Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:21, 24 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 request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Chowells

Final (31/12/2) ended 00:34 October 31, 2005 (UTC)

Chowells (talk · contribs) – I've thought about this for a while but I'm going to self-nominate myself. I think the only reason why I might be unsuccessful is that in some people's eyes I might not have been around long enough. But I'm a quick learner, have created quite a few articles from scratch, done quite a bit of refactoring on existing articles and done quite a bit of admin/cleanup work so I think I have sufficient experience. I joined[REDACTED] in July 2004 and I had a handful of minor edits until the beginning/mid September 2005. Since that, apart from my first week back at uni and whilst I was on holiday I've been actively working on[REDACTED] pretty much every day. chowells 00:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Gladly accept, naturally ;) chowells 00:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Allow me to be the first. Editcountitus is teh sux, and the one who invented the editcounter realizes this. Did Kate post that message for no reason? Did she convince no one? Because he is under 2000 (Angela made it with 68, and I guess she's an alright editor...) does it mean he'll abuse the tools? I trust that he'll ask when he's not sure what to do. The only reason to oppose someone based on edit count would be in the unlikely possibility that they could be some troll, and looking at Chowells edits, he must be one damn good actor if he is one ;-) Redwolf24 (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   Also note that although my first edit was April 20th, I believe I had a period of inactivity in May (I'm sorry, I was in Europe...) and then I passed RfA July 26 or so, so I wasn't even active for three months, and yet I'd say I'm a pretty active admin... Redwolf24 (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   You're sorry that you were in Europe? What's wrong with Europe? I live there. — JIP | Talk 09:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

   The only thing Kate convinced me of was that s/he likes to condescend. Marskell 16:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Cautious support per Redwolf. ~~ N (t/c) 01:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support V/M ! 01:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support with no reservations, I trust Chowells very much. -Greg Asche (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   Appending to this, I'd like to point out that the creep in standards for admins is getting bad. 1000 edits is plenty, don't make it 2000. -Greg Asche (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

5. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 01:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. No reason to believe this candidate would abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. I've seen good work, and edit counts aren't the be all end all. -- Essjay · Talk 02:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support --JAranda | watz sup 02:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. From zero to hero. Are you a wikiholic? The Minister of War 07:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. the wub "?!" 13:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. Chowells removes a lot of vandalism. As an admin Chowells could use rollback + ban users that keep vandalising. --☺Adam1213☺ Talk+ 15:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Tentative Support - I would have recommended beforehand waiting a couple of months before self-nominating though I have nothing against this editor's nomination at this moment in time. -- Francs2000 20:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. El_C 21:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support I checked and he is good vandal fighter, which is an evergrowing problem. I think we nedd lots of them No problems.-Dakota 01:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 02:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support --Kefalonia 08:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Weak support -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} 11:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Strong Support Major bonus that he created articles from stratch, I do that myself alot and it takes a ton of work and energy to learn a topic well enough to make a decent page, his time on Wikipedai isn't a problem, way past 3 months and usually the edit count is extremely overemphasized by the voters so that doesn't matter to me as long as he has over 500. --Patman2648 talk 17:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Strong Support, la! - Prolific against vandals and overall good contributions. I'm sure he'll make a great admin! SoLando (Talk) 03:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support, no reason not to. Alphax  11:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support Molotov (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support Johann Wolfgang 17:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
24. FireFox 17:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. --Randy 20:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support Good range of articles, nice use of edit summaries and POV fighting, starts new articles. Turnstep 01:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
27. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support - I sure could do with some help on the vandalism IRC channel... --Celestianpower 19:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support - According to Raul654, we only have about 10-20 people on RC patrol at any time. This user is active on RC patrol. 10-20 people to control 37 billion edits per second is not enough. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-29 19:19
30. support GraemeL 15:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. Decent guy, no reason not to support. Tintin 15:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, too soon. --Sn0wflake 06:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose, only 4 weeks real activity, no matter how intensive, is not enough. Proto t c 13:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Spend some time contributing in the WP namespace. Come back in a month or two and I will support. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 23:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose. He is not ready yet. Mayebe in the future. Carioca 19:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose Sorry, too soon. Private Butcher 20:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose: Sorry, too soon. Jonathunder 22:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose, 4 weeks real activity is significantly too short. It may feel like you'll be ok by then, but there's just stuff that happens that it takes a bit longer than that to pick up on. Even after the three-month golden line there's plenty to learn (trust me!). I would also like to see more Wikipeda: and related space edits. Editcountitis is only teh sux when you merely think, "oh, he's below Xthousand". Looking at edit count numerics is simply asking that a user have more experience of pressing save, having to live with the consequences and being able to patch things up when they make a mistake. This is particularly true in Misplaced Pages: space where conflicts too often flare up. Keep up the good work for a couple more sets of 4-weeks, and I'm sure you'll be fine. You'll be surprised at how much more you learn between now and then. -Splash 06:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Sorry, but I think you're still too inexperienced. Radiant_>|< 13:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose. For the reasons listed above. BlankVerse ∅ 02:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Weak oppose, seems like a good editor, but has been active on Misplaced Pages for too little time. — JIP | Talk 09:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Oppose per Splash. Marskell 16:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Oppose Splash says it well. Borisblue 17:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Oppose per Splash. —Wayward 23:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Dedicated, good-faith, unproblematic, but I'm not comfortable supporting someone this green. In two more months you might be a shoe-in. ~~ N (t/c)

1. same as Nickptar. Three months of solid editing would be good - your record's fine, but only minor editing until recently is a concern. Grutness...wha? 01:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   I've been contributing fairly heavily for a bit over a month. Before then I didn't have any particular interest in Misplaced Pages other ensuring that a few minor problems like spelling errors were corrected and attributed to me rather than a random IP. I'm somewhat of a perfectionist and I don't particulary like mess :) chowells 01:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Neutral. He does have over 700 article edits, a good chunk of the 1200. Not sure though.Voice of All 02:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Editcount: 1260. ~~ N (t/c) 01:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Kate's tool seems to be borken again. — JIP | Talk 09:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• I am disapointed that the nominee failed to use the correct self-nomination procedure... Alphax  10:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems that the nomination page is not doing what it should be. Investigating... Alphax  11:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I'm already active in RC patrolling and monitor the #wikipedia-en-vandalism IRC channel as well as Special:Recentchanges which helps me catch quite a bit vandalism and other undesirable edits. Up to now of course the reverting has been done by hand though as of today I've been messing around with the "godmode-lite" script but it leaves a little to be desired so it would be very very very nice to gain access to the proper rollback tool. In addition I've got about 250 articles on my watchlist and monitor every change to these. I've also nominated a few articles on AfD and participate in voting on AfDs. So it would also be nice to gain the ability to close AfDs after voting had finished.

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

A. One of my first "major" contributions was the creation of the James Young Simpson stub, an article about someone who I am apparently a descendant of. I was hooked on Misplaced Pages when I saw others contributing to it and turning it into a more of a fully fledged article. So whilst I didn't do the majority of the work there I'm pleased with that.

Of the articles that I created and have contributed the majority of the material to I am pleased with are Liverpool Blitz, Unterseeboot 534, GWR 6000 Class 6000 King George V and GWR 6000 Class 6023 King Edward II.

I've also contributed quite a few photos, firstly uploading them to Misplaced Pages but once I found out about commons, to there.

Of refactoring, I'm happy with my recent changes to Otto Frank here and to Capel Celyn.

Of my photos, I quite like Image:Prinsengracht Canal By Night.jpg.

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 initially wasn't particularly impressed with some of User:Duncharris's comments here and here . Though is wording is quite harsh I think I took them to be even more strongly worded than was intended. However I think I stayed reasonably calm and everything is fine now. Apart from that I haven't had any major conflicts.

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.

Acetic Acid

Final (92/9/3) ended 00:07 October 31, 2005 (UTC)

Acetic Acid (talk · contribs) – Ryan has been around for 3 months and he's already amassed over 2600 edits. He's a funny guy and a nice guy who interacts with most users well. I have seen him attacked by trolls, and he's never lost his cool. He's part of WP:WC, always helping out newbies. In my opinion, the most important quality an admin should have is interacting well, so they'll be able to know about consensus. Ryan fulfills this. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

This time, I accept. :) Thank you both so much! Acetic' 0:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Redwolf24 (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Extreme Random Support 2 Vote out of 80+ Support Votes --JAranda | watz sup 00:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Extreme I'm Going To Disney World in 2.5 Days Support! Good contributor, I wanted to nominate him but I didn't think he'd accept. (I thought he had been around longer, too... O_O) --WikiFanatic
4. Acid burn support. «»Who?¿? 00:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
5. <3 --Phroziac 00:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Major support -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} 00:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support Jtkiefer ----- 00:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Yes! Linuxbeak | Talk 00:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support — mendel ☎ 00:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Sprt, no pun intended. -feydey 00:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Extreme I-had-two-edit-conflicts-while-voting support. ~~ N (t/c) 00:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Full, 100% Acidic Support. A.A is first on my 'list of users I hold in high regard'. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 00:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
13. SUPPORT - had to be obnoxious. V/M
    00:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Ground floor support -Greg Asche (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Strong support from Andre (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Thought he was one. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 00:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. Always seen good stuff from this one. Ëvilphoenix 00:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Strong Support, and let Func beware, this nomination is going to trump his record because of Vinegar's level of activity and good faith in Misplaced Pages! Titoxd 01:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Dude! Sasquatcht|c 01:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Depressed "my cat is missing" support. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

    replacing with Very happy "my cat came back" support! :)) Grutness...wha? 12:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

21. Support Duh. Even Boothy wouldn't oppose the Acid. Karmafist 01:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

