to be. →Journalist >>talk<< 03:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This user was involved in Misplaced Pages before, left for two years, and came back. He's not just a new user. People are judging him solely based on his edits and time on Misplaced Pages under this account name. # of edits per day and total edits are related, but are rather different. A high edit count is not indicative of being devoted to the project. Average # of edits per day mutes the objectivity somewhat, but not entirely. As I've said here on RfA multiple times, it's just one tool of many. As many have noted, edit counting does nothing to evaluate how much effort is being made with each edit. In the time that it takes for me to write this commentary, I could record many new edits by stub-sorting. Does the stub-sorting have more value? Does this commentary? I've spent more than an hour before working on a single edit to USN ship articles. Since I know it's not likely someone else will be editing the articles there in question, I can be casual and hit "Show preview" many times to get the format the way I want. In that hour, I could rack up a hundred stub-sorts. I could rack up 50 or more votes on AfD, CfD, and TfD. Edit counts are an objective measure of something that is subjective. You can not gauge the value of a contributor or their contributions by the # of edits they have made. Such a route is inherently perilous in evaluating a nominee. If edit counts really were an effective way to evaluate people, then we'd automatically give people admin status as soon as they crossed, say, 1,000 edits. But, we don't. Neither do we grade people on their value to Misplaced Pages based on their # of edits. I have more edits than you. Does that mean I am better than you? Of course not. Neither does a low edit count for a user automatically mean they are ill qualified to be an admin. The qualities that make a nominee a good candidate do not magically become imbued within them once they cross some magical threshold number of edits. They had those qualities before they came to Misplaced Pages. --Durin 04:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • People are "judging him solely based on his edit and time on Misplaced Pages under this account name" because that is all we have to work with... it would make sense to consider the history of another account if there was any way to examine that. --Tabor 22:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • --Edit conflict with Tabor:) Durin, I really understand where you are coming from. And I concur with most of your above points. What you are saying is that you could edit one article and hit "show preview" many times, making major punctilious contributions in one edit, while another can rack up 50 or more edits 'VFDing', stub sorting etc. The fact of the matter is that a person who devotes himself to "casually" hitting the "Show preview" botton does not necessarily need sysop powers if all they do is make major edits. A person has to show that they are already doing admin type work to be a good admin. Such things include making major edits, interacting, voting on AfD, CfD, and TfD, participating in discussions, and especially reverting vandalism and warning unconscionable editors —all of which will contribute to a high edit count. And if someone is causually hitting the preview button, and spends all day on one edit, what time will he/she have to familiarize himself with Wikipolicy, interact with others, handle disputes with other members, and edit a large cross section of namespaces so we can know that he is not just limited to writing one area. Its like you are saying that a great writer shoud automatically be given sysop powers. As stated, I agree with most of your points, but I though that it is implied that the edits of the candidate would be studied. And if it is, and there is little variety to go on, other persons are going to be skeptical. Its just fact. You said "The qualities that make a nominee a good candidate do not magically become imbued within them once they cross some magical threshold number of edits. They had those qualities before they came to Misplaced Pages", but how can we know this unless he is participative? I know that having 1000 edits does not automatically make you a good admin, but being a great writer and meticulous editor does not mean that you will be one either. As I have already stated, edit count can be a bad thing, but its not always, and if I didnt make it completely clear, edit counts should also be reviewed. →Journalist >>talk<< 22:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • And what I've been saying is nobody in the 10 oppose votes has come up with any reason to oppose this nominee except on grounds of edit counts and time on Misplaced Pages. I'm not saying this person should be an admin; I did not vote support. But, we have a number of admins here who had similar edit counts when they were given admin priviledges. We have corrupted the process so much that now a nominee needs >2000 edits to have a solid chance to become an admin. 2000! So, I challenge the oppose voters to come up with something negative about this nominee other than low number of edits and time on Misplaced Pages. At least take the time to review the edits (after all, there aren't that many) and come up with some feedback on how this nominee could be better for the next time they run for admin. --Durin 02:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, Ill do that :). And wow, I really cant believe that the standard is now 2000 edits! Thats kind of a stretch (I have to admit it even though it goes back on what Ive been saying). Oh, and lastly, maybe may reasons for oppose were a bit ambiguous, but doesnt 1000 valuable edits mean that the edits themselves would be meticulously studied? →Journalist >>talk<< 03:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I've totally forgotten my old user name other than it began with Grant, well at least that's what I thought but it seems it wasn't now. Thanks to Durin for his fantastic efforts to help but I think I'll just have to give up digging about in my mind. It's giving me a headache ;)! I looked at all the edit histories of the BBC related articles and none of the user names on those ring a bell. It's annoying for me to have seemingly completely forgotten something as simple yet important as a user name but I like the name Wikiwoohoo, it has a air of mystery in a way but an over-riding sense of fun. That's my thought anyway ;)Wikiwoohoo 15:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I would help the project by checking for errors, fixing broken links, deleting articles and images that are copyright violations or that have been marked for deletion for justifiable reasons.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. My favourites articles are those that I have helped with regarding BBC television channels and programmes, of which I have a great interest. I am a member of the British TV Channels WikiProject which is a group where we combine efforts to enhance the articles of Britsh television channels.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I do not and have not. There has been one recent occasion with a new user recently that could have descended into a conflict but we both acted well and calmly and it has not.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

This nomination has been removed a few days early due to overwhelming opposition.
Acetic' 23:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

A Link to the Past

FINAL (6/17/7) ended 23:55 October 9, 2005 (UTC)

