Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:33, 21 October 2005

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.

• WP:RFA
• WP:RFX

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

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

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

• WP:MONITOR

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.

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

Edcolins

Final (27/1/0) ended 12:00 October 28, 2005 (UTC)

Edcolins (talk · contribs) – Edcolins has been a member of the Misplaced Pages community since March of 2004. During that time he has amassed more than 11,000 edits on a very consistent basis (20 edits per day, consistent average since May 2004). He has made significant contributions in law and related topics, Misplaced Pages:Requested articles, Misplaced Pages:Cleanup and a large number of other areas. He has been active in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion, disambiguation work, and vandal fighting. In his contributions and user interactions he has been level headed, patient, and professional. He uses edit summaries 80% of the time. I have very (insanely?) high standards for nominating a candidate, and Edcolins meets my requirements. --Durin 19:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Thanks, Durin. --Edcolins 12:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support per above. --Durin 19:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support Looks to be an outstanding contributor--MONGO 12:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support I'm deeply surprised this person isn't an admin already. Private Butcher 15:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support per nom.  BD2412 16:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support Dlyons493 Talk 17:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support Oran e (t) (c) (@) 20:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support low edit-summary use is really not a factor in this case, since he clearly has the experience. freestylefrappe 22:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 23:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. Let's avoid loweditsummarycountitis when considering dedicated contributors like this. Bahn Mi 01:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support good editor --Rogerd 01:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support very solid --SFoskett 01:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Andre (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Definitely Martin 09:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. Ëvilphoenix 20:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. The Minister of War 20:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. Shauri smile! 12:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
17. FireFox 13:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support per nom. JoanneB 13:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support -- Francs2000 21:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support edit conflicts with Francs2000. El_C 22:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support --Kefalonia 08:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support Proto t c 13:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support with more edit summaries. Alphax  10:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support Johann Wolfgang 18:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support, solid editor. Silensor 20:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support per above Tedernst 18:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support--Jcw69 09:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   I find it very hard to assume good faith with Boothy's oppositions. Opposing nearly all potential admins. without explanation is essentially incivil, and without such explanation, in fact, he is not abiding by WikiGuidelines. Furthermore, I believe that these oppositions are a result of simple malice. I noticed that Boothy has 16,000 edits, but is not an adm - perhaps he is trying to hold others back. His contributions reflect a tendency of anger when people have only asked a simple question or he is excessivley sarcastic . I request that medition or arbitration be considered against this user. Him abusing the rights of RfA is harmful to the Wiki in my opinion - trolls, vandals and spammers are not allowed to continue in bad faith - so this user should also comport himself in a civil manner on these RfAs. He is abusing his rights here - and he is apparently making no attempts to stop. He has the right to vote, sure, but all the other Wikipedians have the right to a fair RfA. Something needs to happen! Molotov (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Boothy443. --Durin 04:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Definately support on condition of email being supplied. Martin 15:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I have checked the "Enable email from other users" box in my "Preferences". --Edcolins 15:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice one, thanks. Martin 09:36, 22 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. Blocking vandals if necessary. Deleting an article for which there is a consensus. Any of the admin tasks whenever necessary.

I don't plan any major change in the way I contribute. I am just dedicated to help the community concentrate in writing excellent articles, by reaching consensus on NPOV matter, adding references, creating disambiguation pages, redirect, merging articles, and so on.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I'll give five examples. "European Patent Convention" is a precise article, with a good perspective I think. "Inventive step and non-obviousness" is a fruitful "transatlantic" collaboration. "Claim" is technically rich. "Software patents under the EPC" has a solid structure. And "London Agreement" helps to understand this legal arrangement, I think (well I hope so!).

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. See Talk:Alicante and Talk:Jerome H. Lemelson (I posted a RfC for this "threat").

I think I have progressively improved the way I deal with conflicts. I basically try to prevent them, by being as NPOV as possible and discussing the matter on talk pages as early as possible (as in Is the source reliable?). I have met a lot of reasonable wikipedians actually.

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.

The Land

Final (6/9/7) ending 18:28 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The Land (talk · contribs) – I'm putting myself up because I'm itching to be able to help with admin tasks. I have a strong if not massive record, particularly recently, including work on AfD and New Pages. I also enjoy trying to help people resolve disputes. I'm interested in Misplaced Pages's policies and development as a community almost as much as its encyclopedic content. I'll take on board any comments you make about me in this discussion, no matter what they are.. The Land 16:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Self-nominated so yes please.

Reading the debate I would like to withdraw. If anyone wants to renominate me doewn the line I'll happily accept, but no point this staying on AfD when the consensus is already clear. Thank you for all the enccouraging comments, regardless of which votes they came with. The Land 18:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Level-headed? Check. Civil? Check. Editcountitis happening in oppose votes? Check. Heading in the right direction? Check. Can have (most) errors corrected? Check. No big deal? Check. I think I'll go out on a limb and support for now. Just do try and be more active. --Lord Voldemort 19:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. Read the first thing Kate's edit counter says nowdays. Kate's rather dissapointed in the editcountitus around the wiki because of her counter, and I don't blame her. A great guy is being opposed based on his edit count. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   Oh, by the way, I think Kate's a him, not a her. :-) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 00:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

   Yes, Kate's real name is Ed. when I refer to the person behind the account of kate I'll say Him, but when I refer to Kate I'll say her. This is the internet afterall, and I know of another editor on this wiki who is really male but prefers to be thought of as female. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

3. Support in order to oppose editcountitis. I wouldn't vote, but I feel compelled to do so just to work against those who oppose based on edit counts. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 01:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
4. This land is our land. Andre (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. Not everybody needs 100 lessons to pass their driving test. Rd232 17:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support --Kefalonia 08:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose User has only 816 edits since April, 2004. Needs to participate more to understand the community and how it works. Should have minimum of 1,500 to 2,000 edits. --Rogerd 17:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

   Baloney. Many good editors that know how WP work have less than even 1000 edits. Now whether that means they would be a good admin or not is unknown. No vote yet. Just sayin' is all. --Lord Voldemort 17:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose: You've only recently returned from a very long break dating back to late last year, with only a handful of edits during the interim. Your activity level has heavily spiked since your return, which is good. A quick review of user interactions seems to show level-headedness, which is very important. I think you're headed in the right direction, but keep it up for another 2 months and I think you'll be ready. Also, please keep improving your use of edit summaries. For now, I oppose. --Durin 17:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose, per Durin. Less than 1,000 edits, and a long break from the project. I agree with Durin that you seem to have the right idea. Do keep contributing, build more experience, check out what's happened with the wiki in your abscence, and do re-nominate in the future. Ëvilphoenix 17:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Definate Oppose per reasons already given. Private Butcher 18:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I would hope for him to get a few more edits to renominate. Editcountitis is very very bad but is also a sign of experience. Less than 1000 in more than a year IMO is too low Sebastian Kessel 20:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Weak oppose very short answers to the questions concerns me...if the answers were lengthened a little more, and a little more editing, I would support. freestylefrappe 21:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

   Will make my answers longer next time. The Land 18:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

7. Oppose weakly per reasons already mentioned. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} 09:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Try to keep your chin up and not take this too hard, ya' hear? Ryan Norton 21:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
9. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I find it very hard to assume good faith with Boothy's oppositions. Opposing nearly all potential admins. without explanation is essentially incivil, and without such explanation, in fact, he is not abiding by WikiGuidelines. Furthermore, I believe that these oppositions are a result of simple malice. I noticed that Boothy has 16,000 edits, but is not an adm - perhaps he is trying to hold others back. His contributions reflect a tendency of anger when people have only asked a simple question or he is excessivley sarcastic . I request that medition or arbitration be considered against this user. Him abusing the rights of RfA is harmful to the Wiki in my opinion - trolls, vandals and spammers are not allowed to continue in bad faith - so this user should also comport himself in a civil manner on these RfAs. He is abusing his rights here - and he is apparently making no attempts to stop. He has the right to vote, sure, but all the other Wikipedians have the right to a fair RfA. Something needs to happen! Molotov (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Something does happen. He's one vote. Either he's on the losing side of the vote, in which case it didn't make any difference; or he's on the winning side of the vote, in which case it didn't make any differenc. Unanimous votes are nice, but Misplaced Pages isn't therapy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Will support when user has a bit more involvement in the project. A good editor nontheless. Keep it up, youre on the right track. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 19:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutral good editor but I have to agree with the opposers but I dont feel like opposing maybe in 2 months --JAranda | watz sup 19:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutral, and I agree with Journalist. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 00:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Neutral. A little more experience could'nt hurt. You should RfA again in a few months.Voice of All 02:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Neutral. Seems like a reasonable user that would not abuse admin capabilities. WIll support if up again in a few months.—Gaff 21:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Neutral. Hope to support next time round. Dlyons493 Talk 17:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Neutral I think I got that bout of editcountitis under control,so no opposing, but I think the best thing here is to keep on the course you're on and you'll have no problems. Too early for adminship. Karmafist 22:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• 816 edits for those that care. --Lord Voldemort 17:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• A chart showing this user's edits along with a total # of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:TheLand-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 17:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Use of edit summaries is 39%, 74% over the last 100. Average edits per day is 1.4, 11.3 per day over last 30 days. --Durin 17:28, 20 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 start off, and probably mainly contribute, with agreed deletion AfD and to CSDs.If I encountered any vandalism I'd deal with it.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I tend to be an incrementalist editor and make a difference with lots of little changes rather than big ones. However, I think I've helped many articles like Transactional Analysis and 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend to a significant degree.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. I've had people worked up with me, like User: IndigoGenius and I've also stepped into other peoples' arguments like Talk:Coercive monopoly - aside from disagreements on AfD. I'm good at not getting stressed about things and the worst I've been is mildly snappy.

4. Very few editors with fewer than 1000 edits are promoted. Why do you feel you are different?

A. Well, I was going to wait another month, but yesterday I was overtaken by the urge to just get on with it and nominated myself. My contributions so far have involved a high proportion of policy-related material, a good number of admin-like tasks, and I don't think I've every been remotely disruptive: basically I'm confident that I could be a good admin starting now. I suspected the answer might be 'come back later', but wanted to give it a go anyway.

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.

E. Brown

Final (24/12/7) ended 05:22 27 October 2005 (UTC)

E. Brown (talk · contribs) – E. Brown has been very active in the area of hurricanes and storms in Misplaced Pages. He has also created many articles on past hurricane seasons, and as of October 18 has 1,731 edits. I've also observed that he also helpfully answers many questions from other people. In my opinion he deserves adminship. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} 06:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept

Support

1. Support as nominator, btw. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} 00:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support, agree with nominator (just tone down the language a bit every now and then). Titoxd 05:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support, agree with nominator, the most informed person I have ever met on the history of hurricanes. --Holderca1 13:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support He is worthy--Xiphon 15:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support I have to agree with all of the above comments, Eric has made many fine contributions to this site. Banes 15:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. He seems civil and highly knowledgable. His edit history looks pretty good, plenty of edits, and plenty of edit summaries. Overall good candidate.Voice of All 15:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. I'll take a solid Wikipedian who's new to adminship over a proto-admin who's not so much about the encyclopedia-writing any day. — mendel ☎ 19:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. Does a lot of work on hurricanes to the detriment of, say, everything else, but seems informed, intelligent, active, and well-spoken, and frankly that's good enough for me. Lord Bob 19:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. I like that he has tons of "article talk" edits, for me it means that he plays well with others (or maybe not, but still discusses things rather than rushing into edits). Sebastian Kessel 20:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support I was pretty set to oppose due to low wikipedia namespace edits until I read his comment below. That swayed me, I'd rather have a dedicated contributor who did a bit of admin work once in a while than one who did none at all. He deserves it. -Greg Asche (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support, despite lack of WP-space edits, because of his commitment to discretion. That's something we could use a bit more of around here.--Scimitar 20:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 23:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support, per GregAsche. No doubt he will not abuse admin powers. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. From a look at his contributions, an extremely good editor, and that is good enough for me. Tintin 05:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Yes, please. Lack of wikipedia namespace edits indicates a healthy reluctance to be dragged into interminable pointless disputes. Lupin|talk|popups 12:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Ryan Norton 21:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. (see below. And good point, Lupin!) The Minister of War 21:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. Have had a good deal of interaction with him on the hurricane pages, and he has always been helpful, informative, and polite. --tomf688 21:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

    Support. He has helped a lot in the hurricane pages in Misplaced Pages and certainly deserves to be an admin. 200.119.234.142 22:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

    Sorry, anonymous users are not allowed to vote. Please consider registering an account. Acetic' 02:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