    Be careful.  :) Acetic' 02:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

22. Support. Ah yes, almost a formality now.Voice of All 02:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. Sounds like a decent editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m 02:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Full, unconditional support. -- Essjay · Talk 02:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support --Rogerd 02:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. Kirill Lokshin 02:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support Without reservation. -- Psy guy 05:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Extreme jumping on the bandwagon support.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 05:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support Strong, extreme. I've been waiting for this. Banes 05:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support We need more "Cool" headed people like me:-) Tony the Marine 06:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. The Minister of War 06:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support. Excellent contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support. I've been waiting for this one and finally I can vote support of such a wonerful candidate and person. You'll surely get the record. (preceding unsigned comment by Celestianpower (talk · contribs) 08:47, October 24, 2005)
35. Support. He welcomed me, I guess I've always been fond of 'im. Good man, and good luck. --Blackcap | talk 09:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support. We're going to see (100/1/1) before the week is over! (Yes, Boothy will oppose this, since three months is his absolute minimum, if I remember correctly). Owen× ☎ 11:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support Dlyons493 Talk 13:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 13:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
39. FireFox 13:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
40. Support × ${\displaystyle \infty }$. Arrgh!!! I was going to nominate him as soon as mine was over! (mmmmmmm... edit conflicts) the wub "?!" 14:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Martin 14:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
42. Hey! I said the same thing in my RfA and I got booed off the stage! Support, obviously :P gkhan 14:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
43. Support - there's no compelling reason not to.--Scimitar 15:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
44. Support, Just keep him away from User:Sodium bicarbonate! --TantalumTelluride 17:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
45. Support I am shocked! Appalled! Outraged!! I thought he was an administrator already! of course support, no doubt about it. Gryffindor 18:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
46. Delete, gamecruft. Er, what? Wait, he's not an admin already? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
47. Of course. Very good one. encephalon 19:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
48. Support Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 20:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
49. Support! Where have I been? Riding out the hurricane.  BD2412 20:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
50. Support -- Francs2000 20:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
51. Support. El_C 21:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
52. Support = very yes ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 22:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
53. Support Seen him around Misplaced Pages doing good work and he was the first user to welcome me when I was an anon. He will be a good one. Buena suerte!--Dakota 23:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
54. Support. Yes, yes please. I can think of a whole list of articles that can be written, by the way. -Splash 01:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
55. Support I don't think there's a whole lot more to say, other than I believe that Acetic Acid could be an excellent admin. That is, if the community approves him ;) – Bratsche 03:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
56. Support. Robert 04:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
57. Support, he is a positive contributor. Bahn Mi 04:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
58. Support Feel like I'm piling on, in a good way though. Good editor. Rx StrangeLove 04:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
59. Support, sure. The editor has been quite helpful to the project ever since his joining and I have no doubt that he will find good use for sysop rights. Despite the reduced amount of time he has been active, he certainly appears to have a good grasp of the inner workings of the Misplaced Pages, so I won't complain about that, despite the fact that I think it wouldn't have hurt to wait a few more months. --Sn0wflake 06:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
60. Support --Kefalonia 08:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
61. C₂H₄O₂ Support. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
62. Support levelheaded and reasonable. Friday (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
63. Support I thought Acetic already was an admin! A good Wiki-enabler, as I like to say..:)--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
64. Support. Easy call. -- DS1953 17:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
65. Strong Support. Fries wouldn't be the same without you. - Pureblade | 17:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
66. Support. I think he'll do well as an admin, I trust him. JoanneB 21:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
67. Support. KHM03 22:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
68. Support. SlimVirgin 06:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
69. Support. Thryduulf 08:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
70. Support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
71. Support Johann Wolfgang 17:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
72. C₆H₈O₆ Support Good user, good person, goodgasell. Ral315 (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
73. Sheep vote Tintin 20:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
74. Support, I thought I had voted already! Shauri smile! 20:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
75. Extremely redundant Support. /me likes bandwagons. So musical. --Maru (talk) Contribs 22:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
76. Support. If I remember correctly, this is my first vote on an RfA, so that should say something. :) --Jacqui 00:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
77. Support. utcursch | talk 05:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
78. Support. Now that people are actually opposing I can't be the token guy who opposes. AngryParsley 14:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
79. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
80. Support - excellent editor, from what I had seen. --Ixfd64 04:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
81. Support (the non-ridiculous variety). Alphax  10:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
82. ${\displaystyle ax^{2}+bx+c=0{\mbox{ where }}a\neq 0}$ support, good editor, excellent interaction. Bishonen | talk 14:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
83. Throw another support vote in the pile. sɪzlæk 00:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
84. Support jumping on the bandwagon of support for this very capable candidate --anetode¹ ² ³ 02:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
85. Support I tend to see this editors name every where I go, and It's been nothing but positive. Plus answers to questions were good enough to make me support without me seeing him everywhere :-D KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 05:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
86. My Support and hope i won't be the last one to. --Saluyot 12:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
87. Clearly Redundant Support! Always seeing good work from this editor. --Dvyost 15:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
88. Support — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-29 20:03
89. Support - administrator CH₃COOH "in da house". Or something. Rob Church 01:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
90. Support! (This page is now 31 KB long!!!) Go gett'em tiger! -] _{03:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)}
91. Support. Can't think how I missed voting on this one earlier. --GraemeL 15:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
92. Support per above.  Grue  18:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Very Dilute Oppose only because I think Acetic Acid needs some more ageing. This vote is not intended to reflect any personal opposistion to the candidacy. I support AA's adminship, and would otherwise vote support I just think that wiki admins ought to be normal users for at least a year. Klonimus 04:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Needs more time. Come back when you have written a real article, even if it is short. I dont think its a good idea having admins who havent gone through this. Either that or a lot more time. Justinc 10:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Editing a large number of User talk pages may gain votes at RfA, but the project is about substantive content. That I don't see. I'd oppose anyone as admin who doesn't have a track record on content. Charles Matthews 14:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I am puzzled by the widespread support of an editor who has been here for only three months. I consider duration of participation more important then edit counts, and six months has long been a customary minimum, albeit one that has been disregarded at times. I agree that Acetic Acid is personable and helpful, but three months is not long enough to learn how Misplaced Pages works. Further, I have reviewed the user's article contributions and am not impressed. I don't see any writing of a paragraph or more. Maybe I'm missing it, but all I see are categorization edits and some very simple mechanical changes. Even these are in pop culture areas rather than subjects where we face a more pressing need for editorial attention. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   I think you'll find that the arbitory figure is 3 months actually, Uninvited. --Celestianpower 17:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   Currently, most — if not almost all — nominations are made when the user has around three months of experience, which is, I agree, a very low amount of time, since it's still within the "hype range", in which an editor starts off with a lot of steam but soon disappears from the project, losing interest completely. Voters also get less and less serious with time, and these little support jokes are getting quite tiring. They always were. But what are we to do, right. I support Acetic because I think he's got what it takes. --Sn0wflake 19:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   When RfAs are dull and one-sided as this one is, people are forced to look for other forms of entertainment. If all RfAs were as interesting as the AE one was, there would be no need for these lame jokes. Tintin 19:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   Possibly the problem lies on the fact that RfAs are not really supposed to be entertaining. At all. --Sn0wflake 20:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

5. Oppose. He is not ready yet. Maybe in the future. Carioca 19:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Extremely XTREMELY weak oppose, just hasn't been here long enough, (this coming from the editor who nominated himself foolishly the day when he was here for 3 months, when he assumed it was 4). Still have to oppose though, sorry. Private Butcher 20:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Like UninvitedCompany, I place more weight on duration than edit count. It's not that AA has done anything wrong, but I'd like to see 6 months on the project before supporting. Carbonite | Talk 23:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
8. As above. — Dan | Talk 00:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Less than 500 edits in the article namespace is a knockout criterion for me. --Pjacobi 20:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Answer to question 2 makes me a bit shaky, considering this is an encyclopedia. Jobe6 03:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   I understand. I originally joined Misplaced Pages for that sole purpose, but I soon realized that it wasn't for me. There are hundreds of editors that are far more intelligent than I'll ever be. But I can still contribute by utilizing the other skills I have. Plus, there aren't many articles I can think of that don't already exist. That's the only reason I wrote the vitaminwater article. I was surprised there wasn't one already. :P Acetic' 03:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   The vitaminwater article doesnt even have any links in it; I am tempted to AfD it myself. If you cant write a good article how can I trust you to recognise one? Justinc 10:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   Simple. As an AFD closer, I don't go by my personal opinion of the article. I go by the consensus that was reached. Administrators don't run around, saying, "I think this is a bad article. DELETE." If they did, they'd face the wrath of the stewards. And for what it's worth, I'd add some interwiki links to vitaminwater right away. Acetic' 15:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   OK, slightly better. How about moving it to Glacéau which it is mostly about anyway, and seems more interesting? What else would you do to improve this article? Justinc 15:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   All right, I'll move it and leave vitaminwater as a redirect. Next step toward improvement would probably be a picture or two. Acetic' 15:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   A picture would be nice, but there are huge holes. We have a 'what' what is this thing, but we are missing a 'where': where is the company based, where are the products available and a 'when': when was the company founded and the products launched. Then there is the only little interesting nugget that sits there in the article, what is now the second sentence, about advertising. Which asks a big 'why'. Whats going on here. The soft drink market is usually full of advertising. Something different here needs writing about. Justinc 18:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   I'll do some research to include more about the company. As for the lack of advertisement, I don't know. I read that right off one of the bottles, which is why I quoted it. It lost some validity with the whole Formula 50/50 Cent endorsement. Anyway, I'll see what I can do. Acetic' 19:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   So now you are coming up with the interesting stuff. You dont mention 50 Cent in the article. Was it a real endorsement or a fake one (as it doesnt mention the name)? There is some history at I see. Justinc 19:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   I believe it was real. The Formula 50 bottle is platinum-colored (as a parody of 50's platinum success). Will be included as well. Acetic' 19:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Neutral Although it looks like there is a lot of support for Acetic Acid, I still would be more comfortable with a few more months of experience. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutral; I will not vote due to prior RFC filed by Acetic Acid, just comment to say that I am not concerned about him gaining admin powers, I do not think he will abuse his new position. Erwin 11:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Previous nomination

  I have a feeling that this RFA is gonna be big Oran e (t) (c) (@) 00:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Very Big indeed --JAranda | watz sup 00:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If the RFA ended now, it would already go into the Misplaced Pages Book of Nomination Records as one of the most supported RFAs. I have a feeling this is going to be huge. Titoxd 21:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Does anyone think it's interesting that Acetic Acid was 76/0/0, and after Klominus made the first oppose vote, three more quickly followed? Piling-on at a lesser scale, perhaps? (I know it doesn't matter unless another 15 people or so oppose, but it's interesting to note...) Ral315 (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I noticed that as well, though I think it started with AngryParsley's fake oppose vote (see talk page). The same thing happened with NickBush24's nomination. Acetic' 19:00, 27 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 on tackling vandalism via rollback and blocking. I haven't gone on RC Patrol or Newpage Patrol in a while, but I have caught a lot of vandalism on my watchlist (both user pages and articles). Also, since I welcome new users frequently, I'm familar with the New users log. I'll check for inappropriate usernames, imposters, etc. AfD closing won't be my biggest prioriety, but I will sort out the backlog if it becomes too congested. (By the way, I consider consensus to be 67% or higher on AfDs. Just over the 2/3 majority.)

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

A. Unfortunately, article writing is not my fortè. But I have tried my hand at it. I've written a stub or two (see Twisted Desire) and what I like to call, glorified stubs (see vitaminwater). Most of my article edits have been vandalism reverts or minor edits.

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

A. My biggest cause of stress was the RfC I filed against Erwin Walsh. When I was more active on AfD, I noticed Erwin making rude comments during his AfD nominations. After noticing other users were having problems with him, I decided to take my chances and file a Request for Comment. It stayed open for two months or so. I asked to have it closed and archived after noticing a decline in Erwin's activity. I also saw his behavior improving, so I didn't think it was necessary anymore. (See the RfC and its corresponding talk page for more information). I noticed Erwin about closing the RfC. I think it's safe to say that we're both happy this is over. (See our comments on his talk page).

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.