A Link to the Past (talk · contribs) – A Link to the Past has been a great user since his first edit in December 2004, being very active in cleanup projects and other Misplaced Pages activities. 4720 edits for those with editcountitis, well distributed throughout namespaces. Would make a good admin. Ral315 WS 04:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Mild lesbian acceptance - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. As nominator, of course. Ral315 WS 04:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Extreme DeCSS support, of course! I have seen this user around a lot. — JIP | Talk 05:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support CambridgeBayWeather 06:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support - A clever, diligent editor --Knucmo2 09:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. I've seen a lot of ALTTP. --Merovingian (t) (c) 10:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Strong Support - A Link to the Past is dedicated to improving the quality of the encyclopedia. A few people would do well to remember what our goal is here. Rob Church 18:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    He doesn't need the admin mop to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    Really? I'd love to contest this claim that those who improve articles are not worthy of admin status. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    Angr said that you don't have to be an admin to improve Misplaced Pages, while you claim he said that if you improve Misplaced Pages you can't be an admin. If we denote "is an admin" with A and "improves Misplaced Pages" with I, this means that Angr said ¬∀x: Ix → Ax, while you said ∀x: Ix → ¬Ax. Angr's statement can be further expressed as ∃x: Ix ∩ ¬Ax. Your statement can be expressed as ∀x: ¬Ix ∪ Ax. These are not the same thing, because if we assume there are at least two Wikipedians in this Misplaced Pages, ∃ statements are not the same thing as ∀ statements. In fact, the statements are directly contradictory, as Ix contradicts ¬Ix and ¬Ax contradicts Ax, so in your version of Angr's statement, there can't be anyone who improves Misplaced Pages but is not an admin, because all users must either not improve Misplaced Pages, or be admins, or both. So therefore you have interpreted Angr wrong. — JIP | Talk 18:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. --Boothy443 | comhrá 06:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Too few edit summaries. Oleg Alexandrov 06:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The discussion on Talk:Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back really disturbes me. I believe that comments such as the one A man in black cites () and others on that page (such as and ) is unacceptable for any wikipedian, let alone an administrator. And yes I realise that the discussion was frustrating, but an admin needs patience in boatloads, enough to be able to handle these things. However, from what else I have seen of A Link To The Past, he seems like a very good user, and I am willing to change my vote in a few months if this RfA fails (barring any similar incidents, naturally). gkhan 11:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. An excellent editor but a little too rash to be an admin at this point. Needs to have his edges dulled a bit. For example, this quote from August 25 regarding Adamwankenobi: I also see you're sixteen years old. That would explain it. Oh well, at least school will help keep you from burdening Misplaced Pages anymore. I'm trying to help Empire Strikes Back, and you put that shit back on. I have encouraged admins at the wikipedia channel to not take vandal shit from you, so I suggest you fix up your act, or your ass is going to be torn. Admittedly Adamwankenobi was a bad faith user, but admins must keep their cool. Regrettably I must oppose at this point. Sorry! Andre (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, per Andre. Needs to keep a cooler head. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Following some of these links, there's just no way. So, yeah, blow me. I don't want to change it, so what? Are you gonna have a fucking heart attack over it? This is just Misplaced Pages. Just two days ago. Marskell 15:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose: Lacks the patience and temperment to be an admin. --Durin 15:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, per above. →Journalist >>talk<< 15:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. I'm sorry, ALTTP. Though he's generally a great editor and I'm always on his side in disputes, he's far too rash and prone to getting into heated arguments and revert wars (some of which have led to pages being protected). He's a great editor (I love the Wario and Lakitu articles)... but I don't think he would make a good admin, especially when dealing with frustrating users. Coffee 17:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose, his recent outbursts of temper are just way to recent to be ignored. And for an 18 year old to mock a 16 year old for his youth, well, that's just the pot calling the kettle black. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose seems too angry to be an admin. I don't believe he'll make a good one I oppose. Private Butcher 22:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Needs to keep a cool head more. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. OpposeAn admin must be polite and calm at all times. -DDerby-(talk) 04:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per GregAsche. --WikiFanatic
  15. Oppose excellent editor, tireless contributor, and all-around good bloke. However – darnit – needs to pay a lot more attention to being patient, civil, and avoiding personal attacks. Promising to clean up one's act is all very well, but I don't think anyone should be up for adminship just four days after swearing at another user? It's not enough to make good edits; an admin should be cool under fire. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per above. Type O Spud 20:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Oppose too hot headed, from my experience. --InShaneee 22:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I must admit to moderately heated disagreements with ALTTP recently over stub categories. Not strong enough to oppose, but I'm a little wary of supporting. Grutness...wha? 06:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. I'm a bit ambivalent, too, although the timing is unfortunate, as I'm currently engaged in a fairly heated debate with him. (If anything, his patience in that dispute is a point in his favor.) I have mixed feelings about his tendency to edit without edit summaries and his occasionally confrontational tone in talk pages and edit summaries (particularly when dealing with confrontations by other editors). If it weren't for that, I'd be inclined to support. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 06:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    Since it's not really fair to be this critical without examples, here's one. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. I must admit that I don't like the answer to question 1 below at all; if you're not ready to use Brainpower before deleting, blocking and especially closing AfD's or others.... I don't know what to say about this, but: are you taking the admin-stuff seriously at all? (and I don't mean to offend here, that's why I 'voted' neutral) Lectonar 10:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    And yes, I've seen that you meant it basically as a jest; I just don't feel thats easily recognisable Lectonar 10:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. I think that ALTTP is now making a good effort to be a more calm and civil editor, but I would like to see him demonstrate it over a few weeks at least. I appreciate his willingness to learn from this experience, and I look forward to supporting his next RfA. FreplySpang (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Good Editor but troubled by comments maybe in a few months --JAranda | yeah 00:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. There's already enough opposition so I'm not going to pile on, but I do think that taking the advice from this RfA would be beneficial. Carbonite | Talk 12:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutral I'd like to thank the candidate for answering my questions. Candidate is obviously a great editor, but like the opposition here I agree the candidate needs just a tad more time working out the personal part (which can be hard :-(). Its also obvious that the candidate is making a commendable attempt to get better at it too, which is good :). Ryan Norton 15:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • *grumble*I have several criticisms of this candidate. First off, the candidate floods peer review. Second, the answer to the first question makes me think twice. Third, a severe lack of edit summaries (in some cases). Ryan Norton 05:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Taking on your comments in order: Yes, I admit that perhaps it was rude of me to flood the Peer Review with articles, no matter how legitimate they were. I apologize, although the way you worded it makes it seem like I do it on a regular basis. c_c
    • That was just a jest, basically, anything that I can do without having an innate knowledge in, say, HTML or C++ I'll be able to do.
    • Yes, yes, I had a speech on that, and I do have a problem with edit summaries. However, the only time I really made no edit summaries was that one time recently where I was stub-sorting. I was trying to get it done as soon as humanly possible, so I just c/ped the stub to be applied and saved. I'll try my hardest to remember to keep writing edit summaries. Thanks for your comments. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the response! I apologize if I was a bit terse... OK, so I've got one last question for you (and please realize these are just to address my own concerns as I'm very much undecided). At least from what I've seen you tend to drift towards owning articles, as statements such as Talk:Star_Wars_Episode_V:_The_Empire_Strikes_Back#This_is_a_community_article. would indicate, and in general the disputes that follow. Am I incorrect? What do you think? Ryan Norton 06:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I wouldn't say owning, but I was being a pinch selfish with what I thought was quality. Although, the statements I made were in response to the additude that this is for Star Wars editors to edit. Also, Grutness, I don't quite recall conversing... @.@ - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Do the words "Video game company stubs" sound familiar? As I said, not nearly enough to oppose on, but it left me a little hesitant to support. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes, I realize I was testy with Clawson, and I do apologize for any aggression towards him, but in my own defense, the guy was ignoring what I was saying completely, and being respectful was not working to get him to stop ignoring what I was saying (he was saying that change was needed, and was ignoring me because I did not want change, and was demanding that I give a different change opposed to his change). - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • On edit summaries: Overall usage of edit summaries for this nominee is 45%. Over the last 500 edits, it's 66%. Thus, nominee is improving. There's more room for improvement though. --Durin 15:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
            • And, people, stop apologizing for not wanting to give me power. o_o Oh well - I'll just clean up my temper in the next few months. Also, yes, it was in jest, but you're misinterpreting the statement; it was to mean that I do not have expertise stuff like HTML, and that I could do simpler stuff. I'll change it to a less sarcastic statement. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Well, I'd say anything simple, I don't have an expertise in HTML or anything, I can just help with various tasks on Misplaced Pages. (deleting, (un)blocking, closing, (un)protecting, etc.)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Wario, Henry Fonda, Cat, Lakitu and Katamari Damacy, five articles that I have helped feature. Wario is my biggest work, where I contributed more content than anyone (A Man in Black helped out a lot too, however).
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. Well, let's just say that in the past, I have let my temper get in the way of good judgement. Often, however, while i was at some fault for my temper being unleashed, there was fault in the receiver of my temper often, such as Adamwankenobi (who, after being blocked, returned and became a much better user). I plan on cleaning up my act, and promise to not abuse my power TOO much (if you didn't already get it, that statement was injest :). While I have a mean side if you look hard enough for it, I have a nice side - I rarely ever bite the newbies, and I strive to help improve the quality of Misplaced Pages. I have never been blocked, and I have never vandalized an article. I won't destroy you if you object, so don't worry. *waves*
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Karmafist

Closed (53/2/0) ended 00:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Karmafist (talk · contribs) is a very qualified user, and I'm surprised that he isn't an admin yet. Kate's edit tool puts him at 2,359 edits; he has been around since August 9th, 2004, and while some users who are newer may have more edits, I feel that Karmafist truly deserves adminship. --WikiFanatic

Allow me to elaborate on that nomination... Karmafist is a funny guy, he knows policy, and is all around friendly. He gave me, Essjay, and a few others a barn to store our vandals that we would face as admins. He started the barnstar eaten by a bear thing IIRC, and there's basically no reason to oppose. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here.