19. Support. His extensive involvement in the project settles it for me. As for the alleged flaw in lack of edis to Misplaced Pages, I like Lupin's way to explain it a lot. Shauri smile! 21:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support --Kefalonia 08:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support Johann Wolfgang 18:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support Although I live in Florida and HATE hurricanes (especially the ones from Miami:) with a red hot passion, I support this candidate.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support --hydnjo talk 16:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. Seems levelheaded, and there is no harm in having a few admins who spend most of their time editing hurricane pages; procedual issues requiring an admin, like moves-over-redirects, arise everwhere, and frequently require more knowledge of things like "local" consensus on the affected pages than they do general policy knowledge. --Aquillion 07:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, no edits to wikipedia, most edits to the same pages, not a lot of variety. If this person's just working on hurricane and storm articles, do they really need admin powers? Private Butcher 18:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose Very Very few Misplaced Pages edits if any --JAranda | watz sup 20:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Sorry, but oppose per lack of experience in Wikispace (<50 edits in WP, zero in WP talk). Please join some discussions at FAC, RFC, ANI or (shudder) AFD and see what it's like. Radiant_>|< 22:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

   Lack of Project edits indicates lack of experience in adminstrative areas. I'm willing to change my vote to neutral if you began voting on some AfDs and RfAs for the remainder of the week. But I think it's too soon to support someone with so little participation in the sysop-related areas. Acetic' 03:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   Changed to Neutral. See comment there. Acetic' 19:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

4. Oppose per above. Simply not enough Wiki edits. Marskell 16:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
5. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Uhhpose Needs more edits to wikipedia. It shows that the user is active in the community and otherwise it can;t be seen as easily. Jobe6 21:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose due to lack of experience. Bahn Mi 01:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Not saying you're not a good editor, you have done a lot of hard work on the Hurricane articles and such. However, you need to round out your WP experience, and spend some time on discussions outside the realm of the articles you work on. Keep up the good editing. «»Who?¿? 07:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
   • Oppose till user sets/enables his email id. Let me know once this is done. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

     Thank you for enabling it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

9. Weak Oppose Apologies, but I've come down with a severe case of editcountitis due to some other RFAs, and I don't think I can vote for any other way for anyone under 2,000 edits until I get to the Wiki-Pharmacy for my illness or the climate around here changes. Low Edit Summaries and a lack of experience in Metapedianism clinch it(Question #3 seemed too vague), although I do think he'd be more than ready in a few months Karmafist 18:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Variety is the spice of life, and Misplaced Pages space edits are a must. Mike H (Talking is hot) 21:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Oppose Misplaced Pages edits a must to show understanding of how WP works. Borisblue 21:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Oppose. It really is necessary to have a good grip on how the various processes and things work and how the community behaves behind the scenes (and how admins behave...). Experiment a little between now and your next RfA, and you will learn a lot. -Splash 02:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral In looking over your edits, virtually all of them pertain to Hurricanes in one fashion or another. While I think your contributions there are probably second to none, I would need to see a lot more involvement in the type of janitorial chores expected of admins, and to use edit summaries with almost every contribution to help out RC Patrollers.--MONGO 08:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutral Although I dont entirely agree with the idea that you should engage in sysop chores before you are admin, I am curious whether or not you would actually enjoy doing the admin chores. You seem to be the kind of person which would much rather be a valuable contributor than having to do all the (necessary) boring work. Feel free to comment. The Minister of War 10:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutral. Good editor, but more variety and involvement is needed. Here are a few good links: You could help out in the Untagged Images section, vote frequently on RFAs and participate on its talk page, vote on AFDs, make it a duty to watch the Recent Changes and revert vandalism, warn editors and report incessant vandals on Misplaced Pages:Vandalism in Progress. You could also watch and tag Special:Newpages. After familiarizing yourself with these, and continuing editing articles, you should be all set :). Oran e (t) (c) (@) 19:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Neutral, as the Project namespace edit count is low. I don't see a need for a mop and bucket if most of what you're doing is hurricane stuff, and though I'm heartily against editcountitis, admins have to have edits in the Project namespace. But I don't think you'd make a bad admin either, merely that adminship seems unnecessary. Your edits are very good, and you have an abundance of edits in the Talk namespace, which is a good sign. I could easily support if there was evidnece of more sysop chores going on. --BorgHunter (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Neutral. Your expertise is very good, but I'd like to see more edits in the Misplaced Pages namespace, not for editcountitis but just to make sure you have experience in tasks that most admins spend a lot of time handling. If you take care of that, then I will support your next nomination in case this one doesn't go through. --Idont Havaname 01:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC) (In addition, the previous Neutral voters have given very good advice in this RfA, and it would do you well do follow it. --Idont Havaname 01:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC))
6. Neutral for the moment - I would like to see more variety in this user's editing before they are renominated for adminship. -- Francs2000 21:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Changed to Neutral per E. Brown fulfilled my request. The recent participation in administrative tasks is a huge plus, but it's still too soon to support. If your continue making help edits in the Project namespace for another month or so, someone is sure to renominate you. The results will be in your favor then. Acetic' 19:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Minister, NSLE's nomination kind of caught me a little off guard. Most administrators (correct me if I'm wrong) sought the title or knew that they deserved the vote. Being an administrator was never a goal of mine. The reason I'm pursuing this is that a lot of people on the hurricane pages feel strongly in my favor. They have given me very encouraging feedback, including one who recently asked me when my page would be posted so that he could support me. I respect their opinions very much. Also, the reason I sounded apprehensive is that I didn't want to sound aggressive. I would use administrative powers when necessary, I wouldn't use them just to use them, because I don't think that's what being an administrator is all about. If I came across a prolific vandal, I would not hesitate to warn him, or block him if he had been warned at least twice before. If I came upon an article that contributed nothing and had little hope of being expanded into a worthwhile article, I'd delete it or put it up for deletion. I came across such an article once before and asked an administrator if he'd speedy delete it, which he did. I believe that an administrator should use a lot of discretion before using administrative powers such as speedy deletion and blocking. Should I be elected an administrator, that would be my philosophy: discretion. E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 13:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. I agree aggressiveness is not a good admin trait. Still, there is little point in supporting admin powers if you intend to use them rarely - they exist for you to do good in the world! Well on Wiki anyway. Perhaps this is something to think about yourself. I think you might potentially be a good admin, leaving me the choice of voting neutral with the message "come back later", or voting support with the message "try to familiarise yourself with the more mundane Wikipolicies" (as per Oran e 's post above). I'll take door number two, and change my vote to support. The Minister of War 21:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• A chart showing this user's edits along with a total # of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:EBrown-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 13:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Use of edit summaries is 30%, 37% over the last 500. Average edits per day is ~6, and gradually increasing over last 30 days; 13.8 per day over last 30 days. 1,036 edits in last 90 days (60% of total contributions). --Durin 13:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not sure exactly what you guys mean by saying that I haven't made many edits in Misplaced Pages. I've made nearly 2,000 of them. E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 03:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, we mean that you have relatively few Project edits. Your edit count See where it says Project? Those are edits done to pages such as this page, WP:AN, WP:VIP, WP:AfD, and policy pages WP:POINT, WP:AGF, etc. Project talk (which doesn't appear on your edit count list, as you currently have none) are edits made to the talk pages of such projects. Acetic' 04:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• I have taken this feedback to heart an am now frequenting the Votes for deletion pages and intend to expand farther into Misplaced Pages. I would also like to express my deep gratitude to all those who supported me. I am also thankful to many of the opposers for they have given me useful feedback that I will work on and hopefully they will think better of me in the future. - Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 22:13, 24 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. Fighting vandalism, frequenting the deletion pages more, speedy deletion when necessary, that's mostly it. I would block a vandal if direly necessary.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. Yes, I am particularly fond of my private ventures Catastrophic Florida Hurricanes: 1900-1960 and Catastrophic Florida Hurricanes: 1961-present. I spent a lot of time researching them and I believe that I have introduced a new way of telling the facts to Misplaced Pages.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 00:34, 19 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. Yes, I have had two personal conflicts. Both were where I felt the other user was being childish and unreasonable and refused to listen to me when I tried to explain a misunderstanding. Other users have also had negative encounters with the same user. The other was with an anon user where I as politely as possible asked them to stop doing something and they thought I was being high-and-mighty (with the first mentioned user stirring the pot, so to speak). Those were the only two major ones. I've had disaggreements with other users before, but those two were the only ones that escalated.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 00:34, 19 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.

Grenavitar

Final count: (54/2/1) ended 01:53 10/26/05 10/19/05 (UTC)

Grenavitar (talk · contribs) – Grenavitar has been here for ages (November 27, 2004). 9442 total edits with 1.64 on average per page, and substantial communal interaction. Anyone who edits pages related to Islam knows his quality contributions. freestylefrappe 01:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination and give a thanks for thinking me worthy. gren グレン 02:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support as nominator. freestylefrappe 01:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support, but use more edit summaries? :) Redwolf24 (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
3. I very rarely vote here, but I've met Gren in person (he goes to my university) and I find him very trustworthy. →Raul654 03:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support a good editor --Rogerd 04:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. That watchlist says it all :)!!!Voice of All 04:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 04:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support by a long shot. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
8. -- (drini's page|☎) 05:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support MONGO 05:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support Go for it. Klonimus 06:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support I've seen good etc. Grutness...wha? 06:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. Seems like a good one. Ëvilphoenix 07:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. I know I tend to say "RFA cliche #1" a lot, but this time I really, seriously thought Grenavitare was an admin. I can't say I remember having any specific contect with him, but he's one of those users whose comments you see around and think "that's exactly what needed to be said." Dmcdevit·t 07:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
14. FireFox 08:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. The Minister of War 10:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. I found myself on the other side of discussions with gren on various talk pages, and despite the occasional disagreement always found gren to be good to work with and a positive presence on the whole. I think gren'll make a strong addition to Misplaced Pages's admins.—thames 13:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support, no question. Great contributor. Shauri smile! 14:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. InshAllah you will be an admin soon. - Darwinek 18:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support, Without a doubt. Private Butcher 18:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 19:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Infobox conversion Support Jobe6 19:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support good user --JAranda | watz sup 20:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support, ditto all of the above.  BD2412 21:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
24. EXTREME SUPPORT as per all the reasons stated above.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 05:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
25. There's nothing else to say, then. Support. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} 09:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. Grenavitar shows exactly the kind of maturity needed to stop edit wars and other hostility. For example, the exchange on Talk:Ali_Sina demonstrates his even-tempered, accommodating yet true-to-policy stance against an onslaught of POV-driven attacks. We need him as an admin! Owen× ☎ 12:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support see him around a lot. Dlyons493 Talk 17:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. Gren is level-headed, civil even when highly provoked, even-handed, and prepared to seek compromise. He's exactly the type of editor who'll make a good admin. SlimVirgin 22:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support. Excellent choice. Same reasons as SV. --a.n.o.n.y.m 01:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support. I didn't even know Gren wasn't a sysop, but he should be. He seems to be knowledgeable and civil, and would be a great admin--Shanel 02:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support That was simple. Mr. Gren obviously has some skill and has passion in all that he does. His sincerity shows through and through with his edits and comments and I have full faith in his dedication and that his adminship will be an asset to farmers worldwide. ^_^ Sorna Doon 03:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support. Robert 03:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support as per OwenX. Titoxd 07:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Strong Support. utcursch | talk 13:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Support - The more decent admins the better! --Irishpunktom\ 15:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Supportas per Irishpunktom . F.a.y. 20:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support - again, I thought I had done already. Sadly, I was wrong. --Celestianpower 21:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Support - The guy deserves it. As per Shanel, he is a knowledgeable and civil wikipedian. -- Svest 22:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)  
39. Support -- Gren keeps his temper in fraught situations where I'm losing it. I highly respect his equanimity. Zora 01:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
40. Support—like you need another vote! kwami 08:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Support Another well rounded editor that will do well with the mop. Alf 08:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC).
42. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
43. Support. Seems to be a great contributor. --Kefalonia 10:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
44. Support Yuber 15:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
45. Support Gryffindor 18:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
46. Support -- Francs2000 21:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
47. Support. El_C 21:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
48. Thought I had supported already. the wub "?!" 23:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
49. Thoroughly unnecessary and late (but deserved) support. Proto t c 13:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
50. Support. -- DS1953 16:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
51. Support -- Karl Meier 16:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
52. Support I trust Genavitar to use the tools of adminship wisely. Johntex\ 18:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
53. THE STRONGEST SUPPORT CONCEIVABLE Okay so I really, really, really tried to oppose gren, I mean he vandalized my user page, however he was looking over my shoulder while I voted, and well, I just didn't have the heart to say no. Is pity a crime? rydia 19:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
54. Support Johann Wolfgang 18:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   I Oppose you, Pikachu!! File:Pikachu2.gif. Ëvilphoenix 20:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose till user sets/enables his email id. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

   thanks for enabling it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I find it very hard to assume good faith with Boothy's oppositions. Opposing nearly all potential admins. without explanation is essentially incivil, and without such explanation, in fact, he is not abiding by WikiGuidelines. Furthermore, I believe that these oppositions are a result of simple malice. I noticed that Boothy has 16,000 edits, but is not an adm - perhaps he is trying to hold others back. His contributions reflect a tendency of anger when people have only asked a simple question or he is excessivley sarcastic . I request that medition or arbitration be considered against this user. Him abusing the rights of RfA is harmful to the Wiki in my opinion - trolls, vandals and spammers are not allowed to continue in bad faith - so this user should also comport himself in a civil manner on these RfAs. He is abusing his rights here - and he is apparently making no attempts to stop. He has the right to vote, sure, but all the other Wikipedians have the right to a fair RfA. Something needs to happen! Molotov (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I changed my vote to "neutral". I still don't think there is any reason to believe that Gren will abuse his admin powers, but on the other hand I don't like that he is attacking a list a named Wikipedians on his userpage. I believe such hitlists is not acceptabel, and that Gren should instead file an RfC or an RfA against these Wikipedians, if he feel that there is a problem with their general conduct/behavior. Other such lists has previously been made, and one of the more well-known is the "Elders of Misplaced Pages", made by a member of the NAZI "Stormfront" website. Admins should be a good example to everybody else here, and I can't recommend that we start to make lists of users that we don't appriciate, in places where they can't respond to the criticism that is being raised against them. -- Karl Meier 16:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