Purplefeltangel

Final (33/31/7) ended 20:50 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Purplefeltangel (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate Purplefeltangel for adminship. She has been a user in Misplaced Pages since May 2005 I think and was nominatined before in a bad faith nomination by User:Rainbowwarrior1977 in which it was delisted and she learned from that experience after. She is very active and has racked up more than 1600 edits. She is a dedicated editor who knows what she is doing and also useful in AFD and also avoids conflicts.I think she deserves the extra admin tools and would make a good admin. JAranda | watz sup 02:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:User:Purplefeltangel/sig 02:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC) Acceptance withdrawn. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 19:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator --JAranda | watz sup 02:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC) but please, mark less stuff as minor...
3. Support, considered nominating her myself, actually! --Phroziac 02:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support yupsiree. Grutness...wha? 03:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support recognizes her mistakes and has corrected her demeanor and actions. Great editor, and easy to get along with. «»Who?¿? 03:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support I saw some potential during the last RFA, but then the vandalisms and such were too recent. Now, it's been longer and the user seems to have learned. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 03:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support I was thinking of nominating her as well a few days ago, but she wanted to wait a little bit. Apparently, the demand was too great considering that a few people have wanted to nominate. She is the epitome of Wikilove from my dealings with her, if anything she's too nice and will need to thicken her skin a bit, but i'd much rather have an admin who needs to be a little less nice than a alot more nice. This is a perfect opportunity for anyone who claims editcountitis to be a problem to rectify that situation. Her experience far exceeds her edits in my opinion, but if that doesn't count, I think I'd have to go harder onto the 2,000 edit minimum. Comment on the vandalism and previous RFA situation below. Karmafist 04:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Weak Support. She is a bit young, and the 2 month old vandalism did happen, but she probably is ready. But please make sure you always use edit summaries for non-minor articles changes. Some people even demand 100% edit summary use, although that is often unecessary.Voice of All 04:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. This user shows all the signs of having learned from her actions - come, now, worse vandals than her have been forgiven. Mike Garcia anyone? As far as I can see, her actions lately have been civil, constructive, and definitely worthy of administrative powers. ] 05:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support - more and more I'm seeing people on RfA who I've interacted with/seen about the place doing good work and 2 months is definately, in my opinion, long enough in the past. --Celestianpower 11:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. I liked her contributions to Pro-ana a lot, and encouraged her to keep up the good work when she felt it was unworthy and submitted it herself to AfD, which was an act of intellectual honesty I had hardly seen before. She deserves the chance, and her past history of vandalism is long gone. Please, guys and girls... we have a nice and dedicated person here, let's act from our feelings for once. We'll never gonna survive unless we get a little crazy! Shauri smile! 12:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
12. FireFox 13:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. I believe Purplefeltangel has learned from her mistakes and that they do not negate her overwhelming number of good contributions. Thatdog 15:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support I think that, in the spirit of no-big-deal-adminship, that this user deserves a good faith vote. Echoing Shauri... Bratsche 17:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. I don't see her abusing admin powers. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. This RFA would have been an easy promotion for Purplefeltangel if not for her actions on a single day. She's a mature, useful and friendly editor.-gadfium 18:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Strong support This person is doing an excellent job here. Those oppose votes purturb me. V/M
    19:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. A good lass, she'll go far. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. She has made a good impression on me.--Wiglaf 19:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. I'm willing to give PFA a vote of confidence here. — Phil Welch 20:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. A display of vandalism as newbie is not enough to convince me that she won't do good work as an admin. Ral315 (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 00:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support, that vandalism was more than three months ago. In that time, she's made good edits, as Shauri points out. Everyone is a newbie once, and is allowed a bad day in my opinion. Titoxd 01:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support this good editor.  BD2412 01:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. Robert 04:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support Per above. Very kind editor. Banes 05:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support. Agreee with the nomination. A newbie test/vandalism early on in the career should not mean a life sentence. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. Support, although I like mathematics and anime. Comparing this here with other nominations for example on this page, I have to say that there seems to be an obvious double-standard for votes. --Kefalonia 10:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support. the wub "?!" 14:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support without reservation. I don't think this will pass now, but I'm more than willing to let some fleeting vandalism go in this case.--Scimitar 15:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. She has always been fair and bright in AfDs in which I have seen her involvment and I forgive her vandalism. She potentially could be a good admin on[REDACTED] for the next 60 years. Youngamerican 02:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support. Per everybody above. Wonderful user.--Sean Black 04:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
33. S♥pport. Flowerparty■ 16:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose Vandalized too recently here. Nominee even strong opposed her own rfa saying "I am the nominee and I have never met this person before. I have no idea who he is and why he's referring to me as a "gentleman." I think this was not a good-faith nomination. And Cryptic is absolutely right; I have vandalized a page, so why should I be an admin? ♥purplefeltangel 20:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)". User talk space could use a little more activity. Jobe6 03:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

   More vandalism which is way too recent to support , , , , . Jobe6 03:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

   That was back in July not recently,than and that RFA came from a banned user as a bad faith nom also. She learned from those mistakes --JAranda | watz sup 03:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

   (after Aranda56 edit conflict) That vandalism was addressed at her first RfA, please don't bring up the same past action on multiple RfA's as it pretty much bans anyone who's ever messed up from adminship. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

   Well then what was recently? I was rejected as an admin because I had vandalised as much as she had 10 months before my RFA. I see a double standard here. Jobe6 03:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

   Unfortunately, there's nothing I can do about your nomination. But maybe you can help make things better for other users by forgiving past mistakes. :) User:Purplefeltangel/sig 03:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

   Jobe6, you also voted no for my RfA because I "called someone a troll", which I did not, and because I am an Encyclopedic Merit member. I believe that you should put more consideration into your votes with respect to how the nominee actually is and not by glancing at a few past actions or just by your dislike of wikigroups. I am sorry about your RfA, and if I see that you are a trustworthy contributor, I will gladly vote for you inspite of past vandalism.Voice of All 03:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

   I dont think that the above statemetn belongs here. Jobe6 04:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

2. No, sorry. Vandalism too recent. Andre (talk) 03:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose Vandalizsed a high profile article right after the book came out this does she know how many people might have seen that? If this person can be an admin so cann I since I never "vandalized" any pages like not alttering their contenxts with malfeasance (I just learned that word in English). I swear if this goes through she must repay me the favor and nomminate me for admin I think I have about 1200 edits (I think).Wiki brah 05:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

   Actually, you have 384. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 05:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

4. Oppose; the vandalism kills it for me. As for the counter-argument that this "pretty much bans anyone who's ever messed up from adminship", I agree; Misplaced Pages has hundreds of admins, and hundreds more waiting to take their place. As for Wiki brah's vote above, this can be disregarded; the user is a waste. The last I heard it was a sockpuppet of the banner user Rainbowwarrior1977, although in the non-transparent way that Misplaced Pages tends to do this kind of thing it's not apparent if this is still the general opinion. Should be banned anyway, and will never, ever be an admin.-Ashley Pomeroy 06:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

   Actually wiki brah is not rainbowwarior aka brandonfarb aka musasachado aka kismaayo. --Jobe6 07:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

5. Oppose she has been a decent editor as of late, but still not enough time passed. Also template used for a signature is a Bad Thing. I endorse her dislike for Harry Potter though.  Grue  06:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Weak oppose. I hate to do this but I have to agree that this vandalism is not that good... it kinda makes me question the maturity of purplefeltangel (though I still think she's an awesome person from what I've seen on the Wiki and on IRC). Anyways, I dislike Harry Potter three =) But just try not to let your personal opinions dictate what you do on the Wiki and that'll be enough for me. Sasquatcht|c 07:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Weak oppose per Grue. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} 07:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose Doesn't seem to be serious about the project. --Ryan Delaney 08:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose per vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Weak oppose - sorry, from 'poacher to game-keeper' in two months is just too much for me. But keep up the good work (and you are going great work) for another couple of months, and I'll be delighted to change this to a strong support. --Doc (?) 13:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Oppose The vandalism was just too blantant, and done to a rather popular page. It does not matter how long ago it was to me. People who have vandalized and then "learned from their mistakes" should set up a new account. Turnstep 15:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

    I vandalised (more like a newbie test) a page for my first ever edit on a AFD tag on Britney Spears so when my RFA comes up will u oppose me as well cause of that and not to my contibutions? Vandalism is a big problem in Misplaced Pages nowadays but just like Redwolf24 said that insitent was a issue on her 1 RFC on July and I don't know why people are still worried about it. She had learned from those mistakes. Tell me 1 insident of vandalism she did after that Harry Poter thing and I will oppose this canditate I nominated but I know there isn't another one --JAranda | watz sup 16:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

    Oh, I see. So you'd like me to give up my edit count and a username I like and my reputation as a good user because of something stupid I did in July. Makes perfect sense. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 17:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

    ...like me to give up my edit count... Frankly, yes. Attaching an importance to edit counts is not healthy anyway, and what better way to show true repentance? The fact that your first reaction to my idea is to mention a loss of edit counts worries me. Turnstep 17:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

    Sorry, but I think true repentance is getting on with my time at Misplaced Pages and never doing it again. I like my username, I have friends, I have a good reputation (as strange as that may seem) and I'm not going to change that two months after the fact because of something I shouldn't have done and will never do again. I wasn't even blocked for this vandalism. Please don't start in on editcountitis, either. You cannot deny that losing 1700+ edits and starting over from 0 would be a bit depressing, and that people do tend to respect Wikipedians who have been around a long time with high edit counts. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 17:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

12. Oppose vandalism too recent. freestylefrappe 16:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Oppose There are plenty of good editors who would love to be admins that haven't vandalized. -Greg Asche (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose I would support, but the user has a transcluded template for a signature. Fix it, and I'll gladly vote support :) Ral315 (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

      Thanks for changing this, voting support now. Ral315 (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

14. Oppose Too soon. To me there is a statute of limitations for vandalism, but not yet. Maybe you could ask Santa Claus for adminship for Christmas --Rogerd 19:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

    Gee Rogerd, that is not a kind thing to say, especially after you just lost an RfA. Since I have just lost one, I am pretty liberal on them - I always have been. This comment is an insult - or atleast I am quite sure she doesn't believe in Santa Claus. V/M
    19:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

    Rogerd, she is not that young, we do not need sour grapes here. So Please stop flamming and read WP:NPA...unless you want an RfC.Voice of All 20:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

    Hold it. I strongly doubt that Roger thinks she believes in Santa, it was just a joke, you don't have to yell at him just yet. Redwolf24 (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

    Threatening an RfC over a single comment in an RfA is ridiculous, not to mention chilling. You just made admin, right? So drop the use of the inflammatory red ink and the heavy-handed threats. -Splash 22:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

    ??Huh? At the time of my comment, I had no idea of her age. I did not mean it infer anything about her age. I have no opinion one way or another about her beliefs in anything. It was a joke. Lighten up. I merely meant that by December, the community may have forgiven her for her earlier vandalism. Please, if you feel like doing an RfC, please do so. --Rogerd 01:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

    I guess it was taken zealously at the time. Forgive my overreaction - I just lost an RfA and have a tendency to lean toward the underdog - however, I did believe the "Santa Claus" comment was rude sarcasm at the time. V/M
    01:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

    I said that if he keeps doing it, he would get an RfC, I clearly never said "one comment warrants and RfC". There is a difference. Anyway, Rogerd dropped me a note explaining that it was a joke. Well, making such a comment next to an oppose was very rude sarcasm, but at least he was just joking, so I crossed out the red text. Bold red text is used my moderators at almost every forum site, I will use darkred instead from now on though. I just can't stand personal attacks, even if it is actually just careless joking.Voice of All 01:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

15. Oppose The Harry Potter thing did it for me. She said she did because she was bored. She is 14 but looks younger in her page picture. Let her have more experience and try again.--Dakota 20:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

    Um I don't know if you're suggesting that I'm younger than fourteen, but I'm definitely fourteen and will turn fifteen next month just so you know. :) User:Purplefeltangel/sig 20:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

    It was not stated in a derogatory sense and I did not mean to hurt you. I said I thought your picture looked younger but didn't say you were. Apologies if that was the case. Like I said, it was the Harry Potter thing. You will in time no doubt make a good administrator but it's too soon on the vandalism issue. The language used in that vandalism was probably seen by children many of whom see that article .--Dakota 20:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

16. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

    Is his vote even counted in RFAs? --JAranda | watz sup 21:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

    Yes. Don't pick fights. freestylefrappe 21:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

17. Better reapplying a little bit later. Fadix 00:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Oppose. I find the vandalism to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince particularly bothersome, as that has been a page very heavily vandalized lately, and one that I personally have been involved in trying to protect, so I do find it a little annoying that that was her selected target. However, I might be willing to look past that, however some of the comments I have seen in this RfA to other users has demonstrated to me a level of maturity that I do not personally feel suits adminship. Ëvilphoenix 01:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Oppose - I personally feel that anyone using a transcluded signature hasn't taken the time to appreciate the drain it puts on our servers. I'm afraid that, reading through all the comments so far, I find Purplefeltangels' editcountitis to be far too extreme. Rob Church 02:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Oppose. The vandalism is troubling, but not the only problem I have supporting this nomination. Purplefeltangel seems to be overly emotional. I like to poke fun at other wikipedians from time to time, but she seemed to take any sarcastic comment about others as if she was personally insulted. Add to that the fact that she's only 14 and I'm going to have to oppose this nomination. Don't take it personally Purplefeltangel. AngryParsley 03:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Oppose. The vandalism really destroyed her chances, showed that she needs more experience.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 05:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Oppose. Without comment. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Oppose: the statutue of limitations, as it were, on vandalism may toll with enough experience and time. Not yet. Jonathunder 07:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Oppose for the reasons I stated above for User:Anonymous Editor. As a new person, I'd like admins to be here a while longer before they are admins. Joaquin Murietta 09:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Oppose: I worked on the Harry Potter page she messed up. If she only did that once you could call it an experiment, but she kept doing it after she was warned and asked to stop. That was only a few weeks ago. She needs to grow a bit and undo more vandalism before being given admin powers, in my opinion. Tree&Leaf 17:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Oppose — while Purplefeltangel does good work around here, the vandalism thing is too recent. Though we must all forgive and forget, less than three months, in my opinion, is insufficient time, given that there were multiple vandalisms that occured even after warnings. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 20:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Oppose - a dislike of Harry Potter is certainly not a bad thing, vandalising the article however within recent editing history is unforgiveable. -- Francs2000 21:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
28. oppose Cannot support sucha recent vandal. Type O Spud 01:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Oppose. While promoting this editor might prove to be an interesting investment, the timing for the nomination is clearly not the best. Also, while I do not have any particular qualms concerning the age of editors in general, it is of my belief that it does not act as a pro in this case. Maturity is a highly relative concept, but regardless of how mature one is, emotional maturity does depend a lot on age and life experience, and that's generally the kind of maturity an active admin needs. To put it in a clearer manner, I do not fully believe that she would be able to deal calmly with a highly stressful situation. Why rush things over? Try again in half-a-dozen months (I'm certain you'll be re-nominated earlier than that, though). --Sn0wflake 05:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Extreme Oppose Recent vandal, dosen't help new users (see: trade secret), and that was after our argument ended peacefully, however she forgave me for my argument with her so I have to say Weak Oppose (this is not based at all on my past argument with purplefeltangel) Edit:She entered what! 8 year olds read that article! Changing to extreme oppose Prodego 14:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Oppose, NOT weakly. Only weeks ago this candidate repeatedly inserted penis into Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince because she doesn't like them. She continued to do this after FOUR separate talk page warnings and only stopped when told she was going to be blocked. She had been here over a year when she did this recent vandalism, much more than long enough to know this is not OK. She picked an article especially popular with young people to vandalize in this way, knowing other children would see it. I could support a 14 year-old editor who acts more mature than her years, but we have enough admins who act less than their ages already. CDThieme 17:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral. She might be ready, so I won't vote "oppose", but that vandalism is to recent, it makes my too queezy to support.Voice of All 03:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