I accept the nomination. Karmafist 01:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support, as nominator. --WikiFanatic
  2. Support There's a flurry of good candidates lately :) Ryan Norton 01:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support. Noticed user and always noticed judicious participation. Marskell 01:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support --JAranda | yeah 01:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 01:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support I like the bear-ate-the-barnstar barnstar. freestylefrappe 02:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support What, you mean he isn't one? I think we need to have a BarnRaising. Bratsche 03:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. Usual cliché. --Carnildo 03:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support Molotov (talk) 05:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. utcursch | talk 06:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Cool. --JuntungWu 11:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support CambridgeBayWeather 11:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support Xoloz 12:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support →Journalist >>talk<< 15:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. Apoyo Español Extremo (Extreme Spanish Support) FireFox 16:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support, per above. Just make sure to use more edit summaries :) Ral315 WS 17:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. Friday (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support Great, helpful editor. Banes 18:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  20. support Private Butcher 19:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support seen him around many times doing cleanup tasks IIRC. -DDerby-(talk) 19:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support, definately - a good wikipedian. It's... Thelb4! 20:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. Robert 21:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support, don't expect to abuse admin powers. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support, nice guy, should make a good admin ... if'n he uses edit summaries! --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 21:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  26. Everyking 23:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  27. Extreme Esperanzian Support! Titoxd 01:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support no big deal --Rogerd 02:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  29. Barn Star Bear Support! El_C 02:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  30. Extreme Acidic Support Thank you for providing your explanation at WP:MC. You've educated me on something I was unclear about. I'll never make such poor judgment again. Acetic' 06:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  31. Extreme deutsche Unterstützung! --Merovingian (t) (c) 10:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  32. Äärimmäinen suomalaistuki! — JIP | Talk 15:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 15:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support - because what goes around mops around. -- BD2412 17:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support Sounds good to me :-) Gryffindor 22:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support. No reason not to. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 01:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support. With over a year of observing Misplaced Pages, this guy oughta know the ropes by now.  Denelson83  02:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support As I later read all the answers to the questions below, I see that Karmafist regrets our encounter in the George W Bush article...as do I. At that time, we were both relatively new here and politics got in the way of our mutual desire to build a better article. I'll take this opportunity to apologize for anything I may have said to force Karmafist to not edit the Bush article and to wish him well in what appears to be an almost absolute concensus in favor of adminship.--MONGO 09:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support. Should make a good admin. Carbonite | Talk 12:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support. We can make good use of another fully equipped ninja-sitter. --Fire Star 15:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support!!! Deryck C. 17:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  42. Support as per the cabal (which does not exist). Hall Monitor 19:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  43. Support thought s/he was one. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 01:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  44. Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  45. Support. --Bhadani 14:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  46. Support the musicabal (which also doesn't exist) Alf 16:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  47. Yo. Grutness...wha? 22:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  48. Support Looks good to me - and has worked in some heated areas. Dlyons493 Talk 12:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  49. Support, Karmafist is the enemy of vandals. --Cool Cat 13:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  50. Support because it's good for my karma. DS 13:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  51. Support Is it too late to hop on the Karma bandwagon? Hope we don't get pulled over by the Karma Police for being too full:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  52. Support, of course!!! Obvious admin candidate to me. >: Roby Wayne 20:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  53. Support, for calling Tony Sidaway a jerk. ;). Just kidding. Support on general principle.--Scimitar 16:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose for no good reason --Carnildo 03:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
You see this?Molotov (talk) 05:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. --Boothy443 | comhrá 06:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Changed my vote, after I have realised that he has added this in my archive, where he calls another administrator a jerk. Fadix 03:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Groan. This was a comment given in sympathy from the Coolcat discussion, where I believed Fadix thought that I was trying to butt heads with him where I was actually trying to tell him that getting into a shouting match with Coolcat(who often seemed to be goading Fadix and his friends), wouldn't solve anything. I suppose no good deed goes unpunished. Karmafist 04:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Am not sure that he will make good judgements when Misplaced Pages policies are concerned. I may have had only few intereactions, and this, in a same page with him, but what I have seen there doesn't satisfy me. Fadix 21:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
To help out those in the dark here, the page Fadix is talking about is here. It was basically a tit for tat between Coolcat and several people who were concerned with Coolcat, and I believed that Fadix was hurting himself by making it seem like a vendetta case, and that it ultimately went against precedent regarding user pages here and here. The second of which I was somewhat disturbed by, but it's not up to me to ignore Wiki-law. If I disagree with those laws, I can propose changes and ask others to do so by discussion. It wasn't my intent to offend Fadix, but i'm proud that he considered himself a Neutral rather than an Oppose despite the fact that my opinion was apparently offensive to him. Karmafist 14:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I can't vote oppose, because one pages is not enough. See this in positive light. I've voted for three cases if my memory doesn't fail me, and I opposed two of those, so you're the only neutral. I still maintain you were wrong, but this is entirly another story. :) Fadix 17:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral That is to say, I don't vote to oppose, ever. I had an unpleasant run in with Karmafist in the George W Bush article way back, although I may have pushed him to behave differently than he normally does. In that I have not run across him again until now, that is all I have to go on, without an exhaustive search of his edit history, which, for the most part looks solid. I would recommend more article talk in the future as that is one area that seems a little weak.--MONGO 08:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Will make a great admin but I cannot support his various beliefs and behaviors. Andre (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Use of edit summaries overall is 31%, 53% over the last 500 edits. I think this person will make a good admin, but I'd like very much to see use of edit summaries be much higher. --Durin 16:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. *I assume mostly protection, deletion, vandalism related issues and arbcom enforcement. Although i'd like to branch out into the other admin functions as well over time. Karmafist 01:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. There are several, in varying areas. Current Major League Baseball Players by Nationality in terms of sheer addition (37 edits on the article, 8 edits on the talk page, and i'm not done yet); the Missing Barnstar, the Barnstar that was eaten by a Bear, and the Barn Award in terms of Wikilove as well as possible welcoming new users(currently approaching 200); and Nashua, New Hampshire as well as Tony Massarotti in terms of the collaborative power of Misplaced Pages. Karmafist 01:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. I've had two big incidents in my opinion in my "wiki-life". One was awhile ago when I had just gotten my account and I got into a stupid and counterproductive argument with MONGO on George W. Bush. Since then, I can barely look at that article without feeling sick, so i've committed myself to staying away from it at all costs. I also had a small revert war on Red Eye(drug) due to my pride in establishing articles, which I resolved with some external assistance from I believe either Redwolf24 or Essjay or Longhair or somebody. Time heals all wounds though, and ultimately, just continuing to edit in other areas proved to be the best medicine. I also believe I have a few other minor flaws that I hope to work on, please contact my talk page to discuss these if you'd like. Karmafist 01:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

RN

Final (64/1/0) ended 03:37 October 12, 2005 (UTC)

RN (talk · contribs) – My great friend, Ryan Norton, has been here since March of 05. I welcomed him myself a few months back, and he has nearly 3000 edits. Outside of his wikilife he runs WikiServer, so I think he's familiar with Wiki as a whole. He has a good enough grasp on policy, and he's always friendly to users. He is active on several articles, and even has an FA. He also has 911 edits in the Misplaced Pages space. I really see no reason to oppose such a fine editor. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you! This was most unexpected - I accept :). Well, and I'd like to point out that while my first edit was back in march, my edits have only really been active a little over two months :). I'd also like to thank a few people, including Everyking, Redwolf, and anyone else who I forgot for helping me be a better editor and teaching me admin skills :). Ryan Norton 00:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


Support

  1. No big deal :D Redwolf24 (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Extreme Thug Style Support He deserves it --JAranda | yeah 00:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Everyking 00:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. OMGS TEH ÜBER ROFLCOPTER SUPPORT. Another nomination I got beaten to doing! RN would be a wonderful admin. ~~ N (t/c) 00:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    Hey, I welcomed this guy. Though I'll wait for fuddlemark to pass the bar and then two of my welcomees will be admins :o Redwolf24 (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. Friday (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support Seems to be a talented potential admin.--MONGO 00:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. EXTREME VANILLA COKE SUPPORT! Thought he was one. Ral315 WS 01:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Extreme Mexican Support. You were part of the group that started the witty support votes, so let's see what everyone else comes up with. Outside of that, you deserved the mop and the flamethrower a long time ago... Titoxd 01:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support! Robert 04:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support Of course. Molotov (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. support: Generally collaborative with tolerant approach, but feisty enough to express contentious points - not a bad combination. Ombudsman 07:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. Excellent contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Cool. --JuntungWu 11:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support CambridgeBayWeather 11:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. A reliable vandal-fighter. Owen× ☎ 14:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support, every day of the year, every year. Ryan's an awesome editor and an even greater person. (Is this the part were I should say "I thought he was an admin already?") -- Shauri smile! 14:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Strong Support, you know, I was actually considering nominating him myself, but Reds beat me to it:) →Journalist >>talk<< 15:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    I welcomed him, and I told him not too long after I did so I would one day nominate him an admin, so its more like you were gonna try to steal from me, confess your sins!. ;) Redwolf24 (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    Ok, OK, I confess. :)→Journalist >>talk<< 20:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support A fine editor. Marskell 15:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support Private Butcher 19:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support excellent Misplaced Pages presence. -DDerby-(talk) 19:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  21. Extreme Support Payback He voted for me, and he definately deserves adminship more than I do. Karmafist 20:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support, human shield. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 22:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  23. Without reservation. (And we should really make it more clear when users have a different signature than their username; I didn't recognize "RN") -- Essjay · Talk 22:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support, without silly modifiers. — Dan | Talk 23:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  25. Extreme Athiest Support. You've been very nice to me in the past, so here's my support. :-) --WikiFanatic
  26. Support. Absolutely. A fine editor. --Blackcap | talk 00:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support Great editor--Rogerd 02:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support. El_C 02:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  29. Extreme Why The Heck Aren't You An Admin Already Support! Acetic' 05:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  30. ZOMG DONATE TO WIKIPEDIA SUPPORT --Merovingian (t) (c) 10:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support --Allen3  11:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 13:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support, definitely. --JoanneB 15:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support, SqueakBox 16:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  35. APOYO ESPAÑOL EXTREMO DE LA ESPERANZA FireFox 17:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  36. No way ...am I not going to give him my support. --Celestianpower 20:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support. He's friendly, he's polite, he's well-spoken, and he seems to be positively involved with several aspects of the workings of Misplaced Pages. This place is better for having him around. - Brian Kendig 02:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support. Looks all very good to me. Shanes 02:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  39. Extreme (insert witty comment here) support!. When he started working on the Autism article, it was tagged for cleanup and full of non-NPOV nonsense written by random anons. It took him just a couple weeks or so to bring it up to FA standard. As Ryan himself mentioned in another RfA, we have some great candidates lately. sɪzlæk 03:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support without any frills. I've seen him around a lot, and I've never seen him do anything objectionable. Tuf-Kat 03:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  41. Furry Alien Support Alf 10:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  42. Support. Excellent contributor. *drew 11:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  43. Support. Don't see any reason not to support. Carbonite | Talk 12:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  44. Support. --Fire Star 15:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  45. Support. Though I have yet to have any direct dealings with Mr. RN, I see a lot of good reasons to vote AYE and none for opposing. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  46. Support, as I check this person of my list of people to nominate in the future. Hall Monitor 19:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  47. Supportize. Had a bit of a head on collision with this gent. He kept his head on, which probably means he was already ready to be an admin at that point in time. Kim Bruning 19:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  48. Support. I don't think I have ever visited this page before (happened upon it while wandering around), but I'd just like to say that I have had wonderful interactions with RN. He is amiable, enthusiastic in the face of criticism, and has demonstrated a firm understanding of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Extraordinary Machine 21:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  49. David Gerard 09:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  50. golden support vote for WP:PR and WP:FAC patrol. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  51. Support. encephalon 11:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  52. Support. --Bhadani 14:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  53. 'Support Lots of valuable contributions. Banes 16:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  54. Support another good hand aboard. Denni☯ 23:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  55. Support yet another great editor who should get admin. Jtkiefer ----- 04:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  56. Support Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  57. Support of course you...you...you...hydnjo talk 01:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  58. Vastustan jyrkästi tämän käyttäjän nimittämistä ylläpitäjäksi. Siitä ei koituisi muuta kuin harmia kun muut joutuisivat korjaamaan hänen väärinkäytöstensä jälkiä. (I'm counting on no one understanding this anyway...) — JIP | Talk 07:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  59. Support Just realised who he is. Dlyons493 Talk 19:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  60. Support because "RN" is an abbreviation for registered nurse and ... um ... uh ... Look! A canoe!!!  BD2412 20:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  61. Support I truly thought he was one and yeah, I like his initials. ;) Maltmomma 15:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  62. Support; seems like a reasonable and dedicated user. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  63. Support; I thought I voted support here already, but I must not have saved it! Anyway. Ryan has been very helpful and seems to be dedicated to the betterment of Misplaced Pages. ManekiNeko | Talk 21:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  64. Support, good contributions, many contributions, Rhetoricalwater 23:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  65. Support. Thought he was one already. Always keeps cool under pressure.--inks 01:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  66. Support. --hydnjo talk