   I do not think this list is used in attacking the wikipedians, it was created out of a genuine concern. I added that list in the height of the Ali Sina / FFI link debates because we had found links on the FFI forums saying more or less to come and push a POV here. With this came so many claims of sock puppetry that it made my head spin. Personally, I don't like to call people sock puppets because I really cannot tell beyond hearsay, so I tried dealing with this by problem whom I don't always agree with POV wise (which you would fit into) and users that were creating problems through vandalism. It was my view that because of the problems arising that vandalism had to be severely dealt with because it is much more frustrating for someone to be involved in long discussions than to just ignore the rules and by dealing with those who ignored the rules. The comment referring to User:Rydia is about my "vandalism" on his page since he is my roommate and we joke around. I didn't file RfCs because these were events that admins knew about and had commented on and the first two left and Zeno stopped doing that kind of thing. He received a lot of flack for doing that and stopped and I just never bothered to take it down since it fit into my vandalizing my roommate's page joke. It wasn't users I didn't appreciate, it was out and out vandalism that I was trying to keep track of, not a partisan list of users I didn't like. They could have easily responded on my talk page and I would have discussed it with them but for the most part. Sadduj in fact appears to be a fan of mine since he calls me a "righteous Dhimmi" on his user page. I'm nots sure how this relates to Stormfront list exactly... and I hope this answers questions / concerns. If you want me to elaborate more discuss it more feel free to ask. (This list is out of date now and serves no purpose, I will remove it when the RfA is over but I don't want to do it now since it's not something I'm trying to hide) gren グレン 16:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• I would like to note that occassionally on new articles only editted by anons I would sometimes not use edit summaries. This is a flaw that will be remedied. :) --gren グレン 02:44, 20 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 plan to continue my regular new page patrols which I have been active in (as my avg. edits per page attests) and having the power of deletion will aid me greatly. I also realize that with this comes the new responsibility of making sure my deletions are doubtlessly CSDs. I currently have over 4,500 pages on my watchlist which would make the revert tool very useful aside from formal RC patrols. These would be the main uses of my tools since I am currently fully fit to perform them. As times goes on I hope to be an admin helpful in resolving disputes, but I will probably not be as active in this field in the beginning because I realize that I need to get a feel for it and feel that starting tool strongly with such admin powers could create problems.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. In terms of a single article I am most pleased with my edits to Canton in France translated from the French wikipedia. It showed me the potential for dissemination of information between the various language wikis. In terms of aggregate time expended I have spent the most on Islam related articles. I feel that I have at times been helpful in being a more neutral figure in these debates and we have made some definite progress in terms of scope of our articles and I have noticed that edit contents have slowly been moving towards more specific articles rather than the major ones. I would like to think that some of this has been because of my efforts and efforts of those like Zora who can often be found questioning edits as being too pietistic or others as too attacking. Although results per hour of work probably remain lower on these articles than on less controversial ones I think (and hope) that my involvement has led to improvements in these articles, as well as an increase in subject depth due to the articles I have created.

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. In line with my contributions to Islam related articles comes the most controversy I am embroiled in. In the course of my involvement with these articles I have disagreed with most editors at some time or another. I have been called everything from a jihadi, to a Muslim woman (I am a man by the way), to an Islamaphobic editor. I have tried dealing with this with a sense of humor. While I am personally not insulted, I try to tell the user that such behavior is unnacceptable. I also try to revert only in cases of blatant necessity and I do discuss edits, which, although it sometimes feels futile, I still continue. I hope that most users, even those that disagree with me, will see that I try for discussion. This hasn't really caused me stress, but I have, on occassion, probably reverted prematurely when I feel that an editor is not trying to do their part. One example is this dif where after ordering the women by date it was reverted as a part of a long going revert war I had been trying to avoid. I had hoped that when adding in the red links the user would have ordered them and I thought it was not too much to ask. No one is perfect, but I do try to talk with users and discuss the issues. As for the future of this issue, I think I should make it clear that I would not use administrator abilities to become the police of Islam related articles. I am too involved in many of the articles to be an objective outside force and would take that into account. As for the issue of stress, it only takes about five minutes on Counter-Strike to cure the little bit that happens.

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.

Johntex

Final count: (37/2/0) ended 14:07 October 26, 2005 (UTC)

Johntex (talk · contribs) – It is both a pleasure and an honor to nominate Johntex for adminship. John has been around for 10 months now, and his edits number 2448 today, well distributed among namespaces. He's a well respected and dedicated user who is deeply involved in the project, and not only in the online aspects but in real life as well, like organizing Wiki-Meetups with Jimbo as he did just yesterday . He's also seriously engaged in welcoming, helping and guiding new users, AfD, cleanup tasks, RC patrolling, etc; and regularly performs a high degree of activity in maintenance, vandal fighting, and general site improvement. His exemplary conduct is clearly demonstrated through a flawless record, and his significant contributions have earned him the recognition of his peers . I'm sure we'll have an extremely valuable admin in him. Shauri smile! 14:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept and I thank Shauri for her kind words. It is an honor to be nominated, and a double honor to be nominated by such a fine editor as Shauri. Johntex\ 16:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Supersize support as nominator! Shauri smile! 14:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. Shauri's description of the candidate and her trust seal it for me.--Wiglaf 14:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Strongly Support. Personal interaction with Johntex and dozen of common watchlist pages that I see him make great edits to daily make me proud to support his bid for adminship! -Scm83x 15:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support without reservations! Beat me to it. · Katefan0 18:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support, I definately trust the nominator wouldn't nominate anyone undeserving, and the person seems deserving according to what I've seen. Private Butcher 19:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support, good egg.  BD2412 19:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support Astrotrain 19:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Yes. He has enough experience to get the dustbuster. Supporting.  Denelson83  19:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Hook 'em. Thoughtful, well rounded user. This in particular really impressed me, and is the final reason I choose to support. Ëvilphoenix 20:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 20:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Sure Ryan Norton 00:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support --Rogerd 00:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. -- KHM03 00:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support after looking through his contributions. Now I'm off to spam RN about the MC... Redwolf24 (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Strong support based on his response to my query below. freestylefrappe 01:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support I see nothing but good things from/about this guy. Besides, he has an edit count not even Durin can take issue with:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 01:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support —Gaff 02:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
19. -- (drini's page|☎) 02:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support Have seen him around, always good edits. Banes 05:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support MONGO 05:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
22. FireFox 08:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. The Minister of War 10:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. I trust the nominator. The editor's good too :). Oran e (t) (c) (@) 19:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. Never met him but has votes from a lot of people I respect, including the nominator. Sebastian Kessel 20:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support, per Evilphoenix. Titoxd 21:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support. Robert 00:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support --JAranda | watz sup 20:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support I think this user would be a great addition to the cabal...  ALKIVAR™ 02:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support seems civil, reasonable and willing. Alf 08:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. +sj + 20:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support. El_C 21:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support --Kefalonia 08:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support -- DS1953 16:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Support An excellent editor. -Willmcw 19:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support Extremely worthy candidate. jareha 22:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support Johann Wolfgang 18:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   File:Pikachu2.gif. Ëvilphoenix 20:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

   I queried Boothy on his opposition to my nomination for adminship in order to see if there was an area of concern for me to improve upon. He has replied at my Talk page to give some explanation of his vote to oppose. If I understand him correctly, he generally wants the bar for adminship to be set high. He seems to think that the system of admins and their nomination is flawed. I also found a partial disclosure of some of his voting guidelines by reading through the RFC on him. Johntex\ 02:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   I find it very hard to assume good faith with Boothy's oppositions. Opposing nearly all potential admins. without explanation is essentially incivil, and without such explanation, in fact, he is not abiding by WikiGuidelines. Furthermore, I believe that these oppositions are a result of simple malice. I noticed that Boothy has 16,000 edits, but is not an adm - perhaps he is trying to hold others back. His contributions reflect a tendency of anger when people have only asked a simple question or he is excessivley sarcastic . I request that medition or arbitration be considered against this user. Him abusing the rights of RfA is harmful to the Wiki in my opinion - trolls, vandals and spammers are not allowed to continue in bad faith - so this user should also comport himself in a civil manner on these RfAs. He is abusing his rights here - and he is apparently making no attempts to stop. He has the right to vote, sure, but all the other Wikipedians have the right to a fair RfA. Something needs to happen! Molotov (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose - This editor has engaged in WP:POINT disruption in the past (for example, VfD'ing pages in retaliation for editing disputes on other articles ). He's currently a party to a merged arbitration case involving myself and several other editors that I initiated in late August against another user. This is notworthy because JohnTex joined the arbitration with a countercomplaint against me last month regarding a dispute we had in late May on the Houston Chronicle article. I had not encountered JohnTex anywhere else on Misplaced Pages between May and September when he joined the RfAr, nor did he participate any further in the Houston Chronicle article or its subsequent mediation attempts. Thus, I consider it fair to question the timing and motive of his involvement in the RfAr given that he was apparently trying to resurrect an old dispute that he had not even participated in for over three months with an editor he had not even encountered for that same period of time. Rangerdude 16:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The arbitration against Rangerdude involves multiple editors and concerns his POV pushing in articles and uncivil treatment of many editors in Talk pages. He has tremendously slanted the Houston Chronicle article to the point where it consists predominately of controversies. He has admitted nominating for AfD the Dusty Mangum article solely because I created it . My nomination of Dan Patrick (radio host) for AfD was a good faith nomination of an article about someone I considered to be a non-notable person. It was consistent with my general practice of nominating non-notable topics for deletion. The result was 8 keep votes to 5 delete votes, so it was as if it was a completely clear-cut keep it was not as if the community thought it was a completely clear-cut keep. My nomination to delete the article was also consistent with my Proposal to restore some form of balance to the Houston Chronicle, and to the related articles that were suffering under POV-pushing by Rangerdude. My joining the arbitration against Rangerdude was not an example of resurrecting an old dispute. To the contrary, I had been following the correct dispute resolution process in waiting on the outcome of a request for mediation. In fact, User:MacGyverMagic specifically requested me not to edit the articles while mediation was underway. The reason Rangerdude did not encounter me for a while is that I was following the request to avoid editing the articles during mediation. Mediation never solved the dispute. Therefore, I joined the arbitration case as the next step in dispute resolution. Johntex\ 19:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment - It is curious that JohnTex would attempt to defend his VfD on Dan Patrick by citing the Dusty Mangum VfD considering that the vote on the latter (9 to keep, 7 to delete) was actually closer than the 8 keep/5 delete vote on Dan Patrick! That JohnTex's VfD on Dan Patrick was a retaliatory disruption is further evidenced by the fact that he initiated it only 11 minutes after the article itself was created . Much to the contrary of what JohnTex indicates above, the arbitration case of which Johntex speaks was initiated as a retaliatory RfAr by User:Willmcw a few days after I posted the original RfAr against him. In accepting the cases, the Arbcom voted to merge this second case into the original that I filed against Willmcw. It is particularly notable that I did not even encounter JohnTex anywhere on Misplaced Pages between late May 2005 and September, when he suddenly popped up again to second Willmcw's RfAr against me citing as his only evidence our dispute from three months earlier at Houston Chronicle. His claim that he had been "following the correct dispute resolution process" on the 3 month old dispute at Houston Chronicle is similarly false as evidenced by the mediation page for this article, Talk:Houston_Chronicle/Mediation. This mediation started on June 12th and attracted comments from myself and the other three editors who had been involved in the Houston Chronicle dispute (Katefan0, Nobs01, and Willmcw), yet as its page history shows JohnTex did not make so much as one single contribution to this mediation, which would've been the "correct dispute resolution process" were he genuinely following it. In reality his last recorded act of participation in the Houston Chronicle dispute was an edit there on May 28th - some 13 days before he claims the mediator asked him not to make any changes there on June 10th. Thus, he not only skipped from participation in the mediation stage entirely but he also dropped out of the original dispute on Houston Chronicle itself almost two weeks before it even advanced to mediation! Given these facts I believe it is safe to classify JohnTex's involvement in the current RfAr as a textbook example of resurrecting an old dispute. Rangerdude 18:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude's view has been noted, there is no benefit to any one to debate the matter with him here. The RfAr is the correct place to seek resolution of this matter. If any other editors have a question about this matter, I will be happy to try to address their questions. Johntex\ 18:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