(After edit conflict with Splash) Response to what Voice of All said on my talk page: Mostly, I vandalised the HBP article because I was bored and I don't like Harry Potter. Yeah, I know, so mature, right? But since then I have become more dedicated to Misplaced Pages. I have combatted vandals and learned how annoying and frustrating they can be. I can honestly say that I would never again knowingly do anything that would compromise the integrity of the Misplaced Pages project. I have also made several constructive edits to the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince article since then, in case you're questioning whether I can conduct myself responsibly around that article. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 04:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Neutral while I consider. I need a very good reason why someone who vandalised because they were bored might not find themselves bored at some point in the future, but have some more entertaining buttons to de-bore themselves with. On the other hand, the nominee does seem to make good edits in a variety of places (though a little thin in User talk:, and yes I am allowed to look at edit count numbers), so perhaps that was a one-off. -Splash 04:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutral. This editor seems to have a strong dislike for Harry Potter (thats not why Im opposing, though :)). Anyway, I really can't support a person who is a recurrent vandal. If it was once ,I would say, "OK lets forgive and forget", but this has happened repeatedly. I think she might be a little immature to be a SySop. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 04:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

   Thanks for voting. I'd just like to point out that all the vandalisms in question occured on the same day and that there were no others before or after. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 04:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

   So PFA (hope you dont mind me calling you that), didnt it bother you (even slightly) after the first attempt, even if it was on the same day? Oran e (t) (c) (@) 04:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

   Call me whatever you want. At first, it didn't bother me, even when I received my first few warnings, but when I got the last one I was just hit with this overwhelming feeling of "oh my god, I'm a moron," so I stopped. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 05:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

3. Neutral I've been reasonably impressed with this user lately, so I'm not going to oppose; however, her vandalistic efforts were a little too recent for my tastes. A dead cert next year, for what it's worth. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Neutral Certainly a very nice person. And while it's no bad thing for an admin to not be entirely too uptight, edits like her "wickerpedia" addition to What Misplaced Pages is Not have me a bit concerned at the moment regarding too much lack of seriousness. I'm going to abstain from expressing support or opposition for the moment. The Literate Engineer 23:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
5. A fairly positive neutral. She's good value, impassioned about the project, will be ideal with a bit more seasoning. A near-certainty in another three to six months. Seeing how she takes the comments on this RFA will be key to her success next time around - David Gerard 10:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Neutral. A few more months of good editing should clear the air. Just needs to become a bit more serious. Carbonite | Talk 15:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Neutral Needs a couple more months of experience to redeem herself. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Oh, by the way, I've been a member since August 2004, not May 2005 as stated above. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 02:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• First RFA. Jobe6 03:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

1. • Thanks for voting. I realize that this incident seems unreasonably recent to be so soon participating in an RfA, but I really think I have learned a lot more about Misplaced Pages since then and started to take it much more seriously. Since my last nomination I have gained about 1200 edits, none of which have been vandalism in any sense. I will try to improve my User talk space though; thanks for the advice. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 03:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Ditto to what RW24 said under oppose. «»Who?¿? 03:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• It's already been said to some extent, but i'll say my comments down here anyway to avoid over-colon abuse.
  

Her last RFA : It was fairly obvious that it was a bad faith nom by an indefinately blocked user, her vote against it was an attempt at WP:AGF in my view, just as using it as a point against her now is against WP:AGF. 12 other nominees have declined nomination for adminship, she was just an awkward 13th member of that list.
Vandalism at Harry Potter : Let's see some of the earlier edits in the day of the section that she "vandalized".

1. And then they all fuck themselves, and die.
2. Harry ejaculates over Snapes chest aka his "tomb".

I think her edit was a case of Maoririder vandalism (a good faith edit that's actually pretty much a place holder and may be construed as vandalism by some) rather than actual vandalism compared to those two edits above. In addition to this, she made 13 earlier in that day on that article some of which Jobe talked about above, but another here where she actually puts in a vandalism notice before vandalizing! I honestly can't think of another vandal on Misplaced Pages who is anywhere close to that polite, but that's just PFA -- she's insanely nice even when she's doing things that may be construed as nasty. And this was back when she didn't understand the rules(remember WP:BITE), she's grown alot since thenKarmafist 05:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

and this was back when she didn't understand the rules (remember WP:BITE). She herself said that she joined in 2004, not May 2005...ergo she was a yearish veteran of[REDACTED] at the time of the vandalism. She herself said when she got the last warning she said 'omg i'm a moron'. Both of those show that she did indeed know the rules. The vandalism warning she gave before vandalizing is not a compelling point either, in my opinion. Oh to have polite vandals who put in edit summaries of 'added p3nis, vand' when they vandalize. :) --Syrthiss 13:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that comparing her vandalism of the Harry Potter pages to other vandalism on that day serves any point. Vandalism is still vandalism, regardless of the emotional state of the vandal (bored, as she explains in her case), and she did engage in vandalism. I also don't think that asserting that she might have intended her edits to serve as "placeholders" holds up well either, adding the word "penis" to a page is by no means a good edit or a good placeholder. Ëvilphoenix 01:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I know, wouldn't that be great? There'd be no more need for WP:CDVF, and we'd all be a little less stressed ;-) As for the "beginner" status, at the time that the Harry Potter flurry, he was around her 500th edit, after infrequent edits over a good chunk of time. In my eyes, beginnership usually lasts from around anywhere between 100 and 1000 edits, depending on frequency and support from other users. The frequency didn't pick up to more than a trickle until after July, and I saw very little support on her talk page back in those days. Karmafist 17:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this is just silly to oppose her for some minute vandalism, which - to me - has happened a long time ago. The problem here, in my opinion, is that you all are focusing more on petty cases of vandalism than the countless times she has reverted it. The user is just short of 2,000 contributions, and I can only hope that she builds more of them. Comments and actions like these are NOT an incintive to want to stay. V/M
19:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I still stand by this, but replaced "pissed off" with "perturb" due to request of some other editor (forgot his name). V/M
21:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Think of it this way. Imagine I have a pitcher of Sprite. Now imagine I have a glass of dirty toilet bowl water. Now imagine I take an eyedropper, stick it into the dirty toilet bowl water, and *plonk* goes a drop into that Sprite. Would you want to drink that Sprite? To some people, vandalism is just as bad as that dirty toilet bowl water, and the fact that it is even there in a user's record, even a small amount, is not going to sit well with some people. Ëvilphoenix 01:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Whether that Sprite goes in the toilet straight from that pitcher or from, well, you know, eventually that toilet water changes. If you drank it right the toilet, that would be disgusting. However, if you flush that toilet, let the water go through the plumbing into a waste managment plant eventually going into some body of water somewhere, which at one point evaporates until it comes down as rain in the source of water which Coca Cola uses to make Sprite. Everything purifies over time given the right circumstances, and Purple has gone through that process regarding Vandalism in my opinion. Karmafist 01:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Just a reminder of WP:CIVIL. RfA's shouldn't be nasty. Bratsche 00:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree, however, let me give a scenario. Take a society where NOTHING is forgiven, and people are held back for a petty theft they may have commited at 14 - and this stops them from being a politician at 40, even though they obviously qualify for the position. I say such leads to RUIN V/M
01:22, 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. I can see myself doing speedy deletions, closing AfDs, RC patrol, etc. I tend to do things in fits and starts -- that is, I spend a long time on one thing, don't do anything for a while, then spend a long time on another thing. So I can't really predict with much accuracy what I would do, but whatever I did do with my admin powers, I would do it well. :)

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

A. Well, recently, I have rid Misplaced Pages of ~250 recieve/receive typos. I have also contributed extensively to Pro-ana and Woburn Collegiate Institute, participated in tons of AfDs, and categorized a lot of articles.

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

A. I have been in conflicts before and like anyone, I'm not perfect at dealing with it. The first real conflict I ever had was with the "F5" vandal, who seemed innocent enough at first -- created a stupid article which was AfD'd, made a bunch of sockpuppets to try to keep it, etc. Then he started getting nasty and vandalising the AfD page, my userpage, etc. The whole thing ended in his article getting speedy deleted and the user getting blocked. I think I handled it rather well, remaining civil to the contributor even as he pelted my talk page with personal attacks and asking him on his talk page to consider coming back after his block and making better contributions to Misplaced Pages.

I have also had conflicts with users Prodego and DannyWilde, both of which ended civilly and during which I kept my head, although being accused of vandalism. I did need intervention in my conflict with Prodego, though.

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.

Alabamaboy

Final (46/1/1) ended 21:31 October 29 (UTC)