Oppose

  1. --Boothy443 | comhrá 06:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    Do you have any reasons for Opposing? Because I think it would be nice to atleast give a reason for opposing, unless you already did somewhere, and I never saw it. Private Butcher 03:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    Boothy has his criteria; I seem to remember him saying something to Acetic Acid about why he votes the way he does somewhere. Anyway, he doesn't have to have a reason, he's entitled to vote however he likes. I know what you mean though, it is nice to have reasons. --Blackcap | talk 04:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    I've seen Boothy post his criteria before, and I'm puzzled because RN meets it easily. - Brian Kendig 00:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    IIRC, Boothy likes em to be here for 9 months. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Well, I spend a good deal of time reverting vandalism and linkspam. Also, I'd like to help with the backlog, such as requested moves etc. I've learned a lot from other admins too about how to deal with things, and eventually I'd like to close out AfDs too as I'm rather active there (I know its bad form to close ones you've participated in too). Speedy delete would good too as in the past I've tagged some articles with it. I've also been active in tagging unsourced images. Ryan Norton 00:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. That's a tough one. I've did a lot of rewrites to a lot of articles. For example, Microsoft I completely rewrote many parts and filled in the gaps in the history, got rid of the unsubstantiated rumors etc.. I also worked on Ashlee Simpson and the autobiography album which both were failed FACs (the latter being quite close). I and a couple others rewrote Asperger's syndrome and saved it from a FARC also. Sometimes though its the simple things that are more fun - for example just the other day I rewrote Saturated fat due to POV issues. Ryan Norton 00:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. Sure - I like working on contentious articles like George W. Bush etc. so you're bound to get stressed out every now and then :) - I just take a short wikibreak from the articles that are contentious when that happens. I'm not saying I'm perfect though, I'm sure I said something I regret... I also got blocked by User:Kim Bruning during the VfD-->AfD move in a rather unfortunate incident (An edit war where Kim was removing comments from the talk page that resembled "voting" of VfD and I put them back (not a 3RR violation, but most likely a 1RR one :)) - I think we worked out our differences quite well in the incident, and I'm hoping he comes back from his wikibreak soon). Also, just for the record I would not have "blocked back" in that incident :). All in all though, its been a pleasure working with the editors here and especially those at peer review and FAC who have given me invaluable help in becoming a better editor! Ryan Norton 00:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

RJFJR

Closed (26/0/1) ended 14:09 11 October 2005 (UTC)

RJFJR (talk · contribs) – RJFJR has been here on Misplaced Pages since the end of November 2004. He's someone who works diligently behind the scenes to make Misplaced Pages a better place. His entire edit history is filled with a tremendous amount of participation in a number of important cleanup tasks. He's also dedicated to making new users feel welcome here, and will even complete the AfD posting steps that we may sometimes occasionally forget. RJFJR is motivated, friendly, and above all - trustworthy. I think this user would make a fine administrator, and I hope the community thinks so too. --HappyCamper 00:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am honored to accept (we may all know that admin is no big deal, but it's still great to be asked!) RJFJR 05:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support - of course! --HappyCamper 14:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support, will make a good admin. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 14:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support, I haven't had personal experience with this user, but based on the above, he's a good candidate. — JIP | Talk 16:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. FireFox 16:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support, on the condition he tells me what "RJFJR" stands for. I like his answers to the questions, and looking through some of his recent contributions was greatly heartening. Also, I have a theory that "Wikignomes" make the best admins ... --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support, I've been impressed when I've seen him in Recent Changes. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 17:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support Good RC Patroler --JAranda | yeah 17:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support CambridgeBayWeather 19:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. We definitely need more RC patrolers; we are being overwhelemed. El_C 20:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support. -Greg Asche (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. →Journalist >>talk<< 22:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Soup ort Private Butcher 23:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. Friday (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support Ryan Norton 00:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. OMG wikignome! Support. Bishonen | talk 07:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. Cool. --JuntungWu 11:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support Good janitor--Rogerd 02:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. Quasi-humungous cranky ol' Kiwi bastard support Grutness...wha? 06:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support encephalon 10:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  20. Merovingian (t) (c) 10:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support Astrotrain 19:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support I cannot overemphasise the need for friendly users and administrators. Gryffindor 22:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. Carbonite | Talk 12:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. Lots of good work on Deadend pages. - SimonP 16:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. Oops, almost missed this one. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support. Hope I got here in time. --hydnjo talk 03:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Have not seen this user before. PedanticallySpeaking 17:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
So why are you even voting? freestylefrappe 21:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • What RJFJR stands for: RJF is my initials, the JR at the end is for Junior, which I am. When you put them all together it is a palindrome, which I just think is cool. RJFJR 17:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. If there is something that needs doing, let me know, I'll do it. If I see something that needs doing, I'll do it. Otherwise, I'll be working on articles that need cleanup. I'm sure there are some backlogs I can contribute to eliminating.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I haven't created many new articles (with 750,000 articles most things already exist) so my contributions are scattered around. I've been mainly working on stub-sorting, deadend pages and articles needing cleanup, but I've been adding some material as I work on them. There are a few things that I remember liking the way they came out...but when I went back I could usually see room for improvement.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I've generally managed to avoid conflicts. My reaction to reading stressful material is to get up and walk away from my computer for a while, that helps me avoid typing things in haste that I'll later regret. It also helps me avoid typing with excessive sarcasm.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

BillyH

Vote here (27/5/5) ending 23:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

BillyH (talk · contribs) is a great guy. Kate's edit tool puts him at 2,459 edits; he has been around since March 3rd, 2004, and that is a low number of edits for that amount of time, but please note that he has the capability and personality to be an admin. He, in my opinion, would be great if made an admin. --WikiFanatic

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here.
Wow, I'm honoured! I accept. BillyH 23:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Of course, I support. As long as he accepts the nomination, of course. --WikiFanatic
  2. Extreme pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcaniconiosic support!Disclaimer: This vote is not intended to be offensive. Additionally, this vote should not be used for controlling operations at a nuclear power plant, bank, airport, or hospital. You may not sue me in a COURT OF LAW in Trenton, New Jersey, for any damages this vote may cause you. --Phroziac 23:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support. but delist this as per the new RfA rules. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. De-What? Support. El_C 23:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support CambridgeBayWeather 00:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support --Hoovernj 00:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Name sounds familiar. --Merovingian (t) (c) 02:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. A year is more than long enough. He has been very rational and civil in all the discussions I've checked, and is very respectful of others. These are the prime qualities we should seek in admin candidates. We don't want ALL admins involved in policy discussions. Should be a most excellent admin. Unfocused 06:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support having taken a look at his contributions Tintin 13:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Good one. Hey, everyone, vote for him! David Gerard 14:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. He's been around a long time and is always civil. Adminship really should be no big deal. Rje 16:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Extreme exclamation mark support! (The cabal made me do it) --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. Ral315 WS 17:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Extreme Knightmare-fan support! --TimPope 17:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 17:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create an encyclopedia, and only the main namespace directly serves that end. I agree that it is important for an administrator to demonstrate a wide spectrum of interaction, but I believe that BillyH has more than met that requirement. We need administrators from all parts of the spectrum of positive interaction, not everyone has to be a wikipolitican editing primarily outside of the main namespace. --Gmaxwell 17:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. Interactions with him suggest that he knows policy well enough to be an admin, so I'm not concerned about the lack of WP namespace edits. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. Extreme Mexican Support!. Just make sure you get involved in more discussions from now on. Titoxd 20:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support, the editcountis crowd needs to chill. -Greg Asche (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  20. Strong support. Andre (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. James F. (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support, good editor. Billy doesn't edit much in the Misplaced Pages space, but from my own interaction with him, I know him as familiar with and interested in wiki policy, practice, and culture. He'll be great with the tools. Bishonen | talk 19:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support This stuff that just because you have not had a lot of talk edits, you aren't qualified is silly.--Rogerd 02:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  24. Undying port of su. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support. Carbonite | Talk 12:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support with a suggestion to generally become more active in the Misplaced Pages namespace. I appreciate what people below are saying but feel deferring support will just lead nominees to jump through hoops and perhaps revert to being themselves again afterwards. Dlyons493 Talk 11:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Based on very low percentage of Wiki space edits. Also fairly low in talk. Keeping your head down and just working on articles is wonderful but I need confidence of familiarity with Misplaced Pages namespace. Marskell 23:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose For the same reasons as said by Marskell I must oppose this RfA. Private Butcher 23:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose for reasons above and I've not encountered this user. PedanticallySpeaking 17:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    OK, "reasons above" is clear enough, but "not encountered"? I don't understand this portion of your comment. How is "encountering" someone any different than reviewing their contribution history? Unfocused 17:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    Also, when you don't encounter a user, it's perfectly acceptable to...erm, not vote. Mike H (Talking is hot) 17:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. --Boothy443 | comhrá 06:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose needs more interaction with the community. Type O Spud 20:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Looking at contibs Good User but only 79 Misplaced Pages NameSpace Edits --JAranda | yeah 23:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    Usually, I don't like low edit comments from people who have a lower edit count than the person being nominated, and I'll comment on this one. 2,459? You know how much that is, right? --WikiFanatic
    Fair comments are fair comments. She(?) wasn't talking about over-all edits but about Wiki NameSpace. If the comment is on-topic you shouldn't bite. Can only admins vote for new admins? Marskell 00:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    No. Zach (Sound Off) 02:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    To clarify, any logged-in users can vote for new admins, regardless of whether they're common editors, admins, bureaucrats, developers or Jimbo Wales. Anonymous IPs, however, are not allowed to vote. — JIP | Talk 06:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    The question was rhetorical ;). Marskell 08:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutral we do need active admins. I think you could wait another month or 2. Jobe6 23:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutral —Consistently good editor, but will support another time, given that he becomes more active in the Misplaced Pages namespace. User does not meet my voting standards, but he is certainly on the right track. Keep it up. →Journalist >>talk<< 00:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutral, as per others above, the low number of edits in Talk and Misplaced Pages spaces is troubling. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 14:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. Needs more participation in Talk and Misplaced Pages namespaces. Work on it and then I will be happy to support. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 02:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I'd basically do the usual stuff, really. Deleting pages, blocking vandals, fixing copy/paste moves, etc. I'll basically carry on editing as I am now, but with the added bonus of the admin tools at my disposal.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. The Knightmare article, definitely. Being one of my favourite programmes ever, I knew it needed a big expansion. I'm also proud of Cliff Hanger, my Year in Television edits, and the Year in British music pages I wrote (1997 to 1989).
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. Funnily enough, my first real conflict has only recently started. There's a bit of a war on Berwick-upon-Tweed on whether the article should contain an exclamation mark or not, with my viewpoint that it should not be there. I'm trying to resolve this dispute on the talk page, though, and certainly not breaking the 3RR. I pride myself on never having to do this throughout my time on Misplaced Pages.
4. {question by WikiFanatic} BillyH, (I know I have less in more time), you have 2,459 edits since March 2004. How do you plan to convince voters away from editcountitis? You have enough edits, in my opinion, but I'm wondering about other voters.
A. I'd say it's because I usually tend to edit articles in one go, rather than in several little ones. Take a look at these diffs, for example . Admittedly I sometimes miss out something in one edit and have to correct it in another, but usually this is dealt with using the Show Preview command.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Friday