And I encourage anybody who wishes to review this case in making their vote decision here to view the diffs above. You will find that (1) JohnTex completely dropped off the article where the dispute was happening two weeks before it advanced to the mediation stage, (2) JohnTex completely skipped that mediation process, (3) JohnTex suddenly resurrected his interest in this dispute after three months of silence when Willmcw filed a retaliatory RfAr against me a few days after I initiated arbitration against him, and (4) between May 28th when he left Houston Chronicle and August 26th when he decided to join Willmcw's RfAr, JohnTex and I did not even encounter each other anywhere on wikipedia. If you don't mind having administrators who like to resurrect disputes from three months in the past at opportune times, then by all means vote for JohnTex. That he does this sort of thing, however, should be clear to all in making their decisions. Rangerdude 18:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Not strong opposition, and willing to change to support, but I'd like an explanation regarding you're interaction with Achilles and the purported spammming. Normally I wouldnt question this, but there appears to be come controversy. freestylefrappe 00:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Reply Thanks for your question, freestyle. It is a little complex, so I will try to explain:

I was watching Jimbo's talk page when I saw Tony Sidaway leave this message. In his message, Tony asks Jimbo to weigh in on an action taken by Achilles. Tony said "Achilles, observing the failure to gain consensus for deletion of an autofellatio image, clearly diagnosed the problem (correctly, in my opinion) as bias due to the fact that most wikipedians don't watch WP:IFD or Autofellatio... he spammed a rather large number of Misplaced Pages user talk pages...he did so in a selective manner...contacting only those who seemed likely to express a point of view he agreed with."

I then left this message on Jimbo's page, saying "A message to selected people is not spam...Tony Sidaway stated on Achilles’ talk page "Spamming is sending the same message to lots of people." That is not a full or correct definition. For example, www.dictionary.com defines spamming as "Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail." While it is true that his message could be considered "unsolicited", it was not sent "indiscriminately". He sent the message only to people whom you had reason to believe would be interested in the message. What could be wrong with reaching out to people who are likely to have an interest in a topic?..."

I then left this message on Tony's page, alerting him to the fact that I had replied to his message on Jimbo's page, saying "Hello Tony, I wanted to let you know that I disagree with the comments you made at Jimbo Wales's talk page about Achilles reaching out to potential voters on the autofellatio image issue. I have posted my explanation of why I believe Achilles' actions are not spam on those two Talk pages. As a courtesy to you, I wanted to notify you here that I have made those postings since you may not be watching those pages. This way, you have an opportunity to respond if you wish."

Tony replied "A message to selected people is not spam I'm sorry but that is just silly. Spam is the same message repeated lots of times. Putting the same message on lots of user talk pages is spam. But that isn't the issue, is it? He didn't just spam, he intentionally spammed *only* those people who agreed with him. He tried to cook the vote, to campaign, to go against the consensual decision making that has served Misplaced Pages so well and turn it into a scramble for votes, and was caught red-handed."

To which I replied, "...Let's set aside for now whether it was spam or not so that we may focus on what you say is the issue. You are equating a "get out the vote" campaign to "cook the vote". They are not the same. Cooking the vote would be using sock puppets to stuff the ballot box. What he did was analogous to the Democratic party encouraging Pro-choice or gay marriage proponents to go to the polls in a United States presidential election; or the Republican party doing the same with senior citizens and members of the Bel Air country club. Why is there anything wrong with appealing to people who are likely to be receptive to your arguments? How does this go against the "consensual decision making" process? Were people intimidated to vote a certain way? Did he tamper with the counting of the votes received? No. People were encouraged to speak up about an issue he felt they would be interested in. In my relatively short time here, I've seen hundreds of examples of people doing the exact same thing without receiving criticism, and I don't see anything wrong with it."

So, in summary: what happened was Achilles did some campaigning on a deletion issue. Tony complained about it to Jimbo. I chimed in to disagree with Tony and defend Achilles' actions. Some discussion ensued. It was all pretty cordial. We all went on about our business. The full discussion thread is in my Talk archive if you are really interested. I'm happy to answer any follow-up questions. Johntex\ 01:31, 20 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 like a lot of variety in my time on Misplaced Pages. I spend time: contributing to articles, contributing to AFD discussions, on RC patrol, reverting vadalism, answering questions at the Help Desk, welcoming new users, etc. I woud certainly continue these tasks. The one-click revert tool would be helpful in reverting vandalism as I come across it. I would also add helping with AFD closures to my "to-do" list. I know that we consider that being an administrator should be "no big deal". I think that is true in the sense that there is plenty a good user can contribute to the project without being an admin. On the other hand, I think that new users are especially likely to look to administrators for assistance and to set an example. Therefore, I would endeavor to be especially mindful of my obligation to help other users out and to act as a role model.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. Yes and No. Sometimes I go back to them and see there is so much still to improve! Two of the first articles I created were Hook 'em Horns and Stratellite. I think they have developed pretty well, though of course other editors have done a lot of the work. Sometimes, making a small addition to an article can be very gratifying, such as adding a source to help clear up confusion over what day is Victory over Japan Day.

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, sometimes people get passionate about their views on how to improve an article or make this a better place. I think passion is great as long as it comes with civility. My experience is that participating in a dialog is usually sufficient, and I've had a lot of great conversations with people here that have allowed us to reach consensus / compromise on many topics. For example, I'm pleased about the development of Hubbert peak theory. This is an article where emotions can sometimes run high, but I'm happy that we've been able to keep the conversation at Talk:Hubbert_peak_theory civil and that we've been able to work together to improve the article.

I also feel it is important to get help when you need it. I think avenues such as peer review and the dispute resolution system are important parts of Misplaced Pages. I have tried to help in responding to peer reviews, and I have recently requested peer review on an article I created so that we can ensure my personal opinion does not carry into that particular article. I am a party to a request for arbitration involving User:Rangerdude and several other editors, and I am hopeful that the arbitration process will be helpful to those of us involved.

My plan for dealing with future stress is to try to set an example for good behavior. Also, if things get stressful in one area of Misplaced Pages, I can always go over to another area I enjoy, or simple hit "Random article" and look for a new way to contribute! Johntex\ 18:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Update: the peer review process has been very helpful to Baby Gender Mentor, as you can see in comparing the before and after. Johntex\ 22:11, 21 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.

Titoxd

FINAL (75/1/1) ending 20:09 October 24, 2005 (UTC)
Titoxd (talk · contribs) –Titoxd is a great guy and a great user. He scored a 609 on the Wikiholic test, is active both in the English and Spanish Wikipedias, just missed making the Advisory Committee in the recent Esperanza Election, and has just over 2,000 edits. Time to give him the mop. Karmafist 21:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm honored to accept this nomination and I appreciate any and all constructive criticism comming from it. Please help me get better in helping Misplaced Pages. Titoxd 21:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Agree, he is a good editor. Martin 21:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support per everything above, obviously. Karmafist 21:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Strong Support I was thinking of nominating him after the nomination of Greg Asche was done --JAranda | watz sup 21:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support - Titoxd is a great foe of vandals; he will wield a mighty mop. - jredmond 21:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Strong support - all of my experience of this user has been highly positive and I have no reason to doubt either is contribution to Misplaced Pages or his future usefulness as an administrator. An all-round very nice person. --Celestianpower 22:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support - plays a good game of whack-a-vandal.  BD2412 22:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
7. SupportIf I had known that he wasn't already an admin I would have probably nominated him. Jtkiefer ----- 22:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support, per nom. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support Ryan Norton 22:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support Private Butcher 22:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Ab-so-lute-ly. -- Essjay · Talk 22:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support no doubt in my mind he will be a great admin. -Greg Asche (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support Titoxd removes vandalism a lot and as an admin they could help a lot by banning users that keep vandalising --☺Adam1213☺ Talk+|WWW 23:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Ja. ~~ N (t/c) 23:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support --HappyCamper 00:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. Definitely ;-). I've been in edit conflicts with Titoxd 'cause he is faster at clicking save during RC Patrol than I am ;-). >: Roby Wayne 00:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    And I've been beaten to reverts by admins so many times, I'm sure you know the feeling. :) Titoxd 00:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    Big AMEN on that!! >: Roby Wayne 02:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

17. Chea! Acetic' 01:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. Ral315 W_S 01:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support a fellow vandalbuster ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 02:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    Yes, Oui, Si, Ja, כן ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC) You voted twice. Titoxd 02:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    Ooops, sorry..! ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 21:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

21. Support. Hesitation have I none. -Splash 02:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support like I've never supported before. Great guy, even greater contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysekurity (talk • contribs) 03:43, 18 October 2005.
23. Strong Support. Thought Titoxd was one. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 03:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
24. yep yep yep -- (drini's page|☎) 04:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Strong Support For sure! Banes 05:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. Valuable contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support, certainly. --JoanneB 07:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Oh good, finally I won't be the only admin in Arizona. (And I agree with everyone else's reasons for supporting :) Dmcdevit·t 07:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Good stuff. brenneman 08:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Big Style Furry Alien Support thought he was already... Alf 10:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Absolutely. Am thoroughly miffed I'm so far down the line, but very pleased it's a long one. :) encephalon 12:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support. He's not an admin yet? Huh. --Ashenai (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. Always good to have more vandal hunters.--Scimitar 14:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support. Thought he already was one. the wub "?!" 15:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Support- ditto. --Bhadani 16:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support without hesitation. Hall Monitor 17:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support pgk 17:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Support looks like a good person to give a mop to.  ALKIVAR™ 18:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
39. Support Dlyons493 Talk 19:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
40. Support Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 20:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Well, I wanted to be evil and be the one oppose vote, but I just can't find anything wrong with Tito. Support. --Lord Voldemort 21:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    Well, i'm sure Boothy will come around eventually ;-) Karmafist 22:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    I dunno, He didn't peg me (I was sad) and I didn't see him in any of the ones last week. Ëvilphoenix 02:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

    Speak of the devil... :-) the wub "?!" 23:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

42. First time I've heard of him, but seems a solid editor. freestylefrappe 00:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
43. Support Very active doing RC patrol, VFU, et al. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
44. Support. Very quick with the vandal reverting. Carbonite | Talk 02:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
45. Support. Of course. Ëvilphoenix 02:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
46. Support --MONGO 02:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

    Support --JoanneB 10:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (One support'll be enough, I reckon. ;) --Ashenai (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC))

47. Good editor, this person seems to be. His nomination, support I do. — JIP | Talk 11:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

    Support — JIP | Talk 11:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

    Voted twice, you have. — JIP | Talk 11:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

48. Support --GraemeL 13:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
49. Support {{subst:AdminCliché}} --RobertG ♬ talk 15:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
50. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
51. FireFox 18:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
52. Support. Robert 21:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
53. Support --fvw* 02:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
54. Support—Gaff 02:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
55. Support Redwolf24 (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
56. Support. Seems to be only a formality, but still. The Minister of War 10:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
57. Support. Wow. Sebastian Kessel 20:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
58. Support. Very knowledgable of Misplaced Pages. Courtious, and always asks users on the discussion page if they agree to any major changes before making them. I really appreciate and respect that. Very mature. -- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 21:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
59. Support. This guy is good. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 22:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
60. Support 172 | Talk 22:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
61. Support Molotov (talk)
    23:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

    Extreme Lesbian Voter Fraud I'll vote twice just because it's already a foregone conclusion and i'd like to have the honor of having my vote stricken out by this soon to be über-administrator. I was thinking of leaving the umlauts off to see if he replaced them on there before he struck them, but I figured that'd be overboard. FYI, Titoxd, please make sure you invite me to any celebration parties you may have in your fabulous new barn, now horse feces free! ;-) Karmafist 00:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC) Vote dutifully stricken, and sure, you're all invited. :) Titoxd 01:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