Alabamaboy (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate Alabamaboy for adminship. As I have strived to apply professional copy editing skills to many poorly worded entries, I have found that many of the people who claim to embrace npov and other directives, including admins, do not always follow it. I have had a couple of issues and arguments over the editing of pages, including an incident where I was banned wrongly by an admin (a second admin recognized this and reinstated me), and it was at the behest of Alabamaboy's mediation that resolution was brought about (although I still think that the page that comes up when banned should be more accomodating to help the bannee protest their banning). That said, even when I disagree with his edits, or vice versa, he shows respect uncommon on Misplaced Pages, and not leaping to the worst conclusions. I have also done a little homework. He has about 2000 edits, and has done a lot of work on literature, especially the South of the U.S. and Black culture. I think he has the temperament, technical skill, and editorial skill to be a good admin. Iago Dali 21:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC) Iago Dali 21:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes, I accept. Thank you for the nomination.--Alabamaboy 02:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support 100%, This is a guy that defended another user against "me" and here I am supporting him, why? Because of his loyalty, determination and dedication to Misplaced Pages. He will make a great admin. Tony the Marine 00:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Super Support, Awesome User... truly deserves it! PRueda29 03:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support, We need more cool heads like this Wikipedian. Glad to support this nomination. Vaoverland 03:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support... but dont waste too much time with the turkeys vandals, keep on writing quality articles. Stbalbach 03:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 04:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
6. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} 05:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Sweet user Alabama-boy!, Support from Old Europe. - Darwinek 08:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. —Wayward 09:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Strong Support -JCarriker 09:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support this nomination for a professional, balanced, reasonable, and extremely polite Wikipedian. Yoninah 09:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support seems like a fair editor, though my personal preference is to allow RfAs to stand on their own without spamming user's talk pages to try and get votes. chowells 11:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support of course. --hydnjo talk 11:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
13. FireFox 13:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support As I nominated him I support him. Iago Dali 13:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support Although Alabamaboy hasn't gotten into the political sides of Misplaced Pages, he also hasn't gotten into the political sides of Misplaced Pages. He's levelheaded and concerned with establishing NPOV, clear articles. Also, it is important that southern literature and African American literature and culture have an administrator angel helping them along. The mop is frequently needed and the bucket frequently full on those subjects (and the articles stunted). Geogre 13:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Whole-hearted Support I had intended not to vote on any other users' RfAs until my own was closed, but this is one I can't pass up. One of the best literature contributors to Misplaced Pages, who keeps his head even in the face of real provocation. Dvyost 15:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Strong support, has been one of the few people doing solid work on African American topics. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support, good editor. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support, good editor and smart bloke. I do, however, echo the concerns of Dylons493 and chowells. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. His constructive approach is a real asset. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support, but I must urge not to spam user pages in the future. Ral315 (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support I've seen him everywhere, I thought he was an adm. User:V. Molotov 19:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support --Rogerd 19:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support - sorry I took so long to get around to voting!  BD2412 21:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support - Helped with vandalism on Indian American article--Dangerous-Boy 21:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support I have seen him quite abit with the CDVF. I also thought he was already an admin.--Dakota 22:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 00:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. Good user, give him the buttons. Ëvilphoenix 01:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support. Kirill Lokshin 02:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support. The Minister of War 06:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support. Seems like a thoroughly pleasant chap. The Singing Badger 17:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support Sounds good to me, need more of these. Gryffindor 18:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support -- Francs2000 21:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Support, as per nomination. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support --Kefalonia 08:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support --tomf688 20:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Support - recently read a rather interesting article he'd written on DYK.--Scimitar 22:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
39. Support - Is enthusiastic about Misplaced Pages, and has convinced me that he is willing to face the responsibilities of being an admin. Pentawing 02:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
40. Support - We need more admins interested in literature, one of the most neglected and sloppy areas. Tfine80 05:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Support Johann Wolfgang 17:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
42. Support Don Diego 19:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
43. Support I want you to wield the mop! Shauri smile! 20:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
44. I thought I already voted! El_C 03:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
45. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
46. Support, Alabamaboy is like the user I wish I could be. Private Butcher 20:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:02, 23 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)

This really isn't the place to discuss Boothy's voting patterns. You may, of course, open an RFC concerning him, but I suggest you look at the original RFC first. Linuxbeak | Talk 14:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

No need for discord - Boothy's entitled to his vote, which comes in at one line of text on the page, and in any event appears to be largely discounted by bureaucrats due to the lack of accompanying explanation.  BD2412 15:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I am adding discord, his behavior is atrocious. Molotov (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

No, Boothy does vote reasonably. His standards are just high. See the RFA below where he votes support. Borisblue 03:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting Boothy's votes are unreasonable, merely noting that he tends not to explain them, which lessens their weight in the eyes of some bureaucrats.  BD2412 00:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Umm, Aren't you givin' a lot more attention to this than y'all should? Maybe leavin' it alone would be better. Ya know. Maybe leavin' it alone would be better. Maybe leavin' it alone would be better. Geesh! --hydnjo talk 02:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)....

Neutral

1. Neutral Nothing personal but I'm uncomfortable with contacting users notifying them of one's Rfa. I objected to this in the recent case of ScottyBoy900Q and, to be consistent, am now opposing again. This slightly different as it's not a self-nom but it would be easy enough to get a nom from someone if one really wanted to be an admin. Adminship shouldn't be a big deal! Dlyons493 Talk 17:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• In response to chowells concerns, my bad on that. I was just trying to let people I'd interacted with over the past half year know about the vote. I'd seen other RfA noms do this and didn't know it was frowned upon. --Alabamaboy 12:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks. It's just a personal preference that I prefer not to see it. As User:Dylons493 said it's probably not as "bad" as a self-nom spamming pages. Anyway, that's it from me -- it was hardly a big deal IMO and you've learnt now that a few people frown on it and after all we are creating Misplaced Pages to learn (I think!) :) chowells 14:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• FWIW, I welcome being informed of RFAs on people I've interacted with. I don't normally monitor WP:RFA. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well said Jmabel. Being informed of a nominee is not only OK but should be encouraged for the reason you stated. The line between notification and solicitation may be viewed differently by different people but in this case I believe that Alabamaboy was just notifying us and that's just fine with those who are familiar with his work here. --hydnjo talk 19:19, 23 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. In the past, I have helped with the recent changes patrol and trying to find vandalism. I have also taken part in articles for deletion discussions. I would like to take a larger role in both of these efforts while continuing my work on the Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates page, which (while not an admin chore) I find to be a fascinating yet often overlooked duty here at Misplaced Pages.

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

A. I am particularly pleased with African American literature (which was my first featured article), Anti-Tom literature (which is an obscure yet interesting literary subject which no other encyclopdia on earth has probably touched), and Southern literature (a subject close to my heart).

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. After African American literature became a FA, a user had objections to my overall approach on the article. To handle this issue, we had a discussion about the issue. I also brought into the discussion past contributors and reviewers of the article. My approach is to try and discuss any issue in a civilized manner and to bring in other users with an interest in the issue. I firmly believe in the value of reaching consensus on disputed edits.

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

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

Kirill Lokshin

Final (36/0/0) ended 10:34 29 October 2005

Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs) – Extremly talented user. Maintains the war portal, makes useful edits & contributions, good with graphics, is responsible & is a highly valuable wikipedian.Spawn Man 07:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly (and gratefully) accept! Kirill Lokshin 17:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Major Milkshake Support --Spawn Man 07:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support this fine user. --Celestianpower 17:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. One of my best buddies from college was named Kirill. But that has no bearing on my vote to support here, which is based on Kirill Lokshin's excellent editing attributes.  BD2412 17:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support very good user --JAranda | watz sup 17:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Yes, please. Solid contributions, active on RC patrol, and a talk page full of positive comments. Joyous (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support He isn't already? (cliche I know). -Greg Asche (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. Kirill seems talented and I like battleboxes :). - Darwinek 18:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support — Kirill is already involved in all the right places. Gareth Hughes 20:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Wholeheartedly support. In fact, was planning to nominate him one of these days! The Minister of War 20:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support Geoff/Gsl 21:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support - per everyone's favourite cliché. --Celestianpower 22:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support I'm not sure if anything really needs to be said. An awesome editor. SoLando (Ta) 23:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support - Anyone maintaining a portal should be an admin. --SFoskett 23:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. Shauri smile! 00:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 01:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. I have met Kirill a few times, and it is easy for me to give him my support.--Wiglaf 03:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Say it with me folks, "I thought he was one". Oran e (t) (c) (@) 04:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Strongbad Support I'm in shock...shocked I say..he's not one already. He's been a huge driving force behind Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Battles and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wars and is now thoughtfully moving the two towards a much needed merger. Wikipedes, let us act promptly to correct this oversight!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support See him regularly. Dlyons493 Talk 17:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
21. FireFox 13:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. — ceejayoz 19:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support but I don't know him. V/M
    19:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support --Rogerd 19:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
25. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

    Wow! the wub "?!" 22:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

26. Support. I haven't come across him but certainly seems like a very good editor. the wub "?!" 22:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support. Nice work on battles etc. --Briangotts (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support -- Francs2000 21:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support. El_C 21:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support --Kefalonia 08:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support --tomf688 20:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support. --Scimitar 22:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support Johann Wolfgang 17:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support. --NormanEinstein 19:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
35. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 19:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Humorless Support, RfA's are very serious, if anyone makes light of them[REDACTED] will collapse remember this the next time you see anyone do something like support, if they do that, they should be blocked immediately! Private Butcher 20:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I'm already involved in regular RC patrolling (initially by hand, and more recently using Sam Hocevar's "godmode-light" script; the availability of a faster and more reliable rollback button will certainly let me increase my efforts in this. I'm also a big proponent of tidyness, so I would like to help with the general backlogs in various housekeeping tasks (particularly copyvios, in the tagging of which I've occasionaly participated).

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

A. I've only made major contributions to a small number of articles (most of them on fairly obscure episodes of military history); of these, the one I've worked most on and polished the most is War of the League of Cambrai, which I created over the course of several months (starting from three existing stubs).

A larger portion of my work has been related to organizational tasks in areas related to military history. I played a significant role in the return of WikiProject Battles to an active state, as well as creating Portal:War to further increase participation in the subject. In addition, I created and populated many of the sub-categories of Category:Battles by country (as well as bringing the naming of the existing ones to a standard form).

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 was involved in several (admittedly very mild) disagreements in the course of my categorization of battles, related mainly to how certain country categories should be used (and whether they should exist at all). Since I discussed the issue with the other editors in question without reverting to my own changes, these disagreements were resolved in fairly short order, and probably can't be considered real conflicts.

For what it's worth, I've a few attemtps to be more involved in the article content RFCs; for instance, I made some changes in response to a request that were, judging from the lack of further conflict, taken as an acceptable compromise.

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.

Dvyost

Final (33/1/0) ended 07:17 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Dvyost (talk · contribs) – Self-nom. I recently rounded the corner on my 3,000th edit (2,400 in the Article namespace) in about five months (though very, very technically, thanks to fixing a typo at Battle of Towton, I've been a user for seven months). Usually I concentrate on African history (on Misplaced Pages, certainly the road less traveled by), but lately I've been expanding my horizons with AfD and the "Random article" button. I've also been doing some work over on "Newest Articles," where I try to not just tag the speedies but also to wikify the unwikified, weed out the copyright vios, and welcome and coach those who've added both. I've worked hard to be the best editor I can be, and I think I'm ready for the admin tools; though I'm a little shy about self-nominating, I thought it was finally time to throw myself out there. Dvyost 07:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Yep. --Dvyost 13:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Article contributions are excellent, and the Frost allusion equally so. — Dan | Talk 08:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support - so long as he signs his acceptance of the nomination. I thought about neutralling but there's no sense in just having to change my vote. --Celestianpower 08:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

   Not to be over-critical, but this is a bit silly. Acceptance is clearly implied in a self-nomination. — Dan | Talk 00:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

3. Support good editor --Rogerd 13:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support much needed interest areas Dlyons493 Talk 13:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support, great editor! Kirill Lokshin 14:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Yub yub, commander! --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 15:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support Astrotrain 16:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. 2400! Great job! Now its time to give him the mop an badge!Voice of All 17:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support Another Good Editor --JAranda | watz sup 17:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Yeeeaaaaah! Howard Dean-like Support. Great work with African topics. - Darwinek 18:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. Indeed a good editor. And love your choice of topics! They will help tremendously to change the wiki systemic bias. The Minister of War 20:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Homicidal Batman Villain Support Very good editor, good edits, doesn't talk much though.... Will support even though I dislike those who self nominate.. :) --Spawn Man 23:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. Shauri smile! 00:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 04:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support of course. Dmcdevit·t 06:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support Sounds good. --Ryan Delaney 08:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
18. FireFox 13:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 14:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support - no problem supporting, though it's tempting to start a conflict over the Bambara Empire just to spite the user's comment below... -- Francs2000 21:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. El_C 21:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Total support - It should've been automatic! Indeed, El C is confirming it! Dvyost one of the most active editors (if not the most) in all what relates to Africa and many other topics. After a long time waiting for help in Gnawa, he came for rescue Talk:Gnawa! Congras mate! -- Svest 22:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)  
23. Support --Kefalonia 08:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support Friday (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support --tomf688 20:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support, User:Dvyost does good work.--Isotope23 02:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support Johann Wolfgang 17:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support, great contributor. Silensor 20:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support, a very good user with just the right attitude. I can't help being a little worried though that the admin tools might carry Dvyost away from providing Misplaced Pages with excellent and much-needed articles. — mark ✎ 12:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support, has shown focus as a contributor and helped expand Misplaced Pages's coverage. I have ran into him several times on DYK. He radiates warmth even through his edit summaries. I hope that his past performance as a contributor is a good indicator of his future performance as an admin. --Gurubrahma 16:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support Tedernst 19:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support Private Butcher 20:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support and much love Smmurphy 20:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:04, 23

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)

She didn't oppose Kirill Lokshin... Spawn Man 23:29, 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. As I said above, I'm particularly interested in New Pages patrol. My internet connection is a bit spotty to track vandals for moment-to-moment whacking, but I do find a good deal of satisfaction in calling up fifty new pages, speedy-tagging those that need it, AfDing others, and wikifying as many of the others as I can. Lately I've been realizing how handy the admin tools would be for these things. Tagging the articles is helpful but it's also shucking the work off onto someone else; for similar reasons, I'd like to help clean out the AfD votes. I patrol over a 1,000 pages via my watchlist (though many of these are just redirects to obscure African kings), which means I revert vandalism on a daily basis; I intend to keep doing so and broadening the watchlist to whatever new topics I encounter.