Vote here (41/4/2) ending 10 October 2005 21:30 (UTC)

Friday (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate Friday for adminship. She has been a user in Misplaced Pages since June 2005 , and has racked up more than 2600 edits since then. She is a dedicated editor who has been very useful in AFD and very active in NP Patrol and also Rarely Avoid Conflects and has more than 600 edits in User Talk. She deserve a mop and bucket and would make a outstanding admin. --JAranda | yeah 21:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Yes, I accept, thanks. Friday (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support as nominator --JAranda | yeah 21:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support Another good one. Ryan Norton 23:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support CambridgeBayWeather 23:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. El_C 23:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Soup ort Private Butcher 23:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. Christopher Mahan 00:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. Kirill Lokshin 00:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Extreme TGIF Support! Acetic' 01:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support good egg. Hamster Sandwich 02:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Merovingian (t) (c) 02:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. Robert 02:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. utcursch | talk 05:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. I can't believe I'm the first one to say "thank God it's Friday". -- BD2412 05:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    No you're not. See User:Acetic Acid's vote at #8. — JIP | Talk 05:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    Ah... um... I can't believe I'm the first one to say in spelled out words, "thank God it's Friday". -- BD2412 13:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Extreme FSM support, I need someone to support before I can nominate User:GraemeL and User:JoanneB. — JIP | Talk 05:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. Ral315 WS 17:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support, so long as he can keep his objectivity about him, he seems prime meat for the admin grinder... now if we can just find a monkey or two to process him...Gimmiet 17:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. One revert rule, appears to be reasonable when there is a disagreement. --Gmaxwell 18:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. --Dvyost 18:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. Heartily. Makes good edits, helpful and full of good advice. A force for the betterment of Misplaced Pages; the community should be grateful to have such editors. As for time-in-service, I know of no such requirement. Who was it that said adminship is supposed to be "no big deal?"--Craigkbryant 18:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. Andre (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. →Journalist >>talk<< 22:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  22. Extreme FSM support (but a different FSM to JIP's. Thryduulf 23:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. Demonweed 00:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  24. Most certainly. I'm slightly astonished that incivility is being proferred as a reason to oppose Friday, of all persons. The quality of Friday that has always stood out to me the most—and the reason I assumed until now that she was a long-time admin—is a certain unshakeable equanimity and poise that she maintains in discussions, even when attacked. We may not require of our admins that they never involve themselves in conflict, but we can expect them to maintain an even keel, have a willingness to entertain different points of view, demonstrate a firmness in upholding policy—and no less the grace to apologise for their errors when these are pointed out to them. Friday is all these; taken with her editing experience, I think she's a shoo-in for administratorship.—encephalon 03:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  25. Yes - seen this editor being sensible and thoughtful in various places. Good 'un. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  26. Cool. --JuntungWu 11:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support. Friday's a great editor, and is extremely helpful and polite. I'm surprised that Denelson83 offers below this as an example of incivility, when in fact it shows the opposite: civility in the face of dealing with a difficult user, which is exactly what's needed in an admin. Friday's just the sort of editor who ought to be promoted. SlimVirgin 20:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support our man Friday The exchange noted below actually shows that Friday can learn from mistakes, and be civil in exchanges. Bratsche 20:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support They opposed me because I had too many article edits, and they oppose her because too few. --Rogerd 02:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support- A thoughtful person, a good editor and very civil. Sunray 18:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support - Tεxτurε 22:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support Molotov (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support -Splash 01:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support, good editor, manages to stay cool when the editing gets hot, as the link in the oppose section shows. --fvw* 01:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support. Ëvilphoenix 04:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support. Carbonite | Talk 12:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  37. S'port - partly in protest at the discussion below! --Doc (?) 23:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  38. Supporting Friday on a Saturday . --Bhadani 13:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support from one bemused by politics to another. Dlyons493 Talk 19:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support From one admin candidate to another. I'll work on the edit summaries if you work on the civility issues, both of which seem to be somewhat minor, and fixable. Karmafist 16:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support for civil handling of Gabrielsimon and his many incarnations. Patience with problem editors is a valuable quality. android79 17:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose re: civility issues and lack of time... sorry but 4 months is WAAAAAAAAY too short of a time to gain admin.  ALKIVAR™ 06:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    Frankly, I think time is a bit overrated. Editors can get the "feel" of Misplaced Pages in as little as 3 months, given that he/she contributes daily; Ive been here for 3 months. →Journalist >>talk<< 17:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    Its not so much for time to figure their way around the site as to not enough time to spot whether or not this person can remain cool in a bad edit war.  ALKIVAR™ 22:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    Oppose. For me, four months and only 556 edits in article space is just too little, and the civility issue is also troubling. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 14:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)The comment below is right; she hasn't been uncivil (don't know what I was thinking). Changing vote to neutral
    I've been looking at her edits and I'm not finding any examples of her being uncivil... she seems to be very thoughtful in her words. Can you provide a link? --Gmaxwell 17:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. It is nice that one stays in touch with Wikipedians, but that's not a good enough credential for adminship. PedanticallySpeaking 17:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. --Boothy443 | comhrá 06:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose note enough time. freestylefrappe 21:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. NeutralPersonally pissed off as hell at this user, but will not let selfish or trivial emotions get in the way, or do something evil like oppose him. Molotov (talk) 05:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutral For me, four months and only 556 edits in article space is just too little. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. In looking through your user talk archives, you seem to receive the full spectrum of comments, from good to bad. However, I'm particularly troubled by this particular exchange. It seems to suggest to me that you might have a short temper and an attribute of hypocrisy. On this basis, and since this incident happened only just over a month ago, I shall render an opinion of opposition neutrality to your adminship candidacy. Just so you know, my most recent adminship nomination was opposed on this very same type of scenario, one on which my RfC was built.  Denelson83  06:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    Actually, reading the post cited above, I feel Friday conducted herself quite well in what could have been a very heated exchange. KHM03 18:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    Agree, with KHM03. I not sure if I know this editor enough to vote, but her involvement in that exchange only does her only credit in my eyes. --Doc (?) 11:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, edits to Misplaced Pages count as part of a permanent record. I have had uncivil exchanges on Misplaced Pages as well, and even though I apologized for my most recent uncivil scenario, the fact that remains that it still occurred, and the Misplaced Pages community will remember it for time immemorial, resulting in my reputation being damaged. I opposed Friday's candidacy for adminship because she expressed incivility in the first place, and her reputation, and therefore credibility, is damaged as a result.  Denelson83  02:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    Vote changed to neutral, as a response to Andre's objection.  Denelson83  05:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Incidently, the exchange pointed out above with User:DreamGuy as the example of me being uncivil was the very same one I linked to below in the answer to the third question. It's certainly true that he felt I was being uncivil (hence him leaving me the "Your lack of civility" message), however I felt that I was polite even though we disagreed. Still, this was certainly my strongest disagreement with another editor; I'm not trying to hide that at all. If you want to know how I respond to disagreement, there it is. Friday (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
An observation on that exchange - the "I'm sorry you were offended" approach is not much of an apology, because it effectively blames the other party and will often aggravate rather than placate. I understand that it's motivated by a desire to defuse the situation, which is commendable, but only a sincere apology for something you did can work. Sometimes, if you don't have anything to apologize for, don't (I say this with trepidation, because most of us could find something to apologize for most of the time). --Michael Snow 22:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I already do some vandalism reverting, so I'd certainly continue with that, altho perhaps a bit quicker. I've also been closing Afds here and there, but with sysop rights, I'd be able to do it in cases that required deletion also. I would also speedily delete things, if they definitely fit an existing CSD (and of course, I would cite which CSD was used). For cases that may be borderline, I'd tag it as a speedy but not do the actual deletion myself. As a rule, I don't like page protection, but I may do that occasionally if the situation really warrants it. I would also eventually block vandals, when appropriate. However, I think to start with, I'd stick to admin actions that are less potentially controversial than blocks.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Well, I'm basically a Wikignome, so I can't claim to have written any brilliant articles by myself. I do try to be active in policy discussions, though, and I feel I can keep a level head even during conflicts. This will probably sound like a small and silly thing, but I think perhaps my proudest accomplishment so far was a month or so ago, when I was patrolling new pages. I found an obviously inappropriate page which had been created by a new, but signed-in user. I was able to explain to the author why it wasn't suitable for Misplaced Pages. The author understood and agreed that the page should be deleted. So, with the author's consent, the page was speedily deleted, avoiding both Afd and bad feelings on the part of the article's creator. I want Misplaced Pages to be a newbie-friendly place, but not at the expense of having bad articles. I considered this a best-of-both-worlds outcome.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I make every effort to not succumb to wikistress. I'm generally a laid-back person, but when I do feel stress, I simply refrain from editing until I'm calmer. I can't claim to have always avoided editing under stress, but I do make an effort. As for conflicts, one of the first editors I encountered was User:Gabrielsimon. We had some disagreements at first, but eventually made our peace. I also ran afoul of User:DreamGuy a bit here and there, but I like to think I usually kept things civil. You can see some of that history at User talk:Friday/archive2#Your lack of civility. I do have my own opinions (sometimes strong ones) about what makes Misplaced Pages better, so I know I'll have disagreements with other editors. I follow the one revert rule, so that whatever disagreements I may have do not result in edit warring. If given sysop tools, I would apply the 1RR to their use also: if ever someone else undid one of my actions, rather than fighting over it, I would stop and talk things over. Friday (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Fastfission