62. Support. Excellent editor, who should become admin much earlier. Can we speedy approve this? We need him with the rollback for Hurricane Wilma, yes now! --Vsion 20:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
63. Support, good active editor. K1Bond007 22:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
64. Support You're not an admin? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
65. Hrm. I thought I already voted here.. Oh well, 1.1 votes is better than none. «»Who?¿? 07:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
66. S'port Doc (?) 18:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
67. Support You betcha'! Thatdog 21:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
68. Support. --tomf688 21:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
69. Support Ann Heneghan 02:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
70. I'm surprised I never noticed this. Very helpful, and to add to my vote, helped me out recently in a dispute. He definitely deserves it. Support. (Good grief, in my haste to vote, I actually voted in the wrong RfA!) -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} 07:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
71. Support I though I had already, but guess not! Bratsche 18:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
72. He's not an admin? Support! - Mailer Diablo 13:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
73. Support Another extremely competent user who should be in, great guy. Titoxd! Titoxd! Titoxd! Titoxd...!-) Gryffindor 18:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
74. Overwhelming support -- Francs2000 21:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
75. Support. El_C 21:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   I Oppose you, Pikachu!! File:Pikachu2.gif. Ëvilphoenix 20:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I find it very hard to assume good faith with Boothy's oppositions. Opposing nearly all potential admins. without explanation is essentially incivil, and without such explanation, in fact, he is not abiding by WikiGuidelines. Furthermore, I believe that these oppositions are a result of simple malice. I noticed that Boothy has 16,000 edits, but is not an adm - perhaps he is trying to hold others back. His contributions reflect a tendency of anger when people have only asked a simple question or he is excessivley sarcastic . I request that medition or arbitration be considered against this user. Him abusing the rights of RfA is harmful to the Wiki in my opinion - trolls, vandals and spammers are not allowed to continue in bad faith - so this user should also comport himself in a civil manner on these RfAs. He is abusing his rights here - and he is apparently making no attempts to stop. He has the right to vote, sure, but all the other Wikipedians have the right to a fair RfA. Something needs to happen! Molotov (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Calm down, people! You're taking his oppose vote harder than I am, and I'm the one being opposed. :) Boothy does have standards for adminship, in fact, he described them to Acetic Acid not too long ago. I can't and I won't blame Boothy for having such high standards—if I don't meet them, then I don't meet them, and that's the end of the story. Everyone, have a cup of coffee on my behalf, ok? Titoxd 04:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I added this here because this section seemed kind of empty and surely, one more support's not gonna make a hell of a difference--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 05:40, 21 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've been very active in the Counter Vandalism Unit the last few days, and before that, I used to do manual RC Patrol to revert vandalism, so that's one thing I'll keep doing. Also, I'm very active at Votes for Undeletion, where being an admin is very helpful. I also plan to help with the backlogs at Templates for deletion, Miscellaneous deletion and of course, the one no one wants to do.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. Most of my article namespace edits have come through Spanish Translation of the Week, and my two favorite articles are Geology of Venus and Geology of the Moon, the current SPATRA. Keeping with SPATRA, but this time on the Misplaced Pages namespace, I was the one who came up with the idea of commenting untranslated text, as a compromise to a conflict that occured while editing Glacier.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. Mostly, I've been able to avoid Wikistress altogether, so I've been lucky. However, I know that adminship would result in being involved in more conflicts, so I'll say that my personal philosophy is to assume good faith before everything, ignore all personal attacks done on me, and not to attack anyone. Basically, to remember that we're trying to build an encyclopedia here before anything else.

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.

the wub

FINAL (61/2/0) ending 20:07 24/10/05 (UTC)

the wub (talk · contribs) – I've been around since March 2005, and think I am ready for the mop. I've been doing quite a bit of vandalism reversion recently using CDVF and Sam Hocevar's god-mode lite script. Plus I read and contribute on AN fairly often, since I find it a great source of information. I've also been described as a "VFD fanatic" (back when it was called that), though I consider myself neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist. For those who are interested I have 2781 edits, more details here. the wub "?!" 20:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

For the above reasons, I have nominated myself for adminship.

Support

1. Support! User:Zirka 12:22, 19 October 2005 (CDT) He focuses his attention not just on the larger, more widely supported pages, or the lightly supported pages, but both. I also approve of his stance on deletion.
2. Good editor Martin 20:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Extreme Non-Inclusionist Support. Good editor - why not support? --WikiFanatic
4. Andre (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support good editor, and even reverted vandalism on my userpage once. Private Butcher 20:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support he deserves it. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support Good editor and vandal fighter. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Michael Snow 21:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support Good Vandal Fighter --JAranda | watz sup 21:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support - after my extensive positive experiences with this user, I see no option but to support. --Celestianpower 22:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. Very active and productive, from what I've seen.  BD2412 22:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Full, unequivocal, and unconditional support. -- Essjay · Talk 22:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Supportate. ~~ N (t/c) 23:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Keep and expand the wub's wikipowers by granting admin status. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support, impressive record. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
16. I Love the Wub (Strikes Back) This user is the voice of reason in our community! Acetic' 01:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
17. You weren't? Ral315 W_S 01:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 02:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
19. I thought you were already one ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. Active, knowledgeable, good. -Splash 02:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. I've seen him around more than a few times, which is good enough for me. -] _{03:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)}
22. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 04:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support good contribution list -DDerby-(talk) 04:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. Fine user. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Whaaaat? You mean the wub wasn't an admin already? Quick, we need more wubs as admins. — JIP | Talk 06:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support the General Secretary of the meta:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD. Alphax  07:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support my mighty m:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD overlord. Proto t c 12:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. I would have nominated him myself, if I'd known he wasn't a sysop.--Scimitar 14:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
29. FULL MEXICABAL SUPPORT -- (drini's page|☎) 16:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support come across him often. Dlyons493 Talk 19:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support if and only if you come back to The Signpost... :-) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 20:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Wubport. Radiant_>|< 21:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Good VFD participation. freestylefrappe 00:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC) Would have been willing to nominate him myself...
35. Support --MONGO 02:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support I wub this user! --Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support me too. encephalon 13:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
38. EXTREME DISK SUPPORT WITH EXTRA KILOBYTES!! Ryan Norton 00:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
39. Support—Gaff 02:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
40. FireFox 08:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Support. The Minister of War 10:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
42. Support. Thunderbrand 13:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
43. Support. Sebastian Kessel 20:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
44. Give-Him-The-Mop-And-The-Flamethrower Support. Titoxd 21:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
45. Support without reservations. Hall Monitor 22:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
46. Support Pilatus 23:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
47. Support Good egg. Hamster Sandwich 19:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

    #Ryan Norton 21:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC) Thanks but you voted twice :-) the wub "?!" 16:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

48. Furry Alien Support No doubt about it - seen lots of this editor's work, will be fine admin. Alf 08:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
49. Support - I wub lub to hub him as wub-ministrator.--Jondel 13:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
50. S'portDoc (?) 18:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
51. Support. --tomf688 21:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
52. Support - a great editor! Pasboudin 22:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
53. Yes. I've liked everything I've seen. Ann Heneghan 02:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
54. Support. Comments (esp. reasons for self-nom) really earned my vote. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} 07:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
55. Wubbish Support His edits and communications with other editors are very nice. Bratsche 18:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
56. Support Molotov (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
57. Support, Sure! I can show some lub for the wub...if it's not too late :>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
58. Support. - Mailer Diablo 13:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
59. Support - wtf? He's not an admin? --Phroziac 18:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
60. Overwhelming support -- Francs2000 21:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
61. He's our family... El_C 21:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   File:Pikachu2.gif. Ëvilphoenix 20:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

2. I don't like his aggressive attitude --Kafuffle 22:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I find it very hard to assume good faith with Boothy's oppositions. Opposing nearly all potential admins. without explanation is essentially incivil, and without such explanation, in fact, he is not abiding by WikiGuidelines. Furthermore, I believe that these oppositions are a result of simple malice. I noticed that Boothy has 16,000 edits, but is not an adm - perhaps he is trying to hold others back. His contributions reflect a tendency of anger when people have only asked a simple question or he is excessivley sarcastic . I request that medition or arbitration be considered against this user. Him abusing the rights of RfA is harmful to the Wiki in my opinion - trolls, vandals and spammers are not allowed to continue in bad faith - so this user should also comport himself in a civil manner on these RfAs. He is abusing his rights here - and he is apparently making no attempts to stop. He has the right to vote, sure, but all the other Wikipedians have the right to a fair RfA. Something needs to happen! Molotov (talk) 03:51, 24 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. Vandal fighting and newbie test reverting, which I do quite a bit of already. Actually being able to block the vandals, and delete the most obvious junk pages would be a great help. I also think I will close quite a few AfDs, I have plenty of experience in voting on them and have already done a few obvious keeps. Also keeping the Main Page up to date and fixing errors on it that are pointed out by non-admins.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I think my recent rescue of DJ Quietstorm from its AfD was one of my best achievements. I also did some work on List of Family Guy episodes and am hoping to get it up to featured list status soon after having taken a bit of a break from it.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. I have come into conflict with Mike Garcia a few times in the past, which did cause me quite a bit of stress (though we were by no means the only participants in any of the conflicts). I tried to help resolve the situations through the talk pages. Otherwise I have only earned the ire of vandals that I can recall. In future I would remain civil, and ask for help from other uninvolved admins if needed.

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.

Alphax

Requests_for_adminship/Alphax|action=edit}} Vote here (22/26/5) ending 02:35 2005 October 23 (UTC)

Alphax (talk · contribs) – A smart, innovative, and hardworking user, with a good sense of humour, who won't get too hot under the collar when performing admin tasks. If successful, Alphax will be a great admin. Ingoolemo  02:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I think this is about the third time Ingoolemo has tried to nominate me now... I guess I'd better accept. Alphax  11:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC) Withdrawing. I'm obviously not ready for this. Alphax  23:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. This user removes vandalism a lot. As an admin they could help more by banning users that continue to vandalise. --☺Adam1213☺ Talk+|WWW 15:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   Are you aware of quite how many lines your sig takes up? -Splash 16:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Strong support. Andre (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support for a very dedicated Wikipedian, who's active in the community. I hope any who decide not to support this candidate can manage to be polite and fair.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 16:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Oops, I forgot to support. Pv.-h4p5 1 |>0|\|+ |-|@\/& 13375k!11z 4|=73.- 411 Ingoolemo  18:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Still Support. Good guy, won't abuse em. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 20:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Extreme Wisconsinite Now Living In Illinois Support! I seriously, honestly, truly thought you were one already (no joking). --WikiFanatic
7. Support the oppose votes are ridiculous (no offence intended :))  Grue  21:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support Molotov (talk)
   21:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Absolutely support. And for the record, the start date is September 2004, over a year ago. -- Essjay · Talk 23:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Extreme Thunderwing support, I've seen this user active on AfD. — JIP | Talk 06:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Alphax enjoys my full support - Mark 08:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support!--Exir Kamalabadi 10:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. BTW, it pisses me off that an admin nomination gets a pile of AFD politics shoved onto it. I don't have to agree with Alphax to trust him with the tools - David Gerard 11:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd hate to say this, David, but comments like the one just made are precisely those that can turn an otherwise reasonable discussion or vote into a factionalizing fooionist shouting match. Nor is this the first time that you make such a comment. Please consider that when someone disagrees with a person from another perceived faction, he usually has a good reason, and is not merely reinforcing a perceived faction struggle. Radiant_>|< 22:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Sadly concur with David Gerard. I strongly advise against inclusion of that extremely divisive question in future RFA's, and if it is included, I strongly caution all candidates against answering it, lest another stupid pile-on should result. This is a very strong admin candidate and those opposing him without good reason should ask themselves what good it does to the wiki to exclude good candidates on the grounds of AfD politics. --Tony Sidaway 12:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    With respect, Tony, I would never oppose someone for adminship just because of voting tendencies on AfD. Alphax has openly stated an intention below to throw deletion policy to the wind; in effect, to use his adminship powers to push his view instead of talking it over like everyone else. He has legitimate qualms, but this is not the way to go about it. Slandering the oppose voters because you disagree with some of their philosophical views is poor form and reflects badly on both you and David - as is supporting a candidate who has vowed to break policy just because you agree with his. Ambi 12:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    Rhetoric aside, do you have any evidence to support your rather extreme claim that Alphax has said that he intends to traduce, rather than enforce, deletion policy? --Tony Sidaway 13:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