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

A. I've added a substantial number of articles on West African culture and history, including most of the early kingdoms of Mali and almost every mansa of the Mali Empire. My crowning achievement here is probably the umbrella article History of West Africa, which drew together most of my summer's work (though another editor recently pointed out to me that I should have included Cameroon as well--I guess that'll go in next week).

I've also made substantial expansions to some literature articles, such as William Styron or Grace Paley, and I'll always be fond of Lucy Delaney, an early article of mine that I wrote from scratch.

My pet project, though, is to link up Misplaced Pages's Africa coverage as much as possible. When I started editing, I found duplicate articles on a number of topics (and accidentally created some myself), just because the French, Arabic, or African names allowed so many possible transliterations. El Hajj Umar Tall, for example, turned out to be referenced in Misplaced Pages in more than a dozen different ways, each of which I've now created a redirect for. For similar reasons I check the list of missing Africa topics almost every day, to try to properly wikilink, categorize, and stub tag any new Africa articles; I'm also always on the lookout for alternate spellings in existing articles that need to be redirected and properly linked. I feel I've made a substantial contribution to unifying our coverage in this respect, and made a lot of African coverage more user-friendly.

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 run into much conflict with other users, in part because I usually work in such an isolated area of Misplaced Pages (who wants to argue about the Bambara Empire? No one I've met yet), but also, I hope, because I work hard to head off conflict before it can really start up. I discuss any major changes (or often the minor as well) I want to make at article talk pages, and try to encourage others to voice their opinions and engage in dialogue with me--preferably all of us citing the sources we're working from to make us disagree.

Unless I'm forgetting something, this is probably the angriest I've ever gotten with another editor; he had accidentally deleted an article I had just finished working on. The same week, Hurricane Katrina passed through my state of Louisiana, and I was simply in no mood to deal with it. While I'm not very happy with my original post (we had already hashed this out on the article talk page anyway), my later response shows what I hope is a more typical response from me--there are really very few things in this world that I find worth fighting about. I'll talk with somebody about facts for as long as it takes to get them to cite a source, sure, but flame wars just aren't worth it, and they never will be. Assume Good Faith is a good policy not just for Misplaced Pages but for life in general.

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.

Tomf688

Final (28/1/1) ending 00:05 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Tomf688 (talk · contribs) – Tomf688 has been with us for over a year and has over 9,000 edits to his credit. He has made many quality contributions to articles about political figures and events and more recently to articles involving hurricanes and related areas. A strong proponent of Neutral point of view and Civility it is my pleasure to nominate this fine contributor. MONGO 11:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept, and thank you for the nomination. --tomf688 21:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator MONGO 00:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support per nomination. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} 00:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support will make an excellent admin --Rogerd 01:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support, this user has left me with a good impression every time I've encountered him. Just venture a little bit more into the Misplaced Pages namespace every once in a while. Titoxd 01:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support plenty of experience, went through his archives and cant find any scandals. freestylefrappe 03:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support 9000 edits in a year is most impressive. Banes 07:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 14:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Yes ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 15:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. Shauri smile! 00:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 04:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. I have ran into him before, and in each case he was either reverting vandals, making good edits, or engaging in civil discourse.Voice of All 05:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
13. FireFox 13:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. BazookaJoe 16:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support although I don't know 'em. V/M
    19:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
16. That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 21:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. It's been a pleasure working with him on various articles and was one of the first individuals that helped point me in the right direction when I was a newbee. Will make a fine admin. --Holderca1 21:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. Won't abuse admin powers. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
19. King of all supports. His contributions to Misplaced Pages are immense. He has a lot of talk page edits (every talk page I visit seems to have a post from him on it). That is amazing. I probably see Tom on talk pages more than anybody else. He is civil, knowledgable, helpful, and extends a hand to everyone who asks for it. Hats off friend. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 02:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support Over 9000?? this should be clear... Gryffindor 18:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support -- Francs2000 21:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. El_C 21:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support --Kefalonia 08:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. Not come across him, but a brief look at his contributions looks good and I trust the other supporters. the wub "?!" 14:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support Johann Wolfgang 17:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support Xoloz 17:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support Tedernst 18:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support Private Butcher 20:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:06, 23 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)

Sometimes he offers an exlanation on someone's talk page if they request, but rarely. Such votes only anger the candidate as they have no given justification or construcive criticism and Boothy knows this. There is a word for actions that are designed to provoke anger and frustration, but I will use good faith and continue to assume that that word does not apply here. If I did annoying things like this on other sites, I would get bold red mod text warning, troll warnings, and then I would get banned. As Molotov said, vandals and trolls can't get away with Bad Faith edits, nor can users with high edit counts. If Boothy had his way, we would have maybe 5 admins tops. Vandals and trolls would OWN this site without admins, and AfDs would pile up, and you know it. We need admins.Voice of All 16:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I won't condone Boothy's actions, but they do only minimal harm, since, considering his record for consistency, it is hard to take his votes personally (or very seriously, to be frank.) If he wants to oppose all nominees on the (mostly unspoken) theory that all admins are bad, it is probably best to leave him alone on his mole-hill. Besides, there is some symbolic value in having a single oppose vote. If I ever ran (which I won't), I take a backwards pride in it. See also: William Plumer for historical trivia. Xoloz 17:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Sorry, but the 160 edits in the Misplaced Pages namespace is way too low for me because it shows that you have not been very active in the various janitorial and procedural tasks. I would like to see more participation on AFD, TFD, CFD, HD, VP, PR, FAC, or any other tasks listed on Misplaced Pages:Maintenance. I would be more comfortable if you have more proof that you are well versed on all of the policies and guidelines before handing a mop to you. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:05, 23 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.)

An admin has many duties obviously, but vandalism is a major problem and, if made an admin, I would spend more time RC and Random Page patrolling with the additional rollback and blocking functions that would be made available for use.

As for being involved in Wiki procedure and politics, this nomination has alerted me to the fact that, even though I have nearly 10,000 edits, I only have 160 involving the Misplaced Pages namespace. I will seek to improve my involvement in these areas even if I am nominated (even if this nomination should fail, I will still improve myself in this area).

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

Specifically, I've contributed a large amount to many articles relating to Maryland politicians, and politicians in general, an accomplishment which I hold in high regard. I've filled in a large portion of recent governors on the List of Governors of Maryland page, and have added fuller articles for several. The same goes for senators, representatives, and other politicians from Maryland (see my user page for a fuller list). I've also endeavored to add images to Misplaced Pages and the Wikimedia Commons, and have uploaded over 200 to the Commons alone, mostly from Government sources or of which are from the Library of Congress or other similar sources.

In general, I've done a fair amount of random article searching. I also do RC patrol, but not a great deal as of late, mostly since I have been working on specific objectives (scouring the Library of Congress webpage for images, writing longer articles, keeping up on the recent hurricanes, recategorizing the U.S. Senators and Congressmen, etc.), and have not had time. Also, Misplaced Pages has been quite slow recently, and, since reverting an edit manually requires quite a few clicks, it can be a very slow and frustrating process. I will, of course, budget a much larger amount of time towards RC patrol and Random paging if made an admin, since the functions will be easier to perform.

As for contributing to other users, I will continue to provide as much assistance as is reasonable to anyone who comes asking for help on my talk page.

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?

I try to avoid conflict if possible, not by burying my head in the sand or by running away from it, but by staying calm and trying to present my arguments in a reasonable manner. I will admit, though, that the pages I mostly concentrate my editting on aren't exactly consisting of controversial material, so when I deal with other users it is mostly in a good-natured environment.

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.

Reflex Reaction

Final (30/2/3) ended 20:15 October 28, 2005 (UTC)

Reflex Reaction (talk · contribs) – I am nominating myself for Misplaced Pages Administrator. I have been active in[REDACTED] since February of 2005, and have accumulated 2,100+ edits distributed across the namespace. I am most active in the Missing articles project having started the Catholic Encyclopedia project and having a hand in the creation of the Hotlist of topics working with User:Quadell. For those of you with editcountis, I recognize that my count is a little bit lower than some other nominees, but I make frequent use of the Preview button and have over 90% edit summaries for my entries. In anticipation for this nomination I have spent some time in AFD and monitoring Recent changes using CDVF and enjoy using both. This is not say that I don't already and wouldn't continue to fight vandalism, I would like the adminship to make those jobs easier. Reflex Reaction 20:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my nomination Reflex Reaction 21:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Seems like a decent editor dedicated to making Misplaced Pages a better place. I've had/seen no problems with him. --DanielCD 21:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support Having checked his past contributions, I think he is a hard-working editor appropriate for the admin job. --BorgQueen 21:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support — though I believe that you could use a bit more Usertalk namespace edits. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 22:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   I will make sure to communicate with more users, especially vandals. --Reflex Reaction 04:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

4. Support - He's very hard-working, and has shown himself willing to do the difficult and tedious work all over Misplaced Pages, not just on a single topic. I've had to delete wikiproject pages that he'd finished up, and I always thought it was odd that he didn't have the ability himself. He should. – Quadell 22:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support Works on double redirects and encyclopedia topics. Spots suitable AfDs. No adversarial encounters AFAIK. What more can we ask. Rich Farmbrough 22:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support does grunt work. freestylefrappe 22:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support Seems like a good user nice work with double redirects which is tough --JAranda | watz sup 23:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support, good editor. Kirill Lokshin 00:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 00:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Weak Support I don't ever give full support to self noms due to my beliefs, but my main belief is that beliefs should be modified slightly when they don't fit the situation, and this is one of those situations. The edit count is more than sufficient, despite not hitting 2000 because of the Wikiproject work, using CDVF(which is the quintessential admin tool), and the fact that sockpuppets are already opposing him is the clincher. Considering that sockpuppets could be anybody, there is a chance that Reflex could have made the sock on his own(seems unlikely)to gain some more support from people like myself who dislike sockpuppets, but even if that's true, i'm gonna WP:AGF and say The Karmafist believes if that was true, The Reflex Reaction should earn extra points for creativity ;-) Karmafist 01:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

    I wish I was that clever. . . and I wish I had read your suggestions first, I might have gotten your full vote. I know Quadell well enough to ask him to have nominated me but I think that asking someone else to nominate you is equivalent to nominating yourself while making them do the work. --Reflex Reaction 05:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

11. Support good editor --Rogerd 01:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support He's a dedicated individual and you can't criticize his edit count because he's one the few who uses previews and edit summaries. Support whole heartedly, good luck! --Patman2648 18:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support per above... -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} 01:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Andre (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support Wiki-gnomes who do the hard work. Give him the mop and the flamethrower. Titoxd 07:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Martin 09:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support Astrotrain 16:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. Why name reasons when all the above reasons are pretty good? :-) The Minister of War 20:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. Shauri smile! 00:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support Zach (Sound Off) 06:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support Magnus Manske 10:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
22. FireFox 13:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support although I don't know 'em. V/M
    19:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support - Womble 21:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support -- Francs2000 21:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. El_C 21:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support --Kefalonia 08:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
28. I support the Reflex Formatting guy. I like the username because it's real! I believe that would remain true after the upgrade! -- Svest 21:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)  
29. Support Johann Wolfgang 17:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support Private Butcher Supports, yes Private Butcher is making fun of another user's use of 3rd person. So ha! Private Butcher in response to you all. Private Butcher 20:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. OpPoSe Not enough edits for The Wheelhouse, The Wheelhouse needs a lot more edits for an admin. Atleast over 2000 especially for as long as this dude has been around. The Wheelhouse 21:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   (account created just today)