Final (84/0/1) ended 10 October 2005 02:20 (UTC)

Fastfission (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate Fastfission for adminship. He has been a registered user here since February 2004, and has racked up almost 8500 edits since then. He is a dedicated editor who has contributed to a wide range of articles. FF has been active throughout the project. He is also a major voice in the effort to bring Misplaced Pages into compliance with regards to copyright issues. I have no doubt that Fastfission would make a superb admin. Guettarda 01:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, thank you. --Fastfission 02:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. EXTREME PRE-NOMINATION SUPPORT!!! Ryan Norton 01:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. No fair, you're not allowed to vote before the nominator! Guettarda 02:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    Ironically enough the candidate accepted before you voted. Guess you were just slow. :) Dmcdevit·t 04:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support, excellent user whom I think could make good use of the admin tools. JYolkowski // talk 02:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support --Duk 02:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. Why can't I remember where I know this candidate from.... I'm sure it will come to me. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Tentacle'd Hentai Support. Meets my standards. --Maru (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support! Kirill Lokshin 02:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. Would definitely meet my standards, if I had any. -- BD2412 02:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. Dragons flight 02:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support--Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support CambridgeBayWeather 03:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. RFA cliché no. 1! Dmcdevit·t 04:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Extreme Mexican Support! Excellent user. Titoxd 05:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. —Charles P. (Mirv) 05:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. EXTREME "LOOK MOM, I'M ON THE BANDWAGON!" SUPPORT --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. Witty Support Comment #41124591247192471274912749182741659812649124012372x10^E  ALKIVAR™ 07:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. what dmcdevit said. Thryduulf 08:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support good editor. Martin 08:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. absolutely ;) Dunc|☺ 09:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  20. Of course! Shimgray | talk | 09:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support – Brilliant graphics designer! =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. Fastfission clearly has a head for the way of the Wiki. -- Solipsist 12:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. Awesome. Proto t c 15:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  24. FireFox 16:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support; I'll avoid the usual cliché and just mention that he not only meets my standards, he's made them into Pb and stable isotopes long ago. Antandrus (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. Committed to clear copyvio backlogs? Here is my vote! ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 19:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  27. Furry Alien Support orange fur, mind you. Alf 19:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  28. Extreme Death phoenix Support. {{cliché}}. User has shown a willingness to take on maintenance tasks. --Deathphoenix 20:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  29. →Journalist >>talk<< 20:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support --JAranda | yeah 20:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support' -Greg Asche (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support Private Butcher 20:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support, great contributor. --fvw* 21:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  34. Extreme Maddox anti-extreme support. Hall Monitor 21:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support - CheekyMonkey 21:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support. My interations with Fastfission on various newkulur type articles lead me to believe Ff has a friendly, collegial style and a commitment to collective authoring. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support. His work on copyright issues alone justifies giving him the extra tools. Owen× ☎ 21:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support Astrotrain 22:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support Marskell 22:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support. His well-reasoned and intelligent contributions to the mailing list and his work on copyright issues are enough for me to consider him trustworthy; if I had any further doubts I suppose I could look inside his head. :-) Definitely. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support. Absolutely; agree with Kat. SlimVirgin 23:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  42. Support. Friday (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  43. Support. El_C 23:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  44. Support more admins willing to deal with copyright issues are severly needed.--nixie 23:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  45. Support. Knows his stuff. nobs 01:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  46. Support, of course. -- Essjay · Talk 03:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  47. It's clear this guy will become an admin anyway, but I'll add my support vote anyway.  Denelson83  04:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  48. Support Why not? Bratsche 04:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  49. Support Had good, if minor dealings, with this ed., and I've come across many high-quality contributions that he's made. (Not to say, what the previous 48 people've said.) Alai 05:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  50. I thought he was one already. David Gerard 14:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  51. Support: --Bhadani 14:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  52. Support, thought he was one. Ral315 WS 17:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  53. Strong Support. Normally don't chime in unless it's on the fence, but sometimes I'm impressed enough by a users work that I feel the need to come out and comment. --Gmaxwell 18:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  54. Support. FeloniousMonk 19:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  55. Support. Best candidate in a while. —Lowellian (reply) 19:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  56. Bandwagon. Andre (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  57. Support A voice of reason and a joy forever. Septentrionalis 22:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  58. Of course.—encephalon 04:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  59. 'Support Monkey see, monkey do.Molotov (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  60. EXTREME umm... SOMETHING SUPPORT. Don't let him get away. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 10:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  61. Cool. --JuntungWu 11:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  62. Support not because he needs the votes at this point in time... Unfocused 17:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  63. Support Waiting for Maru to give better odds ;-) Karmafist 02:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  64. Support. --bainer (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  65. --Boothy443 | comhrá 06:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  66. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  67. Support. Jayjg 21:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  68. Support - Had good interaction with the user on Japanese atomic program, initial content disagreement was solved quickly and to the satisfaction of both sides. I think he (she?) will make a good admin! -- Chris 73 Talk 21:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  69. Support wow, that's alot of edits, congratulations. Gets my support... Gryffindor 23:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  70. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 23:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  71. Support - Strong contributor, FF would be a serious admin. Sunray 06:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  72. CORRUPT JACOB ZUMA SUPPORT There you go, I voted using an adjective for support. Banes 09:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  73. Strong support. Will make an excellent admin. Carbonite | Talk 13:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  74. support. You're hired :)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  75. Support - go fastfission, go! --Celestianpower 20:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  76. Support Since you have spearheaded Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Fair use, you might as well have the ability to delete those "orphaned fair use images", right? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  77. Support. An excellent editor who will make a fine admin. -Willmcw 04:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  78. Support. I thought I voted already? --HappyCamper 15:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  79. Support Another on the band-wagon. Dlyons493 Talk 17:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  80. Support for above reasons, and especially being helpful to others not versed in copyright. I'm sure admin powers will allow him to clean-up a lot. --rob 20:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  81. Extreme support!. Long, long overdue. sɪzlæk 12:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  82. Support. --Briangotts (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  83. Support, count me in! Shauri smile! 19:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  84. Support. --Ancheta Wis 20:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Have never seen this user despite his edit count. PedanticallySpeaking 17:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
My memory is faulty. Still neutral, however. PedanticallySpeaking 19:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
There must be another reason then, what is it may I ask? --Celestianpower 20:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Along with the standard speeding up of normal maintenance tasks (reverting vandalism, RC patrol, etc.), the prime thing I plan on doing which specifically requires administrator status is clearing up the various backlogs on the project, especially those relating to the deleting of copyright violations (the backlog at WP:PUI and WP:CP stand out to me at the moment). This is the sort of thing that I would enjoy doing and think I would likely be good at, being reasonably confident with making sense of copyright issues (at least being aware of what the salient points are, if not the fine points of every circumstance, about which I am learning more every day).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Oh, I don't know, there are many I've been happy with. I did a lot of work on the Robert Oppenheimer article when I first came here, and I suppose first love always sticks in the memory strongest. There's a list of things which I've felt I've made "significant" contributions to at User:Fastfission/Significant contributions and another list of some of the articles I've created at User:Fastfission/Created (and for the more visually inclined a list of images I've made or scanned at User:Fastfission/Images), and I'm reasonably happy with most of those (some are still incomplete, mind you). In general it must be said that I'm most happy with writing out long passages of texts and facts and having other editors more gifted in the art of language pare them down. I derive a good deal of pleasure from working on Misplaced Pages, primarily of course because it is a great idea (and a great way to combat much of the disinformation present on the internet), but also because it gives me practice in composition and writing on topics which I know fairly well. Recently I started Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Fair use which, love it or hate it, has at least gotten some movement on some real systemic problems with the way "fair use" copyright issues are handled on Misplaced Pages — I'm very pleased with being a part of this. (Also, my brain is coincidentally the picture of the day at the moment I am writing this, which is sort of neat.)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I edit a lot of topics which attract POV-pushers and cranks (I have often been stuck between two strongly POVed groups, trying to nudge out a NPOV centrist position, receiving the ire of both), so I've of course gotten a bit stressed out and irritated over time. When I get too irritated I usually just don't edit the article for a week or so, and then come back and see what needs to still be done. That usually does the trick. I'm not really that worried about the state of an article at any given time, and feel that if something doesn't really get "fixed" for a few weeks or even a month it is probably not that big a deal (and as an aside, if another editor besides me doesn't notice it and fix it, it's probably even less of a deal than I think it is). So anyway, that's how I usually do things — I think life's too short to argue at length with wackos over the internet, and I especially dislike it if it hinders more important work I can do here. For more complicated issues I've appealed to other thoughtful editors and admins, who have been incredibly helpful in this regard.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