15. Support. I fear it's mostly symbolic, now, as the votes pile up. Frankly, if I didn't already know Alphax and know that he is a lot smarter than this AfD would suggest, I'd be seriously considering opposing, too. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support - I like the fact that he expresses opinions, rather than hides them until after the election. Good answers on the extra questions! Guettarda 14:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. I am tired of being asked by this guy to do various admin things. Let him do them himself. And let me add my voice to those objecting to the interrogation of candidates about deletion policy. Kelly Martin 15:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support Echo thoughts of earlier support votes.--MONGO 17:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support, seems sufficiently familiar with policy, the hordes of people opposing notwithstanding. JYolkowski // talk 23:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Delete, nn admincruft...I mean, Support. Bratsche 00:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support He will be OK. --Rogerd 04:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support The arbitrary addition of AFD quesions to this RFA is absurd. --Ryan Delaney 03:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. The answers to questions 5 and 6 strike me as naive. It's an unfortunate feature of AfD that most debates get, say, a handful of participants unless they are controversial or on high profile articles. A lot of the articles that go to AfD are frankly not worth much more than that. It would be verging on the absurd to close such debates as no consensus because they behave like the average AfD debate. The RfC noted in Q6 is frivolous and the defense given of it here is insulting to a large number of people including many who do not participate on AfD. If that's the most level-headed this editor can be, then they aren't ready for adminship for a while yet. The answer to Q1 is thorough, but finishes with something of a personalised mission statement re AfD/VfU — we have enough people on missions as it is, and I though the RfC is specifically to condemn those who currently pursue one. -Splash 16:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   Well, if you think bloc voting without considering the merits of an article is level-headed... and if "people on missions shouldn't be admins", how about we de-sysop all the current members of the ADW and AIW? Alphax  23:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose Slash said it better then I could. Well, slightly harsher then I'd say it too. Ryan Norton 16:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Very weak oppose I agree with Splash on all he says, so here's my very weak oppose. I do think starting the RfC was bold, but also quite frivoulus. And we have way to many bold admins already. gkhan 17:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   I thought "RfC" stood for "request for comments". I was looking for comments. Alphax 23:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

4. Oppose. I thought the RfC was an interesting idea, but the concept of closing Afd's with less than ten votes is ridiculous and completely unworkable.--Scimitar 17:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   Please re-read my answer to Q5. Alphax  23:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   I've re-read it- my understanding is that if there is an article with, say, four votes (two without reasons) from credible contributors, you would close as a no consensus. If I'm mistaken, please let me know, as I'm more than willing to reconsider my oppose vote.--Scimitar 17:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

5. Oppose. The RfC was somewhere in the grey area between Be Bold and WP:POINT, but with the jumping on the bandwagon of the totally misunderstood, and quite frankly sad, editcountitis debate as well as his comment on consensus make me think that the RfC was geared more towards WP:POINT and future actions will head towards that way as well. However, he did make me laugh in a good way with his comment on Redwolf24's RfB, so much so that I created a user award for it. Karmafist 17:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
6. I have to oppose based on question 5. If he's not going to call a vote with 9 votes to delete and 0 to keep a "delete" because it lacks 10 votes then we have a problem. Most debates on AfD don't get 10 votes. More than half are unanimous deletes, but they usually have more like 4 or 5. -R. fiend 18:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   When people see 4-5 "delete, nn." votes in a row they often don't bother actually reading the article (they jump on the bandwagon, or don't bother voting at all), so articles can be sneakily deleted without much thought. The same applies to 4-5 keep votes in a row. Alphax  23:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   How do you know they don't read them? I, for one, read every article that I vote on at AfD (doing less work there now due to my schoolwork), and sometimes "Delete, nn" is all that needs to be said. It seems somewhat of a hasty generalization to say that AfD voters are not reading the articles in question. --Idont Havaname 01:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

7. Oppose per reasons given before. Private Butcher 19:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Strong Oppose Clearly Don't like the answers for 5 and 6. I dont trust this user with AFDs --JAranda | watz sup 19:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   I don't trust the current AfD/VfU system. Alphax  23:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

9. Oppose based on current answer to closing AfD. As I understand it closure is left to the judgement of the administrator. Disregarding a vote on the basis proposed does not seem appropriate. The voter would have indicated his/her views with the vote and may feel that reasons are adequately covered above - for example, in the nomination if supporting deletion. The approach proposed seems inconsistent with the community approach generally; in this forum, support votes on RfA are not queried when they give no reason.--User:AYArktos | Talk 19:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   If someone says "(keep|delete) per (name)", where (name) has given a detailed reason several lines long, and nothing has changed in the article since the initial vote has changed, I'd see that as a valid vote. And maybe all votes should be questioned. Alphax  23:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   From what I understand your answer to question 5.2 below and the way you have my addressed my answer here, you would ignore any vote that merely stated keep or delete or whatever and signed their name, even if they were a valid user and given that there is no community suggestion at present that reasons for a vote need to be provided. I would suggest by voting and signing that should be sufficient to indicate their intention especially since there is currently no requirement to justify the position. For an example see support votes numbered 2, 8, 11, 12 above as votes that seem to indicate no reason for support. As I understand it you would ignore them for arriving at a decision about what concensus the community had reached.--User:AYArktos | Talk 11:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

10. Oppose on AfD grounds, particularly as AfD procedure specifically encourages participants not to "pile on" when the outcome is clear. Expecting 10 votes for a unanimous consensus is tacitly expecting Wikipedians to ignore this policy. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

    Actually, I'd like to see informed decision making taking place. At present all you have to do to get something kept or deleted is get 4-6 keep/delete votes in a row, and no-one else will bother. Alphax  23:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

    As noted, that proposal runs counter to policy and the objective realities of AfD will cause said policy to result in no decision. Also, I don't like the lack of WP:AGF in blanketly accusing a 10-vote unanimous of being baseless lemming-votes (see responses to Splash and R. Fiend) while simultaneously deciding that smaller votes are inconclusive. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 23:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

    It's hard to assume good faith when people scream "we are winning! You cannot defeat us!" in the middle of AfD debates. So long as nobody takes a stand against AfD nuts, nothing will change. Alphax  03:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    Oppose. I prefer candidates to have at least four months on Misplaced Pages. While your edit count well exceeds my minimum, you have only been here less than a month, and two and a half months is about the bare minumum I would consider supporting. Ëvilphoenix 21:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

    My first edit was on September 21, 2004 . Alphax  23:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

    Whoops, my bad. I absolutely mis-read that. Thanks for correcting me. Ëvilphoenix 04:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

11. Very strong oppose. Alphax is a good user, and makes a lot of good contributions. His comments below, however, suggest that he'd make a terrible admin. Ambi 00:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Oppose I'm sorry, but I haven't been crazy about this user since I read the AfD RfC. Alphax's view on deletionists and inclusionists is clouding his judgment about consensus, as seen in Q5. Acetic' 01:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    Actually, I think the actions of inclusionists and deletionists are turning the community's definition of "consensus" into "whoever screams the loudest". Don't you think we need some sanity put back into AfD? This is why I think we should be taking a closer look at what we are doing and not just saying "oh, there are 5 votes to keep/delete and nothing else, let's keep/delete it" - don't forget, anything done by one admin can just as easily be undone by another. Alphax  03:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    Did I miss something? When did AfD descend into entropy? I know the process isn't perfect, but I think your crusade against it is unnecessary. Five people in a row vote to keep an article. You instantly assume that inclusionists are taking over the world? Perhaps it was just a bad faith nomination. Six delete votes in secession? Dear Jimbo, it's a conspiracy! But seriously, I think you're making too much of this. Deletionist and Inclusionist are just two silly labels people categorize each other with. Just like the Punks, Preps, Jocks, etc. from high school. I don't think those two sects are any threat to our deletion process. What did you hope to accomplish with that RfC? Do you want those associations disbanded? Acetic' 04:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    Yes, from the day it was created, probably, to get rid of the bloc voting mentality, and yes. In that order. Alphax  07:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    You're sure making a mountain out of a molehill. The AIW and ADW were active for about a week many months ago, and have done absolutely nothing ever since - something which I've supported all along. Yet somehow they've become the bogeyman in your mind; I'm not really sure why. Ambi 07:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    Because they appear to be serious, and people act accordingly, resulting in AfD being such a cesspit that people often leave when they find it. People who mindlessly go through voting to keep/delete everything they see need to RTFA. Disregarding the votes of people who haven't even bothered to RTFA is one way to get them to. Alphax  11:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

13. Oppose; do not trust on AfD. Ral315 W_S 01:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    Because I don't pander to the inclusionist/deletionist tendancies of the community? How utterly lame. Alphax  03:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    No, because I think that closing an AFD with 8 delete votes as no consensus is about the stupidest thing you can do. I could go into other things as well, but I'd rather not type a long-winded diatribe against you and make us both look like asses. Ral315 W_S 07:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

14. Oppose, purely because he's being rude to people exercising their right to vote 'oppose' if they wish (see the above vote). Not conduct becoming an admin. Proto t c 13:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Oppose per Proto. Admins need to defuse, not enflame. — mendel ☎ 13:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Oppose. If a user wants to start a debate over policy (such as AfD), they should do so in a talk forum, not by trying to become and admin and unilaterally implementing a new policy themselves. The discretion given to admins on things like AfD closings, blockings, and speedy deletions is on a case by case basis, to keep Misplaced Pages running smoothly; as reactions to previous incidents have shown, it would be an abuse of administrator powers to use them in an effort to spark or influence policy debates. From the answers below, I think that is what this user intends to do. --Aquillion 20:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Oppose- rude and arrogant. Astrotrain 21:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Oppose. I wholeheartedly agree with Alphax that AFD is in need of reform, and would be happy to hear his suggestions. However, until we have an alternative, it is improper to unilaterally use the process in a way that is such a far cry from what is generally agreed upon. Radiant_>|< 22:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Oppose per Proto. Admins should try and adhere to the Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks policies. If a user cannot do so even on their own Requests for adminship (a time when people are on their best behaviour), then that strikes me as a very bad sign indeed. Don't give a fig about AfD views, though. — Matt Crypto 22:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Oppose - Proto put it well; imho Alphax needs to calm down some before I can trust him as an admin. --Stormie 00:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Oppose: I'm bothered by the "how lame" comment above. I'd oppose for other reasons too, but others have already commented on those sufficiently, I think. Jonathunder 05:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Oppose If I'm reading his response to Q5.1 (below) correctly, he's saying he'd close an AfD with, say, 8 or 9 unanimous delete votes as a keep?! That's way out of step with policy and community standards. Since there's every reason to believe this user could not be trusted to close AfD, I must vote to oppose. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Oppose, mostly for reasons already listed by Proto and Acetic Acid. Filing an RfC against all inclusionists and all deletionists is, as already pointed out, a mix of being overly WP:BOLD and breaking WP:POINT; and I noticed from reading Wikien-l last month that his views on the RfC are rather extreme. Threatening an RfC against a user is a rather serious matter, whether you yourself have had any interaction with that user or not. Don't file an RfC against a club of users, especially if you've only had minimal interaction with most of them. A lot of the "inclusionists" and "deletionists" do not do blind voting for keeping or deleting articles just because they are in a specific category; the summaries that they give at m:AIW and m:ADW shed more light on that; there's not really a "bloc" mentality among them, aside from the most radical ones at either end of the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum. Also, very few AfD's get 10 votes or more, as already mentioned, and waiting for 10 votes would only make our AfD backlogs that much more serious. --Idont Havaname 01:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Oppose due to the candidates stance on needing 10 votes to close an AFD. Johntex\ 18:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Oppose -- we don't need another admin who just does what he likes on AfD regardless of rules or the outcome of the votes. CDThieme 22:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Strong Oppose per Lomn's research in the comments section and for incivility. A large portion of AfD deletion results are unanimous with fewer than ten votes – vanity that wasn't quite speediable vanity, spam, band vanity, etc. Closing admins get wide discretion, but any personal closure guideline that would provide an automatic keep for so many articles that are regularly deleted – and rightly so – through AfD would be disastrous. Calling someone else's good-faith vote "lame" on your own RfA is inexcusable. android79 13:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Your RFC and your views on AFD makes you too controversial for my tastes. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 02:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutral. In fact the RFC filed against the entire inclusionist and deletionist associations was OK with me, in good faith, and did bring attention to a problem which has affected deletion debates: factionalism. The reason I cannot support is that an admin closing debates with 8 deletes, 0 keeps, as "no consensus" because of a quorum demand of 10 votes will seriously affect the AFD system. Even articles which clearly and objectively must be deleted (hoaxes are things even hardline inclusionists don't usually want kept) usually get less than ten votes, and keeping them because of quorum demands is bureaucratic and can ultimately hurt the integrity of the encyclopedia. Alphax is indeed a valuable contributor to the project, and my objecton is only that one, therefore I am definitely not putting my name in the oppose column. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Reluctantly Neutral. I thought you already were one, and wish you were, but I just can't support your views on closing AfDs. That doesn't mean I don't respect your right to hold that view (and it has its merits) but actually pushing it in practice would go clearly against all deletion policy and border on WP:POINT. Don't get me wrong you're a great editor and I didn't have a problem with the RfC, but admins should at least have broadly similar standards for closing AfD debates. the wub "?!" 16:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Neutral at this stage. However, I am curious about what you think your stance re AfD might be in six months time if you were nommed again. IOW, might you mellow a little, or cling to your current convictions?Moriori 02:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Editcountitis sucks. Long live Misplaced Pages! For great encyclopedia! ¡Viva La Revolucion! Alphax  11:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• If I interpret your answers to the questions correctly, what you're really saying is that you wouldn't feel comfortable closing an AfD debate with less than 10 votes on it. For those of you that have concerns about this, I'd like to point out that any admin closing AfD debates is a good thing. Even if he only closes debates with over ten votes that have clear consensus, thats that many less debates for other admins to close. Just something to consider. Ëvilphoenix 21:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • In response to Evilphoenix's oppose vote on the grounds of how long Alphax has been actively contributing to Misplaced Pages - I think it is from September 2004 - ie over one year.--User:AYArktos | Talk 22:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• With regards to Alphax's stated AfD closing policy. As of 18 October, the AfD pages for 13-15 October have 354 non-speedied entries. Of those, only 79 (22%) meet Alphax's 10-vote minimum requirement for a result other than an automatic non-consensus keep. I did not attempt to interpret the additional "baseless vote" criterion, which would likely lower that number. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Moved from "oppose" category due to RfA policy (anons cannot vote):Oppose A month ago he was threatening to leave Not ready to be an administrator.71.28.243.246 16:41, 18 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. Being a more effective RC patroller (I use Sam Hocevar's script, which doesn't always work, and I'm always having to ask someone else to block the persistant ones who won't respond to being asked nicely), getting rid of dodgy images (as I've been doing a bit of on commons:), responding to page protection and speedy deletion requests, fixing cut and paste moves (yes, they still happen), trying to clean up the mess that still is AfD, making informed decisions at VfU (beyond "valid AfD"), fixing interface bugs... whatever the community demands of me.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. My work on the Welcoming committee has been fun, as it (hopefully) gives new users a few pointers as to how to help out around the place (and hopefully not do strange things like suing us in a COURT OF LAW). Article-wise, I rewrote Age of Wonders fairly soon after I got here, started the articles on AustNet and Division of Mayo, did a few messy page merges (XM29 OICW, Fairchild Republic), and have done a fair bit of double-redirect and disambiguation link repair (I helped get the latter out of a murky little subpage). Oh, I also helped get Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject User scripts started, which hopefully will provide some nifty features sometime in the future...