   That doesn't mean anything, I just never created an account. I used to contribute as an IP, so get off my strap, it was The Wheelhouse's choice to oppose. Ho. That's what The Wheelhouse proclaims! The Wheelhouse 22:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   Could you please take it easy; no reason to get deffensive. Maybe Im also misinterpreting it, but did you call someone a "Ho?". Please watch your language and you might also need to take a look at Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks.Oran e (t) (c) (@) 22:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   I'm pretty sure he was using ho! as an interjection, rather than as insulting slang. See Westward Ho!. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

   You remind me of a certain banned user who was known for talking about himself in the third person. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 00:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

   Yea, I was about to note that... though Sasquatch thinks that the Wheelhouse probably isn't he/she/it who shall not be named but that a new user voting oppose on an RFA right away is somewhat suspicious. Sasquatcht|c 03:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

   Well, gkhan must say he agrees with Sasquatch, although he has no idea who you guys are talking about. gkhan now goes to ArbCom-town, and will peruse archives. gkhan out. gkhan 12:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

   Hey, nothing wrong with talking about oneself in the third person. BTW, Ho! has also been used as the first word in English translations of the Norse saga Beowulf. Ummm, I've finished being random for now. The Land 02:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

   2 numbering problem

2. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Campaigning should not be done on RfAs, so I do not feel comfortable supporting, for the reasons given by Dlyons493, but Reflex Reaction seems like a wholly good editor and would make a fine editor, so I'm not willing to oppose. So, Neutral. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose Nothing personal but Reflex Reaction is a self-nom who has contacted users notifying them that he is on Rfa. I objected to this in the recent case of ScottyBoy900Q and, to be consistent, am now opposing again. On balance I feel opposing is too strong - changing to neutral. Dlyons493 Talk 17:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC) Neutral changing as per my note above.Dlyons493 Talk

   I was completely unaware that campaigning should not be done, so my apologies. I have seen the "remnants" of other campaigns on other peoples talk page and assumed that contacting other users with whom you are familiar was not a problem. I also looked over at least a dozen failed nominations and did not see campaigning as a problem mentioned. I know that ignorance is a poor excuse, but it should be mentioned on the instructions or the recommendations so that future candidates do not make the same mistake (such as voting for your own nomination). --Reflex Reaction 04:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

3. Oppose: Neutral: dislike the message I just got on my talk page: very aggressive when I was just trying to add to the missing encyclopedia project. Could do better with the way he writes messages: I felt pretty slammed for doing what I thought was right. Also assumed that I won't be keeping on adding to the Baker's list, can't see how this assumes good faith. Incidently, this is a bit of pot calling kettle black as I'm a prime offender and an admin, so if the admin/beurocrat doing the counting wants to discount the vote, feel free. I am pretty concerned that he'll ruffle the feathers of newbies badly or react badly. I could be pre-judging here myself, but have concerns. Prepared to wait and see. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

   My intent was not to be agressive but only to give you reasons for why it had been removed from the template. Before I left the note I checked how many edits you had (20,000+), and thought you deserved some comments as to why it was being removed, my apologies if it came off wrong. As far WP:AGF the truth is that many well intentioned projects on WP:MEA languish for many months (see 1 and 2), though you may decide to make a pet project and listing it on the template would be appropriate. In the end though, I will put try to preface more of my comments "Thank you for your contributions to 'X' but I am removing/modifying/etc it for 'Y' reason..." (because in the end that is how I truly feel, most people are trying to make Wiki better).

   I stand by the innappropriateness of putting your user name in a template. --Reflex Reaction 15:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

   Please see my interaction with this new user. I would definitely reword my initial message to Hector with a nicer starting sentence, but feather ruffling is way too strong of a word. I hope more interactions are like this, though I fear picking up the "mop and flamethrower" more interactions will be like this. I tend to be blunt and matter of fact, but will remind myself to assume good faith and try to preface my comments the above statement. --Reflex Reaction 17:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

   Accept this explanation, still want to wait and see. Neutral vote is in order. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Regarding his number of edits, keep in mind that many of his edits have been massive amounts of work, such as helping to set up new encyclopedia projects and update long lists. A few recent examples: I think his 1800 edits are worth much more than they appear. – Quadell 22:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I am already involved with preventing vandalism, I have over 400 (and increasing) pages on my watchlist and revert vandalism on a daily basis. I will continue working at AFD and be careful to following the consensus of the community, deleting articles where necessary.

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

A. I am very pleased with my work with the Catholic Encyclopedia. While I am an agnostic, I'm fairly familiar with religious history and concepts and would like to see the incorporation of as much material from the CE as appropriate, retaining historical, verifiable information and perspectives while removing POV information strictly directed at Catholics. This can mean the deletion of innapropriate CE entries such Diocese of Aberdeen and Physical Effects of Abortion. I am also proud of my cleanup of the Atlantis article, compare ] and ], as well as my contributions to Racquetball.

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. While I have not found myself directly in and edit conflict, I have found myself annoyed with the actions of others, but try to remind myself to assume good faith. I was tertially involved with the Gambling conflict, reverting actions of User:Trail Guide. While he has his right to speak he does not have the right to corrupt the work of others and the opposite is true. I was also (wrongly) annoyed with User:Hemanshu when I thought he had undone a great deal of my work, see Missing articles hotlist, though I did my best to be diplomatic.

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.

Shanel

Final (13/8/1) ending 09:05 28 October 2005

Shanel (talk · contribs) – A competent user, who I was kinda monitoring, but then he seemed to be doing OK, and then exceeded me. Does lots of rving and rfding, and has helped me with one of my pet projects, translating stuff from Category:Breton nationalism. Will be a decent admin. Wonderfool 09:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• I definitely accept. I'll answer the questions as soon as I get back from school. (I'm a she, BTW :))--Shanel 11:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support seems competent and level-headed. freestylefrappe 22:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support Has been friendly & helpful with the Misplaced Pages 1.0 project. Walkerma 22:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 23:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. Excellent answers to the questions, and seems very level-headed and trustworthy. Good on edit summaries. Highly unlikely to abuse the admin powers. Seems like they would be very useful to her. And, all in all, a quality contributor. I see no reason to oppose. --BorgHunter (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support Edit count is low but sufficiently diverse to my mind. Not a lot on WikiTalk but enough on Wiki itself. Particularly impressed by 1.19 average edits per page and the number of article edits relative to over-all amount. Shows she gets things right and that she hits a diverse number of pages. Nice answers to questions. Marskell 08:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support, no qualms. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. Discussion edits are kinda low, but adminship is no big deal, right? ~~ N (t/c) 23:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
8. FireFox 13:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
9. As nominator, vote of support. --Wonderfool 10:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support - where has the problem with talk namespace suddenly leapt from? That was certainly not a hoop I had to jump through when I became an admin... -- Francs2000 21:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support - I see Shanel very active with her mop w/o injuring or leaving any wet liquid on the floor or any victim behind her. Applies WP rules gently! -- Svest 22:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)  
12. Support --Kefalonia 08:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support lack of experience with conflict doesn't mean she's not ready to be an admin, she doesn't have to get involved in conflicts if not comfortable wtih them - give her the tools to be a more effective editor, which is what she wants to be Tedernst 18:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose Not much interaction in the talk spaces. Will support if you become more active in the community. Jobe6 21:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose, insufficient interaction with the community for me to have confidence in her. It doesn't help that the nomination comes from a user whose behavior has been extremely erratic. I would reconsider if she was being endorsed by people I know and trust. --Michael Snow 23:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Try again in a few months - you need more experience in Talk and such. Andre (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose Not enough interaction with the community via talk pages. I need more proof that you can actually handle negotiation and mediation while maintaining WP:CIVIL at all times. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Weak Oppose per ZZyzx11. I need more of a record to have confidence in this user. Xoloz 19:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Needs more time, experience, and interaction with others on Misplaced Pages first. Silensor 20:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose Sorry, too soon. Jonathunder 22:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Based on what the supporters and opposers say, and by my own judgement, I've been unable to come to a conclusion. Cannot wholeheartedly support, but can't wholeheartedly oppose either. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} 01:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Shanel, how about answering the questions below so that people can know more about you? —thames 13:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • She said, "I'll answer the questions as soon as I get back from school." Patience, my dear Thames. --BorgHunter (talk) 16:06, 21 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:Shanel-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 20:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Use of edit summaries is 83%, 92% over the last 500 edits. Average edits per day is ~9 per day, 7 per day over last 30 days. --Durin 20:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A.If I become a sysop, I anticipate that I would help with most sysop chores. I already do reverting, so I would still be doing that, and since do NP and RC patrol I would probably be deleting pages, protecting pages, and blocking and unblocking IP addresses. I wouldn't feel too confident about database queries, enforcing ArmCom rulings, or changing the interface, but I know that a janitor sometimes has to do unpleasant work. :P--Shanel 20:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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

A. I would say that I am most proud of my translations in Breton nationalism. I get to use all my french skills, and the challenge of translating makes very rewarding when I do finish one. They are not perfect, but they still make me proud. General tasks like reverting vandalism and wikifying articles also make me feel satisfied. I like doing them, and I like helping to keep Misplaced Pages clean.--Shanel 20:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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

A. I haven't been in any editing conflicts, or had any disputes with any user yet, but I probably will someday. When that happens the first thing I will do is take a few hours off to clear my head. Then I'd try to solve the problem with the user(s) through negotiation, mediation, or ArbCom if necessary. I think I am good at compromising and listening to the other side (or sides). I'm also not very confrontational, so I think I will be able to handle any disputes that come my way.--Shanel 20:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

4. According to Kate's, you have 1162 edits at this point. How would you respond to those who generally require 1500-2000 edits to be entirely comfortable with a candidate? (Not saying that's me, but I'd like to see the answer.) And, with only 16 edits to the talk namespace, how much experience do you have in handling disputes over pages -- for example, edit/revert wars, NPOV-related arguments, and the like? If made an admin, do you think you'd get more involved in this? --BorgHunter (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

A. I would respond by saying that quantity of edits shouldn't matter as much as what I've done. I've dabbled in a little bit of everything. I've helped Wonderfool with Breton nationalism, done cleanup and copyediting, some image tagging, recent pages and new pages patrol, stub sorting, and some work with the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. I have made some mistakes, especially with tagging articles, but I've learned from those mistakes. Overall, I think my edits have been constructive and not destructive.

As for handling disputes, I can't really say anything other than I will learn in time. As I mentioned above, I haven't gotten into any disputes yet, but I do think I am capable of handling them. If I become an admin, I don't think I'd get any more involved in these disputes, but I would be willing to help settle them if needed.--Shanel 20:18, 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.

Sfoskett

Final (43/6/1) ended 15:17 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Sfoskett (talk · contribs) – Recently surpassing the 17-thousand edit mark , Stephen Fosketts is one of very few contributors who are part of the 15,000 club without sysop privileges. Since May 2004, Stephen has made a difference by providing a remarkable number of automobile-related photographs to Misplaced Pages under the GFDL or as public domain, correcting article inaccuracies, and reversing vandalism when necessary; he's also an invaluable contributor to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Automobiles. I believe User:Sfoskett has proven to be an exceptional member who will not abuse administrative powers and proudly give him my full support. Hall Monitor 21:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination, somewhat reluctantly. I did not seek admin rights, and will not use them much, but would appreciate them.

Support

1. Support user has a crazy large edit count and seems to be doing everything in their power to make wiki better...  ALKIVAR™ 10:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support - I'd trust Hall Monitor's nod even if I didn't happen to know that Sfoskett has all the ingredients of a positive admin force for Misplaced Pages.  BD2412 16:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. Stephen's modesty is really something to admire. Hall Monitor 16:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   Support Private Butcher 16:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

4. Support deserves the recognition Dlyons493 Talk 17:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. --NormanEinstein 18:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support - giving admin powers to someone who will barely use them isn't a problem; we should be concerned only if they'll use them inproperly. 15000 solid edits tell me that he won't.--Scimitar 18:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support - he has made a very solid contribution to Wiki and it appears that admin powers will only assist him to continue to make a contribution. --D-bot 23:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Michael Snow 20:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 23:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support The answers to the first question are reasonable and show honesty and sincerity. Has a huge track record of solid contributions and whenever he breaks away from adding content to this Encyclopedia and performs some admin duties we'll be the better for it. Rx StrangeLove 00:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. We're much better off having a careful and honest admin than someone who feels they have something to prove. Bahn Mi 01:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support So what if this nominee isn't planning on hanging around WP:AfD. MONGO 01:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Strong Support we need as many trusted, experienced users to be admins as possible, even if they don't use it much. If in his normal article editing, he sees something that needs an admin, he will already be there with the power --Rogerd 01:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Strong support, with milk Dear god, we should be ashamed of ourselves, not having given this guy adminship before! Who cares if he spends hours vandalhunting, if he blocks one vandal a month, that's one user left the rest of you guys need to deal with. gkhan 01:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
15. On one hand, why give him admin privileges if he won't use them? On the other hand, why not? Andre (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
16. It's better to have a person that we trust being an admin just in case. We don't "need" vandal fighting admins (though it is a great help) but that's not all adminship is about. The spirit of adminship (IMO) is that the community trusts you enough to give you extra power to help deal with situations that might require them. Hell, the more admins we can trust, the better. Sasquatcht|c 03:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. I do symphatize with his position on the use of admin powers. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 03:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support Better to underuse admin powers than to abuse them. Borisblue 06:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. User has over 15,000 edits and the only complaints, as I far as I can see, are that he feels like he can make most of his contributions to Misplaced Pages without additional powers, which I feel that most users should be able to do. If the User finds his admin powers useful when dealing with vandalism on some of the many articles on which he works, then it is in the best interest of Misplaced Pages to give him the extra powers, even if he is not required to use them often.--Kewp (t) 10:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Can definitely be trusted with admin-tools. Shanes 14:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support - It is amazing to see that we have a number of volunteer administrators who essentially work "full time" on this project. Sometimes it is nice to have more administrators who can dedicate that sort of time and energy to the project. However, we have to remember that we are primarily promoting users who are trustworthy, who can be ambassadors for the community, and who can help out whenever they can at their leisure. 17,000 edits is a tremendous amount of dedication to the project. This user is a thoroughly competent and trustworthy Wikipedian, and there is no reason to suspect that any of the administrative functions if given would be misused. This is a user who is exceptionally observant, and would clean up after the dangling ends we may occasionally miss or forget sometimes. For example, it could be things like adding missing protection tags to pages, deleting unsourced pictures, fixing page histories, and processing requested moves. --HappyCamper 14:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support Seems like a very reasonable candidate, I'm not concerned about not using admin powers often. Tuf-Kat 17:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. Obviously. If he only seldomly blocks and protects, then so what? As already said, better underused than abused. He is trustworthy, period.Voice of All 17:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support, though please do keep in mind what Mendel said in his vote. While normally I'm not likely to support users with few WP: namespace edits, his edit count is impressive, and being active here for 17 months and >17000 edits shows tremendous dedication to this project. --Idont Havaname 18:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support; good lord. Not doing a ton with the tools doesn't mean that they don't deserve them. Ral315 W_S 21:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. If six oppose voters haven't yet managed to come up with a good reason for opposing, it's safe to say there isn't one. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support Per IRC cabal --Ryan Delaney 08:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. KHM03 10:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
29. FireFox 13:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support although I don't know 'em. V/M
    19:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. No convincing reason was given to oppose. Admins have access to some tools, they are not obligated to use them. Let's see if there are any good reasons to support..., plenty of good work, has demonstrated trustworthiness and has a great amount of experience. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support, thought he already was one and I want to cancel out one of the oppose votes. the wub "?!" 13:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support, per Chris Parham, Sjakkalle and Happy's comments. I am particularly mystified by suggestions that his recent break should in any way be counted against him—the guy has made 17,000 non-harmful edits, and in my book he's perfectly entitled to take a break for personal reasons momentarily. The only possible area of concern is his extremely limited participation in the WP namespace, involvement in which often indicates interest and familiarity with the workings of WP and related policy matters which are important for admins. However his positive attributes and obvious good sense convince me that he'll spend the necessary time to learn up these things before employing any new buttons he might receive. encephalon 19:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support - the desire not to use the admin powers once gained doesn't bother me, after all adminship is not supposed to be a big deal -- Francs2000 21:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. I didn't express interest in using admin powers much either in my RfA, but ended up using them rather extensively. We need all the help we can get, and if the powers are used seldom, nothing was lost. El_C 21:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support. I actually thought Sfoskett was an admin from when I first came here, but now that I've seen that he isn't a mod and has made a large number of edits, I support him. --ApolloBoy 23:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support --Kefalonia 08:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Support. Using the admin tools appropriately once in a while is better than not at all, right? Friday (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
39. Support. He deserves the tools whether he uses them as much as others or not. -- DS1953 16:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
40. Support Johann Wolfgang 17:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Support.  Grue  13:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
42. Support Just because someone won't be a terribly active admin doesn't mean they shouldn't have the powers. It's not a zero-sum game. Giving more people more tools to make this place better can only make this place better, even if those tools aren't used all that often by a particular person. There is no harm in less-active admins. Tedernst 18:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
43. Support - using them occasionally is enough. --Celestianpower 19:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per Durin's comments. Plus, I dont think that I can support someone who isnt necessarily desirious of sysop powers; we need more active admins. You can decline the nomination until you feel you are ready. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 16:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose, sorry I've changed my vote. I guess I didn't read clearly since I just saw "I accept this nomination, somewhat reluctantly. I did not seek admin rights, and will not use them much, but would appreciate them.", we don't need admins that will barely use admin powers. Admins are needed to be active and stop trolls, vandals, etc. Private Butcher 17:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   I appreciate your concerns and have responded here. Hall Monitor 17:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   I think you would find that a large number of my historic edits are for reverting vandalism. However, I have not had much time for that in the last few months. See below. --SFoskett 20:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   PB, I'd rather have someone trusted to use admin powers doing so occasionally instead of not having them at all. Consider it this way - suppose you have $50,000 in the bank, and someone offers you a gift of cash, but it's only $50. Do you turn it away because it's too little? Even if Sfoskett makes minimal use of admin powers, any use he does make will surely benefit Misplaced Pages, so why deny him (and the rest of us) even a minimal benefit?  BD2412 20:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

3. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose based on the bizarre answer to question 1. freestylefrappe 22:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   Bizarre? How so? It just seems modest and restrained to me. --Michael Snow 23:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   I agree, seems like a perfectly reasonable answer. How is it bizarre? Rx StrangeLove 00:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

   It came off as a bad attempt at trying to appear moderate. If he doesnt want to be an admin, then he should withdraw. I've seen several rfas with the "i'm not gonna actually do anything so dont worry" statement. freestylefrappe 03:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

5. Oppose, no offense to the editor, but if you're not going to use the powers "much at all" then I don't see a point or a reason to give them to you at all. Good editor to be sure, but why should we bother here? It's like telling the coach of a basketball team that you'll play, but if the ball is passed to you, you might not shoot it. K1Bond007 22:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   He also suggests that he would actually revert quite a bit of vandalism, which is a perfectly sufficient reason to make him an administrator. To continue the analogy, people who hog all the shots aren't good teammates either; he might be looking to pass the ball to someone who has a better shot. Think John Stockton. --Michael Snow 23:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   John Stockton didn't pass all the time, he stepped up and took the shot quite often. He was a team player. Theres a difference between assisting and not doing anything at all. He blatantly states "I do not see myself using any administrative priviliges much at all. I did not seek admin rights, and am ambivalent about having them." So why should we bother to support this? He's a very good editor, but if you don't want to take on administrative duties then you shouldn't have administrative powers. We need active admins. That's the point here. K1Bond007 23:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   Administrative duties? What are those, aside from not misusing administrative privileges if you're going to use them? I'm not aware of any requirement that admins be "active" as such. --Michael Snow 23:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   Rephrase to 'sysop chore' per the question below. I'm sorry. I'm not going to debate this much further so long as his answers go unchanged. We all have differing criteria. One of mine is that they will be active with 'sysop chores'. K1Bond007 00:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

6. Respectful oppose. Awesome contributor, but why force adminship on someone more interested in making the encyclopedia better than defending it from vandals and such? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

   So he could make Misplaced Pages even better? --ApolloBoy 23:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   The admin tools are for fighting vandalism and intervening in disruptive behavior. They don't make it any easier to make the encyclopedia better, just protect it from the entropic forces that tend to make it worse. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. On one hand I'm not sure that a less-active admin wouldn't still improve Misplaced Pages, but I'd be concerned that without actively adminning it would be easy to miss out on best practices and policy refinements. — mendel ☎ 20:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Please use edit summaries more often. Only 56% use over last 5000 edits. --Durin 16:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

  You're correct, I tend to skip comments for minor edits, even though this is sheer laziness! --SFoskett 20:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Since August 24 of this year, your contributions have virtually collapsed. Your average # of edits per day over the period from then to now is just 2.6 edits per day, with just 153 edits over the last 2 months. I'm not saying this is a reason to oppose (this is not a vote, but a comment). I'd like to see your explanation for this. --Durin 16:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

  I have had some personal/life commitments push Misplaced Pages to the back burner lately. I intend to continue contributing long term. --SFoskett 20:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

How does this edit summary % work? Does that include minor(m) edits? What about edits to one's user page? Does it include edits to talk pages, where the person will have to open and read them anyway? Articles, off course, changes need summaries, as that he highly useful, but I don't know what the 56 includes. This could be editcountitis :).Voice of All 20:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• The edit summary simply totals the number of edits for which there are edit summaries and divides by the number of total edits made by the editor to arrive at a percentage of total edits for which there are edit summaries. It includes edits marked as minor. It includes edits to one's own user pages. It includes edits to talk pages. Edit summaries are a useful tool in vandal fighting and editing in general. It is, in my opinion, important to include them for all edits, even minor ones. Please see this diff for further rationale. Note that there are possible dopplegangers of Sfoskett. Please see Misplaced Pages:Edit summary as well. --Durin 20:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Thames for some precedent on the "lazy admin". Circumstances are different though, so I'm not going to vote support on this one. Borisblue 06:40, 22 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 do not see myself using any administrative priviliges much at all. I did not seek admin rights, and am ambivalent about having them. The only reason I would accept these rights at all is so I could deal with vandals more effectively than my current route or reporting them and hoping for the best. I would also appreciate the reversion ability, since that is something I do a lot of in the auto articles.

Update - I feel I must add to this answer. No, I do not anticipate becoming a troll/vandal hunter or spending hours reverting vandalism. I am a contributor more than an editor - I have written well over 100 full articles (and far more stubs) and expect to continue to do so. I was inclined to decline the nomination at first, but felt better of it and decided that it would be nice to have the admin powers to use occasionally. If people only want to give adminship to people who will be active admins, then by all means oppose. But if you want to help me be a more effective contributor then support. I will continue to write articles either way.

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

A. I am most pleased with my contributions to the articles about Ferrari cars, and Template:Ferrari vehicles in particular. Also, Mazda, Cadillac, and the British Leyland marques (see Template:British Leyland). I have also done a large amount of work on automobile engines, including creating most of the articles in Category:Automobile engines. Other contributions that I love include List of automotive superlatives, John Hancock Tower, and Old 97's. All of these are examples of interesting topics that were not adequately covered before, or even covered at all as in the case of the engines.

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

A. I have been involved in a number of conflicts, including contentious ones as List of automotive superlatives and Hummer H2/Hummer. Throughout these, I attempted to maintain calm and rationality, however hard it may be. I feel that by keeping our eyes on the prize, so to speak, of creating an encyclopedic work, we can diffuse tense situations through reasonable discussion and democracy.

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.

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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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 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)