RoySmith

Final (27/6/0) ended 16:37 October 9, 2005 (UTC) (UTC)

RoySmith (talk · contribs) – I've been editing for almost a year with 1600 edits . I've been quite active on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation, and spend a lot of time reverting vandalism to pages I watch. It's for this latter task that I seek adminship; to make it easier to revert pages using the fancy admin revert tool. I see that some people seem to be hung up on proper use of edit summaries. I use them most of the time, often don't bother on talk pages, occasionally forget, and once in a while produce bizarrely incorrect ones when Safari surprises me with an auto-fill on the text box that I didn't expect. Such is life. RoySmith 16:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Support

  1. Only just, FireFox 17:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support Ryan Norton 21:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support. Looks good. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 22:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. Always uses edit summaries, almost daily edits, although participation to AfD has been low lately. Deserves the tools. feydey 23:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support been here for a long time and wasn't involved in anything bad.  Grue  05:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Merovingian (t) (c) 06:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. This edit count inflation is getting out of control. 1600 edits is "way too low of an edit count for an admin"? It wasn't too long ago that 1000 was the magic number, then it seemed to rise to 1500. Is it at 2000 now? Not everyone has the time to make 10+ edits a day. Carbonite | Talk 19:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    comment since your directly quoting me... 1000 has never been my standard, hell I know SOCKPUPPETS with more than 1000 edits. The fact of the matter is 1600 total edits is not enough to spot tendancies of a person. Hell we've seen users with many more than 1600 edits flaunt the rules (e.g. everyking, ed poor, rickk just to name a couple) at this point I dont think there is enough history to see if said person has the temperment for admin powers. My standard is not just editcountitis, but involves a measure of time as well. I personally prefer AT LEAST 2500 edits, but more importantly at LEAST 1 full year of editing. I think that this is typically adequate to gauge someones tendancies and agressiveness. However those with low yearly edit counts are also infrequent enough contributors as to not give enough material to base a decision upon. thats my $0.02 worth anyway  ALKIVAR™ 03:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    A study done over this past summer showed that admin nominees with more than 1000 edits but less than 2000 edits were successful nominations 48% of the time. 2001 edits to 3000 the figure was 83%, a 35% increase. Indeed, the bar does seem to be 2000 at which voters seem to think a nominee is suddenly imbued with the qualities that would make a good admin. --Durin 20:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks, Durin! Very informative, if a bit disturbing. Maybe edit count standards are somehow linked to fuel prices. Not sure how else to explain 1600 edits being considered a rather small number. Carbonite | Talk 21:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. SupportTintin 21:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support. El_C 23:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support--Exir Kamalabadi 03:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support And those with editcountitis can eat my sock. Bratsche 04:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support, damn the editcountitis. Ral315 WS 17:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support. I'd rather have a thousand good occasional admins than a single busy poor admin. Unfocused 19:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. →Journalist >>talk<< 22:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. A fine editor with plenty of edits to prove it. Also, I strongly support the position of others about editcountitis, it may not be fatal but sure can make some for some distorted appraisals. Virtually all of the opposition has to do with edit count and nothing to do with his quality of contribution (except for one who didn't like his comment about edit counts below!). - --hydnjo talk 17:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. I had fewer edits and a lower rate of edits per day when I became an admin, and find that opposition based on edit count alone to be unreasonable where an editor with 1600 edits is concerned. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support The editcountitis below is getting ridiculous. Borisblue 01:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support CambridgeBayWeather 01:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support Good response below --Rogerd 02:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. I'm not worried about the edit count. Like Roy, I believe the correct measure is the total value of his contributions, not the sheer number of individual edits. I was more worried about his self-proclaimed deletionism, but I couldn't find a single case where I disagreed with him on his AfD vote (and I did look!). I am not a deletionist myself, but I do trust this man with the "Delete" button. Owen× ☎ 22:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support - Has shown his mettle in admin-type functions. Doesn't seem to suffer from editcountitis! Sunray 06:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. RoySmith hasn't done anything silly, as far as I can see, and has shown interest in the maintenance side. I'm slightly disappointed with the amount of material he added to the encyclopaedia (at least in the block of edits that I checked), but we need different kinds of editors and also different kind of admins. On the statistics: he's been here for almost a year and took about 4 months for the last 1000 edits; nothing to alarm me. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  24. Andre (talk) 04:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support. Responsible contributor. --HappyCamper 15:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support level-headed interaction with other users. Edit count largely irrelevant and I empathise with Safari surprises me with an auto-fill on the text box! Dlyons493 Talk 17:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support as a fellow Mac-user. Nicholas 11:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose been here too long to only have 1600 edits. Should be very active on wikipedia to be an admin. I can't support. Private Butcher 16:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    He's been editing almost every other day since June, though. --Blackcap | talk 18:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose way too low of an edit count for an admin. Anyone spending "a lot of time reverting vandalism" as user states should have a much larger edit count.  ALKIVAR™ 07:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. As the nominee said, 1600 edits/year. It's a rather small number. Deryck C. 16:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose for reasons stated above. PedanticallySpeaking 17:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose for the way he responded to Durin below. Jobe6 20:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. --Boothy443 | comhrá 06:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • A chart showing this user's edits along with a total number of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:RoySmith-edits.png. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Misplaced Pages. --Durin 13:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Uses edit summaries 81% of the time, 86.6% of the time over the last 500 edits. Average edits per day is 5.3, 7.7 over the last 90 days. --Durin 13:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know if it's appropriate (or even wise) for me to comment on my own case, but I'll be bold and do so anyway. I'm honestly a little surprised at how much weight is being given to how many edits I've made. The numbers are what the numbers are, and there seem to be plenty of good tools to slice and dice the stats and make pretty pictures out of them. Make what you will of the numbers, but I can't help wonder if this is the right way to judge a candidate. Does anybody care how many briefs Harriet Miers has written, or do they care what she wrote in them? Do people marvel at how many at-bats Hank Aaron had, or do they celebrate how many home runs he hit? If I had made 10 meaningless edits per day for the past year, my edit count would be up over 3000 by now; would that make me a better candidate? I would feel much more comfortable about the process if somebody were to say, "I watched Roy's actions during XXX and based on that I have my doubts about his judgement, character, wisdom, temperment, intelligence, whatever". At least that would be a reasonable objection. Likewise, I'd be much happier to read somebody say about me, "I really liked the way he handled XYZ", than, "Roy's got a awesome edit count". --RoySmith 21:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • RoySmith, the creation of the charts and the statistics on your average edits and use of edit summaries is intended to get peopel to stop depending upon simple edit counts as a means of judging the worthiness of a nominee. I wholeheartedly agree that edit counts are a very, very poor way of trying to objectively measure a candidate. Indeed, objective measures are difficult at best. Having the chart and some figures on your use of edit summaries and your activity level gives us additional tools to evaluate you; it is not intended to be the only tool. Anyone doing so is making a very poor choice. Please see User:Durin/Admin nominee charts. Thank you, --Durin 22:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. As stated above, I do a lot of vandalism fixing, and cleanup of dab pages.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Created {{Disambig-cleanup}} and the associated Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup. I'm proud of this for two reasons; first because I think it was a useful tool for the project, and second because in creating them, I had to learn a few bits of wiki-technology to get it to work right.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. Absolutely. One of my earliest conflicts was with User:Supercool Dude (who I believe is the same person as User:24.44.23.111) regarding many edits he was making to City Island (New York) and a number of other related articles. They weren't quite vandalism, but the quality of writing (structure, diction, grammar, spelling, conformance to the MoS, etc) was quite low, and included many statements which were both difficult (if not impossible) to believe and not supported by references. He also had a possessive attitude about what he wrote, insisting that they were his articles. It was a challenge to both improve the articles and avoid getting embroiled in conflict, but I believe I was (for the most part) successful at both.
BTW, are the recent edits to Sextant by User:201.145.99.216 a covert test of my ability to deal with wiki-stress? If so, how am I doing? :-) --RoySmith 22:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