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 recieved a few angry comments over time, but nothing that I couln't just laugh off. I haven't really had any article disputes, but I don't envisage having to do anything stupid if they do arise. A few weeks ago I took a four-day wikibreak, but I think I'm over that now.

4. Do you have an email address set?

A. Yes.

5. What is your opinion re: consensus on AfD?

A. 70-75% with at least 10 clear non-sock/meatpuppet votes that have reasons given. If a vote doesn't have a clear reason, I'll disregard it.

Q5.1 If an AfD doesn't have that many votes would you close it as a no consensus keep or leave it for another admin? the wub "?!" 19:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

A. Close as a no consensus keep. Alphax  23:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Q5.2 Am I correct in understanding that your answer implies that when closing an AfD, you would not include in your count AFD votes that were unaccompanied by a comment even though signed by a "non-sock/meatpuppet". If say we have 14 votes to delete (with reasons) and 10 votes to keep but 4 of the keep votes are with out reasons, you disregard those and you have a 70% (14 out of 20 rather than out of 24) vote in favour of deletion?--User:AYArktos | Talk 22:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

70% is probably too close to call. It would depend on the strength of the arguments and the quality of the article - if in doubt, I'd leave it to someone else.

I find it ironic that you're so critical of inclusionism/deletionism when you take such an inclusionist stand on closing AFD debates. Some might call that hypocrisy. Ambi 07:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly willing to delete things as well, but the deletion policy says "if in doubt, don't delete". If you feel the need to classify me as anything, I'm a mergist. Alphax  13:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

6. What's with the request for comments against all the deletionists and inclusionists?

A. I feel that they are disruptive to AfD and VfU and should be reprimanded for making Misplaced Pages such a hostile place to potential contributors.

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.

GregAsche

Final (45/1/0) ending 02:11 October 24 (UTC)

GregAsche (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate GregAsche for adminship. He has been a user in Misplaced Pages since April 2005 and very active in sinse August, and has racked up more than 2000 edits since then. He is a dedicated editor who is one of the top RC patrolers that is not a admin and also useful in AFD and also rarelykeenly avoids conflicts. He deserves the extra admin tools and would make a outstanding admin. JAranda | watz sup 02:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

He's a really great guy who asks for help when he's not sure, and is bold when he is sure. He communicates well, an admin asset, and all around deserves the tools. Go mop now, and get my coffee. ;-) Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 02:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I graciously accept, thank you for the nomination. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Extreme Support As nominator JAranda | watz sup 02:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support as Co-nominator. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 02:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Freakishly Strong Support based on my positive interactions with this editor in various fora, particularly Portal:Law.  BD2412 02:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
4. HULK SUPPORT --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 03:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
5. SUPPORT --pgk 05:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
6. That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 06:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
7. The nominator's assertion that he rarely avoids conflicts troubles me. But I will support anyway! Christopher Parham (talk) 06:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

   Heh, I think he just had a bad choice of words there. -Greg Asche (talk) 12:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

8. Support - have seen some of his edits. Also works, like any other Wiki user would, to revert vandalism. Would be deserved. -- NSLE | Talk 09:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Strong support. sɪzlæk 10:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support MONGO 11:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support! Kirill Lokshin 12:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Andre (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. No-brainer.--Scimitar 17:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support He isn't already? Private Butcher 19:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
15. {{subst:ITHWOA}} -- (drini's page|☎) 19:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support Very active doing RC patrol. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Without reservation. -- Essjay · Talk 23:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support GregAsche removes vandalism a lot and as a admin he could ban vandalse --☺Adam1213☺ Talk +|WWW 00:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support, I thought I had voted before, but I hadn't. Good RC Patroller, give him the mop and the flamethrower. Titoxd 00:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Indubitably Ral315 W_S 01:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Afford him the keys to the janitor closet. We need more like him, indeed ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Strong Sopport. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 04:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support, of course! Seen 'em around on the RC patrol!! >: Roby Wayne 06:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. the wub "?!" 16:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support Astrotrain 21:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Great user, just tried to nominate him myself as i didnt realise he already was! Martin 22:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
27. support it is good to have greg around here Yuckfoo 23:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support Have seen some good interventions, and being nominated by Redwolf helps The Minister of War 09:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support Dlyons493 Talk 22:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support. A top-notch vandal fighter. Owen× ☎ 23:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. When it comes to reverting vandalism, this guy is the Flash! KHM03 23:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support; he's a good RC patroller, and everything I've seen so far is excellent. Antandrus (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Hai Ryan Norton 00:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support—Gaff 02:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
35. FireFox 08:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support --Sebastian Kessel 20:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support. Robert 00:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Support and congratulations in advance.  :) Hall Monitor 19:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
39. Support. For sure. SlimVirgin 07:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
40. Furry Alien Support - What, not an admin already? Alf 08:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Support' Doc (?) 18:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
42. Support V. Molotov (talk)
    19:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
43. Support I thought he was one. Ann Heneghan 02:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
44. Support. GregAsche is a very courteous RC patroller and has sufficiently proven his dedication to this project. Thatdog 15:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
45. Supprt as everyone above. Jkelly 17:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   File:Pikachu2.gif. Ëvilphoenix 20:15, 22 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. Blocking persistent vandals, clearing the ever growing backlog at AfD, deleting speedys, filling requests for protection and unprotection, and most of all using the admin rollback button on vandalism (although I already use Sam Hocevar's godmode-light.js, but it is a bit slow.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I've contributed a lot to United States Supreme Court articles such as Republican Party of Minnesota v. White and Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States. I also have probably hundreds of contribs to articles I find on Special:Newpages that I add stub tags too, correct spelling and grammar mistakes, fix formatting, etc.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. I haven't had any serious conflicts yet, mainly anon vandals who I reverted blanking my user page and adding insults, and a few others where I have just backed off before things escalated.

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.

CambridgeBayWeather

Final (37/0/0) ended 14:09 23 October 2005 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate CambridgeBayWeather for adminship simply because I see him/her doing so much good work that I feel Misplaced Pages would be a much better place if he/she had the admin tools. Vital stats are: 4273 edits, first edit 11-June-05. If there was ever a case for a "speedy promote" then this is it! Martin 14:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you very much. I would be honoured to be considered as an administrator. CambridgeBayWeather 05:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Definately. Martin 11:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support MONGO 11:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support Excellent contribs: welcoming, wikifying, re-directing and creating. Wish I could remember edit summaries as regularly. Marskell 11:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. A great editor! Worth interrupting my Wikibreak to support this candidate. Owen× ☎ 12:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support I constantly see this name attached to good work. I am getting sick of it :) Qaz 13:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support Have seen lots of good contribs from him! --JoanneB 14:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support goes without saying. For all of the above reasons and probably some below as well but wiki is not a crystal ball. Dlyons493 Talk 14:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC). This was me - wiki seems to log me out randomly. Dlyons493 Talk 08:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

   IP vote =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

8. S'port - you can't get too many Canadians in Misplaced Pages (excellent contributor) --Doc (?) 14:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
9. You amuse us, CambridgeBayWeather! The only thing funnier... is your imminent adminship! — JIP | Talk 14:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support Private Butcher 15:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support seems to vote on every RFA. freestylefrappe 15:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support Of Course --JAranda | watz sup 16:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support Was thinking of nominating him myself. -Greg Asche (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. Yes please! Shauri smile! 21:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Strong support -- Francs2000 22:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 23:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
19. I haven't had much opportunity to interact, but I do remember a survey on which Mr. Weather was a respondent, and he was very forthright in admitting that his edit count was insufficient to participate. Despite being unable to vote, he showed thoughtfulness in the comments he made. Ingoolemo  02:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. -Splash 03:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. I see on my watchlist that he does very good work on articles related to Canada's North. Luigizanasi 03:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. Seen'em, like'em. - RoyBoy 04:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support, as has been said above, I see this name reverting vandalism all the time.-gadfium 08:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. Seen him during RC-patrol. Deserves his "Exceptional Newcomer" award. jni 09:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. sɪzlæk 10:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support The usual ITHWO (I Thought He Was One). Banes 12:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Andre (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support Stolen off JIP, I admit it FireFox 17:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
29. -- (drini's page|☎) 19:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Florida Bay Weather Support. «»Who?¿? 22:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. Fine and sensible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Whoa... First time for me using RFA cliche #1, but... I thought this guy was already an admin! Support.  Denelson83  07:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. Have noticed him around a lot recently. Will make a great admin. the wub "?!" 16:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support - He often appears on my watchlist doing Goog Things. The JPS 17:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
35. support he is a good contributor Yuckfoo 04:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support - Only suprises me the 3680 article edits but only 118 article talk pages... but in the end, who cares. :) --Sebastian Kessel 20:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Speedy support, per nom. Titoxd 21:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Support Positive contributions to WP. Good egg. Hamster Sandwich 19:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
39. Support should make good admin. Alf 08:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
40. Support. —Wayward 11:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Support V. Molotov (talk)
    19:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
42. Support - I was under the illusion that I had already voted support. Never mind. Better late than never... --Celestianpower 21:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   File:Pikachu2.gif. Ëvilphoenix 20:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• Due to the fact that I do some of my editing at work and that for some reason I get logged out of Misplaced Pages I would ask that potential voters please take a look at User talk:216.126.246.78 and User talk:216.126.246.118. The user pages for these two redirect to User:CambridgeBayWeather. The edits made from these two were not great but I feel that it's important that everyone know from what accounts I am editing and not using a sockpuppet. CambridgeBayWeather 05:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think you should probably unredirect them. It's just a matter of time before a vandal acquires the address and a stressed-out RC patroller leaves the warning messages on your talk page! -Splash 03:00, 17 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 continue on with speedy deletes but more carefully. In other words, as a non-administrator it's very easy to tag articles for speedy knowing that someone else will check it over. As an administrator I would be the one checking to see if it could be changed to a redirect or brought up to a higher standard (I've already got better at doing both of these) rather than a speedy delete. I would like to try and help both with closing AfD and copyvios. Reverting of vandalism and blocking vandals where necessary. I would/do have a far bit of time for this sort of work as I have access both at home and during work. If I found that I was unsure of something then I would seek the advice of a more senior administrator.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. As is obvious from my edits I am very involved in creating Canadian airports. This is being done because it's required rather than because I enjoy it. I do enjoy doing RC patrol to see what's happening. However, the thing I enjoy most is when doing RC patrol I come across articles like Harold Wagstaff and Henry Neville. The first one I found tagged as a speedy consisting of "Harold Wagstaff is a member of the Hall of Fame". A quick search on Google indicated that he was real and had some claim to notability. I made a quick save by removing the tag, giving a bit of context and saving with a edit summary indicating that I would work on the article. After a while I was able to produce a stub on the man that is now ready for editing by someone with more knowledge of Rugby League. I did this at work and due to being logged out of Misplaced Pages after 5-10 minutes it appears in the edit summary as User talk:216.126.246.78. The Henry Neville was a similar situation but was already a stub. I am not saying that I enjoy doing this due to the fact that I am producing great articles with wonderful prose, which I am not, but it gives me the opportunity to learn something new and the ability to provide information for others to build 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. So far very little. I suspect that because that this is due to the fact that the articles that are controversial are so far beyond my knowledge that I any edits I did to them (other than reverting obvious vandalism) would probably be considered vandalism anyway. There have only been a couple of people that I have had minor run in with. See User talk:70.81.117.175 who had made edits to Extremes on Earth for which I could not find a source. The nature of his edits, changing the -63 at Snag coldest in North America to -70 at Resolute and that the coldest inhabited place is Resolute at -22.8 (average) are related to my work and I felt they were incorrect. I asked for sources and he quoted the Scholastic Book of World Records for the average and two people on television for the -70. I know that depending on the way the data is handled can produce different results so I did not change that. However, I did revert the -70 back to the standard and verifiable -63. I also tried to explain that TV is not a valid source for information. It stayed at -63 until 02 October when he changed it back to -70 and I then reverted it. It happened again the next day. Since then the temperature has stood and if it happens again I would seek the assistance of someone else to see if I was being unreasonable. The only other person that I had a run in with was here: User talk:Lightbringer. Please see the section entitled "List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects". It was not being called a Mason or a provider of Masonic propaganda (I'm not a Mason) but the fact that I would cut and paste copyright material. He has not answered my request and I doubt that I will have anything more to do with this user. In truth I come to Misplaced Pages to get away from the stress provided to me by my supervisor and I very much doubt that anything here could provide me with that much stress. Anyway, if I was being stressed then I would just stop for a few days rather than react to it.

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.

Voice of All(MTG)

Final (26/4/2) ended 20:27 October 22, 2005 (UTC)

Voice of All(MTG) (talk · contribs) – I have been editing Misplaced Pages for several months now. I would like to be able to do more to prevent further vandalism to articles, which makes Misplaced Pages needlessly lose credibility. In addition, I don't mind perfoming some of the day-to-day cleanup tasks, such as checking RfAs ands AfDs and what not. I already do many of those tasks when I have the time, along with tagging, cleanup, and NPOV rewordings. I also follow a 1RR instead of 3RR as reverting someone more than once tends to lead staight into the next three times and just increases stress. My objective, as stated on my user page, is to make Misplaced Pages a factual, objective, and citable source. I stongly believe in encyclopedic standards for all Misplaced Pages articles; I do not, however, believe in needless censorship that takes away from articles. I have gained much experience editing Misplaced Pages(such as learning to use more edit summaries!:)), and I think that it would be to Misplaced Pages's benefit if I was given some extra tools. Voice of All 20:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

For the above reasons, I have nominated myself for adminship:

Support

1. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 21:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support - I've seen him about the place being civil and nice. --Celestianpower 21:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support, seems like a good user, and will be a good admin. But first, I have more edits than you ha ha! Private Butcher 21:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support of course. Ryan Norton 21:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support -Greg Asche (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 21:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
7. --JAranda | watz sup 00:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support!  BD2412 05:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
9. SupportI like this editor and think he/she is one of the best mannered editors on the Wiki. I see Adminship as "no big deal" but encourage Voice of All to try and contribute more on RC Patrol and to heed friendly advice from well regarded admins that offer it.--MONGO 07:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support Polite editor, with many good contributions. Banes 15:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support — JIP | Talk 16:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support, with e-mail enabled. Thanks for doing so. Ral315 W_S 18:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support -- Francs2000 22:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Voice of Support(sɪzlæk 11:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC))
15. Andre (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
16. -- (drini's page|☎) 19:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support -- Essjay · Talk 23:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Looking at his talk page, VAMTG appears to have a very high spirit. Supporting.  Denelson83  07:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. the wub "?!" 16:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support devotion is more important than clicking "random article". freestylefrappe 00:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. Friday (talk) 02:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
22. FireFox 08:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. The Minister of War 10:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. Very knowledgable, very helpful, very mature. This user knows a lot about Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages policy. He leave insightful and meaningful comments on the discussion page. And his contributions are solid. My vote thus reflects this opinion. -- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 22:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support V. Molotov (talk)
    19:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. --tomf688 22:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose till user sets/enables his email id. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  Oppose per Nichalp. An admin needs an e-mail address for contact. Please leave a note on my talk page if you do so, and I'll gladly reconsider my vote. Ral315 W_S 08:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  I already posted it my email up there yesterday on my user page. I also just enabled that e-mail feature.Voice of All 15:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  Thanks for enabling it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  Do not listen to him... Listen to us, User:JIP! An admin doesn't necessarily need an e-mail address. — JIP | Talk 16:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  Yes, they most certainly do. Blockee's should be able to email you. If you don't have one set, I do hope you set it now. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 05:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Oppose. Many minor edits to only a few articles, and use of edit summaries is very poor. Owen× ☎ 12:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   I either use an edit summary or "minor" when editing article space depending on what I am doing, so I would not considered it to be "very" poor. Also, I have made many edits that were not "minor", such as NLP, George Bush, History of Peurto Rico, Olmsted Amendment,Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery, Operation Bootstrap, Wraparound mortgage,Cephalosporin...and so on...I could go on...Finally, I would by no means not consider 230 distinct pages to be "only a few". 4000 Distince article is definitely a lot, so is 1000, but 230 is not "a few". Some people enjoy clicking "random page", some don't; both are still equally useful. Please check edit histories before making such comments and please do not exaggerate so much. Thank you.Voice of All 14:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

2. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   Note that this user has put "oppose", without any explanation on almost every single RfA all in one short time period. This is either an agenda(no more admins?) or a possible RfC case. Note that the RfA guidelines say please include a short explanation of your reasoning, particularly when opposing a nomination.Voice of All 21:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   He has done for a while now, though I seem to recall he has voted support on a few very rare occasions. As for an RFC, it's been and gone. the wub "?!" 23:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   Boothy does have admin standards and he explained them to Acetic Acid in one of his talk archives and they are very high so many admins dont even pass with his high admin standards, whichc explains his oppose vote. Jobe6 01:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

   Yea I seen Him vote support once in a while but that rare I think his limits on adminship are somewhere --JAranda | watz sup 23:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   here. -Greg Asche (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

3. (posted after edit conflict with the wub) Oppose — while Voice of All(MTG) is a great contributor, I recently came across this edit posted by him on Redwolf24's talk page: boothy344 has voted no on every single RfA without explanation. This is not only suspesious, but against RfA guidlines. This is possible trolling warranting RfC. I wonder if the beaurocrates even count such silly votes. This is just ridiculous. (sic) () As far as I'm concerned, I would prefer admin candidates not to call someone a possible troll. Not only will this usually flame a conflict, but it may be considered a personal attack. Though I don't agree with Boothy's votes, he is a respected Wikipedian in good standing and should not be called a troll. The rest of the comment, along with his response to Boothy's vote above, also makes me hesistant. While it's OK to question Boothy's votes (many have done so, and I'm sure many will do so in the future), it's certainly not OK to call someone a troll. Combined with a low edit count percentage and diminishing edits on the project (see the chart; your overall contributions have leveled off since 9/16), I just don't think you're ready yet. You're a great Wikipedian, VOA, so please don't be discouraged by my comments. If this RfA fails (which it looks like it won't), I'd gladly support you in the future. Best wishes, and thanks for your understanding. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 23:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   I said "possible" trolling. In addittion, my edits have increased shortly after I arrived at college. While I was first getting set up there, freshman year,(sept 18), I did not have much edit time. So that explains the temporary edit decrease. They are on the rise again, just get a new chart with Kate's tool or something. Also, I would not accuse him possible trolling if I was confronting him, I was merely discussing that possibility with other people. You should not the distinction. Also, thank you for your respect though, as the other two oppose votes are either unexplained or harsh and exaggerated. Voice of All 02:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

   Weak oppose Neutral based on: "Also, I would not accuse him possible trolling if I was confronting him, I was merely discussing that possibility with other people. You should not the distinction (sic)." I do note the distinction and think it a poor one. If you are unwilling to say something to someone directly how is it becoming of you to say it to others? Slander is not slander if presented in a person's company; it only becomes so when an accusation is levelled to third parties. Marskell 09:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

   It is not slander, I said "possible".

   And Boothy would not listen to me anyway, as others have tried, even made an RfC against him, and he totally ignored it. He simply signs under oppose, not bothering to even write "oppose", and then moves on to the next RfA and does the same. When people ask why, he just ignores them(I think that he did responde once to someone though).

   I often find it useful to discuss possible explanations of civility matter with other reasonable people like RedWolf24, and after I consider their opinions and ideas, I then can decide how to attack the situation. MONGO also believes that Boothy was being disruptive and unreasonable, but he also said that he doubts that he is a troll. I considered his opinion and agree. Let me be clear: I do not think that Boothy is a troll, he has made plenty of good contribitions. However, I do believe that being disruptive on RfA is a serious matter, that he should have responded in his RfC, and that such behavoir is uncivil, uneccesary, and makes Misplaced Pages more cold and harsh than it need be.

   Slander is knowingly saying something false about someone. I said possible trolling, not "he is a troll". In fact, one can do things that are considered trolling and still not be a troll, as they perhaps do not realize the extend of their actions. If I said "he is a troll" or "that was trolling", then it would be possible slander. If I said those things(which I didn't) and I knew that he was not trolling, then it would be slander.Voice of All 16:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

   Slander is knowingly saying something false about someone in their absence. Your boss is quite within his rights to bring you into his office and say "I believe you are stealing, what do you have to say for yourself?" even if he is in error; they are not allowed to circulate a rumour to this affect (or even "possibly stealing" which is just a subtler form of slander) amongst others, true or not, in the absence of your being able to defend yourself. Wiki isn't a court obviously, but my implication above is that it is actually acceptable to go to Boothy's page and tell him he is behaving like a troll if that's how you feel and you should actually do this rather than raising it with other people. Granted, an oppose without comment is frustrating and you have taken the time to respond so I will move to neutral. Marskell 17:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

   Thank you. I will try to be more direct in the future, but discussing it with a few others(2-3) in such cases helps me get a more neutral opinion if I am upset by something the relavant person is doing. That way, if I confront him/her, my greviences will less provacative and therefore more productive.Voice of All 17:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

4. Strong oppose The fact that you are in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit the former Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency concerns me as well as calling assuming boothy a troll. Jobe6 21:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I never called him a "troll", that is just incorrect. Please read my above comments. Thank you.Voice of All 22:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral- Few edits on Misplaced Pages name space, and only 209 distinct pages edited. I would suggest a bit more grunt work and then I will support. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 22:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutral- per Jossifresco --Sebastian Kessel 19:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Candidate doesn't appear to contactable be email.Geni 22:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I posted my ID, so that is no longer the case.Voice of All 15:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Could You tell what specific articles have you written from start (major contributions)? feydey 23:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• A chart showing this user's edits along with a total # of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:Voice-of-All(MTG)-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 14:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Use of edit summaries is 37%, 45% last 500 edits. Average edits per day is 17 and stable. --Durin 14:40, 17 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 will continue to participate in RfAs and VfDs along with various Community Portal Open Tasks. As an administrator, I could not only vote on AfDs, but I could also enforce the consensus once the polls close.

B. Additionally, I could delete relatively new (old enough that they are not just developing stubs) pages that obviosly meet speedy deletion requirements.

C. Reverting vandals using the Rollback feature.

D. Protecting articles only if absolutely necessary(severe POV disputes/trolls/nonstop vandalism from various sources).

2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I really enjoyed making edits to Puerto Rico related articles, as they have a calm and onstructive editing envirnment. Doing the research and finding sources gave me a break from NPOV tiptoeing on hot topics.

B. On the other hand, My expansions to the Health section, among other edits, to the George Bush article were quite pleasing, as only constructive edits were made to it by other users, in spite of the fact that the page is on such a contraversial topic. I also enjoyed making other NPOV edits to contraversial pages without getting into any conflicts; this is a testimant to the maturity and reasonable nature of most of Misplaced Pages's regular contributors.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. My first few day here were rough as I ran into an IP troll. I removed his comment on the George Bush page, which made things get worse. I then realized that generally, it is better to just leave the comments alone, hence giving them no attention, hence I am not feeding the troll.

B. During my ealier time here, I also made an edited out some of Gavin the Chosen's amazingly poor grammar, causing RyanFriesling, who did not notice the ":)" in my edit summary to point errors that I made. That develped into a confict on the talk page, which soon after,was resolved on Ryan's talk page. She misunderstood that I was kidding around and I mistakenly assumed that she was trolling. So I further learned to Assume Good Faith after that(although that is admittedly one of the hardest Wiki-ideals to master).

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

• Requests for permissions on other Wikimedia projects
• Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on meta
• Requests for self-de-adminship on any project can be made at m:Requests for permissions.
• Requests to mark a user as a bot can be made at m:Requests for permissions following consensus at wikipedia talk:bots that the bot should be allowed to run.
• Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges

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

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

• Successful requests for adminship
• Unsuccessful requests for adminship
• Misplaced Pages requests
• Misplaced Pages administration