DragonflySixtyseven

Final (51/2/0) ended 16:20 October 9, 2005 (UTC)

DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) – About time DragonflySixtyseven was an admin. He/she has been here for over a year, and is very active in spotting Candidates for Speedy Deletion. I collaborated with him/her during the Red Link Recovery project. He/she has 5145 edits. And I would like to know whether he/she is a man or a woman. — JIP | Talk 16:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

oh... uh... is this thing on? tap tap tap Um... Yes. I accept the nomination. Th-thank you. I'll, um, I'll work on my answers over the next day or so. DS 23:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support as nominator. — JIP | Talk 16:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support Private Butcher 16:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Strong support FireFox 17:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Strong support for an excellent editor - but this will be the last nom under the old rules! (see Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship) -- BD2412 18:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. EXTREME REDWOLF24 SUPPORT. The best Dragon Fly I know. Redwolf24 (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Extreme Miami Style Support I thought he was a admin already Great User --JAranda | yeah 19:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. Robert 21:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. EXTREME DRAGONFLY SUPPORT!!! Ryan Norton 21:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Furry Alien Support based on what I've seen from this editor about the place (many times), will make good admin. Alf 21:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Bart133 (t) 22:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support KHM03 22:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support Interactions with this user have been positive. —Lowellian (reply) 23:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Merovingian (t) (c) 06:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support helped me out with a query in AfD with speed and precision. Mallocks 14:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support, edit history looks impressive. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. Anyone who drops you a (sincere) thank-you note for reverting their work when they're wrong has the temperment to be a fair and diplomatic admin. kwami 22:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. For sure. SlimVirgin 23:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. Friday (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. El_C 23:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support CambridgeBayWeather 00:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support even though Dragonfly is absolutely disorganized (yeah i'm one to talk LOL)  ALKIVAR™ 03:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  22. Strong Support I've seen quite a lot of good work from this user. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support: He would be a ‘nicely perfect’ administrator. --Bhadani 14:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. Ral315 WS 17:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support, Hes got a fair ,if heavy, hand, and a sharp mind, what more cfould you ask for?Gimmiet 17:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. Reasonable and knowledgeable. (And frankly if disorganization is a disqualification for adminship, I ought to be desysopped on the spot!) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  27. That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 18:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  28. Should've been one a while ago. ~~ N (t/c) 18:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support. Good, intelligent editor. --Blackcap | talk 18:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  30. Cool. --JuntungWu 11:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  31. Disorganized support. Silly admins. Let them get too organized, and next thing you know, they'll be forming a cabal. Unfocused 17:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  32. Witty Support. I second the comments of Mindspillage. Bratsche 20:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support, if only to prevent him adding to the questions section :o) --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 22:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  34. What Mark Gallagher said ;) encephalon 03:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  35. S'port absolutely --Doc (?) 10:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support. Mmmm, that disorganised thing....., you know. Couldn't be humour, could it? Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support from college freshman. - Darwinek 20:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support. Good stuff. -Splash 01:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support. Carbonite | Talk 13:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support. Could you help me close AFDs and clear out CAT:CSD? Sometimes there is a backlog. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support - a clearly unnecessary vote but just to express my views. Dlyons493 Talk 13:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  42. →Journalist >>talk<< 18:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  43. Support. Contributions and answers below indicate thoughtfulness and a broad range of interests. Chick Bowen 18:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  44. Support. Just noticed his RFA or would have acted sooner =) But he's pretty knowlegable and an all around nice guy (at least on IRC). Glad to support. Sasquatcht|c 19:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  45. Support cool guy —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  46. Support. No probs with this nomination. Physchim62 21:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  47. Support --Publunch 23:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  48. Support I would welcome his cool head on my team any day. Zach (Sound Off) 23:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  49. Support only recently came into contact with this user however he appears to be a level headed user who contributes quite a bit to the wiki as a whole. Jtkiefer ----- 04:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  50. Support Woohoo! I'm 50! He's always on IRC, and has seemed very adminlike from on there. I look forward to working with him. Karmafist 13:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  51. Support — Pladask 13:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. As Alkivar says, seems disorganized--look at the replies to the standard questions for another example. PedanticallySpeaking 17:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. --Boothy443 | comhrá 07:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


Neutral

Neutral until user posts answers. This user seems very disorganized, even needed two posts to accept! ALKIVAR™ 07:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. As an admin.... well, there's closing AFDs, and blipping speedies, of course. Deleting garbage images. Possibly issuing vandal-blocks, although I'd want to consult with other admins at first to make sure of my judgment. Blocking inappropriate usernames. The occasional request for undeletion, which is usually a matter for VfU, but on rare occasions something that can be obvious. 23:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. deep breath

What am I particularly proud of? Well, despite not having known much about the struggle for Indian independence,I'm rather pleased with the work I did on Senapati Bapat and Govind Ballabh Pant (which I wrote practically from scratch) and Sardul Singh Caveeshar (and thank you, Bhadani, for an important bit of information). NPOVing Did Six Million Really Die? was quite satisfactory, as was, surprisingly enough, Millie Tant. Jhereg is good, I think, as is Hollywood accounting.

I like my "why we might think you're a sockpuppet so please don't get offended" speech.

There's an interesting little story behind how I came to create the entry for George Robert Vincent, which is on the article's talk page.

Dusky seaside sparrow makes me sad, but I'm proud of it. Musth makes me nervous, but I'm proud of it too. And I've been meaning to incorporate the content of Talk:Metastability in molecules into the article once I get around to creating some proper images. I added some amusing details to Graham Chapman, and I need to go back to Parinya Kiatbusaba and finish rewriting the last few paragraphs. Din-i-Illahi. Birbal. Earth X. De zaak alzheimer.

I'm always quite pleased when I save a valid article from getting deleted, as with Oliver Coipel, Sasha Spesivtsev, Liberty Belle, salary-celery merger, Joseph Ivor Linton. I also enjoy the opportunity to consult with primary sources, such as writing to Norman Spinrad to get details about whether The Iron Dream was banned in Germany, or asking Tobias Wolff if anyone had ever named an asteroid for him.

I resolved a dispute about Stepanakert. A substantial portion of anglerfish is from me, as is almost all of honey guide. Bread and circuses was scarcely more than a dicdef before I got to it. EBaum's World was missing some important information which was rather difficult to convey in a properly neutral fashion, but I think I did a reasonable job. Would you believe that, before I got to it, the article on the sport of bunnock didn't explain what bunnock is? I added the explanation to ].

At this point, I've still got over a year's worth of edits to pick through in a search for "favorites", but I think that's enough. DS 19:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. Hm. Let's see, let's see. Edit wars. Hmm. I'm going to assume that anti-vandalism skirmishes, such as on John Byrne, don't count. Hmm. I'm going to have to read through my entire edit history to refresh my memory.

(three hours on Memory Lane later) Well, um, I was in a brief disagreement over the Mister Dressup article - I added a piece of trivia about a parody; User:Thivierr felt it was inappropriate there, and should be in the Radio Free Vestibule article instead; we exchanged... two messages on the topic, and currently I don't think the datum is in either article, because I conceded the point and felt it wasn't worth getting agitated about.

And... okay, the Einar H. Kvaran article, it was created by an anonymous user, I removed a large amount of genealogical information, and then I got a rather distraught note from User:Carptrash. Apparently, he had spent several weeks convincing an octogenarian neighbor of the value of WP, and I had "butchered" the article, thus scaring away the octogenarian, and didn't I know that genealogical information is very important in Icelandic culture, have I never read the Sagas?, and so he had reverted my changes. I spent a while reading up on Icelandic culture, conceded that genealogy is more important in Icelandic culture than I had realized, and then carefully edited the article again, leaving in the information about Einar H. Kvaran's parents, but deleting the information about his sons and nephews (other than their existence) because Misplaced Pages is not the Sagas, and the article is about Einar, not his sons and nephews. The article summary said "We don't need EVERY detail about his family tree, okay?", and I left an apology for the page creator (which he doesn't seem to have read; sigh). I thought everything was settled, but yesterday I found out that Carptrash had perceived this as an edit war, and had left messages for various Icelandic Wikipedians, asking that they come to his support in this.

Anything else... there were some minor disputes in the Static Shock page, where I twice asked User:Mare-Silverus to stop inserting his own thoughts as to what some of the characters were references to; I resolved this by, quite simply, contacting Static creator Dwayne McDuffie and asking him if Mare's interpretations were correct (answer: no).

There was a very slight dispute at Holy Prepuce - I deleted the reference to Catherine of Siena, it was restored, I deleted it again and left my reasons on the talk page - which was resolved after User:Muriel Gottrop made a helpful suggestion.

Annnnnnnnd.... that's it.

These don't typically cause me stress. If anything on WP causes me stress, it's vandals (well, and edit conflicts, and server problems).

I try to mediate conflicts, to come up with a mutually agreeable solution. Some individuals are resistant to that, and become more and more agitated; for such cases, if they don't storm off in a huff, and instead choose to wreak havoc, the regrettable solution is to issue a temporary block. That's a last resort, of course, following a proper RfC.

If something on WP annoys me, I get up, walk around, read a novel, eat an apple, call my girlfriend, play with the neighbor's dog... if it's something that requires my attention, I take the time to construct a proper response.

DS 22:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Requests for bureaucratship

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

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

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

Related requests

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

  1. Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
  2. Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
  3. The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
  4. 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.
  5. Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions and Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors
Categories: